Slog
News & ArtsFriday, December 18, 2009
Homo Mayor of D.C. Signs Gay Marriage Bill
Posted by Dan Savage on Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 10:15 AM
In a raucous signing ceremony at a northwest Washington church, Mayor Fenty officially legalized same-sex marriage in the District, distributing ceremonial pens among the Council members standing behind him. The law now will go through a period of review consisting of 30 days in which Congress is in session. If the law passes that hurdle—as is widely expected—the first gay marriages in the District could take in late winter or early spring of 2010.
Nice touch having the signing ceremony in a church. Haters insist that legalizing gay marriage is an attack on religious freedom. (Because, um, no one should be allowed to do anything that the Catholic Church or evangelical Christians disapprove of—like have premarital sex, use birth control, get divorced and remarried, or marry outside the faith. That's why all of those things are illegal, right?) But not all religious traditions oppose same-sex marriage. What about their religious freedom?
1
Good point. When the conservative, fundamentalist religous crowd tries to impose their religious values on the rest of us, they're also trying to curtail the freedom of those who want to explore spirituality and faith minus the bigotry and hypocrisy.
2
DC law makers are going to shift gears faster than they've shifted with any other issue in the history of the nation to shoot this law down. Health Care be dammed, Global Weather crap be dammed, Jobs be dammed, Illegal workers be dammed. STOP Gay citizens from getting married takes the day!
3
Remember, whenever two or three are gathered together to eat spaghetti and meatballs, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is there.
I'm pretty sure he's ok with gay marriage, since we're not made in his image ...
I'm pretty sure he's ok with gay marriage, since we're not made in his image ...
4
@2 - In order for the law to be shot down, the House and Senate would both have to pass resolutions against it, which Obama would have to sign. It's unlikely to pass through the house, unlikelier to pass through the Senate, and if it makes it to Obama's desk, he won't sign it. He might not sign a veto, but he'll at least use a pocket veto.
Honestly, it probably won't even come to a vote. It'll sit around for the 30 day waiting period; I sincerely doubt Congress wants to touch this with a ten foot pole.
Honestly, it probably won't even come to a vote. It'll sit around for the 30 day waiting period; I sincerely doubt Congress wants to touch this with a ten foot pole.
6
This is great news, but get married FAST if you're so inclined. You know how this is going to end.
What a great mayor! It's so ironic that this law gets passed in the city that is home to the president is laughing at his LGBT supporters for believing in him.
What a great mayor! It's so ironic that this law gets passed in the city that is home to the president is laughing at his LGBT supporters for believing in him.
8
Missing from the discussion is what ordinary lgbt people (you know, US) can and must do to win equality. Waiting for politicians to someday grant our wishes is NOT a strategy.
9
THIS IS AN OUTRAGE!!
This half-breed spawn of some illegal interracial "marriage" is going around putting things into law without a vote of the people? How can we even consider this legitimate with his signature when the people never even gave him the right to this office?
How can this beneficiary of the uncivil "rights" act even be speaking to us when NOT ONE SINGLE VOTE was held to approve this supposed "right" of his to lead a city that is supposed to be representative of the entire nation?
"Mayor" Fenty needs to be stripped of his title until we can fully show that the silent majority is not afraid of PC thugs inflicting things like interracial "marriage" and uncivil "rights" on the true majority of this nation.
And before anyone argues with me, his parents had every right to get married, just like everyone else-- to someone of their own race.
THE PEOPLE WILL SPEAK LOUD AND PROUD TO END THIS UNFAIR DESTRUCTION OF CIVIL SOCIETY!!!!
This half-breed spawn of some illegal interracial "marriage" is going around putting things into law without a vote of the people? How can we even consider this legitimate with his signature when the people never even gave him the right to this office?
How can this beneficiary of the uncivil "rights" act even be speaking to us when NOT ONE SINGLE VOTE was held to approve this supposed "right" of his to lead a city that is supposed to be representative of the entire nation?
"Mayor" Fenty needs to be stripped of his title until we can fully show that the silent majority is not afraid of PC thugs inflicting things like interracial "marriage" and uncivil "rights" on the true majority of this nation.
And before anyone argues with me, his parents had every right to get married, just like everyone else-- to someone of their own race.
THE PEOPLE WILL SPEAK LOUD AND PROUD TO END THIS UNFAIR DESTRUCTION OF CIVIL SOCIETY!!!!
