Same-Sex Marriage General Discussion Thread

[Aygo]

good points. i think North American -- and especially in the US -- liberals tend to romanticize Europe as a bastion of liberalism, and to some extent that is true. we don't see the kind of influence of religion in Europe as we do in the US, and it appears as if "social issues" aren't nearly the identity flashpoint as they are over here. however, Europeans are in many ways *culturally* more conservative, in the ways that Americans are religiously more conservative. i think one becomes the same as the other, in practice, and it's great to get a more continental perspective as FYM is *so* heavily North American (with the occasional UK/Ireland/Aussie/Kiwi perspective).

I think you're right. Europe is not as socially liberal (we have to be careful when we use "liberal") as many think.
About the Church influence in conservative behaviours, it depends on the country.

For example, it's been said that this regression in the spanish laws that Rajoy is doing has been having a huge pressure of the Catholic Church. The same in Portugal for the end of national holidays - yes, the portuguese government ended with the commemoration of the day that Republic was implanted, with the justification that we need to be more productive (forgetting that we're some of those who work more hours per week) - it had negociation with the Catholic Church.
In Portugal and Spain, the influence of the church depends on the government. It has less influence when the PS (Portugal) and the PSOE (Spain) are in the Government, but it has waaaay more influence (and they serve as justification for many things) when PPD/PSD+CDS/PP (Portugal) and PP (Spain) are there.

Another example is Greece. When a new Government comes, the cerimony has the presence and the guide of representants of the Orthodox Church (see? not catholic, but still conservative).

But, for instance, countries like France, or Belgium or the scandinavian countries don't have half of the influence the religion has here.

 

[corianderstem]

Pastor: Boycott Starbucks Over Gay Marriage - KGMI-AM

Pastor Steven Andrew of USA Christian Ministries predicted that the Seattle-based coffee giant could lose 80%of its customers if Christians get their coffee elsewhere.

ELL OH ELL. Good luck with that, buddy.

 

[Irvine511]

this is pretty much the most satisfying demolition of the anti-SSM forces i've come across.

Up Close for Feb. 5, 2012 | Video | 7online


important to watch because it also touches on the birth control and health care issues regarding the Catholic Church in other threads.

 

[PhilsFan]

That just makes me angry.

 

[Irvine511]

it's good to argue with idiots like Brian Brown in order to show people that they are, in fact, idiots.

 

[PhilsFan]

I'm glad that he was able to keep his composure and make rational arguments the entire time.

That lady calling it a great debate was so grating.

 

[Irvine511]

if you want to get mad, read this:

One Town's War on Gay Teens | Politics News | Rolling Stone

In April, Justin came home from school and found his mother at the top of the stairs, tending to the saltwater fish tank. "Mom," he said tentatively, "a kid told me at school today I'm gonna go to hell because I'm gay."

"That's not true. God loves everybody," his mom replied. "That kid needs to go home and read his Bible."

Justin shrugged and smiled, then retreated to his room. It had been a hard day: the annual "Day of Truth" had been held at school, an evangelical event then-sponsored by the anti-gay ministry Exodus International, whose mission is to usher gays back to wholeness and "victory in Christ" by converting them to heterosexuality. Day of Truth has been a font of controversy that has bounced in and out of the courts; its legality was affirmed last March, when a federal appeals court ruled that two Naperville, Illinois, high school students' Day of Truth T-shirts reading BE HAPPY, NOT GAY were protected by their First Amendment rights. (However, the event, now sponsored by Focus on the Family, has been renamed "Day of Dialogue.") Local churches had been touting the program, and students had obediently shown up at Anoka High School wearing day of truth T-shirts, preaching in the halls about the sin of homosexuality. Justin wanted to brush them off, but was troubled by their proselytizing. Secretly, he had begun to worry that maybe he was an abomination, like the Bible said.

Justin was trying not to care what anyone else thought and be true to himself. He surrounded himself with a bevy of girlfriends who cherished him for his sweet, sunny disposition. He played cello in the orchestra, practicing for hours up in his room, where he'd covered one wall with mementos of good times: taped-up movie-ticket stubs, gum wrappers, Christmas cards. Justin had even briefly dated a boy, a 17-year-old he'd met online who attended a nearby high school. The relationship didn't end well: The boyfriend had cheated on him, and compounding Justin's hurt, his coming out had earned Justin hateful Facebook messages from other teens – some from those he didn't even know – telling him he was a fag who didn't deserve to live. At least his freshman year of high school was nearly done. Only three more years to go.

