I've set up a page at the Human Rights Campaign website to help in the fight against the proposed Constitutional Amendment that would redefine marriage for the entire nation.
Even if you don't personally support marriage rights for gays, consider the precedent that would be set by this amendment. It would be the only amendment to the Constitution that existed solely to RESTRICT rights rather than expand them. That in and of itself is danger - and could make it easier for others to get their own bigotries embedded into the Constitution.
If you're interested in helping, please visit my page at: http://www.hrcactioncenter.org/actioncenter/advocacy/kriselda-200006 and urge Congress not to insert discrimination against gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people into the U.S. Constitution. This issue is very important to me and it's critical that as many people as possible speak up.
Please feel free to pass this message along to any of your friends who would like to support gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender equality.
People for the American Way are collecting signatures on a petition to send to Congress urging them to reject a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. The text reads as follows:
"We, the undersigned, strongly oppose the adoption of an amendment to the Constitution that would require discrimination against any specific group of Americans. The Federal Marriage Amendment is a betrayal of the American principles of equality and fairness. We oppose the Federal Marriage Amendment."
"Today, I call upon the Congress to promptly pass and to send to the states for ratification an amendment to our Constitution defining and protecting marriage as a union of a man and woman as husband and wife."It's not often that a politician pisses me off so much that it actually makes my Tourette's ticks act up, but I'm twitching like crazy over here. I honestly do not understand how anyone can say that this is not an attempt to mix church and state in an unimaginable affront to the freedoms that America is supposed to provide her citizens!— President George W. Bush February 24, 2004
There simply are no valid secular arguments that support the idea that allowing gays to marry will cause anyone any harm. Saying that "society" defines marriage as the joining of a man and woman doesn't change the fact that the definition only exists because of the religious belief that homosexuality is an affront to one deity or another. There is simply no evidence that allowing gays to marry would have ANY effect at all on healthy heterosexual marriages.
If the conservative busybodies who are promoting this discriminatory - and unAmerican - agenda were truly concerned about the "sanctity" of marriage, they would be out there doing everything they could to eliminate the current causes of divorce.
Its kind of ironic that most of the people who wail about the "sanctity" of marriage being violated are the same people who seem to think it's good for society to have business trying to get every last minute of work it can out of its employees as cheaply as possible, without taking into account the toll that financial difficulties and/or working long hours can take on a marriage. How many marriages in America have been destroyed by one partner's effective absence because their company demanded that they work 60 hour work weeks or spend most of their time on the road, away from their families? How many have been destroyed by the financial upheaval that the last few years of constant job losses have created? I'll wager far more than have been destroyed by Vermont's civil unions law.
Adultery is another marriage killer that not only do the conservatives ignore as a legitimate social issue, but often engage in themselves. How often do we hear about one conservative leader or another who has engaged in extra-marital hanky panky, or who is on to a second, third or fourth wife? How many families in general have been destroyed because someone couldn't keep a promise they made - one typically made in a sacred ceremony?
And what's being done to combat other causes of marriage failures, such as alcoholism, drug abuse, gambling addictions or other compulsive behaviours? Anything? You'd think that those who are interested in preserving the alleged "sanctity" of marriage would have some interest in addressing those issues, but they don't. And domestic violence is another marriage killer (sometimes, sadly, in an all-too-literal sense) that they have little interest in combating.
The amount of sanctimonious bullshit that's being shoveled around on this issue is staggering. No one cares about preserving marriage, they just don't like gays and don't want to see any indication that gays actually have the same rights, needs, and desires that any of the rest of us do. Well, guys, here's the deal. You need to clean up your own houses before you tell someone how to maintain their own. If you want marriage to be sacred, get out there and start working to make business family-friendly, so that people are paid a fair wage and have adequate time to actually BE with their families. Work to make adultery socially unacceptable again. Work to help make sure that addicts and their family members can get the help they need to get the addiction under control before it breaks the family apart. Do everything you can to put an end to domestic abuse in this country. That's where the problems are - not in allowing gays to get married.
Brad at Oh great one who is never wrong has an interesting post providing a number of definitions of marriage, and then asks why can't gays just have civil unions, but "code-word" it as "marriage." I've heard that kind of a suggestion a few other times, and I always come back to the same question: Why should they have to?
In a wonderful bit on "The Daily Show" tonight, Jon Steward and Stephen Colbert made an excellent point about just how ridiculous the idea of an "anti-gay marriage" amendment - based on the idea that letting gays marry would somehow "ruin" the institution of marriage - really is. Stephen was acting like a sanctimonious conservative claiming that gays shouldn't be allowed to marry, and that an amendment was absolutely necessary to protect the sanctity of marriage, at which point Jon said something to the effect of "So, you'd also support a constitutional amendment banning adultery?" I didn't quite catch Colbert's response because I was laughing so hard, but it was along the lines of "ABSOLUTELY NOT! The government has no business being in my bedroom!" I thought it was a GREAT comeback to those who claim they oppose gay marriage on the "sanctity" principle.
Maybe some of the gay groups should consider making noise about wanting something like an anti-adultery amendment, and start talking about how much damage adultery does and how may marriages end because of it. It wouldn't go anywhere, but it could be an excellent tactic to point out just how idiotic the whole thing really is...
Personally, thought, what I think would be an idea solution would be for the government to stop using the term "marriage" in regards to the legal joining of two individuals - set that aside as a term used solely to describe a spiritual joining of two individuals, blessed by any church of their choice. Marriage would not confer any special rights, benefits, responsibilities, status or penalties. It would be strictly a religious institution.
The government could then sanction "Legal Unions" (or "Civil Unions" if people prefer that term), and all of the rights, benefits, responsibilities, status and penalties that are currently associated with "marriage". This would be strictly a legal concept.
Couples could then choose to be "married" in a church, "legally joined" by the state or both - depending on their own preference and beliefs. To help maintain the separation, if a couple wanted to be both married and legally joined, they would have to arrange for a spiritual service and then also make an appearance before a justice of the peace to formalize the legal arrangement.
That way, the religious conservatives who are having a fit can have their word with its "sanctity" in no more danger of defilement than it is now, the government would be out of the business of granting legal benefits based, in many cases, on a religious ceremony, and any two people who want to be legally bound to each other can be, without threatening any "sacred" institutions.
Sadly, it's probably too rational of an idea to ever get anywhere.
| Marriage is love. | |||||
I got this from a post today at morons.org. If you've never been there, you should check it out. They point out when people are being, well, morons (particularly if their in the news) as well as offer commentary on a variety of subjects.
This one just has me outraged:
Back in July we reported that North Carolina continued to target gays for legal persecution despite the nullification of "sodomy" laws by deciding that they'd just arrest people who talk about engaging in "sodomy" in public even if they actually have sex in a private home, even though their private, consensual sexual behaviour cannot be criminalized.There's more, including a very funny "one-act play" demonstrating exactly where something like this could lead.Now Virginia has hopped on the "conspiracy to commit sodomy" bandwagon, and is also arresting gay men for talking about having sex in public places. They're going after men hooking up in book stores and other cruisy locations, even though they're not having sex in public. This is an obvious violation of these guys' right to freedom of speech and association, but clearly if the state doesn't care about arresting folks for talking about something that isn't itself illegal, they don't give a damn about the rights of the victims of their sex shop trolling under the First Amendment.
In an article at Morons.org, writer Spatula posts about a company in North Carolina that's being harassed because they refuse to discriminate against gays. The post includes the following quote from the company's CEO - and I just think it's a good enough answer that it needs to be shared:
And of course, for creating such an environment and supporting equal rights, openly-gay CEO Robert Page receives hate mail from neocon robots which says things like, "You should support family values, not the homosexual agenda."The company is Replacements, a firm which offers replacement pieces for dinnerware lines that have been discontinued by their manufacturers. If you like their CEO's attitude and need a few more plates to complete your service, you might want to check them out.To which he responds that his "company believes all people are deserving of dignity, respect, and equal treatment. If that is also what you consider to be the homosexual agenda, I proudly support it."
I hope whatever it is that makes some public officials in Kansas go batty isn't contagious. I'd sure hate to come down with it!
Following the decision in Lawrence v. Texas, the Kansas Court's decision to deny an appeal for Matthew Limon who was convicted of having sex with an underaged partner and then given a sentence over 13-and-a-half times as long as the older partner of a heterosexual couple of the same ages would have gotten solely because his partner was the same gender that Limon is. See, Kansas has this really weird law called the "Romeo and Juliet" law which allows for a considerably shorter sentence (1 year, 3 months) for a person having consensual sex with a minor if the age difference between them is 4 years or less - but only if the partners are of different genders. If they're the same gender, the sentence is much greater - in Limon's case, 17 years.
Because of this summer's Lawrence v. Texas decision, however, the Kansas courts have to review Limon's case again. The state's arguments, though, leave much to be desired.
But Maag said the state Legislature had broad authority to approve of such disparities in sentencing in order to promote "traditional sexual roles."Ok, so the state wants to promote "traditional sexual roles?" I fail to comprehend in any way how punishing the older member of a gay couple more harshly than the older member of a straight couple is going to promote "traditional sexual roles." If that's they're goal, I'd think they'd find it more effective to bar women from earning more than their husbands, make it illegal for a man to do household chores, change diapers or cook, prevent women from working at all or other such draconian measures. (And if anyone from the Kansas legislature is reading this, please be aware that the above was meant to be sarcastic and not to be taken as a serious suggestion. I worry about you guys, you know?)The state argued the reasons for different punishments of similar sex acts was to promote marriage, encourage procreation and prevent the spread of sexually transmitted diseases.