10
Can Loveschild resist her compulsive obsession with "gay"? Will the mere mention of the word "gay" in this blog post title send her running to the keyboard like an alcoholic at last call?
Let's watch and see.
Let's watch and see.
11
Dan,
I found it interesting that former DC mayor, Marion Barry:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/co…
voted against the DC gay marriage resolution. He has been married 4 times.
I found it interesting that former DC mayor, Marion Barry:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/co…
voted against the DC gay marriage resolution. He has been married 4 times.
12
@10: She's in love with me. I think I'm the Alpha Homosexual now.
I like the equivocation she used when she asked me if I would dare tell a man he couldn't marry his 4 wives, as if to dangle a "gotcha" in front of me. I guess it presupposes that I would say "no, never, this is just about gay marriage" and she can go "OH WELL YEAH, GUESS WHAT, YOU'RE SELFISH" and I'll go "yeah, but what about you, are you going to follow the bible literally?" and she'll go "yeah, motherfucka I already do, I have a bed I sleep in when I'm on my period and I don't touch shellfish and I totally obey my man"
And then I'll be all "damn, you're hardcore."
And then she'll be all "you're damn straight I am".
I like the equivocation she used when she asked me if I would dare tell a man he couldn't marry his 4 wives, as if to dangle a "gotcha" in front of me. I guess it presupposes that I would say "no, never, this is just about gay marriage" and she can go "OH WELL YEAH, GUESS WHAT, YOU'RE SELFISH" and I'll go "yeah, but what about you, are you going to follow the bible literally?" and she'll go "yeah, motherfucka I already do, I have a bed I sleep in when I'm on my period and I don't touch shellfish and I totally obey my man"
And then I'll be all "damn, you're hardcore."
And then she'll be all "you're damn straight I am".
13
Yay! for denying DC voters the right to be heard. Three-fifths of a person that's what you're, so says Baconcat. And if you complain, silence you by labeling you a parody, or you know, calling a bigot. So shut up D.C residents, appreciate you're even allowed to live there, return to your work and don't get uppity by demanding to vote, or else.
14
@13: Yeah, screw representative democracy, the human rights act, the broad base of the DC population that said "no" to a vote, the large percentage of people in the city who support marriage equality, the overwhelming mass of TBCs that support marriage equality.
Screw them!
It's all about Marion Barry, an unordained "Bishop" from out of state and Maggie Gallagher whiiiiiiiiiiiiiiining about a city choosing to do what it wants to do.
How dare they!
And nobody better suggest that the District doesn't want to vote on this, because that proves you don't want the people to have a say! Even though they don't want to vote on it! THEY MUST VOTE, OR ELSE.
Screw them!
It's all about Marion Barry, an unordained "Bishop" from out of state and Maggie Gallagher whiiiiiiiiiiiiiiining about a city choosing to do what it wants to do.
How dare they!
And nobody better suggest that the District doesn't want to vote on this, because that proves you don't want the people to have a say! Even though they don't want to vote on it! THEY MUST VOTE, OR ELSE.
15
I think it's a stretch to say not all religious "traditions" oppose same-sex marriage. Maybe not all religious "groups", but can you name a tradition that favored same-sex marriage an hundred years ago?
Scratch that, the notion of same-sex marriage didn't exist an hundred years ago.
But Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Judaism, Sikhism, Hinduism all have a negative or some-what neutral position towards homosexuality. It's either seen as immoral or some other weird thing (a third gender) which makes one a social outcast. Buddhism seems most liberal, but this prohibits "sexual misconduct" which most often includes homosexuality.
That's not to say there aren't exceptions, but to call something a "religious tradition" is to imply it's not the exception, but the tradition. No religious traditions favor homosexuality.
Scratch that, the notion of same-sex marriage didn't exist an hundred years ago.
But Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Judaism, Sikhism, Hinduism all have a negative or some-what neutral position towards homosexuality. It's either seen as immoral or some other weird thing (a third gender) which makes one a social outcast. Buddhism seems most liberal, but this prohibits "sexual misconduct" which most often includes homosexuality.
That's not to say there aren't exceptions, but to call something a "religious tradition" is to imply it's not the exception, but the tradition. No religious traditions favor homosexuality.
