Find Your Valentine
Slog
News & ArtsTuesday, March 3, 2009
Homo We Just Keep Suing and Suing and Suing...
Posted by Dan Savage on Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 8:54 AM
...so why not give us what we want and get it over with?
The legal advocacy group that successfully argued for sex-same marriage in Massachusetts intends to file suit here on Tuesday seeking some federal benefits for spouses in such marriages.The target is the Defense of Marriage Act, passed by Congress in 1996, which prohibits the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriage. That law denies federal benefits, like Social Security survivors’ payments, to spouses in such marriages.
During the campaign, Barack Obama said he favored repealing DOMA. Just FYI.
The plaintiffs in the suit include eight couples and three widowers, all of whom were married in Massachusetts after the state began allowing same-sex marriages in 2004. All have applied for federal benefits, Ms. Bonauto said, but have been denied because the federal government does not recognize their marriages.Some of the plaintiffs are federal employees who cannot share their health benefits with spouses; others cannot file taxes jointly or are receiving less generous Social Security retirement benefits. The widowers include Dean Hara, the spouse of former Representative Gerry E. Studds. After Mr. Studds died in 2006, Mr. Hara, 51, was denied his Congressional pension and other benefits normally extended to surviving spouses of federal employees.
It might've been a good idea to wait until Obama got a chance to replace a conservative on the court with a liberal, but, you know, that's the funny thing about rights and injustices. People don't want to wait forever to secure their rights, and the victims of an injustice—like Mr. Studd's widower—deserve redress now.
1
I'm just excited to (possibly) see the Supreme Court do something that could actually be called a "Landmark Decision."
2
And you will keep losing and losing and losing because the people won't stand for the tyranny of activist judges imposing on them something that they have time and time and time again reject through the democratic process.
That's not bigotry, that's having basic respect for the American people and when you don't then the people will let you know that they don't like it as they have done in California, Florida, Arizona, Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Nevada, Ohio, North Dakota, Montana, Michigan, Wisconsin, Virginia, Utah, Texas, South Carolina, Tennessee, South Dakota, Oregon, North Carolina, Oklahoma, all which have banned gay marriage...So keep the assault on the American people and you will soon get it over with.
That's not bigotry, that's having basic respect for the American people and when you don't then the people will let you know that they don't like it as they have done in California, Florida, Arizona, Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Nevada, Ohio, North Dakota, Montana, Michigan, Wisconsin, Virginia, Utah, Texas, South Carolina, Tennessee, South Dakota, Oregon, North Carolina, Oklahoma, all which have banned gay marriage...So keep the assault on the American people and you will soon get it over with.
3
The conservatives on the court are all distressingly healthy and vigorous. Obama isn't likely to get a crack at replacing any of them in his first term, and maybe not even in a second. Scalia and Kennedy are 72, Thomas is 60, Alito is 58, Roberts is 54.
4
Is this the part where we start telling funny jokes about the Mormons' underwear? Because, you know, that got about a million hits yesterday.
5
@2,
Yes! Majority rule is the way to go. I'll be expecting to see the negroes go back to their own schools right away.
Yes! Majority rule is the way to go. I'll be expecting to see the negroes go back to their own schools right away.
6
yes, 2, i'm surprised someone whose self-proclaimed name is "Loveschild" could have that point of view. i mean first of all, wtf is an "activist judge" is that like "partial-birth abortion" or "the gay agenda"?
by which, of course, i mean one of those terms invented by the right to make the left seem scary, when in fact the right is fucking terrifying.
no, you're wrong. it's not a difference of opinion. you are just wrong. matters of civil rights should never, ever be put to a popular vote. and if you think they should, then your logic is flawed and your morality is highly suspect. period.
by which, of course, i mean one of those terms invented by the right to make the left seem scary, when in fact the right is fucking terrifying.
no, you're wrong. it's not a difference of opinion. you are just wrong. matters of civil rights should never, ever be put to a popular vote. and if you think they should, then your logic is flawed and your morality is highly suspect. period.
7
@ Dan: This won't get to the Supremes for many years, if ever.
@2: Can you recite from the United States constitution which of the enumerated powers granted by the states to the federal government permits the federal government to overrule the states' determination of who is and who is not married? No, you can't, because the states have not surrendered any such sovereignty to the federal government. Because there is no such grant, under the Tenth Amendment, which reserves all powers not delegated to the federal government to the states or to the people, the federal government does not have such power.
When Congress acts beyond its authority, it is proper for the federal courts to remedy the error. That, after all, is the principal function of the courts: to secure individual liberty against the tyranny of the federal government.
If you choose to live in a shithole state that denies marriage rights to gays, great. But don't pretend that the federal government has the power to overrule the marriage laws of Massachusetts or any other enlightened state. In other words, DON'T TREAD ON ME.
@2: Can you recite from the United States constitution which of the enumerated powers granted by the states to the federal government permits the federal government to overrule the states' determination of who is and who is not married? No, you can't, because the states have not surrendered any such sovereignty to the federal government. Because there is no such grant, under the Tenth Amendment, which reserves all powers not delegated to the federal government to the states or to the people, the federal government does not have such power.
When Congress acts beyond its authority, it is proper for the federal courts to remedy the error. That, after all, is the principal function of the courts: to secure individual liberty against the tyranny of the federal government.
If you choose to live in a shithole state that denies marriage rights to gays, great. But don't pretend that the federal government has the power to overrule the marriage laws of Massachusetts or any other enlightened state. In other words, DON'T TREAD ON ME.
8
5: Nice try but there are no similarities between the two. Have you heard this saying: "Don't compare my skin to your sin", if you haven't then expect to hear it more when you try to make that misleading connection.
9
Like it or not, this country was founded on the principle of majority rule. If you can't handle that, you could always try starting your own dictatorship. With you as the fucking Grand High Muckitymuck, I'm sure, because nobody else's opinion matters.
You fucking wingnuts kill me.
You fucking wingnuts kill me.
11
I'm sorry Jocelyn but I believe in Democracy and if you do to then that comes with a basic respect for the outcomes it brings whether those outcomes are the ones that we wanted or didn't want. The people have spoken many times on this matter and I do find it disrespectful that gays keep acting as if this issue is a matter of life and death for them and that as such it gives them a right to keep trying to impose something that has been properly discussed and examined by the American people.
12
9 - chill.
and no, it seriously wasn't. this country was founded by old white guys, many of them from the south (where black slaves outnumbered whites). even free blacks could not vote, nor could catholics. not only that, but the electoral college was created to keep uneducated (read: unworthy) people's votes from counting too much.
it's nice that you have an idealized history of your country in your head, but you should at least make an effort to be informed about the shit you say. it might also be a good idea to bear in mind that the supreme court is there for a reason.
in short, read a fucking history book.
and no, it seriously wasn't. this country was founded by old white guys, many of them from the south (where black slaves outnumbered whites). even free blacks could not vote, nor could catholics. not only that, but the electoral college was created to keep uneducated (read: unworthy) people's votes from counting too much.
it's nice that you have an idealized history of your country in your head, but you should at least make an effort to be informed about the shit you say. it might also be a good idea to bear in mind that the supreme court is there for a reason.
in short, read a fucking history book.