As for the promotion of marriage, how does jailing the older partner of any couple promote marriage in any way? If your boyfriend or girlfriend gets sent away for over a year, especially if you're in your late teens or so, odds are you're not likely to end up marrying them no or anytime in the future. In fact, I'll bet that there's a much greater chance of you finding a new boyfriend or girlfriend before the old one gets out of jail than there is of a marriage arising from this situation. This doesn't mean that I don't think that statutory rapes should be prosecuted, just that I don't think it's the best way to promote marriage.
As for their last "justification" - preventing the spread of sexually-transmitted diseases, were you aware that only gays can get or pass on STDs? Neither was I! It seems that the Kansas district attorney's office is onto some kind of hot new science here. Obviously, I'm being sarcastic again. Sexually-transmitted diseases don't affect only gays - they can affect anyone having any kind of sex with any kind of partner under pretty much any kind of conditions. Using condoms is a pretty good way to avoid most of them, but they're not foolproof. It's better to know your partners well enough to know if they actually have an STD before having sex with them, but, if you're not going to go that route, a condom is one of your better options.
If the legislature is truly interested in preventing the spread of sexually-transmitted diseases, though, they'd do better to focus on educating people about the dangers of STDs, how one gets them, what you can do to prevent them, and what can happen to you if you get one. If they really want a law-enforcement solution, then I suppose they could try arresting people who know (or reasonably should know) that they have an STD and are engaging in unsafe sexual practices. Investigating and proving that kind of a case would likely be very difficult, especially if you intend to do so without violating someone's civil rights, but to claim that jailing older homosexuals who are having consensual sex with a younger - though by no more than 4 years - homosexual is somehow going to prevent the spread of STD's is just silly.
Luckily, there is at least one non-brain-damaged judge in Kansas, and he was one of the justices hearing the case today.
"I'm just trying to come up with a reason, other than you don't like homosexuals," Kansas Court of Appeals Judge Joseph Pierron told Deputy Atty. Gen. Jared Maag, who was representing the state.Hopefully reason will prevail and Limon will soon find himself out of jail and able to get back to his normal life. The fact that he's gay shouldn't cost him an extra 15 years and 9 months.[...] But Pierron, the head of the three-judge panel, told Maag two of those reasons [ed note: referring to the reasons discussed above] were "utterly ridiculous" because the law deals with sexual acts committed by minors, which are illegal regardless of the context.
[Update 12/5/03 11:46pm - slightly rephrased a sentence in the opening paragraph to get rid of some really horrendously bad grammar. No change in context or meaning, however - except now maybe it makes sense. *g*]
A seven-year-old boy was punished for saying that his mothers are "gay" and explaining that gay is "when a girl likes a girl".
The teacher told the boy that "gay" is a bad word that shouldn't be said in school. The following week, the boy was required to attend an early-morning behavioral clinic. The ACLU said the boy was forced to write "I will never use the word 'gay' in school again."While the school wasn't immediately available for comment according to most of the articles, a story at 365gay.com noted thatChoe's letter asks the school to remove the incident from the boy's disciplinary record, refrain from restricting his speech in the future, and apologize to the boy's mother. The ACLU said an assistant principal called the mother and told her the boy had said a word so bad that he didn't want to repeat it over the phone.
On a student behavior contract form that Marcus had to fill out and give to his mother about the incident, Marcus wrote that the thing he did wrong was that he “sed bad wurds.”Note that ALL Marcus explained is that "gay is when a girl likes a girl," which is pretty much as basic of a fact as it gets. Nothing he said would contradict anything a parent might have chosen to teach their child or have given any kind of a moral context to being gay. At worst, it might make a parent address the subject of homosexuality sooner than they might like, but there's still nothing in what the child said that would prevent the parents from teaching their child either that homosexuality is a normal variation in human relationships (in terms a second-grader can understand) or that it's an abomination that God condemns.A handwritten note at the top of the form from Marcus’s teacher further explains: “He explained to another child that you are gay and what being gay means.”
On a behavior report form signed by the assistant principal, the teacher wrote, “Marcus decided to explain to another child in his group that his mom is gay. He told the other child that gay is when a girl likes a girl. This kind of discussion is not acceptable in my room. I feel that parents should explain things of this nature to their own children in their own way.”
One of the risks of allowing a child to actually interact in the world with kids from other families is that they may sometimes hear things that parents may not want them to or may not have intended to address yet. My husband tells how when he was in early grade-school, some of his classmates were asking him if he masturbated. He went home and asked his mom what that meant, and the family had their first big "sex talk." They might not have planned to discuss sex with him at that particular age, but when the question was presented, they made the best of it, and it certainly didn't hurt him any.
Likewise, now that we're getting close to Christmas, we'll soon get to hear stories of parents, teachers and administrators who are appalled when one child tells another that Santa Clause isn't real. Some parents really want their kids to believe in Santa and get angry when another child "ruins" it for them. Amazingly, the kids somehow survive the trauma and the family is still able to enjoy Christmas.
Yet even though the truth about Santa is something that many parents and teachers may think should be explained to children by their parents in whatever way the parent thinks is appropriate, I can't imagine a school ordering a child to attend an early morning "behavioural clinic" and write "I will never say that Santa isn't real in school again" repeatedly on the blackboard.
While this case involves a teacher who clearly went overboard, her explanation is that she's trying to help protect a parent's ability to teach their child as they see fit. I would imagine this is because there are a number of parents who do seem to expect the school to carefully monitor and control what other children say. Some of that may be appropriate. Children in school shouldn't be allowed to freely make cruel comments to other children, taunting or teasing them over differences in race, religion, appearance or other such things. In that regard, they should be taught basic civility, both in the home and in the school. There might be other areas in which some restraint is appropriate - for example, it probably would make sense to try and keep one child from giving another child detailed information about sexuality, drugs, alcohol or other such topics. Detailed information is something that really should be explained by parents in a moral context. But there's a significant difference between a child saying "My parents are gay and gay is when one girl likes another" and one child telling another about how to have sex, or how good having sex might be, or what kind of drugs are fun to take and so forth.
If parents don't want their children exposed to even basic facts of life, like the fact that homosexuality exists, then maybe it's best for them to home-school their children. After all, it's much easier to control what they know about the world if you simply don't let them out in it at all.
It was a close ruling - 4 to 3 - but Massachusetts' Supreme Court declared today that the state's ban on gay marriage was unconstitutional. The state now has 180 days to bring it's marriage laws in line with the ruling, and, if all goes well, after that gays should be able to start getting married.
BOSTON (Reuters) - Massachusetts' highest court has ruled that the state must give gay and lesbian couples the legal rights of marriage, which could make the state the first in America to legalise gay marriage.Of course, conservatives and fundamentalists are foaming at the mouth about this. Hopefully, though, the rule of law can override the rule of bigotry.In a 4-3 ruling, the Supreme Judicial Court said Massachusetts cannot deny civil marriage rights to two people of the same sex who wish to marry -- although it stopped short of ordering the state to start issuing marriage licenses.
"Barring an individual from the protections, benefits, and obligations of civil marriage solely because that person would marry a person of the same sex violates the Massachusetts Constitution," the court said on Tuesday, saying state law forbids the creation of second-class citizens.
Under the ruling, the state is required to issue civil marriage certificates, but no church or clergy are required to perform ceremonies for gays if they don't want to. This, of course, is as it should be. Marriage exists as two distinctly different entities - one being the civil marriage - the joining of two households in the eyes of the law, which is what the state governs. It is what grants the various legal benefits and obligations that come with being married, such as the ability to visit a spouse in the hospital and make decisions about their care, tax breaks and burdens that come from a combined household, the ability to share in work-related benefits - like health insurance - that are granted by businesses to their employee's spouses, obligations for mutual support and so on.
Marriage also exists as a spiritual institution - the joining of two souls in the eyes of the Divine (however that may be defined in any particular religion). What that consists of and what benefits and burdens it confers varies with each faith. This form of marriage is not regulated by the state, and no laws have - or should - be passed telling churches and other religious bodies which unions they must recognize or deny.
Opponents of gay marriage conflate the two - and claim that allowing civil marriages will somehow damage the institution of spiritual marriage, without stopping to realize that spiritual marriage isn't addressed by any laws, and that their religious bodies are still free to teach whatever beliefs they want to about the nature of spiritual marriage. Just as the fact that alcohol is legal does nothing to prevent various churches from teaching that drinking is wrong, making gay marriage legal won't keep any church from teaching that homosexuality is wrong, if that's what they believe, or that a gay marriage is not viewed as spiritually valid. Just as the legal availability of alcohol doesn't stop thousands - if not millions - of adults from not drinking for spiritual reasons, the legal availability of gay marriage won't stop thousands - if not millions - of heterosexual adults from not marrying same-sex partners.
In any event, I'm glad to see the state's Supreme Court making such a wise and just decision. Congrats to the future happily married gay couples in Massachusetts!
This whole "Marriage Protection Week" thing is a farce. Marriage needs far less protection from gays than it does from people who get married and then are abusive to their spouses, have affairs, neglect their marriage in favour of their careers, abuse drugs or alcohol, gamble themselves into financial ruin or engage in other such actions that not only are the leading causes of divorce, but also do immeasurable damage to the families that we're always being told are the true foundation of American society.
It seems to me that if conservatives and other who oppose gay marriage are so worried about the damage allowing gays to marry would do to the concept of the American family, why aren't they out fighting just as hard to make adultry illegal again, or create constitutional amendments that would prevent anyone with a history of substance abuse, bankruptcy, negligence or domestic violence from being able to marry? Why don't they pass laws to prevent such people from being able to ever adopt or gain custody of their own children?
It seems to me that it would be far more important to seriously work on these problems, which we know cause marriages to fail and cause harm to children than to try and pass a Constitutional amendment to prevent something that's already illegal (though it really shouldn't be) and which hasn't been shown to have nearly as much of an impact on families as these other issues have. We've all heard about criminals who blame their crimes on having been raised by abusive or neglegent parents (of any gender or sexual persuasion), but how many have said it was because they were raised by a non-abusive gay parent?
