"So there are the vermin now celebrating twisted perverse marriage in the middle of America. It's a victory for perversion in my opinion. You want me to tell you what makes me sick? When I see two puffy white males kissing each other, I wanna puke. When I see two women kissing each other, on the lips, as lovers, I wanna vomit. Why? It's unnatural. It's against all of the laws of mankind. It's against all the laws of humankind. It is suicide for a society to embrace such behavior."posted by ericb at 9:41 AM on April 7, 2009
"On May 17, 2004, when Massachusetts began marrying its gay couples, that simple declaration — emblazoned on golden stickers shaped like deputy sheriff's badges and proudly worn by ecstatic gay-rights supporters — celebrated a seismic shift. State-approved gay marriage was no longer a theoretical possibility. It was a reality.posted by ericb at 9:45 AM on April 7, 2009 [5 favorites]
Now, a year and more than 6,100 gay weddings later, the reviews are in. Folks in Massachusetts, the first in the nation to experience this expansion of freedom, have swung 180 degrees to favoring it.
Bay State voters now overwhelmingly support gay marriage, 56% to 37%, according to a Boston Globe poll in March. That's a breathtaking turnabout from February 2004. Back then, after the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that gays had to be allowed to marry but before the marriages began, voters opposed the change, 53% to 35%.
...While the outside world debates how to treat its gay couples, Massachusetts sees that fire-and-brimstone predictions didn't come true.
Religious institutions haven't been forced to bless the civil marriage of any gay couple, though many have done so voluntarily. Nor did supporting the court's order to extend all the state-conferred rights and responsibilities of marriage trigger a ballot-box backlash against gay-friendly lawmakers.
Having lived with gay marriage, Massachusetts seems a bit smitten with it. By 65% to 34%, voters say it hasn't weakened the institution of marriage. Only 13% say gay marriage has had a negative effect on married heterosexuals. And 71% expect the state to 'become more and more accepting of same-sex marriage,' Decision Research found in surveying 600 registered voters for MassEquality, a pro-gay marriage group."
Vermont is the first state to do it legislatively
"Massachusetts (Goodridge, 2003) Margaret Marshall, appointed by Chief Justice Gov. Weld (R) in 1996, elevated to Chief by Gov. Cellucci (R);Republicans Appointed Most Judges Making Pro-Gay Decisions
in 1999 California (In re Marriage Cases, 2008) Ronald George, Chief Justice appointed by Gov. Wilson (R) in 1991, elevated to Chief by Gov. Wilson (R);
in 1996 Connecticut (Kerrigan, 2008) Richard Palmer, Associate Justice appointed by Gov. Weicker (Ind.); in 1993 -- Note that Weicker was a Republican during his time in the House and Senate. He won the governorship as an independent.
And today, in Iowa (Varnum, 2009) Mark Cady, Associate Justice, appointed by Gov. Branstad (R) in 1998."
"...Republican governors appointed six of the seven justices on the Massachusetts high court that recently ruled gay couples have the right to marry, and Republican presidents appointed four of the six U.S. Supreme Court justices who voted to strike down Texas's law banning gay couples from having sex. 'The claim that "activist judges" are behind these rulings for equality is nothing short of a fraud. Our Constitution requires judges to be fair-minded and independent, regardless of their political beliefs and sometimes in the face of strong political opposition.'"California Supreme Court Says Yes To Same-Sex Marriage"The California Supreme Court ruled Thursday that same-sex couples should be permitted to marry, rejecting state marriage laws as discriminatory.
That sounds to me like full subjugation of what is supposed to be one equal third of government to the whims of the other two branches, tying their hands to only respond within an established context and refusing to give them the control powers over the other branches which they were granted upon design.Yes, clearly you were. In reality, the only purpose of the judicial branch is to unconditionally support all laws that the legislature creates, exactly as they are written, without giving any consideration to the possibility that they might be unconstitutional.
Or was I miseducated about this?
In this case, we must decide if our state statute limiting civil marriage to a union between a man and a woman violates the Iowa Constitution, as the district court ruled. On our review, we hold the Iowa marriage statute violates the equal protection clause of the Iowa Constitution. Therefore, we affirm the decision of the district court.This doesn't read to me like "creating" a right (to get gay married). It reads to me like "Law banning gay marriage violates our constitution." I don't think that Brown v Board, for instance, "created" a right for black and white kids to be able to go to school together; it said that laws allowing for separate but equal (and previous court decisions that upheld such laws) were incorrect according to the Constitution.
There's a storm gathering. The clouds are dark, and the winds are strong, and I am afraid. Some who advocate for same-sex marriage have taken the issue far beyond same-sex couples. They want to bring the issue in to my life. My freedom will be taken away.Which prompted this comment:
To anti-gay bigots - GROW THE FUCK UP. It is 2009. I'm sure you are probably against interracial marriage, the vote for women and desegregation because all those causes were bible-quoted to death, too and look where that got them. You are losing and you will continue to lose and will end up looking like the fucked-up bigots you are.posted by kirkaracha at 9:42 AM on April 8, 2009 [3 favorites]
"A group against gay marriage has a very prominent politician in its corner. Gov. Donald Carcieri and his wife, Sue, joined the Rhode Island Chapter of the National Organization for Marriage Wednesday morning at the State House as it launched its new media campaign. The campaign, which supports marriage between a man and a woman, will run in several states. It's being launched just as Rhode Island's General Assembly is about to consider legislation that would allow same-sex couples married in another state get divorced in Rhode Island. During the news conference, Carcieri called himself a 'traditionalist' and said the best upbringing for a child is in a home with a mother and father. He said he is not anti-gay, rather he believes the issue should be decided by voters, and not by courts or legislators."posted by ericb at 12:24 PM on April 8, 2009
« Older Maybe the world isn't as good as this (more on tha... | Sheepherders in Northern Nevad... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by kittyprecious at 9:19 AM on April 7, 2009 [2 favorites]