Same-sex marriage bill right step for equality

Can’t you just see Maggie Gallagher during the Salem witch trials, standing in judgement over some victim du jour with her long sleeved, walnut juice dyed, black Pilgrim’s dress, save the white collar and cuffs? Her puritanical expression, worn loosely over too tight facial muscles, is a face that has appeared to many throughout the centuries only now, she is the one donning the face of the unmerciful inquisitor. Those who felt it was their calling to burn witches in Salem were so convinced that what they were doing was correct and in line with God’s wishes. Little did they know it was a fungus growing in the wheat that caused these “devilish” seizures. The religious hysteria that ensued, due to these ergot poisonings, lead to the deaths of many, in the name of God, of course. For all the pain she’s caused, for all of the slanderous accusations of bestialitypolygamypedophilianecrophiliaburglary and any other negatives conjured up to supplement their weak case against our community, she and her brood will be held accountable. Both gay and straight people need to stand up to these hypocrites. Today gays are the target, tomorrow it’s whomever else is deemed, “undesirable”.

Let’s create a board game and name it, “Referendum”. With just one roll of the dice, rights could be stripped away, NOM-skulls could land in a prized square, a “Family Values” Republican could go down in flames, or an “activist judge” could be appointed to the bench. Oh! You landed on a slippery slope! Guess it’s bestiality for you! Put that sheep down! Roll the dice, win a beauty pageant. Roll the dice, your crown gets taken away! Slippery slope, oh!, polygamy, who knew? Roll the dice, the Bishops and priests line up to form a wall, ohhhh, another scandal! Get out of Jail free card. Procure property in Iowa and marry your partner, oh! Nom-skulls show up dressed as Pilgrims breathing fire and beating their sanctimonious breasts on your lawn. When is this game going to be over? Sincerely, 1EqualityUSA

Under the articles logic, that means that every state in the country should have to outlaw affirmative action because Michigan passed a law outlawing it so if students from MI go to another state that state has to prohibit affirmative action from applying to them because of “reverse discrimination”.

The beauty of our federalist system is that there are the “50 laboratories of democracy”. People can decide, within the broad limits of the Constitution, how they want to live.

Note (hopefully before the attacks come) that i’m not taking any sort of stand whatsoever on the issues of affirmative action or gay marriage, i’m simply pointing out be careful what you wish for because there are many different states. How many of you want to follow the laws of Texas? How about California? I dont want to have to follow other states laws unless the people of Michigan believe they’re right for us too. We can make mistakes, but for better or worse (so long as they follow the constitution) thats allowed in a democracy.

I realize that most of the article is referring to Federal legislation, i’m only referring to the several paragraphs which seem to state that states laws should apply across the board and in reference to the 2nd comment. (sorry i’m tired) :P

One of my favorite posts written on the subject” I hope whoever wrote this moving piece isn’t offended that I re-posted it. It says a lot about discrimination:
“This is not an issue of free speech but of neighborliness. Fundamental decency requires that we treat each other with respect, especially when we disagree deeply on hot moral issues. (emphasis added)

That’s all well and good, but we don’t see too much respect or neighborliness coming from Gallagher’s side. Her website says, “The issue isn’t benefits, it is marriage. Local folks can decide benefits. This is about the meaning of marriage, our most basic social institution for protecting children,” but the fact of the matter is that she is completely, 100% opposed to anyform of recognition.

Here’s a small example: I’m buying a house. I’m using the VA to underwrite the loan. That’s not some perk offered by the federal government, that is something I earned with my military service.

But because of the anti-marriage BS that people like Gallagher spew (specifically DOMA in this case), I am not permitted to use the VA to buy property that will belong to both myself and my partner. I either have to “go it alone” on the paperwork, using my income alone for the house, and (more importantly) put everything in my name, leaving him with no protection at all, or forgo using the VA.

Maggie Gallagher sees nothing wrong with essentially ripping my compensation, that I earned through several years of service, right out of my hands.

Is that neighborly? Is that respectful? What would you do if your “neighbor” stole your paycheck right out of your bank account? How would you react?

If Gallagher actually showed any empathy whatsoever; if she was arguing for some kind of civil union (for example) or some kind of other solution that would help meet the needs and difficulties I face every day, then I’d buy her arguments. I could respect her stance on marriage if she was actively seeking some kind of middle ground that respected all of us.

But she’s not. She’s not respectful. She’s not neighborly. So she has no right whatsoever to demand it of anyone else.

I have no sympathy whatsoever for the people who are criticizing Hesse on anything but substantive grounds. But can we please bury the faux concern of Gallagher et al. for the supposed demise of “neighborliness” that they themselves killed off a long time ago?”
—————————
(I cannot believe this Country is allowing discrimination. It’s really sorry. What an embarrassment! Sure, NOM-skulls will let soldiers fight for them, but they won’t treat them with equality when they return to the very Country for which they fought to maintain freedoms that all (well, most) enjoy!