Of course, we all know the reason that the anti-gay forces don't put nearly as much energy into preventing the known problems that end marriages and damage children as they do into preventing gay marriage is that the point really isn't about what damage letting gays marry might do to "families". The issue is simple bigotry - and this is just the excuse they've latched on to in order to try and get their laws passed.
You know, between the "kids don't need to know about evolution" debacle and Fred Phelps being based here, I've had a strong desire to just pretend I don't live in Kansas anymore for quite a while. In fact, if it weren't that my husband's job is here and the fact that, since I can't get out of the house, getting out of the state would probably be a bit tricky, I'd love to move someplace a bit more reasonable, like, say, Canada. But do we really have to have our Attorney General doing his best to make sure we continue to look like backwards, uneducated hicks?
A few years back, Kansas modified their statutory rape law, making it what some call a "Romeo and Juliet" law instead. What this means is that when two people engage in consensual sex where one person is over the age of consent and one person is under the age of consent, but the age difference is less than a certain number of years (I believe it's 5, but I'm not positive), the penalties for statutory rape are significantly reduced. The logic behind it is that there will be situations where, say, and 18-year-old boy and a 14-year-old girl end up having sex, where the activity was consensual and there's no need to severely punish or try to rehabilitate the older partner - kind of a "kids will be kids" thing. The more severe penalties are reserved for cases where you have an adult who has taken advantage of a kid.
The problem, however, is that in Kansas - forward thinkers that we are here - made the "Romeo and Juliet" provision apply only to heterosexual teens. So, if the hypothetical 18-year-old boy mentioned above gets nailed for, well, nailing the 14-year-old girl, he'd get about a year in prison. If you change that 14-year-old girl to a 14-year-old boy, however, and the sentence increases from 1 year to 17. And that's what happened to Matthew Limon. He got caught having sex with a 14-year-old boy and got 17 years in jail for it.
In the wake of the recent Texas sodomy decision, however, the ACLU has filed an appeal in Limon's case - which makes sense. The basic principle of the Supreme Court's decision seems to be that it's unconstitutional for the same acts to be treated differently under the law for heterosexuals and homosexuals. In that case, the problem was that homosexuals could be arrested and prosecuted for committing consensual sodomy, even in the privacy of their own homes, but heterosexuals had no such concern. They could legally sodomize each other all they wanted and the law couldn't do a thing. The Court correctly ruled that that kind of discrimination wasn't right and struck down the law.
One would think, then, that the Limon case would be a no-brainer. We're talking about a situation where the exact same behaviour between two people is subject to two different kinds of laws, depending entirely on whether the couple involved is heterosexual or homosexual. I'm not a lawyer, but it sounds like the Texas precedent would be pretty much on point here, you know? Well, our 'esteemed' Attorney General doesn't seem to think so:
Kansas Attorney General Phill Kline says that the state's sodomy law must be maintained to stop gay marriage, incest, and sex with children.I think Lange calls it right, there. See, here's what I don't get: No one seems to be arguing about whether or not the law that allows horney heterosexual teens to have sex and not be sent to prison for 17 years would encourage incest, sex between adults and children, beastiality, multiple-partner marriages or other such things - only that expanding it to cover horney homosexual teens would do so.[...]
Kline calls the ACLU position an assault on the state's prohibition of same-sex marriage and Kansas laws against polygamy, incest, bestiality and sex between adults and children.
He said the ACLU's position was that all people, no matter their sexual orientation, were protected from discrimination. Kline said that would lead to the legalization of same-sex marriage -- as well as marriages with multiple partners, incestuous marriages and bestiality.
"The argument in the ACLU brief is a direct assault on the institution of marriage and also various criminal laws that protect children from sexual exploitation by adults," Kline told reporters Monday.
ACLU lawyer Tamara Lange called Kline's reasoning "absurd, flawed and wrong."
Sorry, but I don't buy that in the least. If Kline's argument held the least bit of water, then the same arguments should have been made to prevent the law from being changed in the first place. I can see where there could be legitimate concern that loosening the restrictions on statutory rape in general could possibly have some unforeseen consequences.
The "Romeo and Juliet" law seems to assume that someone who's 18, 19 or 20 can't or won't manipulate a 14- or 15-year-old into having sex the same way an older adult could, or that if they do, it's somehow not as bad for the younger partner, but wouldn't that equally apply to both homosexual and heterosexual liaisons? It's not the orientation of the couple that's creates the potential for problems, but rather that the law makes assumptions that may or may not be true across the whole sexual-orientation spectrum.
On top of that, Kline seems to be arguing that allowing young homosexual couples the same protection that is being granted to young heterosexual couples would somehow have an impact on the state's marriage laws. Excuse me? This law has nothing to do with marriage. To the best of my knowledge, it doesn't change any provisions of the current marriage laws, such as allowing younger couples to get married without parental consent or anything of that nature, so I fail to see how it could possibly have an effect on whether homosexual marriage is allowed or not. They are separate issues and separate laws. Sure, I'd love to see Kansas legalize homosexual marriage, though I'm sure not holding my breath, but I don't see any way that treating young homosexual and heterosexual couples the same under the "Romeo and Juliet" laws would take us anywhere closer to that than we are now.
All Kline's arguments manage to show is that he's a short-sighted bigot who's more than willing to let his personal prejudice affect his professional judgment. I know I'll be remembering that next time I vote, and I hope other Kansans will as well. I know I'm not the only liberal here!
Eugene Volokh has posted an excellent analogy at his blog The Volokh Conspiracy. To tell you what it's about would ruin part of the punch, so just go read it. Trust me, it's worth the time.
Link via Mark Kleiman
Xantippe has apparently ganed access to the report being released by the Center for Covert Knowledges about last week's blackout, and the shocking truth as to the cause: [gasp!] Heterosexuals!
"There is reason to believe that as many as 90% of those involved with the causes behind this recent disaster are committed heterosexuals," says the report's introduction. "While none of the persons interviewed for this report have admitted to engaging in specifically heterosexual behaviors precisely at the time of the power outage, nearly all of the interviewees spent extraordinary amounts of time advertising elements of heterosexuality -- speaking either adoringly or dismissively about husbands and/or wives, wearing wedding rings and cultured pearls, listening to radio broadcasts celebrating heterosexual rituals and -- perhaps most shockingly -- displaying framed family portraits in their places of work."You know, if stuff like this doesn't help people see just how stupid the "Homosexuality is the cause of all the evil in the world" assholes are, probably nothing will - but at least we can have fun laughing while we tear out our hair and bang our heads against the fundamentalist wall...
Uggabugga has a selection of quotes from Sen. Rick Santorum's interview on FOX News Sunday this week. The man is seriously warped. Below is just one example. Uggabugga also has sections showcasing his views on Civil Unions, the difference between Civil Unions and Marriage, the Separation of Church and State, the Vatican's recent instructions to Catholic politicians, and the viability of someone with "deeply held beliefs" serving on the bench. It's a bit nauseating, but well worth reading.
HUME: Now, you just heard Elizabeth Birch set forth a lot reasons why she thinks the current legal situation, as it deals with gays, is unfair; that, you know, hospital visitation rights and these other things are denied. Do you think that's fair?I've said it before, but I'm going to keep saying it. My marriage is no less valid, real or significant than anyone else's simply because my husband and I have chosen not to have children. To be told that marriage should not be used as an affirmation of love, but rather solely for procreation is beyond pathetic. That may be his view, based on his religious beliefs, but that doesn't give him any right to think that they should be accepted as law in a secular nation.SANTORUM: Well, that's a separate issue. I mean, the issue here is marriage. And to me, the building block -- and I think, to most people in America, number one, it's common sense that a marriage is between a man and a woman. I mean, every civilization in the history of man has recognized a unique bond.
Why? Because -- principally because of children. I mean, it's -- it is the reason for marriage. It's not to affirm the love of two people. I mean, that's not what marriage is about. I mean, if that were the case, then lots of different people and lots of different combinations could be, quote, "married."
Marriage is not about affirming somebody's love for somebody else. It's about uniting together to be open to children, to further civilization in our society.
And that's unique. And that's why civilizations forever have recognized that unique role that needs to be licensed, needs held up as different than anything else because of its unique nurturing effect on children.
And there isn't a statistic out there that doesn't show that married couples, in a healthy marriage, is the best environment in which to raise stable children and is the best thing, long term, for our society.
So it's not about not recognizing somebody's love for somebody else. That's not what it's about. It's not being discriminatory against anybody. It's talking about the good that marriage is for our culture.
When I read stuff like this, it makes me angry because I don't appreciate some fanatical busybody denegrating my marriage just because we're childless. But I always know that we are childless by choice. We don't want kids, and we don't have to have them. Thank the Gods for that.
At the same time, though, when I hear that kind of refuse spilling out of the mouth of one of our supposed leaders, I also become infuriated because I can only begin to imagine how those words must feel to couples who want children but can't have them - in many cases even with the help of medical intervention. Everytime some bastard opens his mouth and starts spouting off about how marriage is about the children, yadda, yadda, yadda, it must feel like bullets piercing the hearts of these couple who so desparately want a child of their own, but for whatever reason - be it fate, biology or some even kind of divine retribution - can't.
It seems to me that if Santorum's God wanted marriage to exist, not as a symbol of love, but only as a baby factory, He'd make sure every married couple could have children. Theoretically, it should be well within his power. But in case Mr. Santorum hasn't noticed, that isn't the case. If God doesn't see fit to bless (or curse, depending on your point of view) every married couple with children - or prevent every unmarried couple from producing children - then doesn't it stand to reason that maybe there's more to marriage than just the kids?
Jeff Jacoby offers his opinion in today's Boston Globe on what he sees as "just a shred" of evidence that gay marriage can have a negative impact on heterosexual marriage.
