equality blooms with spring

[Tiger Edge]

Perhaps you should marry a gun?

 

[Irvine511]

too fun not to share:


YouTube - The Best Parody of NOM's "Gathering Storm" Ad

 

[BVS]

 

[deep]

Live free or die!

all eyes on the Granite State.

 

[martha]

Thank god I didn't ever bother to watch the real one.

 

[INDY500]

the citizens of Washington DC have an inalienable right to handguns, but the gays have no right to marriage.

and that just about sums it up on the judicial activism front.

That's right, only one is actually addressed in the U.S. Constitution. An important distinction in a country founded as a constitutional republic.

 

[Irvine511]

That's right, only one is actually addressed in the U.S. Constitution. An important distinction in a country founded as a constitutional republic.

so when judges are activist in the right way, then it's okay.

i'm glad to know that you're not going to try to fake adherence to principle, and that "pursuit of happiness" is not an inalienable right, nor is any sort of equal protection.

 

[martha]

I thought the Fourteenth Amendment was part of the Constitution.

What do I know?

 

[Irvine511]

Ex-McCain aide to call for gay marriage support
Posted: 09:58 PM ET


WASHINGTON (CNN) - Steve Schmidt, a key architect of John McCain's presidential campaign, is making his first public return to Washington a bold one.

Schmidt will use a speech Friday to Log Cabin Republicans, a gay rights group, to urge conservative Republicans to drop their opposition to same-sex marriage, CNN has learned.

"There is a sound conservative argument to be made for same-sex marriage," Schmidt will say, according to speech excerpts obtained by CNN. "I believe conservatives, more than liberals, insist that rights come with responsibilities. No other exercise of one's liberty comes with greater responsibilities than marriage."

Schmidt makes both policy and political arguments for a Republican embrace of same-sex marriage.

On the policy front, Schmidt likens the fight for gay rights to civil rights and women's rights, and he admonishes conservatives who argue for the protection of the unborn as a God-given right, but against protections for same-sex couples.

"It cannot be argued that marriage between people of the same sex is un-American or threatens the rights of others," he says in the speech. "On the contrary, it seems to me that denying two consenting adults of the same sex the right to form a lawful union that is protected and respected by the state denies them two of the most basic natural rights affirmed in the preamble of our Declaration of Independence — liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

"That, I believe, gives the argument of same sex marriage proponents its moral force," Schmidt will say.

Politically, he will say that becoming more open and accepting is critical to reversing an alarming trend for Republicans — a shrinking coalition. He will note that Republicans should be especially concerned that McCain got crushed by Barack Obama among voters under 30, who are generally more accepting of gay couples and at odds with the GOP.

"Some Republicans believe the period of self-examination within the party necessitated by the loss of our majority status is mostly a question of whether the party should become more moderate or conservative. I think that's a false choice. We need to grow our coalition, but as I said, that's hard to do if we lose some votes while gaining others," says Schmidt.

Schmidt had previously expressed his personal support for gay marriage. Last month, he told the Washington Blade newspaper that he is in favor of legalizing it and that he voted against California's Proposition 8, which overturned a court ruling that had legalized the unions in that state.

In making the case, Schmidt is putting himself at odds with the position of John McCain, whose 2008 campaign he effectively ran.

McCain rarely talked about same-sex marriage or other social issues, but when he did, he made clear he was in line with social conservatives in opposing same-sex marriage.

"Have no doubt about my commitment to the unique status and sanctity of marriage between man and woman," McCain said on the campaign trail.

McCain's daughter Meghan has become a vocal advocate in recent months for gay marriage, and is slated to participate in the Log Cabin Republican convention this weekend.

In his speech Friday, Schmidt will acknowledge that his is a "minority view" in the GOP, but will also say, "I'm confident American public opinion will continue to move on the question toward majority support, and sooner or later the Republican Party will catch up to it."

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

I was just reading about him. He's right. Good for him for speaking out.

 

[A_Wanderer]

I never knew.

YouTube - Dare to Stand

 

[BVS]

^Didn't that guy used to post here?

 

[Irvine511]

more states to come?

