In case anyone hasn't been following the federal law mentioned is the Defense of Marriage Act, which was signed into law in 1996, defines marriage as between one man and one woman, and also stipulates that no state needs to recognize a marriage license issued to a same-sex couple in another state (full faith and credit be damned).
Being that this law flies right in the face of the constitution, codifying the religiously inspired bigotry (or at least religion seems to be the only justification given) it's bit hard to see how it's still standing. After all it seems as transparent as the Jim Crow laws of Yore, face it this just isn't good law, and that fact is evident in the fact that so many right-wingers are pushing for state and federal constitutional amendments to build up a bulwark for when the DoMA finally falls.
Well sure, and why not? After all this is at it's core a constitutional issue. Conservatives have been doing their best to work around the 14th amendment, but without actually changing the constitution they really aren't going to be able to keep stalling the natural legal process which seems now to finally be under way.
On a bit of a side note I think this comment sort of tips CNN's hand as being a bit ull of themselves, as the main stream American media in general seems to be. The fight for same-sex marriage has been going on for quite a bit longer than they claim here, and really took off in the summer of 2002 after the Supreme Court's ruling on Lawrence V. Texas which essentially said that states could no longer simply make it it a criminal offence to be a homosexual (and as such implied that hey maybe we're entitled to rights just like the rest of the country's tax paying citizens). In typical form, of course and likely in the name of brevity over actual information they take the stance that if they weren't reporting on it at the time then it didn't really happen. . . Just a reminder to perhaps seek out a wider variety of news sources [/Public Service Announcement]
Another misrepresentation, Bush did say this prior to having been elected, but it seemed now, just as the Democrats were charging, that this was nothing but a divisive distraction tactic designed to galvanize his base (the crazy-religious right) who seem to think that gay rights (and the need to deny them those simple rights) are the number one domestic issues that should be on the agenda. He has since stated (only after having been elected) that he's not going to push for an amendment so long as the DoMA stands, mostly because he knows that the support for it just doesn't exist even in the republican controlled congress.
My goodness if only things were this simple! It's a sad fact of life that a ding-dong and a hooha don't qualify anyone to raise children, but it sure as hell doesn't stop them from doing it anyhow. Also the implied charge that homosexual relationships are unstable is sort of trumped by the fact that married gay couples tend to have a lower divorce rate than straight couples, but admittedly being that there aren't any documents for this sort of thing in most of the country they are harder to count.
Also, as for the idea that a marriage needs to serve the state-interest. . . at what point did we get into a position in this country where civil institutions exist to serve the government and not the other way around? Do all of our interpersonal relationships and interactions now need to take into account how it serves the government? What ever happened to individual rights and guaranteed protections? We’re lucky they haven’t officially applied this new standard to free speech yet. . . then again look at Fox News, we’re not that far off!
Tell it, sister. It's going to take a lot more fire-hosings and sacking of the dogs on activists before things will be settled, but in the mean time the institution of same-sex marriage already exists, and will continue to exist, it's already the reality, now will the government quit giving it's ear only to right wing evangelical Christians and finally recognize the reality of the situation.
Sorry, Tiassa, I know you had a real hard on for this argument. It doesn't seem that it went over too well this time, but who knows there is probably still some use for it. They apparently countered that it's not gender discrimination because the rule is applied equally to men and women, but that doesn't really address the fact that we're not dealing with a man and a woman here. It's rather akin to the flawed argument that banning same sex marriage is non-discriminatory because homosexuals are still free to marry members of the opposite sex just like everyone else. . . oh goody that certainly does suit our needs, now doesn't it? It's a bit like saying that writers don't need intellectual property protection because musicians can record phonorecords. . .
Well the law stands today, but it seems that not even Judge Moody (I'm assuming he was the judge, take a look through the article, it doesn't specify, but the context does seem to point to it) doesn't seem to think that the law is going to stand for much longer.
And just in case we forgot what this legal battle is all about:
Haha, silly lesbians, you think you have rights? Sorry, we know you're living together as an exclusive pair bond and you share everything and that makes it pretty damned hard for you to divvy things up when you need to file as an individual rather than jointly for things like bankruptcy (or taxes or what have you) but we really don't care because some say that once a man lived thousands and thousands of years ago who didn't think particularly well of your kind. Now doesn’t that justification make a lot of sense in our secular society today?
A little caveat about that last paragraph for the especially dense (and I do know that you're out there): No, bankruptcy alone isn't what I mean to say the fight for marriage is about, do a little checking up on the federal and state laws that applied to you and you'll find that there are hundreds if not thousands of little legal considerations including hospital visitations and some tax considerations and estate matters as well as some benefits like private healthcare coverage which go along hand in hand with a piece of paper certifying a civil marriage.
The appeals court said that opposite-sex couples were distinguished from same-sex couples because they can produce children and that the couples who filed the lawsuit did not establish that they had a "core value" right to marry.
Yet couples who plan on not having children or whom are physically incapable of having children are still allowed to marry, nor is the institution entirely geared toward spitting out children to raise, and of course all of this ignores the fact that heterosexuals seem to be having more children than they can handle, and same-sex couples can provide a safe and loving home for an adopted child just as easily as any other infertile couple, and as such are still beneficial to the next generation.
Buy the way I really love the idea that we must prove a "core value" in the exact same way that every heterosexual has had to do before they marry. . . right.
Well and one more real zingger before I wrap up this rambling post:
I know that I don't often say much that's nice about those uptight traditionalists, but even I have to admit that when they crack a joke it ends up being all that much more funny. This one had me laughing out loud for minuets and is still getting a few residual chuckles out of me as I sit and type.
Last edited:
