N.C. Amendment One reactions (part 2)

The theme here seems to be that the arc of the universe is long, but it bends toward justice.

We hope. We hope that it bends toward justice and we hope that it is not too long. Hope has two daughters …

Alvin McEwen:A few words of encouragement to my N.C. brothers and sisters

In the end, those who fight injustice never lose. Those who fight injustice embody the spirit which makes not only this country, but this world what it should be.

Never give up. Never give in. Never allow yourself to be seduced by the orgy of ego if victorious. And if at any time you lose, never give that loss any more power than it deserves, if any at all. Never allow yourself to succumb to the deceptive warmness of the pool of self-pity, discouragement, and hate.

Remember you have been picked to pave a road so that others can easily walk to where they need to be. …

Chris Ayers:History of Gay Rights Movement in North Carolina

On days such as this one it is important to remember the efforts for gay equality that have occurred previously. … What we do today is built on the backs of the courageous people who have stood up for gay equality in the past.

Let us as we peruse this history also be cognizant that much more work remains to be done in the future.

Errington C. Thompson:Disappointing

It will take years to undo the damage that has been done today. … I continually remind myself that Thurgood Marshall did not wake up one day in 1954 and decide it was a good day to take the school board of Topeka to the Supreme Court instead he fought a series of long hard battles which culminated in Brown versus the Board of Education. This is a long road. Breaking down long held beliefs will take time.

Samuel Smith:Amendment One passage in N.C. is the battle that lost the war for conservatives

Those of us who genuinely care about freedom and fairness are more outraged than ever. Outrage is motivating, and by the way, polls show that at least half of Americans support equality for LGBT citizens. It’s about six months until Election Day — how much mobilizing do you think we’re capable of?

Don Taylor:N.C. Passes Amendment One

My 11th-grader especially has been passionately opposed to Amendment 1, and she is disappointed. … I wrote my reasons for voting against Amendment 1, and some gave me feedback that it was too nuanced. For my daughter it was a simple matter of being opposed to denying a particular groups’ civil rights; no nuance whatsoever. That leads me to believe that the Amendment and its result won’t last very long.

Erik Loomis:The Real Lesson of North Carolina

When you decide that elections will determine civil rights, it’s going to bring out the worst elements in the racist and homophobic. But it also brings the debate to the table. We are going to start winning these elections and overturning these laws, and soon.

Mark Evanier: “Twenty years from now, 95 percent of those living in North Carolina now and still alive then will be saying, ‘Well, of course I didn’t vote for it.'”

Stay in touch with the Slacktivist on Facebook:

Culture warriors have weird ideas about how courts work
'You will find out on that day ...': False prophets and lost endings
Police, yet again, refuse first aid for man they shot for no reason
Left Behind Classic Fridays, No. 91: 'Enchanted'
  • http://stealingcommas.blogspot.com/ chris the cynic

    So, um, it seems that every news source on earth has just told me that Obama finally said he was for marriage equality.

    Seemed like a thing worth making note of.

  • http://www.facebook.com/marchantshapiro Andrew Abrams Marchant-Shapiro

    Took a while, but yeah.  Worth noting.  I wonder if NC was responsible?

  • Emcee, cubed

    Not sure if NC was responsible in and of itself, or if NC pissed off enough people who put pressure on him to do it. But I would say it is responsible either directly or indirectly. 

  • Danielle Custer

    Mark Evanier: “Twenty years from now, 95 percent of those living in North Carolina now and still alive then will be saying, ‘Well, of course I didn’t vote for it.’”

    At least it won’t be a lie when I say it.

  • Jessica_R

    Welp, Obama came out finally for marriage equality, and naturally Fox is already using the “War on Marriage” graphics.

  • guest

    OK, now I have to go see what a ‘War on Marriage graphic’ looks like.  

  • Charityb

     To be fair, I too was disturbed when Obama ordered Hellfire missile strikes against heterosexual weddings this morning. I hate monogamy, apple pie, and Christianity as much as the next liberal, but that seems a little harsh even to me.

  • TheFaithfulStone
  • histrogeek

    I live with in three hundred miles of the Canadian border and let me tell you bucko, that brimstone smell is just awful. And it didn’t get mentioned in the Torah, but there’s a lot of blow back from a rain of toads. Not to mention the rampaging hordes of deranged hedonists who stomp through the border (actually they’re OK, good guests at parties).
    So we should all be thankful that NC double bagged their discrimination. 

  • muteKi

    On the slightly-more-bizarre side of things, one of my facebook friends suggested this was a good argument for Ron Paul as president, if only because even with less rights for individual states, an amendment such as this one managed to pass.

    Which is an interesting argument, but probably wrong in the face of Obama’s recent statements, then.

  • Charityb

    Ron Paul is hostile to same-sex marriage and it is not safe to assume that his faux-federalism would lead him to stay his hand against gay people if he were president, since he has come out on the record as saying that he would have voted for DOMA and has consistently voted for anti-gay legislation since he was elected.

  • ako

     Yeah, given how his famous libertarianism craps out when it comes to women’s reproductive rights, I wouldn’t expect it to hold up in the face of anything else conservatives find icky.

  • Jessica_R

    All I know is if I’m getting forced into a gay marraige, I’m calling dibs on Emma Stone.

  • Tricksterson

    Let me applaud your taste.  And while I’m at it dibs on the guy who played Tyr on Andromeda,  I’d rather not but if I have to…

  • Tricksterson

    I figure Obama’s announcement was timed well before the vote.  If it had failed, then Obama comes across as in the vanguard of the future.  If it succeded then he’s standing up for the oppressed.

  • http://plantsarethestrangestpeople.blogspot.com/ mr_subjunctive

    That makes more sense than what I was thinking. (Which was mostly, you sumbitch, why didn’t you say you supported it before the damn vote, when it might have done some good? I was still too irked about that to have started developing a theory about the timing.)

  • Seraph4377

    Don’t know if this makes it better or worse, but given the margins involved, I don’t think Obama’s support would have been near enough.

  • friendly reader

    Hell, it might have even made things worse with the whole “Whatever Obama is for, we are against” mentality that current Republicans seem to be pushing.

    @Jessica_R:disqus  and Tricksterson
    I’m okay with anyone so long as it’s a cold, sexless marriage we’re only in for the sake of the kids. You know, the kind of marriage NOM thinks is intrinsically better than a loving, engaged one between two people of the same sex.

    Oh, and obviously Obama’s change in stance (*juvenilegiggle*) is just more evidence that evolution is the source of all evil.

