The Federal Prop. 8 Trial / Gay Marriage Catch-All

Hypatian wrote:

The bill requiring potential foster parents to get LGBT sensitivity training is also a good thing.

I actually think that's really awesome.

dejanzie wrote:

Thanks! Here's hoping Australia will join civilization soon ;-)

If nothing else, the generational thing will fix it eventually. The majority of people in their 30s and below seem to range from pro-gay marriage to at worst "meh, no skin off my nose". Most of the real opposition comes from older people as far as I can tell.

Sonicator wrote:
dejanzie wrote:

Thanks! Here's hoping Australia will join civilization soon ;-)

If nothing else, the generational thing will fix it eventually. The majority of people in their 30s and below seem to range from pro-gay marriage to at worst "meh, no skin off my nose". Most of the real opposition comes from older people as far as I can tell.

True. The only ones I have met in our generation and younger who have issues with marriage equality are religious extremists.

Gay MMA Fighter...your move.

KingGorilla wrote:

Gay MMA Fighter...your move.

Heard it on the radio this morning, pretty awesome!

Sonicator wrote:

If nothing else, the generational thing will fix it eventually. The majority of people in their 30s and below seem to range from pro-gay marriage to at worst "meh, no skin off my nose". Most of the real opposition comes from older people as far as I can tell.

This reminds me of the wonderful line by Sidney Poitier in Guess Who's Coming To Dinner, where he says to his dad, "You and your whole lousy generation believes the way it was for you is the way it's got to be. And not until your whole generation has lain down and died will the dead weight of you be off our backs!"

I desperately hope that, by the time our boys are adults, their generation will be out from under the weight of an older generation that feels that since gay marriage has never been allowed, it should never be allowed. I would love it if, by the time they are adults, a married couple could be M/F, M/M, or F/F with no differentiation between them at all.

Our parents' generation is on the wrong side of history in this debate.

Elysia wrote:
Sonicator wrote:

If nothing else, the generational thing will fix it eventually. The majority of people in their 30s and below seem to range from pro-gay marriage to at worst "meh, no skin off my nose". Most of the real opposition comes from older people as far as I can tell.

This reminds me of the wonderful line by Sidney Poitier in Guess Who's Coming To Dinner, where he says to his dad, "You and your whole lousy generation believes the way it was for you is the way it's got to be. And not until your whole generation has lain down and died will the dead weight of you be off our backs!"

I desperately hope that, by the time our boys are adults, their generation will be out from under the weight of an older generation that feels that since gay marriage has never been allowed, it should never be allowed. I would love it if, by the time they are adults, a married couple could be M/F, M/M, or F/F with no differentiation between them at all.

Our parents' generation is on the wrong side of history in this debate.

It's pretty clear that's happening; every time they take a survey, the younger generation cares less and less about gay marriage. The millenials currently pretty widely think it should be legal, and that number is growing every year. Furthermore, a lot of the objections to gay marriage are based on traditional religions, and I read a study recently that somewhere around 20% of under-20 Americans self-identify as atheist or agnostic, which is a huge rise in just the last decade. Ours is the last generation to hold out against equal rights for LGBTQ folks, and our children will be just as shocked at our generations' attitude towards equal rights of those with different sexual orientations as we were to the racist attitudes of our parents' and grandparents' generations.

An exceptional ad for Expedia and marriage equality.

dejanzie wrote:
KingGorilla wrote:

Gay MMA Fighter...your move.

Heard it on the radio this morning, pretty awesome!

He's a boxer, not an MMA fighter. Don't sully the sport of gentlemen with those savages. /monocole

I want to be free. Someone I know produced that video.

This is a big deal in Latin America, like historical big. He's like the Puerto Rican Babe Ruth, Mickey Mantle or whatever other analogy you want to use. He's a legend. He's got seven Puerto Rico National Titles, ranked #4 feather weight in the WBO, and he topped off his 178-win amateur career by representing the US in the Sydney Olympics, and since he went pro in 2000 he's racked up a 18-2-1 record and nine knockouts - he has a chance at this year's world title if he beats Jorge Pazos in a couple of weeks. It took him NINE years to lose his first match.

I hope this encourages more professional athletes to come out, if they want to, by seeing that there is no professional or financial consequences to doing so.

Phoenix Rev wrote:

An exceptional ad for Expedia and marriage equality.

There's something in my eye...

Elysia wrote:
Phoenix Rev wrote:

An exceptional ad for Expedia and marriage equality.

There's something in my eye...

Something in both your eyes it seems. Something in mine too.

Elysia wrote:
Phoenix Rev wrote:

An exceptional ad for Expedia and marriage equality.

There's something in my eye...

Yah, I teared up just telling my wife about the ad. Very moving!

Eeek...double post!

Lovely song.

Dusty in here.

With the fetid Ann Widdecombe having just finished whipping the party faithful into a lather over the "defence" of traditional marriage I was hit by the following shower-thought this morning:

As a straight husband I find opposition to gay marriage diminishes the institution of marriage, instead of strengthening it as always claimed. I don't see the point in celebrating an institution of exclusion. I don't think my marriage is stronger for being able to point the finger at other marriages and claim theirs is invalid - if anything it invites the idea that there's a right way and a wrong way to participate and I'm of the opinion that such an attitude strengthens bugger all.

If anything if I were Ann Widdecombe I'd be in favour of broadening the definition of marriage as far as possible.

And before you start, don't bother. I've met her.

Maq wrote:

I don't think my marriage is stronger for being able to point the finger at other marriages and claim theirs is invalid - if anything it invites the idea that there's a right way and a wrong way to participate and I'm of the opinion that such an attitude strengthens bugger all.

It does diminish the institution of marriage, but honestly I think most folks know that the frothing-at-the-mouth, rabid "defender of marriage" actually sees defending marriage itself as a secondary goal. The primary goal has always been giving those who believe they're moral authorities the right and power to tell people how they should and shouldn't live their private lives.

I don't think this is the aim of all people who are against gay marriage. I think there's a good handful of folks who just can't get past the undefinable feeling that gay marriage is "wrong" but aren't very proactive about it. But the really vocal, outspoken, and driven ones are definitely as above.

Maq wrote:

As a straight husband I find opposition to gay marriage diminishes the institution of marriage, instead of strengthening it as always claimed. I don't see the point in celebrating an institution of exclusion. I don't think my marriage is stronger for being able to point the finger at other marriages and claim theirs is invalid - if anything it invites the idea that there's a right way and a wrong way to participate and I'm of the opinion that such an attitude strengthens bugger all.

Beautifully put, Maq, especially the part I bolded. I'm going to store this argument away in my head for use in future conversations.

Bloo Driver wrote:

It does diminish the institution of marriage,

Hunh?? Did I just massively misunderstand something?? 'Cause you look like you are saying that gay marriage does diminish the institution of marriage.

mudbunny wrote:
Bloo Driver wrote:

It does diminish the institution of marriage,

Hunh?? Did I just massively misunderstand something?? 'Cause you look like you are saying that gay marriage does diminish the institution of marriage.

You misunderstood. He's saying the act of prohibiting gay marriage diminishes the institution.

NSMike wrote:
mudbunny wrote:
Bloo Driver wrote:

It does diminish the institution of marriage,

Hunh?? Did I just massively misunderstand something?? 'Cause you look like you are saying that gay marriage does diminish the institution of marriage.

You misunderstood. He's saying the act of prohibiting gay marriage diminishes the institution.

Whew. 'Swat I thought.

Elysia wrote:
Maq wrote:

As a straight husband I find opposition to gay marriage diminishes the institution of marriage, instead of strengthening it as always claimed. I don't see the point in celebrating an institution of exclusion. I don't think my marriage is stronger for being able to point the finger at other marriages and claim theirs is invalid - if anything it invites the idea that there's a right way and a wrong way to participate and I'm of the opinion that such an attitude strengthens bugger all.

Beautifully put, Maq, especially the part I bolded. I'm going to store this argument away in my head for use in future conversations.

That echoes what goes through my head as well. However, it does lead to some tough questions. What would be included in the future? I see the 'defense' folks as those who don't simply want to exclude gay people from marriage, but also don't want a foot in the door of changing what their "standard" definition of marriage means at all. What if someday humanity socially liberates itself to the point where other definitions (multiple people, non-persons, etc.) are considered palatable? The argument is often pushed into hyperbole, but its roots anchor in the reality of the individual. That can be respected even as society moves on.

My personal answer to this would be to adopt a social definition which offers the greatest degree of respect for the individual and does not force conformity in situations where it does little to no harm to others. The litmus test of harm is difficult to pin down, though. It's yet another social construct which will change over time and in different circumstances. It is also subject to the interpretation of the individual. We try to simplify it, and to a single one of us it can be simple. Put us together and it becomes a lot less clear, though.

At the end of all arguments, my core thought is to leave the future to the future. Precedent only has as much meaning as the current facts give it. It has no weight of its own. There is no foot in the door because there is no door at all. It's a line in the sand. The reality is, social definitions change over time and over generations. It's what human beings do. Most of us adopt a stance and that's okay. What was popular will resist change. I see that as a necessary test to see if society can function well with a new/changed piece of framework. It's a time to ask tough questions and figure out where we are - and I personally enjoy watching it happen.

Rick Santorum is back and making more shrill noises about how America, marriage and the Church are all going to hell in a hand basket if those filthy gays are allowed to marry.

The former Republican presidential candidate spoke to a closed-door Spokane fundraiser for the Family Policy Institute of Washington. He was preceded to the podium by U.S. Rep. Cathy McMorris-Rodgers, a leader in Mitt Romney’s state campaign and member of the House Republican leadership.

“This is a turning point in American history and, yes, the state of Washington,” Santorum argued.

“The movement you are fighting is the most important movement to win,” Santorum added. He said it is even more important that the movement to block abortion in America. He warned that marriage will “disintegrate” along with the American family if same-sex marriage becomes legal.

“This issue will destroy and undermine the church in American more than any other movement,” said Santorum.

Santorum is complete disingenuous. All he has is a bunch of nonsense and his fist pounding on a podium.

Gay marriage has been around in the U.S. for almost a decade now. Marriage statistics are fairly stagnant with 1 in 2 new marriages ending in divorce. Yet, somehow, allowing gay marriage in Washington State is the lynchpin to bringing the institution of marriage to its knees before decapitating it with a blunt sword. Only a blithering idiot would think such a thing, but, then again, we are talking about Rick "Man on Dog" Santorum.

As for undermining and destroying the church, he has zero facts to back up his statement. Massachusetts has had gay marriage since 2004 and to this date there has not been a single lawsuit or issuance of a government decree forcing any church in the entire Commonwealth to perform a gay marriage. Those same lawsuits and decrees also cannot be found in Vermont, DC, New Hampshire, Iowa, Connecticut, or New York. One would think that such things would be able to be cited if they existed, which they don't.

But Santorum will continue on in his blatant dishonesty. This should come as no surprise to anyone.

His time to be exposed cruising a cheap leather bar bathroom is coming...

Robear wrote:

His time to be exposed cruising a cheap leather bar bathroom is coming... :-)

Yeah, is there a pool for betting on when you think a particular suppressed anti-gay-marriage politician is going to come out and/or be found tapping people's feet in airport bathrooms?

Another day, another lie from the anti-marriage equality forces exposed.

One of the battering rams used against those who favor gay marriage is that such laws will require religious groups, like an adoption agency, to follow the law and provide adoption services for a gay couple. That would violate the agency's charter/believes/creed/etc.

The most visible case of this was when Catholic Charities of Boston closed its doors. Immediately, the people over at the National Organization for Marriage and other anti-marriage equality groups latched on with a "See? We told you so! Gay marriage forces these groups to close their doors!"

Well, it turns out that Catholic Charities didn't want to close it's doors at all and, in fact, had been providing adoption services for years to same-sex couples in compliance with the Massachusetts non-discrimination law that prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation.

The order to close the doors came directly from... the Vatican.

Opponents of same-sex marriage in Maine are mischaracterizing the reasons that Catholic Charities of Boston stopped brokering adoptions in 2006, according to Peter Meade, the organization’s former board chairman, who spoke with reporters in Maine on Wednesday.

...