Obama said he would support a repeal of the DOMA. I think he even asked Nadler to put it together. I think people are being pessimistic about this bill. Keep in mind it would also require the Gov’t to honor Civil Unions and Domestic Partnership, too, since many Conservadems say they support Civil Unions but not full marriage equality.

Flipside, the Constitution has this thing called the “Full Faith and Credit Clause” which states specifically that states are to honor marriages performed in other states. DOMA says states may disregard the Constitution when it comes to gay rights. And it also says that anything that is not listed in the Constitution (regulation of marriage is not) that states have the power to regulate as they see fit. DOMA does not allow states like Mass., Iowa, Connecticut, and Vermont, who perform same-sex marriages, to define marriage as they see fit, because they are not allowed to treat same-sex and opposite-sex marriages the same. Any benefit that is funded federally, same-sex couples cannot receive, because the government does not recognize the marriage, even though it is performed lawfully.

You know what would be great? Letting states decide for themselves and leaving it at that. Marriage is not a Constitutional right. As such, it should be determined on a state-by-state basis.

Maybe the government should be spending more time on things like dragging our country out of the economic abyss that it’s in instead of telling communities how to configure their morals.

Zeke, DOMA was a federal law pushed through to change the way marriage law worked. This bill is trying to undo that federal meddling, which of course was entirely motivated by prejudice against gay couples.

Discrimination is wrong and its obvious that all the bible thumpers want to do is discriminate when taking into consideration the fact that they have to lie just to win.

Get rid of marriage as an institution entirely. If want to get “married”, go to a chruch, temple, mosque, whatever. Everyone can have civil unions.

“Zeke, DOMA was a federal law pushed through to change the way marriage law worked. This bill is trying to undo that federal meddling, which of course was entirely motivated by prejudice against gay couples.”

That’s funny. Various states are granting marriages to same-sex couples already, so the “meddling” is limited to permitting states that don’t recognize gay marriage to keep their position without being forced by residents of other states to discard it. Want to get married in Mass? Fine. Stay there. The people of Michigan have voted that they don’t care for same-sex marriage. Whether you think that’s right or wrong, the people of the state of Michigan should not be forced to accept the morals of those on the east coast.

DOMA was the right solution and gave power to decide same-sex marriage on their own. Reversing that is more federalism and more of government exceeding its mandate.

As for harming marriage, similar arguments were shot down in Massachusetts. Your moral beliefs cannot strip others of contractual protections. We should not have any “onus” or burden, or any other hoop to jump through to justify our existence. We are American citizens and many disagree with your beliefs. There are over 1300 rights that we are being denied because of other peoples’ beliefs. This persecution has gone on long enough and we are not tolerating “outsider status” any longer, just to satisfy your comfort level. The government’s ENDORSEMENT of one group’s values, especially if others that don’t hold those views, is COERCION. Your unfounded fears didn’t prove to have a legitimate secular purpose and it failed, hence, gay marriage.

Separation of church and state prohibits religious favoritism and cannot promote one religion over another.

In regard to passing judgement in cases where separation of church and state is concerned, tests are set up.

1) the Lemon test, named after Alton J. Lemon from a Supreme Court case (1971)

2) O’Connor’s Endorsement test

3) Kennedy’s Coercion test

If any of these three tests are violated, the law is deemed unconstitutional. The same sex marriage ban would be endorsing one religious view over many others, thus creating exclusionary v. Inclusive types of religious doctrine. Such a ban would coerce individuals to support or conform to a specific religions. This government entanglement is unconstitutional.

The following is one of my favorite posts. I hope the original writer isn’t offended that I reposted it.:
What many fail to understand is that without “marriage” we are not afforded the same legal / federal laws that “opposite-sex couples gain. I want to be able to file my taxes jointly with my partner, I want to be assured that if I am in the hospital she can visit me without question, that on my death she will get the home, inheritance, that in my place of work she is on my healthcare an that I dont have to pay extra (approx.$400 per month) in insurance as she is recognized as a domestic partner. We want “civil” marriage and all the aspects, legal and contractual, that any couple who want to “officially” commit to a lifelong relationship get. Lets stop this “marriage is between a man and a woman” crapola, marriage should be between a couple that wishes to have the contractual LEGAL obligations of a life of love together.

I’m glad somebody mentioned the Constitution, although I’m not quite sure that clause applies. As far as I’m concerned, however, the 14th Amendment grants equal protection under the laws for all citizens. Now assuming Homosexuals have maintained their citizenship in spite of DOMA, this Amendment should apply. Secondarily, there are speech and religion issues involved here, but they all work through the 14th Amendment.

Gay Rights already exist, they’re simply not being recognized.

