Gay Marriage to Alfred: Your Thoughts

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (3148 of them)

The right wing no marriage but civil unions are okay position is just about keeping language as a placeholder.

I know, right?, Monday, 17 November 2008 23:39 (fifteen years ago) link

look the LAW is the central thing here, what anybody calls it (marriage, civil union, whatever) doesn't fucking matter. The end-goal is the guarantee of equal legal treatment of everyone who's made a formal commitment to a legally recognized relationship.

Shakey Mo Collier, Monday, 17 November 2008 23:39 (fifteen years ago) link

Not exactly. Leave marriage to religion and civil unions to a secular state that treats people as equal under the law.

xxpost

What's the matter, London, can't you read fish? (Michael White), Monday, 17 November 2008 23:40 (fifteen years ago) link

If marriage has public connotations of the legitimate thing,

you cannot legislate "public connotations". It is outside the bounds of civil jurisdiction.

Shakey Mo Collier, Monday, 17 November 2008 23:41 (fifteen years ago) link

I see I hold a minority opinion.

Abbott of the Trapezoid Monks (Abbott), Monday, 17 November 2008 23:41 (fifteen years ago) link

you guys know how laws work, right?

Shakey Mo Collier, Monday, 17 November 2008 23:41 (fifteen years ago) link

what about recognition across state lines?

Maria, Monday, 17 November 2008 23:41 (fifteen years ago) link

I would like to pass an amendment that states that if a marriage is defined by law as a sacred union between a man and a woman, they must then all occur in churches.

Basically, in their zeal to "protect" marriage, these people are destroying it, and I want to help them reach their logical conclusion so that everyone is fucked (ie, equality in the other direction).

Black Seinfeld (HI DERE), Monday, 17 November 2008 23:41 (fifteen years ago) link

haha!

I know, right?, Monday, 17 November 2008 23:42 (fifteen years ago) link

The deal is that EVERY marriage has a civil component. SOME marriages get the special gloss of a religious component, but that is not required for a marriage to be a marriage.

Jaq, Monday, 17 November 2008 23:43 (fifteen years ago) link

well put

Shakey Mo Collier, Monday, 17 November 2008 23:44 (fifteen years ago) link

It's not as if Xtians have not at times been exhorted to render unto Caesar what is his and just do their own shit. They had no huge problem with saying mass in a person's home when Xtianity was illegal under the Romans. If their faith tells them that they are, indeed, married via a sacrament tot heir spouse, what difference does it make whether a majority calls them married or not? In that case, let us have equality for all under the common law and if it requires an amendment that says that religious institutions cannot be forced to wed people who they disapprove of, so be it.

What's the matter, London, can't you read fish? (Michael White), Monday, 17 November 2008 23:45 (fifteen years ago) link

(One could argue that traditional marriage was destroyed once it become just as easy to divorce, but that's for another thread.)

HI, YOUR BAND! (Mackro Mackro), Monday, 17 November 2008 23:45 (fifteen years ago) link

(Oh no, I think that is an excellent point and one I would also like to hammer home; divorce is now illegal and punishable by fines and/or jail time. Possibly stoning.)

Black Seinfeld (HI DERE), Monday, 17 November 2008 23:47 (fifteen years ago) link

It's absolutely the truth, though, mackro.

What's the matter, London, can't you read fish? (Michael White), Monday, 17 November 2008 23:47 (fifteen years ago) link

to go back to the civil rights analogy - it is possible to legislate against racially discriminatory practices, but it is not possible to outlaw racism. Similarly it is possible to legislate equality before the law for gay couples, but it is not possible to outlaw homophobia.

x-post

Shakey Mo Collier, Monday, 17 November 2008 23:48 (fifteen years ago) link

is that how it would stand legally or is there a definition between the two, because here in europe most countries have Civil Unions but only Spain, Belgium, Norway and the Netherlands do they have Marriage.

I know, right?, Monday, 17 November 2008 23:48 (fifteen years ago) link

It is ludicrous to define as protecting marriage an amendment which limits the number of people who can consider it as an option , epecially since they're not 'in the market' for any of the people whose marriage is being protected, or at least only the people in the closet.

What's the matter, London, can't you read fish? (Michael White), Monday, 17 November 2008 23:49 (fifteen years ago) link

is that how it would stand legally or is there a definition between the two, because here in europe most countries have Civil Unions but only Spain, Belgium, Norway and the Netherlands do they have Marriage.

let he who is without sin cast the first stone and all that... what M. White and myself and Dan (in a more humorous way) are arguing is that equal treatment is the key thing and that since the government's domain is a CIVIL one, then everyone should have civil unions. "Marriage" would be rendered an essentially ceremonial term.

