pageok
pageok
pageok
Gay marriage in New Hampshire:

Today the state legislature passed, and the governor quickly signed, a same-sex marriage bill. (It becomes effective January 1.) Six states now permit the marriages of gay couples under state law. Three of those have done so by legislative action.

Congratulations to New Hampshire Freedom to Marry, which lobbied for the bill, and to gay families in the state.

Volokh Groupie:
Should we expect to see more exceptions like this?


It also clarified that church-related organizations that serve charitable or educational purposes are exempt from having to provide insurance and other benefits to same-sex spouses of employees.
6.3.2009 7:20pm
MatthewM (mail):
The camel's nose is in the tent. Those exceptions and exemptions won't last long.
6.3.2009 7:29pm
cmr:
Not surprised he signed the bill. I knew was a snake, but more importantly, I knew they would pass this...eventually.

Still, I'm glad it passed via legislature. That's the right way.
6.3.2009 7:30pm
J. Aldridge:
Now if Gay couples act like they do in public in SF you will be seeing a vote of 20-4 to repeal this bill.
6.3.2009 7:31pm
Volokh Groupie:
@MatthewM

Maybe, but exception is striking considering the lack of employment discrimination protection in many states.
6.3.2009 7:33pm
Sean P (mail):
And congratulations to the New Hampshire Supreme Court in staying the hell out of the issue and letting it get decided through the legislative process. Hopefully, in the future, the states that impose gay marriage by judicial fiat become the exception to the rule.
6.3.2009 7:35pm
TKN (www):
@J. Aldridge - I'd imagine a lot of the "flamboyance" of gays is in backlash to social repression. As gays are more mainstreamed, they will most likely settle down into conformist mediocrity like the rest of us.

Anyway, congrats to NH for passing a bill on something that our country as a whole has just wasted too much time on. Live and let live.
6.3.2009 7:48pm
Former 03301:
TLN - It's "LIVE FREE OR DIE" in NH.
6.3.2009 7:57pm
levisbaby:

Now if Gay couples act like they do in public in SF you will be seeing a vote of 20-4 to repeal this bill.

You mean if they form stable relationships, work as professionals and adopt and raise children? That's how the gays I know in sf act in public.

What's it like to see history leaving you behind? How does that feel?
6.3.2009 7:57pm
zuch (mail) (www):
Volokh Groupie:
Should we expect to see more exceptions like this?
It also clarified that church-related organizations that serve charitable or educational purposes are exempt from having to provide insurance and other benefits to same-sex spouses of employees.
It's not constitutionally required.

Cheers,
6.3.2009 8:00pm
zuch (mail) (www):
J. Aldridge:
Now if Gay couples act like they do in public in SF you will be seeing a vote of 20-4 to repeal this bill.
I guess that Mr. Aldridge has never been to Cancun or Florida during spring break....

But I'd ask:

1).Is he suggesting that gays that want to marry should be held to account for the behaviour of other gays (that may or may not want to marry)?

2). Is it really the "yuckiness" of (some) gay conduct (to him) that is the proper metric for civil rights?

Cheers,
6.3.2009 8:05pm
Volokh Groupie:

I guess that Mr. Aldridge has never been to Cancun or Florida during spring break



Or you know...a bar, outside of a high school, at the airport, etc.

Cancun and Florida might be a bit overboard as most gay SF'ers I know aren't perpetually drunk.
6.3.2009 8:13pm
Randy R. (mail):
Not to mention how straights act during Mardi Gras, or any football game!
6.3.2009 8:18pm
Some Dude:
As long as blogs insist on calling it "gay marriage," I feel it is my duty to point out that nobody has asked a person's sexual orientation before issuing a marriage license.
6.3.2009 8:22pm
Randy R. (mail):
"The camel's nose is in the tent. Those exceptions and exemptions won't last long."

It's sorta comical, when you think about it. For decades, religious groups have done everything that they can to make life as difficult as possible for gay people. They have opposed every sort of right that is proposed, they seek to teach that gays are nothing more than perverts, and they want society to officially shun us as much as possible.

Now they are afraid that we will get our revenge, and that we seek to force upon them the same humiliations that they sought for us. Personally, I don't care, and I don't think most gays do either, but it IS interesting that they fear the one thing that they actually tried to do to us.

I guess they just assume that everyone is as base as they are. Thank goodness that isn't true.
6.3.2009 8:23pm
Randy R. (mail):
"The camel's nose is in the tent. Those exceptions and exemptions won't last long."

