Letters to the Editor
-
gay rights are more right now
I'm a monogamy-preferring heterosexual on a personal level.
I am, like any reasonable person, strongly in support of legal gay marriage. It's really simple. Gay people deserve exactly the same rights as straight people. I have the right to marry one partner at a time. Therefore it's grotesque discrimination if my gay neighbors don't have the same right. Naturally they don't have the "right" to a private religious ceremony from a denomination that disagrees with the details of their marriage, and neither do I, and neither should we. People also have the right to hold any private religious beliefs they want, as long as they respect the rights of others. If your church opposes some activity, no need to allow it in your private, voluntarily-joined church. But as far as legal recognition of our marriages, that should be done on the basis of equal rights for all.
For that matter, I think it's pretty dumb that there are laws against polygamy. I wouldn't touch polygamy with a thousand foot poll myself, hell, monogamy is complicated enough, and there are, as people have pointed out, some obvious complicating factors. You could split the social security benefits up, but the first wife would be a bit screwed (using a multi-wife example) if she married you not realizing that you planned to add more. But illegal? That's a potentially interesting debate.
However, the final point is that it (polygamy) is illegal for me and for my gay neighbors. Therefore, it may be a dumb law, but it isn't blatant violation of my neighbors basic equality.
What matters most here is that the laws are fair. Whether they are just is another question. But if they aren't even fair, they can never be just.
-
gay rights are more IMPORTANT right now
Of course that's what I meant to say.
Just one more example of my proud determination to show others the negative consequences of beer consumption.
-
Indecent Exposure
But all of my exposure to the judicial system has caused me to believe that it's a very arbitrary system. Arbitrary and undemocratic -- and therefore, potentially quite dangerous.
I know, I know, the breathalyser was broken, and so was the radar gun. And you were just giving her a ride home.
Is that what you are talking about? Would you like to tell us how the decision under discussion adds to that arbitrary, undemocratic and dangerous judicial system, or are you just an implyer and inferrer? Renumerative rrades these days, I admit.
-
@blueraven
Arguing against multiple consenting adults who are not close relatives entering into a marriage contract by bringing up the incestuous, patriarchal polygyny cultists is like arguing against same-sex marriage by bringing up orgies involving farm animals and five-year-olds.
Really?
Because I think you'll find more heterosexuals doing the farm animals and five years olds, statistically speaking.
So I think you may wnat to rethink that.
-
We're Merely Mammals...
I'm a monogamy-preferring heterosexual on a personal level.
One night, hell, one date with me, lance, and you'll see things differently! It's already worked on a couple of girls.
-
Inclusion
by bringing up orgies involving farm animals and five-year-olds.
I never get invited to anything! Even the stuff I can dress for.
-
@blueraven
Polygyny and polyamory.
look it up.
Republicans have caved on Iraq.
http://www.eschatonblog.com/2008_05_11_archive.html#7557782096024017724
-
Big Day
House Republicans Collapse on Iraq
by: Matt Stoller
Thu May 15, 2008 at 17:47
Today, about 100 House Republicans refused to vote for more war funding, voting 'present'. They are trying to hand off the war to the Democrats, but even Democrats were able to increase their 'no' vote number on funding from 141 to 149; the bill failed. In a separate bill, Republicans also voted against timelines, for torture, and accountability for military contractors, including various elements of a Responsible Plan to End the War in Iraq. This bill passed with 227 votes; last year, it passed with only 218 votes, for a gain of 9.
Finally the GI bill passed with overwhelming margin of 256 votes in the House, including 32 Republicans. It included a war surtax of one half of one percent on people making over $500k a year to pay for the GI bill, at the behest of Blue Dogs. This might actually be the most remarkable piece of the votes today; conservative Democrats agreeing to raise taxes on the wealthy to pay for educational benefits for veterans. Bill Foster and Don Cazayoux both voted well on the new GI Bill and on the Responsible Plan bill with timelines, but were 'yes' votes on war funding. So yes, they are conservative, and I expect Childers to be conservative as well. Still, the MS-01, the IL-14 special election result, and the LA-06 special election result - all red seats picked off by Democrats - are devastating Republican discipline in the House.
This war is going to end because it is politically unsustainable. The Senate is going to add the funding back in and the House will make sure the money goes to the war, but recognize how big a deal this is. The Republicans in the House and the Senate are going to utterly collapse this fall, and Democrats will have a mandate to end the war. It's something Obama has promised to do, and now the political logic there is undeniable. The question is whether there will be residual troops in the country, and that is where we can have an impact.
An end to this war means no more troops in Iraq. The Republicans are going to face, as Tom Matzzie said, extinction, because they kept the war going.
http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=5800
But some things never happen fast enough for some people...
-
TWTWTW
So it's two steps forward this week, (Republicans cave on Iraq and California gay marriage), and one step back, (the Indianna voter-ID decision)?
That's good going for now!
-
Gay Equality
All,
Thanks for the post Glen.
Well, I am rather speechless. I am so very surprised that the court ruled in favor of fairness, intellectual and constitutional rigour for Gay people, especially because the a majority of Justices on The Supreme Court of California were appointed by Republicans.
I am also in disbelief that the Governor said he would respect this ruling of law....not that it really matters.
Well, the tide is finally turning in the USA(I am not ignoring the great State of Mass, but they just do not have the impact and influence of CA.
Maybe, just maybe I now can return to my country and have equal civil rights, at least in a location that I want to move to. However, I guess I better hurry up and get married before November.
Now, a question for all of the Clinton and Obama supporters: How come a "Republican" appointed Supreme Court can come to the sane conclusion that Gay people should be treated equally under the law, but these two cannot? In addition, how can readers support either candidate as neither support ALL citizens and their fight for equal civil rights?
As much as I hate being a sinle issues voter, but out of sefl respect neither candidates has earned my vote, so they will not receive it. They are both considered "minorities" and yet they cannot see why other minorities should have equal civil rights.
They are behind the times, and on the wrong edge of history.
Anyways, a great day in America. Finally a ray of hope.