  • Tricksterson

    I don’t think his support would have made any difference because the vast majority of those who voted yes  probably already think he’s an atheist muslim from Kenya,

  • P J Evans

     Well, most of the people who voted for that @#$%^&*( amendment probably wouldn’t vote for Obama anyway. [snark] He’s a Muslim commie socialist from Kenya, ya know? [/snark]

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    Joe Biden’s no-doubtski-aboutski was refreshingly honest and non-dissembling. Then again as an old white guy (and the Vice-President besides) he can get away with endorsing same-sex marriage a lot more easily than Obama.

  • AnonymousSam
  • Loki100

    Allan West on Obama’s announcement:

    “Pres failures are masked by irrelevant pandering as a collectivist who does not respect individual sovereignty. More of the same politics.”

    It’s occasionally stunning how utterly lacking in self-awareness Republicans are.

  • Jessica_R

    Ron Paul is a giant, miserable asshole. I feel it’s important to say or make that clear at least once a day.

  • Charityb

     Oh, but he wants to legalize pot!

    Or, well, he’ll allow state governments to legalize pot if they want to. That makes up for shredding the social safety net, throwing women and minorities to the wolves, and endorsing medieval economics, right?

  • JonathanPelikan

    So say we all.

  • Vermic

    I can see why conservatives are freaking out about this.  A politician willing to pay heed to his surroundings and life experiences, and update his opinions based on them?  It’s unthinkable!  Plus, he used the word “evolution”.

    And yeah, I do personally feel that Obama’s change of heart is genuine.  He’s been moving in this direction for a long time, and gay marriage has been one issue he’s consistently described as being open to reconsideration about.  If it’s a flip-flop, it’s one he’s been telegraphing for years.  Here he is in The Audacity of Hope, written at a time, 6 years ago, when he favored civil unions but not gay marriage:

    … It is my obligation, not only as an elected official in a pluralistic society but also as a Christian, to remain open to the possibility that my unwillingness to support gay marriage is misugided, just as I cannot claim infallibility in my support of abortion rights.  I must admit that I may have been infected with society’s prejudices and predilections and attributed them to God; that Jesus’ call to love one another might demand a different conclusion; and that in years hence I may be seen as someone who was on the wrong side of history.  I don’t believe such doubts make me a bad Christian.  I believe they make me human, limited in my understandings of God’s purpose and therefore prone to sin.  When I read the Bible, I do so with the belief that it is not a static text but the Living Word and that I must be continually open to new revelations — whether they come from a lesbian friend or a doctor opposed to abortion.

    I may not agree with the position of 2006 Obama on gay marriage; but dang, I wish every public figure I disagreed with had the self-awareness and — openmindedness to being openminded, I guess I’d call it — that he displays here. This was, after all, the same year that Stephen Colbert said rightly of then-President Dubya that “events can change; this man’s beliefs never will.”

    At any rate, even if I’m wrong and Obama is just flip-flopping, at least he’s flip-flopping to the correct side.  We could use more of that.

  • http://jesustheram.blogspot.com/ Mr. Heartland

    There is something to be said for the idea that RTC’s have actually accelerated the pace for social acceptance of gay marriage (and gay rights in general), by introducing the ‘specter’ of gay marriage into the political discourse during the late nineties when Clintonphobia was growing stale and they needed another outrage de jure.  Even though mainstream support for marriage equality was small at the time, the fact that they chose of their own accord to raise the idea in public consciousness meant that of course it would be argued about and that their reasons for opposing it were doomed to be exposed as empty. 

    I’ve no doubt that the president’s decision to, er, come out today is political calculation.  He has lost nothing by angering those whose votes are shaped by opposition to gay marriage.  They were going to vote against him anyway.  On the other hand he has put himself on the side of one of the main animating concerns of the US Left so that he has at long last given us a reason to feel inspired by and fight for him.  Let it be calculation if that’s what it is.  Politicians need to make certain demographics happy to keep their jobs.  That’s what the ballot is for.  And I have never bought into the idea that a pol’s position exist mainly as a display of integrity for our moral edification; that whether or not he truly believes the public stance he takes is more important than whether or not his stance advances the policies that I believe in.  The tree of liberty is nourished by craven flip-flopping.  Where else would progress come from without it?  

    At any rate.  This will be remembered as far more significant than the Carolina nonsense.  Probably calculation in that as well, and so much the better.  Today… today is an important day, and by God but I do feel a real hope and pride for my country today.  Thank you Mr. President.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

     “outrage de jure”

    I think you mean ‘du jour‘. :)

    (de jure is Latin for of the law, du jour is French for of the day)

  • Charityb

    I don’t know, I think this law is pretty a big outrage.

  • http://jesustheram.blogspot.com/ Mr. Heartland

     Heh, well thank you.  Usually I try to keep to the Orwell rule against using foreign aphorisms just to show off that I (don’t) know them.  But in this case I just typed ‘de jure’ because I was too lazy to type ‘of the day’.   

    Or maybe what I really meant is that outrage is the law for “those people” . Did you think about that?

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    Or maybe what I really meant is that outrage is the law for “those people” . Did you think about that?

    Well, I was being a bit nitpicky. ^_^

  • http://dpolicar.livejournal.com/ Dave

     Oh, damn. I actually had interpreted your original comment in the latter vein, thought it was really clever, and am somewhat disappointed to discover it was a typo. Ah well. Can’t have everything.

  • ReverendRef

    I have this fantasy that Roy Williams and Mike Krzyzewski will both hold press conferences resigning from UNC and Duke saying that they refuse to work in a state that doesn’t recognize equality.

    Just my own personal fantasy.

  • Matri

    I feel like it should be pointed out that the timing of his announcement, coupled with Amendment One itself, has just about guaranteed the LGBT vote for him.

    It was timed so perfectly, it almost felt like he was the mastermind behind Amendment One, played through in a perfectly planned Batman Gambit that would have left Xanatos stunned.

  • BT

    Most people miss the point. This amendment has nothing to do with Marriage, Gay or not.  It is a religious machine being used to impose the beliefs of a some religious institutions on the general public. Last time I checked that was not legal.  Even the advertisements for the amendment stated that God intended marriage blah blah blah… Since when can you impose your impression of what God intended on the rest of the public.

  • Matri

    Even the advertisements for the amendment stated that God intended
    marriage blah blah blah… Since when can you impose your impression of
    what God intended on the rest of the public.

    Now now, little Jimmy. You know we don’t tolerate that kind of communist socialist leftist Kenyan muslim talk around here. Those rules obviously exclude only our religion and were obviously directed towards those secret Kenyan muslim socialist atheist communists and not at all good outstanding Ah-mur-kens like us who follow the Jesus who said to hate all blacks & gays. Now go pray with the pastor and think about what you’ve said, and don’t let me catch you telling anymore lies about him making you take off his pants again.

