equality blooms with spring

[anitram]

Originally Posted by financeguy

if one chooses to find that spectacle completely unappealing, one is automatically a homophobe.

There is a difference between finding two men kissing unappealing, and kicking them out of a restaurant for it. I know you're not so stupid as to not recognize that.

And for the record, I don't care for PDAs either.

[Irvine511]

does my avatar bother you?

Originally Posted by financeguy

If I'm in a restaurant, I don't want to see guys snogging at the next table, as a matter of fact, I don't want to see anyone snogging at the next table.

were these men "snogging" or did one give the other a quick kiss?

my guess is the latter.

Obviously, if one doesn't want to see two gays in a passioniate embrace at any time of the day or night, if one chooses to find that spectacle completely unappealing, one is automatically a homophobe

.

i have to watch straights kiss on the streets and fuck in the movies all the time. you're taking your original argument a step further, now, in that you really do seem to have two different standards when it comes to PDA.

but don't worry -- Memphis and i are well trained enough not to hold hands even while walking down majority-gay streets in DC, nor do we kiss in front of anyone but our closest friends and always at apartment parties, not in restaurants. so you'll be safe here!

I say, give the gays marriage, and soon enough they'll find - like the rest of us - it's not exactly the bed of roses some of them seem to think it is.

who's said that "we" think that it's a bed of roses? i think it certainly does seem like a bed of roses when you're not allowed to make medical decisions for your partner or your partner's parents take half your assets should one of you die. but the thing itself will probably be treated just like straight people treat it. some gays will act like 24 year old girls and think they'll be the prettiest princess ever, and others will marry when they are 50 with a small ceremony and continue on with their quiet lives.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by MrsSpringsteen

without dealing with that kind of crap. I'm not gay, so maybe you can ask someone who is. But if I was and I had to deal with stuff like that, it would be important to me.

do you remember a post a few years ago when i talked about Memphis and i making the drive down the California coast along Big Sur and whenever we'd stop to get pictures and we wanted one of the two of us, we'd always ask the youngest women we could find since we thought they would get it and not act like it was oh-so-strange to photograph two ... guys.

it's little things like that. that's what puts you on edge, just a bit, and is something that straight people generally never tend to think about. even if not a single negative thought goes through the mind of the person taking the photo, the process that i quickly went through in my mind -- "quick, which person here would not be bothered by us" -- lets me know that, no matter what, i'm still different.

[melon]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

some gays will act like 24 year old girls and think they'll be the prettiest princess ever

YouTube - Bridezilla Cake Smash!

Because, clearly, "the gays" can't be expected to form serious, lasting relationships like our upright hetero counterparts.

[MrsSpringsteen]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

do you remember a post a few years ago when i talked about Memphis and i making the drive down the California coast along Big Sur and whenever we'd stop to get pictures and we wanted one of the two of us, we'd always ask the youngest women we could find since we thought they would get it and not act like it was oh-so-strange to photograph two ... guys.

Yes I remember that..very well

At this point I don't know why I even bother to try to make such a point. It seems so much easier for some people to make statements as if actual living feeling human beings are not involved.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by MrsSpringsteen

Yes I remember that..very well

At this point I don't know why I even bother to try to make such a point. It seems so much easier for some people to make statements as if actual living feeling human beings are not involved.

?

[MrsSpringsteen]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

?

Oops, sorry..that wasn't directed at you at all if it looks like it was. Sorry, I don't really know how to say what I'm trying to say. I can try to tell you privately if you like.

[Irvine511]

no problem.

[financeguy]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

do you remember a post a few years ago when i talked about Memphis and i making the drive down the California coast along Big Sur and whenever we'd stop to get pictures and we wanted one of the two of us, we'd always ask the youngest women we could find since we thought they would get it and not act like it was oh-so-strange to photograph two ... guys.

What does your perception that young women are the least homophobic demographic derive from?

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by financeguy

What does your perception that young women are the least homophobic demographic derive from?

experience.

