The Gay Fray

Source: Washington Post
Link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17600-2005Feb11.html
Title: "Marriage in the March of Time"
Date: February 12, 2005

Washington Post columnist Colbert I. King considers the historical debate about marriage in the United States.

I can only urge people to read the full article.

• • •​

The present is more shameful a statement regarding homosexuals than homophobia in the past. Prior to about 1990, discrimination against homosexuals was largely a latent presumption in American society. However, the last fifteen years or so have seen a number of laws proposed by homophobic bigots that are intended to discriminate specifically. Take the recent gender-discrimination law passed by Oregon voters. There, the procedural reality was that there was no device to prevent gay marriage. Perceiving and characterizing this lack of prohibition a suspension of democracy, conservatives drafted and pushed and won a measure to specifically insert that gender-discriminatory prohibition.

Laws intended to discriminate in such a way are generally a bad idea, and have a history of eventually losing in court. Furthermore, in gender issues, which do not inherently demand strict scrutiny by the courts, intention to discriminate is one thing that will invite a tougher examination (see Legal Information Institute).

So not only is it statistically inadvisable to push such discriminatory laws--for all the victories they win in preliminary rounds, such causes fail when it comes to the ultimate decision--it is also legalistically myopic.

This celebration of discrimination and "negative-irrational-emotion-that-we-should-not-call-hatred-lest-we-offend-the-haters" is a disgusting testament to American privilege.

As one blogger put it:

We might wonder why these conservatives are so obsessed with sex. After all, that seems to be the issue of contention, that who you have sex with defines the quality of person you are.

And, frankly, that's just giving too much attention to sex.

Apparently the temperance of tradition and faith, while it prescribes adultery for even looking at someone else in a sexual manner, has no objection to obsessing over what other people think about sex.

It's all the same: sexual intercourse is at the heart of this argument because it's the only thing the conservative cause has going for it. Any responsible examination of the issue shows this conservative restriction to be folly.
____________________

Notes:

King, Colbert I. "Marriage in the March of Time". Washington Post. February 12, 2005; page A19. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17600-2005Feb11.html

Outlyer.org. "Separate but equal is inherently unequal”. February 25, 2004. See http://www.outlyer.org/archives/000102.html ​

See Also -

Legal Information Institute. "About Equal Protection". Cornell University. See http://www.law.cornell.edu/topics/equal_protection.html ​

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

<i>"It's all the same: sexual intercourse is at the heart of this argument because it's the only thing the conservative cause has going for it. Any responsible examination of the issue shows this conservative restriction to be folly."</i>

Well, it just doesn't look right for some reason. It is a hot political topic, and it's building steam.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Doesn't that say more about traditionalists and homophobes than anything else?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Source: SeattlePI.com
Link: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/212251_visitation16.html
Title: "Lesbian seeks right to see child"
Date: February 16, 2005

Ah, the grim face of normalcy.

On Tuesday, lawyers for both sides of a custody dispute argued before the State Supreme Court. At issue is whether Page Britain, the biological mother of a child, can prevent her lesbian partner of several years from seeing the child in the wake of their separation.

King County Superior Court ruled that Carvin could not be considered a parent under state law, but an Appeals Court said in May that Carvin could seek rights as a "de facto parent" on four counts: Britain encouraged her relationship with the girl; Carvin lived with the girl; Carvin took on parental duties for free; that Carvin and the child have bonded.

Just to wrench the case a little harder, Britain has since married the sperm donor, who is apparently gay.

Ah, the grim face of normalcy. It's almost the stuff of a movie of the week.
____________________

Notes:

Johnson, Tracy. "Lesbian seeks right to see child". SeattlePI.com. February 16, 2005. See http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/212251_visitation16.html ​

 

News Around
Meet today, same as yesterday, what about tomorrow?

Over in Reston, Virginia, where the Bible still rules, vandals have repeatedly burned a banner at a Unitarian Universalist Church. See The Connection Newspapers for an article.

• • •​

Up in Washington State, an annual ritual may be seeing its final enactment. For 29 years, the legislature has considered and rejected a civil rights bill that would include sexual orientation in the state's nondiscrimination policy.

