Slog
News & ArtsFriday, March 1, 2013
LGBTQITSLFA The Eight State Solution
Posted by Dan Savage on Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 9:30 AM
SCOTUSblog explains the Obama administration's amicus brief backing the repeal of Prop 8. Andrew approves:
I confessed recently that if we got a gay Loving vs Virginia this June, I would certainly weep for joy. But in a country still divided 50 – 50 on the issue, I think my tears can wait. And that’s why I think the Obama DOJ has taken exactly the right approach in both joining the Supreme Court suits over Prop 8 [PDF] and DOMA [PDF] and in making the simple and modest arguments they have. They both understand and express for the first time the systemic discrimination gay Americans have lived under for centuries, and they are small-c conservative, in that they stop short of a full-scale federal equal protection argument that would mandate marriage equality across the entire country at once.... Basically, the administration is arguing that if you give gay couples all the rights and responsibilities of marriage, but withhold the name, you are discriminating less rationally than those who refuse to give gay couples any rights at all. You are legislating only stigma. And on the DOMA question, the brief argues that if a state recognizes a marriage, the federal government should defer to the state, as was the case throughout American history until 1996.
1
What happened to that "Everything BUT Marriage" law I voted for?
The gay agenda continues to mess with religious people, who have a right to their opinions too (though you may disagree with that kind of "Diversity").
The gay agenda continues to mess with religious people, who have a right to their opinions too (though you may disagree with that kind of "Diversity").
2
@1
I thought that we'd already covered "Separate but equal" never is. Or we can really "change marriage" and rewrite the civil contract so that it applies equally across the board and straight couples can call themselves "everything BUT married".
If your marriage is so weak that it can be threatened by someone else's, then you don't need legislation to strengthen it. You need marriage counseling.
I'm just saying the same thing that's been said over and over again. But then so are you.
I thought that we'd already covered "Separate but equal" never is. Or we can really "change marriage" and rewrite the civil contract so that it applies equally across the board and straight couples can call themselves "everything BUT married".
If your marriage is so weak that it can be threatened by someone else's, then you don't need legislation to strengthen it. You need marriage counseling.
I'm just saying the same thing that's been said over and over again. But then so are you.
3
@2
"If your marriage is so weak that it can be threatened by someone else's, then you don't need legislation to strengthen it. You need marriage counseling."
That's so well put I felt it needed repeating.
"If your marriage is so weak that it can be threatened by someone else's, then you don't need legislation to strengthen it. You need marriage counseling."
That's so well put I felt it needed repeating.
4
@1, Don't you mean "Everything But Equal?"
Religious people are messing with those who don't have the same religion they do by passing laws forcing others to adhere to their religious beliefs. That is their idea of diversity. And yes, I disagree with that brand of diversity, since it's very short on, you know, diversity.
Religious people are messing with those who don't have the same religion they do by passing laws forcing others to adhere to their religious beliefs. That is their idea of diversity. And yes, I disagree with that brand of diversity, since it's very short on, you know, diversity.
5
@1
What happened to it is that it's been revealed as the BS that it always was. Marriage in this country has always been a civil matter - not a single legal, financial, or political right or responsibility happens because someone has a wedding ceremony in church. They all happen because the marriage is recognized by the state.
If a couple has a religious ceremony but gets no license or files anything with the state, they aren't married as far as the state is concerned.
On the other hand, if the couple has a civil ceremony with a license and proper filing, but no religious blessing, they are fully recognized by the state.
So the claim that marriage in the US is and always has been a religious matter, and that the prejudices of religious people outweigh the equal rights of taxpaying citizens is ludicrous.
Religious people have both a right to their opinion, and the absolute right to decide what religious and theological significance they put on civil matters. If Catholics don't want to accept the religious validity of a divorce or second marriage, that's fine, and if anyone doesn't want to recognize the religious validity of a same-sex marriage, that's equally fine - and nothing about civil same-sex marriage changes that.
You have the right to the opinions you have a right to. You don't get to group together and use those opinions to unconstitutionally restrict your fellow citizens' rights.
What happened to it is that it's been revealed as the BS that it always was. Marriage in this country has always been a civil matter - not a single legal, financial, or political right or responsibility happens because someone has a wedding ceremony in church. They all happen because the marriage is recognized by the state.
If a couple has a religious ceremony but gets no license or files anything with the state, they aren't married as far as the state is concerned.
On the other hand, if the couple has a civil ceremony with a license and proper filing, but no religious blessing, they are fully recognized by the state.