13
at 11- you'd feel differently if you were gay, which you totally could be and it wouldn't have been a choice on your part. also, you should really read comment number 7. like right now. do it.
14
@12 - ok so i wrote "catholics" but what i meant was "women." i don't really know where that mistake came from. yeesh.
15
@9 No, we're not a democracy, nor are we ruled by majority. We are a democratic republic and ruled by representatives. If this doesn't jive with what you learned in fifth-grade social studies, 1. I'm not surprised and 2. It's time to continue your education.
Also, Loveschild, well, I repeat: we are not ruled by majority. Need an example? If 51% of your neighbors passed a law to take away your house, could they actually take away your house? No. They can't.
Also, if we were a majority-ruled true democracy, we would never have had to suffer through eight years of the hypocritical moron chimp, since there'd be no electoral college and Gore won the popular vote.
Also, Loveschild, well, I repeat: we are not ruled by majority. Need an example? If 51% of your neighbors passed a law to take away your house, could they actually take away your house? No. They can't.
Also, if we were a majority-ruled true democracy, we would never have had to suffer through eight years of the hypocritical moron chimp, since there'd be no electoral college and Gore won the popular vote.
16
Ah, yes, majority rule. Like two senators from Wyoming and two from California? Like counting Negroes as 3/5 of a person? Like requiring a 2/3 vote to override a veto? (Or the veto power itself?) Like requiring 60 votes in the Senate to cut off debate?
There is virtually no provision anywhere in the United States constitution that calls for a majority. The only exceptions are that a majority of each house of Congress constitutes a quorum, and that a majority of electors (the electoral college itself being a famously non-majoritarian body) selects the president.
And if the federal judiciary doesn't exist to rule on whether laws are or are not constitutional, then what, exactly, is its purpose?
Many of the states in which gays are not granted equal rights viewed war rather than litigation as the proper solution to what they considered federal tyranny. Perhaps those states are recommending that gays should follow their lead?
There is virtually no provision anywhere in the United States constitution that calls for a majority. The only exceptions are that a majority of each house of Congress constitutes a quorum, and that a majority of electors (the electoral college itself being a famously non-majoritarian body) selects the president.
And if the federal judiciary doesn't exist to rule on whether laws are or are not constitutional, then what, exactly, is its purpose?
Many of the states in which gays are not granted equal rights viewed war rather than litigation as the proper solution to what they considered federal tyranny. Perhaps those states are recommending that gays should follow their lead?
19
13: Again DOMA is the law of the land and I have seen no interest on the part of either Congress or the American population on overturning that law.
Congress purpose is to represent the American people and that of Supreme Court is to interpret the Constitution and last time I checked it says nothing on the Constitution about gay marriage being a right. You might not like it but its that's our foundation and what allows the existence of our union, there are many laws I don't like but I abide by them, do the same.
Congress purpose is to represent the American people and that of Supreme Court is to interpret the Constitution and last time I checked it says nothing on the Constitution about gay marriage being a right. You might not like it but its that's our foundation and what allows the existence of our union, there are many laws I don't like but I abide by them, do the same.
20
@19 - no, the constiitution says nothing about gay marriage. Do you know what it *does* say about marriage?
21
@19-
let's start with the declaration of independence, shall we?
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
i think on bush's copy, he may have added "unless their (sic) queers" but that's not really what it says.
and it does happen that the voice of the people is in opposition to the constitution. that's why the constitution is there - to protect america from itself. and really, there's plenty of support for repealing DOMA, even from the president. i don't really get what about this you don't understand.
let's start with the declaration of independence, shall we?
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
i think on bush's copy, he may have added "unless their (sic) queers" but that's not really what it says.
and it does happen that the voice of the people is in opposition to the constitution. that's why the constitution is there - to protect america from itself. and really, there's plenty of support for repealing DOMA, even from the president. i don't really get what about this you don't understand.
22
I kinda hate to feed the troll, but it's so tempting.
@19 You're right, the Constitution doesn't say anything about gay rights, but it does have a great section on equal protection. Currently, states that have made a decision to recognize gay marriage are being discriminated against by the federal government denying those marriages. This lawsuit has nothing to do with other states recognizing these marriages, just the federal government treating all citizens equally under the Constitution. Currently, straight marriages are getting special benefits, this lawsuit would rectify that and treat everyone from states with gay marriage equally.
So here's the conundrum; do the Supremes go with equal protection in the Constitution or discrimination in the Constitution?
@19 You're right, the Constitution doesn't say anything about gay rights, but it does have a great section on equal protection. Currently, states that have made a decision to recognize gay marriage are being discriminated against by the federal government denying those marriages. This lawsuit has nothing to do with other states recognizing these marriages, just the federal government treating all citizens equally under the Constitution. Currently, straight marriages are getting special benefits, this lawsuit would rectify that and treat everyone from states with gay marriage equally.
So here's the conundrum; do the Supremes go with equal protection in the Constitution or discrimination in the Constitution?
23
people, it is unbecoming to argue with retarded, uniformed, bigotted children. Let them believe their little fairy tales.
24
RE:20
Okay, I’m going to answer my own question: NOTHING. The constitution says nothing about marriage, because the framers of our country wanted an umbrella of safety, rules, and rights under which each state could decide for themselves the laws of their “states” (read: nations). They were strong believers in states’ rights, they distrusted a strong federal government, and they distrusted leaving one or even several people in power over the many (note how we have HUNDREDS of people governing us to protect us from runaway government). Our founders left many decisions to the states – including marriage. If one state wants to allow 17-year-old girls to marry their 45-year-old first cousins, then that’s the state’s decision. DOMA is wrong because it stifle’s states’ rights.
I would think that you, of all people, loveschild, would support states' rights.
Okay, I’m going to answer my own question: NOTHING. The constitution says nothing about marriage, because the framers of our country wanted an umbrella of safety, rules, and rights under which each state could decide for themselves the laws of their “states” (read: nations). They were strong believers in states’ rights, they distrusted a strong federal government, and they distrusted leaving one or even several people in power over the many (note how we have HUNDREDS of people governing us to protect us from runaway government). Our founders left many decisions to the states – including marriage. If one state wants to allow 17-year-old girls to marry their 45-year-old first cousins, then that’s the state’s decision. DOMA is wrong because it stifle’s states’ rights.
I would think that you, of all people, loveschild, would support states' rights.
25
20: You just made my point: marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution at any point, marriage is an institution that the government has recognized for mainly the purpose of maintain a nuclear family to flourish since it is that nuclear family that allows for the continuum of the existence of our nation. Government has seen no benefit in extending that permit to gays since they obviously wouldn't produce the same desired results, one could easily argue that if allowed it would have the opposite effect as that of a nuclear family. To say that the American people think otherwise is disingenuous on your part.
26
Remember Loveschild, the Constitution also says not one word about "straight" marriage either, nor the tax breaks, rights, and privileges that marriage includes. Don't want to let us gays marry? Fine. But then let's get the government COMPLETELY out of the marriage business: no more tax breaks, no more automatic privileges of survivorship, no tax deductions for spouses and children. . . Let's let everyone, gay and straight, employ their own legal team to ensure their property goes to their spouses and children after death.
