IN re-reading my post from last night I see I failed to mention that the Manifesto was the document Woodruff came up with to end the practice of polygamy.  He knew there would be many who would abandon the faith so he put the line in there about God not allowing him or any other man in the position to lead them astray..  That was the tie in to polygamy..

Anyway… 

Yes, I do remember the Dixie Chick blow up.  And I also remember Linda Rondstat in Las Vegas being kicked out of a club she was performing in because she said something against the war and against Bush, and some people complained bitterly, so they sacked her.  And they promised to never have her back.

Recently Marie Osmond stated support for gay rights.  What she actually said seemed to me to be a statement of support for gay civil rights, but many have stated her statement was an all out endorsement of gay marriage.  It’s been a week and I haven’t heard her correct them yet, so maybe that is what she meant.

If so, I am now a bigger fan than ever.  I always liked her, but if this is true I have some very warm feelings for her..  That is courageous on her part..
*************************************

I was never a fan, but I could become one!  Brave artists are rare—remember Natalie Maines and the Dixie Chicks?

I know very little about Mormons.  Certainly not enough to speak intelligently.  All I know is about the break-away sect that was in the news, their HUGE battle for Prop 8, and that they have to spend 2 years abroad trying to convert people.  And they run the reddest Red State in the Union.

Well I don’t know about the basis of it in a book of fiction, or in the Muslim world.  I am familiar with it in the Old Testament. 

With Mormonism, the story is pretty sad.  The founding prophet, Joseph Smith - and his wife Emma, adopted a 15 year old girl named Fanny Alger and he had sexual relations with her.  When Emma found out she went balistic and sent for Oliver Cowdery, the 2nd highest ranking leader in the early Mormon church.  He sided with Emma and condemned the relationship.  Emma kicked Fanny out of the house. 

Joseph excommunicated Cowdery for apostacy (i.e, insubordination), and to this day members know he was excommunicated for apostacy but are largely unaware of the reason.  Joseph then produced a revelation from God stating it (Polygamy) was an eternal principle and a man could not reach the highest degree of heaven without practicing it.  Emma reportedly threw the copy on paper into the fire.  Nevertheless, Polygamy became the form of marriage for the Mormons, and Fanny Alger became Joseph’s first plural wife (you can read more about here here:  http://www.wivesofjosephsmith.org/02-FannyAlger.htm)

Brigham Young had over 27 wives and over 75 children. 

In Utah the Mormons practiced polygamy, but in reality only about 2% of Mormon men were ‘called’ to do so.  The marriage was arranged by the priesthood leaders (yes male only).  I guess that means only 2% of Mormon males ever had the chance to reach the highest degree of heaven??? 

Finally they abandoned Polygamy in 1890 under extreme pressure from the Feds.  The Mormon prophets had been in hiding for decades and the temple and other Mormon property was being confiscated by the feds. 

In 1890 the 4th prophet, Wilford Woodruff, announced his manifesto stating that God would never allow him or any other Mormon prophet to lead the people astray.  Therein was born a doctrine of infallibility.  To this day Mormons never 2nd guess or question what the prophet has to say because the Manifesto states God would never allow him to lead them astray….  and the Manifesto was canonized into their book of scripture called the Doctrine and Covenants….  So it is scripture to them that they can’t be led astray… 

At the time however, those who truly believed Polygamy was ordained of God declared Woodruff a fallen prophet and splintered off into various and numerous polygamous groups - each complete with their own prophet who took numerous young girls to bed (er, I mean to wife)... 

That is the basis of Polygamy in Mormonism. 

After decades of indoctrination that the Mormon leaders cannot lead them astray, members will pretty much do anything a prophet says.  Thus when he came out against marriage equality and ordered his followers to donate their time and money to fight it….  well..  we all know what happened.  In my mind, these are not true Americans because they won’t weigh an issue on it’s own merits.  They are timid sheep who have forfeited their right and responsibility to think for themselves. 

Now before I get crucified for stating this, I do want to say there are exceptions.  There were even websites created by Mormons who support marriage equality.  But they are a very small exceptions.  And some of those people have been threatened with exommunication. 

Recently Marie Osmond stated support for gay rights.  What she actually said seemed to me to be a statement of support for gay civil rights, but many have stated her statement was an all out endorsement of gay marriage.  It’s been a week and I haven’t heard her correct them yet, so maybe that is what she meant. 

If so, I am now a bigger fan than ever.  I always liked her, but if this is true I have some very warm feelings for her..  That is courageous on her part..

RobertinWestbury, May 14 at 7:54 am #

Those who want polygamy almost exclusively want to practice it as a religious institution.  Off-shoot Mormons and Muslims.  This isn’t an ‘anything’ goes movement.

**************************************

Interesting. I was trying to come to terms with that point and you made it exactly.  You draw the line between an open marriage format and the male-domination demands of two specific religions.  How about the next step? Back to where the man owns his wife/wives and is free to do anything with her or to her, even to killing her? Is that going to be OK too because THAT is the cultural history of polygamy?

Again, what looks good in theory may, in practice, be a disaster.

It’s not like the multiple marriage schema in Robert Heinlein’s “The Moon is a Harsh Mistress” where a “marriage” includes multiple wives AND husbands who pair up as the mood suits them and all the kids are everyones’.  Kind of like a bedroom kibbutz.

But that’s not what it is like at all.  It’s a way for a man to have multiple sexual partners to exploit, to be able to acquire young women as he gets older, and have it sanctioned by law.

“C’mon Robert - you gotta start thinking big!  “Polygamy” doesn’t specify gender.  You really think same-sex polygamy won’t be part of the package?”

Yes I do Marshall, and so do those who are trained in the law.  There is no logical tie-in between marriage equality for same sex couples (a coupling of one on one) and plural marriages involving any number of people or genders. 

Those who want polygamy almost exclusively want to practice it as a religious institution.  Off-shoot Mormons and Muslims.  This isn’t an ‘anything’ goes movement.  Plural marriage in the bible is well documented, despite the argument from right wingers that a monogamous man-woman relationship is how ‘God intended it to be.’ 

I come from a Mormon family where my great grandparents were polygamists.  I likely know a bit more about the mentality of those who believe it (polygamy)is how God intended it to be a tad bit better than you do I’d say. 

It is a scare tactic you right wingers use to cloud the judgement of ‘the people.’  And this is why courts exist so that ‘the people’ have a check on their decision making.  Otherwise we’d have nothing more than mob rule. 

YOu count on that mob mentality to whip up fears and cause people to adopt your political views.  The right side of the political spectrum has always used fear to get people to support them: 

If you pay your tithing to the church, you won’t burn no matter what you do.  If you don’t live by what the church says, you will go to hell and burn forever.  Sadam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction.  Giving gay people the same right to monogamous marriages means we’ll have polygamy down the road…. 

Where would the right be without the fears they promote to control the thinking of others. 

