This doesn't sound like anything but speculation, and your reasons given for homosexual practices among youths is asinine.
The Gay Fray
- Thread starter Tiassa
- Start date
This doesn't sound like anything but speculation, and your reasons given for homosexual practices among youths is asinine.
The reason for homosexual experimentation among youth is rebellion. If the parents say up, the children will find the need to go down. This is part of learning to become individuals. The liberal social game is set up to default the youth to a desired result, by promoting homosexuality in a way such that the older people will go the opposite way. The default is predictable.
The majority of youth also tend to favor liberalism, because conservative is old fashion; of the past. What will eventually happen is this generation of youth will become the parents of the future and their children will do the opposite. The blind acceptance of emotional manipulation, without common sense, will be seen as obsolete by the youth and they will do to the opposite.
I remember as a youth listening to cutting edge music, my parents thought was noise. Decades later I hear this unground music in elevators. The youth see that music as old fashion, and have their own version of cutting edge; cycle of life.
The majority of youth also tend to favor liberalism, because conservative is old fashion; of the past. What will eventually happen is this generation of youth will become the parents of the future and their children will do the opposite. The blind acceptance of emotional manipulation, without common sense, will be seen as obsolete by the youth and they will do to the opposite.
I remember as a youth listening to cutting edge music, my parents thought was noise. Decades later I hear this unground music in elevators. The youth see that music as old fashion, and have their own version of cutting edge; cycle of life.
So you became homosexual after seeing your heterosexual parents?
Not really. We're still against slavery. Today's young people are in favor of gay rights and women's rights, and when today's generation gets old it won't revert to trying to oppress them. Once the current older generation of anti-gay conservatives dies out it will be pretty much gone, just as the pro-slavery and anti-women's-vote people are gone.
That's nonsense. I was an exceptionally rebellious youth, and I wasn't stuffing cocks in my mouth over it. However, I did experiment. And the reason for it was sexual curiosity. I wanted to know what it was like to try the other side. And, as a 13-year-old with raging hormones and no girlfriend, having a willing male friend was a good outlet for my appetites.
Poor phrasing considering the topic...
Rebellion is, no doubt, but you're falsely attributing homosexual experimentation to that rebellion.
This statement makes no sense. Parenting isn't a liberal conspiracy.
Oversimple and conspiratorial thinking. If it were so simple as that, then there would be no trans-generational progress on social issues. Instead, civil rights laws and social mores would change every couple of decades. Yet they don't. On the contrary, we see more and more progress being made in the same direction that began in the 1960s.
You seem to have gleaned this from a bad teen movie. In reality, pop culture idolizes the old fashioned. A very recent trend in music and fashion happened to be a gigantic non-ironic nod to the 1980s. Most of its participants weren't alive then, yet they celebrate it because it's different and, to them (if you can believe it) a bit romantic. This idea that kids hate what their parents like is overblown, as it usually only extends to what their own particular parents liked, and even then it's only a reaction to the parents themselves, who they probably view as boring. I happened to think my dad was a pretty interesting guy (still is) and as a result felt like he opened doors for me in terms of music and other interests. The reason I love computers is because of him and him alone. Same goes for the music of the Righteous Brothers. Point is, we don't automatically hate what our parents like. And when we do, it's usually temporary.
Morbid Hilarity
Indeed. Can you imagine the legions of religious fools encouraging their kids to have gay sex so that the young'n's will intentionally disobey and become strict heterosexual prudes?
Part of me wishes they would try, but only because the resulting chaos would be morbidly hilarious.
Balerion said:
Indeed. Can you imagine the legions of religious fools encouraging their kids to have gay sex so that the young'n's will intentionally disobey and become strict heterosexual prudes?
Part of me wishes they would try, but only because the resulting chaos would be morbidly hilarious.
Oh man. Christian-sponsored bathhouses? Glee viewing parties at your local church? Ted Haggard using an all-male-prostitute choir?
What would happen if homosexuality was not constantly sales pitched for acceptance? In other words, say we stop talking about it and let nature take it course instead of using propaganda to influence the weak minded?
What propaganda is being used, exactly? Surely you can think of some examples.
wellwisher
The same thing that has been happening up until now, oppression, suppression, hatred and ignorance. This is a near perfect description of the conservative "head in the sand" approach(actually, I'm constrained by comity not to say where it is they actually have their heads stuck in/up). Yet heterosexuals keep having homosexual kids in exactly the same proportion they have since humans have existed, as is Natural. Did you know it has been scientifically shown that second sons are twice as likely to be gay? It is a fact, probably caused by natural developmental differences in the womb of the mother, ie Natural.