And by the way, it drives me CRAZY that I make more money than several of my co-workers but since I'm single I get the privilege of subsidizing their heterosexual lifetyle and agenda by paying significantly more taxes than them just because they're married. That's bullshit!
And by the way, it drives me CRAZY that I make more money than several of my co-workers but since I'm single I get the privilege of subsidizing their heterosexual lifetyle and agenda by paying significantly more taxes than them just because they're married. That's bullshit!
27
RE:24 - I forgot to finish my thought:
Once a state has allowed someone to marry (via the county, typically), the newlyweds get bestowed with gifts from the federal government. The federal government is not allowed to discriminate. The states have the right to decide who gets married, and the federal government has the responsibility to dole out benefits fairly to all married couples.
Once a state has allowed someone to marry (via the county, typically), the newlyweds get bestowed with gifts from the federal government. The federal government is not allowed to discriminate. The states have the right to decide who gets married, and the federal government has the responsibility to dole out benefits fairly to all married couples.
28
@19. Please read Article I, Section 8, of the United States Constitution. Here's a link.
That section lists the powers of Congress. They are the only powers the states have granted Congress. You will note that although Congress did indeed enact DOMA, it has no authority to enact laws regarding who is or isn't married or divorced, or relating to child custody, or inheritance, or many, many other matters. Under the Tenth Amendment, all that authority has been reserved to the states. Congress simply doesn't have the authority to tell Massachusetts who is and who is not married under the laws of Massachusetts.
Say you lived in a state that permits first cousins to marry (many states do not). Or a state that recognizes common-law marriage (in other words, no ceremony is performed, no license is obtained, but after a certain period of cohabitation--seven weeks in South Carolina, the last time I checked!--a man and woman are presumed to be married). Do you think Congress has the right to tell any of those states that its marriage laws are wrong? No, it does not. Same principle here.
Well, Congress has been bad and acted beyond its authority. What to do? We could wait (and wait, and wait) for Congress to change its mind (that is what I presume you consider "democratic"). But why should they? It's a hassle for Congress, and they clearly don't give a crap about the one or two percent of people who suffer immensely from their unauthorized action. Another peaceful alternative is for the aggrieved parties to file a lawsuit in the federal courts. That's not "anti-democratic." It is how the United States is organized, and how individual liberty is protected.
That section lists the powers of Congress. They are the only powers the states have granted Congress. You will note that although Congress did indeed enact DOMA, it has no authority to enact laws regarding who is or isn't married or divorced, or relating to child custody, or inheritance, or many, many other matters. Under the Tenth Amendment, all that authority has been reserved to the states. Congress simply doesn't have the authority to tell Massachusetts who is and who is not married under the laws of Massachusetts.
Say you lived in a state that permits first cousins to marry (many states do not). Or a state that recognizes common-law marriage (in other words, no ceremony is performed, no license is obtained, but after a certain period of cohabitation--seven weeks in South Carolina, the last time I checked!--a man and woman are presumed to be married). Do you think Congress has the right to tell any of those states that its marriage laws are wrong? No, it does not. Same principle here.
Well, Congress has been bad and acted beyond its authority. What to do? We could wait (and wait, and wait) for Congress to change its mind (that is what I presume you consider "democratic"). But why should they? It's a hassle for Congress, and they clearly don't give a crap about the one or two percent of people who suffer immensely from their unauthorized action. Another peaceful alternative is for the aggrieved parties to file a lawsuit in the federal courts. That's not "anti-democratic." It is how the United States is organized, and how individual liberty is protected.
29
Sadly, Obama will probably be replacing the liberals on the court before any conservatives. The liberals are the ones that are unhealthy (Ginsburg), octogenarian (Stevens), or rumored to be over it (Souter). Obama appointees will probably hold the status quo.
However, this athiest will sing praise to the Almighty if Alito or Scalia has a sudden coronary arrest in the next four years. I can almost handle the Borkian basics of Thomas and the right-sometimes-moderate Kennedy.....but those two right-wing hacks are the most vile and dangerous judges in my opinion.
However, this athiest will sing praise to the Almighty if Alito or Scalia has a sudden coronary arrest in the next four years. I can almost handle the Borkian basics of Thomas and the right-sometimes-moderate Kennedy.....but those two right-wing hacks are the most vile and dangerous judges in my opinion.
30
Can't. Stop. Feeding. Troll. Gah!
@25
Who says lesbians can't have babies? So shouldn't we allow lesbians to get married to protect their potential nuclear families to flourish?
@25
Who says lesbians can't have babies? So shouldn't we allow lesbians to get married to protect their potential nuclear families to flourish?
31
28: You're correct in that Congress has no right to tell Massachusetts who they can or cannot marry but Congress has not only the right but the obligation of not recognizing those marriages on the Federal level since we are a Federal Constitutional Republic and as such at the Federal level laws enacted to be observed by all states or any other political subdivision within the United States must be enforced and protected by Congress.
32
29
Obama has been very accomodating to Moderates in his appointments thus far.
This Republican is hopeful that Obama's Supreme Court nominees will be similarly satisfactory.
Obama has been very accomodating to Moderates in his appointments thus far.
This Republican is hopeful that Obama's Supreme Court nominees will be similarly satisfactory.
34
31: so if the Congress decided to ban marriages and deny federal benefits to anyone who married under the age of 19 would you be okay with that? As it stands now they respect the local state marriage laws, but made an exception for the gays. Should they start policing the those states where the age is 16, 17 or 18 as well? Deny social security benefits to a sixtysomething couple from Kansas who married at 16 because that marriage would be illegal in some other states?
36
Loveschild is not nearly as entertaining of a troll as ecce homo or John Bailo. Either start employing this thing we call "logic" or start talking about how gay rights signify the end times, or something similarly funny.
37
34: Read 25, none of the scenarios you mentioned seem plausible. To many Americans DOMA was a law that needed to be enacted for the reason I give in 25. I know I find myself in the minority here and that's why childish posters like 30 and 36 resort to name calling but like it or not while I may be the only one here with that point of view in the real world my point of view is shared by the majority of American citizens and our reasoning and concerns have been taken into account by our government. And as such any show on the part of activist of trying to overturn those laws that the American people have deemed appropriate for our society will be met with more severe resistance through the Democratic process like it has in California.
38
Loveschild, how can you call the other posters childish when you totally posted here just to piss everyone off?
39
@37 - "our reasoning and concerns have been taken into account by our government."
Perhaps, but by the WRONG governement. This is not a federal issue - it's a state issue. If 51% or more of the people in more than 51% of the counties in Mississippi decide that they want to prevent gays from marriage in their state, they can vote in a group of like-minded people who can then debate and pass a law dictating that only certain people can be married in their state. That's fine. As a state government, it's their job to define marriage for their state.
It is not the job of the federal governement to define marriage.
Perhaps, but by the WRONG governement. This is not a federal issue - it's a state issue. If 51% or more of the people in more than 51% of the counties in Mississippi decide that they want to prevent gays from marriage in their state, they can vote in a group of like-minded people who can then debate and pass a law dictating that only certain people can be married in their state. That's fine. As a state government, it's their job to define marriage for their state.
It is not the job of the federal governement to define marriage.
40
37
Many states have not only banned gay marriage in their state constitutions but banned civil union as well and for good measure ammended their constitutions to explicitly not recognize gay marriage or civil union from other states. These measures passed by as much as 80%.