    *hurls*

  • P J Evans

    Since when can you impose your impression of what God intended on the rest of the public.

     Someone should have asked them why they were trying so hard to tell God what to do.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Ann-Unemori/100001112760232 Ann Unemori

    Just for the record, I do believe that marriage is still between a man and a woman, that trying to bend the definition doesn’t end well. All the same, I am not celebrating the outcome in North Carolina, and if I find anyone who does I will smite them with a dead mackerel.
    If two men, or two women wish to set up house, share responsibilities, so be it. If they claim love holds them together, let them; I see nothing wrong with a civil union, domestic union. I do not always agree with a homosexual union, but understand the devotion.  I just can not call it a marriage, so will respectfully leave it alone.
    Perhaps this is God’s Will in simply saying, “Perhaps you need more time. Let things ripen.”

  • http://dpolicar.livejournal.com/ Dave

    Ann – Just so I understand your position, is there anything else you need to know about my relationship to my husband, other than my gender, to judge whether you can call it a marriage? 

    That is, I understand that if I’m male, then you can’t call it a marriage, because I can’t be in a marriage with my husband if I’m male, because that’s just how it is. OK, I’m willing to leave that alone… perhaps you just need more time.

    What I want to know is, if I’m female, and my husband and I are legally married, is that the end of the story for you? Or do other things matter too?

    For example, does it matter if I beat him? If I cheat on him? If I lie to him? If we’re mutually infertile? If I’m disobedient? Are any of those things important to the immutable definition of marriage?

    I mean, just for the record.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Ann-Unemori/100001112760232 Ann Unemori

    For example, does it matter if I beat him? If I cheat on him? If I lie to him? If we’re mutually infertile? If I’m disobedient? Are any of those things important to the immutable definition of marriage? — Technically no, those things don’t matter legally. They are morally wrong, extremely so, but let’s face it, how many people are willing to live up to decent standards, in marriage or anywhere else, for that matter? Of course such things as abuse or cheating apply in as much as how they affect the outcome, keep doing it and you won’t have a marriage anymore, at least by most people. But the law itself DOES NOT say “If you beat your husband then that’s not marriage”, it can’t. Up to a point, personal behavior in marriage is still largely off limits. But you don’t have to be married to know that cheating and lying are poor choices in a relationship. Nor do you have to be married in order to abuse or hurt somebody. Marriage, at least as an ideal and recognized by law, is based on economics, not emotions, it is a union meant to confer legitimate status to any child born within it, to allow any such child the ability to inherit the parents’ property. Yes, there are many, many exceptions in real life, but ultimately the laws have been written around the ideal norm. The old saw is right, you don’t have to be in love in order to get married. That loving your partner makes all the difference in living with him or her is not a prerequisite as far as legalities are concerned. There is much more I could dwell on, but won’t. I will admit I don’t call you and your husband “married” anymore than I would call you two “brothers”. What I would do and will do is respect any civil or legal union that lets you share legal, domestic, and financial rights; and I would be the first to break down the doors to let you visit your husband (as you prefer) in hospital, would be pleased to have you as neighbors or friends. If I insult you I am sorry. 

  • EllieMurasaki

     …did you seriously just say that an infertile couple is morally wrong?

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Ann-Unemori/100001112760232 Ann Unemori

    I see I have a LOT of ‘splainin’ to do. No, an infertile couple is not “morally wrong”, they are only falling short of a goal, ie children, that most married couples aim for. If they don’t wish kids, fine, that’s their choice. But many times they do wish children, hence the millions spent on fertility clinics, on in-vitro, on surrogate mothers, etc. Children tend to be seen as a “natural outcome” of a marriage, whether we like it or not, look at the scorn heaped on the couples who honestly don’t wish kids. 
    No, what’s morally wrong is the couple who Does have a child and then abuses or neglects it.
    Sorry, I’m not good with italics.

  • hapax

    Ann, I do appreciate your civil responses, and hope you’ll stick around.

    So, my two very good friends, who both happen to be women, were married in California — luckily in the year-or-so window which allowed their marriage to be recognized by the state.

    They have between them raised two lovely sons, both of whom call both women “Mom.”

    They were born physically of one of the women;  the other (before they were allowed to be legally married) adopted them.

    I am assuming, from what you said, that you have no problem with these children having “inheritance rights” (and all other rights and privileges associated with close kin) from their birth mother — but you feel that it is morally and socially wrong for them to have the same from their other mother?

    But if their birth mother happened to have married a male, instead, you feel that all of those legal and social rights should naturally follow?

    Have I stated your position correctly?  If so, could you be more precise about what about the situation with my friends and their children will not “end well”?

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Ann-Unemori/100001112760232 Ann Unemori

    I don’t know about “morally” wrong, that kind of thing is personal. A child will inherit morals from family, friends, what have you. But yes, you have said generally what I believe. Certainly had your friend married a man all such legal, social rights would follow as a matter of course. That at least by California laws she has married a woman should mean that those selfsame laws  would apply as well. The law should have nothing to do with how I feel about it; I don’t like the traffic laws but I have to obey them too. 
    At the same time, there is nothing that prohibits your friend’s spouse from being declared legal guardian over her child, from declaring one or both children as legal inheritors and the like.  Dry, but these are the things that bind people together as a family, a society, and the more such things are done, the more they are recognized, the more a force to change things.
    I don’t see why your friend’s children wouldn’t “end well”, if their mothers teach them to say “yes ma’am” and “no sir”, to treat their elders with respect, to be kind to animals, to salute the flag and obey our laws and learn to protest the bad laws, to accept that people have their differences and similarities, to try new foods unlike my fussy brother, etc etc… It’s the legal situation that usually doesn’t end well, getting into increasing snarls and bylaws, I would hate to see your friends run up against some new confusing edict about who can live where and how.
    Frankly I sometimes wonder why HETEROsexual marriage isn’t outlawed.

  • Tonio

     

    I don’t know about “morally” wrong, that kind of thing is personal.

    No, an assertion that an action is morally wrong applies to everyone.

    The law should have nothing to do with how I feel about it; I don’t like the traffic laws but I have to obey them too.

    What we’ve been saying is that the law forbidding gays from legally marrying is unjust and should be overturned to better achieve justice for all.

  • http://thatbeerguy.blogspot.com Chris Doggett

    Ann, I’m still a bit puzzled by what you’ve said.

    You think gay couples willing to make a monogamous, lifetime commitment out of love  should have the same rights, access, and privilege that hetero- couples do with regards to marriage. But you say you’re opposed to gay marriage. So I’m trying to understand what the difference is, in your mind, between a “civil union” and “marriage”. 

