Tag Archives: Same-Sex Marriage

Krathhammer analyzes DOMA decision. Gets it absolutely right.

When he is bad, he is very very bad, but when he is good, he is very very good. Here in his Washington Post column Charles Krauthammer (also senior serious intellectual, FOX News) looks at SCOTUS’ DOMA decision and explains quite well what it means.

He’s not particularly judgmental about either the issue or about the Court’s action. He breaks the decision down to its essentials and says – as I believe – that Federal recognition is now inevitable. Because, as he noted, the Court used the rationale of ‘equal protection under the law’. By saying so in the decision, he says, they pretty much guarantee that full recognition is on the docket next session and it will happen.

. . . if the argument is equal protection, one question is left hanging. Why should equal protection apply only in states that recognize gay marriage? Why doesn’t it apply equally — indeed, even perhaps more forcefully — to gays who want to marry in states that refuse to marry them?

If discriminating (regarding federal benefits) between a gay couple and a straight couple is prohibited in New York where gay marriage is legal, by what logic is discrimination permitted in Texas, where a gay couple is prevented from marrying in the first place?

Krauthammer finds none. He notes the broad smile on the face of David Boise who argued for the Prop 8 ruling and says:

He understood immediately that once the court finds it unconstitutional to discriminate between gay and straight couples, nationalizing gay marriage is just one step away.

Yup. I think Boise and Charles have it exactly right. This week’s half measure is temporary. The fat lady hasn’t quite finished singing yet.

 

Civilization is always ending, isn’t it. What a bitch.

Maybe the good Congressman Gomert (or, as watertiger has named him, Screwy-Louie) could have scrounged around and quoted someone a bit less randy than Solomon when condemning same-sex marriage.

According to the Bible at I Kings 11:1-7: Solomon had 700 official wives and about 300 concubines – so, a thousand ladies, give or take.

 

Like heteroxexuals would never do that: Part the Second

From the London Daily Telegraph:

Jeremy Irons, the Oscar-winning actor, has provoked outrage by suggesting that same sex marriage laws could allow fathers to marry their sons to avoid paying inheritance tax.

Only the son you understand, not the daughter.

When reminded about laws which prohibit sexual relationships between family members, he responded: “It’s not incest between men”, adding: “Incest is there to protect us from inbreeding, but men don’t breed.”

Because heterosexuals would never do that, but . . .

Onion worthy: A top Republican in Georgia has sounded an ominous warning that legalization of same-sex marriage may also lead to fraud. (I know, it’s not worth our time to rubber neck at the legions of stupid, but sometimes . . . )

Sue Everhart, chairwoman of the Georgia Republican Party, told the Marietta Daily Journal in a story published Saturday that once gay nuptials are legally permitted, there will be nothing to stop a straight person from exploiting the system in order to claim marital benefits.

“You may be as straight as an arrow, and you may have a friend that is as straight as an arrow,” Everhart said. “Say you had a great job with the government where you had this wonderful health plan. I mean, what would prohibit you from saying that you’re gay, and y’all get married and still live as separate, but you get all the benefits? I just see so much abuse in this it’s unreal. I believe a husband and a wife should be a man and a woman, the benefits should be for a man and a woman. There is no way that this is about equality. To me, it’s all about a free ride.”

Straights have just been waiting for the opportunity to fake-come-out-gay so they could grab onto that gravy train, right?

Oh boy, this one is dead, dead, dead.

DOMA is so going down. CSpan has started broadcasting the audio from today’s arguments at SCOTUS on the challenge to DOMA, that most elegant construct of an insane Congress. They did the deed 13  17  years ago (and got ole Bill Clinton to sign it in an election year when he was already winding his presidency down and didn’t have to do it).

Back in November, your humble blogger predicted (in comments) that the Court would overturn DOMA, and as I listen to today’s audio, it sure sounds like they will do just that and with a healthy majority. We won’t know till May or June.

I haven’t had time yet to listen to yesterday’s arguments on Prop 8, but even if I had, after listening to and reading the observations of  the commentaries I wouldn’t dare predict except for one thing of which I am certain: the Court will not actually uphold Prop 8. There are many ways they can dodge or they can issue what they call a ‘narrow ruling’. They can even decide not to decide. 

I don’t know if they can do this in the Prop 8 case, but a happy outcome would be if they can say that every State must recognize marriages that are legal in other States. That would pretty much do it. I wonder if that’s similar to using the ‘Commerce clause’ as they did in Obamacare?

But in both cases I absolutely trust the Court will not issue any rulings that would actually restrict or deny rights. That’s not the business they’re in.

 (And, like with the ACA opinion, Roberts will buck the politics of the issue and vote to strike down DOMA.)

I didn’t know we were THIS far behind . . .

Or more accurately, I didn’t realize how much of the developed world has surpassed us in the expansion of universal human rights. To wit: dark blue indicates where same sex marriage is expressly forbidden by law. Do you see dark blue anywhere but in the US???

Just sayin’

Marriage is a legal act, not a religious one. Married is a legal status.

So all unions should be – in law – civil unions, no matter the genders.

If people want to, they can go ahead and add a religious ceremony.

 

So is Obama going to bring it home?

UPDATE: Moe is currently accepting accolades below for having called this one exactly correctly.

Is it possible Joe Biden was chuckling up his sleeve and doing a set up Sunday when he spoke – awkwardly! – 0n gay marriage? He provided great material to  our cable gasbags, who’ve played with it for days now because, ha!, “we never know what is going to come out of Joe’s mouth”.

Pretty predictable both in execution and reaction. Joe knows that, so why not use it? (Although the Will & Grace bit was pure Biden.)

Obama talks somewhere today and will be asked. I  know this because it has been breathlessly reported all over the blogosphere that HE. WILL. BE. ASKED!

So is this the ‘two’ of a ‘one, two’ punch? Does the President of the United States, having seen the polls, declare himself for gay marriage?

That’s be cool. And not a bad move in an election year – it might help bring out the youth vote.

Dorian mostly gets it right

Dorian rarely posts here (although he’s always welcome) and he rarely posts at facebook. When he does, it’s good. From him today:

I think, since we often trust homosexuals to work with sharp scissors near our heads, we can trust them with marriage and we’ll all be okay. You wanna defend marriage? Outlaw divorce.

New York Senate Does the Right Thing

POSTED BY ORHAN

The New York Times reports that lawmakers voted late Friday to legalize same-sex marriage, making New York the largest state where gay and lesbian couples will be able to wed.

The bill was approved on a 33-to-29 vote as 4 Republican state senators joined 29 Democrats in voting for it: James S. Alesi; Stephen M. Saland; Roy J. McDonald; and Mark J. Grisanti.

After days of agonized discussion capped by a marathon nine-hour closed-door debate on Friday, Republicans came to a decision: the full Senate would be allowed to vote on the bill, the majority leader, Dean G. Skelos, said Friday afternoon, and each member would be left to vote according to his or her conscience.

“The days of just bottling up things, and using these as excuses not to have votes — as far as I’m concerned as leader, its over with,” Mr. Skelos, a Long Island Republican, said.

Grisanti, a Buffalo Republican who opposed gay marriage when he ran for election last year, said he had studied the issue, agonized over his responsibility as a lawmaker, and concluded he could not vote against the bill. Mr. Grisanti voted yes.

“I apologize for those who feel offended,” he said. “I cannot deny, a person, a human being, a taxpayer, a worker, the people of my district and across this state, the State of New York, and those people who make this the great state that it is, the same rights that I have with my wife.”

Earlier, Republican state senator Roy McDonald, who reversed his previous opposition to marriage equality despite threats from conservative groups that he’d pay for his actions at the ballot box, told reporters:

“You get to the point where you evolve in your life where everything isn’t black and white, good and bad, and you try to do the right thing.”

“You might not like that. You might be very cynical about that. Well, fuck it, I don’t care what you think. I’m trying to do the right thing.

“I’m tired of Republican-Democrat politics. They can take the job and shove it. I come from a blue-collar background. I’m trying to do the right thing, and that’s where I’m going with this.”

According to the Washington Post, the bill’s passage was a milestone nationally because it was the first time a GOP-controlled chamber has approved same-sex marriage.

Andrew Sullivan writes that New York granting same-sex marriage rights is important not just because a Republican-led State Senate passed the law, but because it insists on maximal religious liberty for those who conscientiously oppose marriage equality, and because it doubles the number of Americans with the right to marry the person they love, even if they are gay.

My take is that those involved acted with integrity, dignity, decency, and placed individual conscience above partisan politics–a hopeful sign for America’s future.