Seattle Rep. Ed Murray (D), who is gay, believes this is the year the bill will pass. According to Rep. Sen. Darlene Fairley (D-Lake Forest Park), the bill is one or two votes shy of a majority in the Senate. She intends to pass the bill out of committee this week.

Despite Pastor Leskovar's sentiments, public comments during committee hearings ran 6:1 in favor of the bill. Corporations including Washington Mutual, Hewlett-Packard, Nike, and Coors have sent letters in support of the bill.

There's no word on when the bill will come to the Senate floor. Presuming its passage, Washington would be the sixteenth state to include sexual orientation in nondiscrimination laws.

• • •​

An opinion column at Northern Star Online makes the point:

The author, Libby Zanker, a heterosexual, goes on to remind, "You don’t have to be gay to support those who are."

• • •​

These are just a few. Which of my standard points should I reiterate here? Perhaps my disagreement with Paster Leskovar? Should I make a point out of the minor disgust I feel at vandals making repeated futile gestures? Maybe dance and shout in support of the Zanker article?

In the meantime, keep an eye on our legislature up here. We'll see where the wind takes us.
_____________________

Notes:

I'm a bit weary this afternoon, so I'm making the conscious choice to leave the above links as sufficient citation.

 

The Latest Greatest
Some headlines

Sports Illustated, the American icon for pop-culture athletics, has conducted a poll regarding homosexuals and sports. The general trend suggests that sports fans would rather not care. The numbers are generally positive for gays, but a couple of key points are the split over an open discussion of homosexuality and sports in American culture (48-52 against), support for an athlete's privacy in general (67-34 in favor), and a strong result concerning a deliberately-increased focus on homosexuality in sports by SI (19-43% against).

No, the numbers don't always add up to 100, since there appears to be unlisted "I don't know" options, and rounding occasionally pushes a total over the line.

Additionally, the survey suggests that there is a partisan split on the idea of an open discussion about homosexuality and sports (55% Dems say yes, 65% GOP says no), only 27% of respondents said greater acceptance of gays and lesbians would be bad for the country, 61% know a gay person, and 22% of those surveyed said they are "uncomfortable" around homosexuals.

37% don't want homosexuals as little league coaches, 33% don't want gay locker room attendants, but only 21% said they didn't want gay coaches and trainers in college, 19% said no to gay coaches and trainers in sports, and the numbers only go down from there for referees, umpires, and club owners.

SI is also pushing a couple of related links worth mentioning:

Poll: SI.com. "Homosexuality and Sports Survey". April 12, 2005. See http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2005/magazine/04/12/survey.expanded/index.html

Analysis: Wertheim, L. Jon. "Gays in Sports: A Poll" SI.com. April 18, 2005. See http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2005/magazine/04/12/griffith_poll0418/

Related: Smith, Gary. "The Shadow Boxer". SI.com. April 18, 2005. See http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2005/magazine/04/12/griffith0418/ ​

• • •​

For all we hear about what a danger homosexuals are to children, I thought I'd bring this link in from southern Florida:

Why are heterosexuals allowed anywhere near children?

Remember, you need a license to have a dog. Perhaps it's time we gave children the same protection.

• • •​

On the legislative front:

• Lawmakers in Connecticut are scheduled to vote today on a bill that would institute the "separate-but-equal" institution of civil union for homosexuals.

• In Oregon, Governor Ted Kulongoski announced he will push for a civil unions bill in 2005.

• The government of Tasmania has backed a motion calling on the House of Assembly to not support gay marriage.

• Israeli Housing Minister Izaac Herzog has announced that same-sex couples with children are entitled to benefits in Israel. This is in step with recent trends including court decisions and the sentiments of Attorney General Menachem Mazuz, who recently opted to not appeal a ruling that gave inheritance rights to same-sex couples.

• Canada's Parliament yesterday voted to refuse a Conservative proposal to maintain an exclusively heterosexual definition of marriage.