If you look at any of the nations that have adoped marriage equality, some as far back as nearly 15 years…..  do you see any legalization of polygamy? 

Of course not. 

You see societies where people are fee to couple with another of their choice for life.  To seal that companionship that humans need to realize the fullest contentment and mental health in their lives. 

That’s all it is…

Marshall, continuing to tie the hangman’s noose, climb on the chair and slip his head into the loop….

“Robert - with all due respect, you’re fixated on the absolute infallibility of the decidedly liberal CA supremes despite the fact the CA voters were not convinced and overruled their decision - both before and after it was made.”

Ahh so now its clear that any decision by a court that fails to meet with your approval is a hasty and ill conceived effort. Further we have a judicial system independent from our other two branches of govt precisely because the founders understood that people are indeed fallible. Decisions with which you disagree bring out the ‘epithet’ of ‘too liberal’....What a weak argument, interjecting personal observation for studied legal decision.

“There’s been virtually no study of the effects of gay marriage on society to refute or confirm the supreme’s contention - so of course there’s no firm evidence of harm (or benefit).”

This is so childishly foolish as to be unworthy of you, but I do understand the problems in defending with supposed logic a totally illogical position, I sympathize with your difficulty in intellectualizing what is nothing more or less than bigotry.

Gays have been with us forever, some of our wisest philosophers, most famous artists of all genres, people in all walks of life have been such and what harm have they wrought? No, Marshall, the harm you speculate upon in allowing a society in which equal rights for all is the rule is a product of your own fears and prejudices, no matter how you choose to couch this argument. The alternative, which you defend with ever increasing difficulty, is to remain a sick and sorry group of people held back by ancient fears and the passion to discriminate.

By RobertinWestbury, May 13 at 7:34 am #

“California supreme courts said minus any compelling evidence that marriage equality would harm society it couldn’t be denied to gay people.  And they found no such legitimate evidence exists.  It is a fact that there is none.  Marriage equality has not harmed the institution or society in any jurisdiction where it has been legal.  In some places, more than 10 years now.”

Robert - with all due respect, you’re fixated on the absolute infallibility of the decidedly liberal CA supremes despite the fact the CA voters were not convinced and overruled their decision - both before and after it was made.

There’s been virtually no study of the effects of gay marriage on society to refute or confirm the supreme’s contention - so of course there’s no firm evidence of harm (or benefit).  We have seen (and can easily envision) legit examples of undesirable consequences.  The legal sanctioning of same-sex marriage will invariably influence educational content by removing legal barriers to teaching about it to kids (just as opposite-sex marriage stories are taught today) and many parents legitimately do NOT want this taught to their children - either explicitly or implicitly.  Society has the right to promote opposite-sex marriage above other alternate relationship structures, just as it values the nuclear family over single-parent families.  Oh, and for all the generations that single-parent families have existed, only in the last decade or so has consensus emerged about their unequivocal harm to society.

And for all those that poo-poo the idea of a slippery-slope effect resulting from the passage of same-sex marriage, i simply point you to the legal precedent set by the CA court which made the legalization of same-sex possible in Iowa and likely elsewhere (just as it did in Canada).  These cases obviously have legal ripple effects and there’s no question there’s a danger of legitimizing the case for ANY alternate forms of marriage by expanding the definition to include same-sex marriage; something the CA supremes completely ignored.

“Polygamy must be dealt with as Polygamy.  It has more in commone with opposite sex marriage than same sex marriage.  There are opposite sex relationships, not same sex ones. “

C’mon Robert - you gotta start thinking big!  “Polygamy” doesn’t specify gender.  You really think same-sex polygamy won’t be part of the package?  I think the correct PC term is “plural-marriage”, and legalizing it (which of course will include both genders, otherwise it’s discrimination) will be the last stand for the institution of marriage since it will cease to have significance by becoming an umbrella for any type of arrangement.  Now I’m not saying that same-sex marriage will INEVITABLY lead to legalization of plural-marriage, but there’s no question there are powerful groups like the ACLU that will try, with a higher likelihood of success.

Supremes were short sighted and rushed into an important decision, despite statutory consensus to the contrary.  Frankly I think they’d be better suited to singing Motown.

RobertinWestbury, May 13 at 8:39 pm #

Inherit The Wind, in re-reading my post I realized it may appear I was referring to you as a right winger.  Most definately was not.  It was a general reference..
***********************************

And I as yet have no opinion on polygamy. I find it emotionally offensive but that is not justification for banning it. I haven’t worked to my satisfaction the moral justifications either for allowing polygamy or banning it, but I am HIGHLY distrustful of altering law to oblige it to comply with Shariat, if that is the reason.

I think my problem is less the theoretical and more the pragmatic nature of how polygamy is practiced: 15 year old girls married off to middle-aged men who no longer want their 50-something wife for a playmate, now that she’s heavier, sagging and has lines in her face. Yet when it’s consenting adults, how can I object? But is it REALLY consenting adults?

I don’t have the answers, just the questions.

Still, when we look at the legal ramifications of allowing a definition of marriage from simply one man to one woman (which I believe we MUST do) then we also must recognize that we open the legal door to other forms of marriage and we ONLY have the legal authority to block it when one of the parties is NOT an adult or one of the parties is not freely consenting, and not being compelled.

So…I don’t have answers, just questions.

Inherit The Wind, in re-reading my post I realized it may appear I was referring to you as a right winger.  Most definately was not.  It was a general reference..

“But what happens when the demand becomes to recognize polygamy from renegades from the Mormon Church and from the rising numbers of Moslems who advocate multiple wives?  Britain is already facing this dilemma.”

When that time comes, Polygamy must be dealt with as Polygamy.  It has more in commone with opposite sex marriage than same sex marriage.  There are opposite sex relationships, not same sex ones. 

I’ve never understood why the right wingers try to scare people by tying Polygamy to marriage equality for homosexuals? 

There is no logical tie..  In fact, the California Supreme Court ruling last year legalizing marriage equality stated outright there was no legal connection between them:

“the state continues to have a strong and adequate justification for refusing to officially
sanction polygamous or incestuous relationships because of their potentially detrimental effect on a sound family environment. (Accord, e.g., Potter v. Murray City (C.D. Utah 1984) 585 F.Supp. 1126, 1137-1140, affd. (10th Cir. 1985) 760 F.2d 1065, 1068-1071, cert. den. (1985) 474 U.S. 849; People v. Scott, supra, 157 Cal.App.4th 189, 193-194.) Thus, our conclusion that it is improper to interpret
the state constitutional right to marry as inapplicable to gay individuals or couples
does not affect the constitutional validity of the existing legal prohibitions against
polygamy and the marriage of close relatives.”