Grumpy
The same thing that has been happening up until now, oppression, suppression, hatred and ignorance. This is a near perfect description of the conservative "head in the sand" approach(actually, I'm constrained by comity not to say where it is they actually have their heads stuck in/up). Yet heterosexuals keep having homosexual kids in exactly the same proportion they have since humans have existed, as is Natural. Did you know it has been scientifically shown that second sons are twice as likely to be gay? It is a fact, probably caused by natural developmental differences in the womb of the mother, ie Natural.
Grumpy
Nothing much. Same number of homosexuals. Probably more would try to suppress it to "appear" normal.
An interesting question
An interesting question. After all, it is the conservative, religious push against homosexuality that has kept the issue front and center for twenty years, now. Among my age peers, the idea of gay rights was a proposition unheard of; we were born after Stonewall, and the whole notion of gay marriage was nowhere on our radar.
But almost a quarter-century ago, bigots in Oregon scored a local-ballot win on an anti-gay measure; two years later they took it to the state level, known as Oregon Measure 9. Colorado Amendment 2 passed in 1992, but was struck down in the courts; Oregonians rejected Measure 9.
That there really was no gay rights proposition in front of my generational mainstream is what it is. The Christians put it on the map for us, tacked it in the town square for all to consider. Here, they said, consider this.
And we did.
And the thought of firing teachers and other state employees who were gay, denying them housing, rewriting medical school curricula to suit religious fancy, and even tying prosecutors' hands so that they could not prosecute murders of gay people just seemed a bit over the top. A loss in Oregon, a win overturned in Colorado, and the fight was on—the supremacists were determined to make their point, anyway.
If we don't do this, the bigots argued, next thing you know, gay people will want to get married. Yeah, right, we chuckled at the time.
But the right wing kept pushing, and the more they asked people to think about the issues, the weaker the supremacist argument sounded.
Part of it was that most heterosexuals just didn't spend their time panting and sweating over all the icky things gay people might do. You know, like oral sex. Or anal sex. Because, well, you know, heterosexuals just don't do that kind of thing, or something. To this day I'm sad I didn't keep a copy of the Voter's Guide from '92, when Phillip Ramsdell of the OCA published this astonishing list of paraphilias, fetishes, and other kinks, intended to suggest that only gay people could be so yucky and perverse. That probably hurt the cause some, as plenty of real heterosexuals probably saw the list and said, "Hey, I do that!" or, "Oh, that sounds interesting ... honey?" And you know, if a husband asks his wife for a golden shower instead of a backdoor romp, I can imagine a good number of women would take him up on that.
As hateful and irritating as the Christian supremacists are, they can also be a best friend to the advancement of rights in society by making bigotry so blatant and distasteful.
Wellwisher said:
An interesting question. After all, it is the conservative, religious push against homosexuality that has kept the issue front and center for twenty years, now. Among my age peers, the idea of gay rights was a proposition unheard of; we were born after Stonewall, and the whole notion of gay marriage was nowhere on our radar.
But almost a quarter-century ago, bigots in Oregon scored a local-ballot win on an anti-gay measure; two years later they took it to the state level, known as Oregon Measure 9. Colorado Amendment 2 passed in 1992, but was struck down in the courts; Oregonians rejected Measure 9.
That there really was no gay rights proposition in front of my generational mainstream is what it is. The Christians put it on the map for us, tacked it in the town square for all to consider. Here, they said, consider this.
And we did.
And the thought of firing teachers and other state employees who were gay, denying them housing, rewriting medical school curricula to suit religious fancy, and even tying prosecutors' hands so that they could not prosecute murders of gay people just seemed a bit over the top. A loss in Oregon, a win overturned in Colorado, and the fight was on—the supremacists were determined to make their point, anyway.
If we don't do this, the bigots argued, next thing you know, gay people will want to get married. Yeah, right, we chuckled at the time.
But the right wing kept pushing, and the more they asked people to think about the issues, the weaker the supremacist argument sounded.
Part of it was that most heterosexuals just didn't spend their time panting and sweating over all the icky things gay people might do. You know, like oral sex. Or anal sex. Because, well, you know, heterosexuals just don't do that kind of thing, or something. To this day I'm sad I didn't keep a copy of the Voter's Guide from '92, when Phillip Ramsdell of the OCA published this astonishing list of paraphilias, fetishes, and other kinks, intended to suggest that only gay people could be so yucky and perverse. That probably hurt the cause some, as plenty of real heterosexuals probably saw the list and said, "Hey, I do that!" or, "Oh, that sounds interesting ... honey?" And you know, if a husband asks his wife for a golden shower instead of a backdoor romp, I can imagine a good number of women would take him up on that.
As hateful and irritating as the Christian supremacists are, they can also be a best friend to the advancement of rights in society by making bigotry so blatant and distasteful.
Er ... um ... right
Ay-yi-yi. In truth, there are some things I would rather not imagine. To the other, it's my own damn fault, since I raised the issue.
Something about morbid hilarity, I guess.
Of course, something about the celebratory living demonstrations goes here, too. You know, show kids how to properly snort meth out of your gay hooker's asscrack, and they're never going to follow in your footsteps.
Or Ted's, as such.
(Although I do wonder how the "heterosexual with an asterisk" and "Ted Two" presentations would go over. No, if you don't already know, you don't want to. In fact, I don't want to know, either.)
Balerion said:
Ay-yi-yi. In truth, there are some things I would rather not imagine. To the other, it's my own damn fault, since I raised the issue.
Something about morbid hilarity, I guess.
Of course, something about the celebratory living demonstrations goes here, too. You know, show kids how to properly snort meth out of your gay hooker's asscrack, and they're never going to follow in your footsteps.
Or Ted's, as such.
(Although I do wonder how the "heterosexual with an asterisk" and "Ted Two" presentations would go over. No, if you don't already know, you don't want to. In fact, I don't want to know, either.)
You See, What Happened Was ....
You See, What Happened Was ....
Four former senators explain why their votes for DoMA were wrong
As the Supreme Court prepares to hear arguments regarding gay marriage, the gay fray is shaping up to be one of the defining political and juristic fights of the new century. Last week, 212 congressional Democrats filed an amicus brief in U.S. v. Windsor, arguing against the Defense of Marriage Act. And four former U.S. Senators filed their own brief explaining why they were wrong to vote for DoMA.
Former Senators Bill Bradley (D-NY), Tom Daschle (D-SD), Chris Dodd (D-CT), and Alan Simpson (R-WY) all voted for the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996, and all four now say they were wrong to do so. "Legislation is not a science," the brief argues at the outset:
It is a remarkable summary of argument, to be certain. An eloquent expression of the obvious historical realities, it makes for one of the greatest explanations ever offered for having followed through on a bad idea.
For some on the equality side of the argument, it seems a long road to recognizing the obvious, but, "You're just figuring this out now?" is not a proper question; the description of the political atmosphere surrounding the veto-proof DoMA votes in Congress is reasonably accurate, and if one seeks in this brief an apology, it is there, albeit not so explicitly.
It is always difficult to hold one's head high when acknowledging prior mistakes, but this brief does so knowing that the only way to correct and atone for those errors is to make a definitive stand on behalf of what is right and proper. The amicus brief from these four senators is a powerful testament to that end.
____________________
Notes:
Russell, Kevin K. "Brief for Amici Curieae Former Senators Bill Bradley, Tom Daschle, Christopher J. Dodd, and Alan K. Simpson on the Merits in Support of Respondent Windsor". United States v. Windsor et al. March 1, 2013. Scribd.com. March 4, 2013. http://www.scribd.com/document_downloads/128045736?extension=pdf&from=embed&source=embed
You See, What Happened Was ....
Four former senators explain why their votes for DoMA were wrong
As the Supreme Court prepares to hear arguments regarding gay marriage, the gay fray is shaping up to be one of the defining political and juristic fights of the new century. Last week, 212 congressional Democrats filed an amicus brief in U.S. v. Windsor, arguing against the Defense of Marriage Act. And four former U.S. Senators filed their own brief explaining why they were wrong to vote for DoMA.
Former Senators Bill Bradley (D-NY), Tom Daschle (D-SD), Chris Dodd (D-CT), and Alan Simpson (R-WY) all voted for the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996, and all four now say they were wrong to do so. "Legislation is not a science," the brief argues at the outset:
It is, instead, often premised on beliefs about the world and the Constitution that are proven unfounded by later experience. As our nation progresses toward the more perfect union of our Founders' aspirations, we sometimes find that laws that once seemed constitutional, necessary, and fair have grown incompatible with our understanding of the world and with our national concepts of decency, dignity, and equality. The Defense of Marriage Act is such a law, and this Court should now hold it unconstitutional.