Obama is not likely, with the pressing issues on his plate, to try to force a repeal of DOMA on the nation.
And attempts to do so, by Obama or judges, will galvanize tremendous opposition (and support for candidates who will protect marriage)
It could be a helpful issue for the GOP in 2012.
Many states have not only banned gay marriage in their state constitutions but banned civil union as well and for good measure ammended their constitutions to explicitly not recognize gay marriage or civil union from other states. These measures passed by as much as 80%.
Obama is not likely, with the pressing issues on his plate, to try to force a repeal of DOMA on the nation.
And attempts to do so, by Obama or judges, will galvanize tremendous opposition (and support for candidates who will protect marriage)
It could be a helpful issue for the GOP in 2012.
41
My intent wasn't to "piss" anyone. I commented on my point of view, I believe I have as much right as you do to do the same. I have never used any names to respond to another poster. If my principles offend you or the others then that's your problem not mine nor the other millions of Americans in the real world, if we are here to really analyze the facts then there shouldn't be any feeling of being pissed off on your part. If we're here to trust blindly what I believe some genuinely think are good intentions on their part without been questioned and facts not being taken into account then please let me know. There was a really nice poster here that went by the name of Kim in Portland, she and I disagreed but treated each other civilly until recently. I look to offend no one. If this is a real place were thoughts are expressed I think that views like mine should be allowed to be expressed without others thinking that they're coming from a disrespectful place, cause it's not.
43
@37,
Ok I shouldn't have called you a troll... I comment on a uber-conservative blog in addition to this (uber-liberal) one and it irks me when people call me a troll if I suggest Obama is not the worst person in the world.
Anyway, the problem with your, and the majority's, reasoning against gay marriage is that it is UNreasonable. To say that marriage is specifically for procreation and the nuclear family is incorrect. Plenty of heterosexuals are married with no kids, or married for reasons completely unrelated to family. Likewise, plenty of gays DO already have families and would like to get married for exactly the reason you state: to protect their family and allow it to flourish.
Ok I shouldn't have called you a troll... I comment on a uber-conservative blog in addition to this (uber-liberal) one and it irks me when people call me a troll if I suggest Obama is not the worst person in the world.
Anyway, the problem with your, and the majority's, reasoning against gay marriage is that it is UNreasonable. To say that marriage is specifically for procreation and the nuclear family is incorrect. Plenty of heterosexuals are married with no kids, or married for reasons completely unrelated to family. Likewise, plenty of gays DO already have families and would like to get married for exactly the reason you state: to protect their family and allow it to flourish.
44
39: But that's exactly what those advocating for gay marriage don't want to happen. Otherwise how do you explain Massachusetts, Connecticut? On both places gay marriage has been imposed through the judiciary not the legislature. How do you explain what they're trying to do now in California?
Once again, they're trying to overturn the vote of the people through the judiciary. You can't have it both ways and people will get fed up when they see this bs happening again and again.
Once again, they're trying to overturn the vote of the people through the judiciary. You can't have it both ways and people will get fed up when they see this bs happening again and again.
45
@44
You are just plain boring with nothing new to say.
I agree with Jocelyn; change it up or scram before a house falls on you too......
You are just plain boring with nothing new to say.
I agree with Jocelyn; change it up or scram before a house falls on you too......
47
Anyone who is arguing against gay marriage is, by definition, an illogical troll. Let your religion tell you that homosexuality is immoral all you want, but there is absolutely no logical, secular argument against gay marriage. Period.
Any time the gay marriage argument comes up I challenge anyone to give a logical reason why gays shouldn't be allowed to marry that doesn't rely on religion. No one has been able to come up with one yet...
Any time the gay marriage argument comes up I challenge anyone to give a logical reason why gays shouldn't be allowed to marry that doesn't rely on religion. No one has been able to come up with one yet...
48
DOMA is unconstitutional. States are required to extend marriage benefits under the full faith and credit clause.
49
@25:
And because you're consistant in your beliefs, you believe that the government should prohibit infertile individuals and post-menopause women from getting married, correct? And you believe that couples must sign an affadavit before marriage stating that they will have children?
Do you think marriages should be dissolved if children aren't produced after a certain time period? 5 years? 10 years?
I'm sure you do because I'm certain you've thought through your rationalizations against gay marriage.
And because you're consistant in your beliefs, you believe that the government should prohibit infertile individuals and post-menopause women from getting married, correct? And you believe that couples must sign an affadavit before marriage stating that they will have children?
Do you think marriages should be dissolved if children aren't produced after a certain time period? 5 years? 10 years?
I'm sure you do because I'm certain you've thought through your rationalizations against gay marriage.
50
True, we don't want to wait... but bad judgment from the court can be worse than no judgment at all.
52
46: I read it but repeating the same hurtful comment is not being civil.
I still think you're coming from a good place and I would never consider you as someone who is heartless even though I know you're wrong on this subject because as you I'm also raising three kids and I want them to inherit a country when they grow up, something I believe won't happen if this nation pursues this option due to the many negative consequences that can arise from it.
I still think you're coming from a good place and I would never consider you as someone who is heartless even though I know you're wrong on this subject because as you I'm also raising three kids and I want them to inherit a country when they grow up, something I believe won't happen if this nation pursues this option due to the many negative consequences that can arise from it.
54
@52. I'm sorry, but you are a fucking moron if you think that if we legalize gay marriage your kids will not "inherit a country when they grow up." Seriously. The biggest kind of moron on earth. If you want to express your idiocy on a blog without people calling you on it (some not very nicely, boo hoo), then go take your run-on sentences somewhere else. Troll.
55
Loveschild, one of the functions of the judiciary system is to protect vulnerable minorities like gays and lesbians from this thing called the Tyranny of the Majority.
56
You can rail against these "activist judges" if you disagree with them, but the fact remains they overturned "the will of the people" because in their respective states there is no constitutional basis to deny basic civil rights to gay and lesbian couples. This argument is not about the institution of Family. It is about the institution of Equality. If you want to use the name "Loveschild" ie: a child of love, as your handle, while simultaneously arguing for the denial of equal rights of others in the eyes of the law, then fine. Go ahead. Just realize that it makes you a fucking hypocrite when you do.
57
Lovechild @ 52,
So you read this, and you read it as I am not acting civilly towards you. Yet again, we must agree to disagree.
Loveschild,
Sorry, and I mean it, if my comment has angered and offended you. It is just my opinion. It's not your issue with taxes or landmarks, that saddens me. It's, and again it is just my opinion formed by your frequent posts, that your heart is closed and thus unable to see the beauty of relationships just because the two people involved don't fit with your ideal. According to your posts, two committed homosexuals raising children are just playing house and nothing of value comes of it, same-sex adoption should be outlawed because it is impossible that a child living with same-sex parents could have opposite sex role models, same-sex individuals are the only ones who have sex practices that spread disease and that should be a reason to exclude them from being parents, everytime a kinky picture involving male genitalia is present is HAS to be a homosexual and it couldn't be some heterosexual, homosexuals only want to be parents because they want a trophy because all they really want to do is party, and lastly just for demanding equal civil rights as U.S. citizens their lives are social ills that promote the demise of the Nation. Again, this is just my opinion based upon your comments. It is a free country, and the First Ammendment permits you to disagree. Just as I have allowed you to express your opinion about my ability to form opinions, my inability to think pragmatically, and about my patriotism in "Shhh... We're Silencing the Christians" even when I disagreed and was hurt by your comments. Perhaps, you now think I misunderstood you? I still allow you your opinion.