So the claim that marriage in the US is and always has been a religious matter, and that the prejudices of religious people outweigh the equal rights of taxpaying citizens is ludicrous.
Religious people have both a right to their opinion, and the absolute right to decide what religious and theological significance they put on civil matters. If Catholics don't want to accept the religious validity of a divorce or second marriage, that's fine, and if anyone doesn't want to recognize the religious validity of a same-sex marriage, that's equally fine - and nothing about civil same-sex marriage changes that.
You have the right to the opinions you have a right to. You don't get to group together and use those opinions to unconstitutionally restrict your fellow citizens' rights.
6
You say "religious" people.
I say "old white racists".
Just because they cover their hatred with the cloak of religion, doesn't make it a religion, even if their speakers pretend they're Christian.
I say "old white racists".
Just because they cover their hatred with the cloak of religion, doesn't make it a religion, even if their speakers pretend they're Christian.
7
The other, equally (possibly even more) important part of the brief is the call for laws involving sexual orientation to be evaluated using heightened scrutiny.
No matter what else the Court rules, if the recognize that and rule that all laws require heightened scrutiny, all the other laws and anti-gay amendments become legally shaky at best.
While this brief calls for an immediate result of adding 8 more states to the marriage equality rolls, it also essentially calls for a reevaluation of every other state's anti-gay laws - and under heightened scrutiny, none of them will be able to stand.
No matter what else the Court rules, if the recognize that and rule that all laws require heightened scrutiny, all the other laws and anti-gay amendments become legally shaky at best.
While this brief calls for an immediate result of adding 8 more states to the marriage equality rolls, it also essentially calls for a reevaluation of every other state's anti-gay laws - and under heightened scrutiny, none of them will be able to stand.
8
@1 Not all religious people come to the same conclusions you do. I'm a member of a Friends Meeting that decided, on religious grounds, to offer our sacraments, support, certification, blessings and witness to the marriages of same-sex couples years before our state woke up and granted civil legal status to all the marriages we support.
So your religious idea of "freedom" infringes on our religious freedom. This conflict is why the only religious freedom is when the state ignores the church, neither prohibiting nor approving any, and governing solely on a secular basis.
In other words, you can go ahead and be pricks in your own religious practice and belief, but leave us and our civil government out of it.
So your religious idea of "freedom" infringes on our religious freedom. This conflict is why the only religious freedom is when the state ignores the church, neither prohibiting nor approving any, and governing solely on a secular basis.
In other words, you can go ahead and be pricks in your own religious practice and belief, but leave us and our civil government out of it.
9
@1 You can have any opinion you want, but you can't make it into law, or use it to stifle the rights of others.
Now go pray or something.
Now go pray or something.
10
Gotta say that Sully sounds like an old-fashioned self-hating homo when he talks about the rights of states to shit on their gays, or how concerned he is with popular discomfort with his homosexuality.
Also, his latest posts on media sound so narcissistic to me, but that's not really related to this post.
Also, his latest posts on media sound so narcissistic to me, but that's not really related to this post.
11
@1, you have every right to your opinion and your choice of religion. Your religion can promote whatever belief system it wants.
But what you don't have, is the right to impose your religious beliefs on me or any other citizen. You don't have the right to enshrine your religious beliefs in civil law.
If your religion doesn't believe gays should be allowed to marry, that's just fine with me. I'm not asking your church to allow me to get married. I'm asking the government to issue me a civil marriage license.
But what you don't have, is the right to impose your religious beliefs on me or any other citizen. You don't have the right to enshrine your religious beliefs in civil law.
If your religion doesn't believe gays should be allowed to marry, that's just fine with me. I'm not asking your church to allow me to get married. I'm asking the government to issue me a civil marriage license.
13
It becomes a legal nightmare at the point that the laws applying to married couples changes (tax rates). Are you always going to have to have one law for married and one for DPs? Or will you simply let these laws drift apart over time? In the end, just using marriage and letting the same laws apply seems expedient.
14
@13 "Are you always going to have to have one law for married and one for DPs?"
Given monogamish couples, yoiu must also consider the points of intersection and divergence between marriage and DPs.
Given monogamish couples, yoiu must also consider the points of intersection and divergence between marriage and DPs.
15
Diversity without equality is meaningless. So yah, #1, anyone rational is going to disagree with your "diversity". Why do you care if they use the word? Screw semantics, I want my queer friends to be able to adopt, to not get deported if their spouse dies and they aren't a recognized citizen because their marriage wasn't federally valid, to have next of kin rights, to collect their spouse's social security. Is your damned word THAT important?