16
@15: Enfrerement, a medieval french-catholic tradition of giving two men the legal rights of marriage with an additional religious mandate. "Marriage" in French literally meant "to make a bride" and would thus require the involvement of a woman. In this sense, it's altogether likely that two woman could get married, but since women never had any legal mandate in ye olden dayes, well...
17
@13: Hey Pumpkin. A queer African actually living in Africa wants to have a word with you.
Better not disappoint us, m'kay?
Better not disappoint us, m'kay?
18
"But not all religious traditions oppose same-sex marriage. What about their religious freedom?"
I'm going to guess that you didn't grow up in a church family, or at least, a strict church family. Evangelicals have a superiority complex (already a sin) and Catholics think that anyone who doesn't follow their church and the pope is wrong, wrong wrong (judge not lest ye be judged). It pretty much comes down to this: the different denominations think they're the only ones who really understand what God intended and how to worship*. It's a bit like PC vs Mac.
(The Mormons are another good example and is there any reason you left them off after their shameful behavior in California?)
How is it that Christians can quote the Golden rule and yet miss the point repeatedly?
I'm going to guess that you didn't grow up in a church family, or at least, a strict church family. Evangelicals have a superiority complex (already a sin) and Catholics think that anyone who doesn't follow their church and the pope is wrong, wrong wrong (judge not lest ye be judged). It pretty much comes down to this: the different denominations think they're the only ones who really understand what God intended and how to worship*. It's a bit like PC vs Mac.
(The Mormons are another good example and is there any reason you left them off after their shameful behavior in California?)
How is it that Christians can quote the Golden rule and yet miss the point repeatedly?
20
Gotta love LC's crazy, absolutely out of touch viewpoint. When the council vote goes 9-2 and the mayor makes a big deal out of the signing, you can bet that the electorate of DC is behind them. Here's hoping that some wingnut takes this to a popular vote, so that it can be reaffirmed and make LC's head explode.
21
@15: how about Christianity? From the book Same-Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe:
"[T]he earliest Greek liturgical manuscript--Barberini 336, probably written in the eighth century in Italy, where Greek liturgical offices were common into early modern times--contains four ceremonies for sacramental union [including] ceremonies (simply called "prayers") for heterosexual marriage . . . and a comparable prayer for uniting two men. All [these] forms of union persisted among Greek-speaking and other Christians . . . The manual itself dates from the eighth century, but the ceremonies it records are unquestionably much older . . . There are many similarities of wording between [the] heterosexual union ceremony and the ceremony of same-sex union, suggesting substantial mutual influence or parallel development." (178-179).
The footnote adds that a version for uniting two women was added later.
"[T]he earliest Greek liturgical manuscript--Barberini 336, probably written in the eighth century in Italy, where Greek liturgical offices were common into early modern times--contains four ceremonies for sacramental union [including] ceremonies (simply called "prayers") for heterosexual marriage . . . and a comparable prayer for uniting two men. All [these] forms of union persisted among Greek-speaking and other Christians . . . The manual itself dates from the eighth century, but the ceremonies it records are unquestionably much older . . . There are many similarities of wording between [the] heterosexual union ceremony and the ceremony of same-sex union, suggesting substantial mutual influence or parallel development." (178-179).
The footnote adds that a version for uniting two women was added later.
22
@1
It cuts both ways.
No one has "imposed" anything on homosexuals-
the cultural values we all (as a nation) inherited were that homosexual behavior is wrong (and it was generally illegal). And (as other posters have already pointed out) ALL religious "traditions" present in this country view homosexual behavior as immoral. (yes, some "enlightened" "liberal" elements of various religious "traditions" have embraced homosexuality but that is the fad of the moment- come back in a hundred years and we will see if it is anyones' "tradition"...)
Homosexuals now wish to force everyone else to embrace and endorse their religious views of marriage.
Homosexuals are forcing their religion on the rest of society.
You may "explore spirituality and faith" to your hearts content.
You may not, however, force the rest of the country to accompany you on your little adventure.
Keep your "explorations" of spirituality and faith out of our laws and institutions.
It cuts both ways.
No one has "imposed" anything on homosexuals-
the cultural values we all (as a nation) inherited were that homosexual behavior is wrong (and it was generally illegal). And (as other posters have already pointed out) ALL religious "traditions" present in this country view homosexual behavior as immoral. (yes, some "enlightened" "liberal" elements of various religious "traditions" have embraced homosexuality but that is the fad of the moment- come back in a hundred years and we will see if it is anyones' "tradition"...)
