Same Sex Marriage Thread - Part III

[Cactus Annie]

I'm always interested in what Pearl has to say in these threads. I like seeing what BVS, Girls Aloud Fan and COBL for the comedy value. Whenever I read Jive's posts I start humming 'Jive Talkin'' by the Bee Gees.

I don't see any "arguing". I see people having a discussion. Would you like to chime in with something intelligent? There's always the option to not open the thread

My mum always says never discuss politics or religion, that's how wars are started. However, I am interested in learning about religion. I used to listen to a talk radio station that discussed politics every night. As you get older, I find that it gets ever so tiring. Especially if I was up until 3am last night looking at what the Catholic church has to say about evolution even though I'm not a Catholic.

Actually I think I will add something to the discussing, as I do have 8 minutes until my favourite soap opera comes on. It wasn't until the 1960's that male homosexuality (female homosexuality technically wasn't illegal because our law makers never thought that it existed). The UK is one of the most liberal countries in the world, so why do folks think that our ancestors from thousands of years ago considered it to be ok I'm not sure. I've known atheists who dislike the idea of same sex marriage.

I remember when I was at college, students in my class telling our teacher that they dislike seeing two women holding hands. The teacher responded saying that doesn't like seeing public snogging of a man & a women. She was married with two kids, so obviously she's done a lot more than snog her husband!

 

[Galeongirl]

Don't like seeing it, and thinking that it should never happen are two different things.

I don't like to see public snogging either, being male/male, male/female or female/female. That doesn't mean I don't do it myself, behind closed doors. I just don't like to watch others make out. A peck on the cheek or a hug is fine, but to openly snog each other's faces off? No thanks. That doesn't mean I think they shouldn't do it. Just, for feck's sake, keep it private!

Disliking seeing others holding hands isn't that big of a deal to me though.

 

[Irvine511]

Remembering the UpStairs Lounge: The U.S.A.’s Largest LGBT Massacre Happened 40 Years Ago Today

The 24th of June in 1973 was a Sunday. For New Orleans’ gay community, it was the last day of national Pride Weekend, as well as the fourth anniversary of 1969′s Stonewall uprising. You couldn’t really have an open celebration of those events — in ’73, anti-gay slurs, discrimination, and even violence were still as common as sin — but the revelers had few concerns. They had their own gathering spots in the sweltering city, places where people tended to leave them be, including a second-floor bar on the corner of Iberville and Chartres Street called the UpStairs Lounge.

That Sunday, dozens of members of the Metropolitan Community Church (MCC), the nation’s first gay church, founded in Los Angeles in 1969, got together there for drinks and conversation. It seems to have been an amiable group. The atmosphere was welcoming enough that two gay brothers, Eddie and Jim Warren, even brought their mom, Inez, and proudly introduced her to the other patrons. Beer flowed. Laughter filled the room.

Just before 8:00p, the doorbell rang insistently. To answer it, you had to unlock a steel door that opened onto a flight of stairs leading down to the ground floor. Bartender Buddy Rasmussen, expecting a taxi driver, asked his friend Luther Boggs to let the man in. Perhaps Boggs, after he pulled the door open, had just enough time to smell the Ronsonol lighter fluid that the attacker of the UpStairs Lounge had sprayed on the steps. In the next instant, he found himself in unimaginable pain as the fireball exploded, pushing upward and into the bar.

The ensuing 15 minutes were the most horrific that any of the 65 or so customers had ever endured — full of flames, smoke, panic, breaking glass, and screams.
MCC assistant pastor George “Mitch” Mitchell escaped, but soon returned to try to rescue his boyfriend, Louis Broussard. Both died in the fire, their bodies clinging together in death, like a scene from the aftermath of Pompeii.

Metal bars on the UpStairs Lounge windows, meant to keep people from falling out, were just 14 inches apart; while some managed to squeeze through and jump, others got stuck. That’s how the MCC’s pastor, Rev. Bill Larson, died, screaming, “Oh, God, no!” as the flames charred his flesh. When police and firefighters surveyed and began clearing the scene, they left Larson fused to the window frame until the next morning.

This news photo is among the most indelible I’ve ever seen:

Thirty-two people lost their lives that Sunday 40 years ago — Luther Boggs, Inez Warren, and Warren’s sons among them.