[Irvine511]

look for more Democrats to "evolve" over the next few years, and for Obama to fully "evolve" shortly after 2012:

Bill Clinton Backs Same-Sex Marriage
By Michael Tracey

July 14, 2009


Michael Tracey: The former president's reversal is the highest-profile one to date. It may also have political implications for the future of the Defense of Marriage Act.

After speaking at the Campus Progress National Conference in Washington, DC, on July 8, the former president was asked if he supported same-sex marriage. Clinton, in a departure from past statements, replied in the affirmative.

Clinton opposed same-sex marriage during his presidency, and in 1996, he signed the Defense of Marriage Act, which limited federal recognition of marriage to one man and one woman. In May of this year, Clinton told a crowd at Toronto's Convention Centre that his position on same-sex marriage was "evolving."

Apparently, Clinton's thinking has now further evolved. Asked if he would commit his support for same-sex marriage, Clinton responded, "I'm basically in support."

This spring, same-sex marriage was legalized in Iowa, Vermont, Connecticut, Maine and New Hampshire. In his most recent remarks on the subject, Clinton said, "I think all these states that do it should do it." The former president, however, added that he does not believe that same-sex marriage is "a federal question."

Asked if he personally supported same-sex marriage, Clinton replied, "Yeah." "I personally support people doing what they want to do," Clinton said. "I think it's wrong for someone to stop someone else from doing that [same-sex marriage]."

The former president joins a string of prominent Democrats who have recently switched their position on the issue, including former Democratic National Committee chair Howard Dean, New York Senator Charles E. Schumer, New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine and Connecticut Senator Christopher Dodd.

"Bill Clinton joins other important public figures in stepping solidly into the twenty-first century in support of same-sex marriage equality," said the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force's executive director Rea Carey. "We certainly hope other elected officials, including President Obama, join him in clearly stating their support for equality in this country. Same-sex couples should not have to experience second-class citizenship."

Clinton's reversal is the highest-profile one to date. It may also have political implications for the future of the Defense of Marriage Act. President Obama has pledged to repeal the law, but in June, the Justice Department filed a brief in federal court defending the law's constitutionality.

A recent Gallup poll found that a majority of Democrats favor same-sex marriage.

[MrsSpringsteen]

Yeah he does it now because it has no consequences for him

[martha]

I spent considerable time in Iowa about a week or two ago. I didn't notice any particular disintegration of that state's morals since their activist judges decided that their Constitution applied to all taxpaying citizens. Maybe I wasn't looking hard enough.

On the other hand, we were celebrating our 20th year of married hell, and we were so busy making out in restaurants that maybe I was distracted.

[MrsSpringsteen]

Sacramento Bee

By Susan Ferriss

Published: Tuesday, Jul. 21, 2009

A proposed law to recognize a growing number of same-sex marriages performed in other states and countries is winding its way through California's Legislature.

Opponents of gay marriage say Senate Bill 54 violates Proposition 8, a voter initiative approved last November that amended the state constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman.

The bill's sponsor contends that his proposed changes to state family law are consistent with the California Supreme Court's nuanced decision in May to uphold Proposition 8.

The court's decision upheld the right of voters to bar gay couples from the label "marriage," acknowledged SB 54's author, Sen. Mark Leno, an openly gay Democrat from San Francisco.

But the court, Leno noted, also upheld an estimated 18,000 same-sex marriages performed in California before the gay-marriage ban was approved. Those marriages took place after the justices ruled in May 2008, in a separate decision, that California's constitution at that time did not prevent same-sex marriage.

The high court did not address how to treat out-of-state marriages, explaining in a footnote that none of the parties involved in lawsuits represented such interests.

In that vacuum, Leno is arguing the Legislature's role should be to clarify the rights of same-sex couples who live in California but wed elsewhere, or couples who might move or travel here in the future.

"Proposition 8 passes," Leno said. "But there are two men who live in San Francisco who pay their taxes, work and got married legally in Massachusetts. What are they? Legal strangers? Clearly, there is a legislative need to clarify this."