16
But couldn't you do all of that shit under the "EVERYTHING but marriage" law that was passed? Yes you could, and it should have been left at that. But NOOOOOO, ya had to be a dick about it, didn't ya?
Marriage to most people has ancient religious connotations BEYOND tax law and feel-good verbiage. By co-opting the language of "marriage," the gay posse has totally fucked with religious folks.
I know that is what the gay lobby wants, because religion has eschewed homosexuality since, forever. Lots of sour grapes undoubtedly. But two wrongs don't make a right...
Marriage to most people has ancient religious connotations BEYOND tax law and feel-good verbiage. By co-opting the language of "marriage," the gay posse has totally fucked with religious folks.
I know that is what the gay lobby wants, because religion has eschewed homosexuality since, forever. Lots of sour grapes undoubtedly. But two wrongs don't make a right...
18
Please Pridge, taketh not the Lord's name in vain whilst commenting on Homo-thes-uals and their "marriages" [lispy voice].
Think di-ver-si-ty...
Think di-ver-si-ty...
19
You come in here, hurling insults, and then have the nerve to get offended by someone using 'god' (lower case, no less)? That's some serious chutzpah, pal.
20
I'm so excited to be young lesbian and witness these historic attitude shifts. When I realized I was attracted to women I didn't know "gay" was a thing. My parents home schooled me on an eighty acre farm in Arkansas, complete with 2 hours per day devoted to bible study. Moving from that kind of ignorance to this type of progress is mind blowing! Also stop feeding the troll. GeneStoner is perfectly aware of why we know they are wrong but some old dude in front of a row of pews convinced them that hatred of homosexuality is really love. First hand experience taught me that until you heal your own heart you can never understand that God loves all his children equally, and we should love our "siblings" as our Father has demonstrated.
21
@16 actually it is Matrimony, Holy Matrimony, to be precise, that is the Religious right.
Marriage is a Civil right.
Whatever. Cling to your Bible and fan yourself as you get the vapors, Jesus Christ doesn't give a shit.
Marriage is a Civil right.
Whatever. Cling to your Bible and fan yourself as you get the vapors, Jesus Christ doesn't give a shit.
22
opps that should have been "rite" in the first sentence.
But I'm sure Gene is too stoned to know the difference.
But I'm sure Gene is too stoned to know the difference.
23
Hey mr framed, cite your source on the "marriage is a civil right." Is a "civil right" whatever YOU say it is? Where have those "civil rights" been enshrined?
BTW, ad hominem remarks about my screen name just show the weakness of your argument.
BTW, ad hominem remarks about my screen name just show the weakness of your argument.
24
v"Looking to earn extra cash online?
When you take a break , go and click some advertises and make some tasks, i use clixsens for 1 hour a day, and I earn about 100 dolars in first week.After you create an acount , invite some friends to join this.you will earn comission from their earnings.
The address is :
http://www.clixsense.com/?5244493
We will talk more on the site.You can ask me for help there.
Payments Via Check, Payza, PayPal and Liberty Reserve
PS: IT IS NOT A VIRUS"
When you take a break , go and click some advertises and make some tasks, i use clixsens for 1 hour a day, and I earn about 100 dolars in first week.After you create an acount , invite some friends to join this.you will earn comission from their earnings.
The address is :
http://www.clixsense.com/?5244493
We will talk more on the site.You can ask me for help there.
Payments Via Check, Payza, PayPal and Liberty Reserve
PS: IT IS NOT A VIRUS"
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Portland Voters Are Stoopid by Goldy
-
An I-5 Bridge Over the Skagit River Has Collapsed by Paul Constant
-
Rightwing Anti-Gay French Activist Commits Suicide at Notre Dame Cathedral by Dan Savage
-
Why They Break Windows by Unpaid Intern
-
Spoiled Rotten: Star Trek Into Darkness by Paul Constant
-
Usually When I'm Sent a Photoshopped Image of a Gun Pointed At Me... by Dan Savage
-
There Are No Atheists In Foxholes by Dan Savage
-
Tornado Truthers by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: Did You Think I Was Going To Tell You Not To Come Out? (PLUS: Help Free Kate!) by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: Have You Ever Heard of...? by Dan Savage
Stranger Personals
The Stranger
RSSSeattle Art & Performance Quarterly
A complete guide to Seattle's current art, film, dance, and theater season.
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (24) RSS