I was raised to believe homosexuals were “queers” and repulsive.
I was raised to believe “marriage” was between a man and a woman.
I was raised to believe that even though on tolerated “queers” it was OK to sneer at and make fun of them, even in the far left and anti-Viet Nam War circles.
As recently as 25 years ago I thought that while it’s OK to be gay, it’s still a second-best solution.

So?

I have a brain. I have a rational mind. I can learn. I did learn.  I put aside my emotional response and looked at how I was violating my own moral code.

I now UTTERLY refuse to judge relations between happily consenting adults. I don’t say ‘right’ or ‘wrong’, or ‘better’ or ‘worse’.  IT IS NOT MY BUSINESS OR RIGHT TO JUDGE!  Funny thing—my emotional response NOW to seeing a happy Gay couple especially with children is “Great! A happy family” and no more.

I think the problem of marriage vs personal civil unions (PCU for ease) is that “marriage” is a religious concept and the state totally inappropriately got involved and NEVER SHOULD HAVE BEEN!  PCU is a legal contract partnership and, while a special version, is still a legal entity. Marriage should never have been. The REAL proper legal answer is that “marriages” must be removed from the Law and PCUs replace them. Churches, Synagogues, Mosques, Temples, Societies can ALL deem their interpretation of PCUs as “Marriage”

But the problem is this won’t happen.  We are “used” to “marriage” as a government function and have our partner be our “wife” or our “husband”.  So on to Plan B: Marriage should be open to ANY happily consenting adults and create ipso facto a PCU.

When the issue of the suit in Hawaii to legalize Gay marriage arose, I agreed with the principle and the goal, but utterly disagreed with the tactic.

Jim Crow wasn’t overthrown in America by a direct challenge to Plessy vs Fergusaon. Thurgood Marshall was too smart for that.  He labored long and hard to open a single legal crack—that children were being taught White is good and Black is bad and their schools were anything but equal.  He won that decision UNANIMOUSLY—and the dam was broken and could then be brought down.

I think TACTICALLY, persuing PCUs everywhere, even Constitutionally, would have been a better strategy. Open the legal crack. Establish that Gays DO have the same legal rights.  THEN when PCUs are the norm, say “Hey—PCUs ARE marriages—separate but equal is WRONG!”  The strategy of going for the whole enchilada cost us one (2004) perhaps two (and 2000) presidential elections.

Now, however, I think that’s all moot.  State after state will be legalizing Gay marriage and I think that’s great.  It will snowball until NO state can refuse to recognize another state’s Gay marriages.

But what happens when the demand becomes to recognize polygamy from renegades from the Mormon Church and from the rising numbers of Moslems who advocate multiple wives?  Britain is already facing this dilemma.

“So unless you can think of another constitutional right that’s being violated by prohibiting same-sex marriage, the constitution doesn’t buy you anything.”

Nonsense.  You are wrong, and I’ll just say again we have several Supreme Court rulings to prove that.  But then, you know more about the law, apparently, than all the justices combined of those states who spelled out their reasoning in their rulings….  (Not!)... 

“Finally i’ll say that the arguments against allowing it are valid and reasoned.  For example, YOU say that allowing same-sex doesn’t negatively affect traditional marriage; but that’s entirely YOUR opinion.  Traditionalists argue that it does in fact degrade the institution, in addition to having ripple effects with regard to state funding, school content, abuse of the system, and basic societal values.  So don’t make the common mistake of dismissing the opposition’s concerns out of hand as meaningless when they are very real to those who hold them.”

It’s not entirely my opinion Marshall.  The California supreme courts said minus any compelling evidence that marriage equality would harm society it couldn’t be denied to gay people.  And they found no such legitimate evidence exists.  It is a fact that there is none.  Marriage equality has not harmed the institution or society in any jurisdiction where it has been legal.  In some places, more than 10 years now. 

That is reality, not an opinion. 

Your ‘basic societal values’ is nothing more than basic societal prejudice.  And I do dismiss it out of hand. 

“Traditionalists argue that it does in fact degrade the institution”

Tradition is irrelevant to the debate.  Their idea that it degrades the institution is baseless, and it is based on their finding the idea offensive due to their religious beliefs. 

There is no constitutional protection to protect anyone or group (even a majority) from being offended.  If it comes down to my right to equal treatment vs. your being offended….  You will just have to be offended. 

It’s that simple.

This is particularly meaningful to me since I have long observed in the African-American community a tendency to ignore the old adage that as long as one of us is not free, none of us are.  Many blacks contend that the gay rights movement should not compare itself to the African-American struggle for civil rights, based on the obvious notion that a black person cannot hide his or her “difference.” 

Why should they?  Indeed, why should a gay, lesbian, or trans person hide his or her “difference,” either.  The African-American protests too much.  Inherent in his or her eagerness to distance themselves from the sexual minorities is the same sort of prejudice they fought so hard to overcome with the civil rights movement.  The last time I looked, there were as many gay, lesbian, and trans people of color as any other race.  Mr. Robinson has moved ahead of the pack and bravely goes where too many African-Americans refuse to go.  He wants all of us to be free.

Marshal, Did you mean to post such creepiness?
“5. The right to equal protection isn’t being violated because everyone is already treated equally under the law: all can marry, and none can marry the same gender.”
.................................................
What smarminess and what an avoidance of the issue. This may show that you feel the debate slipping away from you or may just represent what you honestly believe, I do not know, but this is simply an avoidance of actual fact that begs the inequality of th esituation.

There are literally thousands of instances where couples of long duration are spearated by illness, with one refused admittance to hospital rooms because they have no legal status, where , after the death of a partner, the survivor has no right to common property including homes they shared.

Your rather flip statement that all are free to engage in heterosexual partnerships is beneath you, is intellectually dishonest and is, unfortunately, rather creepy.

I often wonder why so many of you folks think that allowing people in love to marry somehow violates the “sanctity” of that institution, especially when that sanctity is resulting in a fifty percent failure rate. I think you protest for reasons other that you claim.

By RobertinWestbury, May 12 at 10:25 pm #

“My opinion, stated several times and supported by the quote from the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court is that the majority voting for something is irrelevant if what they vote for violates the principles of a constitution. “

I don’t disagree with the quote at all - it’s fact.  My point is that there has been no successful argument that prohibiting same-sex marriage violates the principles of the constitution.  Why?  For the reasons I’ll list clearly below:

1. Neither constitution addresses marriage anywhere except in the statues that clearly prohibit same-sex marriage (in CA), which carry constitutional weight.
2. Neither constitution addresses sexual orientation.
3. CA voters have effectively amended the constitution with two statutes that clearly prohibit same-sex marriage.
4. The right to “the pursuit of happiness” you mention is not a constitutional right - it’s in the declaration of independence
5. The right to equal protection isn’t being violated because everyone is already treated equally under the law: all can marry, and none can marry the same gender.
6. The right to freedom from discrimination doesn’t apply to sexual orientation, and even if it did, same-sex marriage is about gender, not orientation (in this the supremes were wrong).
7. Freedom of expression doesn’t apply to marriage.

