Top Leaderboard, Site wide
November 28, 2014
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
Sign up for Truthdig's Email NewsletterLike Truthdig on FacebookFollow Truthdig on TwitterSubscribe to Truthdig's RSS Feed

Get Truthdig's headlines in your inbox!


Weather Extremes Will Be the Norm As World Warms




Joan of Arc


Truthdig Bazaar more items

 
Report

Judge Puts Heart Into Prop. 8 Ruling

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Feb 9, 2012
AP / Ben Margot

Gay couple Tara Walsh, left, and Wen Minkoff, outside San Francisco City Hall in August 2010, respond to news of a court action against Proposition 8.

By Bill Boyarsky

In throwing out California’s notorious Proposition 8, which bans same-sex marriage, appellate Judge Stephen Reinhardt showed the heart of a romantic and humor in a ringing defense of the often-scorned institution of marriage.

Reinhardt wrote the majority opinion in the 2-1 ruling by the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that declared the proposition violated the Constitution. His opinion may wind up before the U.S. Supreme Court. Just how that conservative body will view an opinion by the most liberal member of the nation’s most liberal federal appellate court is unknown.

At the heart of his decision was the word “marriage.” California law gives same-sex partners the right to register as domestic partners. Along with that goes other rights such as raising children together, adopting each other’s children, having hospital visitation privileges, sharing community property and participating in a partner’s group health insurance policies. 

Previous to voter approval of Proposition 8, the state Supreme Court had ruled the state constitution permitted same-sex couples to marry. The proposition took away that right. 

Reinhardt wrote: “Proposition 8 operates with no apparent purpose but to impose on gays and lesbians, through the public law, a majority’s private disapproval of them and their relationships by taking away from them the official designation of marriage with its societally recognized status.”

Advertisement

Square, Site wide
He said that “ ‘marriage’ is the name that society gives to the relationship that matters most between two adults. A rose by any other name may smell as sweet, but to the couple desiring to enter into a committed lifelong relationship, a marriage by the name of ‘registered domestic partnership’ does not.

“We need consider only the many ways in which we encounter the word ‘marriage’ in our daily lives and understand it, consciously or not to convey a sense of significance. … We are excited to see someone ask, ‘Will you marry me?’ whether on bended knee in a restaurant or in text splashed across a stadium Jumbotron. Certainly it would not have the same effect to see ‘Will you enter into a registered domestic partnership with me?’…

“Groucho Marx’s one-liner, ‘Marriage is a wonderful institution … but who wants to live in an institution?’ would lack its punch if the word ‘marriage’ were replaced with the alternative phrase. So too with Shakespeare’s ‘A young man married is a man that’s marr’d,’ Lincoln’s ‘Marriage is neither heaven nor hell, it is simply purgatory,’ and Sinatra’s ‘A man doesn’t know what happiness is until he’s married. By then it’s too late.’ ”

Acknowledging that California’s domestic partners statutes had carved out some rights to same-sex couples, he noted: “We do not celebrate when two people merge their bank accounts; we celebrate when a couple marries. The designation of ‘marriage’ is the status that we recognize. It is the principal manner in which the state attaches respect and dignity to the highest form of a committed relationship and to the individuals who have entered into it.”

Taking away that status after the state Supreme Court had approved it violates the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution, Reinhardt ruled.

Reinhardt’s opinion is part of a movement that, while not sweeping the country, is making headway.

The Washington state Legislature passed a bill Wednesday legalizing same-sex marriage, a measure sought by Gov. Christine Gregoire, who is expected to sign it. Only New York, Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont and the District of Columbia allow such marriages, which are not recognized by the federal government.

President Barack Obama, looking at those numbers, remains uncommitted while still trying to keep same-sex marriage advocates on his side. In 2010, in a session with liberal bloggers, he said, “I have been to this point unwilling to sign on to same-sex marriage primarily because of my understandings of the traditional definitions of marriage. But I also think you’re right that attitudes evolve, including mine. It is an issue that I wrestle with and think about because I have a whole host of friends who are in gay partnerships. I have staff members who are in committed, monogamous relationships, who are raising children, who are wonderful parents. And I care about them deeply.” But he said he wasn’t prepared to “reverse” himself. 