By the way. I didn't call you heartless (at least that wasn't my intent), but your mind (based on your posts) is made up on the subject of same-sex individuals being of equal worth, value and of civil rights and in that sense your heart is closed. And, for that I feel sad. Sorry you now think of me differently, I never had the opinion you thought highly of me before.
k
Posted by kim in portland (formerly just kim) on February 27, 2009 at 6:31 PM
More...
So you read this, and you read it as I am not acting civilly towards you. Yet again, we must agree to disagree.
Loveschild,
Sorry, and I mean it, if my comment has angered and offended you. It is just my opinion. It's not your issue with taxes or landmarks, that saddens me. It's, and again it is just my opinion formed by your frequent posts, that your heart is closed and thus unable to see the beauty of relationships just because the two people involved don't fit with your ideal. According to your posts, two committed homosexuals raising children are just playing house and nothing of value comes of it, same-sex adoption should be outlawed because it is impossible that a child living with same-sex parents could have opposite sex role models, same-sex individuals are the only ones who have sex practices that spread disease and that should be a reason to exclude them from being parents, everytime a kinky picture involving male genitalia is present is HAS to be a homosexual and it couldn't be some heterosexual, homosexuals only want to be parents because they want a trophy because all they really want to do is party, and lastly just for demanding equal civil rights as U.S. citizens their lives are social ills that promote the demise of the Nation. Again, this is just my opinion based upon your comments. It is a free country, and the First Ammendment permits you to disagree. Just as I have allowed you to express your opinion about my ability to form opinions, my inability to think pragmatically, and about my patriotism in "Shhh... We're Silencing the Christians" even when I disagreed and was hurt by your comments. Perhaps, you now think I misunderstood you? I still allow you your opinion.
By the way. I didn't call you heartless (at least that wasn't my intent), but your mind (based on your posts) is made up on the subject of same-sex individuals being of equal worth, value and of civil rights and in that sense your heart is closed. And, for that I feel sad. Sorry you now think of me differently, I never had the opinion you thought highly of me before.
k
Posted by kim in portland (formerly just kim) on February 27, 2009 at 6:31 PM
58
Loveschild @ 52,
You're right we disagree. You believe that I am wrong, and I believe you are wrong. You have every right to raise your three children as you see fit, and to teach them what your believe. Just as I have every right to teach mine. My children are being taught that the words of the Declaration of Independence are words of truth, "WE hold these Truths of be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness-- That to secure these Rights, Government are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive to these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Forms, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
My children are being taught that their ancestors fought and died in the Revolutionary War to form this country. Their ancestors against the majority's opinion used their farms as part of the Underground Railroad, spilled their blood on the battel field of Gettysburg. Their family members fought and died in WWI and WWII. The amazing gift isn't just that they went to war for this country, it is that as Quakers they set aside their pacifist ways and gave their lives. Not for glory, but because any who stand silent in the face of oppression and injustice stands in guilt. For us to stand in silence and turn a blind eye to a minority of our population, our fellow Americans, to stand silent in the face of inequality and unequal rights is to cease to be true patriots. It is against our faith, that all are made in the image of their Creator and all are endowed by their Creator, whether they believe in His exsistance or not, with certain unalienable Rights, the right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
And again, we will agree to disagree.
Best wishes.
More...
You're right we disagree. You believe that I am wrong, and I believe you are wrong. You have every right to raise your three children as you see fit, and to teach them what your believe. Just as I have every right to teach mine. My children are being taught that the words of the Declaration of Independence are words of truth, "WE hold these Truths of be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness-- That to secure these Rights, Government are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive to these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Forms, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
My children are being taught that their ancestors fought and died in the Revolutionary War to form this country. Their ancestors against the majority's opinion used their farms as part of the Underground Railroad, spilled their blood on the battel field of Gettysburg. Their family members fought and died in WWI and WWII. The amazing gift isn't just that they went to war for this country, it is that as Quakers they set aside their pacifist ways and gave their lives. Not for glory, but because any who stand silent in the face of oppression and injustice stands in guilt. For us to stand in silence and turn a blind eye to a minority of our population, our fellow Americans, to stand silent in the face of inequality and unequal rights is to cease to be true patriots. It is against our faith, that all are made in the image of their Creator and all are endowed by their Creator, whether they believe in His exsistance or not, with certain unalienable Rights, the right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
And again, we will agree to disagree.
Best wishes.
60
Loveschild, what it boils down to is, you are merely afraid that the Judicial Branch will do what it was intended for, and that is, to correct the wrongs of the majority, when the majority ends up using their asses instead of their heads, when voting for something that is completely wrong.
63
60: No, what I am against and quite frankly what I consider to be something that goes against the core principles and the values upon which this great republic was founded upon is an activist judiciary that seeks to impose its ideology on the people with a total disregard for the Constitution that it's supposed to be protect and be a an unadulterated interpreter of.
58: I find it troubling that you're unable to see the differences between those events in our nation's history and this issue. You might be in favor of gay marriage is one thing but comparing it to the underground railroad is something irrational. I truly don't think you are besmirching the people who were in the events that you cited but I do think that your good intentions might be confusing you into making comparisons that have absolutely nothing in common between them, not in our nation's historical context and most certainly not in a human context. Just remember, and I believe you should know as a Christian yourself, that many times the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
58: I find it troubling that you're unable to see the differences between those events in our nation's history and this issue. You might be in favor of gay marriage is one thing but comparing it to the underground railroad is something irrational. I truly don't think you are besmirching the people who were in the events that you cited but I do think that your good intentions might be confusing you into making comparisons that have absolutely nothing in common between them, not in our nation's historical context and most certainly not in a human context. Just remember, and I believe you should know as a Christian yourself, that many times the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
64
@63. The first part of your comment was not an actual argument. Try again (preferably with some sort of explanation of how gay marriage at the state level would be unconstitutional).
65
Loveschild @63: All you do is talk in circles. Yes, you do. Your statement, and I quote: "...judiciary that seeks to impose its ideology on the people with a total disregard for the Constitution..." then I am assuming you mean the "Constitution" that applies to EVERYONE, not just people that think like you. Therefore, if the Judicial Branch DETERMINES that a particular referendum, passed in error, by a majority of the people is UNCONSTITUTIONAL, then overturning that referendum is well within the power of the Judicial Branch.
In summation, all I can say to you is, aren't you the lucky one, that you don't find yourself in a similar situation. You're perfect. Admit it. Ain't it a darn shame we all can't be as perfect as you. Boo-hoo for us.
In summation, all I can say to you is, aren't you the lucky one, that you don't find yourself in a similar situation. You're perfect. Admit it. Ain't it a darn shame we all can't be as perfect as you. Boo-hoo for us.
66
64: Try this(though I'm sure you will refuse to understand it), How has Massachusetts and Connecticut imposed gay marriage on their people?
