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.’”

  • 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

    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.

  • 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

  • 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.

  • 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://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?

  • 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.

  • 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!

  • 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.

  • 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://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://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.

  • 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://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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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”.

  • JonathanPelikan

    So say we all.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Beroli

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

    What?

  • 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.

  • 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. ^_^

  • 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.

  • 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?

  • 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/Ann-Unemori/100001112760232 Ann Unemori

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

  • 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

     

    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.

  • 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/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.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X