DOMA is a reflection of the era of its enactment. At the time, the world had no experience with gay marriage, and the debate over its legal recognition was still in its infancy. In that time of uncertainty, DOMA enjoyed broad support, but for reasons that varied widely. Some who supported it fervently opposed discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in other areas. They pushed for protection against discrimination toward gays and lesbians in employment, adoption, and the military. They nonetheless supported DOMA's stated purpose of leaving the debate on gay marriage to develop in the states. And they believed that passing DOMA would defuse a movement to enact a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, which would have ended the debate for a generation or more.
Others backed it out of opposition to any government ever recognizing gay marriages. Some feared the consequences of granting legal recognition to same-sex marriages. They believed state recognition of gay marriages would have pernicious effects on traditional marriage, children, and our communities. Others acted out of simple hostility towards homosexuality, an animus toward gays and lesbians, or a willingness to exploit such feelings for political gain.
In the last seventeen years, much has changed, and for the better. Gay Americans and their families are now much more common and visible—in our communities, schools, and houses of worship, as well as in our business, government, and popular culture. While our progress toward a more tolerant society has been uneven, we increasingly have come to accept, even to embrace, same-sex families. And several states have recognized same-sex marriages.
That experience has taught us—and social scientists have confirmed—that the original justifications for DOMA can no longer be credited today. Gay families have proven stable, healthy environments for children and valuable members of our communities. There is no evidence that extending legal recognition to same-sex marriages has discouraged heterosexual marriage or encouraged fathers to abandon their children. And states have been able to recognize the civil institution of same-sex marriage without impinging on the rights of religious bodies to define the sacrament of marriage according to their beliefs. The only real purpose DOMA now serves is to stigmatize gays and lesbians, by singling out for federal disapproval their otherwise lawful marriages.
We now understand that our constitutional commitment to equality does not tolerate such discrimination. When DOMA was enacted, there was little serious discussion whether the statute violated the Equal Protection clause. A decade earlier, this Court had condoned the criminalization of homosexual relationships in Bowers v. Hardwick. It was implausible to think that the government could brand gays and lesbians criminals, yet was constitutionally required to recognize gay marriages. But this Court has since overruled Bowers, and recognized that laws designed to express moral disapproval of homosexuality are inconsistent with our constitutional commitment to equality.
To be sure, marriage occupies a special status in our society. Marriage is simultaneously an intensely personal commitment, a foundational social institution, a matter of deep religious conviction, and a legal classification upon which hundreds of civil rights and civic obligations depend. Many Americans have had difficulty overcoming the traditional understanding of the word "marriage" as encompassing only opposite-sex couples, even while fully embracing the vital need for equal rights for gays and lesbians elsewhere. Some supported civil unions conferring the full [incidence] of marriage on gay couples, but believed that "marriage" was somehow different in a way that required it to be reserved only to heterosexual couples. But we now realize that it is precisely because the institution of marriage is so important that its legal aspects must not be exempt from the reach of the Constitution's commitment to equality. For the government to discriminate with regard to such a fundamental privilege is inconsistent with the principles on which our country was founded.
Ordinarily this Court should be hesitant to strike down a statute passed by Congress and signed by the President. But it is ultimately the role of this Court to ensure that our laws respect our constitutional commitment to equal protection for all. The Court did not wait for the political process to desegregate the schools, or to repeal laws forbidding mixed race marriage. It did not delay justice to women subject to discriminatory laws founded on outdated assumptions. Nor has the Court shied away from its constitutional duty when faced with laws grounded in homophobia and animus toward gays. The Court should not hesitate to do its duty in this case either.
(pp. 2-5)
DOMA is a reflection of the era of its enactment. At the time, the world had no experience with gay marriage, and the debate over its legal recognition was still in its infancy. In that time of uncertainty, DOMA enjoyed broad support, but for reasons that varied widely. Some who supported it fervently opposed discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in other areas. They pushed for protection against discrimination toward gays and lesbians in employment, adoption, and the military. They nonetheless supported DOMA's stated purpose of leaving the debate on gay marriage to develop in the states. And they believed that passing DOMA would defuse a movement to enact a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, which would have ended the debate for a generation or more.