They have imposed it through the courts, hardly something Democratic.
"how gay marriage at the state level would be unconstitutional"
It would be unconstitutional for the above reason and also because as activist are doing now they would seek to expand their arbitrary ruling s on the federal level by undoing laws(like DOMA) that protect the federal government from having to acknowledge and suffer from the wrong choices made by rogue states like Massachusetts and Connecticut.
They have imposed it through the courts, hardly something Democratic.
"how gay marriage at the state level would be unconstitutional"
It would be unconstitutional for the above reason and also because as activist are doing now they would seek to expand their arbitrary ruling s on the federal level by undoing laws(like DOMA) that protect the federal government from having to acknowledge and suffer from the wrong choices made by rogue states like Massachusetts and Connecticut.
67
Lovechild @ 63,
You and I don't agree. We just keep circling back around. I believe it is immoral to deny homosexuals equal rights because of their sexual orientation, you on the other hand believe their relationships are "inferior" (your word, not mine) and thus do not deserve equal rights.
I don't get why you think it is "irrational" to connect my great, great, great, great, great grandparents part in the Underground Railroad and my desire for equality and equal rights for the homosexual community. The connection is very simple, one group was denied equal rights based off of their ethnicity and the other group is being denied equal rights based off of their sexual orientation.
I will not deny you your opinion, that my good intentions are paving the way to hell. It's your opinion. I do not agree with you, and you do not have one bit of control over my eternal destiny. It is between God and me, I do not fear correction from God.
I hope my dear, that neither your children nor grandchildren are homosexuals. (I hope you never hear any child you deeply love tell you that they are a homosexual.) I wouldn't want you to suffer the pain of seeing them discriminated against, to know that the majority feels they are second class citizens unworthy of equal rights and protection under the law. To know that their desire for family is viewed as inferior house play that amounts to nothing. To be told that they are an abomination, that God hates them, and their lives are social ills. I wouldn't want you as their mother or grandmother to hear them discussed as such. More importantly, I don't want them to hear it. I want the lies to stop.
You and I don't agree. We just keep circling back around. I believe it is immoral to deny homosexuals equal rights because of their sexual orientation, you on the other hand believe their relationships are "inferior" (your word, not mine) and thus do not deserve equal rights.
I don't get why you think it is "irrational" to connect my great, great, great, great, great grandparents part in the Underground Railroad and my desire for equality and equal rights for the homosexual community. The connection is very simple, one group was denied equal rights based off of their ethnicity and the other group is being denied equal rights based off of their sexual orientation.
I will not deny you your opinion, that my good intentions are paving the way to hell. It's your opinion. I do not agree with you, and you do not have one bit of control over my eternal destiny. It is between God and me, I do not fear correction from God.
I hope my dear, that neither your children nor grandchildren are homosexuals. (I hope you never hear any child you deeply love tell you that they are a homosexual.) I wouldn't want you to suffer the pain of seeing them discriminated against, to know that the majority feels they are second class citizens unworthy of equal rights and protection under the law. To know that their desire for family is viewed as inferior house play that amounts to nothing. To be told that they are an abomination, that God hates them, and their lives are social ills. I wouldn't want you as their mother or grandmother to hear them discussed as such. More importantly, I don't want them to hear it. I want the lies to stop.
68
Kim in Portland, I sure wished you were a gay man, cause I'd love to be married to someone like you. Please, take that as the highest of compliments. :)
70
The Supreme Courts of Massachusetts and Connecticut did not "impose" gay marriage on anyone. They listened to the arguments, looked at the law, and determined that institutionalized discrimination against sexual minorities was unconstitutional. They did their job, which, as you stated in #63, was to interpret the constitution. When their interpretation didn't match your ideology, you (ironically) accused them of being ideological. And it is true that the people of those states voted democratically to pass those laws of discrimination. Fine. Great. Have the people ratify as many discriminatory laws you want; if those laws don't withstand the scrutiny of the constitution, they will not stand.
71
Loveschild,
Obama/Biden campaigned on getting rid of DOMA. 7 point spread in the election. You say you like majority rule?
Suck it.
Obama/Biden campaigned on getting rid of DOMA. 7 point spread in the election. You say you like majority rule?
Suck it.
72
@70 - Ding ding ding!! Loveschild, as others have said, you do not understand the purpose of the judiciary, or, perhaps, you willfully misunderstand it when they reach a conclusion that you don't agree with. Were the Supreme Court justices who ruled in Brown v. Board of Education also activist judges imposing their will on the people?
73
Loveschild @ 25:
You wrote: "marriage is an institution that the government has recognized for mainly the purpose of maintain a nuclear family to flourish since it is that nuclear family that allows for the continuum of the existence of our nation."
I could be wrong, but I thought that at the time our government was founded, extended families were more the norm than nuclear families. I grew up in a nuclear family and now live in an extended family, and as much as my mother-in-law drives me nuts, I think it's better. Personally, I never have seen what is so great about nuclear families, except that they lead to more consumption because of having more households.
So many legally married heterosexual couple-led nuclear families are disfunctional that it's hard for me to understand why some people are so dead-set against alternative families.
And yes, judges sometimes rule against the majority. Maybe you remember something from high school civics class about a system of "checks and balances"?
You wrote: "marriage is an institution that the government has recognized for mainly the purpose of maintain a nuclear family to flourish since it is that nuclear family that allows for the continuum of the existence of our nation."
I could be wrong, but I thought that at the time our government was founded, extended families were more the norm than nuclear families. I grew up in a nuclear family and now live in an extended family, and as much as my mother-in-law drives me nuts, I think it's better. Personally, I never have seen what is so great about nuclear families, except that they lead to more consumption because of having more households.
So many legally married heterosexual couple-led nuclear families are disfunctional that it's hard for me to understand why some people are so dead-set against alternative families.
And yes, judges sometimes rule against the majority. Maybe you remember something from high school civics class about a system of "checks and balances"?
74
Lovechild: my only comment. all of your arguments are based upon simple premise: that this really about marriage, and not about how much the very existence of gay people bothers straight people, and people-who-waana-be-straight-but-ain't. And until you see that=-- i.e., read your own comments and interpet them in that light-- arguing iwth you is a wasteo f itme.
75
Loveschild, to sum everything up:
1. You are wrong.
2. All of us disagree with you.
3. Your opinion is (arguably) un-Christian.
4. You don't understand grammar.
5. Your arguments don't make any sense.
6. It's ironic and funny that you keep calling us "confused."
I'd also like to add that I disagree that Kim in that I DO hope you have a gay child. I believe that your intentions are good (even if your ideas aren't), and that you are probably an OK person. As such, you would probably get over the whole gay thing if you had to (ie if your kid was gay). Nothing the love of a parent for his/her child to change somebody's mind, I say. Here's to you having gay kids.
...And learning about sentence structure.
1. You are wrong.
2. All of us disagree with you.
3. Your opinion is (arguably) un-Christian.
4. You don't understand grammar.
5. Your arguments don't make any sense.
6. It's ironic and funny that you keep calling us "confused."
I'd also like to add that I disagree that Kim in that I DO hope you have a gay child. I believe that your intentions are good (even if your ideas aren't), and that you are probably an OK person. As such, you would probably get over the whole gay thing if you had to (ie if your kid was gay). Nothing the love of a parent for his/her child to change somebody's mind, I say. Here's to you having gay kids.