Homosexuals now wish to force everyone else to embrace and endorse their religious views of marriage.
Homosexuals are forcing their religion on the rest of society.
You may "explore spirituality and faith" to your hearts content.
You may not, however, force the rest of the country to accompany you on your little adventure.
Keep your "explorations" of spirituality and faith out of our laws and institutions.
23
I am looking forward to it being voted in in places around the country. It may take some time still to get large-enough voting blocs on board, but once we do, then what will their argument be? If you're sticking to "majority rules" as your reasoning, then what the hell can you say when the majorities put it in place?
In the meantime, I'm glad to see that it's being legislated in.
In the meantime, I'm glad to see that it's being legislated in.
24
@13 just when I thought you couldn't grate on people's nerves anymore, you introduce the awkwardly-placed contraction. Ouch. Attacking all of my sensibilities at once, that's what LC's.
26
No one is imposing anything on anyone else with this law, whatsoever. Don't want a gay marriage? Don't get one. Don't want to belong to a religious organization that recognizes gay marriage? Don't join one. We are just ensuring that all of our citizens may be equally protected under the law, and enjoy the benefits of the legal institution of civil marriage, such as inheritance and tax laws.
The citizens of DC have spoken. We have elected numerous openly gay and straight council members and mayors who have promised marriage equality over the years; belong to organizations that support equality for all citizens; supported the human rights act, which expanded the civil rights protections of national laws to more minority groups, including homosexuals. A small but vocal faction, largely based outside the DC community, is trying to stymie the will of the vast majority of the people of DC, expressed through our duly elected representatives after considering the input of the citizenry. If this law is struck down, it will truly be an imposition of the tyranny of the MINORITY.
The citizens of DC have spoken. We have elected numerous openly gay and straight council members and mayors who have promised marriage equality over the years; belong to organizations that support equality for all citizens; supported the human rights act, which expanded the civil rights protections of national laws to more minority groups, including homosexuals. A small but vocal faction, largely based outside the DC community, is trying to stymie the will of the vast majority of the people of DC, expressed through our duly elected representatives after considering the input of the citizenry. If this law is struck down, it will truly be an imposition of the tyranny of the MINORITY.
27
I checked with Baby Jesus, and he says he's fine with gays getting married.
But he doesn't like rich people doing things in his name ...
But he doesn't like rich people doing things in his name ...
28
26
" If this law is struck down, it will truly be an imposition of the tyranny of the MINORITY."
Sort of like what the homosexuals tried to do by overturning voter imposed bans on gay marriage in California?
Twice??
You fool no one with your "citizens have spoken" bullshit.
You would be thrilled to see a judge come in and screw the "citizen's will" over if it went against you.
" If this law is struck down, it will truly be an imposition of the tyranny of the MINORITY."
Sort of like what the homosexuals tried to do by overturning voter imposed bans on gay marriage in California?
Twice??
You fool no one with your "citizens have spoken" bullshit.
You would be thrilled to see a judge come in and screw the "citizen's will" over if it went against you.
29
Loveschild is an addict. She really, honestly can't stop thinking about "gay." I was half-joking in my post @10 about Loveschild being like an alcoholic drawn to any blog post with the word "gay" in its title, but then, sure enough, she showed up only 3 posts later @13. It's not like Loveschild is regularly posting on other social or political topics around here. Unless the post has the word "gay" in it, you rarely see her commenting on anything else. That's serious obsessive-compulsive behavior. Slog could post a message titled word-for-word "Beep Beep Beep GAY Biff Bam Boom" and the entire text of that message could simply read "blah blah blah blah blah GAY blah blah blah blah blah blah" and Loveschild would be drawn to it, helplessly, like a moth to flame. She really can't stop. From the frequency that we see her here, "gay" must take up about 3/4ths of her every thought.
31
Yes! Try again. Visit Voices4Equality.org - an organization that is working to put the issue on the ballot again in California. What has been voted in by a small majority can be voted out by a small majority. Don't give up.
32
If LC tried harder to emulate Jesus the Christ that she says she worships, she wouldn't be such a hateful troll.
33
Baconcat @ 12 - You ARE the Alpha Homosexual, and we, your humble bitches.