So unless you can think of another constitutional right that’s being violated by prohibiting same-sex marriage, the constitution doesn’t buy you anything.

The way this will be won is that public opinion will gradually change in CA and the people will get behind same-sex and influence CHANGES to the constitution through ballot measures.  But this will happen gradually as the population demographics skew younger.  Younger people are evenly divided on the issue, as opposed to the older generation who roundly oppose it.

Finally i’ll say that the arguments against allowing it are valid and reasoned.  For example, YOU say that allowing same-sex doesn’t negatively affect traditional marriage; but that’s entirely YOUR opinion.  Traditionalists argue that it does in fact degrade the institution, in addition to having ripple effects with regard to state funding, school content, abuse of the system, and basic societal values.  So don’t make the common mistake of dismissing the opposition’s concerns out of hand as meaningless when they are very real to those who hold them.

“And yet that is exactly what the CA constitution consists of; majority established rights.  Are you suggesting it should instead allow a minority to decide what a majority can and can’t have?”

Nope.. 

This isn’t about giving or taking anything from the majority.  Their ability to marry and pursue their happiness is in no way affected if I have the same opportunity. 

My opinion, stated several times and supported by the quote from the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court is that the majority voting for something is irrelevant if what they vote for violates the principles of a constitution. 

And I’ll state again, we are not a democracy where Majority rule is our political process.  We are a constitutional republic first and foremost.  And it is not the job description of the Supreme court justices to simply rubber stamp the will of the majority if that will violates the constitution.  They did swear to defend and uphold the will of the majority.  They swore to uphold and defend the constitution.  They are a check on the power of the legislative and executive branches, and on the will of the people when that will is exercised in a manner that violates the constitution. 

In the case of California, a simple majority can amend a constitution.  And the justices have seemed unwilling to throw Prop 8 out.  The chief justice who wrote so eloquently a year ago says it is a new constitution now.  I don’t know if they will throw it out.  But I believe the arguments by the attorneys representing our side, the arguments by the state’s attorney general, and the briefs filed by every educational and civil rights group in the state - as well as numerous churches… are valid arguments. 

They have the ammo they need to set a marvelous precedent.  Just as that court did in the 40s when they overturned the laws banning racial marriage (please don’t repeat your line about sexual orientation not equating to race.  We all know how you feel, and don’t agree)..

BruSays we need more court rulings on this Issue, and he is right.  If the Supremes in California do the right thing and dump Prop 8, court challenges to all of the amendments passed should proceed.  They are all unconstitutional. 

It mattereth not whether a majority of citizens of that state voted for them or not. 

It has never been legitimate that a class of citizens have had their right to equal treatment under the law put up for vote.  That right is a birthright. 

We have had satisfying court victories in nearly every court that has considered marriage equality.  And the arguments are all based on constitutional principles and did not consider (as they should not have considered) whatever the will of the majority was. 

I agree with Bru, the courts are the only legitimate place for this issue to be decided.  It’s nice that Vermont overrode their Governor, and that New Hampshire and Maine legislated marriage equality.  But it gives me a great sense of security to hear a majority opinion (as was the case in Iowa) of the state’s judiciary acknowledge the right as one that has always been there…. 

We should not need the will of a majority of citizens to ‘give us’ what we already have… the right to equal treatment under the law, and that includes the right to a religiously sanctioned marriage.

By RobertinWestbury, May 12 at 8:30 pm #

“it is irrelevant that the voters rather than a legislative body enacted [the challenged law], because the voters may no more violate the Constitution by enacting a ballot measure than a legislative body may do so by enacting legislation.”

The problem here is that the CA constitution is no more, and no less, than what a majority of the voters of California want it to be.  And CA statutes clearly prohibits same-sex marriage.  Section 308.5 of the Family Law Code (enacted by voters as Proposition 22 in 2000), and now proposition 8, confirm this.  So the only way the courts can overturn voter’s clear choice is by showing that there’s something else already in the constitution that is being violated - and there’s the rub: the CA constitution (aside from the statutes i named) doesn’t weigh in on marriage or sexual orientation (just like the federal constitution).  And same-sex marriage doesn’t discriminate based on sexual orientation anyway; it discriminates based on GENDER (i.e. the only thing preventing two people from marrying is their gender, not their sexual orientation).  So any attempt to challenge the CA voter’s clear preference would be to attack it on the grounds that it discriminates based on gender.  And this is not an easy case to make since marriage already discriminates based on other things, like age.

“So much for Marshall’s humble contention, stated repeatedly, that the majority has the right to decide what a minority can and can’t have…”

And yet that is exactly what the CA constitution consists of; majority established rights.  Are you suggesting it should instead allow a minority to decide what a majority can and can’t have?

Marshall,

I don’t care to jump all over you (Robertin Westbury is doing a far better job than I could ever turn out). But I sense you’ve painted yourself in a corner here and I’m now reading just a few too many IMHOs from you. 

Frankly, I think we’re ALL reading just a few too many opinions on the Same-Sex Marriage issue, humble or otherwise. We’re in need of court decisions and that’s precisely where this is all headed.

Pretty good reasoning from the ‘misguided’ CA decision.

“….Indeed, Chief Justice Burger made the same point for a majority of the United States Supreme Court in Citizens Against Rent Control v. Berkeley (1981)
114 454 U.S. 290, observing emphatically that “t is irrelevant that the voters rather than a legislative body enacted [the challenged law], because the voters may no more violate the Constitution by enacting a ballot measure than a legislative body may do so by enacting legislation.” Accordingly, the circumstance that the electorate voted in favor of retaining the traditional definition of marriage does not exempt the statutory limitation from constitutional review, nor does it demonstrate that the voters’ objective represents a constitutionally compelling state interest for purposes of equal protection
principles….”

“…..While retention of the limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples is not needed to preserve the rights and benefits of opposite-sex couples, the exclusion of same-sex couples from the designation of marriage works a real and appreciable harm upon same-sex couples and their children. As discussed above, because of the long and celebrated history of the term “marriage” and the widespread 72 Contrary to the contention of the Proposition 22 Legal defense Fund and the Campaign, the distinction in nomenclature between marriage and domestic
partnership cannot be defended on the basis of an asserted difference in the effect on children of being raised by an opposite-sex couple instead of by a same-sex couple. Because the governing California statutes permit same-sex couples to adopt and raise children and additionally draw no distinction between married couples and domestic partners with regard to the legal rights and responsibilities
relating to children raised within each of these family relationships, the asserted difference in the effect on children does not provide a justification for the differentiation in nomenclature set forth in the challenged statutes. 118 understanding that this word describes a family relationship unreservedly
sanctioned by the community, the statutory provisions that continue to limit access to this designation exclusively to opposite-sex couples — while providing only a novel, alternative institution for same-sex couples — likely will be viewed as an official statement that the family relationship of same-sex couples is not of
comparable stature or equal dignity to the family relationship of opposite-sex couples. Furthermore, because of the historic disparagement of gay persons, the retention of a distinction in nomenclature by which the term “marriage” is
withheld only from the family relationship of same-sex couples is all the more likely to cause the new parallel institution that has been established for same-sex couples to be considered a mark of second-class citizenship. Finally, in addition
to the potential harm flowing from the lesser stature that is likely to be afforded to
the family relationships of same-sex couples by designating them domestic partnerships, there exists a substantial risk that a judicial decision upholding the differential treatment of opposite-sex and same-sex couples would be understood as validating a more general proposition that our state by now has repudiated: that it is permissible, under the law, for society to treat gay individuals and same-sex couples differently from, and less favorably than, heterosexual individuals and
opposite-sex couples.”