It's sorta comical, when you think about it. For decades, religious groups have done everything that they can to make life as difficult as possible for gay people. They have opposed every sort of right that is proposed, they seek to teach that gays are nothing more than perverts, and they want society to officially shun us as much as possible.

Now they are afraid that we will get our revenge, and that we seek to force upon them the same humiliations that they sought for us. Personally, I don't care, and I don't think most gays do either, but it IS interesting that they fear the one thing that they actually tried to do to us.

I guess they just assume that everyone is as base as they are. Thank goodness that isn't true.
6.3.2009 8:23pm
Randy R. (mail):
Oops! New computer. Sorry for the double post.
6.3.2009 8:24pm
Randy R. (mail):
Some dude: "As long as blogs insist on calling it "gay marriage," I feel it is my duty to point out that nobody has asked a person's sexual orientation before issuing a marriage license."

Which is why most of us prefer the more accurage term of 'same sex marriage'
6.3.2009 8:25pm
DangerMouse:
Now they are afraid that we will get our revenge, and that we seek to force upon them the same humiliations that they sought for us. Personally, I don't care, and I don't think most gays do either, but it IS interesting that they fear the one thing that they actually tried to do to us.

Randy, I thought you were opposed to those kind of religious exemptions and protections anyway? And I thought you were in favor of shunning Mormons and others who voted for Prop 8? Aren't you?
6.3.2009 8:26pm
Randy R. (mail):
I sure am, but only up to a point. No religious organization should be exempt from the laws of the land. If you can't discriminate based on race, then you can't claim your church is racist and is exempt from racial discrimination laws.

So no, no church should be exempt from employment discrimination laws. If they hire someone and then they find out the person is gay, they shouldn't be able to fire that person just because he or she is gay. They can find some other reason, however, like they aren't doing their job properly. I certainly wouldn't force any church do conduct any ceremony they don't want to, any more than I would force the catholic church to marry divorced people.

As for Mormons, no, I don't shun them. It would be hard, as my uncle and cousins are all mormons, and I have a great many friends who are. However, their contributions to Prop 8 should be acknowledged and made public, as the law allows. Nothing wrong with that, is there? You certainy wouldn't ask that there be an exception made for Mormons, would you?
6.3.2009 8:39pm
runescape gold (mail) (www):
Do you want to play WoW game?Welcome to our website for lotro gold
and Lotro powerleveling
service.You can come and have a look!
6.3.2009 8:56pm
runescape gold (mail) (www):
Do you want to play WoW game?Welcome to our website for lotro gold
and Lotro powerleveling
service.You can come and have a look!
6.3.2009 8:57pm
Volokh Groupie:
runescape gold, how dare you tar a perfectly good post with such uncivil comments!
6.3.2009 9:13pm
DangerMouse:
If they hire someone and then they find out the person is gay, they shouldn't be able to fire that person just because he or she is gay.

What about this?

Are you going to destroy Catholic seminaries that will not admit homosexuals to the priesthood? Will you attack the Church for removing a priest who is openly homosexual and boasts of homosexual acts? How threatening are you going to be?

As for Prop 8, I thought the entire point of the public websites devoted to listing all Prop 8 supporters was that so they could be humiliated/shunned.
6.3.2009 9:15pm
Careless:

Not to mention how straights act during Mardi Gras, or any football game!


What do you think happens at football games? I'm genuinely puzzled.
6.3.2009 9:38pm
U.Va. Grad:
What do you think happens at football games? I'm genuinely puzzled.

How about drunken sex in bathroom stalls?

A couple of University of Iowa fans took a break from Saturday's game at the Metrodome against the University of Minnesota to have some illicit sex in a Dome restroom, police said.

The duo — a 38-year-old woman and a 26-year-old man from Carroll and Linden, Iowa, respectively — turned a handicapped toilet stall into their love nest about 8:30 p.m., late in the Hawkeyes' 55-0 trouncing of the Gophers.

A crowd of intoxicated fans gathered in the restroom to laugh and cheer the off-the-field action, until an Avalon Security guard tipped off University of Minnesota police to the ruckus.

Officers had to interrupt the intimate moment to cite the couple for indecent conduct, a misdemeanor.

University of Minnesota Police Chief Greg Hestness said similar citations at the Metrodome or on campus usually involve public urination.

He said it was the first time in his six years at the U that his force has interrupted a sex act during a Gophers game.