Homophobia being what it was, several families declined to claim the bodies and one church after another refused to bury or memorialize the dead. Three victims were never identified or claimed, and were interred at the local potter’s field.

When the Rev. William Richardson, of St. George’s Episcopal Church, agreed to hold a small prayer service for the victims, about 80 people attended, but many more complained about Richardson to Iveson Noland, the Episcopalian bishop of New Orleans. Noland reportedly rebuked Richardson for his kindness, and the latter received volumes of hate mail.

The UpStairs Lounge arson was the deadliest fire in New Orleans history and the largest massacre of gay people ever in the U.S. Yet it didn’t make much of an impact news-wise. The few respectable news organizations that deigned to cover the tragedy made little of the fact that the majority of the victims had been gay, while talk-radio hosts tended to take a jocular or sneering tone: What do we bury them in? Fruit jars, sniggered one, on the air, only a day after the massacre.

Other, smaller disasters resulted in City Hall press conferences or statements of condolence from the governor, but no civil authorities publicly spoke out about the fire, other than to mumble about needed improvements to the city’s fire code.
Continuing this pattern of neglect, the New Orleans police department appeared lackluster about the investigation (the officers involved denied it). The detectives wouldn’t even acknowledge that it was an arson case, saying the cause of the fire was of “undetermined origin.” No one was ever charged with the crime, although an itinerant troublemaker with known mental problems, Rogder Dale Nunez, is said to have claimed responsibility multiple times. Nunez, a sometime visitor to the UpStairs Lounge, committed suicide in 1974.

Remembering the UpStairs Lounge: The U.S.A.’s Largest LGBT Massacre Happened 40 Years Ago Today

.

 

[Pearl]

 

[martha]

Some things should be spoilered. Just sayin'

 

[Jive Turkey]

You'd see pictures like that in the newspaper

 

[cobl04]

Never heard of that irvine, but wow. Fucked up.

 

[martha]

You'd see pictures like that in the newspaper

And I tear them out and throw them away as soon as I can.

Doesn't mean I want to see them here or anywhere.

 

[Galeongirl]

I had never heard of that before either..What I miss from the article though, did they ever catch who did it?


That photo is pretty damn horrific.

 

[Jive Turkey]

"No one was ever charged with the crime, although an itinerant troublemaker with known mental problems, Rogder Dale Nunez, is said to have claimed responsibility multiple times. Nunez, a sometime visitor to the UpStairs Lounge, committed suicide in 1974."

 

[Galeongirl]

I'm blind, thanks Jive!

 

[Jive Turkey]

no problem

 

[trojanchick99]

Supreme Court will release their decision on DOMA and Prop 8 tomorrow!

 

[Irvine511]

Supreme Court will release their decision on DOMA and Prop 8 tomorrow!

the CW seems to be that DOMA is done, and Prop 8 will get kicked back to CA, which means marriage equality in CA.

a part of me thinks this potential narrow ruling is the most prudent way to go, and states can decide what to do with marriage, and it's DOMA that's the most insidious -- denying legally married couples in Mass federal benefits, as well as turning them into legal strangers should they decide to vacation in, say, Florida is just incredibly awful.

however, i'm thinking that, more and more, there are a lot of lawmakers who actually would like to see a sweeping "gay marriage for all" ruling -- it will effectively end this excruciating, state-by-state, incrementalist approach (like we just saw in IL) and make everything dramatically simpler. and the GOP will like it because it will take it off the table as an issue as it's now considered unacceptable to be vocally against SSM in polite society.

i don't think anyone thinks that this is the new abortion, despite RBG's fretting about how RvW was too much, too soon. two adults getting married hardly holds the same emotional pull as abortion, and "i believe marriage is between one man and one women" is much more complex than charges of "baby killers!"

i think the narrow ruling is likely, but i have a small suspicion that SCOTUS and Roberts -- who's clearly wants to confer SCOTUS legitimacy on the inevitable -- may surprise us.

not planning on it though.

 

[deep]

looking at the rulings released this week, I have very low expectations for this court
there is a way they can kick DOMA down the road and leave it in effect.

 

[nbcrusader]

however, i'm thinking that, more and more, there are a lot of lawmakers who actually would like to see a sweeping "gay marriage for all" ruling -- it will effectively end this excruciating, state-by-state, incrementalist approach (like we just saw in IL) and make everything dramatically simpler. and the GOP will like it because it will take it off the table as an issue as it's now considered unacceptable to be vocally against SSM in polite society.