Broad support for New York gay marriage bill: poll
Mon Apr 20, 2009 2:33pm EDT

By Edith Honan

NEW YORK (Reuters) - A majority of New Yorkers support a bill legalizing gay marriage, according to a poll released on Monday, but the measure still faces an uphill battle in the state legislature.

By a margin of 53 to 39 percent, New York voters said they backed Governor David Paterson's proposal enabling same-sex couples to obtain marriage licenses, said the poll by the Siena Research Institute at Siena College in Loudonville, New York.

"We put the bill out because there are 1,324 protections that people who are married receive legally, like the ability to make medical decisions for one's spouse that you can't have if you're not married," Paterson said when asked by reporters about the poll.

Paterson, a Democrat who introduced the bill last week, said many New Yorkers saw the matter as "an equality issue."

Voters in every region of the state support allowing gay marriage, with residents of New York City, women and voters under the age of 34 strong backers of changing the law, the poll found.

The bill has broad support in New York's lower house, the assembly, where Democrats have a comfortable majority. But the party holds a slim majority in the Senate, and several Democratic senators have said they will vote against it.

New York Republicans generally oppose the legislation as do large numbers of older and African-American voters, the poll found. It said 53 percent of Protestants were opposed to the measure, with 41 percent in favor. Catholics backed it by a margin of 49 to 41 percent.

If the bill became law, New York would follow Connecticut, Massachusetts, Vermont and Iowa in legalizing gay marriage. New Hampshire and Maine, which offer same-sex couples some form of legal recognition, also are considering bills to do so.

California briefly recognized gay marriage until voters banned it in a referendum last year.

Forty-three U.S. states have laws explicitly prohibiting gay marriage, including 29 with constitutional amendments restricting marriage to unions between a man and woman.

The telephone survey poll was conducted among 682 New York State registered voters and had a margin of error of plus or minus 3.8 percentage points.

 

[INDY500]

Miss California Sparks Furor With Gay Marriage Comments on Miss USA Telecast

(video)
Miss USA Contestant Loses Because She Opposes Same-Sex Marriage?

Three questions for those following this thread.

First, I thought everyone under 30 supported same-sex marriage.

Second, which side is it again that spews bigotry and hatred?

And thirdly, explain to me again the myth of judicial activism.

 

[Irvine511]

Three questions for those following this thread.

First, I thought everyone under 30 supported same-sex marriage.

Second, which side is it again that spews bigotry and hatred?

And thirdly, explain to me again the myth of judicial activism.

1. yes, significant majorities of those under-30 support same-sex marriage. please show me any issue where there is 100% agreement. i mean, you'd think torture would be an issue upon which we would all agree, but amazingly enough, we don't.

2. those who object to same-sex marriage are now forced to concede, as Maggie Gallagher is doing, that the only coherent objection to SSM is the belief that a same-sex couple is inferior to an opposite-sex couple, and are thusly deserving of an elevated place in our society. that is bigoted, plain as day. and, that said, Perez Hilton is an idiot.

3. the myth of judicial activism is when judges make decisions that you don't agree with and then you accuse them of not interpreting the law but using their position to make laws according to their own personal beliefs. this goes all the way back to Brown v. Board of Education, and Loving v. Virginia. generally speaking, whenever the judiciary -- a branch of the government vested with specific powers and meant as a check on the executive branch and the legislative branch -- sticks up for the rights of a minority, many in the majority cry foul. this was the platform of the Segregationists -- State's Rights!!! -- and it's the platform of the anti-SSM folks.



but, as ever INDY, it's always really good to stand up for "traditional marriage" by linking to a website of a thrice-married right wing Republican who dumped his first wife in 1981 as she was in a hospital bed dying of cancer, and who left his second wife for a much younger staffer.

because i guess that's how right wing Republicans have traditionally treated their marriages.

 

[INDY500]

but, as ever INDY, it's always really good to stand up for "traditional marriage" by linking to a website of a thrice-married right wing Republican who dumped his first wife in 1981 as she was in a hospital bed dying of cancer, and who left his second wife for a much younger staffer.

because i guess that's how right wing Republicans have traditionally treated their marriages.