According to Meade, who along with six members of Catholic Charities of Boston’s 40-person board of directors resigned in the wake of the decision to stop performing adoptions, opponents of same-sex marriage in Maine and elsewhere are mischaracterizing the motives behind the church’s decision.

“This is just frankly not true at all,” said Meade during a conference call with reporters Wednesday. The call was organized by a group called Mainers United for Marriage, which favors legalizing same-sex marriage in Maine. “I’ve heard [campaigns using the Boston Catholic Charities example] and frankly presumed because it was incorrect that people would straighten it out. That is certainly not what happened. I know in campaigns that people sometimes stretch credulity, but this is going way beyond that. Opponents of the freedom to marry in Maine have tried to rewrite history to create fear and uncertainty among voters.”

Catholic Charities of Boston formerly held a state-issued contract funded by taxpayer dollars to provide adoption services, and placed 13 children with same-sex couples between 1989 and 2006. The work was done in accordance with a Massachusetts anti-discrimination law that requires taxpayer-funded services to be provided equitably and without regard to sexual orientation, among other things.

Meade said that the Vatican demanded in 2006 that Catholic Charities end its adoption service, despite a unanimous vote by the charity’s local board to continue adoptions.

Yet another scare tactic from anti-marriage equality forces.

Despicable.

I'm surprised at how little talk there has been in Maryland about Question 6 on the ballot this year. (Legalizaing Same Sex Marriage). Up till now, I have only seen 1 commercial dedicated towards the topic. On the other hand, every day I'm assaulted by 5 or 6 commercials regarding Question 7 (Adding another casino to Maryland.) I'm starting to worry that a big enough push hasn't been made to support Equal Marriage, and that the ballot will fail.

Phoenix Rev wrote:

Another day, another lie from the anti-marriage equality forces exposed.

One of the battering rams used against those who favor gay marriage is that such laws will require religious groups, like an adoption agency, to follow the law and provide adoption services for a gay couple. That would violate the agency's charter/believes/creed/etc.

The most visible case of this was when Catholic Charities of Boston closed its doors. Immediately, the people over at the National Organization for Marriage and other anti-marriage equality groups latched on with a "See? We told you so! Gay marriage forces these groups to close their doors!"

Well, it turns out that Catholic Charities didn't want to close it's doors at all and, in fact, had been providing adoption services for years to same-sex couples in compliance with the Massachusetts non-discrimination law that prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation.

The order to close the doors came directly from... the Vatican.

Opponents of same-sex marriage in Maine are mischaracterizing the reasons that Catholic Charities of Boston stopped brokering adoptions in 2006, according to Peter Meade, the organization’s former board chairman, who spoke with reporters in Maine on Wednesday.

...

According to Meade, who along with six members of Catholic Charities of Boston’s 40-person board of directors resigned in the wake of the decision to stop performing adoptions, opponents of same-sex marriage in Maine and elsewhere are mischaracterizing the motives behind the church’s decision.

“This is just frankly not true at all,” said Meade during a conference call with reporters Wednesday. The call was organized by a group called Mainers United for Marriage, which favors legalizing same-sex marriage in Maine. “I’ve heard [campaigns using the Boston Catholic Charities example] and frankly presumed because it was incorrect that people would straighten it out. That is certainly not what happened. I know in campaigns that people sometimes stretch credulity, but this is going way beyond that. Opponents of the freedom to marry in Maine have tried to rewrite history to create fear and uncertainty among voters.”

Catholic Charities of Boston formerly held a state-issued contract funded by taxpayer dollars to provide adoption services, and placed 13 children with same-sex couples between 1989 and 2006. The work was done in accordance with a Massachusetts anti-discrimination law that requires taxpayer-funded services to be provided equitably and without regard to sexual orientation, among other things.

Meade said that the Vatican demanded in 2006 that Catholic Charities end its adoption service, despite a unanimous vote by the charity’s local board to continue adoptions.

Yet another scare tactic from anti-marriage equality forces.

Despicable.

My wife went to a local neighborhood meeting on the upcoming ballots (one of which is marriage equality) and the opponent of the marriage equality used this exact example. Wish I had seen this yesterday so Courtney could have responded to the guy, but still good to know.