Letters to the Editor
-
Thank you Condi
If ANY Republican tries to turn this into a last-ditch get out the vote issue...well the Democratics should immediately counter with an ad feature that clip of Dr. Condi referring to Mark Dybul's "mother-in-law."
-
Clarification -- Massachusetts law.
I offer one small clarification to Glenn Greenwald's article about the New Jersey gay marriage decision. He stated with respect to the state of the law in Massachusetts that "In 2004, Massachusetts became the first state to recognize gay marriages, but a long-standing Massachusetts law prevents out-of-state gay couples from marrying there."
The statute in question may be long-standing, but it was long unenforced until the state government, at the direction of Governor Mitt Romney (who, perhaps concidentally, has been courting social conservatives in his bid for the Republican presidential nomination) began refusing licenses to out-of-state couples some time after the court decision (and after some out-of-state couples had already been married).
The application of the law has been challenged in court, and the state's highest court has ruled that it applies only when the resident state's law explicitly prohibits same-sex marriage. Last month a Massachusetts trial court ruled that a Rhode Island couple may marry, because the state has no explicit prohibition. Plaintiffs from New York, Connecticut and several other states have been denied.
-
natural recoil from homosexual unions ?
greg writes astutely of an aspect of the 'gay marriage' debate that is little acknowledged. boys (perhaps more than girls) do 'it' almost universally while mostly entering into adult hetero lives.
he speaks of the primitive fear of homosexuality that prevails in the abstract. this is reminiscent of the dialogue in Spike Lee's "Do the Right Thing" where the Turturro character says he loves Stevie Wonder but hates Blacks. He claims they are different.
greg's rural community reflects primitive psychological elements that are not exclusively ideological. these folks tend to seek structure & certainty to ease the relentless strain of human existence. religion and cultural isolationism are often safe by virtue of their rigidity, especially when analytic capacities are undeveloped. it is difficult to convince these people through rational argument. the supreme court must take a stand.
since there are few statutes left criminalizing sexual activity between consenting adults, there is no basis to criminalize or marginalize formal homosexual unions. the cultural ramifications of this change are unknowable, but it cannot be expected to recruit homosexuals from the ranks of heterosexuality since desire is not a fad. statistics on inter-racial marriage following desegregation might be a clue.
that said - religious perspectives must be protected - by freedom of religion and respecting the sanctity of differing notions of ideal sexuality.
the state should license only civil unions to all consenting adults who seek legal these rights & benefits. religions can retain their claim to the term 'marriage' in an acknowledgment of the power of symbols.
anticipating the lunatic argument:
could this usher in a demand for unions between siblings ? since they already possess specific legal rights
assigned to relatives, their primary legal status would trump any new one. the same logic would eliminate claims that pedophilic unions would be next since a fundamental legal criterion remains 'consenting adults.' so too for bestiality, etc.
-
made me laugh
mz sookie practicing (pseudo) psychology without a license. Leave your psycho-babble blathering where it belongs--nowhere!
-
such hypocrisy
these dumb-as-rocks rednecks ... this stupidity that remains at the core of the religious/rural intolerace of homosexuality ...
It amazes me how liberals pontificate on and on about sentsitivity and tolerance while spouting insensitivity and intolerance in virtually every sentence. Hypocrites!
-
Isn't marriage a a civil union?
I am perplexed by the term "marriage" as opposed to "civil union." As I understand it. Marriage is a civil union carried out by an agent of the state (judge, justice of the peace, clergyman) and licensed by the state. In the eyes of the law, a person is married if he or she (1) has a valid license and (2) is married by someone who is considered qualified to do so by the state. In other words, a religious marriage is a civil union as well. I can clearly remembering my father, a minister, declaring a couple married by the power vested in him by the state. That marriage is a civil union is bolstered by the fact that disolving a marriage is purely a legal, not a religious, process as far as the state is concerned. An annulment or divorce by a religious body without a legal divorce is meaningless if one of the persons involved applies for a marriage license later. In the eyes of the state, he or she would be headed for a bigamous marriage. I do not quarrel with the right of religious denominations to refuse to marry those they feel are not qualified. In fact, that right should be closely guarded. But no religious group should dictate to the state who can or cannot be joined in what is a contractual obligation by both parties. Let the state determine who is qualified to be married. Let religious groups determine who is qualified to be married in religious ceremonies.