Well, here's a shred of evidence: The Boston Globe reports that in the three years since Vermont extended near-marriage status to same-sex civil unions, nearly 5,700 gay and lesbian couples have registered their relationship. Of those couples, close to 40 percent, or more than 2,000, include at least one partner who used to be married.So, because 2,000 people who used to be in heterosexual marriages are now in a homosexual civil unions, Jacoby thinks this indicates that civil unions may have a detrimental effect on heterosexual marriages? I'm really not sure how he can come to this kind of a conclusion. There's simply not enough information to make any kind of an assumption about what the numbers themselves might mean.
Just a shred - but a jarring one. Of course, it doesn't mean that Vermont's civil union law broke up 2,000 straight couples. It does mean that where there used to be 2,000 traditional marriages, there are now 2,000 ruptured ones - and 2,000 gay or lesbian unions in their place. Were some of those marriages doomed from the outset? Probably. But it's also probable that some of them weren't. In another time or another state, some of those marriages might have worked out. The old stigmas, the universal standards that were so important to family stability, might have given them a fighting chance. Without them, they were left exposed and vulnerable.
For example, we don't know when the original heterosexual marriages ended in divorce. If the divorces occured prior to the civil union law being put into effect, then it cannot be claimed that the civil union law had any impact on the heterosexual marriage at all. And even if the divorce happened subsequently to the law being passed, it doesn't prove that the civil union law played any part in it.
Keep in mind that for quite some time, now, this country has had a divorce rate of roughly 50%. Half of all marriages end in divorce, and I'd venture to say that most of those people end up in another relationship at some point, be it heterosexual or homosexual; a marriage, domestic partnership or civil union.
I don't have the statistics in front of me, but I would not be the least bit surprised if it turned out that a large percentage of marriages involved people who had been married before. Would Jacoby assume that heterosexual marriage, and the ease of getting remarried, is similarly responsible for breaking up marriages? Should heterosexual re-marriage be illegal as a result?
Jacoby is worried that civil unions create a situation in which the "stigmas" that helped keep people focused on "family stability" are weakened, and thus people are more likely to leave their marriage rather than trying to make it "work". Yet you rarely see similar concern that allowing heterosexual re-marriage can create the same vulnerability, even though the same logic - that the availability of a new and legally sanctioned relationship makes it easier to leave an old relationship that isn't working well - would apply.
Jacoby's reference to "stigmas", however, leads me to look at this from a somewhat different angle. Even with civil unions being legal in one state, homosexual relationships - along with homosexuality in general - is still very heavily stigmatized. Many gays and lesbians go through many years of denial about their sexuality before finally admitting to themselves that they truly are homosexual. It's not at all uncommon to hear a gay or lesbian speak about how they had gotten into a heterosexual marriage to try and cover-up their homosexuality, or as a way of "curing" their homosexuality. Some even think that by committing themselves to another person, they can "forget" about being gay all together. Typically, though, these marriages fail because the person finds they cannot deny who they really are.
If, however, the stigma of homosexuality was removed - if we, as a society, could find a way to accept homosexuality and homosexual relationships - including allowing gay marriage - gays and lesbians would no longer feel a need to hide or deny their own feelings, and they'd be less likely to enter into these doomed heterosexual relationships as ways of trying to deny their homosexuality to themselves and the world.
Now, obviously, this isn't going to eliminate divorce - I doubt it would make that much of a dent in the overall divorce rate - but it makes as much sense to think that acceptance of homosexuality and homosexual relationships would help strengthen heterosexual messages by eliminating those marriages that are entered into for the wrong reasons, (thus preventing the divorces and broken families that result) as it does to think that legalizing gay marriage is going to break up numerous heterosexual marriages. Of course, that won't solve the problem of marriages breaking up because of ease of re-marriage, but it might be a start, eh?
Link via CalPundit (comments section)
Jan as Secular Blasphemy has a very well-written article about Sen. Bill Frist's declaration of support for an anti-gay marriage amendment. One of his visitors commented that marriage is a states' rights issue and what marriages are valid should be left up to the state.
I can, to an extent, understand the "state's rights" aspect of the issue, except that because of how mobile our society is, having a patchwork of laws regarding what kind of marriages are valid from one state to the next would become problematic as couples married in one state, and then moved to another which may or may not consider their marriage valid.
As it stands now, each state is required to recognize as valid any marriage that is considered valid in the state where it was performed, with the exception that they don't have to recognize a gay marriage if any state should choose to legalize them, thanks to DOMA.
The thing is, thought, under that kind of a system, a gay couple could find themselves having to decide between, say, staying in a state where there marriage is legal and recognized, where they can enjoy inheiritance rights, the ability to be considered 'next of kin' for each other when it comes to medical decisions and the other benefits of legal marriage, or being able to accept a promotion with their company (or a better job with a new company) that might move them to a state where their marriage would be considered void.
True, they wouldn't be forced as to which way to choose - they do have an actual option there - but it's a choice heterosexual couples are protection from having to make, as the law requires all states to recognize each other's heterosexual marriages. Otherwise, you'd most likely see interracial and interfaith couples faced with choices like this, as there are some states that I have no doubt would still have laws banning such on their books.
Just yesterday, in my post about the Supreme Court's "Texas v Lawrence" decision, I said:
I hope that this ruling will also overturn the odd "Romeo and Juliet" laws, such as the one Kansas has, where penalties for cases involving statuatory rape are reduced if the individuals involved are teens and within a few years of each other - but the reduced penalties only apply for heterosexual couples. As a result, a young man who - had his partner been female - would have been sentenced to 1 year in jail, instead was sentenced to 17 years.Well. It sure didn't take long. The New York Time reports today that the Supreme Court Justices have voided the 17 year sentence given to Matthew Limon and sent the case back to the state courts to be reviewed.
The way the law was structured, older teens who engage in sexual activity with teens can be given less severe punishments than would normally be given for statutory rape - but only if the couple was heterosexual. For gay couples, the stiffer penalties still applied.
The court's directive today that the Kansas courts reconsider the Limon case with Lawrence v. Texas in mind was tantamount to an instruction to set aside the prison term imposed on Mr. Limon, and perhaps to take a close look at what has been called the state's "Romeo and Juliet Law."
In returning the case to the Kansas courts, the Supreme Court is essentially saying that not only is it unconstitutional to make acts that are legal for heterosexuals illegal for homosexuals, but also that when it comes to sex crimes, the punishment for a crime committed by a homosexual must be comperable to the punishment for the same crime when commited by a heterosexual.
I know many writers have commented on just how huge this decision is - but I'm not sure if we've really got a good grasp yet on the potential scope it could have. Justice Scalia, in his dissenting opinion, almost laid out exactly how the ruling can be used to challenge the ban on gay marriage, and the principles behind the decision - including the idea that, while many may find a certain kind of private behaviour to be immoral, they do not necessarily have the right to force that morality onto society at large through the use of criminal law - may have implications in a variety of other cases. Some have even suggested that it may have implication for the legalization of medical marijuana, among other issues.
The other bit of good news out of this is that the decision was by a 6 to 3 margin. There's been a lot of speculation that at least one, possibly two, Justices may soon announce their retirement. The most likely suspect is Cheif Justice Rehnquist, with Justice O'Conner considered a good possiblity also. Even if both do retire and are replaced by right-wing idealogues, there would still be at least 5 of the Justices who created this ruling on the Court, which would give an advantage to other cases that may make use of this as a precedent. Granted, there are many other issues where a change of even one member could tip the balance the other way, but there would at least be enough members left who support the principles in this case to have a profound influence on other, similar cases.
Congratulations to all the gays and lesbians in Texas who now have a legal right to have sex with each other! And congrats those those in other states (like mine) where similar laws will now be overturned. I'm really happy for all of you!
Even though these laws have never affected me, personally (since I'm straight), I've never considered them to be fair or reasonable, and am glad that the Supreme Court - especially this Supreme Court in this administration - finally had the sense to realize that the laws were wrong.
I hope that this ruling will also overturn the odd "Romeo and Juliet" laws, such as the one Kansas has, where penalties for cases involving statuatory rape are reduced if the individuals involved are teens and within a few years of each other - but the reduced penalties only apply for heterosexual couples. As a result, a young man who - had his partner been female - would have been sentenced to 1 year in jail, instead was sentenced to 17 years.
The other bit of hope comes, oddly, from Antonin Scalia, who notes that the ruling may help in opening the way for the legailzation of gay marriage.
Although the majority opinion said the Texas case didn't "involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter," Scalia said the ruling invites laws allowing gay marriage.This ruling is a big step forward for gay rights, and it's about time."This reasoning leaves on shaky, pretty shaky grounds, state laws limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples," Scalia wrote.
On a side note: Blogging may be slow the next couple days. My copy of Harry Potter just arrived, and, well, I'm likely to get rather caught up in it (if it's as good as the last 4 were).
Canadian courts in three provinces have held that gay marriage should be legal in Canada.
Governments should change with the times and recognize gay marriage, the B.C. Appeal Court said today when it joined two other provinces in clearing the way for same sex unions.The BC Justices have suggested reformulating the law so that it would define marriage as "the lawful union of two persons to the exclusion of all others" rather than a union between one man and one woman.The province's highest court overturned a B.C. Supreme Court ruling that said marriage should be restricted to heterosexuals.
In its decision the court gave the federal government until July 12, 2004 to change the law preventing gays and lesbians from marrying.
It is possible that the Justice Minister may appeal this ruling, but the article indicates that he hasn't made a decision on that yet, and will need to take into consideration that 2 other provinces have also held that gay marriage should be legal.