...And learning about sentence structure.
77
73: Prop 8 does not erode any of the rights gays already enjoy in California by way of domestic partnerships. All it says is that it wants to restore the meaning of traditional family structure and keep it intact.
The very essence of a Democracy is to represent the people who have establish it. And there is no sufficient proof that keeping the language that has been established for hundreds of years is in anyway a far reaching change to any establish equal protection clause.
The very essence of a Democracy is to represent the people who have establish it. And there is no sufficient proof that keeping the language that has been established for hundreds of years is in anyway a far reaching change to any establish equal protection clause.
78
Loveschild: here's your error. Prop. 8 eroded no rights for gay people in california, except one.
If you can vote to disappear my marirage, you can vote to disappear my domestic partnership.
If you can vote to disappear my marirage, you can vote to disappear my domestic partnership.
79
Gay citizens are entitled to representation too.
Also, allowing gays to have legally validated families in no way undermines "traditional" family structures.
Also, allowing gays to have legally validated families in no way undermines "traditional" family structures.
80
@77:
Yes, America has worked out pretty well for the European-American males who established it. The rest of us have been fucked over pretty damned good. That's why we've been doin' some re-establishin'.
The very essence of a Democracy is to represent the people who have establish it.
Yes, America has worked out pretty well for the European-American males who established it. The rest of us have been fucked over pretty damned good. That's why we've been doin' some re-establishin'.
81
79: You know that's not true. I can in no way undo your domestic partnership, it's something that has precedence and that in no way seeks to reinvent an institution that has been the law throughout all the states of our union since its founding. Besides, I would in no way support such a measure, as I believe that gays should be allowed to have visitation and inheritance rights if they so wish to pursue it. But what you are seeking through the reversal of this law is something completely different.
You are seeking to destroy an institution(traditional marriage) through judicial activism with a total disregard for the provisions that the Cal state Constitution has provided to its citizens by way of allowing them to amendment it. The Constitution allows this so that they can have a say in the way it needs to be enacted for the social good of those that are governed by it. It has worked that way for hundreds of years, so who am I or you to say this is not lawful? The people have spoken, the justices as interpreters of a Constitution of the people need to follow the law.
You are seeking to destroy an institution(traditional marriage) through judicial activism with a total disregard for the provisions that the Cal state Constitution has provided to its citizens by way of allowing them to amendment it. The Constitution allows this so that they can have a say in the way it needs to be enacted for the social good of those that are governed by it. It has worked that way for hundreds of years, so who am I or you to say this is not lawful? The people have spoken, the justices as interpreters of a Constitution of the people need to follow the law.
83
Lovechild,
I think your argument that they are seeking to destroy "traditional" marriage, is off the mark. They aren't seeking to destroy it, they are seeking to expand and enlarge it. Their fighting so hard to be allowed to marry, because they value and cherish marriage. Some heterosexuals want to believe that marriage is a desire that only forms between two people of opposite gender, it isn't, the desire to marry is a deeply human one. Same-sex couples are seeking to affirm lifelong loving commitments that exemplify marriage at its best. Same-sex marriages have the power to actually strengthen the institution of marriage.
If you desire is to sincerely strengthen heterosexual marriage, your efforts would be better spent helping to discourage divorce. Seeing that divorce terminates 1:2 marriages.
I think your argument that they are seeking to destroy "traditional" marriage, is off the mark. They aren't seeking to destroy it, they are seeking to expand and enlarge it. Their fighting so hard to be allowed to marry, because they value and cherish marriage. Some heterosexuals want to believe that marriage is a desire that only forms between two people of opposite gender, it isn't, the desire to marry is a deeply human one. Same-sex couples are seeking to affirm lifelong loving commitments that exemplify marriage at its best. Same-sex marriages have the power to actually strengthen the institution of marriage.
If you desire is to sincerely strengthen heterosexual marriage, your efforts would be better spent helping to discourage divorce. Seeing that divorce terminates 1:2 marriages.
84
From Loving v. Virginia, 1967.
Thank God the Lovings kept on fighting to destroy marriage in the anti-democratic courts.
Mildred Loving, R.I.P.
More...
In June 1958, two residents of Virginia, Mildred Jeter, a Negro woman, and Richard Loving, a white man, were married in the District of Columbia pursuant to its laws. Shortly after their marriage, the Lovings returned to Virginia and established their marital abode in Caroline County. At the October Term, 1958, of the Circuit Court of Caroline County, a grand jury issued an indictment charging the Lovings with violating Virginia's ban on interracial marriages. On January 6, 1959, the Lovings pleaded guilty to the charge and were sentenced to one year in jail; however, the trial judge suspended the sentence for a period of 25 years on the condition that the Lovings leave the State and not return to Virginia together for 25 years. He stated in an opinion that:
"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."
After their convictions, the Lovings took up residence in the District of Columbia. On November 6, 1963, they filed a motion in the state trial court to vacate the judgment and set aside the sentence on the ground that the statutes which they had violated were repugnant to the Fourteenth Amendment. The motion not having been decided by October 28, 1964, the Lovings instituted a class action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia requesting that a three-judge court be convened to declare the Virginia antimiscegenation statutes unconstitutional and to enjoin state officials from enforcing their convictions. On January 22, 1965, the state trial judge denied the motion to vacate the sentences, and the Lovings perfected an appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia. On February 11, 1965, the three-judge District Court continued the case to allow the Lovings to present their constitutional claims to the highest state court.
The Supreme Court of Appeals upheld the constitutionality of the antimiscegenation statutes and, after modifying the sentence, affirmed the convictions.
From Loving v. Virginia, 1967.
Thank God the Lovings kept on fighting to destroy marriage in the anti-democratic courts.
Mildred Loving, R.I.P.
86
I don't know about anyone else, but I want "traditional" marriage destroyed. I want it shredded beyond all recognition. I want it stricken from every country in the land.
Why? Because traditional marriage was about women being property. First a woman belonged to her father, then she belonged to her husband. What she wanted, what she felt, what she needed, none mattered. She didn't want to get married to that fool bastard her father wanted to form an alliance with? Just beat her until she consented. She was tried of being forced to have sex with her husband? Sorry, the laws didn't recognize rape within marriage. She wanted to take her children away from a monster who was beating them all? Whoa there! The children were the property of their father, not their mother, and had no right (or even ability, given that women weren't allowed to work) to take them away.
I despise traditional marriage, and as a woman, want nothing to do with it.
Besides, "traditional marriage" is hardly traditional. It's just a snapshot from one culture during one time period and romanticized through the eyes of history. Not all cultures have condemned homosexual love or homosexual marriage. Why should we define marriage based on one snapshot instead of another?
Why? Because traditional marriage was about women being property. First a woman belonged to her father, then she belonged to her husband. What she wanted, what she felt, what she needed, none mattered. She didn't want to get married to that fool bastard her father wanted to form an alliance with? Just beat her until she consented. She was tried of being forced to have sex with her husband? Sorry, the laws didn't recognize rape within marriage. She wanted to take her children away from a monster who was beating them all? Whoa there! The children were the property of their father, not their mother, and had no right (or even ability, given that women weren't allowed to work) to take them away.