Republican presidential candidates Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum quickly attacked the Reinhardt decision. The Church of Latter Day Saints, of which Romney is a member, was a major supporter of Proposition 8. In fact, a huge infusion of Mormon financial support at the end of the referendum campaign on Prop. 8 probably gave the measure its narrow victory. 

Obama will probably continue to duck, and most of the Republicans who are running for his job will probably continue to assault same-sex marriage.

In the face of Obama’s obfuscations and the Republicans’ rantings, it was good to see a judge, in an unusual invocation of romance, corny old gags and the U.S. Constitution, conclude that marriage is so woven into the fabric of life that it cannot be denied to same-sex couples. Obama, Romney, Gingrich or Santorum wouldn’t want Reinhardt on his political stage. But I’m glad he’s in a courtroom.


New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

By filosofe, February 14, 2012 at 10:49 pm Link to this comment

Anyone who thinks “marriage” is one of the core and founding principles of something has been reading Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm for too long.  Come up for air.  Marriage is the founding principle of divorce.

Report this

By filosofe, February 14, 2012 at 10:48 pm Link to this comment

It’s kind of like, I feel like I am in the Twilight Zone, where everybody cares incredibly deeply about something that seems to me to be nothing, while caring not a jot or tittle about what I care about, like starving.

Report this

By filosofe, February 14, 2012 at 10:46 pm Link to this comment

Well said, Desert Dude. I will quote you if I may.

Report this

By filosofe, February 14, 2012 at 10:43 pm Link to this comment

Let’s try it without the interpolation:
I am surprised that people on Truthdig whom I usually find somewhat more intelligent than Huff, or at least less censored waste their time arguing on here about the morality of this non-issue rather than the politics of it. 

The morality is—it’s fine.  Rock out. 

The politics is: “Gay Marriage” as a tried and true wedge issue will no doubt, no doubt I say, elect Republicans.  You know how it works.  They put “Gay Marriage” on the ballot as a referendum in swing states.  Fundamentalists, not all that keen on voting unless one of their bugaboos is in contention, come out in droves, and swing the election Republicanward.  To those who say “So what? The Civil Rights bill gave Republicans elections, but it was still right and had to be done” I say, “You’re Sense of Proportion Meter is on the fritz.  Getting married is hardly the 1965 Civil Rights Act. I am surprised so few of the supporters of gay marriage are willing to face up to its full ramifications.  Or I’m not.  I’m not sure.

Report this

By filosofe, February 14, 2012 at 10:40 pm Link to this comment

I am surprised that people on Truthdig whom I usually find somewhat more intelligent than Huff, or at least less censored waste their time arguing on here about the morality of this non-issue rather than the politics of it.  The morality is—it’s fine.  Rock out.  TThe government official who outlined Japan’s worst-case scenario for the unfolding nuclear disaster last March defended how his study, warning that millions of people might have to flee, was kept secret. The politics is: “Gay Marriage” as a tried and true wedge issue will no doubt, no doubt I say, elect Republicans.  You know how it works.  They put “Gay Marriage” on the ballot as a referendum in swing states.  Fundamentalists, not all that keen on voting unless one of their bugaboos is in contention, come out in droves, and swing the election Republicanward.  To those who say “So what? The Civil Rights bill gave Republicans elections, but it was still right and had to be done” I say, “You’re Sense of Proportion Meter is on the fritz.  Getting married is hardly the 1965 Civil Rights Act.

Report this

By walterbard, February 13, 2012 at 12:57 pm Link to this comment

to Leefeller
Santorum is irrelevant. The myth is that judicial
activism was started by liberal judges. Actually
it was the conservative judges who created judicial
activism when they struck down many labor reform laws in the begining of the twentieth century.
You might like this court decision but the next activist judge will probably be a conservative.
Incidently the recent decision that there a constitutional right for a citizen to bear arms
is an example. That decision is absolutely wrong
and Scalia knows it. Beware judicial avctivism from
both the left and right.

Report this

By ardee, February 13, 2012 at 4:27 am Link to this comment

EmileZ, February 11 at 10:27 am Link to this comment

@ ardee


Its all about the boomers isn’t it?

No it is all about your lack of worth here.

