Gay Marriage to Alfred: Your Thoughts

http://www.minnpost.com/minnclips/2011/05/23/28533/rep_john_kriesels_full_speech_on_the_same-sex_marriage_ban_amendment

Republican MN State Representative John Kriesels making a speech re: the same-sex marriage ban amendment.

(from Cottage Grove btw)

hot damn

The CEO of Focus on the Family says of winning the younger generation on gay marriage:

We're losing on that one, especially among the 20- and 30-somethings: 65 to 70 percent of them favor same-sex marriage. I don't know if that's going to change with a little more age—demographers would say probably not. We've probably lost that. I don't want to be extremist here, but I think we need to start calculating where we are in the culture.

It's a bizarrely almost reasonable statement. His follow up not as much, but still.

now imagine jaymc including a special notice in his wedding invitations:

'dear gay friends,

it's wrong that you can't get married but my getting married doesn't stop you from getting married. enjoy the reception.

best wishes,

jaymc'

― j., Sunday, May 22, 2011 4:16 PM (2 days ago) Bookmark

Yeah, I don't think this is necessarily what jaymc is talking about. I have straight friends and family who are passionate about LGBT issues who have gotten married in the U.S. who have made a point of including a special notice like this and it's usually to the effect of encouraging or asking guests to donate to Marriage Equality organizations, etc. etc. Again, I'm not saying that this should be mandatory, but there are plenty of ways of acknowledging straight privilege and trying to use it for good that aren't as pointless callous as you imagine.

I'd rather my straight friends do something to productively advance queer causes than symbollically flagellate themselves for having the temerity to be straight.

And, again, blah blah blah is marriage equality even desirable, blah blah blah homonormative citizenship blah blah models of domesticity blah...

as a prerequisite for this entire discussion, but since in the U.S. marriage is so strongly tied to access to benefits of the social welfare state, the option of marriage is probably necessary (at the very least pragmatically) for advancing health coverage, poverty issues, etc. etc. etc.

I missed j.'s post. Alex OTM.

Americans are just scared hobosexuals will marry each other for benefits.

hobosexuals?

http://www.electricinca.com/lies/hobosexual.jpg

Guys I don't think you realise that same-sex marriage will lead to THE COLLAPSE OF CIVILISATION as per this bloke's prophecy

And union heavyweight Joe De Bruyn warned that Labor - and civilisation itself - could cease to exist if the party overhauls its platform later this year to accept same-sex marriage. (...) Mr De Bruyn also claims that undermining marriage could also trigger social collapse.

I can understand a lot of things I don't agree with or find deplorable - various forms of racism, homophobia, misogyny - but I haven't been able to see the viewpoint of someone who thinks that gay marriage will be majorly detrimental to his society. It's underpants gnomes logic for me (1: X, 2: ???, 3: Y!).

The first step is in understanding that some people still literally gag at the thought of any same-sex contact. The rest follows naturally.

Jesse otm, that's EXACTLY what it is. They haven't worked out the logic of step 2 yet because there IS none. btw pumpkin makes me gag so I'm having it banned.

Gay sex makes me gag, but I don't want to ban it and, instead, wish it were mandatory.

lol

jaymc - I think putting a note in your wedding program is great, and if you decide to do it, could be productive. I expect your guests will generally be pretty enlightened and pro-gay, but thinking about gay marriage rights at a wedding emphasizes its importance and might lead to some action in those who are passively pro-equality. Also, it would be emotionally affecting for me. In other words, if you do it, I WILL make a spectacle, like a hired mourner.

This quote has been on my mind since a friend posted it on FB

One of the primary functions of marriage is to make two unrelated adults into close kin; that creates mutual responsibilities, but it also makes a family that courtrooms, police, hospitals and other crucial institutions of society are obliged to acknowledge. Right now, heterosexuals are able to point to their life partner and say “this person, this person here – s/he’s now my closest family in the world, for all legal purposes” and (99.99% of the time) make it stick. Lesbians and gays don’t have that right. And real-life experience shows that the ability to write up a personalized contract is no match for being a legally recognized family. Source

It most accurately says what the idea of marriage means to me, both sentimentally (creating kinship) and practically (having societal recognition).

A partially tangential anecdote:
My ex-boyfriend M. is in a long term relationship with an older man who is is happily estranged from his family who hate him but want his money and property. He wants to leave everything to M. when he dies, especially the house, so that M., who is disabled, has some place to live. They talked to lawyers and found that in North Carolina, probate law is such that regardless of what his will says, his family would likely win a legal fight, since family is favored over non-family.

In order to circumvent this problem, the guy legally adopted M. as a son. Even so, the circumstances of the adoption might give the family a legal foothold. Of course marriage would be the obvious direct and simple way to avoid all the bullshit.

tl;dr: marriage inequality leads to father-son incest.

Yeah, we read a New York case in my family law class this year where a gay couple tried a similar thing and the adoption wasn't even permitted because it wasn't the proper function etc. etc.

Today is the first day of civil unioning in Illinois.

I'm going through and announcing this on every thread I have bookmarked....

White House's Pride month proclamation, unlike the last two, makes no mention of recognizing gay relationships legally:

http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2011/05/obama-issues-pride-month-proclamation.html

What a shitfuck.

Maybe he's pulling a Steve Jobs and we're getting the whole enchilada in June!