Others backed it out of opposition to any government ever recognizing gay marriages. Some feared the consequences of granting legal recognition to same-sex marriages. They believed state recognition of gay marriages would have pernicious effects on traditional marriage, children, and our communities. Others acted out of simple hostility towards homosexuality, an animus toward gays and lesbians, or a willingness to exploit such feelings for political gain.
In the last seventeen years, much has changed, and for the better. Gay Americans and their families are now much more common and visible—in our communities, schools, and houses of worship, as well as in our business, government, and popular culture. While our progress toward a more tolerant society has been uneven, we increasingly have come to accept, even to embrace, same-sex families. And several states have recognized same-sex marriages.
That experience has taught us—and social scientists have confirmed—that the original justifications for DOMA can no longer be credited today. Gay families have proven stable, healthy environments for children and valuable members of our communities. There is no evidence that extending legal recognition to same-sex marriages has discouraged heterosexual marriage or encouraged fathers to abandon their children. And states have been able to recognize the civil institution of same-sex marriage without impinging on the rights of religious bodies to define the sacrament of marriage according to their beliefs. The only real purpose DOMA now serves is to stigmatize gays and lesbians, by singling out for federal disapproval their otherwise lawful marriages.
We now understand that our constitutional commitment to equality does not tolerate such discrimination. When DOMA was enacted, there was little serious discussion whether the statute violated the Equal Protection clause. A decade earlier, this Court had condoned the criminalization of homosexual relationships in Bowers v. Hardwick. It was implausible to think that the government could brand gays and lesbians criminals, yet was constitutionally required to recognize gay marriages. But this Court has since overruled Bowers, and recognized that laws designed to express moral disapproval of homosexuality are inconsistent with our constitutional commitment to equality.
To be sure, marriage occupies a special status in our society. Marriage is simultaneously an intensely personal commitment, a foundational social institution, a matter of deep religious conviction, and a legal classification upon which hundreds of civil rights and civic obligations depend. Many Americans have had difficulty overcoming the traditional understanding of the word "marriage" as encompassing only opposite-sex couples, even while fully embracing the vital need for equal rights for gays and lesbians elsewhere. Some supported civil unions conferring the full [incidence] of marriage on gay couples, but believed that "marriage" was somehow different in a way that required it to be reserved only to heterosexual couples. But we now realize that it is precisely because the institution of marriage is so important that its legal aspects must not be exempt from the reach of the Constitution's commitment to equality. For the government to discriminate with regard to such a fundamental privilege is inconsistent with the principles on which our country was founded.
Ordinarily this Court should be hesitant to strike down a statute passed by Congress and signed by the President. But it is ultimately the role of this Court to ensure that our laws respect our constitutional commitment to equal protection for all. The Court did not wait for the political process to desegregate the schools, or to repeal laws forbidding mixed race marriage. It did not delay justice to women subject to discriminatory laws founded on outdated assumptions. Nor has the Court shied away from its constitutional duty when faced with laws grounded in homophobia and animus toward gays. The Court should not hesitate to do its duty in this case either.
(pp. 2-5)
It is a remarkable summary of argument, to be certain. An eloquent expression of the obvious historical realities, it makes for one of the greatest explanations ever offered for having followed through on a bad idea.
For some on the equality side of the argument, it seems a long road to recognizing the obvious, but, "You're just figuring this out now?" is not a proper question; the description of the political atmosphere surrounding the veto-proof DoMA votes in Congress is reasonably accurate, and if one seeks in this brief an apology, it is there, albeit not so explicitly.
It is always difficult to hold one's head high when acknowledging prior mistakes, but this brief does so knowing that the only way to correct and atone for those errors is to make a definitive stand on behalf of what is right and proper. The amicus brief from these four senators is a powerful testament to that end.
____________________
Notes:
Russell, Kevin K. "Brief for Amici Curieae Former Senators Bill Bradley, Tom Daschle, Christopher J. Dodd, and Alan K. Simpson on the Merits in Support of Respondent Windsor". United States v. Windsor et al. March 1, 2013. Scribd.com. March 4, 2013. http://www.scribd.com/document_downloads/128045736?extension=pdf&from=embed&source=embed
Well, it wouldn't be accepted, and these citizens would be abused and discriminated against, they couldn't hold public office, or a job, and they would have to go on welfare, they might even be burned alive by people like you. It's all happened before.