Report this

By Arouete, February 13, 2012 at 12:56 am Link to this comment

And, I am remiss, thank you Mr. Boyarsky!  What an absolutely wonderful salute to the courage and importance of an independent judiciary–free from mob hysteria. What a fun read! No less serious for the fun one can have making fun of the not-very-funny.  A masterful gem of an essay and a welcome contrast to most others who are all seeing a dark and limited side. Boyarsky makes the wisest spin. WE MUST TAKE OUR VICTORY AS WE FIND IT. This is to be laughed at an mocked as a modern day Monkey Trial. 

Judge Stephen Reinhardt very politely showed a ringing scorn for laws that are a pigsty beneath a dull facade and enacted for no other purpose than out of personal animus directed against one disfavored group. It is an abuse of process in and of itself. Deliberately mean-spirited.  Nasty. And, of course, as usual, as everywhere, drive by religion, religion, religion. All this is forbidden by our Constitution. We are a better People. It’s a legal no-brainer.

Heightened scrutiny? ‘Fundamental’ rights? The court did not even get so far in its analysis. Since there was no need to do so the court showed admirable restraint. The law did not even pass the threshold question required before any law can pass judicial muster. The basic ‘sanity test.’  It must be RATIONAL, it must be reasonably calculated to achieve a legitimate legislative purpose and it must serve a legitimate governmental interest. Hate and animus towards a disadvantaged class and religion simply do not pass muster. Prop H8 is a sick joke and history will record it alongside the infamy of Jim Crow, for these are all gay him crow laws. It deserves to be mocked as tub-trumping Monkey Trial.

Report this

By Arouete, February 12, 2012 at 10:01 pm Link to this comment

Wonderful article but pulease do give us a break. Mr. Boyarsky has either not been paying very close attention or chooses to ignore the obvious. He wrote, “President Barack Obama, looking at [the] numbers, remains uncommitted while still trying to keep same-sex marriage advocates on his side. ... And “I care about [my gay friends] deeply.” But [Obama] said he wasn’t prepared to “reverse” himself.

Please. Does anyone really need to ask why? Obama has made no secret of it. See “Untangling Barack Obama’s audacious mumbo jumbo” at http://ebar.com/common/inc/article_print.php?sec=guest_op&article=73

“Religion poisons everything.” (Hitchens)

Religion, religion, and religion, have been Obama’s consistent, unequivocal, and only excuse.  “If a civil rights lawyer walked into court and argued that fundamental civil rights should be denied solely for [the] reasons [Obama has stated] one could fairly wonder if he were a charlatan who found his law degree in a box of Cracker Jack. Legally, Obama’s position on civil marriage is intellectual rubbish. Audacity indeed!”

He does exactly what Coretta Scott King warned against about politicians who “Hold their finger to the wind to see which way it blows and then propose out civil rights peace-meal.”

This is law and “[t]his civil rights lawyer never states legal reasons. It’s his “deep faith” you see, his “church history,” and the “religious connotations” to marriage that mandate we be kept “separate but [not] equal.” So much for being a big believer in separation of church and state.” 

And all the time “Hypocrisy is revealed by the fact that his own denomination (the United Church of Christ) performs same-sex unions and blesses them with equal dignity.”  And THAT, in fact, was the full extent of Obama’s ONLY “church history.  What rank hypocrisy when he slandered his own church and misrepresented his own “church history.”  But this is the precisely the kind of absurdity religion can reduce even a hard left civil-right-lawyer-politician to.

Obama knows the law perfectly well. Indeed, “If one of Obama’s law students gave his answer on a right to marry hypothetical s/he’d deservedly flunk the exam and might better serve the interests of justice by selling shoes at Macy’s. Unlike the revered Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, who used religious faith to fight against discrimination and exorcize it from the law, Obama’s approach uses religion as an excuse to deny civil rights and legislate prejudice into law.”

Obama knows this is an issue the courts will decide and they have consistently held that you don’t get to vote on it. Why does he not at least have the courage to say that much?
Once again, “Religion poisons everything” even when it comes to a civil rights lawyer who claims he cares about his friends whom he would still deny their fundamental civil rights.

“[W]hen politicians ostentatiously proclaim their “deep faith” and march their [crackpot] preachers into the public square [as Obama did!] promulgating religion as their sole excuse for denying civil rights, then we should, in the spirit of Voltaire, have but one response: Ecrasez l’infame!”