Frank Schubert, who was the campaign manager for Proposition 8, disagrees. He predicts a court battle over the law should it pass and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger sign it.

"Our argument is that the people amended the constitution and do not approve of same-sex marriage," he said.

There's nothing in the court's Proposition 8 decision, Schubert said, that should lead gay couples to think they can transfer marriage rights to California because they wed in another country or any of the six states that now allow gay marriage.

Leno's bill would declare that any same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions before Proposition 8 be recognized on par with marriages that took place in California.

Same-sex couples married in other jurisdictions after Proposition 8 was approved would be afforded the same legal rights that marriage gives them here, but they could not use the word "marriage" to refer to their legal relationship.

The proposal now has sponsors in the Assembly, where on July 9 it gained approval in that house's Judiciary Committee in a vote split along party lines – seven Democrats for and three Republicans against.

The bill will go to the Assembly floor before the Senate hears it.

Brad Dacus, president of the conservative Pacific Legal Institute, called Leno's bill "another cheap attempt to undermine the electoral process" and said he'd join in a lawsuit against it.

Alex Ingersoll, a resident of San Francisco, said he'd be willing to go to court as well to defend recognition of his marriage to Martin Tannenbaum.

The pair married in Massachusetts during the window of time when gays were also allowed to marry in California.

"We just assumed that our marriage would be recognized here," said Ingersoll, 62, who manages a law firm.

They chose to marry in Massachusetts, near the Pilgrim Monument, because they wanted to be with family members on the East Coast.

Ingersoll's roots in Massachusetts go back to 1629, he said, and Tannenbaum lived in Boston for 30 years.

"I recognize that change often comes incrementally," Ingersoll said. If he has to go to court to defend his marriage, he said, "I'm honored to be part of it."

A same-sex couple in Sacramento with a stake in Leno's bill got married in Canada in 2007 before gay marriage was legal in California.

John Hancock, president of the California Channel, which airs government hearings, is married to Juan Ramos, who restores historical documents for the California secretary of state's office.

Ramos, 56, and Hancock, 55, wed in Vancouver, British Columbia, during a trip to celebrate Hancock's recovery after a drunken driver nearly killed him.

"I had skin grafts, scars. I was broken. And to have someone want to marry you and show you that devotion, I can't tell you what that does for you," Hancock said. "I want to demonstrate to people that I value my commitment."

[anitram]

Originally Posted by MrsSpringsteen

Frank Schubert, who was the campaign manager for Proposition 8, disagrees. He predicts a court battle over the law should it pass and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger sign it.

"Our argument is that the people amended the constitution and do not approve of same-sex marriage," he said.

That's nice and dandy for them, but this is a conflicts of law issue, not a constitutional California issue.

[BVS]

Common sense will someday prevail:

Pro-Gay-Marriage Muslim Delegate Stirs Conservatives : NPR

[MrsSpringsteen]

By DEVLIN BARRETT, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON – The Obama administration filed court papers Monday claiming a federal marriage law discriminates against gays, even as government lawyers continued to defend it.

Justice Department lawyers are seeking to dismiss a suit brought by a gay California couple challenging the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act. The administration's response to the case has angered gay activists who see it as backtracking on campaign promises made by Barack Obama last year.

In court papers, the administration said it supports repeal of the law.

Yet the same filing says the Justice Department will defend the statute in this case because a reasonable argument can be made that the law is constitutional.

The government's previous filing in the case angered gay rights activists who supported Obama's candidacy in part because of his pledge to move forward on repealing the law and the "don't ask, don't tell" policy that prevents gays from serving openly in the military.

"The administration believes the Defense of Marriage Act is discriminatory and should be repealed," said Justice Department spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler, because it prevents equal rights and benefits.

The department is obligated "to defend federal statutes when they are challenged in court. The Justice Department cannot pick and choose which federal laws it will defend based on any one administration's policy preferences," Schmaler added.

The law, often called DOMA, denies federal recognition of gay marriage and gives states the right to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states.