I despise traditional marriage, and as a woman, want nothing to do with it.
Besides, "traditional marriage" is hardly traditional. It's just a snapshot from one culture during one time period and romanticized through the eyes of history. Not all cultures have condemned homosexual love or homosexual marriage. Why should we define marriage based on one snapshot instead of another?
87
@ 77: Lovechild, Prop 8 took away the right for same sex couples to marry. Presently in the USA, all civil unions and domestic partnerships are unequal when compared to marriages. Here is one example: if an American citizen marries a foreigner, permanent resident status and citizenship will be dully given. No civil union nor domestic partnership transfers this right. It is a sad day when the love of your life gets deported because people think civil unions give the same benefits as marriage. They do not. This lawsuit against DOMA will hopefully rectify the present inequalities.
I would prefer that ALL couples are required to obtain a civil union; whilst marriage rites are optional and obtained afterwards for show only. This fits the traditional purpose of marriage as a business transaction between families for consolidation of power and property.
I would prefer that ALL couples are required to obtain a civil union; whilst marriage rites are optional and obtained afterwards for show only. This fits the traditional purpose of marriage as a business transaction between families for consolidation of power and property.
88
The people like Loveschild are not the ones we should be trying to change the minds of. Nothing we say will change someone like Loveschild, John Bailo, etc.'s mind. It is the people in the middle... the ones who don't have a totally formed opinion yet on queer issues or who just know they feel a little uncomfortable about it all. They are the ones who are waiting to topple over on either side. And those people are actually the majority of people. We need to work more at making queer people visible and help people see that we are actual people with lives and families.
THATS what needs to happen.
(Go find a local GLBT speakers bureau! and join it!)
THATS what needs to happen.
(Go find a local GLBT speakers bureau! and join it!)
89
@88,
I agree; however, I don't think Loveschild is a total bastard (even though "Loveschild" could have that meaning -- ha ha, just some light hearted ribbing, Loveschild). If you look at LC's posts on other threads, it seems s/he favors domestic partnerships, so whereas LC is not in the center compared to slog posters, s/he could be considered somewhere in the center as far as U.S. voters, compared to the God Hates Fags faction. But LC clings tenaciously to the idea that homosexual relationships are inferior to heterosexual relationships and therefore not worthy of marriage.
I think that argument has been pretty much dismantled on these threads, but still, it's crucial for reasons put forth in 88's post that same sex marriage supporters work on overcoming that idea in the minds of moderates.
I agree; however, I don't think Loveschild is a total bastard (even though "Loveschild" could have that meaning -- ha ha, just some light hearted ribbing, Loveschild). If you look at LC's posts on other threads, it seems s/he favors domestic partnerships, so whereas LC is not in the center compared to slog posters, s/he could be considered somewhere in the center as far as U.S. voters, compared to the God Hates Fags faction. But LC clings tenaciously to the idea that homosexual relationships are inferior to heterosexual relationships and therefore not worthy of marriage.
I think that argument has been pretty much dismantled on these threads, but still, it's crucial for reasons put forth in 88's post that same sex marriage supporters work on overcoming that idea in the minds of moderates.
90
@ 89,
You are right, LC is likely somewhere in the center as far as U.S. voters, and does favor some equal rights (inheritance and visitation). Unfortunately, her posts indicate that she favors adoption laws in all states to prevent same-sex couples from adopting. Perhaps, I still don't understand her position.
I agree 88 makes an excellent point, but one can't recognize who the moderates are and who has their mind made up if we don't engage. So, we still need to respectfully ask individuals like LC so we can try to understand their point. For that I am grateful, LC has given me much to think about.
You are right, LC is likely somewhere in the center as far as U.S. voters, and does favor some equal rights (inheritance and visitation). Unfortunately, her posts indicate that she favors adoption laws in all states to prevent same-sex couples from adopting. Perhaps, I still don't understand her position.
I agree 88 makes an excellent point, but one can't recognize who the moderates are and who has their mind made up if we don't engage. So, we still need to respectfully ask individuals like LC so we can try to understand their point. For that I am grateful, LC has given me much to think about.
91
Loveschild. you probably don't know that there were TWO petitions circulating originally, one that eventually became prop h8, and another that would have abolished domestic partnership as well. they decided to go with the former, as they thought the latter would not pass.
What i said is ABSOLUTELY true. If you can void my marriage by a vote, you can also void my domestic partnership. And there are a lot of people who would.
What i said is ABSOLUTELY true. If you can void my marriage by a vote, you can also void my domestic partnership. And there are a lot of people who would.
92
91: It wouldn't pass muster with the people of Cal, who I believe are in the vast majority, good hearted people. That's the reason they had two drop that petition. Redefining marriage however is something that the good people of Cal have deemed something that is not in their best interest and as such they have rejected it two times already through the Democratic process. If we are to have a country were the people vote to set parameters, then don't you think that their votes need to count and not be dismissed by a court. The people have banned nothing, we have just upheld traditional marriage for the sake of our society. If something is not broken it doesn't need to be fixed. And looking at the televised court hearing yesterday, I can say that I'm confident that the justices will side with the people and respect their votes.
93
Lately people have been throwing around a lot of words regarding our government. We have heard Obama called a socialist, or even a communist, by people who don't seem to understand the definitions of those words.
And now we are throwing about the term 'democracy' here in this conversation/debate. Lovechild, our founding fathers did not create a democracy. We do not live in a democracy. We use the word a great deal but it is just not true. You and I and everyone here live in a constitutional republic, , "in which majority rule is tempered by minority rights protected by law." (Scheb, John M., and John M. Scheb II (2002). An Introduction to the American Legal System. Florence, KY: Delmar, p. 6.) While our system is formally designed as a representative democracy, there is no provision for majority rule as in a true democracy.
All this might seem trivial to many people but not to me. Words matter.
And now we are throwing about the term 'democracy' here in this conversation/debate. Lovechild, our founding fathers did not create a democracy. We do not live in a democracy. We use the word a great deal but it is just not true. You and I and everyone here live in a constitutional republic, , "in which majority rule is tempered by minority rights protected by law." (Scheb, John M., and John M. Scheb II (2002). An Introduction to the American Legal System. Florence, KY: Delmar, p. 6.) While our system is formally designed as a representative democracy, there is no provision for majority rule as in a true democracy.
All this might seem trivial to many people but not to me. Words matter.
95
Anyway, this conversation has permanently gotten the Supremes song "Love Child" stuck in my head for the remainder of the morning.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
SL Letter of the Day: Pill The Homos! by Dan Savage
-
Dear Huffington Post... by Dan Savage
-
Because Guns Make Us More Safer by Goldy
-
The Rick Santorum Rally in Tacoma Probably Could Have Gone Better by Paul Constant
-
Slog Bible Study: Deuteronomy 21:10-14 by Goldy
-
The AP Is Reporting That Whitney Houston Is Dead by Paul Constant
-
SL Letter of the Day: Daddy Loves Who? by Dan Savage
-
Because Guns Make Us Safer by Goldy
-
Gay Kids Are Still Killing Themselves by Dan Savage
-
Gregoire: "This is signed!" by Eli Sanders
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (96) RSS