    You started out saying something along the lines of ‘redefining marriage has not ended well, historically’, but you never explained what you meant by that, except to say that historically, marriage was a default system for inheritance rights.  (which, I tried to point out, makes it wholly appropriate for gay couples as well as straight couples) 

    I still haven’t gotten a good answer to my questions:
    What’s the difference between a civil union (which you’re fine with) and a marriage? (which you oppose)What did you mean when you said that ‘trying to bend the definition [of marriage] doesn’t end well’? Can you elaborate on that, please?
    The law should have nothing to do with how I feel about it;
    What if you, and a growing number of others, feel that the law is unjust? Shouldn’t that feeling matter for something?

    I don’t like the traffic laws but I have to obey them too.
    You don’t like knowing that cars have to slow down near schools and parks where children play? You don’t like knowing that other drivers will usually clearly signal their intentions to change lanes in advance? You don’t like knowing that other cars will drive in lanes along predictable lines? You don’t like being able to pull out into traffic, knowing who has the right-of-way? You don’t like driving through a green light, knowing you shouldn’t get hit in a side-collision from a driver running a red light? 

    I’ve traveled to a lot of countries where they don’t have the kind of traffic laws we do. I like traffic laws for any situation where I’m either a driver or a pedestrian. 

  • http://thatbeerguy.blogspot.com Chris Doggett

    Hi Ann! Thanks for coming back to reply to some folks! I appreciate it. I am a bit confused by your reply.

    You say that you respect the rights of homosexuals to “share legal, domestic, and financial rights”. So far, so good.

    I’m guessing you don’t oppose the practicie of adoption in general. That is, you don’t think adoption is sinful or wrong in general. In fact, I suspect you’d view adoption as a domestic, legal right. (albeit a right with oversights applied, like driving a car) So I’m going to infer that you don’t have a problem with homosexuals adopting.

    I’m also going to guess that you don’t find in vitro fertilization, artificial insemination, and other fertility treatments wrong or immoral on their face. So I’m going to infer that you’re not opposed to homosexual women becoming pregnant via these means.

    Now, you also said that “Marriage… is a union meant to confer legitimate status to any child born within it, to allow any such child the ability to inherit the parents’ property.”

    So if homosexual unions can produce children with inheritence rights (through artificial insemination, in vitro fertilization, and/or adoption)… shouldn’t those children be granted the same legitimacy as all others? I don’t think you believe that adopted children shouldn’t have the rights of inheritence. I doubt you think a child conceived by artificial insemination should be denied the inheritence of their family. How is this not the purpose of marriage?

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Ann-Unemori/100001112760232 Ann Unemori

    Been thinking about this. Your ideas are sound, but there is one caveat, that adoption, or in-vitro fertilization, is a extra step, a necessary outside intervention as a means to a worthy end. Basically, these are replications of the “natural order”, of a male and a female getting together and bonding and thus creating children. For the most part this is a very basic process that has worked for the last several thousand years; this is what our laws have been written around. That such a system has been unkind and unfair to those couples unable, or worse unwilling, to have children is tragic, but to some extent the fertile hetero couple has been the norm. That two men or two women seek to replicate this, by having children as well, proves at least we humans have a drive to procreate, to make some kind of family, that is no less than bonding with a partner. And if that partner cannot provide biological children, than the couple will often go to amazing lengths to find them.
    Certainly I think we can accept that two women, let alone two men, no matter how much they may love each other, cannot have a child without a third party being involved. Yes, I know many hetero couples do it too, but it is not yet the “norm”, not yet the way all couples have babies, and it is difficult to base standards on infrequent cases.
    Again, I only wish to point out that the law is and should be neutral. If it were routine that a couple always appealed to an attorney and/or a doctor in order to have children, then the  laws would be tipping more in that direction. And from the looks of everything this may be more and more the case. 
    Again, let me say that I am all in favor of adoption, all children should be wanted. But we humans are not cuckoo birds, most of us do end up struggling to raise our own.
    Dear me, I have set myself up for a real mess, haven’t I? One last comment, if two men can have a child Completely on their own that would be newsworthy in the extreme.

  • hapax

     

    Certainly I think we can accept that two women, let alone two men, no
    matter how much they may love each other, cannot have a child without a
    third party being involved. Yes, I know many hetero couples do it too,
    but it is not yet the “norm”, not yet the way all couples have babies,
    and it is difficult to base standards on infrequent cases.

    Um.  Are you seriously arguing that in the United States that it abnormal for children to be raised by families other than two biological parents in a heterosexual marriage?

    Factually incorrect.

    I mean, four out of ten is still less than a majority, I suppose, but it’s hardly “infrequent”.

  • http://thatbeerguy.blogspot.com Chris Doggett

    For the
    most part this is a very basic process that has worked for the last
    several thousand years; this is what our laws have been written around. That such a system has been unkind and unfair to those couples unable,
    or worse unwilling, to have children is tragic, but to some extent the
    fertile hetero couple has been the norm.

    Wait a minute.

    This system, this “natural order” that our laws were written around allows couples unable or unwilling to have children to marry and remain married & childless. That doesn’t seem unfair or tragic. If a post-menopausal woman wants to marry, the law allows her to. There is no “term of childlessness” to marriage after which the union is negated; if a couple never produces children, their marriage is no less valid.

    This “basic process that has worked for the last several thousand years” has always allowed these rare (but obvious) exceptions. 

    I think we can accept that two women, let alone two men, no matter how
    much they may love each other, cannot have a child without a third party
    being involved.

    A post-menopausal woman cannot have a child period. We allow her to marry.

    What then, is the difference, between
    a.) an 80 year old man marrying an 80 year old woman
    and
    b.) Two men marrying.

    Both obviously and visibly violate this natural order” concept you’re claiming. We can look at either pairing and see it’s not for the purpose of producing offspring. Both are uncommon cases, rare enough to be a small minority of the total pairings.  But the first pairing is legal, and has been for thousands of years, while the second isn’t. Why (in your opinion, in your views, in your beliefs or understandings) is that?

    I’m not being snarky. I really want to know: why are some obvious exceptions to reproductive purposes allowed, but others are rejected? What is the meaningful, significant difference here? Is it really all about “pipes and bolts” or whatever euphemism you’re comfortable with?

  • EllieMurasaki

     One last comment, if two men can have a child Completely on their own that would be newsworthy in the extreme.

    Nah, not really. Or at least it shouldn’t be. But every so often a pregnant trans man hits the news, because people are cissexist and the concept of ‘pregnant man’ makes them boggle.

  • Tonio

     

    Certainly I think we can accept that two women, let alone two men, no
    matter how much they may love each other, cannot have a child without a
    third party being involved. Yes, I know many hetero couples do it too,
    but it is not yet the “norm”, not yet the way all couples have babies,
    and it is difficult to base standards on infrequent cases.

    This doesn’t make sense. The fact that such couples cannot reproduce on their own is no reason to deny them legal marriage. And so what if it’s not the “norm”? Normal is a meaningless word in the objective sense outside of a scientific context, because it wrongly presumes that prevalence equals goodness. The means in which couples reproduce is irrelevant to the issue of legal marriage.

  • AnonymousSam

    Certainly I think we can accept that two women, let alone two men, no matter how much they may love each other, cannot have a child without a third party being involved.

    Technically speaking, a single woman with a background in the right fields can have a child without any other party at all. It’s possible to chemically change a skin cell into a reproductive cell of the opposite sex, allowing a person to self-fertilize their own eggs. ^_^

  • Tonio

     

    it is a union meant to confer legitimate status
    to any child born within it, to allow any such child the ability to
    inherit the parents’ property.

    One of the ugliest ideas in all of humanity is the idea of “legitimacy” for children. That’s a mechanism for shaming both mothers and children. Its goal of protecting paternity seems less focused on the welfare of children and more focused on the privilege of men, specifically to keep their wives from bearing other men’s children. It’s often defended with the assumption that with marriage, fathers would have no motivation to help raise their children, but would instead be having numerous one-night stands trying to spread their seed. Yuck.

    The legal rights and responsibilities involved with civil marriage aren’t specifically about children – they also benefit the spouses, and are just as important for childless couples.

  • Tonio

     Sorry, I meant “the assumption that without marriage, fathers would have no motivation…”

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Ann-Unemori/100001112760232 Ann Unemori

    Okay, I will agree with you about the ugly business of public shaming, that too many people, I’m looking at us Christian ladies, just love to go about pointing the Fingers of Shame at women who have dared stepped outside the Proper Boundaries of Respectability (whew!). But I only speak of legitimacy in terms of centuries, if not millenia, of laws regarding families & inheritance. That they were abusive, yes; that they set up guidelines, even if poorly executed, I will stand by. There still needs be some standards by which families pass on their property as they see fit, esp if no legal will has been made. The men were the ones who had the money/power, and made the laws to their own benefit, this IS changing as women grow in influence.
    English, European, and maybe even world history changed when Henry the VIII demanded a son from his own body.Your comment about one-night stands is a very apt one. I assume you mean “without marriage” a man would rather keep catting around than finally settle in with one appropriate woman. I fear there is a growing note of truth in that. Yet the law was meant to keep the man as well the woman within boundaries, that he too must keep his social interests at home, provide for his own legal wife and children first, not go off and keep playing. And yes, a man will want to tend to his own flesh and blood first, no one likes being tricked. But at the same time I can but admire the man who will still love and tend to a child not necessarily at home, certainly there are stepfathers who have knowingly taken up the role of being, not Father but Daddy. The only point I make about childless spouses is that the rights to a spouse are necessarily different than the ones to children and descendants. Just as important, but different.I suspected I’d be starting something when I first posted.

  • Tonio

    There still needs be some standards by which families pass on their
    property as they see fit, esp if no legal will has been made. The men
    were the ones who had the money/power, and made the laws to their own
    benefit

    That actually turns my point on its head. Marriage would only be necessarily to protect inheritance for children in a society where women aren’t allowed to own property, which was the case for millenia.

    And I was arguing against that idea that men need marriage to tame them. That’s merely a rationalization of patriarchy.

  • Johnsmithofamerica

    “I’m looking at us Christian ladies”

    Sorry if I insult you, but “lady” is the last word I would use to describe such as you.

  • hapax

     I am sorry that you insulted Ann Unemori as well.

    It is usually accepted as good manners to accept people’s own self-descriptions, including such labels as “Christian”, “lady”, “bisexual”, “British”, “disabled”, “Otherkin”, etc., unless the precise definition of the term is the matter under discussion.

    FWIW, according to the tenets of my Southern (USA) upbringing, Ann Unemori has been nothing but “ladylike” during this entire discussion.

  • Johnsmithofamerica

    According to the tenents of my Southern (USA) upbringing, I’m just supposed to keep my mouth shut and be a good little faggot and maybe I won’t get beaten to death.  So fuck both your upbringing and mine.  And fuck the ignorant bigot bitches like Ann Unemori who think they can sit in judgment of people like me. 

    Sorry, Ann, if you have to toddle on off to heaven after all that.  What a shame that would be!  Bless your heart!

  • EllieMurasaki

    hapax is on your side, and Ann has been nothing but polite; swearing at either of them is not called for.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Patrick-McGraw/100001988854074 Patrick McGraw

     I would just like to add to Ellie’s statement that the use of misogynistic slurs like “bitches” isn’t going to do you any good.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Ann-Unemori/100001112760232 Ann Unemori

    Yours is the only reply that anyone intelligent should agree with. I am just sorry I like CS Lewis.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    But if Mitt Romney calls himself a Christian, and uses it to grant himself political cover for things he does, is one then obligated to not question that self-appellation?

  • hapax

    But if Mitt Romney calls himself a Christian, and uses it to grant
    himself political cover for things he does, is one then obligated to not
    question that self-appellation?

    Really good question.  My honest answer is:

    If Romney calls himself a Christian, I will not, I may not question his relationship with God.  I will welcome him as my brother, and treat him and his beliefs with respect.

    Part of that respect is honest discussion.  I do not see how the policies he advocates flow from the teachings of Christ and the traditions of the Church.  I’d be happy to have that theological, ecclesiological, soteriological, eschatological, etc. conversation with him over a beer, or the beverage of his choice.

    HOWEVER —  if the only justification he has for his policies is his understanding of the teachings of Christ and the traditions of the Church, then those policies are without merit in the public sphere — exactly as any policies I might advocate that have no justification beyond my religious beliefs.

    The problem, of course, is that answer makes a lousy thirty-second sound bite.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    Context for my question. Ann Unemori said this:

    At the same time, there is nothing that prohibits your friend’s spouse
    from being declared legal guardian over her child, from declaring one or
    both children as legal inheritors and the like.

    This?

    Comes off as a little patronizing, as a kind of sop to a person who should make do with “second best”.

    On the heels of the North Carolina Amendment One vote, some QUILTBAG people are bound to be feeling hurt and frustrated, and TBQH Johnsmithofamerica’s reactions strike me as being in this vein; his (?) reactions may be inappropriate, but given that the state of North Carolina has effectively collectively been very dismissive towards QUILTBAG people generally by this vote, I would be hard-pressed to deny I’d feel the same way*.

    This is why I am taking a little bit of an issue with your statements that her self-appellation as a Christian and a lady should go unquestioned simply because she said so.

    * I and others cheered when Pope John Paul II died, precisely because he was such a dismissive dick to QUILTBAG people, especially given he’d gone through WW2 in occupied Poland and should have had a little more goddamn sympathy.

  • hapax

     

    This is why I am taking a little bit of an issue with your statements
    that her self-appellation as a Christian and a lady should go
    unquestioned simply because she said so.

    Fair point, and I’d say I understand the anger except it would be a lie;  I may have my personhood legally questioned under the laws of the state in which I live, but nothing to the blatant bigotry shown in the NC amendment.

    Context for my answer:  I did specify “according the culture of the Southern USA in which I was raised.”  Anyone familiar with that culture will be know that it would be difficult for anyone with self-awareness to boast of either the label “Christian” or “lady” without heavy, heavy reservations.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    Perhaps I didn’t quite emphasize enough how a straight person saying things to QUILTBAG people that amount to “well, you can always end-around with Complicated Pathway XYZ, sweetie”, is actually being really quite irritating.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Charity-Brighton/100002974813787 Charity Brighton

     It’s kind of like my other favorite patronizing argument, “Oh, silly minority, you should have just waited until every single person in the entire world agreed that you deserved civil rights. Now you’ve gone and protested and sued and started a great big fuss!”

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Patrick-McGraw/100001988854074 Patrick McGraw

     

    It’s kind of like my other favorite patronizing argument, “Oh, silly
    minority, you should have just waited until every single person in the
    entire world agreed that you deserved civil rights. Now you’ve gone and
    protested and sued and started a great big fuss!”

    I particularly “like” the versions that go “Things were perfectly fine (for me) when you were quietly accepting oppression. But now that you’ve brought it up all the vicious backlash is your fault!”

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Charity-Brighton/100002974813787 Charity Brighton

     Yeah, it’s really easy to think that things were ‘fine’ before the protests. It’s like when Ron Paul types talk about how the Civil Rights Act and Brown v. Board were unnecessary because blacks would have been accepted eventually and there wouldn’t be any backlash against it if they had just waited for society’s attitudes to (slowly) change. It’s an easy argument to make if it’s not you getting hurt or killed while waiting for the ignorant minds of total strangers to slowly turn… and also while being told that you shouldn’t even do anything to better your situation because it’s not your place and this is a Democracy and in a Democracy minorities only have rights once they secure the unanimous assent of their neighbors.

  • Tricksterson

    I think you’re being unfair.  I think Ann is a basically good person who’s trying to reconcile what her heart and, to a lesser extent her mind are telling her with what she’s been taught.

  • http://dpolicar.livejournal.com/ Dave

    If I insult you I am sorry.

    Well, of course, setting yourself up as in a position to judge whether my family is a real family or not is insulting… that’s just a fact, just as it would be insulting if I were to announce that I didn’t think your relationship with your mother was a real mother-child bond.

    But it’s no more insulting than your original comment was, and no more insulting than the fact that millions of people like you feel entitled to publicly espouse opinions about the legitimacy of my family.

    Being insulted like that is just part of the daily experience of being queer in the U.S., there’s relatively little point to calling out any particular instance of it, and relatively little value to apologizing for it while continuing to align yourself with it.

    But the law itself DOES NOT say “If you beat your husband then that’s not marriage”,

    Correct.

    Similarly, in my home state, the law does not say “If you and your husband are both male, that’s not marriage.”

    And yet, you believe that if I and my husband are both male, that’s not marriage. Not even in Massachusetts, where the law says it is.

    So clearly, your beliefs about what marriage is and isn’t don’t derive from the law. When the law defining changes (as it has in many, many jurisdictions), your beliefs about what marriage is don’t change with it.

    Similarly, at one time marriage in large parts of the U.S. was defined by law such that if I am white and my opposite-sex spouse is black, that’s not marriage. Now, marriage in the U.S. is defined by law such that if I am white and my opposite-sex spouse is black, that is marriage. If one believes that marriage is defined by the law, then “what marriage is” changed in the U.S. when the law changed. If not, then marriage might instead be the same thing it was in 1800, and U.S. law was at least at one time simply mistaken about what marriage is (just as, on your view, Massachusetts law is currently mistaken about what marriage is).

    Marriage, at least as an ideal and recognized by law, is based on
    economics, not emotions, it is a union meant to confer legitimate status
    to any child born within it, to allow any such child the ability to
    inherit the parents’ property.

    OK, now we’re getting somewhere.

    The “recognized by law” bit is, again, beside the point — as above, marriage as recognized by law is different things in different legal jurisdictions, and often has nothing to do with children, and has to do with lots of things other than children.

    But I think you’ve implicitly answered my question here… what it takes to be a real marriage, on your view,  is the intent to confer legitimate status
    to any child born within that marriage, and to allow any such child the ability to
    inherit the parents’ property.

    Yes?

  • http://thatbeerguy.blogspot.com Chris Doggett

     Howdy Ann! I hope you stick around and reply, because I’d like to hear a bit more from you…

    I do believe that marriage is still between a man and a woman, that trying to bend the definition doesn’t end well.

    I’m puzzled by this remark.

    You say you see nothing wrong with a civil union, a domestic union. By this, I presume you mean that committed, loving partners should have the same access to health insurance, hospital access, access to adoption, retirement accounts, tax breaks, legal protections against domestic violence,  pension funds, and all other legal rights & privileges.

    So I must ask: what is the difference between a civil union and a marriage? If there is an ordained priest (or pastor, or rabbi, or minister) willing to give the blessing of such a union in a church (and there are) then what is the cause of your opposition?

    What do you mean “trying to bend the definition doesn’t end well”? This is, to the best of my knowledge, the first time we’ve tried to “bend the definition” of a marriage to allow same-sex couples. Or are you suggesting that the last “re-definition of marriage” (allowing inter-racial marriages) has not “ended well”?  (As I’m sure you’re aware, over the centuries, we’ve “bent” the definition of marriage considerably already from it’s biblical origins)

    Easy questions with answers I’m genuinely interested in hearing:

    What’s the difference between a civil union (which you’re fine with) and a marriage? (which you oppose)

    What did you mean when you said that ‘trying to bend the definition doesn’t end well’? Can you elaborate on that, please?

  • ako

     I just can not call it a marriage, so will respectfully leave it alone.

    Would it be acceptable to you to have an arrangement where legal marriage and the attendant legal benefits were a purely secular affair run by the government and included same-sex couples, and you and your church had the religious freedom to declare such unions not true marriages?  Because that’s how every single same-sex marriage law I’ve heard of works.