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, February 12, 2012 at 6:26 pm Link to this comment

walterbard, me thinks you forgot to mention Santroums man on dog routine!

Report this

By walterbard, February 12, 2012 at 6:00 pm Link to this comment

This decision is politically correct and wrong.
There is nothing currently under the constitution
that gives the court to override a vote of the
people banning such marriages. The
state has the power to define what
a marriage is.  Individuals do not have
that power. Under this decision what is to stop brother and sister from claiming the right to get married? What about polygamy? What prevents them from making the same argument. If the voters define marriage as the union of male and female then that’s what it is.
If there is a male and female who are prevented
from marrying because they are of different races
then they can raise a constitutional issue
because they are members of a protected
class under the fourteenth amendment,
but not because marriage has been
redefined by the court. Yes, if the
voters through their legislators
or through a proposition or constitutional
amendment vote to redefine marriage
then that is legitimate. But a court
can’t create this right.

Report this

By Marian Griffith, February 12, 2012 at 6:43 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

@Desert Dude
—-Since the passage of Prop. 8 I’ve been telling people that this fight is over nothing but a
name, that it’s a ridiculous waste of time and money.  It is NOT about rights.—-

Quite to the contrary, it is about nothing but rights. Human rights. Rights extended to all humans by the constitution.
Yes, marriage IS a word, but it is the word that describes one of the core and founding principles of all human societies around the world.
And by denying that word to some people it is said, essentially, that they do not belong to human society.
Would you argue that it is right for Saudi Arabia to deny women to small right to drive a car, knowing that the reason and justification for it is the claim that women are small children, incapable of taking care of themselves?
Or would you argue that the word ‘Free’ should not apply to parts of the population? It is just a word too, but saying that some people are free while others have a legally emancipated status does suggest that the second group is not of the same level within society as the first.

So ... yes, it is an important word, and an important fight. Because as long as the fight is not won then the constitution does not truly apply.

Report this
Samson's avatar

By Samson, February 11, 2012 at 11:56 am Link to this comment

This reminds of something I saw once on Free Speech
TV. It was back in the time when the SF had legalized
gay marriage, before it got overturned.  Someone had
taken a camera, and just walked down the long, long
line of couples waiting at City Hall to try to get in
and be married that day.

It was an extraordinary videa, because of the stories
and the passion it showed.  Couples who’d left their
own CA town at like 2 am to drive a long way to SF
just to try to get in line early enough to be married
that day.  Couples who told stories of having been
together for 10 or 15 or 20 years or longer, and who
wanted to jump at the chance to publicly declare
themselves as together to society.  Couples who told
stories about how when a partner got sick, the lack
of a piece of paper saying they were married made
things so much harder ... like not even being allowed
into a serious medical situation to be there with and
for their partner.

It was one of those long, and only slightly edited
videos that let the real humanity of the people being
interviewed and the strength of their stories come
through. 

And, it really helped to cut through all the
political BS surrounding this issue.  I already
believe in freedom, and I already had rejected the
idea that a bunch of religious zealots ought to have
the right to tell other people who they can be with
... but seeing a video like that really sealed it for
me in believing that if people want to get married so
very, very badly, then why the heck are we as a
society saying no to such strong and powerful unions?

Report this
EmileZ's avatar

By EmileZ, February 11, 2012 at 11:27 am Link to this comment

@ ardee

You could have at least reproduced the whole comment including

WE ARE HERE TO CELEBRATE THE QUEER

and the Honest Abe bit dontcha think???

Its all about the boomers isn’t it?

Report this
EmileZ's avatar

By EmileZ, February 11, 2012 at 10:23 am Link to this comment

@ ardee

I hear the Japanese have relatively straight pubic hair????

What do you want from me???

Report this

By ardee, February 11, 2012 at 10:11 am Link to this comment

By EmileZ, February 11 at 5:47 am Link to this comment

@ ardee

What is the point of defending a “generation” of Americans which already has such a ludicrously high opinion of itself???

Care to add any more ridiculous stereotypes to the conversation?

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, February 11, 2012 at 9:11 am Link to this comment

If two people love each other and want to show this by getting married, why do other people object? Washington State Congress person, (sorry do not know her name) gave a very emotional and supportive speech on the subject, it should be required watching for bigots amd ass holes, hell maybe they would even change their bigoted mindlessness?