Studies have shown that couples fare better than single people, when it comes to health, wealth, stability, and fidelity. If pairing is so good for people, denying gays the right to pair off in contractual unions seems counterintuitive, even cruel. If marriage is good for couples, it’s good for society as a whole. Should those born gay be ineligible for such a healthy, stabilizing, happy relationship? Equal means equal. Damage done to the sanctity of marriage has been done long before gays opted for equality. If NOM really was concerned about the sanctity of marriage, more emphasis would be placed on protection of women from abuse, infidelity, spur of the moment marriages from youngsters with no impulse control, divorce, and on and on. Most of the gay couples I know have been together for years and years. They don’t stray. They work hard, pay for college, pay taxes, vote, buy houses, start businesses, create art, save lives, and genuinely enjoy their pursuit of happiness. Who has the right to say that these American citizens are not worthy of committed marriages? Will the rancor subside when it is proven, beyond a doubt, that there is a genetic component, a biological component to one’s orientation? Will the judgmental finger pointing and painful rhetoric cease? Who has the right to say which families will have benefits and which will not? Who has the right to say that the children of same sex parents deserve fewer stabilizing protections? People are gay and that is not going to change. Would you rather people stayed in the closet and lived an outward lie? That’s dishonest. It’s possible, but dishonest. Be yourself, your truthful self, just as God made you and don’t let someone else’s discomfort about your difference make you lie to the world. Be honest and treat others well. Have integrity and show patience when angry, homophobic people taunt. Fear is their weapon of choice. Disprove it with civility.

And yet another “favorite” found posted, too good not to repost. From Debra in Massachusetts:
“If what you say is correct and everyone in the military should have the same rights, then straight married service members should never mention their spouse or children and keep that part of their life totally private. If they so much as mention that they are attracted to the opposite sex, went on a date with someone of the opposite sex, are married and love their husband or wife, then they should be kicked out of the service for not keeping their private life private. This is the way LGBT service members have to live. It’s discrimination, and it’s an incredible burden to ask anyone to live under such secrecy, let alone someone sacrificing so much for the welfare of our country. Being in a war zone is stressful enough without worrying that any word you might say without consciously censoring yourself might cause you to lose your job.”
—————————-
I had never thought of that. It makes DADT look ridiculous.

Gays still have the same rights as other citizens. They can marry anyone of the opposite sex they want. What you’re talking about is more legislation to accommodate their desires. These aren’t rights.

“Gays still have the same rights as other citizens. They can marry anyone of the opposite sex they want.”
“NO RIGHT AT ALL….”
This is such twaddle. The Iowa ruling slammed this warped mindset in it’s ruling:
It is true the marriage statute does not expressly prohibit gay and
lesbian persons from marrying; it does, however, require that if they marry,
it must be to someone of the opposite sex. Viewed in the complete context of
marriage, including intimacy, civil marriage with a person of the opposite sex
is as unappealing to a gay or lesbian person as civil marriage with a person
of the same sex is to a heterosexual. Thus, the right of a gay or lesbian
person under the marriage statute to enter into a civil marriage only with a
person of the opposite sex is no right at all.

I never got why people who aren’t gay even care about gay marriage. I’m aware of no such effort to make it mandatory. As a straight American male I say, let consenting adults marry other consenting adults and let’s stop arguing about this nonsense. There are plenty of real issues to devote thought to. I can’t wait for 15 or 20 years out when the whole gay marriage thing looks ridiculous.

“Our liberties we prize and our rights we will maintain.”

Iowa’s motto should be America’s motto. What happened?

I wonder if 1equalityUSA would champion the rights of a brother and sister to marry, or even first cousins. What about a father and daughter? After all, you’re claiming that you have rights already granted by the Constitution, so why aren’t those couples? Would you be willing to include them in legislation opening the door for gays and lesbians marrying?

Several of my gay friends insist that they are no different than a hetero couple, yet shudder and voice disgust at the prospect of a brother marrying a sister. Talk about the pot and the kettle.

Yet another tiresome incest post. What? Have you all been given little booklets from NOM-skulls? Keep repeating and repeating these false accusations and fear mongering retorts, it does not make them true.

“Jake”
Jake: Literally, “Heel Grabber” Held by the heel, Supplanter, one who wrongfully or illegally seizes and holds the place of another

“Yet another tiresome incest post. What? Have you all been given little booklets from NOM-skulls? Keep repeating and repeating these false accusations and fear mongering retorts, it does not make them true.”

What accusations? You seek to define marriage based on love. Fine then – why is only your love worthy of being extended the rights that hetero couples now have? What do you have against incestuous love aside from the same programming you find reprehensive in the people denying you rights now? This isn’t about slippery slope or fear-mongering. If you claim that love is love regardless of who the receipeint may be, and that gay couples are no different than hetero couples, you must also grant that a brother can love a sister equally. To suggest otherwise is applying the same restrictions that you claim are being applied against gay couples.

“Jake: Literally, “Heel Grabber” Held by the heel”

Lovely ad hominem attack. And you wonder why I cannot take you seriously. Instead of debating you, maybe I should just call you a asshat next time?