    If not, can you explain why the law should support your religion’s understanding of the term marriage?

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Ann-Unemori/100001112760232 Ann Unemori

    I suppose one could argue “separation of church and state”, and that the law does not always go by what Christians believe, even the most ardent. But only Atheists are allowed to use that argument and I am no Atheist.

  • hapax

     Um, as should be clear on t’other active threads, I am certainly not an atheist.  But this “ardent Christian” is pretty much equally ardent about the separation of church and state — partly because  I am a Christian.

    I shudder at the thought of allowing, say, John Boehner to dictate what “Christian” means.

  • ako

     I suppose one could argue “separation of church and state”, and that the
    law does not always go by what Christians believe, even the most
    ardent. But only Atheists are allowed to use that argument and I am no
    Atheist.

    I don’t see why only Atheists should be allowed to use that argument.  If you’re talking about what the law of the land should be (which is not necessarily the same as how you, personally, feel people should behave), it makes sense for Christians to support separation of church and state.  Presumably, you wouldn’t want people of a a different religion, or a different sect of Christianity to have the legal authority to force you to adhere to their religious rules.  And you seem to have enough empathy for others that I’d expect you to have sympathy for me not wanting the government to force me to follow the rules of a religion I don’t believe in.

    Your ideas are sound, but there is one caveat, that adoption, or
    in-vitro fertilization, is a extra step, a necessary outside
    intervention as a means to a worthy end.

    I understand that there’s the typical way that families are formed (a man and a woman  have a biological child together) and less-common ways (two people raise an adopted child, two people raise a child conceived with outside medical assistance such as in-vitro fertilization, etc.).  The thing I don’t understand why you think it’s legally acceptable for the government to call it a marriage when two heterosexual people of the opposite sex want to legally unite and raise a child who became part of the family in one of the less-common ways or even not raise a child at all, but you don’t think the same legal institution should cover same-sex couples who may in fact be raising a child together who became part of their family in the exact same way children become part of many heterosexual families.  It seems like a weird distinction to make.

    Certainly I think we can accept that two women, let alone two men,
    no matter how much they may love each other, cannot have a child without
    a third party being involved.

    That depends on your definition of a woman and a man.  I would consider a transgendered woman a real woman, and a transgendered man a real man, and some of them are fertile, so I would not agree with that point.

  • Lori

     

    But only Atheists are allowed to use that argument and I am no Atheist. 

    Allowed by whom? Mixing religion and politics is bad for religion as well as politics and anyone who cares about either one should be against it.

  • AnonymousSam

    I would hope that atheists are not the only ones concerned about separating church and state. What could be a Christian country could also, in theory, just as readily become a Catholic country, or a Mormon country. Raise your hand if you’re 100% comfortable with being told by a religious leader (outside your own religion) what tenets of your life are now important and which will be used to determine the laws of the land.

  • http://blog.trenchcoatsoft.com Ross

     That’s not just theorhetically possible, it’s *historical fact*. The founding fathers were from a generation where sectarian violence among christians was something everyone remembered. For many of them, the separation of church and state *wasn’t* about “We must make sure that the christian majority doesn’t oppress non-christians or the non-religious,” so much as it was about “We must protect the methodists from the baptists.”

    One of the most fervent supporters of separation of church and state among the founding fathers was Charles Carrol of Carrolton, who was also one of the most devout of the founding fathers — because his family had firsthand experience of the fact that in  english-speaking world, when the majority religion got to control the state, it didn’t end well for Catholics.

    Quite a few of the major groups that settled the original 13 colonies were devoutly religious christians, fleeing oppression by other devoutly religious christians.

  • Tonio

    The only Catholic signer of the Declaration of Independence. I know a few of his descendants.  Although the Founders may have been more concerned with intra-Christian oppression and violence, the beauty of the separation principle is that it can and does apply broadly to any position on religion. I view the principle as an individual’s position on religious questions being rightly his or her own, and not the concern of the neighbor or the community or the society.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Patrick-McGraw/100001988854074 Patrick McGraw

     

    I suppose one could argue “separation of church and state”, and that the
    law does not always go by what Christians believe, even the most
    ardent. But only Atheists are allowed to use that argument and I am no
    Atheist.

    I am a Christian, and I am very ardent about the separation of church and state.

    But then, I am a member of a religious group (The Religious Society of Friends) that has had members executed on religious grounds by governments that did not separate church and state (most famously Mary Dyer). So I suppose that does give me a different historical perspective on it.

  • Baby_Raptor

    So I assume that you advocate for the Biblical definition of marriage; one man and as many women as he wants? 

    After all, marriage as it stands today was established by human law. And we all know how well human law works…See for example “blacks can’t vote,” “women can’t vote,” and any other law that has been overthrown. 

    Also, could you please provide evidence to back up your statement? Several states already have marriage equality, so I’m sure you could find all sorts of examples (other than fake outrage and offense) of how having bent the definition went horribly wrong.

  • AnonymousSam

    Don’t forget your slave women (including those from any cities you’ve pillaged), and any children they bear! Those are effectively married to you as well!

  • Tonio

    Federal statues and regulations do not treat civil unions as equal to marriages, even when the state in question attempts to make the two contracts legally identical. Even if the problem was rectified at the federal level, assigning a separate status to gay couples simply provides clerks and bureaucrats a way to weasel out of their own responsibilities: “You’re not really married so I don’t have to do anything for you.” We’ve seen that separate-but-equal amounts to anything but equal.

    Besides, it’s not your place or mine to decide which couples should get married and which shouldn’t, whether we’re talking about legal marriage or religious marriage.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    @1cfd07d71c70392c27d26165e23b0cf2:disqus :

    Didn’t someone on here once report that the all-important marriage certificate was what helped the husband of a military man get a lot of issues sorted posthaste in the bureaucratic maze of whatever it was they needed to handle?

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Ann-Unemori/100001112760232 Ann Unemori

    I will agree with you that a civil union should be given the same legal respect as a traditional marriage. The religious side is another matter.

  • EllieMurasaki

    http://www.bluejersey.com/diary/13850/civil-unions-separate-and-unequal

    Paul Beckwith of Plainfield was denied access when his partner was
    rushed to the emergency room from a business meeting because Paul was
    not next of kin. After Paul pressed the fact that they had a civil
    union, he was told, “Business partners are not next of kin.” In a
    separate incident at a different hospital, Paul was taken to the
    hospital because his appendix ruptured, and again, Paul’s partner was
    denied access because he was “not next of kin.”

    Gina Pastino of Montclair was rushed to the hospital in a near
    fatal condition. She informed the hospital about her civil union partner
    Naomi Cohen. Upon Naomi’s arrival, the hospital denied her information
    about Gina’s status and visitation. Naomi pleaded, “If I was her
    husband, would you be able to give me that information?” The doctor
    replied, “Yes.”

