Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
rainwaam
Published Letters: 12 Editor's Choice: 3
First, I don't know if this is serious, but I really like it. Has there ever been a call via the internet to no one and everyone at the same time to protest? If so, I never heard about it. So, if there are any bloggers out there and they are as attracted to this idea as I am, link to this article!
To those that think this is 'a battle for the legislature,' consider Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967). In that case, the Supreme Court ruled that laws banning interracial couples from marrying was unconstitutional. 1967, people! We're not talking about the beginning of the civil rights movement, we're talking about the end, when equality for African-Americans was supposedly accomplished. Did you know that the FIRST time that a majority of Americans approved of interracial marriage was in 1991? Issues of equality under the law should not be an issue for "the people" to decide as a majority. These issues have a firm right and wrong answer; unlike some other policy questions such as tax reform. They are questions of human dignity.
The debate about whether same-sex couples or opposite-sex couples are more suited to be married is irrelevant. As this article noted, marriage licenses are not a limited resource, there is no demonstrated harm to opposite-sex couples by allowing same-sex couples to marry. Thus, no rational basis can be demonstrated for denying same-sex couples.
Regarding whether children SHOULD have same-sex parents, the debate is also irrelevant. Children DO have same-sex parents, and by denying their parents protection under the law, the NYSC has harmed the exact children it purports to protect. I thoroughly enjoyed this article. Here's hoping we don't get the same result in Washington State (my home) in the coming months as its Supreme Court is expected to give a decision very soon.
Responding to:
"It goes back to the test used to decide the case. The judge is saying that, using the example above, the legislature could rationally deny homosexuals the right to marry, and therefore the Domestic Relations Law is constitutional. (Remember, the plaintiffs, in the judge's eyes, failed to prove that the argument was irrational.) That is the heart of the ruling, and a little less broad than Miles makes it out to be."
The United States Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that marriage is a fundamental right. See Skinner v. State of Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535 (1942). See also Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967). As such, a statute that denies a person a fundamental right must undergo Strict Scrutiny. Strict scrutiny means that a law must(1) be justified by a compelling governmental interest, and (2) be narrowly tailored to the achievement of the stated purpose. See Richmond v. J. A. Croson Co., 488 U.S. 469 (1989). I doubt you will find many judges that thinks that banning same-sex marriage satisfies strict scrutiny, which is why all State Supreme Courts that have upheld gay marriage bans have considered the statutes using the rational basis test, which is in error.
If Romney was a member of the KKK, would Salon be saying "Romney should be judged by his stance on the issues, not whatever personal and private organizations or religions he believes in"? Though the analogy may be extreme, it has relevance. A person's religion is not some sort of inalienable trait, like race, gender, or sexual identity. It is a belief. Romney may have been born into Mormonism, but he continues to believe in the religion, and has thus chosen it for himself. The tenets of that religion are ABSOLUTELY fair game when a person says they believe in them. If Romney believes in Mormonism, and if Mormonism believes in X, does Romney believe in X? This is a fair question. I think that many religions have a great deal of ugly history and discrimination behind them, and Mormonism is no different. However, Mormonism IS unique because its history is so recent, and some of its uglier practices occurred while Romney was a practicing Mormon.
Here are some questions that the issue of Mormonism raises:
1. The Mormon bible says that Black people are Black because they are decedents of Cain. Mormons refused to admit Blacks into the church until 1978. Mitt Romney was a Mormon at this time. Why did he not renounce this racism?
2. Mormons believe that only men can become gods in their own heaven and that women cannot get into heaven without the men calling their secret name. Sure, its kooky, but more importantly its sexist. Does Romney believe in this sexist view of the world and god?
3. Mormons have a history of polygamy, and some sects still practice it in Hildale, Utah, and Colorado City, Arizona, where numerous criminal cases have been filed for child rape, where church elders force children to marry much older men. What has Romney done to fight this practice?
Maybe you should preface this with the full disclosure that you're a Clinton supporter?
I'm not an art history person. I know next to nothing about art. But I do vaguely recall a time period when the "best" art was considered art that looked the most "real." Then movements shifted and other kinds of art was great. Whatever. What I'm trying to say is, just because Daniel Plainview is not a realistic person that could have truly existed, and just because we notice Daniel Day-Lewis was indeed creating a character and acting, doesn't mean it is not great.
On a separate but related note: some parts of the movie and Plainview's actions and expressions were perplexing and puzzling, and perhaps even arbitrary. I don't care. I loved this fucking movie! I want to be perplexed and read into those expressions and try to figure them out, even if they "mean" nothing. I will find fucking meaning. I will enjoy the damn movie how I please.
Maybe she's irked some people. But it's her sarcasm, wit, and unapologetic "authenticity" (does such a thing exist?) that made me vote Obama over Hillary in the first place.
be more of a shill for hillary, joan.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