Personally, I've never really understood the objection to gay marriage - except for it being another sign of the general bigotry so many have for homosexuals. Various conservative (and, most often, Christian) groups have complained that recognizing gay marriages would some how "damage" the "institution" of marriage, though I fail to see how. Often, these groups claim that gays shouldn't be allowed to marry because they can't have children, but there are many heterosexuals who cannot have children, and many heterosexual couples who choose not to have children, yet the legitimacy of their marriages aren't questioned in the same way.
One anti-gay-marriage group, Focus on the Family, issued a statement about the ruling today.
Michael Martens, a spokesman for Focus on the Family, a group opposed to same-sex marriage, said he was disappointed with the decision and that the issue should be debated in government.Notice, though, that he doesn't specify what these "benefits" are. I've noticed that a lot - vague mentions that heterosexual marriage provides some vague benefit for society that homosexual marriage would destroy or damage - but those benefits aren't usually very well spelled out.He said the judges haven't taken into consideration the benefits for society which marriage provides.
"Marriage is a social institution, institutions are not about rights, they're about serving society, and marriage does a very good job of that," Martens said outside the court.
"No other relationship provides the unique benefits that marriage does for kids, for the parents themselves and for people who aren't married."
I'm glad to see the Canadian courts begining to ensure that gays can have the save ability to marry that heterosexual couples do. There is no compelling reason to deny them that right. I only hope that some day the US Courts will do likewise.
Busy, Busy, Busy raises some interesting questions regarding the widely circulated statement of support that Ari Fleischer reportedly passed on to the press regarding Senator Rick Santorum:
"The president believes the senator is an inclusive man. And that's what he believes," Fleischer said.Busy, Busy, Busy notes:
So just how did Ari Fleischer issue these widely quoted remarks? According to the White House web site, Fleischer published one statement Friday, and it made no mention of Santorum. His only interactive session with the press that day was a briefing, the transcript of which does not include the quotes at issue either, but does contain this exchange:No clear answers are forthcoming at the moment, but it is an question worth asking. Atrios at Eschaton has reported that the GOP has essentially issued a gag order, telling even those who support Santorum's statements to let him speak for himself. And what a job he's doing of that.Q: Ari, both Senator Frist and Senator Specter have publicly supported Senator Santorum. And my question: Does the President believe they were wrong to do so, because while governor of Texas he ever tried to get that state's sodomy law repealed?
MR. FLEISCHER: As I said this morning, Lester, the President has confidence in Senator Santorum, both as a senator, as a member of the Senate leadership.
I'm feeling just a little bit proud of Kansas City at the moment. This isn't exactly a bastion of liberal values here (though KC's not nearly as conservative as one might expect for a city in the middle of the Bible Belt), but the city council is now working on extending benefits to the gay, lesbian and unmarried partners of city employees. Not only that, but they're also looking at creating a domestic partner registration, which would give unmarried (gay or straight) couples the ability to legally declare their relationship and obtain at least some of the rights afforded married couples, including the right to make medical decisions on behalf of their partner in the case of an emergency.
KC may be a bit slower in coming to the table on something like this than other cities have been, but it's a pretty big step for this area, and one I'm very glad to see being taken. Hopefully, some of the suburban areas nearby will follow suit.
It appears that Senator Rick Santorum isn't the only one who thinks that the government has the power to regulate what happens in the bedrooms of consenting adults. According to a recent article in Slate magazine, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia seems to agree
"It's conceded by the state of Texas that married couples can't be regulated in their private sexual decisions," says Smith [the plaintiff's attorneys]. To which Scalia rejoins, "They may have conceded it, but I haven't."Scalia, like Santorum, also seems to have no problem with gays - as long as they refrain from having gay sex.
Smith says these laws say "you can't have sexual activity at all" if you are gay and Scalia objects: "They just say you can't have sexual intimacy with a person of the same sex." See? No problem. Homosexuals remain perfectly at liberty to have heterosexual sex in Texas.Scalia even uses bigamy as a point of comparison in his questioning on the matter:
Then Scalia wonders whether state statutes that criminalize rape or adultery only among opposite sexes are similarly unconstitutional. Smith argues that this is quite different from "giving all people free rein to make sexual decisions except one small group of people." Scalia retorts, "You can put it that way. You can make it sound puritanical. But lots of laws make moral judgments. What about the laws against bigamy?"Worse, Scalia also seems to think that homosexuality is somehow contagious - that it could spread from teacher to student if a gay person happened to get a job teaching school.
Smith explains that the anti-sodomy laws have pernicious secondary effects—keeping gay parents from gaining child visitation or custody or employment, for instance—and Rehnquist wonders whether, if these laws are stuck down, states can have laws "preferring non-homosexuals to homosexuals as kindergarten teachers." Smith replies that there would need to be some showing that gay kindergarten teachers produce harm to children. Scalia offers one: "Only that children might be induced to follow the path to homosexuality."When Charles Rosenthal, the attorney representing the state of Texas, seems to make a wrong turn in his arguments, Scalia seems seriously rattled.
In response to a question from Justice Anthony Kennedy as to whether Bowers is still good law, Rosenthal replies that mores have changed and that "physical homosexual intimacy is now more acceptable." Since he suddenly seems to be arguing the wrong side of the case, an astonished Scalia steps in to say, "You think there is public approval of homosexuality?"Have I mentioned before that Justice Scalia scares me? This is the same Justice who believes that democracy obscures "the divine authority behind government," and that we can tell who God wants to have be our leader, as he will have grabbed his power through some form of battle. Oh, and Scalia's also the one who, when he was recently given an award for free speech banned the broadcast media from covering it.Rosenthal catches his pass, then runs the wrong way down the field: "There is approval of homosexuality. But not of homosexual activity." Scalia wonders how there can be such widespread "approval" if Congress still refuses to add homosexuals to classes of citizens protected by the civil rights laws. "You're saying there's no disapproval of homosexual acts. But you can't ... say that," he sputters.
Remember that Scalia was instrumental in the Supreme Court's decision to halt the recount of votes in Florida, following the 2000 election, and was the author of the opinion that essentially said that no recount should be done because, if the recount showed that George Bush had not actually won the state, it might cause a credibility problem for his administration (ignoring entirely the fact that if George Bush has not actually won the state, he wouldn't have had an administration to have any crediblity to worry about). Many believe that if Chief Justice Renquhist were to retire while Bush is still in office, W will want to make Scalia the new Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
That would be scary.
As for the Slate article quoted above, you should check it out, if only for the wonderfully surreal conversation near the end about immorality, teaching German, just what Texas thinks of gays in general, and the feasibility of gay politicians in Texas.
This is one of those things that you never know for sure if it's really "true" or someone with a bit of imagination and a good sense of humour, but either way it's rather amusing - and (as Atrios pointed out) Santorum has, in a way, opened himself up to questions like it. I suspect, though, that whether the "original" call is real or not, Santorum's office will be getting more than a few calls along the same line. I don't have much sympathy for Santorum if that's the case, but I do kinda feel sorry for his staff...
At any rate - go read - it's short and it's funny, and we all need a good laugh.
Jack Balkin has an excellent piece that offers an overview to the "Right to Privacy" and a look at how the changing mores of society guide how that right is implemented by the courts. Below is an exceprt, but I highly recommend reading the entire piece. (If the permalink is bloggered go to http://balkin.blogspot.com/ and scroll down to Monday, April 23 and the article titled "Rick Santorum and Homosexuality.)
The right of privacy is always responding to changing notions of what is sexually appropriate and inappropiate. Today most people in the United States (and certainly most young people) think that heterosexual sex between unmarried individuals is permissible. It was not always thus. The sexual revolution changed people's views about the morality of pre-marital sex. That, in turn, changed what people thought the state had a right to regulate. Most people now probably think that it is none of the state's business whether heterosexual couples have sex and whether they wish to live together outside of marriage.The same thing, I would submit, is happening with same-sex relations. When the Supreme Court first considered the issue in 1986 in Bowers v. Hardwick, homosexuality was only beginning to win widespread social acceptance. Not surprisingly, the Supreme Court, filled with people of a much older generation, could not muster five votes to protect the rights of gays and lesbians. What was surprising was that there were already four votes to do so. Now, with Will and Grace one of the top-rated comedies on television, it is quite clear that a very large number of people have changed their views. It is only a matter of time before the Supreme Court begins to protect same-sex relations. Whether they will do so through extending the right of privacy or through the use of the equal protection clause is yet to be determined. But they will change constitutional law to accomodate changing social mores. However, since there have been no similar changes in social attitudes about incest or polgyamy, there is no reason to think that courts will protect those practices. As I have said, the reason is not based on logic, but experience, which, as Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. once said, is the real source of the life of the law..
Conservative religious groups used to have the upper hand in the debate over gay rights. But now they have seen the writing on the wall. They are, for the most part, resigned to the Supreme Court's overruling or severely limiting Bowers v. Hardwick. Santorum's comments should be understood in this light. He is giving this feature of right wing politics its last hurrah.
More Republicans have joined the call for Senator Rick Santorum to apologize for his recent remarks.
The group, Republican Unity Coalition, includes former president Gerald Ford and Mary Cheney, the daughter of current Vice President Dick Cheney. They describe themselves as a "gay-straight organization dedicated to making homosexuality a non-issue". I really like the way they put that because, really, homosexuality should be a non-issue.
Republican Senators Olympia Snowe (Maine) and Lincoln Chafee (Rhode Island) have both issued statements condemning Senator Rick Santorum's comments on sexuality and his contention that there is no right to privacy.
"Discrimination and bigotry have no place in our society, and I believe Senator Santorum's unfortunate remarks undermine Republican principles of inclusion and opportunity," said Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, according to a statement from her office.This is the second time in recent weeks that Senator Snowe has taken a noticable stand in opposition to her party's policies. Her opposition to President Bush's tax cut proposal even prompted one group, "Club for Growth", to create and ad about her comparing her to the leaders of France who tried to "stand in the way" of Bush's push for the war in Iraq. (In a nice touch of irony, Maine has a large Franco-American population, and there are reports that the ad may have actually helped strengthen support for her.)Sen. Lincoln Chafee, R-Rhode Island, released a similar statement on Thursday.