    Paul and his partner got a civil union. If civil unions were legally equivalent to marriage, that would make Paul and his partner each other’s next of kin. But it self-evidently did not make Paul and his partner each other’s next of kin. Therefore civil unions are not legally equivalent to marriage.

    Gina and Naomi got a civil union. If civil unions were legally equivalent to marriage, that would make Gina and Naomi each other’s wife. Hospitals are supposed to give the sort of information Naomi was asking for about Gina to their patient’s wife. But they self-evidently did not do so, because Naomi is not Gina’s husband. Therefore civil unions are not legally equivalent to marriage.

    Civil unions are NOT GOOD ENOUGH.

    I don’t give a flying fuck whether my marriage is recognized by religious authority. In fact I’d prefer my marriage not be recognized by religious authority, seeing as I’m an atheist. But I do want my marriage to be recognized by legal authority, regardless of whom I marry. Provided ze and I are not closely related and neither of us has a previous legal marriage not yet legally dissolved, there is absolutely no reason to keep zir and me from getting married.

  • http://loosviews.livejournal.com BringTheNoise

    But the government – BY DEFINITON – can only control the legal aspects of marriage. Allowing same sex marriage doesn’t force any churches or other religious groups to perform same-sex marriages (although, conversely, it does allow those religious groups that DO accept same-sex marriage to have the same ability to combine the legal and religious ceremonies that is available to opposite-sex marriage*).  What you really seem to hung up on is the name – am I correct in thinking that? If so, why should the opponents of same-sex marriage have greater control of a word that predates RECORDED HISTORY than anyone else?

    * In jurisdictions where that is allowed

  • ako

     I will agree with you that a civil union should be given the same legal
    respect as a traditional marriage. The religious side is another matter.

    In practical terms, civil unions are not, and never have been, given the same legal respect as traditional marriage.  This is one of the consequences of trying to do the “separate but equal” approach.  Whatever the intention, in practical terms, having a separate category gives bigots the power to legally institutionalize inferiority.

    The religious side is definitely a distinct matter  Religions groups are not, and should not be, compelled to recognize same-sex marriage (or any marriage that doesn’t fit their religious ideals) as equivalent, in a religious? context, to marriages that are judged acceptable in their eyes.  The best way to give full legal rights to same-sex couples while preserving the right of religious groups to declare their disagreement is to support laws in favor of same-sex marriage such as those currently being written and proposed in multiple states in the US.

    Marriage, at least as an ideal and recognized by law, is based on
    economics, not emotions, it is a union meant to confer legitimate status
    to any child born within it, to allow any such child the ability to
    inherit the parents’ property.

    Several people have pointed out the problem with this.  While heterosexual couples are more likely to produce children, that’s a tendency, not an absolute distinction.  There are several heterosexual couples who either cannot or choose not to have biological children (and some who never have any children) and enjoy full legal marriage, and several same-sex couple who have children through means such as adoption and in-vitro fertilization.  This shows that 1) many same-sex couples would benefit from a simple legal way to legitimize their children, and 2) aside from the issue of children, marriage has other purposes that have traditionally been considered important enough to merit formal legal recognition. 

    It’s the legal situation that usually doesn’t end well, getting into
    increasing snarls and bylaws, I would hate to see your friends run up
    against some new confusing edict about who can live where and how.

    That’s very considerate of you, and I’m glad you’re concerned for their well-being on this issue.  Unfortunately, same-sex couples often suffer from various legal complications, due to the complicated and varying laws about domestic partnership and the amount of legal recognition such partnerships get in different parts of the US.  The easiest way to resolve this would be federally-recognized same-sex marriage.

  • Tonio

    Religions groups are not, and should not be, compelled to recognize
    same-sex marriage (or any marriage that doesn’t fit their religious
    ideals) as equivalent, in a religious? context, to marriages that are judged acceptable in their eyes.

    I would amend that to say that such groups are entitled to disapprove of SSM only for their members. They’re not in a position to say that it’s wrong for everyone based on their doctrines. In keeping with Fred’s King and Huck Principle, the groups should present secular arguments against SSM if they want to be wrong or illegal for everyone.

  • BT

    Marriage is secular. It is not a religious institution. You need a government issued  license, and it can be performed by the clerk of courts with no religious ceremony. If you want to have a religious ceremony you can. I have been to marriages that had two ceremonies because the two getting married were of different religions. If you want to call your marriage a Christian marriage, or a Jewish Marriage, or whatever type of marriage it was, that is fine. But a standard marriage is a legal contract issued by the government, and for our government to say that they will only  issue these license if it meets with a religious institutions approval, goes against what I thought America stood for.  I am not Gay but this NC Amendment make me sad.  How can we be harassing China and other countries over civil rights, when we deny the most basic civil right to some of our citizens. 50 years ago the same religious fanatics that say they can not call a gay marriage a real or true marriage are the same nuts that would say they can not call a mixed race marriage a marriage.   Some of them would only call white on white marriages true marriages.  The most ironic part of this debate is that a lot of Black voters voted for Amendment one. How can you take an argument that was used to oppress you 50 years ago and turn around and use it to oppress others? I know some religious blacks will be offended by this, but why? Do you think you are better then Gays because of Religious reasons? Or are you just racists. I know Gay is not considered a Race, but since they are inventing new races every time a get a census form to fill out I thought I would make my own. There is only one race left on the planet that we know of. With the demise of the Neanderthal the Homo Sapiens are the only Race that remains. Or in religious terms we are all descended from Adam and Eve making us all the same race.  Just because God let some physical changes occur to help adapt to a certain areas or climates does not change our basic race – Human.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    The key point of law is that it should punish or deter harm done by one person to another. How does banning same-sex marriage among consenting people punish or deter harm?

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Ann-Unemori/100001112760232 Ann Unemori

    My oh my, I realize I’ve upstaged President Obama here, and I have no business doing that.

  • Beroli

    My oh my, I realize I’ve upstaged President Obama here, and I have no business doing that.

    What?

  • http://www.facebook.com/chrisalgoo Chris Algoo

    Ann, I think you’ll be fine at the end of this journey you’re on. Actually, Johnsmithofamerica’s comments do a pretty great job of illustrating the pain that is caused by one’s relationships being denied legal status. It’s good to remember that there are real people who are really hurt by Amendment One and similar, and the opinions that caused it.

  • AnonymousSam

    Ad hominem is rarely a useful tool for making a point. This is not one of those occasions.

    Also, your vulgarity sucks ass. Don’t do that.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X