Shakey Mo Collier, Monday, 17 November 2008 23:53 (fifteen years ago) link

(btw what's the difference between the Euro countries with civil unions and those with marriages? Is there no "Equal Protection" clause in the EU?)

Shakey Mo Collier, Monday, 17 November 2008 23:53 (fifteen years ago) link

Or, if it's too much work to search and replace all the laws and stuff, everyone gets plain old marriage under the law and religious folks get covenant marriage or sacramental marriage or ultraviolet sunbeams of the divine light marriage.

Jaq, Monday, 17 November 2008 23:56 (fifteen years ago) link

they don't offer full rights, although in the UK and Sweden they just have a different name, which I find almost more sinister.

I know, right?, Monday, 17 November 2008 23:57 (fifteen years ago) link

xp

I know, right?, Monday, 17 November 2008 23:57 (fifteen years ago) link

Is it equal protection we're talking about or some equivalent to 'full faith and credit'?

What's the matter, London, can't you read fish? (Michael White), Monday, 17 November 2008 23:58 (fifteen years ago) link

I'd say both the 14th Amendment and the full faith and credit clause are relevant. But I ain't a lawyer, I'm just a backwoods hyperchicken

Shakey Mo Collier, Tuesday, 18 November 2008 00:01 (fifteen years ago) link

How they compare to the EU founding docs and whatnot is hard to figure out, especially since they generally have Roman/Napoleonic law and have only one Common Law state.

What's the matter, London, can't you read fish? (Michael White), Tuesday, 18 November 2008 00:04 (fifteen years ago) link

Well, whatever the case, the whole Boycott Utah thing is really dumb, especially given that California has roughly as many Mormons as Utah does in numbers.

It hasn't been a meme here hardly (thankfully) but it's growing all over the blogosphere. :/

HI, YOUR BAND! (Mackro Mackro), Tuesday, 18 November 2008 03:20 (fifteen years ago) link

Because California is supposed to be "better than that".

― Black Seinfeld (HI DERE), Monday, November 17, 2008 5:05 PM (4 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

isnt the more obvious answer 'because gay people could actually get married in california'? i dont remember the mayor of ft lauderdale telling str8s to get over it cuz gay marriage was here to stay

_/(o_o)/¯ (deej), Tuesday, 18 November 2008 03:33 (fifteen years ago) link

Dan, get back to me when California has roughly as many Mormon universities as Utah does.

'Til then, I'm coming around on the Utah boycott. It's silly at worst, has the potential to make a valuable symbolic point for years to come, and maybe most importantly it lets people feel as though they're getting a little of their own back from outside interlopers who reached across the border to mess with California.

Passenger 57 (rogermexico.), Tuesday, 18 November 2008 03:38 (fifteen years ago) link

Rogermexico, looks like you may not have to worry about Utah getting damaged in the near future.

There's one person who looks like he's going to fuck up Utah permanently.

George W. Bush

Uproar over federal drilling leases next to parks

SALT LAKE CITY – The view of Delicate Arch natural bridge — an unspoiled landmark so iconic it's on Utah's license plates — could one day include a drilling platform under a proposal that environmentalists call a Bush administration "fire sale" for the oil and gas industry.

Late on Election Day, the U.S. Bureau of Land Management announced a Dec. 19 auction of more than 50,000 acres of oil and gas parcels alongside or within view of Arches National Park and two other redrock national parks in Utah: Dinosaur and Canyonlands.

The National Park Service's top official in the state calls it "shocking and disturbing" and says his agency wasn't properly notified. Environmentalists call it a "fire sale" for the oil and gas industry by a departing administration.

Officials of the BLM, which oversees millions of acres of public land in the West, say the sale is nothing unusual, and one is "puzzled" that the Park Service is upset.

"We find it shocking and disturbing," said Cordell Roy, the chief Park Service administrator in Utah. "They added 51,000 acres of tracts near Arches, Dinosaur and Canyonlands without telling us about it. That's 40 tracts within four miles of these parks."

Top aides to Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne stepped into the fray, ordering the sister agencies to make amends. His press secretary, Shane Wolfe, told The Associated Press that deputy Interior Secretary Lynn Scarlett "resolved the dispute within 24 hours" last week.

A compromise ordered by the Interior Department requires the BLM to "take quite seriously" the Park Service's objections, said Wolfe.

However, the BLM didn't promise to pull any parcels from the sale, and in an interview after the supposed truce, BLM state director Selma Sierra was defiant, saying she saw nothing wrong with drilling near national parks.

"I'm puzzled the Park Service has been as upset as they are," said Sierra.

"There are already many parcels leased around the parks. It's not like they've never been leased," she said. "I don't see it as something we are doing to undermine the Park Service."

Roy and conservation groups dispute that, saying never before has the bureau bunched drilling parcels on the fence lines of national parks.

"This is the fire sale, the Bush administration's last great gift to the oil and gas industry," said Stephen Bloch, a staff attorney for the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance.

"The tracts of land offered here, next to Arches National Park or above Desolation Canyon, these are the crown jewels of America's lands that the BLM is offering to the highest bidder," he said.

An examination of the parcels, superimposing low-resolution government graphics onto Google Earth maps, shows that in one case drilling parcels bordering Arches National Park are just 1.3 miles from Delicate Arch.

"If you're standing at Delicate Arch, like thousands of people do every year, and you're looking through the arch, you could see drill pads on the hillside behind it. That's how ridiculous this proposed lease sale is," said Franklin Seal, a spokesman for the environmental group Wildland CPR.

In all, the BLM is moving to open 359,000 more acres in Utah to drilling.

Other Utah leases that are certain to draw objections from conservation groups include high cliffs along whitewater sections of Desolation Canyon, which is little changed since explorer John Wesley Powell remarked in 1896 on "a region of wildest desolation" while boating down the Green River to the Grand Canyon.

Others extend to plateaus populated by big game atop Nine Mile Canyon, site of thousands of ancient rock art panels, Moab's famous Slick Rock Trail and a campground popular with thousands of mountain bikers.

Sierra, the BLM's director for Utah, said the Park Service was consulted on the broad management plans that made the sale of parcels next to national parks permissible, even if it was not given notice on which specific leases were being offered. She apologized for that omission but said notice wasn't legally required.

She said national parks want to keep oil and gas wells five to 10 miles away "but that policy doesn't exist."

Roy said the standard for an eyesore visible from a national park turns on what a "casual" observer might see.

The hostility carried over into an e-mail exchange between Sierra and Mike Snyder, the Denver-based regional Park Service director, who noted his agency's demand that BLM pull 40 to 45 drill parcels from the auction list. "You stated that you were not willing to do this," Snyder wrote Nov. 6.

Within hours, Sierra responded "These decisions and the lands available for leasing should come to no one's surprise," according to copies of the e-mails obtained from her office.

Sierra said she instructed her district and field managers to educate the park superintendents on why drilling is OK "adjacent to and near the park boundaries."

In the e-mail, Sierra boasted of having "a very good working relationship" with Roy, the federal coordinator in Utah for the Park Service, but in an interview he said he had "no idea this sale was coming down the pike."

Roy said that when he asked Sierra what was going on, she replied: "We added some tracts, sorry we didn't notify you. We can take up these concerns when we issue" drilling permits. He said his response was: "Holy cow."

Sierra didn't dispute this account, but said "I don't think I was in a mood that dismissed his concerns lightly." She said she had promised only to review the objections, parcel by parcel, before the auction is held Dec. 19.

HI, YOUR BAND! (Mackro Mackro), Tuesday, 18 November 2008 03:56 (fifteen years ago) link

this is 2008, not 1958 right? sucks people are still so fucking stupid

Kevin Keller, Tuesday, 18 November 2008 04:00 (fifteen years ago) link

I'd snicker that W is God's judgment on Utah for gays and abortion but jesus christ...

Passenger 57 (rogermexico.), Tuesday, 18 November 2008 04:02 (fifteen years ago) link

And speaking of God's judgment: lol

http://coloradoindependent.com/15287/after-pumping-money-into-prop-8-focus-on-the-family-announcing-layoffs

UPDATE: Focus on the Family announced this afternoon that 202 jobs will be cut companywide — more than 20 percent of its workforce. Initial reports bring the total number of remaining employees to around 950.

Focus on the Family is poised to announce major layoffs to its Colorado Springs-based ministry and media empire today. The cutbacks come just weeks after the group pumped more than half a million dollars into the successful effort to pass a gay-marriage ban in California.

Passenger 57 (rogermexico.), Tuesday, 18 November 2008 04:04 (fifteen years ago) link

Merry Christmas!

Ned Raggett, Tuesday, 18 November 2008 04:06 (fifteen years ago) link

hahahaha I am never changing my screen name because of the delicious confusion

Black Seinfeld (HI DERE), Tuesday, 18 November 2008 05:06 (fifteen years ago) link

i think at this point worrying about tactics (protests, boycotts, prank phone calls to random mormon households in the middle of the night) is sort of beside the point. making a whole lot of collective noise is the best strategy, and however people do that is going to add to the collective commotion and momentum, even if some individual efforts seem counterproductive or whatever. when you're within a few percentage points of swinging the vote, that's not the time for nuance or finesse. to resort to the inevitable sports metaphor, when it's 3rd and inches, you just bunch everybody together and piledrive on through. the vote sucked, but people being pissed off about is good, and everybody should just stay pissed off and keep banging pots and pans. this will change. everybody knows it'll change. even (the saner) people on the right basically admitted it was a lost fight years ago. so it's just a matter of keeping up the push.

tipsy mothra, Tuesday, 18 November 2008 05:24 (fifteen years ago) link

the Cali court is already considering overturning this, if the headline I read the other day is to be believed

I mean....this thing should not have even been on the ballot. However it got on there, the entire legality of it is in question. 18,000 marriages have already been performed - they can't just be voided now based on a misguided ballot measure

The court in May ruled that preventing what was done in 2004 was unconstitutional; no ban is legal. People just need to take a deep breath and let this play out...

...protesting seems to be the best, and dare I say it (the peaceful ones as most have been) the most productive way to keep this fresh in the face of the courts and the public; it's reat.

Boycotts otoh are stupid and counterproductive, potentially alienating straight supporters. Especially the El Coyote one, which from the Curbed LA chronicles is turning out to be a hilarious/epic folly

my fave sign from the rally saturday: "SPANDEX IS A PRIVILEGE, MARRIAGE IS A RIGHT"

Vichitravirya_XI, Tuesday, 18 November 2008 08:38 (fifteen years ago) link

>it's reat

i forgot where this was going :)

Vichitravirya_XI, Tuesday, 18 November 2008 08:39 (fifteen years ago) link

I also campaigned on behalf of HRC over the summer and Andrew Sullivan needs to pull the dildo out of his orifice and relax. It faces many disadvantages from a fundraising angle, particularly that many of its contributors want to stay anonymous - maybe if he tried calling them, instead of just blogging and taking potshots, he'd realize what a fucking challenge it is..

I'm not saying they're beyond reproach, but they've done a lot over the past few decades when NO ONE dared to do ANYTHING. They were campaigning nationwide against all the states' ballot measures that were anti-gay, including in Tennessee where the legislature was considering passing a law that'd make it illegal to even *talk* about homosexuality prior to 9th grade in public schools (in response to the 8th grader gay Californian getting killed earlier this year).

Does he know any of this, or did he just think vociferously attacking the standard gay rights group in the nation is a productive way to write something attention-worthy today?

Vichitravirya_XI, Tuesday, 18 November 2008 08:44 (fifteen years ago) link

just more evidence that most "professional bloggers" easily belong to the segment of society-punditry that contributes the least

Vichitravirya_XI, Tuesday, 18 November 2008 08:45 (fifteen years ago) link

is there a "Prince hates gay marriage" thread?

Dr Morbius, Tuesday, 18 November 2008 17:50 (fifteen years ago) link

Covered here: Favorite poster from NR's "The Corner"

Passenger 57 (rogermexico.), Tuesday, 18 November 2008 17:52 (fifteen years ago) link

it's probably a few posts on the general purpose "Prince is batshit insane" thread on ILM, otherwise known as that Prince thread. You know, THAT one.

HI, YOUR BAND! (Mackro Mackro), Tuesday, 18 November 2008 17:53 (fifteen years ago) link

Prince claiming he was misquoted, apparently

Shakey Mo Collier, Tuesday, 18 November 2008 17:56 (fifteen years ago) link

Yeah I read that on HuffPo, and the main argument from Prince's management was like "*shock horror* the interview wasn't even using a MIC!"

Like Prince would allow anyone to record him in an interview anyway?

HI, YOUR BAND! (Mackro Mackro), Tuesday, 18 November 2008 18:00 (fifteen years ago) link

I was more shocked that Prince wore sandals with socks

*tut tut*

Shakey Mo Collier, Tuesday, 18 November 2008 18:01 (fifteen years ago) link

and platform sandals at that!

Shakey Mo Collier, Tuesday, 18 November 2008 18:02 (fifteen years ago) link

come on, no one is shocked about Prince wearing platform sandals

Black Seinfeld (HI DERE), Tuesday, 18 November 2008 18:04 (fifteen years ago) link

Stephen Baldwin speaks:

"If they legalize gay marriage in all 50 states in my lifetime, I'll get a Billy Ray Cyrus tattoo on my butt to go with the Hannah Montana one."

http://www.nypost.com/seven/11192008/photos/p6i.jpg

Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 19 November 2008 15:37 (fifteen years ago) link

someone kick this guy in the nuts plz

Black Seinfeld (HI DERE), Wednesday, 19 November 2008 16:27 (fifteen years ago) link


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.