(no subject)

[slammerkinbabe]

Gay couples don't deserve the right to get married because they are... better parents than straight couples?

Excerpt:

[T]he New York court also put forth another argument, sometimes called the “reckless procreation” rationale. “Heterosexual intercourse,” the plurality opinion stated, “has a natural tendency to lead to the birth of children; homosexual intercourse does not.” Gays become parents, the opinion said, in a variety of ways, including adoption and artificial insemination, “but they do not become parents as a result of accident or impulse.”

Consequently, “the Legislature could find that unstable relationships between people of the opposite sex present a greater danger that children will be born into or grow up in unstable homes than is the case with same-sex couples... the Legislature could rationally offer the benefits of marriage to opposite-sex couples only.”

...

Wow! Did you hear what the New York Supreme Court said, folks? They said it's not that gays aren't good enough to get married, it's that STRAIGHTS aren't good enough to NOT get married!

No one could ever accuse them of homophobia now.

::headdesk:: Seriously, people. Stop trying to play both sides of the fence, placating both the radical righties and your own uneasy feelings around homosexuality by keeping gay marriage illegal while pretending that you're totally absolutely 100% a-okay with gay people. You're not fooling anyone.

Comments

[rainswolf.livejournal.com]

It's so dumb how an argument that should be about equal rights has turned into a semantics game as to how exactly we should define "marriage." People's obsession with defining "marriage" has kept others from rights for years and years and will continue to do so.

I am starting to think we should call them "commitments" or whatever and get the rights and then in 30 years when the political climate has changed we can worry about redefining "marriage."

[slammerkinbabe.livejournal.com]

Frankly, it's not such a bad idea. Separate but equal sucks, for sure, but people forget that separate but equal in terms of civil rights, though it was abused horrendously, was nevertheless a political stepping-stone. I'm not defending the history of separate-but-equal bullshit in civil rights legislation, just pointing out that full equality often doesn't come overnight, or in one step.

[rainswolf.livejournal.com]

That's what i mean. I would never be happy with separate-but-equal as the endword, but I think the "movement" should work towards it for now so people can get some rights while for the howevermany years it will take to get the equal marriage lable.

[slammerkinbabe.livejournal.com]

(I should add that once we get separate but equal we absolutely have to keep fighting for full equality! Just that asking for everything all at once may not be politically expedient.)

[lietya.livejournal.com]

Connecticut has done "separate but equal" - the lower-court judges ruled a couple days ago that civil unions are identical in all respects but name to marriages and therefore it's unreasonable to sue for the word alone.

That seems fair to me, in large part because the problem was that the civil rights' version was actually separate and UNequal. I've read CT's legislation myself; it explicitly states that "any law which uses the word 'marriage' shall be construed to apply to civil unions as well," and that civil unions are legally defined by cutting and pasting the definition of "marriage." It's really, truly identical except for the word, at least on a state level.

And what it means in practice is that the license will read "civil union license" rather than "marriage license." You can call the ceremony whatever you want; you can direct your celebrant to call it a marriage ceremony. You can send out wedding invitations. In the end, society at large will end up calling a civil union a "marriage" because they are lazy... and de facto if not de jure, you now have the word too. I was married by a JoP, after all, and for all that I technically have a "civil" union, no one has ever cared.

[don't get me wrong, MA did it better yet. But this is as close as you can come and still get *a Republican governor to sign off on it voluntarily, for the first time.*]

[slammerkinbabe.livejournal.com]

No, that sounds like an excellent, excellent system - light-years away from separate-but-equal as it existed for civil rights for blacks back in the day.

I seriously don't care what anyone calls it. I just want the government to acknowledge that my relationship with my partner is no less committed and stable than any relationship between a married man and woman, and to give me a certificate stating that. Also, to give me tax breaks.

[lietya.livejournal.com]

Tax breaks are good. :) Although it might make you feel better to know that we're at a tax *dis*advantage for being married, thanks to that "marriage penalty"! Be careful what you wish for....

but I'm seriously awed and delighted still that MA is offering you two what you deserve.