"I thought his choice of comparisons was unfortunate and the premise that the right of privacy does not exist -- just plain wrong," he said. "Senator Santorum's views are not held by this Republican and many others in our party."
I hope more Republicans will follow their lead, but I'm not holding my breath. There is pressure from conservative groups such as the Family Research Council and the Christian Coalition for Republicans to stand in support with Santorum. So far, most Republicans, including President Bush, have chosen to remain silent on the issue, apparently in hope that it will quickly blow over.
"It is clear that many top GOP leaders cannot bring themselves to offer a spirited defense of marriage for fear of being accused of bigotry by Democrats and their allies among homosexual activists," said a statement from Ken Connor, president of the Family Research Council.The Christian Coalition released a statement Thursday, blasting the "liberal organizations and the liberal media" for trying to "foster a jaundiced agenda," and hailing Santorum as a "man of honor."
"Homosexuality clearly is an alternative lifestyle," said Roberta Combs, president of the group. "We stand with and support Senator Santorum."
Arthur Silber at Light of Reason has an interesting post on the Santorum flap. In it he makes a couple of points that I wish I had recognized, because I think that they are very important. First, Santorum seems to be under the impression that the basic "unit" of society is the "stable, healthy family", NOT the individual, and second, that the governments purpose is not to protect the individual but rather to protect society. Both of these concepts fly in the face of what America is supposed to be - a pluralistic society where individuals have freedoms and it is the freedom of the individual that is necessary to protect, not society.
The entirety of the interview, and these last statements in particular, make it unmistakably clear that, for Santorum, the purpose of government is not to protect individual rights, but to protect "strong healthy families," "the basic unit of our society." Note that his idea of "strong healthy families" is one growing out of his particular beliefs, including his religious beliefs; you might have quite a different idea of a "strong healthy family," as might many millions of other people. But beyond this, Santorum could not be more mistaken: "the basic unit of our society" is the individual, not "a healthy, stable, traditional family" or any other "unit" that someone might put forth. The smallest minority is the individual -- and it is the individual's rights that government properly should protect, especially against people with views like Santorum's.When individual rights become subordinate to one particular view of society, we step away from being a free nation and begin to more closely resemble the fundamentalist theocracies that our own government decries on a regular basis. That many of Santorum's views derive from his own particular religoius belief just make the comparison that much more apt.The other element worthy of note is the breathtaking arrogance of this statement: "The idea is that the state doesn't have rights to limit individuals' wants and passions. I disagree with that. I think we absolutely have rights because there are consequences to letting people live out whatever wants or passions they desire." Please keep in mind the following: what Santorum is talking about in this interview is sexual activity conducted in private by consenting adults. But Santorum proceeds from what is, in fundamental terms, a collectivist premise: he believes that government properly has the power (or in his terms, the "right") to criminalize behavior which might endanger "strong healthy families," thus in his view endangering society in general. In other words, the purpose of government is to protect "society" (which presumably includes those who thinks as he does, but no one else at all), but not to protect you specifically, or any other individual.
Atrios at Eschaton is doing a great job following up on Sen. Rick Santorum's statements regarding his belief that we have no right to privacy and that the government should be able to regulate private sex acts in our own homes, along with the reactions to his statement.
One statement Santorum made that, so far, isn't getting quite as much attention as the initial quote likening consensual sex between adults to bigamy, incest, adultery and polygamy is his contention that teens who were molested by priests were just engaging in a consensual, adult relationship.
In this case, what we're talking about, basically, is priests who were having sexual relations with post-pubescent men. We're not talking about priests with 3-year-olds, or 5-year-olds. We're talking about a basic homosexual relationship.This is truly an outrageous statement, and is no different than claiming a rape victim "asked for it" or otherwise brought the attack on herself.
As for Santorum's contention that the victims of these priests were engaged in just a "basic homosexual relationship", Atrios provides several quotes regarding former priest John Geoghan, including this:
I felt a little funny about it," McSorley recalled in an interview. "I was 12 years old and he was an old man."I'm sorry, but that doesn't sound like any kind of a "basic relationship" - hetero- or homosexual - to me.Riding home after getting ice cream, McSorley says, Geoghan consoled him. But then he patted his upper leg and slid his hand up toward his crotch. "I froze up," McSorley said. "I didn't know what to think. Then he put his hand on my genitals and started masturbating me. I was petrified." McSorely added that Geoghan then began masturbating himself.
Atrios also notes that Ari Fleischer claimed today that the President didn't have any comments on Santorum's statement because "typically" the President doesn't comment on Supreme Court cases, rulings or findings. That quote is accompanied by a quote from the President's remarks on the affirmative action case involving the University of Michigan that was recently argued before the Supreme Court.
Blogspot has been having some problems lately with permalinks to specific entries in blogs maintained there, so it's best just to go to Eschaton to check out his posts. I'm sure we've not yet heard the last of it, either.
Rob at Emphasis Added hits it out of the park again today, with his commentary on the flap over Rick Santorum's comments, sexual repression, reactionary politics and homophobia.
The psychologist and political theorist Wilhelm Reich made an intriguing link between the dynamics of sexual repression and reactionary politics, arguing that the latter was an externalization of the repressed individual’s lack of control over powerful sexual urges. Essentially, the authoritarian tendencies of political movements on both the far right and far left represent the efforts of sexually repressed individuals and social masses to reproduce the misery of their own repression on everyone else, and it is no accident that sexual Puritanism and “family values” are part of the vocabulary of every historical authoritarian movement. In Reich’s view, the lifting of sexual repression as a feature of social mores will inevitably result in a more progressive politics. (This is a radical simplification, and those interested should consult Reich’s Mass Psychology of Fascism and The Sexual Revolution, both from the early 1930s, for more information.)Joe Bob says "Check it out!".
Howard Dean has now issued a call for Sen. Rick Santorum to resign from his leadership position in Congress. Currently, Sentorum is the Republican's #3 man.
Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean on Wednesday called for Republican Sen. Rick Santorum to resign his leadership post after the lawmaker compared homosexuality to bigamy, polygamy, incest and adultery.Go Howard!
"Gay-bashing is not a legitimate public policy discussion; it is immoral. Rick Santorum's failure to recognize that attacking people because of who they are is morally wrong makes him unfit for a leadership position in the United States Senate," Dean said in a statement.
At this point, I haven't yet decided who I will support for President in the 2004 election, but I have a feeling it will wind up being a tough call between Howard Dean and John Kerry. Both seem to have a number of strengths, but I haven't yet identified what their major weaknesses are - and every candidate will have a few. I would, however, like to recommend checking both of them. Dean is garnering a lot of excitement in some quarters right now - not just for his denunciation of Santorum, but because of his stand on other issues as well - including the Iraqi war. Kerry got a major burst of publicity a couple weeks ago when he called for a "regime change" here in the US and was blasted by the GOP for daring to suggest we need a change of presidency during a way.
Information on Dean is available at his official campaign site Dean for America and his official blog Dean: Call to Action.
Information on John Kerry is available at his campaign site John Kerry for President.
Lots going on today in blogland - and the general media - about Senator Rick Santorum's comment that allowing "consensual (gay) sex" in the privacy of the home would allow anything in the privacy of the home, including adultery, bigamy, incest and polygamy.
In a Salon article yesterday, Andrew Sullivan noted that the actual quote from Sen. Santorum was actually a much broader comparison.
First off a simple question: What did Santorum actually say? The reason I ask this is that I don't know anyone who speaks in parentheses. Did the AP reporter add the "(gay)" part to provide context for the quote? But such context could easily be provided by a simple sentence beforehand, while leaving the actual quote intact. From the story, it seems as if reporter Lara Jakes Jordan added the "(gay)" in order to get around her poor sentence construction. If so, she ruined a huge and damaging Freudian slip. Because it's clear from the quote that simply consensual sex -- gay or straight -- is precisely what Santorum wants to police.Atrios notes that, in another quote from the same interview, Santorm claims that post-pubescent men (i.e. teenagers) who had sex with Catholic priests were engaged in a "basic homosexual relationship" that was "consensual" - ignoring, of course, that the victim is still a minor (and would be considered the victim of molestation under almost any law). Just as sexual relationships between patients of any age and their doctors or therapists are considered unethical, and, in some cases, illegal, because these professionals hold a position of authority in the patient's life, so does a Priest hold a position of authority in a parishoner's life, and thus is able to exert a stronger influence on their victim, in effect coercing them through abuse of their perceived power.
SANTORUM: In this case, what we're talking about, basically, is priests who were having sexual relations with post-pubescent men. We're not talking about priests with 3-year-olds, or 5-year-olds. We're talking about a basic homosexual relationship. Which, again, according to the world view sense is a a perfectly fine relationship as long as it's consensual between people. If you view the world that way, and you say that's fine, you would assume that you would see more of it.DailyKOS points out that, while condeming the gay "lifestyle" and how allowing consentual sex be unregulated in the privacy of the home, Santorum makes sure to clarify that he doesn't have any problem with the gays themselves.
But being a good Christian, Santorum doesn't condemn the homosexual. No siree.And how does Santorum justify his desire for the government to be able to regulate all private sex acts? He says that the regulation of sexual activites - the regulation of an individuals passions and wants - is necessary because society must support the family.I have no problem with homosexuality. I have a problem with homosexual acts. [...] I have nothing, absolutely nothing against anyone who's homosexual. If that's their orientation, then I accept that. and I have no problem with someone who has other orientations. The question is, do you act upon those orientations? So it's not the person, it's the person's actions.