Sadly, the cynic in me believes that both party establishments want the fight to continue, as it makes for a great source of revenue (donate now, so we can fight for/against SSM).

Example: today's ruling on the Voting Rights Act led to an immediate appeal for support.

The money is in the fight, not the solution.

For what it's worth, I'd prefer the conclusive ruling for SSM.

 

[nathan1977]

Sadly, the cynic in me believes that both party establishments want the fight to continue, as it makes for a great source of revenue (donate now, so we can fight for/against SSM).

Example: today's ruling on the Voting Rights Act led to an immediate appeal for support.

The money is in the fight, not the solution.

For what it's worth, I'd prefer the conclusive ruling for SSM.

Wait, what? Nbcrusader is back?!

 

[IWasBored]

Wait, what? Nbcrusader is back?!

Right? Holy crap! Welcome back

 

[BoMac]

DOMA is unconstitutional, says the SCOTUS.

 

[u2popmofo]

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

Great day in our history. Makes me proud.

 

[BonosSaint]

Good day.

 

[PhilsFan]

Prop 8 is out too. AMERICA.

 

[Galeongirl]

 

[trojanchick99]

In tears watching the press conference in front of the Supreme Court. What a great day!

 

[deep]

Good outcomes, but a terrible court.

These narrow decisions (5-4) feed controversy.

Scalia, a truly disgusting person and terrible jurist votes with the 5 on the Prop 8 ruling.

 

[AchtungBono]

Congratulations to all those affected by this decision.....I know it means a lot to you.

......Now if only the SC would modify the second amendment that would REALLY be fantastic.

 

[u2popmofo]

My Facebook feed is going to get interesting.

 

[deep]

Scalia is angry, he wanted to do the same thing with DOMA as he (they) did with Prop 8. Make a finding of no standing.

Antonin Scalia dissented from the decision on the grounds that the court did not have standing to take the case.

He wrote:

The Court is eager—hungry—to tell everyone its view of the legal question at the heart of this case... Yet the plaintiff and the Government agree entirely on what should happen in this lawsuit. They agree that the court below got it right; and they agreed in the court below that the court below that one got it right as well. What, then, are we doing here?

He also speculated that the majority justices are trying to hide their plan to issue a more sweeping ruling in the near future:

My guess is that the majority, while reluctant to suggest that defining the meaning of “marriage” in federal statutes is unsupported by any of the Federal Government’s enumerated powers, nonetheless needs some rhetorical basis to support its pretense that today’s prohibition of laws excluding same-sex marriage is confined to the Federal Government (leaving the second, state-law shoe to be dropped later, maybe next Term). But I am only guessing.

He criticized the majority for not fairly representing the views of Defense of Marriage Act supporters:

I imagine that this is because it is harder to maintain the illusion of the Act’s supporters as unhinged members of a wild-eyed lynch mob when one first describes their views as they see them.

Then he got really angry:

To be sure (as the majority points out), the legislation is called the Defense of Marriage Act. But to defend traditional marriage is not to condemn, demean, or humiliate those who would prefer other arrangements, any more than to defend the Constitution of the United States is to condemn, demean, or humiliate other constitutions. To hurl such accusations so casually demeans this institution. In the majority’s judgment, any resistance to its holding is beyond the pale of reasoned disagreement. To question its high-handed invalidation of a presumptively valid statute is to act (the majority is sure) with the purpose to “disparage,” ”injure,” “degrade,” ”demean,” and “humiliate” our fellow human beings, our fellow citizens, who are homosexual. All that, simply for supporting an Act that did no more than codify an aspect of marriage that had been unquestioned in our society for most of its existence—indeed, had been unquestioned in virtually all societies for virtually all of human history. It is one thing for a society to elect change; it is another for a court of law to impose change by adjudging those who oppose it hostes humani generis, enemies of the human race.

He ended with a bit of concern-trolling, saying today's decision on DOMA was bad for both supporters and opponents of same-sex marriage:

Some will rejoice in today’s decision, and some will despair at it; that is the nature of a controversy that matters so much to so many. But the Court has cheated both sides, robbing the winners of an honest victory, and the losers of the peace that comes from a fair defeat. We owed both of them better.

Read more: Antonin Scalia's Gay Marriage Dissent Is Dripping With Sarcasm - Business Insider

 

[martha]