“....but unlike race there is no constitutionally protected class for “gays” or for sexual orientation in general.”

This is not true. In some 36 states you cannot discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.  I noticed today at work an addendum from a few years ago added to the non-discrimination policy of New York state that specifically added sexual orientation to the classes of people that can’t be discriminated against.

By hippie4ever, May 12 at 11:31 am #

“Like Marshall, another proponent of “separate but equal” only as any reasonable person knows, this concept does not exist.”

How is this a “separate but equal” issue?  The problem is you’re equating “Gays” to “Blacks” to draw your comparison, but unlike race there is no constitutionally protected class for “gays” or for sexual orientation in general.  Sexual orientation has nothing to do with this issue since the law applies equally to all sexual orientations.

In that regard, it’s more a gender issue.  For example, I may remain a lifelong bachelor but am prohibited, by law, from declaring myself “married” to my lifelong bachelor friend so that we may enjoy all the full rights and legitimacy of marriage; simply because we’re the same gender.

Seems to me you need to change the law to make sexual orientation a constitutionally protected class.  Without that, there’s no valid discrimination argument - despite the misguided CA/Iowa decisions.  But hey, it’s just IMHO and i’m aware i’m in a losing battle so who cares, right?

I remember the defence by White Southerners for their Jim Crow laws. “We provide water for those people, just not at the most convenient fountain,” and “we allow them inside public buildings unless posted, just not through the front door,” and “we allow our n———to use toilets, just not ours,” and “they are allowed on the bus, just not in the front,” and “they can marry among their own kind, but they better leave our women alone.”

Nobody can act upon such vile impulses, much less spew racism publicly, with impunity anymore. Yet people today can say similar things about lesbians and gays, and pretend they are reasonable people instead of the vicious homophobic bigots they truly are:

“We don’t want people like that teaching our children,” and “we are trying to maintain a FAMILY environment,” and “you are unsuitable to adopt because EVERYBODY knows a child is BEST served by having a father and a mother,” and “our customers do not want the likes of you flaunting your GAY LIFESTYLE at them,” and “it’s Adam and Eve…” and “that’s so GAY” (meaning stupid, vile, gross, repugnant) and my personal favourite (as a target—I’m gay) “die you faggot!”

These are the people trumpeting civil unions, because they’re up against the wall and must moderate their opinions. Like Marshall, another proponent of “separate but equal” only as any reasonable person knows, this concept does not exist.

Marshall, I have already quoted from the California Supreme court that the use of the word marriage does in deed have a constitutional basis.  The Iowa decision supports that belief. 

If I had time, I would go through the California ruling to quote the justices last year who so eloquently pointed out that CU are not equal in California. 

The court did not invent a new right, they simply recognized a right that was already there.

We’re quickly falling into a routine here where we repeat what we’ve already said.  I’m not going to do that. We will just have to agree to disagree on how government should work. 

We are going have full marriage equality in this country. It’s going to come a whole lot sooner than you and those who believe like you want.  And it’s going to come a lot later and with struggles that I would want.  But, it will come.

By RobertinWestbury, May 12 at 12:18 am #

“There are over 1000 state and federal benefits not provided for in civil unions.”

Not in CA.  CUs have all the same benefits.

“It says to us that ‘you are not good enough for us to share our institution with you.  It says ‘We do not believe God approves of your relationships”

No - it says that SOCIETY, not God, intends for “marriage” to be an opposite-sex institution (the marriage we’re discussing is a civil ceremony).  If the bible-thumpers had their way, CUs wouldn’t exist - but i’m not a bible thumper.

“the right of same-sex couples to have their official family relationship accorded the same dignity, respect, and stature as that accorded to all
other officially recognized family relationships.”

Which I exactly disagree with, as did the voters who overruled this decision. The CA court invented a new right of “dignity, respect, and stature” which it believes it is obligated to supply to all recognized relationships and which it believes is absent in anything not characterized as “marriage”.  But those arrangements which are allowed within the definition of marriage are effectively promoted by the state, which I believe it has no obligation to do.  A precedent here is that few people dispute the state’s right to limit marriage in other ways, like for example, between first cousins.  Society has no obligation to legalize first-cousin marriages just because such relationships already exist and because failing to legalize them would not accord them the “respect and dignity” of non cousin relationships.

“We are not a democracy.  We are a constitutional republic.  Constitutions protect individual rights from the tyranny of the majority.”

Okay, then let’s look to the constitution.  Marriage isn’t in the constitution, nor is “pursuit of happiness”, so I don’t know what constitutional guarantee you think applies to same-sex marriage.  “Freedom of expression”?  Not likely.  And your proposal of “freedom of religion” isn’t even close; just because a religion allows something doesn’t mean it’s protected by the constitution.

Constitution does not consider “sexual orientation” a protected class.  But restricting the term “marriage” to opposite-sex couples in no way hinders your right to “equal opportunity” (which btw isn’t in the constitution, so I assume you meant “equal protection”), and it’s perfectly in line with society’s right to promote its own values; like, say, not sanctioning underage marriage.

“it is apparent with your insinuation that if you stop having sex you won’t be less white, that you foolishly believe that if someone stops having sex (the behavior) they will no longer be gay.  Otherwise why the comparison?”

Not my point at all.  My point was that sexuality can change (doesn’t mean it will, but it can) - thus orientation is not a fixed compass.  Whereas race and gender don’t (well not without some serious surgery anyway).

All this adds up to my single point: that the right to use the term “married” in any relationship form you choose has no constitutional guarantee and is entirely an issue of cultural values.  We already make these value distinctions based on other traits like familial relation, age, and the restriction to one spouse.  But to frame this as a civil rights issue has absolutely no validity.

When the US escapes its primitivism, race, gender and sexual orientation will not be factors, as to what rights people are afforded under law. Until then, we’ll just have to put up with bigoted people , who do not see their own rights are bound up with everyone else’s…when they come to take their rights, it wil be too late.

Extreme religiosity belongs in the past.

“It does little since you have civil unions with exact same rights….. It leaves you out of the ability to CALL it ‘marriage’ - that’s all…. in what way [are civil unions unequal] ?