He wondered how he would ever make it.

 

[PhilsFan]

Holy hell.

I'm really pleased that, despite going to a conservative university, homosexuality is almost universally accepted here. It comforts me to know that it really is simply an issue of older people being bigots. This issue is simply our generation's civil rights thing. It's not political so much as it's generational. This campus is very divided politically when it comes to issues of the economy or foreign policy. But not gay rights.

 

[BoMac]

Yay!

Congrats, California. Welcome to the equality club. We hope you enjoy your stay.

 

[PhilsFan]

My Twitter is saying Proposition 8 has been declared unconstitutional and I am thrilled. This offsets the misery Tom Corbett put me in this morning.

 

[u2popmofo]

There are gonna be a whole lot of disappointed Mormons.

 

[trojanchick99]

This is truth:

Proposition 8 served no purpose, & had no effect, other than to lessen the status & human dignity of gays & lesbians in California.

 

[PhilsFan]

Cannot wait to hear the response from the supporters.

 

[trojanchick99]

Cannot wait to hear the response from the supporters.

That sign still makes me irrationally angry. I still remember wanting to destroy every one I saw in '08.

 

[deep]

This is a narrower win than many people seem to understand.

Still it is good.
Any loss is terrible, and any win however narrow or broad, is the right thing.

 

[BVS]

Cue the 'activist judges' talk.

5,4,3,2...

When a court finds "Obamacare" unconstitutional it's justice, when one finds a ban against two women marrying, it's activist.

 

[Irvine511]

This is a narrower win than many people seem to understand.

when you say "narrow" do you mean that it was close, or that the ruling itself is limited in scope?

i'd agree with the latter.

also, fwiw, the dissenting judge is a Mormon. if we're going to freak out about Walker being gay then should we also not freak out about this?

what may well happen is that the narrowness becomes a mixed blessing -- it may actually keep it away from SCOTUS and leave the painful task of equality up to the states.

 

[Irvine511]

obvy no time to read the 128-pages. but here's the meat of it as identified by people who have read it:

Judge Stephen Reinhardt, in the court’s 128-page opinion, wrote that “although the Constitution permits communities to enact most laws they believe to be desirable, it requires that there be at least a legitimate reason for the passage of a law that treats different classes of people differently. There was no such reason that Proposition 8 could have been enacted.”

“All that Proposition 8 accomplished was to take away from same-sex couples the right to be granted marriage licenses and thus legally to use the designation of ‘marriage,’ which symbolizes state legitimization and societal recognition of their committed relationships,” Reinhardt wrote. “Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples. The Constitution simply does not allow for ‘laws of this sort.’”

 

[deep]

it may go to SCOTUS

narrow in that it was decided about the CA law only, and would and will have no effects nationally,
the propoents of 8, get two more bites of the apple, they can take it to a full larger panel of the 9th District Court, and if they lose there, then they will try and go the SCOTUS, at which point the they could take it or not take it
and just let this stand in CA, that would do nothing for all the other states that have passed laws against gay marriage, or even if they take it, any decission would just apply to CA

all the other state laws, would need to be over turned in their own state court systems, I don't see many conservative states and their judges doing this.

 

[Irvine511]

it does seem to be about CA, and CA only. up next are appeals after appeals, which is good, imho. the quality of arguments put forth by the Prop 8 folks were weak sauce, at best, and the more this issue is discussed the more public opinion falls on the side of pro-SSM. it appears as if the dissenting position was about the tired old argument about procreation as a "rational basis" for discrimination. as if one can only get married if one produces biological children of one's own.

 

[trojanchick99]

it does seem to be about CA, and CA only. up next are appeals after appeals, which is good, imho. the quality of arguments put forth by the Prop 8 folks were weak sauce, at best, and the more this issue is discussed the more public opinion falls on the side of pro-SSM. it appears as if the dissenting position was about the tired old argument about procreation as a "rational basis" for discrimination. as if one can only get married if one produces biological children of one's own.