As critical as I am about the President, let me acknowledge the good he's done. Balloon Juice breaks it down:

1) Extended benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees
2) Signed the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act
3) Instructed HHS to require any hospital receiving Medicare or Medicaid funds (virtually all hospitals) to allow LGBT visitation rights.
4) Banned job discrimination based on gender identity throughout the Federal government (the nation’s largest employer)
5) Signed the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Treatment Extension Act
6) Extended the Family and Medical Leave Act to cover Gay employees taking unpaid leave to care for their children of same-sex partners
7) Lifted the HIV Entry Ban.
8) Implemented HUD Policies that Would Ban Discrimination Based On Gender Identity
9) Appointed the first ever transgender DNC member
10) Named open transgender appointees (the first President ever to do so)
11) Eliminated the discriminatory Census Bureau policy that kept LGBT relationships from being counted
12) Extended domestic violence protections to LGBT victims

I saw my first "Yes on 8 - Protect Marriage" bumpersticker on Sunday, on the car of a white woman driving her kid around. (I was driving through Bakersfield, RIP Buck Owens). Made me kind of apopleptic

i trust you did not wish death on her

I think I blurted out a string of expletives

It's so hard not to ram those cars

[[[[clowns gonna get clowned

Great news.:

Mr. Alesi informed Mr. Cuomo of his decision in a meeting on Monday afternoon. Speaking to reporters afterward, Mr. Alesi said he had anguished over his earlier opposition, and had apologized to gay-rights advocates “for voting politically rather than in a way that in my heart and soul I felt I should have voted.”

“What it really comes down to is one word: It’s equality, which is a basic right of living in America,” Mr. Alesi said. He qualified his support, saying he would vote for the bill only if it included protections for religious institutions.

All four senators who switched their votes said they had been persuaded to do so after discussing the issue with constituents and Senate colleagues in recent months.

“What we’re about to do is redefine what the American family is,” Mr. Kruger said. “And that’s a good thing. The world around us evolves.”

Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo, a Democrat who has made same-sex marriage a personal and political priority.

gay marriage is cuomo's personal priority --> ergo sandra lee is biologically male.

tran-dra lee

heh, i wonder what convinced carl kruger to change his mind

Roffle

can I have back the tax dollars that were wasted on this idiocy now plz k thx

xxxxp Ok, it's from a month ago and OT, but whatever:

With this kind of logic in mind, I'm thinking that maybe white people should get jobs that pay proportionately less...

One of the many reasons why I've been trying to quit being a home health CNA is because I don't like the advantage being white gives me over the black/Latino majority in getting clients.

So Obama esentially came out for "states' rights" on marriage last night. Unpack the irony; it'll only take a second.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-06-23/obama-says-new-york-s-marriage-debate-is-example-of-democracy.html

He's right about NY though -- it's a purely political posture. If he supported the bill, the Dems would lose the handful of GOP votes hanging by a thread

or rather "if he openly supported the bill"

looks like NY senate is gonna be voting on gay marriage tonight...at some point, eventually

good job new york

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oiSGw3dmMC4

your move illinois

http://youropenbook.org/?q=%22praying+for+new+york%22&gender=any

Marriage may not be the optimum rights-giver for gay couples, ie, some may be forced to marry even if they don't want to, bcz of the benefits puzzle, says Katherine Franke, director of the Center for Gender and Sexuality Law at Columbia Law School:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/24/opinion/24franke.html

Here’s why I’m worried: Winning the right to marry is one thing; being forced to marry is quite another. How’s that? If the rollout of marriage equality in other states, like Massachusetts, is any guide, lesbian and gay people who have obtained health and other benefits for their domestic partners will be required by both public and private employers to marry their partners in order to keep those rights. In other words, “winning” the right to marry may mean “losing” the rights we have now as domestic partners, as we’ll be folded into the all-or-nothing world of marriage.

Of course, this means we’ll be treated just as straight people are now. But this moment provides an opportunity to reconsider whether we ought to force people to marry — whether they be gay or straight — to have their committed relationships recognized and valued.

At Columbia University, where I work, the benefits office tells heterosexual employees that they must marry to get their partners on the health plan. A male graduate student I know, informed that he’d have to marry his longtime girlfriend for her to get benefits, was told, “Too bad your girlfriend isn’t a man — it would be so much easier!”

They ended up marrying, though they were politically and personally uninterested in doing so. I, by contrast, only had to fill out a form saying that my partner and I lived in the same household, to add her to my policy. An institution like Columbia (which is secular, I might add) should not be in the marriage-promotion business for either straight or gay employees, particularly when domestic partnerships can do the gate-keeping job just as effectively as marriage does.

I do feel this, especially since I'm in a similar quandary as the male grad student right now in re: moving in with my girlfriend and wanting to get her on my health coverage but unable to do so without actually being married, whereas if it was a boyfriend it wouldn't be an issue. But it seems like the next logical step to focus on as a result.

that seems to be sort of a backward way to look at the issue, doesnt it? the injustice here is that people dont universally have access to health care, not that domestic partnerships are "better" than marriage

yeah yeah yeah... but no. Just improve 'domestic partnerships' and get government out of the marriage business. Even R Diaz Sr would be happy!

well sure but i think that our first priority should be providing universal access to health care, not tailoring the way the gov't sanctions relationships to fit an unjust system

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303339904576406201312879150.html

interesting article about the strategy behind the vote. depressing to realize that everything in this country, even gay marriage, requires millions of dollars from a rich libertarian