Wednesday, November 4, 2009

Justin: No Gay Marriage for Us! (In Maine, at least)


Oh hey, lookit that. Remember when we were so so so excited that we could go and get gay married in Maine?

Well, looks like we can't any more. As announced this morning at 1:30 am on Politico:
Maine voters on Tuesday repealed a state law granting same-sex couples the right to marry, defeating an effort by gay activists who hoped the state would become the first to approve gay marriage at the polls.

Nearly 53 percent of voters opted to throw out a same-sex marriage law passed by the state legislature in May, while 47 percent voted to uphold it, with 87 percent of precincts reporting early Wednesday morning.

Can't help but say I imagine this is very annoying/ upsetting to a lot of you. We marched on Washington for gay marriage equality. We've airbrushed ourselves into activism on the No H8 photo campaign. We put equality as our middle names on Facebook.

And yet, somehow, we still lost the right to marry in Maine.

What do you think? Temporary setback? Permanent foreshadowing?

Weigh in.

xoJR
Reactions: 
at 9:25 AM Written with love by
Labels: , ,

22 comments:

  1. Society is held down, denied thought, by means of increasing the role of government. Evidently, in the beginning, municipalities wrote marriage certificates for health reasons, to prevent incest and the spread of disease. It was the way the government kept tabs on couples. Homosexuals present a problem, they have to be assimilated into a system, but it can’t be done in such an outward way. So, a seed is planted, one that posits that marriage is a right, when in fact it is an inhibitor of liberty.

    Outwardly, gay couples can marry anywhere in the contiguous fifty states, elsewhere, such an act would result in grave consequences. Homosexuals want heterosexual marriage, the problem is— they aren’t heterosexual.

    Civil Rights for minorities— began on a train with Plessy v. Ferguson; a man’s worth was tied to the color of his skin. Do not confuse homosexuals with groups that have been marginalized, as homosexuals have every right within the law. There is a philosophical and legal paradox to legalizing gay marriage. Proponents take the position that the illegality is a manifestation of hate and discrimination, while framing the opposition as religious Neanderthals. Marriage is not a right. The government should have no role in matrimony. Unfortunately, as explained in my previous comment, health concerns were a factor in controlling the actions of society. Heterosexual couples have lost autonomy because of it.

    So, we find ourselves at the cusp of a revolution of sorts, as homosexuals claim to be denied a right. The courts affirmed the error of separate but equal, yet many support the Mathew Shepard hate-crime bill (a complete and utter pronouncement that homosexuals are separate but equal).Now, I don’t wish to explain the evolutionary complexities that refute the idea that homosexuality is as natural as being born white or black, given that it would send us on a tangent of the unforgiving. However, this is not a struggle of liberty, in view of the fact that there is no reasoning behind allowing gays to marry under the aegis of the federal government. There is no fruit at the end of the gay rainbow.
    ReplyDelete
  2. Hey there Al,

    I've noticed you've become increasingly active in the comment sections of Justin Plus One.

    I also love your views - despite how they are sometimes a bit negative and off-putting.

    Why not come out of the comments section and take a turn on the soapbox?

    I invite you to be a Plus One. What do you think?

    xoJR
    ReplyDelete
  3. Don't forget about us in Washington State! It's looking like we just passed the "everything but marriage" law, though be it by a slim margin. It's not "marriage," but it will be the first time voters approved a referendum that gives gay couples the same rights as hetero couples.
    ReplyDelete
  4. Good point, Joe. I think this is an approach that could work in most states. Get the rights on the book without the brand name of "marriage" and let it be called "marriage" when we can get it on the federal level.

    Because it's becoming obvious that the "marriage" state-by-state thing is not working for us.
    ReplyDelete
  5. Dear Al,

    As cute as your try at a logical argument against gay marriage is, you've got a couple of things hugely, fundamentally misunderstood.

    The right we claim, although often referred to as marriage, more fundamentally refers to equal protection under the law, which IS a legally and philosophically recognized right. This pretty much invalidates most of your argument, which seems oddly centered around a peripheral topic (marriage) and not a fundamental one (equal protection) for someone who speaks so intelligently. You're right that we in theory have every right, but that right is not being recognized with respect to marriage. And as far as hate crimes are concerned, there are arguments to refute your implication, but generally I agree with you, and don't really believe in protected classes. Anyway, brining up hate crimes was a straw man, and you know it.

    Now, I don't wish to get into the complexities of the many studies that say so, but homosexuality is no choice. Whether we were born this way, or whether it was some sort of developmental occurrence (most studies suggest sexual orientation is set by at most age 4) is irrelevant to this discussion of equal protection, because there is no conscious choice involved. The government recognizes the needs and benefits of a committed couple, and the fact that they arbitrarily choose some couples (read: homosexuals) not to enjoy the benefits it affords (heterosexual) couples is quite clearly unequal treatment. Yes, it is arbitrary, much like the laws against bi-racial marriage were. (It is at this point that I warn you not to make the procreation argument, because you know where that ends.)

