Tag: gay marriage

You get to the point where you evolve in your life where everything isn’t black and white, good and bad, and you try to do the right thing.
You might not like that. You might be very cynical about that. Well, fuck it, I don’t care what you think. I’m trying to do the right thing.
I’m tired of Republican-Democrat politics. They can take the job and shove it. I come from a blue-collar background. I’m trying to do the right thing, and that’s where I’m going with this.

Roy McDonald, Republican state senator in New York, on reversing his previous party-line opposition to gay marriage. More please.
Source: New York Daily News

Douthat’s piece makes clear [that] the status quo is really a cop out. Instead of holding heterosexuals up to a rigorous standard of conduct—no divorce, harsh & unforgiving attitude toward infidelity—we’re going to discriminate against the gay and lesbian minority and then congratulate ourselves on what a good job we’re doing of upholding our ideals.

Matthew Yglesias, on the marriage double standard.

I think it’s ok if gays can get married, I just wish they’d call it something else.

Random NPR man on the street which Atrios refers to as “Great Moments In Random Dumbassery”.
Dumbassery it may well be, but it’s critical for progressive hopes going forward that this phenomenon is understood and planned for. To the vast, vast majority of Americans, marriage as a concept is inextricable from Lord Jesus and their church. Thus, these same people hear “gay marriage” and immediately think Big Government is going to force their church to change its liturgy to include Teh Gay or else seize assets put the whole lot of them into jail.
This is precisely why Democrats should today and forever more be talking about getting the government out of ALL marriage. Eliminate all marriage-based tax benefits and redefine survivor’s and spousal rights to extend to anyone whom you choose to confer them upon. The words “basic human rights” should always be in the sentence, and, quite frankly, such broad and fundamental reforms would be a real boon to both gay and straight couples. This, of course, is why it will never happen. Optimism!

… Proposition 8 was premised on the belief that same-sex couples simply are not as good as opposite-sex couples. Whether that belief is based on moral disapproval of homosexuality, animus towards gays and lesbians or simply a belief that a relationship between a man and a woman is inherently better than a relationship between two men or two women, this belief is not a proper basis on which to legislate.

The arguments surrounding Proposition 8 raise a question similar to that addressed in Lawrence v. Texas, when the Court asked whether a majority of citizens could use the power of the state to enforce profound and deep convictions accepted as ethical and moral principles through the criminal code. The question here is whether California voters can enforce those same principles through regulation of marriage licenses. They cannot. California’s obligation is to treat its citizens equally, not to mandate its own moral code. Moral disapproval, without any other asserted state interest has never
been a rational basis for legislation. Tradition alone cannot support legislation.

Judge Vaughn Walker, overturning California’s Proposition 8, in Perry v. Schwarzenegger (via savingpaper)

The Gay Blade

Clearly some rampant judicial activism going on when it falls to the judge to finally point out the blazingly obvious logical flaws in a case:

The unusual exchange between U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn Walker and Charles Cooper, a lawyer for the group that sponsored Proposition 8, came during a hearing on a lawsuit challenging the measure as discriminatory under the U.S. Constitution.

Cooper had asked Walker to throw out the suit or make it more difficult for those civil rights claims to prevail. The judge not only refused but signaled that when the case goes to trial in January, he expects Cooper and his legal team to present evidence showing that male-female marriages would be undermined if same-sex marriages were legal.

Some of the specific exchanges went like this:

“What is the harm to the procreation purpose you outlined of allowing same-sex couples to get married?” Walker asked.

“My answer is, I don’t know. I don’t know,” Cooper answered.

and this:

“Since when do Constitutional rights rest on the proof of no harm?” Walker parried, adding the First Amendment right to free speech protects activities that many find offensive, “but we tolerate those in a free society.”

all one can say to that is: “Yep. And Yep.”