"DOMA reflects a cautiously limited response to society's still-evolving understanding of the institution of marriage," according to the filing by Assistant Attorney General Tony West.

The administration also disavowed past arguments made by conservatives that DOMA protects children by defining marriage as between a man and a woman.

"The United States does not believe that DOMA is rationally related to any legitimate government interests in procreation and child-rearing and is therefore not relying upon any such interests to defend DOMA's constitutionality," lawyers argued in the filing.

Obama has pledged to work to repeal the law.

Monday's court filing was in response to a lawsuit by Arthur Smelt and Christopher Hammer, who are challenging the federal law, which prevents couples in states that recognize same-sex unions from securing Social Security spousal benefits, filing joint taxes and benefiting from other federal rights connected to marriage.

Justice lawyers have argued that the act is constitutional and contend that awarding federal marriage benefits to gays would infringe on the rights of taxpayers in the 30 states that specifically prohibit same-sex marriages.

Earlier this year, Massachusetts became the first state to challenge the law in court.

[MrsSpringsteen]

LA Times

Group that backed Prop. 8 focuses on reinstating Iowa's gay-marriage ban
August 24, 2009

Opponents of same-sex marriage launched a campaign today to re-ban gay marriage in Iowa.

The National Organization for Marriage, which was active in getting Proposition 8 approved by voters in California, sent out an appeal for donations to run advertisements on behalf of political candidates who oppose same-sex marriage.

It said the first ad would support Republican Stephen Burgmeier, who supports putting the issue of same-sex marriage to a vote in the Hawkeye State. He is up for election in less than two weeks.

In April, Iowa became the third state in the nation to allow same-sex marriage after the state Supreme Court ruled that a law defining marriage as only between men and women was unconstitutional.

Brian Brown -- who spearheaded the National Organization for Marriage's efforts in California, and is now the group's executive director -- also wrote supporters that donations could be used nationwide, to “allow us to rapidly intervene … in key races across the country where a handful of House or Senate seats could make the difference between whether a same-sex marriage bill or state marriage amendment passes or fails.”

[Irvine511]

if it's possible, i'm now an even bigger fan of Top Chef and especially Tom Colicchio:

“This week, our chefs cooked for joint bachelor/bachelorette parties, and Ashley spoke articulately about her dismay and discomfort cooking to celebrate an upcoming wedding when gay people are still denied the right to wed throughout most of the world. I’m going to go out on a limb and say a few words about same-sex marriage: First of all, part of the problem with the issue is that it is framed by opponents as a discussion of whether gay people should get special rights. This is specious – yes, special legislation or court decisions grant them the right to wed in a particular state, however this is done to ensure that they share equal protection under the law by finally being able to avail themselves of the same rights as everyone else. They are not seeking special treatment, just equitable treatment. Second, religion has no business being part of the discussion. When a couple is wed in a house of worship, the officiant may be performing a religious rite, but as far as the law is concerned, that officiant has been authorized to perform a civil function, plain and simple. And even were same-sex marriage to be legalized by the state, no one would be holding a gun to the heads of the clergy to require them to perform a ceremony that their faith or personal creed does not condone. Just as some rabbis would not perform my marriage to my wife because I wasn’t Jewish, clergy can decline performing same-sex marriages; gay couples can either find clergy willing to officiate or can be wed in a civil setting. The idea that religious leaders are continuing to shape state law is just wrong. The institution of marriage should be available to all. The idea that you can have a life-long partner and not make decisions for them in a hospital, not share in insurance benefits, not automatically have parental rights unless you are the birth parent, is just flat-out wrong.”

Top Chef - Blogs - Tom Colicchio - On Rites, Rights, and Cooking Right - Bravo TV Official Site

[martha]

Ashley spoke articulately about her dismay and discomfort cooking to celebrate an upcoming wedding

I didn't see the episode, and I never will, but this bothers me. If she doesn't want to cook for weddings, just pass on the gig. People who are getting married still can be happy. Her "discomfort and dismay" with a happy occasion is a little dramatic, isn't it?