That's a very weak argument. I mean, he'd support a ban on marriage after menopause? Right. Didn't think so.

 

[deep]

this happened yesterday

Goldman Sachs boss backs same-sex marriage - Americas - World - The Independent

and is positive, there are other major corporations that have gotten out in front on this.


(what is the sound of a million moms crying two million tears)

 

[Irvine511]

of course, the real victim here is Maggie Gallagher:

Ninth Circuit to 7 Million California Voters: You Are Irrational Bigots
By Maggie Gallagher
February 7, 2012 1:50 P.M.

In a breathtaking exercise in ill-natured illogic, a divided Ninth Circuit ruled 2–1 that because Prop 8 does not take away civil-union benefits for same-sex couples, it’s an unconstitutional exercise in irrational animus towards gay people.

Dishonestly, the court claimed it did not require any heightened scrutiny to reach this result.

The very timid dissent (“please don’t go after me!”) points out that Baker v. Nelson is ruling precedent and that the differences between same-sex and opposite sex couples in terms of the state’s interest in responsible procreation could be rationally related to a legitimate state interest.

Back in 2004, when we fought about a Federal Marriage Amendment, gay rights advocates said we were alarmists for claiming that they would go to federal court seeking a right to impose gay marriage on all 50 states.

That was so last decade.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corne...rs-you-are-irrational-bigots-maggie-gallagher

 

[yolland]

(for marriage equality in CA, not Maggie Gallagher)

The take from legal scholars seems to be that the narrow and cautious ruling here was tailored to appeal to Justice Kennedy, as it closely follows his argument in Romer.

 

[Irvine511]

what i'm liking about the ruling is how it is focused on Prop 8, and how the sole purpose of Prop 8 was to deliberately target a specific class of people, take away their rights, and render them second-class citizens. it nicely gets at the bitter, nasty heart of Prop 8 and the mean-spiritedness of those who oppose SSM. which seems obvious to anyone. there are much better ways to "defend" marriage than by smearing a group of people who have been historically subject to the worst kinds of discrimination.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

This is truth:

It definitely is.

The anti-gay rights side are continuing to lose. Slowly but surely, more and more people are looking at their attitudes and laughing at the insanity of it all. This may be a small step, sure, but doesn't matter; any move forward towards letting gay people finally get the full rights they deserve is always good news .

 

[martha]

I'm just here to throw some festive confetti to celebrate my state rejoining the correct century!

Yay!

 

[PhilsFan]

obvy no time to read the 128-pages. but here's the meat of it as identified by people who have read it:

That is fantastic.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

abcnews.com

In an episode of her daytime talk show airing Wednesday, DeGeneres says the court’s decision on Proposition 8 is a “step in the right direction.” She then brings up the group One Million Moms and its criticism of her JCPenney deal. She says, “I’d like to talk about it because my haters are my motivators.”

DeGeneres says of the group, which recently claimed that JCPenney will lose sales because it hired the openly-gay comedienne as its brand ambassador, “They wanted to get me fired, and I’m proud and happy to say that JCPenney stuck by their decision to make me their spokesperson. Which is great news for me because I also need some new crew socks. I’m really going to clean up with this discount.”

Reading from a statement in which One Million Moms accused JCPenney of jumping on the “pro-gay bandwagon,” DeGeneres says, “Being gay or pro-gay isn’t a bandwagon. You don’t get a free ride anywhere. There’s no music. And occasionally we’ll sing ‘We Are Family’ but that’s about it.”

DeGeneres then disputes the notion that JCPenney is losing customers because of the hire, pointing to supportive comments written by people on One Million Moms’ Facebook page. She says, “I usually don’t talk about stuff like this on my show but I really want to thank everyone who is supporting me….Here are the values I stand for. I stand for honesty, equality, kindness, compassion, treating people the way you’d want to be treated and helping those in need.”

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

Hehe. Go, Ellen. Nicely put.

Yeah. I'm really failing to see how someone as flat out nice and inoffensive as she is is going to be a real threat of any sort to someone's precious lifestyle and delicate sensibilities.