I mentioned CT because it seems that that's a much rarer case of gays suing FOR the word - the lawsuit in question is by a handful of couples who could contract a civil union but believe that lacking the word "marriage" is still discriminatory. (And it kinda is, but still, they've got 99% of what they want and are still fighting over the last 1%, which suggests that it's not only straights/homophobes who find the word itself to be important. Nor do I blame anyone on either side, really; words carry weight. It's why I advocate for the government only involving itself with "civil" in the sense of non-religious unions for everybody.)

[rainswolf.livejournal.com]

Of course, "separate but equal" hasn't worked at all in the public school system re desgregation, nor has desegregation worked at all in reality.

But something like marriage in which you can create equality via laws and policies seems like a better bet for a "separate but equal" kindof thing.

[lietya.livejournal.com]

No, it was a total failure for desegregation. It's also not my first choice here, either, really. But to have a legislature and a governor do it voluntarily.... it's worth a certain degree of trade-off.

here's hoping soon no compromises will be necessary at all.

[lietya.livejournal.com]

....what?!! I honestly cannot follow that logic. At all.

[july4th.livejournal.com]

Hee. See my comment below.

[slammerkinbabe.livejournal.com]

Oh, I see what they're trying to pretend they're saying. "Straight couples sometimes have couples by accident; gay couples don't have kids by accident. Having kids on purpose implies that there is a committed, stable relationship ongoing between the people who've decided to have said kids. Therefore, gay couples need no incentive to provide a stable home for their children, because they're already doing so. Straight couples wouldn't necessarily provide that kind of stable home unless you gave them incentives to; therefore, we have marriage, which provides the economic incentives necessary to get straight couples to commit to each other and to their kids."

So very, very, very, VERY many things wrong with that argument. But that's what the're saying.

[lietya.livejournal.com]

oh, Jesus Christ on toast points. That's fucking idiotic.

....not least because of the assumption ONCE AGAIN that a marriage is "for the children." They can bite my nonfunctioning uterus. (Does NYS allow for adoption by gay couples? 'cause that logic would seem to strongly suggest that gays should be *favored* for adoptions.)

[slammerkinbabe.livejournal.com]

You'd think, wouldn't you? I'd like to see THAT lawsuit. "By your own reasoning..."

[lietya.livejournal.com]

Could be quite entertaining.

in terms of similar petard-hoisting, I really wanted to see someone point out that as VT's civil unions are not marriages, someone who marries AND has a civil union with a same-sex partner is not a bigamist. :)

[october31st.livejournal.com]

And poly bisexuals across the nation rejoiced! :P

[slammerkinbabe.livejournal.com]

::giggle::

[lietya.livejournal.com]

Exactly!

but then, I amuse myself with responding to the peole who say "but then the polygamists will want to marry" with "what's wrong with polyamory?" :)

[slammerkinbabe.livejournal.com]

Yeah. That, and I oppose bestiality on grounds of cruelty to animals, not sexual perversion.

It takes all kinds.

[lietya.livejournal.com]

Me, too; we've already got laws to protect animals and children from abuse. other than that, whatever consenting adults want to do is none of my business.

"It takes all kinds."

I wish everyone thought like you. Instead of "all kinds" including people like Santorum. :)


(....and thinking of Santorum reminds me, for absolutely no reason, that last night's Daily Show established how you can have a political discussion and still stick to your One Safe Topic! The subtitle for the Novak interview on HANNITY and (colmes) was - "Snakes on a Plame"!!!)

[chavvah.livejournal.com]

"what's wrong with polyamory?"

The only downside I can see is potentially more housework. But there would be enough sexual favours to bargain for that I would never have to do the dishes again! ;)

Reposted so I could use a sexier icon.

[lietya.livejournal.com]

I do so love your icons - that one is great!

And I figure, more people theoretically provides more hands for housework than hands to dirty the house, done right. :)

[agatha-mandrake.livejournal.com]

"Jesus Christ on toast points" is my new favourite expression, and I shall endeavour to work it into conversation as often as possible.

[lietya.livejournal.com]

My work here is done. :) In fairness, I have to confess that I picked it up somewhere a while back, so I can't take credit for it.