As for using stereotypical examples for anything, like baby-boomers, I find stereotyping myopic and very distasteful, this is why I seldom stereotype using absolutist certainty, for example when it comes to Conservatives, I make it clear to say, not all Conservatives are ass holes, just most of them!

Lets face it women would still not be allowed to vote if Conservatives had their way. Slaves would never have been freed, Black people would still be sitting at the back of the bus even interracial marriage would still be against the law if the Conservatives did not have the liberals calling out Conservatives on their knuckle dragging shit, of course not all Conservative, just most of them!

Report this
EmileZ's avatar

By EmileZ, February 11, 2012 at 6:47 am Link to this comment

@ ardee

What is the point of defending a “generation” of Americans which already has such a ludicrously high opinion of itself???

And from “honest” Abe Lincoln no less.

We are here to celebrate the queer.

Report this

By allen, February 11, 2012 at 4:46 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

AnAlienEarthling writes:

“...To this day, for most Americans, respect for the Constitution does not include a willingness to legally constrain their prejudices, to put an end to discrimination.”

As is the case with respect to so much in life, we choose the things that will support our view or reinforce our position and reject the things that might call our views into question or undermine our position.

And in this case, as Earthling observes, those most opposed to extending the “privileges” of marriage to gays and lesbians ignore the Constitution’s fundamental support for the equality of all citizens and, by extension, for their right to consort with and, pace Loving v. Virginia, to conclude more formal ties to, whomever they choose.

In adopting an anti-gay stance opposing the right of homosexual pairs to enter into the same sort of affiliation (i.e., marriage) that is granted to heterosexual pairs, opponents put aside what may be the Constitution’s most basic principle.  For people who so readily embrace and vehemently support—and defend—certain other provisions of our founding documents (cf. the Bill of Rights’ Second Amendment), this seems to be the ultimate in behavioral inconsistency.

Of course, they are well-practiced in choosing that which they like and condemning that which they dislike.  Grounded to the extent that it is in Scripture, their opposition to gay marriage(s) rests on bedrock that has guided generations for ages, a source of morality and ethics that is all that stands between us and chaos (in their view), as if we would not necessarily know how to treat one another absent the written codification of behavioral and moral principles in some book.

It is fortunate for us that they are also selective in which parts of Scripture they choose to adopt as guides to speech and action.  Otherwise we might find ourselves and our courts awash in cases of masters plucking the eyes out of servants or beating refractory children or who knows what else that also is endorsed by the same good book.

I suppose we must take our comfort where we can.

Report this

By Desert Dude, February 10, 2012 at 11:11 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Since the passage of Prop. 8 I’ve been telling people that this fight is over nothing but a
name, that it’s a ridiculous waste of time and money.  It is NOT about rights.  It is gays
trying to gain acceptance from people who will never accept them, their daddy, their
neighbors, the church they grew up in.  It is stupid. 

More than anything, this will be a rallying cry for the Right and if it allows the GOP to gain
one seat in Congress or the majority in the Senate, I’m going to be furious at the idiots
who think their self-deluding quest to change the name of their relationships is more
important than the issues that effect the vast majority of Americans. 

This country barely survived the Bush years.  If we go back to the dark ages of GOP
control in Washington, we can thank the people who more than anything are just craving
the attention they didn’t get growing up.

Report this
AnAlienEarthling's avatar

By AnAlienEarthling, February 10, 2012 at 8:40 pm Link to this comment

It is both frightening and sad that Americans have become so thoroughly ignorant of the expressed wisdom of the Supreme Court in its ruling in the case of Loving v Virginia, some 45 years ago.

In this case, Chief Justice Warren tried to educate the American public that “Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.” Given the explicitly expressed equality of human beings that our Constitution champions, this same wisdom should have yielded the same conclusion, namely, that under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a human being - of whatever race, ethnicity, culture, sex, gender, religion, etc. - resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

Why isn’t this transparent? What’s there to get?

Concerning a human being’s freedom to marry, the situation now is not unlike the situation nearly half a century ago. To this day, for most Americans, respect for the Constitution does not include a willingness to legally constrain their prejudices, to put an end to discrimination. However, nobody is telling them they have to sacrifice the pettiness and cruelty that characterizes their hearts - they can continue to nurture their hatred for others until the day they die. However, our Constitution tells us that their hatred for others must never be the basis for laws or statutes or policies concerning marriage or education or voting rights or housing loans or residency or medical care, etc.

Our Constitution will NOT TOLERATE discrimination.

Again, why isn’t this transparent to the majority of Americans? What’s there to get?

Report this

By Archie1954, February 10, 2012 at 6:12 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

If we could only agree on one thing, it should be “the state does not belong in the bedrooms of the nation”. Theses are the words of a former prime minister and have been adhered to in that country for several decades now.

Report this

By Arouete, February 10, 2012 at 4:37 pm Link to this comment

Thank you so much for such a wonderful perspective.  Can we presume you actually slogged through these 130+ pages. I do wish someone would provide a downloadable PDF that one can copy and past because the one the court provided is copy protected.

That said, what remains lacking are articles that lay out the legal dynamic in play. Then again journalists a.k.a. propagandists are not very good at education.  Of the dozens of articles I have read two stand out.

See most recently “Court to Prop 8: Hate is Not a Legitimate Purpose” at http://open.salon.com/blog/f_arouete/2012/02/08/court_to_prop_8_hate_is_not_a_legitimate_purpose.

As to Obama’s hedging that part is a no-brainer that should fool no one. See “Untangling Barack Obama’s audacious mumbo jumbo” at http://ebar.com/common/inc/article_print.php?sec=guest_op&article=73\

That said this article remain the most delightful

Report this
RayLan's avatar

By RayLan, February 10, 2012 at 12:09 pm Link to this comment

Wonderful to know that this is even an issue in this century. The US which thinks of itself as being the vanguard of civilization, is still living in the Middle Ages when it comes to civil liberties. So many violent revolutions have had to occur to ensure the equality necessary for the development of a democratic nation which btw it isn’t.

Report this

By gerard, February 10, 2012 at 11:46 am Link to this comment

It’s not just about rings and roses, folks.  Deep down at the roots it’s also about “property rights,” that great capitalistic bugaboo which rules the world. Who should have this-or-that “right of possession” and what is “possession” anyway?  And who can inherit what property? What responsibility?
  There are a lot of people in capitalistic countries (which is most places, more or less) who are haunted by ancient “rules” about “property rights” as “sacred”.
  Now where did that idea come from? Property is stuff, and obviously stuff has no “personhood”?  Oops.  The Supremes just recently said otherwise—corporations—consisting mostly of goods and services (properties)—are people!  What?
  “The guy who dies with the most toys, wins!”  What?
If I marry you, I own you and your property? Yes? No?
What about my kids? Your kids? Can we own any property together?  Why? Why not?
  Property is sacred?  People are corporations?
  Marriage is ownership? Only men can own property?
  To what extent, if any, is the idea of “committed” subtly related to the idea of “property”?
  Confusions worse confounded? Custom trumping common sense? Words that can’t be spoken; ideas that can’t be discussed? Truths that are proscribed?
  Love keeps breakin’ out all over and capitalism is
having fits!

Report this
Egomet Bonmot's avatar

By Egomet Bonmot, February 10, 2012 at 8:36 am Link to this comment

ardee—We seldom agree about things but we sure do on PeopleOVERgreed. 

Not much patience for dopes like this who think every right & privilege they enjoy sprang fully-formed the minute they showed up on the scene.

Report this

By balkas, February 10, 2012 at 8:30 am Link to this comment

i am for marrying, i think, but not for what often happens in most marriages. in some, it can be hellish; in
others heavenly or thereabouts.
so, marrying is ok or would be ok if we’ve provide some kind of help to marriages that do not work or cause
too much pain to children or the married couples.
counseling, educating people how to behave in a marriage before marriage, and providing services for that,
cost money.
and if such services cost money and no immediate profits arise of that venture, such services are rejected by
clergy and the ONEPERCENT.
actually, a proper education of children about also matrimony, would not only saves us oodles of money, but
would engender better marriages and better-behaving children.
however, clergy and the ONEPERCENT don’t see it this way!
after all, better-behaving and entirely enlightened children [which is their rightful and much needed
inheritance, anyway] don’t make good servants, meat for wars, religious prisoners, nuts, etc. thanks

Report this
prisnersdilema's avatar

By prisnersdilema, February 10, 2012 at 7:48 am Link to this comment

At some point in the future, an entire nation of people will look back and wonder
how could people be so blind, as to deny others the rights they themselves enjoy.

