Wednesday, July 8, 2009
Homo A Million Little Lawsuits
Posted by Dan Savage on Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 12:35 PM
Pat Robertson doesn't understand why gay issues "dominate the news," since gay and lesbians represent "a tiny, tiny fraction of our population." Here's the reason why gay issues dominate the news, Pat: because gay people are unhappy about being discriminated against, thrown out of the military, denied the right to marry, etc. Stop fucking with us—stop discriminating against us—and you'll hear a lot less about us and a lot less from us. Give us what we want—full civil equality—and the struggle for gay rights ends and gay issues no longer dominates the news. It's that simple. You can go right on hating us, Pat, and we can get on with our lives. But until that day comes...
Massachusetts' attorney general filed a lawsuit on Wednesday against the U.S. government that seeks federal marriage benefits for about 16,000 gay and lesbian couples who have legally wed in Massachusetts. The state is challenging the constitutionality of the federal 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, saying the law denies "essential rights and protections" to same-sex couples who have married since Massachusetts became the first state in the nation to legalize gay weddings in 2004.The federal law interferes with the state's "sovereign authority to define and regulate marriage," according to the suit filed in federal court in Boston. It calls the law "overreaching and discriminatory."
The suit is the latest skirmish over gay marriage in the U.S. federal court system after handful of political filmmakers led by a Democratic consultant crafted a gay rights challenge in May that they hope will reach the U.S. Supreme Court.... Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley, who filed the suit, cited several benefits denied gay couples, including federal income tax credits, employment and retirement benefits, health insurance coverage, and Social Security payments.
"We view all married persons equally," Coakley told a news conference.
Read this slowly, Pat: DOMA discriminates against same-sex couples, same-sex couples or our allies sue, reporters write up the lawsuit, gay issues continue to dominate the news. No DOMA, no discrimination, no lawsuit, no news stories, no domination.
Share via
1
I agree, and it should be celebrated that although we are accused of being a "tiny, tiny fraction" we are able to make the most noise.
But why do you constantly address people directly, as though they are themselves reading your shit blog?
Self importance, much?
But why do you constantly address people directly, as though they are themselves reading your shit blog?
Self importance, much?
2
They will lose, the SCOTUS hates us. We will be set back at least 30 years by this. The SCOTUS has never heard a marriage equality case and they will rule against us, or worse, they'll refuse to hear it. We're doomed.
4
This is great news (sorry, Baconcat), because SCOTUS will _have_ to listen to this case.
Under the constitution, the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction on cases where a state is a party. (Article 3, section 2). That means it can't just let some poor district court flounce around the issues, have an appeals court fuck it up, and then ignore it. The court has original jurisdiction here, and it can't duck it by denying cert.
And this complaint is good stuff -- see it at http://www.mass.gov/Cago/docs/press/2009…
The tenth amendment of the constitution is probably the strongest argument, but there are so many more.
Under the constitution, the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction on cases where a state is a party. (Article 3, section 2). That means it can't just let some poor district court flounce around the issues, have an appeals court fuck it up, and then ignore it. The court has original jurisdiction here, and it can't duck it by denying cert.
And this complaint is good stuff -- see it at http://www.mass.gov/Cago/docs/press/2009…
The tenth amendment of the constitution is probably the strongest argument, but there are so many more.
5
If I compiled a list of what Pat Robertson doesn't understand,
SLOG would reach the outter edge of Andromeda.
SLOG would reach the outter edge of Andromeda.
6
More good news:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/7…
As momentum builds toward an eventual repeal of the "Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell" law, Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-PA), the first Iraq veteran elected to Congress, has now assumed the lead in sponsoring the bill.
"It is vital to our national security," Murphy said last week in his first interview since taking over the lead on the so-called Military Readiness Enhancement Act. "We have troops that are fighting in two wars ... and we need every qualified able-bodied individual who is able to serve."
The legislation, which has 150 co-sponsors in the House, would repeal the "don’t ask, don’t tell" policy, which Congress approved in September 1993 and bars the military from discriminating on the basis of a service member’s sexual orientation. More than 13,000 military personnel have been discharged for being gay since the law was enacted.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/7…
As momentum builds toward an eventual repeal of the "Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell" law, Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-PA), the first Iraq veteran elected to Congress, has now assumed the lead in sponsoring the bill.
"It is vital to our national security," Murphy said last week in his first interview since taking over the lead on the so-called Military Readiness Enhancement Act. "We have troops that are fighting in two wars ... and we need every qualified able-bodied individual who is able to serve."