You say, well, it's my individual freedom. Yes, but it destroys the basic unit of our society because it condones behavior that's antithetical to strong, healthy families. Whether it's polygamy, whether it's adultery, where it's sodomy, all of those things, are antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family.And, of course, the reason we must protect "the family" is because of children.[..] And that's sort of where we are in today's world, unfortunately. The idea is that the state doesn't have rights to limit individuals' wants and passions. I disagree with that. I think we absolutely have rights because there are consequences to letting people live out whatever wants or passions they desire. And we're seeing it in our society.
Every society in the history of man has upheld the institution of marriage as a bond between a man and a woman. Why? Because society is based on one thing: that society is based on the future of the society. And that's what? Children.So, Santorum wants the government to have the right to regulate individual sexuality because "deviant" practices undermine the "family", and the family is important because that's what produces children.
I would absolutely love it if some reporter could sit Santorum down again and ask him a few more questions. For example, if certain kinds of sexuality are harmful to "the family", and the family is important because it produces children, should all non-reproductive sex acts be banned? What do you do with infertile people, who physiologically cannot have children? And what about couples like my husband and I, who, knowing that we would make rotten parents, have taken steps to ensure that we don't have children? Should we all be told that it's ok for us to have sexual desires (just as he thinks its ok for gays to have sexual desires for people of the same sex), but that we shouldn't act on those desires (just as Santorum believes gays should refrain from acting on their desires)? Where does the line get drawn? Should the government be involved in regulating things such as what sexual positions are allowable - for example, making the "missionary" position the only legal position since that is the one believed to be best for encouraging conception?
Bizzarely, Santorum seems to think that such decisions should be left up to the individual states - so that people who live in one state could outlaw all sex except procreative sex, and another state could allow pretty much anything anyone could want.
SANTORUM: I've been very clear about that. The right to privacy is a right that was created in a law that set forth a (ban on) rights to limit individual passions. And I don't agree with that. So I would make the argument that with President, or Senator or Congressman or whoever Santorum, I would put it back to where it is, the democratic process. If New York doesn't want sodomy laws, if the people of New York want abortion, fine. I mean, I wouldn't agree with it, but that's their right. But I don't agree with the Supreme Court coming in.I find it outrageous that this is a conversation that we should even need to have. Our sexual lives should be precisely that - ours! Santorum believes that there should be no right to privacy in this country, and that without this right, the government could then step in and regulate sexuality. But there may even be a way around that. Now, this is just my own personal "pet" theory, and maybe it wouldn't work at all, but it seems to me that there have been many actions that have been held to be forms of expression or "speech" - things such as flag burning, various forms of art - including performance art - and so on. What is more "expressive" than a sexual act? Now, granted, one Senator speaking out does not a crisis make, so "emergency" tactics are not needed now, nor is widespread panic - but it can't hurt to at least consider what kinds of tactics might be useful for when future cases arise.
On the whole, this will likely turn out to be a tempest in a teacup, but ideas like this cannot be ignored. If they are not shouted down immediately, people who feel the same way will think that these ideas are acceptable, and they're not. Yes, Sen. Santorum and others who agree with him have their right to their beliefs and they have the right to express them. I am in no way suggesting that the government should do anything to shut them up. But the protest against these ideas must be loud and strong so that they cannot find places to flourish. I'm not willing to let the government into my bedroom. I hope you're not, either.
Howard Dean, a Democratic candidate for president and the Vermont governor who signed that state's "Civil Unions" law, allowing gay couples to form legal relationships similar to marriage, has posted a statement to his official blog about Rick Santorums comparison of consensual gay sex to adultery, bigamy, incest and polygamy:
In an interview published yesterday with the Associated Press, Rick Santorum, the third highest ranking Republican in the Senate, compared homosexuality to bigamy, polygamy, incest and adultery. I am outraged by Senator Santorum's remarks.As I noted yesterday, Santorum's comments equate consensual gay sex with acts that are either deceptive or exploitave in nature, neither of which is a inheirent part of gay sex between consenting adults.That a leader of the Republican Party would make such insensitive and divisive comments --comments that are derogatory and meant to harm an entire group of Americans, their friends and their familie -- is not only outrageous, but deeply offensive.
The silence with which President Bush and the Republican Party leadership have greeted Sen. Santorum's remarks is deafening. It is the same silence that greeted Senator Lott's offensive remarks in December. It is a silence that implicitly condones a policy of domestic divisiveness, a policy that seeks to divide Americans again and again on the basis of race, gender, class, and sexual orientation.
I hope that more will also speak out against Sentorum's comments and make it clear that consenting gay adults have the same right to love whomever they choose as any other couple of consenting adults, and that making public statements otherwise is as bad and as shameful as making other bigoted comments.
Link via Atrios
In a statement sure to shock lawmakers everywhere, Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania reminded America that if the Supreme Court decides that citizens have the right to consensual gay sex in their own home, it could lead to people thinking that it is perfectly acceptable to engage in adultery in your own home as well.
No, seriously, that's not too far off from what he raelly said. Here's his quote from an Associated Press interview published on Monday:
"If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual (gay) sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything."Sen. Santorum seems to be missing a few points in making his statement, not the least of which is that places where adultery is illegal in America are few and far between (indeed, if any even still exist).
Personally, I consider adultery to be one of the more grevious actions one can commit. I do not approve of it, I would not tolerate it from my husband, nor would I engage in it personally, and I tend to be a bit judgemental of people who do. But as morally wrong as I may think adultery is, I also recognize that, except in the case of my own marriage, my opinion on adultery counts for exactly squat.
In comparing homosexuality to bigamy, polygamy, incest and adultery, Santorum seems to be missing the point that these things are not always truly comparable.
In most cases of bigamy, for example, only the bigamist knows what's going on. As with adultery, it's most common that each of adulterer or bigamist's additional partners are completely in the dark about the existence of the others, and the adulterer/bigamist stays busy trying to keep juggling without dropping any of the balls. The main feature that adultery and bigamy have in common which makes both of them objectionable to many people is that they are based on deception.
With incest and polygamy, what you are typically looking at is exploitation. Incest involves one family member taking advantage of the trust given to them by another - usually younger - family member and abusing that trust to gain sexual gratification. Polygamy, as it is most often thought of, generally features a man who gathers to himself many wives, frequently several years younger than himself, and, in some cases, the younger sisters or daughters of earlier wives. As with incest, the perpetrator takes advantage of the naivete and trust that the younger girls have and turns it to his own goal of gathering multiple sex partners that he can have a fair amount of control over.*
Consensual gay sex, however, is neither decitful nor exploitave. In fact, aside from the gender of the partners, it's very much like heterosexual sex. Sure, you can have gay relationships that involve deceit or exploitation, just as you can have strait relationships that have those same qualities - but those qualities are not what defines the nature of a gay relationship. And just as my opinions on adultery don't count for anything outside my own relationship, people's opinions on homosexuality shouldn't carry any weight outside of their own relationship, either.
It's one thing to speak out about situations in which people are being exploited or manipulated without their knowledge or against their will - but if everyone involved in the relationship is aware of exactly what is going on, is capable of giving their consent and has voluntarily and freely done so, then why should it be any of my business how or what they do -- and why should it be any of Senator Santorum's business, either?
*(Note: There are other, non-exploitive, forms of polygamy that are seen from time to time, which I may write more about later. These relationship groups are significantly different, however, in that they are made of consenting adults who are well aware of what they are getting into, and generally do not involve one dominant person manipulating younger or more vulnerable partners for their own gain.)
9/11 fund awards lesbian partner $500,000. WASHINGTON —A federal fund created to compensate victims of the Sept. 11 attacks has awarded $500,000 to the lesbian partner of a woman who died at the Pentagon, a decision gay rights advocates hailed as a milestone. [USA Today: Nation]
Good to see this. I'm sure there will be some who will protest it, and I'll almost be surprised of no one files suit to prevent them from awarding benefits to homosexual partners (on the theory that it leaves less money for "real" families or something of that nature), but I'm really glad that they're going ahead and doing it anyway.
Activists challenge sex-crime law
By Katie Nelson
Kansan staff writer
[...] Two years ago, Matthew Limon was jailed for giving consensual oral sex to a then-14 year-old boy while both were students at a Paola residential school for developmentally disabled youth.
As a result, Limon, 20, received a 17-year-two-month sentence for sodomy from a Miami County judge. Had either Limon or the boy been female, the maximum sentence would have been one year and three months.
One of the greatest joys of living in Kansas is that we frequently get reminded about just how bassackwards this state can be. When we're not busy throwing the theory of evolution out of the schools, we're sentencing gays to sentences more than 10 times as long as they would be had a straight couple been involved. And how do we justify that? According to Rep. Mike O´Neal, chairman of the Kansas House Judiciary Committee, its because "many Kansans aren't ready to go against their religious teachings".
Ok, if their religious teaching tell them that engaging in consensual homosexual sex is wrong, then they shouldn't do it. Problem solved, right? Why punish people who don't have a problem with consensual homosexual sex for having consensual homosexual sex just because some others might have a problem with it?
This situation has come about because a few years ago, the Kansas legislature decided to revise the statuatory rape laws to take into account situations where someone who might be a bit over the age of consent and someone who is just a bit under it decide to have consensual sex, and it's fairly clear that no exploitation was involved on the part of the adult. The problem is, the law specifically, and intentionally, applies only to heterosexual couples. If the two people involved are of the same sex, then the old laws still apply. As a result, in this case, Matthew Limon has been sentenced to 17+ years in prison instead of just over a year.
The ACLU has become invoved in this case and is asking the Supreme Court to hear the case, but from past experience, it doesn't look too good for Mr. Limon or other homosexuals who find themselves in the same situation. Kansas, it turns out, also has anti-sodomy laws that only apply to homosexuals, and attempts to have those laws judged unConstitutional as a violation of the 14th amendment right to equal protection under the law have failed.