Hestness assumed the woman was embarrassed about being caught: She initially gave a false name to officers and had to be identified by her husband before she was released.

The man was attending the game with his girlfriend, according to police.

"It's a long ride back to Iowa," Hestness said.

6.3.2009 9:43pm
Ki Ho'alu Kid (mail):
Something I've never understood -- if marriage is a "sacrament," why is the state involved? Shouldn't the state have civil unions for any two otherwise marriageable adults, whether man-woman or same sex, who want to join their lives together and let them find a church that will perform the "sacrament" of marriage if that's what they want? Anwyay, I agree that the right way to effect these changes is through legislation, not by judicial fiat.
6.3.2009 10:04pm
Charles Henderson:
Gay "marriage". Same-sex "marriage". "Civil Union".

No matter what you call it, it isn't marriage.

No matter how many homosexuals stomp their feet, they can't change the fact that men and women have different private parts, thus they will always be relegated to a parallel institution.

Neither can Government can't change that.

Homosexuals can try to get the word "marriage" all they want, but the best they can do is add a qualifier to it. Marriage is the union of a man and a woman. Like it or not, it's the norm.

Parallel institutions will NEVER make homosexuals equal. In fact, it is IMPOSSIBLE for homosexuals to be the same as traditional couples, because traditional unions have a member of each sex, and they can do something homosexuals can never do, reproduce through their union.

If people are foolish enough to think that they will get away with forcing churches and people of faith to accept the parallel institution... They will have another thing coming.

You can bet on that.
6.3.2009 10:31pm
Charles Henderson:

Something I've never understood -- if marriage is a "sacrament," why is the state involved? Shouldn't the state have civil unions for any two otherwise marriageable adults, whether man-woman or same sex, who want to join their lives together and let them find a church that will perform the "sacrament" of marriage if that's what they want? Anwyay, I agree that the right way to effect these changes is through legislation, not by judicial fiat.



Why not go a step further? Why is the State involved AT ALL?
6.3.2009 10:32pm
Danny (mail):

The camel's nose is in the tent. Those exceptions and exemptions won't last long.


This makes me chuckle. Religious organizations have always been able to discriminate - not just against gays but against whoever. Catholic church organizations can teach that Protestants are the scum of the earth, and vice versa. Private schools choose the religious beliefs of their students and staff - a private school can fire someone if they convert a different religion than the one of the school. You think this will suddenly change for gays and lesbians

Also, how can we drill it into the thick skulls of anti-SSM people that these conflicts between religious organizations and gay couples exist whether there is legal SSM or not. They have to do with anti-discrimination laws in providing goods and services to people. They have nothing to do with civil marriage laws. If I tried to sue some church group because they won't perform my marriage (you know, because most gays have never heard that the Baptists and Catholics are homophobic, and we want our special day to be a political conflict) it makes no difference whether my state has legal SSM or not.

There are countries where discrimination according to nationality is legal: so you can refuse to provide services (for example catering weddings) to people based on their country of birth. However, those people are still legally allowed to marry each other.

Is that clearer?
6.3.2009 10:32pm
Randy R. (mail):
"Are you going to destroy Catholic seminaries that will not admit homosexuals to the priesthood? "

Um, apparently you haven't been paying attention. The catholic church has a long history of having gay priests. If gays haven't destroyed the church these past 2000 years, I don't think we ever will.

"Will you attack the Church for removing a priest who is openly homosexual and boasts of homosexual acts? How threatening are you going to be? "

No, I won't attack the church. If any priest violates his vows of chastity, gay or straight, they should be expelled. There is no reason to remove a gay but celebate priest, however. And if you want to know why, look up the history of Father Mychal Judge, officially designated the first victim of 9/11.

"As for Prop 8, I thought the entire point of the public websites devoted to listing all Prop 8 supporters was that so they could be humiliated/shunned."

No, the entire point of the transparency of political donations is that people can see who donated to what. I can look up who donated to any political campaign in the country. What I do with that information is up to me. I can write nasty notes to those people if I choose, but I have better things to do. Everyone knows that when you make a political donation, it is public information. Do you want to change that law? AFterall, you folks can also look up who donated against Prop. 8 and harass them, if that's what you really want to do.