The legislation, which has 150 co-sponsors in the House, would repeal the "don’t ask, don’t tell" policy, which Congress approved in September 1993 and bars the military from discriminating on the basis of a service member’s sexual orientation. More than 13,000 military personnel have been discharged for being gay since the law was enacted.
7
@4: Oh, I was being sarcastic and lampooning the lock-step HRC sycophants who thrive on the federal government hating us to fulfill and unscratched itch for victimization. "SCOTUS HATES US, SKY IS FALLING!!" and all that.
The complaint is indeed good stuff.
The complaint is indeed good stuff.
8
Why do Pat Robertson and his ilk think gay people are ever going to give up? It's not like we are going to suddenly disappear.
10
I'm sorry, I lost track of what the original post said after I realized that it had nothing to do with Michael Jackson.
11
I think we need to hear more about the discrimination of the Irish. All those 'Irish need not apply' and Irish people aren't white.
Oh wait, that pretty much died in the 20's when we saw a bunch of Italians and Polish and along with it the headlines. What you need is the gay equivelent of eastern europeans and then they get the shit oppressed out of them!
Oh wait, that pretty much died in the 20's when we saw a bunch of Italians and Polish and along with it the headlines. What you need is the gay equivelent of eastern europeans and then they get the shit oppressed out of them!
12
Keeping in mind, of course, that Pat Robertson and his ilk believe that when the Rapture comes every "saved" person on the planet will shoot up into the sky in beams of white light and the rest of us will be left behind to do battle with flaming monsters that will crawl up out of the ground to rule over us for 1,000 years.
Yes indeed. Why do these people think gay people will ever give up?
Why do Pat Robertson and his ilk think gay people are ever going to give up? It's not like we are going to suddenly disappear.
Keeping in mind, of course, that Pat Robertson and his ilk believe that when the Rapture comes every "saved" person on the planet will shoot up into the sky in beams of white light and the rest of us will be left behind to do battle with flaming monsters that will crawl up out of the ground to rule over us for 1,000 years.
Yes indeed. Why do these people think gay people will ever give up?
13
@11 has a point. The gay mafia needs to decide who's going to be the next group of people the fundies hate.
The thing that caught my eye in that block of text was "cited several benefits denied gay couples". Several? Like, um, only some of the most important ones? But yeah, this is good stuff -- will be watching with interest.
The thing that caught my eye in that block of text was "cited several benefits denied gay couples". Several? Like, um, only some of the most important ones? But yeah, this is good stuff -- will be watching with interest.
14
At 12:01 a.m. today, under a law approved in May, the District began recognizing the marriages of same-sex couples performed in other jurisdictions. . . .
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con…
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con…
16
I've noticed that a common and predictable tactic of Pat Robertson et al. is to understate the numbers of gay and lesbian citizens within a country and make them seem like a crazy irrelevant fringe cult. The Concerned Women for America, I believe, put it at 1%. Admittedly Kinsey's figure of 10% was probably an overestimation; here in the UK, the government recently settled upon 6-7% as an official figure. There are more gay US citizens than US citizens with red hair.
However, having said this, minority status isn't a legitimate criticism of the introduction of gay marriage, etc. Even if the gay population constituted only a miniscule fraction of the overall population, as these groups claim, discrimination would still be as unethical as denying marriage rights to the tiny percentage of redheaded Americans would be.
However, having said this, minority status isn't a legitimate criticism of the introduction of gay marriage, etc. Even if the gay population constituted only a miniscule fraction of the overall population, as these groups claim, discrimination would still be as unethical as denying marriage rights to the tiny percentage of redheaded Americans would be.
18
Meanwhile, in gays dominating Canadian news:
http://www.thestar.com/article/662566
Help! We've got to get rid of the Conservatives! It's really getting bad up here. The thing is--you wonder if they're really mad about the gays, or if it was just because they don't want to give Toronto money. They refused a bunch of Canadian-job-creating Toronto streetcar proposals lately, too.
http://www.thestar.com/article/662566
Help! We've got to get rid of the Conservatives! It's really getting bad up here. The thing is--you wonder if they're really mad about the gays, or if it was just because they don't want to give Toronto money. They refused a bunch of Canadian-job-creating Toronto streetcar proposals lately, too.
19
6
"We have troops that are fighting in two wars ... and we need every qualified able-bodied individual who is able to serve."
What a load of bullshit.