State of Discrimination
State of Discrimination
Colorado evolves; Minnesota has a moment
Civil unions are generally an unsatisfactory alternative in days when marriage equality advocates can see a path to victory, but the fact that Colorado legislators have delivered a civil unions bill to the state's Democratic governor is not one lightly dismissed:
In 1992, Colorado voters passed Amendment 2, writing anti-gay discrimination into the state constitution. In 2006, they banned gay marriage. While civil unions are all the legislature can do right now, the shifting political currents are, to say the least, remarkable.
Meanwhile, in Minnesota, Rep. Glenn H. Gruenhagen (R) took a moment to prompt a rule change in the Minnesota legislature in the run up to a marriage equality bill the North Star State when he decided to invoke personal privilege in order to introduce his buddy, Kevin, to the chamber:
Peterson was Gruenhagen's cohort in pushing an unsuccessful ballot amendment to forbid marriage equality in Minnesota. The legislator considers homosexuals addicts; Kevin was on hand to (ahem!) plug Exodus International. House Speaker Paul Thissen (DFL) later clarified the personal privilege rules.
As the Supreme Court prepares to consider DoMA, the discussion goes on among the states. High drama at sunset? With Full Faith and Credit seemingly sidelined in what is shaping up as an Equal Protection issue, state questions of marriage equality might reasonably endure well after the Supreme Court pronounces its decisions on the issues before it.
____________________
Notes:
Associated Press. "Colorado Lawmakers OK Civil Unions For Gay Couples". National Public Radio. March 13, 2013. NPR.org. March 13, 2013. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=174113664
Ford, Zack. "Minnesota Legislator Interrupts Proceedings To Introduce Ex-Gay Friend". Think Progress. March 12, 2013. ThinkProgress.org. March 13, 2013. http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2013/...rupts-proceedings-to-introduce-ex-gay-friend/
State of Discrimination
Colorado evolves; Minnesota has a moment
Civil unions are generally an unsatisfactory alternative in days when marriage equality advocates can see a path to victory, but the fact that Colorado legislators have delivered a civil unions bill to the state's Democratic governor is not one lightly dismissed:
Colorado lawmakers took a historic vote to approve civil unions for gay couples Tuesday, delivering on a campaign promise from Democrats who have capitalized on the changing political landscape of a state where voters banned same-sex marriage not long ago.
The bill on its way to the desk of Democratic Gov. John Hickenlooper is expected to be signed into law within two weeks, capping a three-year fight over a proposal to grant gay couples rights similar to marriage.
Applause erupted in the Capitol as the bill won final passage on a 39-26 House vote, with two Republicans joining all Democrats to approve the measure. Several dozen people watching from the House gallery left smiling and hugging, and some wiped away tears of joy.
Once the measure is signed, Colorado will join eight states that have civil unions or similar laws. Nine states and the District of Columbia allow gay marriage.
"This is the best step toward equality Colorado could take right now. I'm thankful we got it done," said Katy Jensen, a 34-year-old Denver engineer who plans a civil union with her partner after the bill becomes law on May 1.
Last year, Democratic Sen. Jessie Ulibarri, a newly elected gay lawmaker, was among the spectators in the House gallery with his children, watching as Republicans used their one-vote majority in the House to prevent the measure from being debated in the waning hours of the session, thus killing the bill.
"I sat with my kids at midnight, wondering what was going to happen the next time we had a tragedy. What would happen if I had to take my kids to the ER and then I was questioned whether or not I was really their dad," said Ulibarri, one of eight gay Democratic lawmakers serving in the Colorado Legislature.
(Associated Press)
The bill on its way to the desk of Democratic Gov. John Hickenlooper is expected to be signed into law within two weeks, capping a three-year fight over a proposal to grant gay couples rights similar to marriage.
Applause erupted in the Capitol as the bill won final passage on a 39-26 House vote, with two Republicans joining all Democrats to approve the measure. Several dozen people watching from the House gallery left smiling and hugging, and some wiped away tears of joy.
Once the measure is signed, Colorado will join eight states that have civil unions or similar laws. Nine states and the District of Columbia allow gay marriage.
"This is the best step toward equality Colorado could take right now. I'm thankful we got it done," said Katy Jensen, a 34-year-old Denver engineer who plans a civil union with her partner after the bill becomes law on May 1.