It was the only one to feature the Foxnews video exclusively. Here is the original link I had.

Miss California Gay Marriage Perez Hilton

Interesting to note the CNN and MSNBC videos fail to show the "she's a dumb bitch" clip.

Here is another page I found.
Miss USA California Gay Marriage Video With Perez Hilton - poponthepop.com

Note Miss Prejean is labeled as "homophobic' in the first sentence. Are we surprised? And how about these bons mots.

Surprisingly Carrie's response seemed to draw applause from the audience. A disappointed and visibly upset Perez Hilton was not amused and neither were some audience members. Scott Ihrig, a gay Miss USA pageant attendee, weighed in, "It's ugly. I think it's ridiculous that she got first runner-up. That is not the value of 95 percent of the people in this audience. Look around this audience and tell me how many gay men there are."

Conservatives are gonna love Miss California, and they can have her! I hope her "opposite marriage" ends in divorce when her husband leaves her for his gay lover!

Classy.

 

[Irvine511]

Classy.

wow. i guess you've proved -- via the quote of one individual on one blog that i've never heard of -- that you're really the virtuous underdog in this battle and that your opponents, despite being only 5% of the population, are secretly powerful and are working to fundamentally change the fabric of society and remake it in their own image.

luckily, the gays already have their own ghettos. so the rest should be easy.

and, yes, i think the only explanation for any opposition to gay marriage is homophobia. and, no, i don't think that homophobia is any better than racism or sexism. it was a homophobic comment. people are allowed to make those, and Perez Hilton can think she's a dumb bitch if he wants. as a judge, however, he entirely overstepped propriety (and possibly the rules), and as such should not be asked back as a judge.



(and if you go to, say, The Advocate website and read the comments section, you'll find that the vast majority of commenters defended her right to her opinion, and most think Perez Hilton is a douchebag)

 

[martha]

INDY, at least you got your questions answered. Many of us are still waiting for answers to the questions we asked several pages ago.

 

[martha]

Second, which side is it again that spews bigotry and hatred?

I don't know. You tell me.

 

[BVS]

I wonder if Jesus would condone gay marriage? I don't know, he never said one word about homosexuality.

I wonder if he would condone torture? Well he talked about loving your enemies, turning the other cheek, and he placed the ear of the soldier (that wanted to torture him) back on before going into custody...

Things that make you go

 

[corianderstem]

Everytime anyone gives Perez Hilton any attention, an angel gets its wings ripped off. I can't believe he's become some sort of spokesperson for this story - it makes me want to bang my head against a sharp, immobile object.

 

[deep]

I wonder if he would condone torture?

Things that make you go

That's an easy one. He seemed to be into it.

Did you see Passion?

 

[Irvine511]

That's an easy one. He seemed to be into it.

Did you see Passion?

purity through pain.

 

[INDY500]

wow. i guess you've proved -- via the quote of one individual on one blog that i've never heard of -- that you're really the virtuous underdog in this battle and that your opponents, despite being only 5% of the population, are secretly powerful and are working to fundamentally change the fabric of society and remake it in their own image.

luckily, the gays already have their own ghettos. so the rest should be easy.

and, yes, i think the only explanation for any opposition to gay marriage is homophobia. and, no, i don't think that homophobia is any better than racism or sexism. it was a homophobic comment. people are allowed to make those, and Perez Hilton can think she's a dumb bitch if he wants. as a judge, however, he entirely overstepped propriety (and possibly the rules), and as such should not be asked back as a judge.



(and if you go to, say, The Advocate website and read the comments section, you'll find that the vast majority of commenters defended her right to her opinion, and most think Perez Hilton is a douchebag)

Oh, I'm quite sure we could find some truly bigoted remarks by defenders of traditional marriage towards gays.

I guess my point is -- we would expect that from us "troglodytes." Your position, however, is supposed to be the enlightened, erudite, lofty, righteous view. So, "what up" with the automatic labeling of all opponents, the inevitable obscenity-laced epitaph throwing and overall general lack of civility and respect?

Is it my turn to say "are you becoming the monster in order to defeat the monster"?