Is he proposing reinstating the draft?
I didn't think so.
"We have troops that are fighting in two wars ... and we need every qualified able-bodied individual who is able to serve."
What a load of bullshit.
Is he proposing reinstating the draft?
I didn't think so.
20
"Stop fucking with us—stop discriminating against us—and you'll hear a lot less about us and a lot less from us."
Makes perfect sense to rational people, but to the right wing giving in on anything seems like a slippery slope. Who knows? Next, gay men will be demanding their right to have abortions.
Makes perfect sense to rational people, but to the right wing giving in on anything seems like a slippery slope. Who knows? Next, gay men will be demanding their right to have abortions.
21
@4: Unfortunately, while the Constitution does say "In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction," that doesn't mean that it is obligated to exercise that jurisdiction.
The Court has limited its exercise of original jurisdiction in a number of ways relevant to this case. First, it refuses to exercise original jurisdiction in cases where the State is suing "for benefit of particular individuals." Second, it does not exercise original jurisdiction where there is "another suitable forum to which cause may be remitted in the interests of convenience, efficiency, and justice." - State of Ga. v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 324 U.S. 439 (1945).
The Court has limited its exercise of original jurisdiction in a number of ways relevant to this case. First, it refuses to exercise original jurisdiction in cases where the State is suing "for benefit of particular individuals." Second, it does not exercise original jurisdiction where there is "another suitable forum to which cause may be remitted in the interests of convenience, efficiency, and justice." - State of Ga. v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 324 U.S. 439 (1945).
22
RELIGION is the only thing that makes gays WRONG. If we want EQUALITY we must END RELIGION.
Religion Hurts. Make it stop.
Religion Hurts. Make it stop.
23
The Amazing Jim @11, that would be the transgenders, who, sadly, are ickier than gays to the common xenophobic centralist. Or Pagans and Wiccans, who have to fight that whole anti-witch scripture nonsense.
Julie in Eugene @13 the gays have a mafia? Can I join?
Julie in Eugene @13 the gays have a mafia? Can I join?
24
Religion_Kills @22, much as I'd like to agree with you (even if you are being facetious), religion, it seems, is only a device to justify action based on previous fears. We don't have issues with munching on shrimp or wearing cotton-polyester mixes.
For some reason, religion is and remains a strong persuader, to the point that folks happily remember clobber passages chapter and verse, and different interpretations. But even once these are deconstructed, the argument of those who use them gets reduced to kill all fags!
Jesus be praised! You're absolutely right, what was intended to be a ritual provision to differentiate worship of Yahweh from that of Mithras has been grotesquely misrepresented as a proscription against love between couples who share a common gender. All these years, I've been misled! I'll never turn away another gay again. -- Just once.
For some reason, religion is and remains a strong persuader, to the point that folks happily remember clobber passages chapter and verse, and different interpretations. But even once these are deconstructed, the argument of those who use them gets reduced to kill all fags!
Jesus be praised! You're absolutely right, what was intended to be a ritual provision to differentiate worship of Yahweh from that of Mithras has been grotesquely misrepresented as a proscription against love between couples who share a common gender. All these years, I've been misled! I'll never turn away another gay again. -- Just once.
28
Martha Coakley rocks. I wrote Jerry Brown (AG of Cali) weeks ago and told him he should file a 10th Amendment lawsuit challenging DOMA on the grounds that Congress has unconstitutionally usurped the authority of the sovereign state of California to determine who is and who is not married. Guess he's too busy wondering where his next paycheck will come from.
29
Hmmm, this is interesting. If MA wins, then it basically rules out the possibility of federal legalization of gay-marriage or civil union (or marriage equality will have to be won state-by-state). However, if MA loses, then does it leave the door open for a gay-marriage Roe v Wade?
Most Commented on Slog
-
WTF? by Dan Savage
-
Your Wife Died Alone... by Dan Savage
-
Meanwhile in Vancouver by Dan Savage
-
Health at Every Size by Dan Savage
-
Is Your Teen Out of Control... And Smoking Hot? by Dan Savage
-
The Cost (and Fear) of Dying by Anthony Hecht
-
The Democrats Have 60 Votes in the Senate for Health Care Reform by Jonathan Golob
-
SL Letter of the Day: Hot For Twinks by Dan Savage
-
Levi Johnston's Butt by David Schmader
-
Real Salt Lake vs. Galaxy Open Thread by Christopher Frizzelle
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (29) RSS