Unfortunately, that day seems to be still so very far away.

In time all the old prejudices that people feel toward each others will fall away, and
mankind may truly learn to live and let live..

We will understand ourselves, completely each and every part, without having to
deny, or be told how to feel or what to be, by someone else who doesn’t
understand even their own inner self.  Someone who lives in an anti deluvian,
mental world, of fear masquerading as fact. 

This is another step out of the darkness that mankind has lived in for so very
long.

Report this

By ardee, February 10, 2012 at 5:54 am Link to this comment

Insolence of youth.

PeopleOVERgreed, February 10 at 12:59 am

Hers a clue for you. Baby Boomers are, by and large, progressive folks, and not the source of the problems that beset this nation. We are, in fact, mostly victims thereof.

Report this

By allen, February 10, 2012 at 5:00 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

PeopleOVERgreed writes:

“...the day the last baby-boomer leaves public office can not come soon enough.”

Though one can argue that the younger generations are more tolerant of the things that seem to send Mr. Santorum and others into paroxysms, we also must recognize that the people who flock to the banner of anti-gay, anti-this, and anti-that are not exclusively folks ready for the rocking chair on the front porch (viz. PeopleOVERgreed’s “baby-boomer”).

There appear to be some young-er/-ish disciples of the message coming from Mr. Santorum and others (Michele Bachmann comes to mind, as do the folks at Westboro Baptist Church, to cite two examples).

Messages like his will find their supporters in every generation.  And to the extent that these messages are based upon passages from the Good Book that condemn, to cite just one injunction, “men lying with men,” we will never escape these prejudices.  Unless you imagine that the numbers taking their cues from scripture are decreasing and will eventually disappear, I’m afraid the passing from the scene of older geezers like myself won’t deliver the hoped-for world, one in which—in that Biblical passage-the lion lies down with the lamb.

Report this
Migs's avatar

By Migs, February 10, 2012 at 3:07 am Link to this comment

Rick Santorum: “If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual [gay] sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does.”

Migs: If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to drink alcohol, which is a drug, within your home, then you have the right to smoke cannabis, you have the right to snort coke, you have the right to shoot up heroin, you have the right to drop acid. You have the right to anything. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would say we better ban alcohol again because the prohibition era was such a roaring success wasn’t it?

Report this

By Marian Griffith, February 10, 2012 at 2:44 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

This is one of the things where I feel that Obama is letting everybody down by prevaricating and avoiding the issue.
He is essentially saying that he cares for gays, but he cares for the hypocritical voters more who say one thing but vote another.

Of course the situation has been made impossible by the republican spindoctors, who are hammering away at this issue with the intent of putting any democrat president or candidate over a barrel ready for a flogging. If they deny rights then they proof themselves to be untrustworthy to their supposedly liberal ideals. If they vote for those rights they set them up to be caught in the frame that the republicans have created and associate themselves with everything negative that the spindoctors attached to this issue. So the best anybody can do is to try and dodge the issue and string along a part of their voters while allowing the republicans to continue framing this issue but not allowing them to profit too much (after all it is a shrinking minority of the population that is so terrified by the framing)

And here we have a judge who says clearly that we should not talk about gay and same sex marriage, but only about marriage.
That should be the message progressives use to diffuse this vile framing of an issue that should not be at the center of divisive party politics.

Report this
PeopleOVERgreed's avatar

By PeopleOVERgreed, February 10, 2012 at 1:59 am Link to this comment

Imagine condoning discrimination in this day and age. I believe the religious right and the GOP in general are sealing their fate with younger generations whom have little tolarence for this kind of thinking. For myself, the day the last baby-boomer leaves public office can not come soon enough !!!

Report this

By Jackie, February 9, 2012 at 9:21 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Very sweet and well said, thanks.

Report this
 
Monsters of Our Own Creation? Get tickets for this Truthdig discussion of America's role in the Middle East.
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Publisher, Zuade Kaufman   Editor, Robert Scheer
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.

Like Truthdig on Facebook