Last year, Democratic Sen. Jessie Ulibarri, a newly elected gay lawmaker, was among the spectators in the House gallery with his children, watching as Republicans used their one-vote majority in the House to prevent the measure from being debated in the waning hours of the session, thus killing the bill.
"I sat with my kids at midnight, wondering what was going to happen the next time we had a tragedy. What would happen if I had to take my kids to the ER and then I was questioned whether or not I was really their dad," said Ulibarri, one of eight gay Democratic lawmakers serving in the Colorado Legislature.
(Associated Press)
In 1992, Colorado voters passed Amendment 2, writing anti-gay discrimination into the state constitution. In 2006, they banned gay marriage. While civil unions are all the legislature can do right now, the shifting political currents are, to say the least, remarkable.
Meanwhile, in Minnesota, Rep. Glenn H. Gruenhagen (R) took a moment to prompt a rule change in the Minnesota legislature in the run up to a marriage equality bill the North Star State when he decided to invoke personal privilege in order to introduce his buddy, Kevin, to the chamber:
I have a close friend here — the last couple years — his name is Kevin Petersen. Kevin, why don’t you stand up and say hi? The interesting thing about Kevin is he was active in the gay lifestyle for about 10 years, and then he left it, got married, and he now has three children. Thank you.
(Ford)
(Ford)
Peterson was Gruenhagen's cohort in pushing an unsuccessful ballot amendment to forbid marriage equality in Minnesota. The legislator considers homosexuals addicts; Kevin was on hand to (ahem!) plug Exodus International. House Speaker Paul Thissen (DFL) later clarified the personal privilege rules.
As the Supreme Court prepares to consider DoMA, the discussion goes on among the states. High drama at sunset? With Full Faith and Credit seemingly sidelined in what is shaping up as an Equal Protection issue, state questions of marriage equality might reasonably endure well after the Supreme Court pronounces its decisions on the issues before it.
____________________
Notes:
Associated Press. "Colorado Lawmakers OK Civil Unions For Gay Couples". National Public Radio. March 13, 2013. NPR.org. March 13, 2013. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=174113664
Ford, Zack. "Minnesota Legislator Interrupts Proceedings To Introduce Ex-Gay Friend". Think Progress. March 12, 2013. ThinkProgress.org. March 13, 2013. http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2013/...rupts-proceedings-to-introduce-ex-gay-friend/
Agreed. Better than 0/5, but not a complete victory for gay rights.
I agree. It's insulting.
The Colorado Context
Well, yeah. But look at what it takes to get the issue into the U.S. Supreme Court. Meanwhile, actual marriage equality is forbidden under the Colorado state constitution. In the end, the Colorado process is significant of where the larger national discussion has advanced to. Civil unions in Colorado? That's not quite on par with science in Kansas, but it certainly says something about the political atmosphere.
Win the civil unions, win the separate but equal question; the constitutional prohibition against gay marriage goes away.
Or win the civil unions, lose the separate but equal question; what happens next depends largely on the Supreme Court. If DoMA falls, the whole landscape changes. If DoMA survives—which seems unlikely, all things considered—it's back to full faith and credit and finding a new way to fight about equal protection.
We might look at Colorado in the segregationist context and note that all they're really doing at this point is saying them Coloreds ought to be happy they get any water at all, but it's Colorado. Civil unions are significant in their own context when it comes to the Switzerland of America°.
____________________
Notes:
° Switzerland of America — Attributed to President Theodore Roosevelt. I just picked it because it's funny.
Grumpy said:
Well, yeah. But look at what it takes to get the issue into the U.S. Supreme Court. Meanwhile, actual marriage equality is forbidden under the Colorado state constitution. In the end, the Colorado process is significant of where the larger national discussion has advanced to. Civil unions in Colorado? That's not quite on par with science in Kansas, but it certainly says something about the political atmosphere.
Win the civil unions, win the separate but equal question; the constitutional prohibition against gay marriage goes away.
Or win the civil unions, lose the separate but equal question; what happens next depends largely on the Supreme Court. If DoMA falls, the whole landscape changes. If DoMA survives—which seems unlikely, all things considered—it's back to full faith and credit and finding a new way to fight about equal protection.
We might look at Colorado in the segregationist context and note that all they're really doing at this point is saying them Coloreds ought to be happy they get any water at all, but it's Colorado. Civil unions are significant in their own context when it comes to the Switzerland of America°.
____________________
Notes:
° Switzerland of America — Attributed to President Theodore Roosevelt. I just picked it because it's funny.