In what way are civil unions unequal?  You really don’t read do you?  There are over 1000 state and federal benefits not provided for in civil unions.  But aside from the factual absence of benefits, there is something more important.  It says to us that ‘you are not good enough for us to share our institution with you.’  It says ‘We do not believe God approves of your relationships, so you may call your unions Civil, but you may not call them marriage.’  It perpetuates a belief that we aren’t worthy of the same institution. 

I’ll simply quote the ruling of the California Supreme Court last year when they legalized same sex marriage:

“Whether or not the name “marriage,” in the abstract, is considered a core
element of the state constitutional right to marry, one of the core elements of this
fundamental right is the right of same-sex couples to have their official family
relationship accorded the same dignity, respect, and stature as that accorded to all
other officially recognized family relationships. The current statutes — by
drawing a distinction between the name assigned to the family relationship
available to opposite-sex couples and the name assigned to the family relationship
available to same-sex couples, and by reserving the historic and highly respected
designation of marriage exclusively to opposite-sex couples while offering same-sex couples only the new and unfamiliar designation of domestic partnership —
pose a serious risk of denying the official family relationship of same-sex couples
the equal dignity and respect that is a core element of the constitutional right to
marry.”

“….and society has the right to promote its majority values as well.  Unfortunately, this nuance of happyness is not a constitutional guarantee.  ……society’s right to enforce its values supercedes my claim to happiness.”

I disagree.  We are not a democracy.  We are a constitutional republic.  Constitutions protect individual rights from the tyranny of the majority. 

This is also a matter of religious freedom.  And it is not the place of the Catholics or Mormons or Evangelicals to prevent the Unitarians, the Church of Christ or any others that believe in sanctioning same sex marriage from doing so. 

I suppose now you’ll say the right to religious freedom only exists if the majority says it does.
“What test confirms sexual orientation?  What doctor can issue a certificate of orientation?”  You’ve got to be kidding….  What test confirms race?  Especially for people of mixed lineage?  There is no test needed.  Even if I chose to be gay, which I did not, my right to equal opportunity would still be there. 

Go the website of the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association.  Read their statements on sexual orientation.  THAT is reality. 
“I think what you mean to say is that in any given moment, sexual ATTRACTION is a physical RESPONSE - but it is by no means a static, innate quality like race or gender.  Not even close.  Hell I may stop having sex altogether when i’m older, but i won’t be any less white or less male.”

That is not what I meant to say.  That is what you meant to say.  Please don’t put words in my mouth.  I am not talking about ‘temptation,’ as you seem to be.  That is a reality for anyone of any orientation.  An orientation is something far different.  And it is apparent with your insinuation that if you stop having sex you won’t be less white, that you foolishly believe that if someone stops having sex (the behavior) they will no longer be gay.  Otherwise why the comparison?

It doesn’t work that way…

By RobertinWestbury, May 11 at 9:21 pm #

“Restrictions on marrying the same sex applies to everyone, yes.  But for those of us who have no attraction to the opposite sex, what does that do for us?”

It does little since you have civil unions with exact same rights, and society has the right to promote its majority values as well.

“It leaves us out of the ability to marry the person of our choice.”

It leaves you out of the ability to CALL it “marriage” - that’s all.  Many in the gay community frankly don’t care.

“And that is the distinction you make that exposes your prejudices.  Everyone is allowed to marry, so long as it is an opposite sex spouse.  And those of us who don’t have that ability (minus any attraction or desire to be with the opposite sex in such an intimate union) can still ‘couple.’ “

What you’re really saying is “some of us - whether we call ourselves ‘gay’ or ‘bi’ or even ‘hetero’, can only be happy if we can use the name ‘married” when referring to our relationship.”  Unfortunately, this nuance of happyness is not a constitutional guarantee.

“I wonder how many heterosexual couples would be willing to have their marriages downgraded to civil unions?”

There is no need since society prefers to promote opposite-sex marriage over same-sex marriage.

“It’s obvious they aren’t equal.  Those inequalities have been spelled out by the courts.”

They are no less equal than laws which prevent me from marrying my first cousin, or someone that’s too young, or more than one person (actually, they are MORE equal since there’s no “civil union” version of any of these things).  In each case, I can claim that i won’t be happy unless i’m allowed to do this, but in each case, society’s right to enforce its values supercedes my claim to happiness.

“[civil unions] have proven to be anything but equal”

in what way?

“Sexual Orientation is just as physical as gender or race, but because it’s on the inside and can’t be readily seen, those with agendas, such as yourself brush sexual orientation off as ‘behavior.’”

Really?  What test confirms sexual orientation?  What doctor can issue a certificate of orientation?  What orientation is a bisexual?  What orientation is a bi-curious?  How about someone in a heterosexual marriage who’s had a gay experience?  I think what you mean to say is that in any given moment, sexual ATTRACTION is a physical RESPONSE - but it is by no means a static, innate quality like race or gender.  Not even close.  Hell I may stop having sex altogether when i’m older, but i won’t be any less white or less male.

“You’re not in the minority opinion yet, but you will be.  We both know you will be.”

At least we agree on something.  Doesn’t mean I won’t stand up for my values though, whether they’re popular or not.

“an entire class of people from having the same opportunities you have.  It’s not only hypocritical (for any of you who believe in your pledge that this is a land of liberty and justice for all), but it’s downright childish.”

That there is a “gay class” is a myth, both in civil rights terms and in practical terms since sexuality is fluid, dynamic, and definitely not binary.  Restricting the use of the term “marriage” does not affect liberty or justice.

Marshall, I’m sure you would support a national ammendment prohibiting same-sex marriage. But fortunately, for each of us, our rights are not decided by national amendments, referendums or majority opinions.

And congratulations on finally agreeing that this issue will be decided in the courts (where civil rights issues ultimately find themselves)! You’ve come a long way, baby!

Marshall said:

“But it is not a civil rights or equal protection issue because the restriction on marrying the same sex applies to EVERYONE, not just gays, bis, etc…  everyone is treated equally under the law.”

That is so disingenuous.  And you know it is.  The California Supreme court addressed this issue.  It wasn’t necessary as very basic common sense would bring anyone to the conclusion that this isn’t even remotely a valid argument.  Restrictions on marrying the same sex applies to everyone, yes.  But for those of us who have no attraction to the opposite sex, what does that do for us?  It leaves us out of the ability to marry the person of our choice. 

And that is the distinction you make that exposes your prejudices.  Everyone is allowed to marry, so long as it is an opposite sex spouse.  And those of us who don’t have that ability (minus any attraction or desire to be with the opposite sex in such an intimate union) can still ‘couple.’ 

Isn’t that nice? I wonder how many heterosexual couples would be willing to have their marriages downgraded to civil unions? 

Then you indirectly refer to sexual orientation as a ‘behavior.’  Okay, you have a 50s mindset.  And I’m guessing you haven’t read much since then… unless of course it is the pseudo science published by James Dobson-like groups. 

As for your disputing my claim that nobody believes the benefits of civil unions are equal to the benefits of marriage…  well, only those who really really want us to settle or be forced into something other than what they enjoy with marriage would profess such a belief. 

It’s obvious they aren’t equal.  Those inequalities have been spelled out by the courts.  There’s plenty of room here for you to expound on your ‘number of reasons’ my argument fails, but you would fail.  Equal treatment under the law has been the basis of all the rulings by state courts that have either instituted marriage equality or civil unions (despite the fact the latter have proven to be anything but equal). 

Actually, I have never forgotten that some states have passed amendments prohibiting marriage equality.  Would be kind of hard to do.  And I have no doubt that everyone of those amendments are entirely unconstitutional and will all fall.  And they will be seen as shameful and embarrassing as they really are in the future. 

Your reasoning that sexual orientation is not comparable to racial or gender is silly.  It really is.  Sexual Orientation is just as physical as gender or race, but because it’s on the inside and can’t be readily seen, those with agendas, such as yourself brush sexual orientation off as ‘behavior.’ 

You’re not in the minority opinion yet, but you will be.  We both know you will be.  And I can only hope you are decent enough that someday you will be ashamed for having stated (or even desired) to vote for an amendment banning an entire class of people from having the same opportunities you have.  It’s not only hypocritical (for any of you who believe in your pledge that this is a land of liberty and justice for all), but it’s downright childish.

By BruSays, May 11 at 6:01 pm #

“Please point out where I stated that holding a minority opinion proves you or anyone wrong.”

You didn’t - it was more of an inference when you said my opinion was “increasingly lonely”.  that’s all.  Certainly not my main point.

“our courts have been deciding issues NOT specifically mentioned in the constitution”

which is why this issue should and will be decided in state courts, though i’d support a national amendment prohibiting same-sex marriage.  But it is not a civil rights or equal protection issue because the restriction on marrying the same sex applies to EVERYONE, not just gays, bis, etc…  everyone is treated equally under the law.

Marshall: Please point out where I stated that holding a minority opinion proves you or anyone wrong. Nor have I stated that having a majority opinion makes you or anyone right. I have always stated and consistently maintained that “opinion” is irrelevant. This is why the courts continue have in the past and will in the future overturn voter referendums.

by RobertinWestbury, May 11 at 8:01 am

“You are aware that the Bill of Rights guarantees all men the right to the pursuit of happiness?”

Actually, it doesn’t.  That’s in the Declaration of Independence.  It would be far too broad a “right” to be in the constitution and would be used by every interest group to justify its behavior.

The “equal treatment under the law” angle is your better argument, but I think it ultimately fails for a number of reasons which there’s no room for here.  And I dispute your claim that “nobody believes that the benefits of Civil Unions are equal to the benefits of marriage” - if this were true, CA and other civil union states would not make the claim that the benefits are equal as they do.

I’m aware of what some state courts ruled.  But I think you’re forgetting that some states have successfully modified their constitutions to prohibit same-sex marriage.  My reasoning is simply that there is no definable civil rights class of “gays” which is being discriminated against (like say a racial or gender class), just as there is no class of “bisexuals”, “polygamists” or even “heterosexuals”.  It’s a fluid, self-described “class” that doesn’t qualify (IMHO) as an actual civil rights class.  Thus society has every right to promote its values regarding marriage and is not discriminating against anyone; especially given that EVERYONE has the right to a) marry, and b) couple with the person of their choice.

By BruSays, May 11 at 3:02 pm #

Bru - i’ve never claimed this isn’t IMHO.  And i’d think a liberal would be the first to acknowledge that holding a minority opinion does not make one wrong.  Besides, polls show i’m not a minority opinion yet.

Marshall, give it up. Your tired offering: “this isn’t a civil rights issue - it’s a societal values issue” is, once again, an OPINION and a wishful (and increasingly lonely) one at that.

Time after time “societal values” have been overturned by the courts when those values are at odds with the law, be it stated or implicit (as Robertin Westbury pointed out).

To wit, in the Washington Post, May 7. 2009: Keith Richburg reported of Maine Governor John Baldacci:

“In a statement, Baldacci said that although he was not raised to believe in same-sex marriage, he has come to see it as a civil rights issue. ‘I have come to believe that this is a question of fairness and of equal protection under the law,’ he said.”

So again, give it up. You’re attempting to defend your personal view by hiding behind a “societal view” curtain. That’s fine and that’s your right. But don’t jump to the conclusion that because “the U.S. Constitution does not mention marriage” as a civil right it’s therefore a “societal value” issue. For over 210 years our courts have been deciding issues NOT specifically mentioned in the constitution but those decisions have been based ENTIRELY AND SPECIFICALLY on the intent and spirit of that document.

charlesduran, May 10 at 10:27 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)

I do agree with most posters, that gay couples should have the same civil rights as heterosexuals.  But, I do not agree that society should recognize gay couple as wedded.  The act of a ceremony of marriage is probably older than any existing religion, and it’s purpose is to give a special status to couples in society whose purpose is procreation.  The ceremony of marriage is the recognition of the importance of insuring the next generation.

Admittedly, their are married couples who never intend to have children and their are couple who are not capable of bearing children, but that is beside the point.

Not recognizing gay marriage, but giving gays all of the same civil rights as heterosexuals does not constitute and injustice, as some would imply.

The demand by homosexuals couples to be recognized on the same level as heterosexuals is presumptuous and probably will never happen for the reason I gave.

.........................................

Presumptuous? Imagine, demanding real equality before the law is now called presumptuous….

The act of marriage was once a way to transfer property, bride included, from one family to another. Not, as this poster assumes, some noble and sacred ceremony.

As long as any group within our society is treated differently from any other group we will continue to have a sick society. How about we take the state out of the marriage business entirely? Why not offer civil unions at city hall to all who want to marry? Then, should a couple decide to ‘sanctify’ their bond in a religious ceremony they are free to do so.

This sounds, to me, like a better solution than pretending to care about the rights of ten percent of the population by continuing to treat them separately. Didnt the Supreme Court decide that separate but equal was not good enough?

Marshall said:

“This isn’t a civil rights issue - it’s a societal values issue.  The US constitution does not mention marriage, and society has every right to favor certain values; in this case, reserving the term “marriage” for man/woman.”

Absolute utter nonsense. 

The US Constitution doesn’t have to mention marriage in order for it to be a civil right.  You are aware that the Bill of Rights guarantees all men the right to the pursuit of happiness?  Would you agree that having a family is the best and most basic road to happiness? 

The US Constitution guarantees equal treatement under the law.  Nobody believes that the benefits of Civil Unions are equal to the benefits of marriage.  In fact, it isn’t a matter of opinion, that is fact. 

You state this isn’t a civil rights issue?  That is a very unsupportable opinion, based on nothing.  Read the rulings of the California Supreme Court last year when they legalized marriage equality, and the ruling this year from the Iowa Supreme Court.  Now there are opinions based on reason and logic.

CharlesDuran stated:

“The act of a ceremony of marriage is probably older than any existing religion, and it’s purpose is to give a special status to couples in society whose purpose is procreation…....Admittedly, their are married couples who never intend to have children and their are couple who are not capable of bearing children, but that is beside the point.”

Ah no, that IS the point.  Marriage is primarily about companionship, and as such there has never been a requirement that heterosexual who choose not to have children, or who cannot have children must indeed have children in order to be ‘married.’ 

And the ‘point’ is moot to begin with because gay couples often have children, either from a previous opposite sex marriage or through adoptions.  Therefore, since there are ways for gay couples to have cildren, and since gay couples do have children, the idea that marriage exists for children is pretty much not an issue. 

Finally, the whole idea that marriage ‘probably’ predates modern religions is also a weak point.  I mean, so what?  You are saying it is ‘tradition.’  And I will say to you that we have had other ‘traditions’ that we had to face up and either end or change.  Slavery was such a tradition that it was the larger religions who fought the abolition of it.  It is in the Bible for crying out loud.  The mistreatment of women has been the tradition for all but the last few decades, and then only in some parts of the more modern world.  Just because something has always been done some way doesn’t justify keeping it’s benefits from a group historically denied them. 

The logic of “I support equal treatement, but not this because….”  isn’t going to carry the day.  We have already learned that separate isn’t equal.  We already know that civil unions are not equal to marriage, and we understand that marriage is not only a religious rite, but a civil right.  And since there are religions out there that support gay marriage as a religious rite, even that distinction doesn’t matter. 

There’s only one right way on this issue…  Full and equal opportunity under the law.  It’s what America is - at least that was the goal the framers put out there when they created the constitution and Bill of Rights..

This isn’t a civil rights issue - it’s a societal values issue.  The US constitution does not mention marriage, and society has every right to favor certain values; in this case, reserving the term “marriage” for man/woman.  I know many gays who are as tired as i am of this debate and would be happy to call it “civil union” and be done with it.  Are gays denied the right to choose who they want to form a life partnership with?  No.  Are they denied the same benefits afforded to married couples?  No.  There are no civil rights being violated here and this line of reasoning is simply a legal angle, not righteous discriminatory indignation.

Going against homophobic voters and standing up for gay rights might cost the president an election in 2012. But he will gain the respect of Americans that want a leader that protects the rights of a beaten down minority of harmless homosexuals. That respect might make him the most popular president in recent history and get him elected in 2012.

Great post, Kdelphi.  An excerpt:

“at the end of the training, so many people came up to me, my peers, my subordinates, people that outranked me, folks that have been in the Army—and this is an infantry unit, infantry men that—coming up to me and saying, hey, sir, hey, Lieutenant Choi, we know, and we don’t care. What we care about is that you can contribute to the team. And what leaders do, they look to see how can they make the best team before they go to war.

That’s what they care about.”

Yes.  This is what WE care about as well.  So the question remains, as Americans, will we say…. you can fight, you can die, you can give your best…. however domestically, you are not qualified as such?  Equal but separate….?  Equal but not quite valid….?  Equal but please, use your own drinking fountain….?

Great post, Eugene. I’ve been saying for years, this has nothing to do with marriage, it has to do with CIVIL RIGHTS.

Now if only someone would notice that the constitution doesn’t guarantee anyone the right to purchase pre-made bullets.

I’m married with 3 children, and I am totally in favor of gay marriage. This is supposedly America, land of equality. Equal rights for ALL means equal rights for ALL. As a nation, we seem to pick and choose exactly who is included in ALL. The main sticking point on this issue is the ugliness of religion. God says it’s wrong, so we won’t legalize it. What a crock of shit. Religion has NO PLACE in the governance of America. Religious beliefs have NOPLACE there either. If we don’t recognignize gay marriage, that puts us ANOTHER step closer to becoming a theocracy. This is just another example of religion sticking their nose in where it is neither wanted nor needed. The people who oppose this on non-religious grounds are homophobic. Gay people have just as much right to happiness as we do. Period.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/08/dan-choi-fired-gay-arab-l_n_199827.html

Video and transcript of Lt Choi on MSNBC. (The Arabic translator who was recently give the “choice” to resign)

They are allowing convicted felons to enlist, have lowered the education standards, the iQ standards, the psycholgoical testing….what an insult to gay soldiers.

Maybe the Congress is, once again, afraid, due to the passage of Prop 8, etc.Joe Sestak hedges so hard, he almost fall over, but, still, comes to the conclusion that ‘it is not right”.

Either we are all equal, or we are not. Unfortunately, Obama seems to believe in the later. So much for electing a minority president.

It is just a matter of semantics so why all the fuse.
The Religious right can’t cope with the term, so why bother- go around it. If the right is more important than the verbage- then focus on the right.
I could care less if my & my husbands legal entity is called a marriage or a legal union- as long as the rights remain the same. Let’s be honest even if people were joined in legal unions no one can stop them from saying or using the word ‘married’- Freedom of speech.Will there be arrests made if someone misrepresents their legal status as married or union? NO.
Come on there is as much fanatical short sighted stubborness on the left as there is on the Right, reason the middle is always sought out to end the impass.Let’s be honest the Left is not always right either- take a bow for Corn as Biofuel Fringe Lefties.
as for DADT, having lived out in SF fro several years I found that the need to discuss sexual preferences were often started by those who thought they’d get a rise out of people. Far more information than I needed or requested. In fact I found that at times should I as a hetero wanted to join in the dialogue- I got the ‘Yuk’ response. In fact we attended a ‘Womens Weekend’ in Glen Ellen and we not only discriminated against fro being a heterosexual couple but relgated to the outskirts of town for drinks.there is a certain element of prejudice in the Homosexual community too, just as there is racism in the various minorities- either between groups and within them.
What we should be discussing instead of DADT is the standards of proper military conduct- which includes raping and holding female fellow soldiers hostage.If you can not conduct yourself as a shining example of our country, or disgrace the uniform in ANT manner unbecoming a natioanl representive ofthe Armed Servcies or the nation- your ass is out, if not prosecuted for any crime you have committed in the commission of the dishonorable behavior.We have Service people not only conducting themselves dishonorabley towards their fellow members but towards the communities they are there to protect, defend or secure.
they want to talk about Gays in the Military- I want to talk about the sociopathic, violent criminals we’ve got wearing our uniform, donning our flag and carrying our weapons.Sexual preference is irrelevant let’s not get distracted from the real issue with this Red herring debate.There is a far bigger and more problematic issue on the Table- What constitutes fittness to serve