LOL - Thanks for the chuckle. :)
LOL - Thanks for the chuckle. :)
34
Okay, folks, a quick reminder of what constitutes traditional marriage in the US.
~ Marriage is between one man and any number of women.
~ Interracial marriage is forbidden.
~ Divorce is forbidden in all circumstances except adultery.
~ Contraception is forbidden between married couples.
~ Wives automatically take the surname of the husband.
~ Ownership of all property of the wives is transferred to the husband.
~ Wives may not own property.
~ Abortion can only occur with the consent of the husband.
~ Married women are forbidden to work.
~ Wives are required to submit sexually to their husbands.
~ Cousins may marry. Uncles may marry neices. Nephews may marry aunts (but rarely do). In-laws may not marry each other.
Interracial marriage, no-fault divorce, contraception within marriage, women's property rights, women's employment rights, women's healthcare rights and women's sexual rights are all non-traditional.
Any argument regarding traditional marriage is defined (as per the statutes of the US) above.
Get it, raphael?
~ Marriage is between one man and any number of women.
~ Interracial marriage is forbidden.
~ Divorce is forbidden in all circumstances except adultery.
~ Contraception is forbidden between married couples.
~ Wives automatically take the surname of the husband.
~ Ownership of all property of the wives is transferred to the husband.
~ Wives may not own property.
~ Abortion can only occur with the consent of the husband.
~ Married women are forbidden to work.
~ Wives are required to submit sexually to their husbands.
~ Cousins may marry. Uncles may marry neices. Nephews may marry aunts (but rarely do). In-laws may not marry each other.
Interracial marriage, no-fault divorce, contraception within marriage, women's property rights, women's employment rights, women's healthcare rights and women's sexual rights are all non-traditional.
Any argument regarding traditional marriage is defined (as per the statutes of the US) above.
Get it, raphael?
35
Psst! #29! Loveschild is actually a closeted, repressed, gay, white man! That's why he just can't help himself.
37
Dan, please answer @ 18 and 22. Please?
Bacon, you're hilarious. Thanks for the laughs.
Loveschild, you are a SKID MARK on slog.
Bacon, you're hilarious. Thanks for the laughs.
Loveschild, you are a SKID MARK on slog.
38
Dan - Nice point. There are religious groups that will marry same-sex couples, so I think those geyz need to shout out that the man is keeping them down by not respecting their religious beliefs. Isn't that what the RFRA was all about? It wasn't just for peyote-smoking prisoners....
39
I'm glad you asked that question, Bethany.
Before 1862, polygyny was legal and practiced (mostly by the Mormons) until the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act was passed by Lincoln. It would still take years before it was successfully enforced.
Note that polyandry (one wife, multiple husbands) or polygamy involving a more even mix of both sexes was right out.
Note also: That's 86 years of polygynous American tradition!
Before 1862, polygyny was legal and practiced (mostly by the Mormons) until the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act was passed by Lincoln. It would still take years before it was successfully enforced.
Note that polyandry (one wife, multiple husbands) or polygamy involving a more even mix of both sexes was right out.
Note also: That's 86 years of polygynous American tradition!
40
39
The article you link does not say that.
The Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act covered territories only, not States within the United States.
Polygamy was illegal in Illinois, the Mormons' practice of it was a key factor in the violence that lead to the murder of Joseph Smith and expulsion of Mormons from Illinois.
The Mormons went to the Salt Lake valley, then part of Mexico, to escape American laws banning polygamy.
Polygamy was practiced by Mormons but that put them at great conflict with United States law and societal values.
Polygamy has never been part of what constitutes traditional marriage in the US.
The article you link does not say that.
The Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act covered territories only, not States within the United States.
Polygamy was illegal in Illinois, the Mormons' practice of it was a key factor in the violence that lead to the murder of Joseph Smith and expulsion of Mormons from Illinois.
The Mormons went to the Salt Lake valley, then part of Mexico, to escape American laws banning polygamy.
Polygamy was practiced by Mormons but that put them at great conflict with United States law and societal values.
Polygamy has never been part of what constitutes traditional marriage in the US.
41
34
What is your point?
Raphael just pointed out that homosexual marriage has never been a part of American religious tradition.
What is your point?
Raphael just pointed out that homosexual marriage has never been a part of American religious tradition.