But of course, it's very ironic that you should talk of humiliation of shunning. Isn't that exactly what you anti-gay people have done for decades to gays? Why was it okay for you to do it to us, but now suddenly it's not okay for us to do that to you?
6.3.2009 10:40pm
Danny (mail):

Homosexuals can try to get the word "marriage" all they want, but the best they can do is add a qualifier to it. Marriage is the union of a man and a woman. Like it or not, it's the norm.


Not in my religion. Not for the government in NH, IA, CA (for 32,000 people), NY (recognizes foreign SSM), DC, VT, CT, MA, Canada, Spain, Belgium, Netherlands, Sweden, Norway, South Africa, Israel (recognizes foreign SSM), and more to come. Lesbians and gays have equality there, and there is nothing you can do to take it away from them :)
6.3.2009 10:42pm
Randy R. (mail):
Charles: "Parallel institutions will NEVER make homosexuals equal. In fact, it is IMPOSSIBLE for homosexuals to be the same as traditional couples, because traditional unions have a member of each sex, and they can do something homosexuals can never do, reproduce through their union."

Then the answer is quite simple: Don't enter into a same sex marriage! Meanwhile, for those of us who do wish for it, accept the fact that, as you admit, it doesn't affect you in the slightest.
6.3.2009 10:42pm
Mark_in_NY:
I would hate for courts to ignore their duty to interpret and enforce the constitution just because some think "the right way" to do something is via the legislature. Can you imagine if they did that in other instances? Judicial activism run amok!
6.3.2009 10:48pm
Amiable Dorsai (mail):
"...they can do something homosexuals can never do, reproduce through their union."

Suppose that were no longer true. It shouldn't be that long, compared to the lifetime of the human race, before two persons of the same sex can contribute DNA and create a viable fetus. The resulting child will be theirs much as any heterosexual couples' child conceived with the aid of technology would be. Would you then concede that a same sex marriage was valid?
6.3.2009 11:00pm
Danny (mail):
How crazy is it that the anti-gay people are worried about gays shunning or attacking THEM, when we have always had THEIR views forced on US. My whole childhood and teen years they tried to impose their obligatory heterosexual lifestyle on me. We have always had to fight our way out of the closet and struggle to overcome the lies and bigotry they force-fed us, to try to frighten us into silence or suicide, or to make us ashamed of ourselves. We had to fight just for the right to be non-heterosexual.

I was the only gay person who finished high school in my class, that I know of. All of the others dropped out because they were afraid to go to school.

And those same bullies would probably have cried foul if one of their victims had tried to resist
6.4.2009 12:00am
Frater Plotter:
As gays are more mainstreamed, they will most likely settle down into conformist mediocrity like the rest of us.
Indeed, I've heard queer radicals complain about this very phenomenon. They're irritated that most gay couples just want to settle down and raise families. The radicals consider same-sex marriage to be a bourgeois, repressive monogamy -- gays settling for an imitation of heterosexual relationships instead of insisting on a transformative (that means "wild and crazy, far-out, and therefore freeing") sexuality.
6.4.2009 12:24am
Randy R. (mail):
""...they can do something homosexuals can never do, reproduce through their union."


We noticed how you carefully parsed this sentence. Gay people can certainly reproduce, and many gay couples have a child that came from one of the parents. And there are gay couples that have adopted children. But I guess those children aren't 'real' children, right? They don't count? Stupid kids -- they picked the wrong parents!

So only biological children of straight parents should have the benefits of married parents. The children of gay parents, eh, not so much. Why? Well, because Charles just doesn't like it.
6.4.2009 12:37am
Danny (mail):

I'd imagine a lot of the "flamboyance" of gays is in backlash to social repression. As gays are more mainstreamed, they will most likely settle down into conformist mediocrity like the rest of us.


I think that is definately true. As an émigré I see gay people from many countries. One Moroccan gay told me "in Morocco you can be a flamboyant gay, people view you as funny and harmless. But you can't be a professional, a doctor or a lawyer and come out as gay because it's not respectable". Homophobic societies are more comfortable with "flamboyant" gays who confirm their stereotypes and who are easy to identify and keep at a distance from straights. They are actually less tolerant of "normal" looking masculine gays who can blend in effortlessly with straight men because it suggests that anyone could be gay (which is true). The "flamboyant" gays have carved out this social niche (and perhaps it is a survival strategy as well)

Another part of the story is, someone who has an exhibitionist or flamboyant personality is more likely to come out as something shocking or unconventional - for example gay in a homophobic society, meanwhile gays who have more bourgeois or traditionalist values are more likely to hide themselves, allowing the "queens" to monopolize the public debate. So as society becomes more accepting, it's not only that gays have change from one to the other but also a wider range of gay people will become visible.
6.4.2009 12:48am
John D (mail):
Ironically, I agree with Charles:
Parallel institutions will NEVER make homosexuals equal.


That's why I'm against civil unions. We need the same institution as our heterosexual friends and family members: marriage.

But let me take this moment to mourn the passing of marriage.

I've been reading the Prop 8 case and I've come to the conclusion that California must:

1) Treat same-sex and opposite-sex couples equally; and
2) They can't call it marriage.

That would mean the end of marriage in California. Expect the howls when the newly domestic partnered heterosexual couples find that they can obtain no federal benefits.
6.4.2009 12:49am
cmr:
I wont be surprised if Lynch isn't re-elected, and ditto for many of the other Congressmen...most of whom I'm sure probably didn't mention they're pro-SSM. These religious exemptions were at the behest of Lynch in order to sop to social conservatives.
6.4.2009 12:53am
Randy R. (mail):
The long history is that politicians who vote in favor of gay rights of any sort, up to and including marriage, almost never get voted out of office. This was true in the 80s as much as it is today. Bottomline: Perpetuating discrimination against gays simply isn't the priority for most people at the polls. Source: The Victory Fund.

So, I think you will indeed be surprised, cmr.
6.4.2009 1:21am
einhverfr (mail) (www):
Randy R Wrote:

I guess they just assume that everyone is as base as they are.


Pretty much. That's the way empathy works. We put ourselves in other folks shoes and expect them to act the way we would....
6.4.2009 1:50am
allen (mail) (www):
i think it is a right action and every one has their freedom of marriage.
By the way , i own a store and pls allow me to make some links here , thanks very much.
air max shoes,nike dunk sb,basketball shoes,nike air shoes
6.4.2009 8:00am
O. Hutchins (mail):

The camel's nose is in the tent. Those exceptions and exemptions won't last long.


Probably not. Such restrictions are redundent anyway; no one will ever successfully sue a church to force them to perform a marriage, be they straight, gay, or whatever. And we have already seen that private religious schools can and have expelled students when the school discovered the parent was gay (nice touch, punishing the child for it, though). So, such excemptions are nothing more than meaningless "feel good" words.

ps- someone needs to work on the spammers
6.4.2009 8:33am
cmr:
The long history is that politicians who vote in favor of gay rights of any sort, up to and including marriage, almost never get voted out of office. This was true in the 80s as much as it is today. Bottomline: Perpetuating discrimination against gays simply isn't the priority for most people at the polls. Source: The Victory Fund.


Probably because these politicians are usually in the majority party in liberal-leaning states anyway. And considering this isn't a gay right -- and is, at least for the governor, going back on a campaign promise -- I wouldn't be surprised if he wasn't re-elected.
6.4.2009 9:09am
Joseph Slater (mail):
cmr:

If someone had told you a couple of years ago that by mid-2009, six states would have legalized gay marriage, most through legislative enactments, would that have surprised you?
6.4.2009 9:45am
Lymis (mail):
cmr,

Marriage most certainly is a gay right, because, by US Supreme Court ruling, it is a fundamental right of all citizens.

The fact that the country is only slowly catching on doesn't change that, any more than the fact that the Constitution originally counted slaves as partial persons didn't change the fact that they were fundamentally human deserving all the rights everyone else gets.
6.4.2009 9:47am
Lymis (mail):
At this point, the polls are showing that when provisions to guarantee that churches don't have to marry people they disapprove of get added, support for marriage equality jumps dramatically.

Redundant or not, it would be foolish not to add them to all future marriage equality bills - as long as they include only that kind of redundant reassurance.

I suspect we will gradually see some states trying to include clearly unacceptable language, such as stating that anyone who disagrees with same-sex marriage is free to disregard it, but that won't hold up.
6.4.2009 9:53am
krs:
I think J. Aldridge is expecting life to imitate the Onion.
6.4.2009 10:28am
Careless:

How about drunken sex in bathroom stalls?

Yeah... that doesn't count for a match on the extremes or as a regular occurrence. I'm guessing it's not what Randy had in mind.
6.4.2009 10:35am
http://volokh.com/?exclude=davidb :

And we have already seen that private religious schools can and have expelled students when the school discovered the parent was gay (nice touch, punishing the child for it, though).

Not an extreme position for someone who believes in original sin. Let's face it, if you'll blame a newborn baby for the dalliances of Adam and Eve, expelling a kid for having a gay parent seems pretty tame.
6.4.2009 10:45am
Randy R. (mail):
"I'm guessing it's not what Randy had in mind."

I recall an incident in Toronto in which a straight couple was having sex on a table in one of the boxes. The video camera caught them and broadcast it on the large monitors for the entire stadium to see. The couple was completely unaware of the fact that the entire stadium was cheering them on to climax.

I'm sure, though, that all the straight parents thought it was just good clean fun for their kids to see.

What was that about Janet Jackson's wardrobe malfunction at halftime?
6.4.2009 11:02am
Kevin Kimble (mail):
Personally I am agianst the whole Idea of gay marriage. I think that america was founded on the Ideas of the bible and that every state should focus more on what this country is made of. The only thing that would make this right in my mind is that america is supposedly the land of the free. This is why I was happy to hear that churches and other religous groups were exempt from having to conduct these ceremonies. This would be against the beliefs of any church that follow the bible and therefore I don't see how the church itself will be able to say that they believe in what the bible says.
6.4.2009 11:09am
SC:
Will legalized gay marriage threaten liberty?

America is a nation of rich multi-ethnic, multi-cultural diversity. I love our country for this diversity. But maintaining civility within diversity requires citizens who respect those who differ from them. Requiring such goodwill is good for the nation. People who (within the law) choose different beliefs, morals and lifestyles, must be asked to live in harmony with one another. And we have made great strides in promoting respect--particularly through civil rights on race and gender, and through special laws protecting the disabled. We should not be disrespectful of anyone for matters related to their nature or how they were born. These cannot be chosen or changed.

What greatly concerns me is the inclusion of sexual preference into the category of civil rights and as imposed diversity training curriculum. This is dangerous to liberty. Civil-rights battles should be restricted to matters of nature, not lifestyle. The referendums on the ballots in several states have confirmed that most Americans do not want the sexual lifestyles of others forced on them or normalized for everyone.

www.thinkpoint.wordpress.com
6.4.2009 11:17am
einhverfr (mail) (www):

I think that america was founded on the Ideas of the bible and that every state should focus more on what this country is made of.


And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why we have a giant statue dedicated to a Roman pagan goddess in New York Harbor, why the Roman pagan goddess who was the patron of the forum stands atop the Capitol, which is named after a pagan Roman temple, and why our national patron god is George Washington as per his apotheosis ;-)

"color est e pluribus unus" (attributed to Virgil)
6.4.2009 11:42am
einhverfr (mail) (www):
SC:

What greatly concerns me is the inclusion of sexual preference into the category of civil rights and as imposed diversity training curriculum. This is dangerous to liberty. Civil-rights battles should be restricted to matters of nature, not lifestyle. The referendums on the ballots in several states have confirmed that most Americans do not want the sexual lifestyles of others forced on them or normalized for everyone.


Is this a civil rights issue or a civil liberties issue? Or is there even a difference?

BTW, I agree that ever-expanding hate-crime legislation is dangerous to liberty, but it is not clear to me how interpreting the Constitutions (state and federal) to guarantee liberty for all rather than define and protect some folks senses of morality threatens liberty.
6.4.2009 11:44am
ChrisIowa (mail):

How about drunken sex in bathroom stalls?

Yeah... that doesn't count for a match on the extremes or as a regular occurrence. I'm guessing it's not what Randy had in mind.

When the University of Iowa is playing the University of Minnesota in a football game, it's easy to see how you could become desperate for entertainment.
6.4.2009 11:46am
MikeS (mail):

that men and women have different private parts, thus [same-sex couples] will always be relegated to a parallel institution.


For male couples, this makes a certain geometrical sense.
6.4.2009 12:02pm
Joseph Slater (mail):
And MikeS wins the thread.
6.4.2009 12:03pm
Danny (mail):

But maintaining civility within diversity requires citizens who respect those who differ from them.


Who in America has been imprisoned, beaten, driven to suicide, murdered with near impunity, thrown out to live on street by their families, fired from their jobs, denied fundamental civil rights throughout recent history? The gays or the Christians?


most Americans do not want the sexual lifestyles of others forced on them or normalized for everyone


You mean like heteros making life miserable for gays simply because they are different? In which case I agree
6.4.2009 12:10pm
Careless:



I recall an incident in Toronto in which a straight couple was having sex on a table in one of the boxes. The video camera caught them and broadcast it on the large monitors for the entire stadium to see. The couple was completely unaware of the fact that the entire stadium was cheering them on to climax.