    Counter-points welcome.
    ReplyDelete
  6. If Title VII of the civil rights act is to be extended to include homosexuals, I would put it to the ultimate test, i.e. the Supreme Court. My previous post argued that the federal government should have no role in the marriage process, for the very reason that it affords exceptional privileges.

    The enforcement of contracts is important in a free republic; marriage is a contract, as long as it is predicated on some semblance of rationality. I cannot create a contract that conflicts with existing laws.

    We don’t create contracts for the right to free speech, assembly, religion or press. These rights are afforded to us by our constitution. The founding fathers were clear when they established this constitutional republic, they sought to limit the power of government and enhance liberty. Go get married, don’t ask anyone for permission, Christ, have you heard of palimony? Marvin Mitchelson is to thank for that gem. Furthermore, there is no provision in The Constitution concerning marriage (a direct quote B. Obama).

    Before I responded to your comment, I was lucky enough to watch a log cabin republican who argued that blacks did not put their civil rights to a vote, he is absolutely correct. However, the NACCP did not engage state legislators in an argument of equality; the fight was taken to the Supreme Court.

    P.S. Justin, I’d be willing to write an article for your blog.
    ReplyDelete
  7. Al,

    It would be a full week of blogging, 2 posts a day. If you're up for the gauntlet IM me at JustinRFZB. Need a way to contact you!
    ReplyDelete
  8. You aren’t online. My messenger handle is AlbertArnoldGore.
    ReplyDelete
  9. Title VII applies to every US citizen. And about taking it to the Supreme Court:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/19/us/19olson.html

    If you're going to argue against federal involvement in marriage, that's great, but that's not what this debate is about, and it is certainly no justification for inequality.
    ReplyDelete
  10. Title VII does not include sexual orientation. Part of my argument has to do with the lunacy of asking the government permission to marry. Yes, it applies to the debate over gay marriage. I defined what a right is, being stubborn doesn’t change anything.

    The Supreme Court is remedial, if the case can be resolved via the laws of the land, everything should be ok.
    ReplyDelete
  11. TItle VII is not specific about anything other than equal protection.

    "No state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
    ReplyDelete
  12. Also, there is no debate about gay marriage, only a debate about gay equality, with marriage as the vessel. It's not asking the government permission as it is asking the government to recognize something that's already there.
    ReplyDelete
  13. Karl Popper was astute when he affirmed: “No rational argument will have a rational effect on a man who does not want to adopt a rational attitude.” This is your downfall.

    Title VII prohibits discrimination against an individual because of his or her association with another individual of a particular race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. (Source: www.eeoc.gov/policy/vii.html)
    ReplyDelete
  14. Apologies, I confused that with the more important equal protection clause.

    "No state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

    Next?
    ReplyDelete
  15. This comment has been removed by the author.
    ReplyDelete
  16. Also, saying I don't want to be rational doesn't really do anything other than show you don't actually have a solid argument against gay equality.
    ReplyDelete
  17. You are obsessed with qualitative statements, while asserting awkward ideas. Look at my previous posts; you barely addressed anything I wrote, other than claiming that I am abstract. The equal protection clause has to do with rights being denied, as defined in the constitution. Moreover, a violation of the Equal Protection Clause has to follow strict scrutiny. Being dense isn’t helping this exchange.

    Are you kidding with this garbage?
    ReplyDelete
  18. Qualitative statements vs what exactly? If I didn't address it it's because I didn't think it was important to the debate, and I despise distraction.

    The EPC has to do with exactly what it says it does, protection (that is, enforcement) of the laws. I missed your argument about how it doesn't apply to gay people.

    No, I'm not kidding.
    ReplyDelete
  19. I mean, if my argument were such garbage, why would multiple state supreme courts use it?
    ReplyDelete
  20. This is an exercise in writing to a wall. The Equal Protection Clause must follow strict scrutiny, you have no argument. Just like Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, strict scrutiny does not include sexual orientation.

    The courts have used it in cases of REAL discrimination. Gosh, you are frustratingly dim-witted.
    ReplyDelete
  21. Insulting me gets you nowhere.

    Iowa. California. Massachusetts. Look up the opinions. Sure, they're referencing EPC's in state constitutions, but I await an argument that suggests it doesn't apply to the federal EPC.

    Also, to be clear, you don't think giving marriage licenses to straight couples and not giving them to gay couples isn't discrimination? I just want to make sure before I launch into how it so obviously us.
    ReplyDelete
  22. You first claimed the use of Title VII, then the Equal Protection Clause, followed by something you refer to as state equal protection clauses. This is splitting my sides, really, you are a joke.

    If there is an equal protection clause in the Iowa state constitution, I will buy you a new car.

    A state can grant marriage licenses under the law.
    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

LinkWithin

Blog Widget by LinkWithin