 

[Irvine511]

Oh, I'm quite sure we could find some truly bigoted remarks by defenders of traditional marriage towards gays.

I guess my point is -- we would expect that from us "troglodytes." Your position, however, is supposed to be the enlightened, erudite, lofty, righteous view. So, "what up" with the automatic labeling of all opponents, the inevitable obscenity-laced epitaph throwing and overall general lack of civility and respect?

Is it my turn to say "are you becoming the monster in order to defeat the monster"?

me? no.

i will absolutely say that creating a moral distinction between a gay couple and a straight couple on the basis of sexual orientation is bigoted. end of story for me.

i have not defended Perez Hilton's comments. but trust me. Perez has probably been called much worse in his life by straight people (and not just celebrities he rips on).

if he's all you've got left, then you've lost.

 

[INDY500]

me? no.

i will absolutely say that creating a moral distinction between a gay couple and a straight couple on the basis of sexual orientation is bigoted. end of story for me.

Forget moral distinction. It's bigoted, I guess, to even imply the obvious physical distinctions:

That only the union between a male and a female can naturally create life while passing on genes. Not an unimportant detail regarding the maintanace of sociatal stability.

That it's most advantagous for children to be raised by a mother AND father. Something obvious to all previous generations -- sadly becoming another casualty of value-neutrality.

In the name of progress of course.

I have not defended Perez Hilton's comments. but trust me. Perez has probably been called much worse in his life by straight people (and not just celebrities he rips on).

if he's all you've got left, then you've lost.

I had never heard of Perez Hilton until yesterday and if not for this thread I wouldn't have given 2 seconds of thought to his actions.
He's an idiot but he's an outspoken same-sex advocate which makes him, in the cyperspace of this thread, your idiot.
Thus the tweaking.

 

[yolland]

That only the union between a male and a female can naturally create life while passing on genes. Not an unimportant detail regarding the maintanace of sociatal stability.

The weakness of using this as a legal argument--as the Iowa Court pointed out--is that by ignoring the presence of heterosexual marriages which cannot or will not ever produce children, laws formally restricting marriage to 'a man and a woman' under this justification have the effect of singling out one group for penalization (for being unable to produce children) on the basis of an argument which applies to many others as well. Ditto for justifications like 'every child needs a mother and a father.'

 

[Irvine511]

Forget moral distinction. It's bigoted, I guess, to even imply the obvious physical distinctions:

That only the union between a male and a female can naturally create life while passing on genes. Not an unimportant detail regarding the maintanace of sociatal stability.

That it's most advantagous for children to be raised by a mother AND father. Something obvious to all previous generations -- sadly becoming another casualty of value-neutrality.

In the name of progress of course.

i had no idea that having one's own biological children was a precondition for marriage.

further, the mother AND a father is a distortion. the only things studies have show is that children tend do better with TWO (good) parents rather than one. said studies were done comparing heterosex households. there's no demonstrable difference between children raised by same-gender parents than with opposite-sex parents. there simply isn't. but that's moot, anyway, because no one is required to have children. nor should they be.

and the "previous generations" comment is just silly. notions of child rearing are quite different today than they were 100 years ago, let alone 500 or 2,000 years ago.

I had never heard of Perez Hilton until yesterday and if not for this thread I wouldn't have given 2 seconds of thought to his actions.
He's an idiot but he's an outspoken same-sex advocate which makes him, in the cyperspace of this thread, your idiot.
Thus the tweaking.

and you linked to a thrice-married serial adulterer who dumped his first wife as she lay dying of cancer.

 

[martha]

i had no idea that having one's own biological children was a precondition for marriage.

Yikes. That's not a law here in the US yet, is it?

I may have to get me one of those adult baby-dolls. ew.

 

[Irvine511]

Yikes. That's not a law here in the US yet, is it?

I may have to get me one of those adult baby-dolls. ew.

i'm surprised the government hasn't forcibly divorced the two of you.

no biological children, no marriage.

jumping off this, and since i've offered up many clear answers to clear questions, i'm going to ask another question:


1. what is the moral difference between Irvine/Memphis and Martha/Steve?

be specific.