I'm sure, though, that all the straight parents thought it was just good clean fun for their kids to see.

Not during a football game. And one Superbowl out of thousands of football games does not make "any football game"
6.4.2009 12:25pm
Careless:
But apparently the hotel rooms in the stadium in Toronto have a history of people being caught having sex during games with the curtains open.
6.4.2009 12:26pm
LarryA (mail) (www):
...they can do something homosexuals can never do, reproduce through their union.
1. There are a lot of hetero couples who can’t reproduce, either medically or because of age. Should we prohibit marriage where the woman is past the age of menopause or has had a hysterectomy, or the man is sterile, or they just don't want kids?
2. There are lots of children who desperately need adopting. Why do I think that solution will give you the vapours?

BTW, where do gays come from? Are you saying God screwed up?
I think that america was founded on the Ideas of the bible and that every state should focus more on what this country is made of.
Most Important Bible Idea: Love God. Second Most Important Bible Idea: Love your neighbor as you love yourself. What part of that endorses gay-bashing?
6.4.2009 12:41pm
Cornellian (mail):
It's called the Skydome. The Toronto Blue Jays play there.
6.4.2009 12:43pm
Danny (mail):
Forget football games. I often see worse hetero behavior. One of the bus stops I wait at sometimes is in front of a large park. If you wait there at night occasionally female immigrant prostitutes will emerge and rasp "mouth vagina as.s 30 euros" while half-hidden behind the trees.

But my reaction is not "oh no, those heterosexuals are at it again". I assume that most of my straight women colleagues and friends don't go out and do this in their free time. The hetero world is large enough to contain street prostitutes and the Queen of England, just like the gay world is large enough to contain the equivalent range of behavior
6.4.2009 12:53pm
Randy R. (mail):
SC: "The referendums on the ballots in several states have confirmed that most Americans do not want the sexual lifestyles of others forced on them or normalized for everyone. "

The referendums, if you bothered to actually read them, say nothing of the sort. All of them merely stated that marriage would be between a man and a woman, and said nothing at all about homosexuality. There was no vote anywhere at any time about our 'lifestyle" (which mainly for me consists of going to work, feeding the cat, attending concerts, serving on nonprofits and visiting family and friends. I know, very subversive stuff).

About 70% of Americans believe in repealing DADT in the military, so most people really dont' have a problem with us gays. About two thirds support either civil unions or SSM, and that number is rising all the time. Four years ago, CA voted against SSM and it passed by a wide margin Prop 8 passed by only a few point -- in other words, support for SSM jumped about 18 points in just a few years.

People realize that there is nothing to fear from gays and that we are in fact perfectly normal. It is the bigots who demonize us who are not. I'm sure that doesn't include you.
6.4.2009 1:15pm
Careless:

It's called the Skydome. The Toronto Blue Jays play there.

not anymore

But my reaction is not "oh no, those heterosexuals are at it again"

My response was not to... defend the honor of heterosexuals, but purely out of bemusement at Randy's singling out of "any football game" as if there was sort of perverse hedonism endemic to them.
6.4.2009 1:34pm
George78:

That's why I'm against civil unions. We need the same institution as our heterosexual friends and family members: marriage.


But you can't ever have the same institution. It's always going to be inherently different as one union has partners who are the same-sex and the other has partners who are the opposite sex.

You can't ever have marriage, because a real marriage requires a man and a woman.

Nothing you do can change that fact. The BEST you can do is set up a "marriage" with a qualifier.

Qualifier = counterfeit.
6.4.2009 2:36pm
Danny (mail):

But you can't ever have the same institution. It's always going to be inherently different as one union has partners who are the same-sex and the other has partners who are the opposite sex.
You can't ever have marriage, because a real marriage requires a man and a woman.
Nothing you do can change that fact. The BEST you can do is set up a "marriage" with a qualifier.


You can add the qualifier if you want, but that does not make it true. We DO have the same institution in those states. Institutions are established by the government. The marriage certificates are the same. If the government doesn't add the qualifier then there is no qualifier, so what you are saying is not objectively true.

I can say the same thing about you and your citizenship. I can say that people of your beliefs can't EVER have US citizenship, a real US citizen is someone with my beliefs. Nothing you can do can change that. The BEST you can do is call yourself a "citizen" with a qualifier.