Now, granted, this entire situation could have been avoided had Mr. Limon not been messing around with a then-14-year-old, something that by most any standards would be considered inappropriate. But he did, and while he should be penalized for breaking the law, the idea that what he did was 17 times as bad because he and his partner were gay is mind-bogglingly stupid.
What's worse, though, is the idea that this discrepancy is justified because many Kansans "aren't ready to go against their religious training". Is that not admitting that the basis for this different treatment is not that there is something inherently wrong about homosexuality that makes it so much worse, but rather that it is considered so much worse because it violates certain religious principles? It seems to me that if that's the case, then what we have here is not only a lack of equal protection under the law, but also an instance in which the legislature is trying to codify the rules of a specific religion into the state's laws. I cannot imagine that it is at all appropriate, or, for that matter, Constitutionally allowable, for any governmental body to create and enforce laws that serve no purpose other than to estabish a religious principle as an allegedly secular law.
Why gay rams are caught on the horns of a dilemma
By Steve Connor Science Editor
05 November 2002
[...] A part of the brain known to be involved in sexual preferences, called the preoptic hypothalamus, has a "sexually dimorphic nucleus" that is normally considerably bigger in males than in females. The scientists found similar differences in the size of the nucleus when they compared straight rams with gay ones, said Dr Kay Larkin, a researcher.
The study, presented yesterday to the American Society for Neuroscience meeting in Oregon, Florida, suggested a specialised centre in the brain could influence sexual preferences in mammals, including possibly humans, said Professor Charles Roselli.
Frequently, when challenged on the issue of whether homosexuality is a choice or just "how" a person is, supporters will point out that homosexuality is found in other animals, not just humans, and therefore must be a normal variation in the population. This is an important point to most gay activists because if it could be shown that homosexuality isn't a voluntary choice, it helps bolster the case for civil rights protections and greater acceptance of homosexuals.
Other studies have indicated that issues involving the hypthalamus may be involved in determining whether a person is gay or straight, and this study adds more credence to that theory. But in showing that there may be a connection between the brain structure and sexual preference, there becomes a danger of homosexuality being seen not as just another varient, like blue eyes or red hair, but as some kind of a defect, more along the lines of a club foot or Down's Syndrome. And it could also spur opponents of homosexuality to start pressing for research into some kind of a "cure".
If more research like this confirms this connection, it will be interesting to see how the various sides in this argument make use of the information. Hopefully, it will be possible to find a point where even if homosexuality is proven to be related to brain structure, homosexuals can be respected as simply another "configurational" option that the genes have, and not treated as a disease or disability.
One thing I do find rather interesting, and which, to me, makes it a bit questionable as to just how strong the link is, is that in the studies I've heard of showing this kind of a difference, the distinciton has been found in the brains of male animals who show a preference for other male animals, but there's no mention of whether a similar distinction exists in females animals who prefer other females. There is also the question, of course, as to whether the brain structure is what causes the impulse, or if the impuse somehow restructures the brain. Either way, though, it's an theory worth looking into further.
New York Bill on Gay Rights Is Set for Vote. The Republican-led New York State Senate will vote for the first time on landmark gay-rights legislation in December after having blocked its passage for decades. By James C. Mckinley Jr.. [New York Times: NYT HomePage]
New York Governor George Pataki, who is facing a serious challenge in his re-election bid from the Independence Party candidate, Thomas Galisano, has been promising for years that he would sign gay-rights legislation, but the Republican-led Senate has consistantly refused to bring it to a vote. Over the last 18 months, he's told gay-rights activists that he would coerce the Republican leadership to bring it to a vote, and now seems to have finally gotten his way. Expectations are high that once the Senate has a chance to vote on the bill, it will pass and be signed into law.
While this is obviously a political ploy on the part of Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno to help his party have a better chance at keeping the Governorship of New York, the important outcome will be if gays and lesbians have their rights legally secured throughout the state.
In an odd bit of irony, the Houston Chronical is reporting today about the efforts a Texas Republican is taking to derail the election hopes of a fellow Republican who is running for Justice of the Peace. The article notes:
[Republicans Urged Not to Vote Straight] GOP political activist Dave Wilson has a message for fellow Republicans -- If you vote straight, you vote gay.
Wilson is sending Republican voters an automated telephone message telling them not to vote a straight Republican ticket because it includes a gay candidate. [Houston Chronicle Home Page]
Yeah, you read that right. Wilson is calling Republicans in one of the Houston Judicial districts to urge Republician voters to vote against Alex Wathen because he's gay. And he's doing this even though the party leaders would rather that he not - because having Republicans vote a straight Republican ticket helps all of their candidates. Instructing them not to vote straight Republican, they fear, could weaken other candidates as well.
As Harris County GOP Chairman Jared Woodfill said:
"Why would Dave do this?" Woodfill said. "I mean, I agree with him on the homosexual issue, and the party position on that is clear."
"But it is wrong for Republicans to send the message not to vote straight ticket," he said. "The straight ticket helps all of our judicial races in Harris County."
Why would Dave do this? Perhaps it has something to do with the official Texas Republican Party platform for 2002, which goes beyong taking a political stance against gay rights and instead goes straight for a carefully worded moral stance that comes close to being against gays, themselves.
The platform says that:
homosexual "behavior is contrary to the fundamental, unchanging truths that have been ordained by God, recognized by our country's founders and shared by a majority of Texans."
Oh, is that all?
It's sad that in one state, gays are not only being politically maligned, but have apparently offended one of the major political parties to the point that they felt it was necessary to insert a plank condemning homosexual behaviour because it is contrary to the truth of God; and in another state gays are finally having a chance to have their rights enshrined in law, but only because the Governor's re-election bid looks like it might be in danger.
I can only hope that one day the Texas Republicans will figure out that it really doesn't matter what that think God has ordained or forbidden, God has no place in the making of political policy or the passage of laws; and that one day gays will no longer have to hope for a tight election race in order to finally have assurance of their rights.
Decatur OKs sexual orientation protection
Advocate: Issue could surface in Peoria
October 8, 2002
By JAN DENNIS
of the Associated Press
DECATUR - After more than two hours of emotional debate, the City Council approved an ordinance Monday night that prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation.
With the vote, Decatur joined a growing list of Illinois cities that have adopted a gay rights ordinance. [...]
I'm glad to see more and more cities adopting ordinances to protect people from being discriminated against because of their sexual orientation, but I've always had a hard time understanding why it should even be an issue.
This country has, as part of it's foundational concept, the idea that the government cannot establish any kind of "official" religion. What does that have to do with not discriminating against gays? Well, in the vast majority of cases, the reason a person or group of people are opposed to homosexuality is because their religion teaches that it is wrong. There are very few non-religious reasons - as least very few that I'm aware of - for opposing homosexuality.
Laws like the "Defense of Marriage Act" are passed because marriage is "intended" to be the union of a male and a female. Intended by whom? Most will tell you by God. If that's the case, then the DoMA is a law intended to enforce a religious view of marriage - legislating a religious belief and imposing it on the entire nation. They're not supposed to be able to do that. Most objections to homosexuality in general are along the lines of it being "offensive", "immoral", "in defiance of nature" or other such concept - all of which go back, again, to the religious view of how love and sexuality should work.
Protecting the rights of gays and lesbians do not provide them with special rights. It just ensures that they will be treated like every other person, which is appropriate since that's exactly what they are -- another person. As such, they should be entitle to hold any job for which they are the most qualified person and rent or purchase any home or apartment that they can afford.
One thing we seem to overlook at times is that religious discrimination works in two directions. You can be discriminated against because of what you believe, or you can be discriminated against because of what the person you are dealing with believes. Neither is right and neither should be condoned in the public arena or in publicly-accessible places.
No one has to like or be friends with someone that they have a problem with because they don't fit in with that person's religious beliefs, but they shouldn't be allowed to deny them things that they would otherwise be able to obtain, either. Jobs, housing, access, benefits... all of those things should be determined solely on relevent merits -- qualities and abilities that directly relate to the ability to do the job, afford or maintain the housing, obtaining the access or earn the benefits in question.
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | ||||
| 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |
| 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 |
| 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 |
| 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 |
| E-mail: |  |
AKA: | ThorsWitch |
 | INTP |
 | B7 d++ t+ k++ s+ u- f+ i++ o+ x- e l c- |
 |
    
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
| « ? ProChoice Is Not AntiLife # » | ||||||||||
| << | domain-ated | >> | ||||||||||
| << ? domain girls # >> | ||||||||||
| <·· PWA ··> | ||||||||||
| < ? blogs by women # > | ||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||
| ‹ # Circle of Shadows ? › | ||||||||||
| <-- ? In MY Opinion # --> | ||||||||||
| « # blogshares ? » | ||||||||||
| « # Scorpio ? » | ||||||||||
| < # Blogrollers ? > | ||||||||||
| < ? six degrees # > | ||||||||||
|
[ <<
?
Verbosity
#
>>
] |
||||||||||
| domain whore | ||||||||||
|
Are you a  ? Domain . Addict # |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
)O(
 |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
Rate Me on BlogHop.com!
|
Rate me at Eatonweb
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
|
 |
![[ Registered ]](http://www.differentstrings.info/images/diarist.gif){kind=small}
|
|
 |
 |
|
|
 |
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
Recommended sites |
Please note: The Salon Blog mailing list and web rings are not managed by Salon Magazine, but are specifically for the owners/authors/editors of Salon Blogs. The Salon name is used with permission.
| < £ Salon Bloggers & > |
| Do you own/edit/write a Salon Blog? Join the Salon Bloggers Webring! |
|
|
![[Valid RSS]](http://www.differentstrings.info/images/valid-rss-dylan2.gif "Validate my RSS feed"){kind=small}
|
|
|
![[Blue Ribbon Campaign icon]](http://br.eff.org/br.gif)