Love the icon!

[agatha-mandrake.livejournal.com]

Love the icon!

Thanks! Although I also cannot take credit for it.

[july4th.livejournal.com]

Buh?

So, gay couples can't marry because straight couples have fucked it up for them. And (as october31st pointed out) it seems as thought they think marriage is solely for reproduction.

OMGWTFBBQPDQ.

Sorry, Kylie. I break down in the face of extreme stupidity. It's a failing of mine.

[slammerkinbabe.livejournal.com]

I love you for adding PDQ to that.

[july4th.livejournal.com]

Tee hee. :)

[chavvah.livejournal.com]

Yes, okay, so:

So what they're saying is:

- all straight couples who do get married are automatically "stable" (because people never get married for the wrong reasons)
- all gay couples who choose to have a child through various means are automatically "stable" (because people never have kids on purpose for the wrong reasons)
- all straight couples who *choose* not to get married are not "stable" and incapable of committing to their kids

...buh?

[slammerkinbabe.livejournal.com]

Slap a "the only legitimate reason to enter into marriage is to provide a support system for procreation" on top, and you got it!

[chavvah.livejournal.com]

Man, I feel kind of guilty for being a Canadian and not having a gay marriage, since I'm obviously entitled to one and no one cares what I do. I wonder if Jamie would object if I platonically married one of my female friends.

Pierre Elliot Trudeau: "The state has no place in the bedrooms of the nation."

[july4th.livejournal.com]

But that doesn't even make SENSE!

I...

But...

What...

Argh. People are dumb.

(Thus illustrates why I would probably not make a good lawyer.)

[slammerkinbabe.livejournal.com]

See above, but I warn you, it's dumb.

[lietya.livejournal.com]

Yeah. Ditto. Theoretically, of course, lawyers have to be GOOD at logic. :) in practice....

[october31st.livejournal.com]

So marriage exists only as a foundation for having kids, huh? Well, I'm sure the infertile and childless-by-choice couples across New York will be pleased to know this.

*facepalm* I have never been more ashamed of my state.

[slammerkinbabe.livejournal.com]

I know, right? WTF. Honestly.

[chavvah.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I'm not even from New York, and I'm not too impressed. :P

[cinediva.livejournal.com]

I'm so glad I moved out. ;)

Not that CA is any better....

[electricland.livejournal.com]

that is SUCH a bizarre ruling.

Good article though, thanks for linking to it!

[cinediva.livejournal.com]

It's irritating that the finding presupposes children are the primary motivation for any couple to get married.

This is the most illogical, backwards thing I've ever heard of. Not to mention a boobytrapped backhanded compliment. Oy.

[givesmevoice.livejournal.com]

::blink::

[slammerkinbabe.livejournal.com]

I love your icon + your comment.

[givesmevoice.livejournal.com]

I like to coordinate them. =D

[chavvah.livejournal.com]

Haha! Votes for women!

[archaica.livejournal.com]

It looks as though the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals agrees with New York:

In a decision written by Chief Circuit Judge James B. Loken (a one-time law clerk to Justice Byron R. White), the Eighth Circuit overturned a federal judge's decision striking down the Nebraska state amendment. It found that the ban should be judged under equal protection analysis only by rational basis review, and concluded that the legislature had sufficient reason to steer child-bearing into marriage. Since only opposite-sex couples can procreate, and since only opposite-sex couples can produce children "by accident," the legislature had a legitimate state interest in confining marriage to them, the Court indicated.

"Whatever our personal views regarding this political and sociological debate, we cannot conclude that the state's justification lacks a rational relationship to legitimate state interests," Judge Loken wrote.

More here

This is possibly the *worst* justification for banning gay marriage, and it's not *even* rational. Oh, wait, it's rational if you think all gays are trying to "induct" people into THE GAY (Of course, when parents beat their children for even sounding gay, they're not trying to induct them into a harmful straight lifestyle, no ..... )

Wuh?

[agatha-mandrake.livejournal.com]

This makes my brain hurt. Surely someone pointed out to the judges they were full of shit?