• A recent poll by the Canadian Broadcasting Company suggests that 52% of Canadians oppose same-sex marriage.​

____________________

Additional Links:

Associated Press. "Mom accused of selling sex with daughter, trading another for car". Sun-Sentinel.com. April 13, 2005. See http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/southflorida/sfl-413kidtraded,0,4323534.story

Gillespie, Noreen. "Opponents, supporters converge on Capitol for vote". NewsDay.com. April 13, 2005. See http://www.newsday.com/news/local/w...t-xgr--civilunions-r0413apr13,0,6407669.story

Cain, Brad. "Oregon governor pushing for civil unions". SeattleTimes.com. April 13, 2005. See http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002240239_weborecivilunions13.html

Australian Broadcasting Corporation. "Tasmanian Govt rules out support for same-sex marriage". ABC News Online. April 13, 2005. See http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200504/s1344702.htm

Sinai, Ruth. "Herzog: Same sex couples with kids entitled to benefits". Haaretz.com. April 13, 2005. See http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/564197.html

Hebert, Chantal. "A pyrrhic victory for Liberals on same sex?" TheStar.com. April 13, 2005. See http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...354&call_pageid=968256290204&col=968350116795

Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. "Canadians deeply split on same-sex marriage, poll suggests". April 10, 2005. See http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/04/10/gay-marriage-050410.html
​

 

Rudolph Denounces Abortion, Homosexuals, In Written Statement
Guilty pleas "deprived the government of its goal"

Eric Rudolph entered guilty pleas for charges related to four bombings in the southeastern United States.

The Associated Press carries the full text of a written statement, which his attorneys distributed to the press.

I guess we could call that a dubious endorsement of traditionalism.

If people wonder why certain rhetoric about homosexuals irritates others to such a degree, let this be the testament: it's the rhetoric of terrorists.

I'll let someone else take up abortion and religion in the appropriate forum. Although I can hardly wait for the TV movie-of-the-week version; the scene with the 911 operator hanging up on him should be funny.
_____________________

Notes:

Associated Press. "Full text of Eric Rudolph's written statement ...." MaconTelegraph.com. April 13, 2005. See http://www.macon.com/mld/macon/news/local/states/georgia/counties/houston_peach/11386671.htm ​

 

Wow! Is this like a thread for promoting Tiassa's aggenda or something???? ...LOL!!


Baron Max

 

Yes, about 1% of the adult population is believed to be asexual.

 

Damn, asexuals are lucky bastards!

 

Asexual as in celibac or eunuch?

 

The definition of importance here is devoid of sexuality. When I think of asexual, it means someone with no sexual desire at all. Like my neutered cat. He's never had it, he doesn't want it, and he doesn't feel as though he has missed a thing. I'd love to be able to be like that. To never again feel the urge to put up with a girls stupidity because she has a nice rack. Or to feel bad because I really like girls personality, but I can have no romantic interest in her because she is homely.

But I'm stuck with sexual desire. At the mercy of my lower brains need to reproduce. At the whim of my DNA molecules need to intermingle with a woman's in order for us to make offspring.

 

How can we take you seriously if you don't use more question marks, ellipses, exclamation points, and AOL chat speak?

 

Why in Hell would you want to take me seriously, for god's sake?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Baron Max

 

I was mulling that question the other day, in fact. Funny you should mention it.

But I don't think you're blind to the line you walk. There are certain people who will take you seriously, and there are plenty of people to worry about the people who will take you seriously .... You know, it's kind of like Seinfeld in that sense. I wouldn't ban it or anything, but Jerry is too bright a guy to not know what he was risking in putting that comedy formula before the American consumer.

You know there are stupid people out there. And you know there are plenty of hand-wringing liberals to worry about the stupid people.

Keep that disclaimer of yours close at hand.

:m:

 

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

 

Actually, I do worry about the resource-allocation effect. When those liberals, myself included some days, are worrying about necessarily accommodating the low end of the gene pool, we're not worrying about more useful endeavors.

I mean, in any discussion there's a persistent buzz from the low end, and in American social politics, the phenomenal rise of right-wing talk radio at the end of the last century has amplified that murmur to a rumble, but done nothing to clarify the problem.

I suppose it might have something to do with wondering why the same people who think I don't have a sense of humor are also the people who don't laugh at my jokes. That's more of a personal observation, though, coloring a broader perception.

 

Holy Spelunkers, Batman!
Alabama, Homosexuality, and Incest

The irony of me coupling homosexuality and incest should not be lost, for what could possibly cause me to put these two issues together with the intent of treating them as legitimately comparable items? After all, I've spent how many words railing against such language. For instance, my opposition to the nomination of William Pryor to the 11th Circuit stems largely from the man's poor regard for sexual consent, but that's for a different time.