42
Oh my gosh, Bethany, you're not saying polygamy is still legal in the states are you? Or was another law passed previously that outlawed polygamy within all ratified states?
Last I checked, it wasn't in the Constitution, and I couldn't find any other federal ordinance that proscribed polygamous marriages, so that was it for the feds. Maybe the states were expected to cover marriage statutes in their own constitutions. Yes?
Please provide a link for the federal law if you have one, Bethany. But an Illinois code does not speak for the traditions of the United States as a whole nation.
To answer your question, my point to Raphael is that marital tradition may not be the best basis on which we define what is right for marriage. To date, we have deviated far and wide already from traditional marriage as the society transformed with the times.
Last I checked, it wasn't in the Constitution, and I couldn't find any other federal ordinance that proscribed polygamous marriages, so that was it for the feds. Maybe the states were expected to cover marriage statutes in their own constitutions. Yes?
Please provide a link for the federal law if you have one, Bethany. But an Illinois code does not speak for the traditions of the United States as a whole nation.
To answer your question, my point to Raphael is that marital tradition may not be the best basis on which we define what is right for marriage. To date, we have deviated far and wide already from traditional marriage as the society transformed with the times.
43
42
Try to follow.
Within the United States laws on marriage were and are state, not Federal matters. The states each had laws outlawing polygamy.
Hence the Mormons fled outside the borders of the United States.
The Mexican War placed the Mormons in US Territory (as opposed to being in a State of the United States), and thus covered by Federal (and not State) law.
The Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act was passed to bring law in the territories in line with law within the various states, that is to outlaw polygamy.
Territories seeking admission as States after that point were required to have provisions in their Constitutions banning polygamy, again because it was a matter regulated by state and not Federal law.
You won't find Federal laws against polygamy, you must look to the laws of Illinois and the other states to discover the traditions of the United States as a whole nation in this matter.
(In 1878 the unanimous Supreme Court decision Reynolds v. United States declared that polygamy was not protected by the Constitution.)
Try to follow.
Within the United States laws on marriage were and are state, not Federal matters. The states each had laws outlawing polygamy.
Hence the Mormons fled outside the borders of the United States.
The Mexican War placed the Mormons in US Territory (as opposed to being in a State of the United States), and thus covered by Federal (and not State) law.
The Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act was passed to bring law in the territories in line with law within the various states, that is to outlaw polygamy.
Territories seeking admission as States after that point were required to have provisions in their Constitutions banning polygamy, again because it was a matter regulated by state and not Federal law.
You won't find Federal laws against polygamy, you must look to the laws of Illinois and the other states to discover the traditions of the United States as a whole nation in this matter.
(In 1878 the unanimous Supreme Court decision Reynolds v. United States declared that polygamy was not protected by the Constitution.)
44
Did you really think I'd have difficulty following, Bethany?
So in 1787, when Delaware, Pennsilvania and New Jersey were ratified into the constitution, they already had local anti-bigamy laws? And I take it was the same for each of the states as they, too entered the United States of America?
(I'm genuinely asking, as I don't know myself.) If this is true for the original thirteen, then your point would be fairly solid, but if some states didn't have such laws in place, it'd be harder to say which state laws define the traditions of country and which do not. One can't really cherry-pick the traditions of one state or another for the sake of a contemporary appeal to national tradition, can one?
And even so, even without the polygamy as a tradition of the US. (I'll grant, in the spirit of a fair assessment of history, polygyny was very unpopular), the traditions of marriage in the US, compared to what it is now, are still pretty barbaric. And gay marriage does seem a logical next step once we moved beyond the fears of miscegenation.
So in 1787, when Delaware, Pennsilvania and New Jersey were ratified into the constitution, they already had local anti-bigamy laws? And I take it was the same for each of the states as they, too entered the United States of America?
(I'm genuinely asking, as I don't know myself.) If this is true for the original thirteen, then your point would be fairly solid, but if some states didn't have such laws in place, it'd be harder to say which state laws define the traditions of country and which do not. One can't really cherry-pick the traditions of one state or another for the sake of a contemporary appeal to national tradition, can one?
And even so, even without the polygamy as a tradition of the US. (I'll grant, in the spirit of a fair assessment of history, polygyny was very unpopular), the traditions of marriage in the US, compared to what it is now, are still pretty barbaric. And gay marriage does seem a logical next step once we moved beyond the fears of miscegenation.
45
Yes.
VERY nice touch having the signing ceremony in a church.
And appropriate.
Since this represents forcing the religious values of a minority on the entire population, by law.
I suspect if a governor was signing a law outlawing gay marriage and went to a Catholic or Baptist or Mormon Church to sign the bill Dan would be pissing himself yellow and screaming to revoke tax exempt status.
Hypocrite.
VERY nice touch having the signing ceremony in a church.
And appropriate.
Since this represents forcing the religious values of a minority on the entire population, by law.
I suspect if a governor was signing a law outlawing gay marriage and went to a Catholic or Baptist or Mormon Church to sign the bill Dan would be pissing himself yellow and screaming to revoke tax exempt status.
Hypocrite.
46
Good Mother Of Bridget! Allegedly, is that you? How good to see you! Look how much you've grown!
So tell me, Allegedly, how does this [the signing of the DC gay marriage bill] represent forcing the religious values of a minority on the entire population, by law? How does that work, Allegedly?
Is it the same way that legally eating a Philly cheesesteak forces the religious values of one sect on another? Is it the same way that legally working on Saturday (or on Sunday) is forcing the religious values of one sect on another?
Last I checked, we were all big on religious liberty around here, which means I don't have to obey your stupid family values (e.g. conformity to the nuclear family model) and you don't have to obey my stupid family values (e.g. self-determinism). Isn't that right, Allegedly?
PS: When the bill was signed in a church, was it an anti-gay-marriage church?
So tell me, Allegedly, how does this [the signing of the DC gay marriage bill] represent forcing the religious values of a minority on the entire population, by law? How does that work, Allegedly?
Is it the same way that legally eating a Philly cheesesteak forces the religious values of one sect on another? Is it the same way that legally working on Saturday (or on Sunday) is forcing the religious values of one sect on another?
Last I checked, we were all big on religious liberty around here, which means I don't have to obey your stupid family values (e.g. conformity to the nuclear family model) and you don't have to obey my stupid family values (e.g. self-determinism). Isn't that right, Allegedly?
PS: When the bill was signed in a church, was it an anti-gay-marriage church?
47
@13
I disagree with your claim that this bill has denied people the right to vote. As I understand it, this bill went through all proper legal channels to become a law. Thus, it is as legitimate in its passage as any other law in the vicinity of Washington D.C. That is, those laws were passed in the same exact manner. It sometimes appears to me that you feel same-sex marriage should always be up for a vote, even when other issues are not. Perhaps I am wrong in assuming this. If you believe I am incorrect, feel free to clarify.
If, however, I am correct in assuming that, I must contest your position on the grounds that it represents an unfair standard with no legal precedent to support its validity. I await your rebuttal when you get the opportunity to post it.
I disagree with your claim that this bill has denied people the right to vote. As I understand it, this bill went through all proper legal channels to become a law. Thus, it is as legitimate in its passage as any other law in the vicinity of Washington D.C. That is, those laws were passed in the same exact manner. It sometimes appears to me that you feel same-sex marriage should always be up for a vote, even when other issues are not. Perhaps I am wrong in assuming this. If you believe I am incorrect, feel free to clarify.
If, however, I am correct in assuming that, I must contest your position on the grounds that it represents an unfair standard with no legal precedent to support its validity. I await your rebuttal when you get the opportunity to post it.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Hating People Doesn't Make Them Thinner by Jen Graves
-
Los Angeles Gay Bar Bans Bachelorette Parties Until Marriage Equality Is Attained by David Schmader
-
Fill in the Blank by Grant Brissey
-
This Reminds Me of the Great Calculator Scare of the Late '70s/Early '80s by David Schmader
-
Idiot Tries to Defend Bigoted Anti-Gay-Marriage Preacher on Anderson Cooper by Paul Constant
-
Six Moms with Too Much Time on Their Hands and a Shitty Website Decide to Fight Gay Superheroes by Paul Constant
-
Why Mayor McGinn's Wife Canceled Her Family's Seattle Times Subscription by Eli Sanders
-
What the Hell Is Wrong With Seattle's Pride Parade? by Dominic Holden
-
The Saturday Morning News by Unpaid Intern
-
NYC Man Ticketed for Not Riding in the Bike Lane by Jonathan Golob
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (47) RSS