avram | Entries tagged with ssm

[Chicago’s] Mayor Daley said Wednesday he would have “no problem” with County Clerk David Orr issuing marriage licenses to gay couples — and Orr said he's open to a San Francisco-style protest if a consensus can be built.

Three:

A Democratic state senator from Providence plans to submit legislation allowing same-sex marriage in Rhode Island when the Senate reconvenes on Feb. 24 after a week-long break.

Current Music: "Alpha Beta Gaga", Air

San Francisco allows gay marriages
Everybody and his same-sex spouse has posted about this already. I’m pleased to note that the first couple married is a pair of cute, photogenic old women. The bigots are going to look awful demanding that their marriage be annulled.

Microsoft confirms Windows source code leak
Microsoft has confirmed that part (about 660 megs out of 40 gigs) of the of the source code for Win2K and WinNT 4 has been leaked and is circulating on the net.

Matt Drudge is a lying bottom-feeder
On the other hand, if Kerry did turn out to have slept with an intern while married, he ought to come right out and admit. Then we can enjoy the open hypocrisy of all the Republicans who said ”It’s not the sex, it’s the lying” about Clinton.

Republican engages in projection
Republican National Committee Chairman Ed Gillespie says Kerry and his campaign “have made clear they intend to run the dirtiest campaign in modern presidential politics.” What, is 1972 ancient history?

South Korean scientists produce cloned human embryos
They also created a new stem cell line, an act forbidden to American researchers receiving federal funds.

Israel may unilaterally withdraw from parts of Gaza and West Bank
This isn’t actually new; I noticed this in headlines a few days or weeks back. Seems like good news to me, but I’m probably missing about a billion facts.

Current Music: "Luminol", Ryan Adams

Y’know, if we were really interested in preserving the sanctity of marriage, we’d allow it for gays and forbid it for pop stars.

In other news, I’ve got another interview scheduled for next Tuesday. A different company, one that’s much easier to get to.

Current Music: "Looking For My Life", George Harrison

I just read this essay Michael Alvear wrote for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, about how the current movement for marriage rights for homosexuals parallels earlier civil rights struggles, and success is inevitable. It makes some degree of sense, though it’s bound to cause further apoplexy in those who get upset over “judicial activism“. He spoils it a bit by engaging in some American exceptionalism at the end, claiming that “America has change in its blood the way other countries have permanence in theirs,” even though he’d pointed out earlier that most western nations are more accepting of gays than the US is.

The essay prompted me to read the text of Loving v. Virginia, the case in which the Supreme Court declared anti-miscegenation laws unconstitutional, where I found another parallel: in both gay freedom-to-marry and interracial freedom-to-marry, the opponents of freedom make/made raving batshit arguments trying to deny that they’re denying people equal protection and rights. The anti-gay-marriage crowd sometimes claims that gay people, like straight people, have the right to marry people of the opposite sex, and are thus not being discriminated against. The state of Virginia, in Loving v. Virginia, argued that since both the white and non-white members of the married couple were punished under its law, the law didn’t discriminate racially.

Current Music: "Instruments Of Action", Forget Cassettes

Ack. I think I need to stop reading the Marriage Debate weblog, which is devoted to discussion of marriage rights. It’s run by Maggie Gallagher and Eve Tushnet, who both oppose the freedom to marry, though they claim to have a balance of pro- and anti- opinions on the blog. Anyway, so many of the anti-freedom arguments are just so incoherent and wrong that they drive me to distraction. Here’s an example, by Mark Tardiff:

There is no longer any subject to posit actions since 'I' cannot be identified with either my body or my consciousness. In genital sex between a husband and wife, on the other hand, we see not one person decomposed into two but two who become one flesh. Husband and wife separately can perform the bodily functions of eating and digestion. But the reproductive act can only be performed by the two of them acting as a single reproductive principle.

Tardiff has clearly confused genital sex with organ donation. I’ve had sex. I wasn‘t closely related to my partner, so though I’m not actually certain, I’m pretty damn sure that if we had become one flesh, there would have been some serious immune system issues and rejection symptoms. Or maybe this one-flesh thing only happens with married couples; I’m pretty sure my parents didn’t have any problems along these lines.