But if the government issues you the same passport, then it is a legal fact that your citizenship is not qualified, even if I choose to qualify it.
6.4.2009 3:01pm
Hans Bader:
Good. Now gay people in New Hampshire won't be forced to go across the border to Massachusetts, which has unusually nasty family and divorce laws (hostility to prenups, bars on waivers of alimony even for people who don't need it and are in second marriage, insanely high child support) to get married.

It would have been nice, though, if the religious-liberty protections in the bill had been broader than they are.
6.4.2009 3:23pm
Bob VB (mail):
As for Prop 8, I thought the entire point of the public websites devoted to listing all Prop 8 supporters was that so they could be humiliated/shunned.
Have you missed the site that shows those who worked against Prop 8? (found my entries playing with 'bing.com'. What exactly is the complaint here? We are in the information age - the idea that people are going to be able to keep their public opinion on just about anything secret anymore is wishful thinking.

if marriage is a "sacrament," why is the state involved?
because its not - or at least not necessarily. Most marriages prior to the 16th century in western culture were by individual consent and decree, 'common-law' without need of religion or civil validation, all the way back to pre-Rome. The Catholics tried to exclusively hijack in then but it is still a secular decision.
6.4.2009 3:26pm
Randy R. (mail):
Danny:"You can't ever have marriage, because a real marriage requires a man and a woman.
Nothing you do can change that fact. "

Good. Then since I can never have real marriage, there is no point in your opposing my 'counterfeit marriage" Right? So let us be in our little fantasy land of SSM, while you know all along it's just a fantasy, while we get all the legal rights of marriage. This way, we are both very happy. Problem solved!
6.4.2009 5:29pm
Michael Ejercito (mail) (www):

Expect the howls when the newly domestic partnered heterosexual couples find that they can obtain no federal benefits.

Federal benefits are unavailable to same-sex couples, "married" or not.
6.4.2009 9:38pm
Ken Arromdee:
What exactly is the complaint here? We are in the information age - the idea that people are going to be able to keep their public opinion on just about anything secret anymore is wishful thinking.

By this reasoning, a web site that prominently outs gays would be acceptable. Heck, a website that publishes lists of Muslims, or lists of Communists, or lists of people who go around practicing bondage, would be acceptable.
6.5.2009 1:17am
George78:

You can add the qualifier if you want, but that does not make it true. We DO have the same institution in those states. Institutions are established by the government. The marriage certificates are the same. If the government doesn't add the qualifier then there is no qualifier, so what you are saying is not objectively true.

I can say the same thing about you and your citizenship. I can say that people of your beliefs can't EVER have US citizenship, a real US citizen is someone with my beliefs. Nothing you can do can change that. The BEST you can do is call yourself a "citizen" with a qualifier.

But if the government issues you the same passport, then it is a legal fact that your citizenship is not qualified, even if I choose to qualify it.


Wrong. The qualifier exists because an actual distinction exists. Two members of the same-sex vs two members of the opposite sex. In fact, you people put the qualifier on there. "Same-sex marriage" or "Gay marriage" vs "Marriage." As much as you might hate it, government can't magically turn men into women or women into men.

Your analogy couldn't be more off base as citizenship doesn't depend upon the distinction of sex. A marriage does. The government can try to pretend that it doesn't, but government doesn't have the power to turn a male into a female.

Your response is pretty indicative of the homosexualist agenda though. This whole fight is about trying to make people like me accept the relationships of people like you.

You think that if you can get the government to play along with you, you can then enlist government force on your behalf.

I have news for you, it will be a cold day in Hades...
6.5.2009 1:54pm

Post as: [Register] [Log In]

Account:
Password:
Remember info?

If you have a comment about spelling, typos, or format errors, please e-mail the poster directly rather than posting a comment.

Comment Policy: We reserve the right to edit or delete comments, and in extreme cases to ban commenters, at our discretion. Comments must be relevant and civil (and, especially, free of name-calling). We think of comment threads like dinner parties at our homes. If you make the party unpleasant for us or for others, we'd rather you went elsewhere. We're happy to see a wide range of viewpoints, but we want all of them to be expressed as politely as possible.

We realize that such a comment policy can never be evenly enforced, because we can't possibly monitor every comment equally well. Hundreds of comments are posted every day here, and we don't read them all. Those we read, we read with different degrees of attention, and in different moods. We try to be fair, but we make no promises.

And remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.