Nonetheless, the same amicus brief (click here for .PDF), in fact the same portion, provides our entertainment today.

William Pryor, as Attorney General of Alabama, filed an amicus brief, signing Alabama on with South Carolina and Utah opposing the petitioners in Lawrence v. Texas, which is famously regarded as the end of anti-sodomy laws for heterosexuals and homosexuals alike.

And he goes on, but that only gets morbidly entertaining in terms of the other argument I mentioned, which we shall not dwell on here.

Rather, let us focus in on the idea that sanctioning homosexual activity must logically extend to activities like, in this case, incest.

So we have it clear:

• Atty. Gen. Alabama -> allow homosexual activity = allow incest (argument against) ​

Do we see the factors? The Attorney General of Alabama expressed that sanctioning homosexual activity must necessarily lead to the sanctioning of incest.

Seriously. This is beautiful. Go back and read through it again if you need. Some folks must suspect what is coming next.

To go in reverse order, for effect, from the Code of Alabama (1975):

• 30-1-19 (d): No marriage license shall be issued in the State of Alabama to parties of the same sex.
• 30-1-19 (e): The State of Alabama shall not recognize as valid any marriage of parties of the same sex that occurred or was alleged to have occurred as a result of the law of any jurisdiction regardless of whether a marriage license was issued.​

No surprises there, right?

But what about this?

• 30-1-3: The issue of any incestuous marriage, before the same is annulled, shall not be deemed illegitimate.​

Looks like Mr. Pryor was wrong: incestuous marriage is already sanctioned.

(Marital dissolution and annulment are not covered in the available record of Section 30.)

And while I'm not a lawyer, I checked in at DivorceInfo.com to look up Alabama's terms of annulment. While there's not much, and no cited codes, the Alabama FAQ includes the following:

So let's get this clear: In Alabama, an incestuous marriage not annulled is legal. Listed conditions for annulment do not include incest, but they do include failure to consummate.

Do I need to go on?

Do you see it yet?

Welcome to "middle America" ....
______________________

Notes:

Pryor, William H., et al. "Brief of the States of Alabama, South Carolina, and Utah as Amici Curiae In Support of Respondent". February 18, 2003. See http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/supreme_court/briefs/02-102/02-102.mer.ami.states.pdf (Note: .pdf download)

DivorceInfo.com. "Alabama Divorce FAQs - Miscellaneous". See http://www.divorceinfo.com/alfaqsmiscellaneous.htm#Annulment ​

 

At least their marriages are ... valid.

Update Alabama: Felons In Love
Maybe it's a fair trade for some, but what do the personal ads look like?

The tale of Alabama incest gets even weirder.

I, uh ... well ... without, uh, further ado, I guess ....

(Christ on a freakin' pony!)

Yeah, without any further ado, I give you ... um .... CousinCouples.com.

Or, if that link is just too creepy, we can get it straight from Alabama:

• 13A-13-3(a): A person commits incest if he marries or engages in sexual intercourse with a person he knows to be, either legitimately or illegitimately ....
• 13A-13-3(b): A person shall not be convicted of incest or of an attempt to commit incest upon the uncorroborated testimony of the person with whom the offense is alleged to have been committed.
• 13A-13-3(c): Incest is a Class C felony​

So, it's a felony, your partner cannot bust you without corroboration, but if you manage to get married, anyway, it's legal?

The folks over at CousinCouples are in luck: Alabama's incest law does not include cousins, although it does cover aunts, uncles, nephews, and nieces.

So, uh, Middle America ... any comment?

Seriously, I used to think this all was a joke, a cultural slam. I guess that's just the elitist in me. If people fear for the family because permitting homosexuals to do their thing must necessarily require that incestuous couples be treated the same, what the hell is up with recognizing the marriages?

Maybe they could make a tourist industry out of it. How often do we hear the phrase, "If only you were my cousin"?

Oh, shit.

My state's no better. I can't find a protection of incestuous marriages, but our incest laws are perhaps even more lax. Depends on how narrowly the state defines "ancestor".

Maybe I'm just not liberal enough.

I don't feel like doing notes. The links are sufficient.

 

Why? Why must that necessarily be a "logical" extension?

Baron Max