And did you notice that Tardiff also seems to be unaware that people can reproduce without being married or having genital sex?

Current Music: "Hurricane Heart Attack", Warlocks

Here’s a PDF copy of the text of the Goodridge vs. Department of Public Health decision, the Massachusetts state supreme court case requiring the legislature to accommodate the marriage rights of gay couples. Hosted by a pro-bigotry group; sorry, it’s what I could find. Go drive up their bandwidth bill.

Some opponents of the freedom to marry have couched their arguments in terms of support for families, or the claim that marriage rights should be limited to couples capable of reproducing. Here’s an excerpt from the decision, describing the plaintiffs, with some key phrases emphasized by me:

The plaintiffs are fourteen individuals from five Massachusetts counties. As of April 11, 2001, the date they filed their complaint, the plaintiffs Gloria Bailey, sixty years old, and Linda Davies, fifty-five years old, had been in a committed relationship for thirty years; the plaintiffs Maureen Brodoff, forty-nine years old, and Ellen Wade, fifty-two years old, had been in a committed relationship for twenty years and lived with their twelve year old daughter; the plaintiffs Hillary Goodridge, forty-four years old, and Julie Goodridge, forty-three years old, had been in a committed relationship for thirteen years and lived with their five year old daughter; the plaintiffs Gary Chalmers, thirty-five years old, and Richard Linnell, thirty-seven years old, had been in a committed relationship for thirteen years and lived with their eight year old daughter and Richard's mother; the plaintiffs Heidi Norton, thirty-six years old, and Gina Smith, thirty-six years old, had been in a committed relationship for eleven years and lived with their two sons, ages five years and one year; the plaintiffs Michael Horgan, forty-one years old, and David Balmelli, forty-one years old, had been in a committed relationship for seven years; and the plaintiffs David Wilson, fifty-seven years old, and Robert Compton, fifty-one years old, had been in a committed relationship for four years and had cared for David's mother in their home after a serious illness until she died.

If you find yourself arguing with someone who tries to disguise his anti-gay bigotry with pro-family rhetoric, ask why he would rather have these five children raised by single parents than by loving married couples.

Update: Here’s another link to the PDF, from FindLaw, in case you don’t want to drive up some bigot’s bandwidth bill. And here it is in Microsoft Word format.

Current Music: "Where Will I Be", Emmylou Harris

From the NY Times, the Massachusetts supreme court has struck a blow for marriage rights:

Massachusetts' highest court ruled 4-3 Tuesday that the state's ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional and gave lawmakers 180 days to fix the problem.

I’m pretty sure it’s the state constitution they’re referring to.

Vermont-style civil unions would not be enough, [Attorney Mary Bonauto] said, because that would fall short of marriage. A constitutional ban on gay marriage could not be enacted in Massachusetts until 2006 because it takes seveal years to change the state's constitution. [...]

But the issue may find a hostile audience in the Massachusetts Legislature, which has been considering a constitutional amendment that would legally define a marriage as a union between one man and one woman. The state's powerful Speaker of the House, Tom Finneran of Boston, has endorsed this proposal. [...]

A key group of state lawmakers also has recently been working behind the scenes to craft civil union legislation similar to the law passed in Vermont.

Current Music: "Woman Driving, Man Sleeping", Eels

Via

stakebait, I’ve just learned that it’s Marriage Protection Week, when Donald Wildmon (chairman of the American Family Association) wants us “to work together as we never have to protect marriage”.

So how about we write hate mail to prominent conservatives who’ve damaged the sacred institution of marriage by getting divorced or engaging in adultery? Anyone got a list?

Current Music: "All For Swinging Around You", New Pornographers

S	M	T	W	T	F	S
						1
2	3	4	5	6	7	8
9	10	11	12	13	14	15
16	17	18	19	20	21	22
23	24	25	26	27	28	29
30

Avram's journal

Days, sketched in brief

Enlightenment is breaking out all over

News-full day

Current events

Loving v. bigotry

Idiotic arguments

Supporting family values

Freedom to marry coming to Massachusetts

Let's protect us some marriages

Profile

April 2017

Links

Syndicate

Most Popular Tags

Page Summary

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags