I'm posting this HERE because I won't post it THERE.

[Tyler Durden]

By THERE I mean GD-P. I swore I wouldn't go back there, and I won't. If someone thinks any of this is worth a shit, feel free to use it. It's in response to what I saw as the rather NAIVE positions taken, so here it is:


There is only ONE OPTION here legal under the Constitution:

EQUAL TREATMENT UNDER THE LAW.

That means EQUAL.
That means if there is one single solitary difference between a marriage of heterosexuals and a same-sex marriage, then it violates the CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.

This means it is NOT up to the states to decide which partnership gets what benefits and which doesn't.
This means it doesn't matter One Single Solitary IOTA whether or not some religious group thinks homosexuality is evil or not.
This means it isn't up to bigots who say "...gays are icky..." as to whether every single person gets their equal rights under the law.

This means that Barack Obama saying he will keep an open ear to bigots and their concerns is even WORSE than his pandering to the Black Evangelicals with Donnie McClurkin and Kirbyjohn Caldwell, as bad as that is.

What everyone seems to miss there, is that this is once, now and FOR THE REST OF THE LIFETIME OF THIS REPUBLIC, a question as to whether or not this nation is dedicated to EQUAL TREATMENT UNDER THE LAW, or if this is just another issue that can be fudged on so as to pick up a couple of votes.

If it is the former, we have a chance to see the Republic through to where, in time, it may evolve TRULY to what Jefferson called "...a more perfect Union..."

IF THE LATTER, the clock to the dissolution of the Republic just got rewound, as GLBT Rights are CIVIL RIGHTS, and without Civil Rights, the nation is a sham and we travail in its service totally in vain.

Here endeth the lesson.

[NMMNG]

1. Hear, hear!

K&R. :applause:


Very well stated and thank you very much. :hug:

[zabet]

2. Bravo!!!

:applause:

[Hydra]

3. Awesome post

Keep screaming! Your screams make sense!

[Tyo]

4. This so right and so deserves to be in GD

but understand why you don't want to go back there. I haven't posted there for months. Not only are we being betrayed, there are plenty of folks over there who seem to delight in rubbing salt in our wounds. If I were a praying kind of guy I'd pray that DU is not a reflection of the Democratic Party as a whole. I just don't know anymore.

[troubleinwinter]

23. It belongs in GD. OP speaks eloquent truth.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

5. hey, did you ever see this thread i made for you?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=105&topic_id=7521841

[Hydra]

6. Too bad I wasn't here on Friday

Here's another phantom rec for that!

Btw, I'm straight and I'm for gay rights- if they can control your behavior by law, you know they'll come for unmarried me next!

[Tyler Durden]

12. Shoot. In Utah, you're STILL screwed.

They don't do "unmarried, cohabiting couples" of ANY type.

[Hydra]

13. Ironically, I'm in Utah

:evilgrin:

Seriously, the theocracy's hand doesn't reach where I live yet. That doesn't stop them from salivating.

It's always funny here and other places when I tell people that you shouldn't let religious wackos dictate the law. The most common comment I get is "Them? They're harmless!"

How quickly people forget the dark ages.

[Tyler Durden]

16. If only ALL saw that the differences between us are so small.

I only remember a LITTLE Latin. That was one I remembered.

Do you know this one? DUM SPIRO SPERO

[Hydra]

17. I'd rather say

"Cui Bono"

Why do people volunteer to have someone else take their rights away? You'd think any right minded organism would want to be left alone.

[Tyler Durden]

7. I've seen it NOW!

Lord the stuff I miss on a busy day.

Ms Lioness, you just too cool for school. Good to be counted among your friends.

[Dhalgren]

8. K&R, Mr. Durden! You and I are of like mind on this issue.

Equal rights belong to all of us, period. If it is not all of ours, together, then equal rights are none of ours. It is just that simple. No second places, no almosts, no half-assed - not in this! Not in this!

:applause:

[Tyler Durden]

10. We don't live on "Animal Farm."

Too long, FAR TOO LONG we have made special allowances for certain groups that didn't want ALL citizens to enjoy the protection of the law, just those they "approved of."

Now is the time for that to END.

I believe that we as citizens should serve notice on whoever becomes the Democratic Party Nominee that we fully intend to bring suit before the Supreme Court of the United States if the government does not IMMEDIATELY upon removal of the Bush administration, move to hold ALL of the States responsible for EQUAL TREATMENT UNDER THE LAW as stated in the CONSTITUTION, NOT as put forth in someone's religious dogma or irrational bigotry.

It's time.
It's far past time.
It's SO far past time that I can't believe we are still fighting for this.

We must not waiver; if the ELECTED government does not support us, then the JUDICIARY must, and if they do not, then sterner measures MUST FOLLOW. I do not know what form those would take; simple civil disobedience all the way to tax revolt, but happen they must.

[Dhalgren]

22. Hear! Hear!

Well said!

:applause:

[Control-Z]

9. K&R n/t

[jberryhill]

11. I agree with you

The response on the other side of the argument, of course, is that straights and gays are treated equally. In states that do not recognize same-sex marriages a straight man is prohibited from marrying another man, and a gay man is prohibited from marrying another man. The law treats them equally if the question is framed that way. To frame it as an equal protection issue, the argument needs to be fleshed out more than simply declaring it to be one.

[Tyler Durden]

15. I have to say I think that one is so specious it would get laughted out of court!

I think the issue we have to combat is that this is some sort of "Lifestyle" or "choice" like choosing to were a Habib or something.

The issue here is that homosexuality is NOT IMMORAL and is just another "flavor" of "human being," like being Asian or a Little person or having a 200+ IQ. This is how human beings ARE: as the Arabic proverb says: "Allah delights in infinite diversity."

We must ALL see that to be human is to delight in infinite diversity.

[jberryhill]

35. The thing is...

We have a Supreme Court at the moment which engages in precisely this kind of mindless formalism.

For example, they dismissed one of the telecom spying suits on the basis that no plaintiff could show it had been spied upon.

Well, duh, you can dismiss any lawsuit on the proposition that the complaint has not been proven - THAT'S WHAT A LAWSUIT IS FOR!

The issue here is that homosexuality is NOT IMMORAL and is just another "flavor" of "human being,"

I agree. But arguments don't get laughed out of court on their own, and as an "equal protection" claim, a gay man is equally unable to marry another man as is a heterosexual man.

You are simply pointing out the obvious fact that a heterosexual man may be less likely to "want" to marry another man. But nobody is saying that gays and lesbians can't get married. What they are saying is that gays, lesbians, straights, trans, blacks, whites, hispanics, Jews, Catholics, and atheists - equally - can't enter into same-sex marriages. It is not a prohibition that is only applied to gays and lesbians. It is a prohibition which - as applied - primarily injures gays and lesbians. There is a distinction between facial equal protection claims and "as applied" equal protection claims.

This is like (and I kid you not, some assholes try this) arguing that legal abortion violates the principle of equal protection, because while women have a right to abortion, men don't have a right to an abortion. I could go to any number of doctors demanding an abortion, and they refuse to provide me with one simply because I am a man... unless, of course, I run into a doctor with a really wicked sense of humor.

However, same-sex marriages are not only denied to gays and lesbians, they are denied to everyone.

As far as what "some states allow" and "some states don't allow", at present there are 19 states which allow marriages between first cousins, and 4 additional states which allow first-cousin marriages under certain circumstances. We live with the fact that some states allow first-cousin marriages and that some states don't.

This is similar to the pre-Loving case situation w/r/t miscegenation laws. The CA Supreme Court was the first state supreme court that overturned a miscegenation law in 1948. Loving came 20 years later, after most states had established a "tipping point" in which states such as Virginia could be viewed as the odd exception, in their maintenance of an anti-miscegenation law.

States were legalizing abortion prior to Roe v. Wade, as well.

Having the correct outcome arise from the state level to the point where it became the national consensus prior to the relevant Supreme Court decision, was the effective strategy in fighting miscegenation laws and abortion prohibitions. It may be the correct strategy here as well, but reasonable minds can differ.

[Fran Kubelik]

14. Oh man. This is fantastic.

Thank you so much for this. :hug:

[DarkTirade]

18. There are very few things in this world that are black and white, right and wrong.

Equal rights is one of those few things.

[Tyler Durden]

20. No question, no negotiation.

I ask anyone who would negotiate: would you accept this language if you substituted for HOMOSEXUAL the word "Jew," or "PERSON OF COLOR," or "CATHOLIC."

Would they? I think not.

[DarkTirade]

21. In hindsight, no pun intended for the black/white comparison when talking about equal rights.

Since that was one of our first big equal rights fights here. One that's still going on.

[Zuiderelle]

19. Wonderful post. Thank you.

[nashville_brook]

24. amen.

[MuseRider]

25. I have had that same discussion

3 times in the last 2 days. What is it with people? I sit and listen to friends, progressive friends who tell me that CU is ok but not marriage! I give them the arguments about how CU's are not working and how they do not give the same rights to people and they say that we should change CU's to give them all the rights. It is all about the word, the stupid fucking word. I mention separate but equal and they stop and make a face and change the subject. To me that says that they know I am right but they are not willing to go there.

You said this so eloquently. Maybe I should memorize this. Maybe if I said it in these terms I could change some of their minds. I simply cannot comprehend how bright people can not see this or worse, will not.

[TechBear_Seattle]

27. Let me guess: the standard "marriage is a religious institution" BS?

You might want to ask your friends about the hundreds of laws that regulate baptism, confirmation and bar/bat mitvah. :eyes:

[MuseRider]

28. Actually no

and that even made it worse. Not even that. I really care about some of these people, they are friends and some of them I play music with, we share that intimately. I thought we were pretty compatible on issues except they are all pulling for and behind the BO rock-em sock-em mobile.

I can't accept the religious argument but have a vague idea what they are trying to say but this? No reason at all except they do not think it is right!!!!! Arghhhh. I will eventually get my point across to them I think but I was stunned by the responses.

I have no clue what those hundreds of laws are but am game to look them up. What specifically should I look for?

[TechBear_Seattle]

29. Where?, you ask. That is kind of the point

The First Amendment prohibits Congress (and through the 14th Amendment, any lesser government) from making any laws regarding the regulation of religion. If marriage were strictly a religious thing, it would be unconstitutional and therefore illegal to have any laws governing any aspect of marriage. It would be unconstitutional for any government to say who can and cannot be married. It would be unconstitutional for any government to require the filing of papers upon marriage. It would be unconstitutional for any government to recognize marriage with regards to property rights, inheritance, Social Security, social service benefits or child custody. It would be unconstitutional for any government to regulate the whys and wherefores of the dissolution of a marriage.

If, somehow, the First Amendment did not apply to the religious institution of marriage, then it does not apply to other religious institutions such as baptism. Therefore, it is constitutional for federal, state and local governments to say who can and cannot be baptized. It is constitutional for governments to require the filing of papers upon baptism. It is constitutional for goverments to recognize baptism with regards to property rights, inheritance, Social Security, social service benefits and child custody. It is constitutional for governments to regulate the whys and wherefores of leaving one's church and seeking or not seeking baptism elsewhere. Likewise confirmations. Likewise bar and bat mitzvot. Likewise ordination. Likewise the consecration of bishops and other higher clergy. Likewise confession and other occasions of spiritual counselling.

In short, you can't have it both ways. If marriage is a religious institution, then either every law touching on marriage is unconstitutional or similar laws can constitutionally cover any and all other religious institutions. The only possible option that makes sense is that marriage, with regards to the law, is a civil and secular institution wholely unrelated to any religious ceremony, ritual, custom or dogma.

[MuseRider]

31. Blushing

well DUH! Sorry, that was very stupid of me. Great answer. :blush:

[TechBear_Seattle]

32. No need to blush, the meme is insidious

You are not the first person to accept the "hundreds of laws regarding baptism" argument. How do you think I learned to watch for it? :hug:

[MuseRider]

33. Ahhhh

thanks. :hug:

It is good to see you here. It seems I have seen less and less of you and I have missed your posts. :hi:

[jberryhill]

37. Brilliant /nt

[jberryhill]

36. The "word"

Personally, to avoid having people confuse religious notions of "marriage" with what is meant in civil law by "marriage", I would just as soon get rid of any "marriage" statutes, replace the "word" with something else, and let everyone get one - whatever it is called.

Some people are incredibly dense in understanding that "marriage" in the civil sense is simply an agreed-upon set of legally recognized aspects of a relationship between two people, and they cannot separate that civil sense from whatever else they think "marriage" is.

[MuseRider]

40. I agree

but gave that argument up because of the reaction to changing the name of "their" union. I would not hesitate nor care if there was a new word used for my marriage to make it possible for everyone to be equal in their status with the government. Take the emotion out of the word and put it where it belongs, in the relationship. Anyway, I got about as far with that argument as I did with my argument the other day with the other one. There is far too much emotion behind the word and that is possibly how the government is allowed to continue to be involved, that and the fact that if it is questioned it just might have to be changed. Very few people have ever given it that much thought, they probably have no clue how twisted it all is. Just don't mess with what they have, not even to let others enjoy it. It might sully what they sully continually. :eyes:

[jberryhill]

41. Have you tried this one?

Re-criminalize adultery.

I'd like to hear the rationale against that from the same folks.

[MuseRider]

42. *snort*

No, I have not. Interesting thought though. :hi:

[jberryhill]

43. That and...

Is "divorce" also a religious thing?

Considering that one has to be married in order to get a divorce, it MUST be a doubly sacred institution.

[Tyler Durden]

44. Oh I LOVE this line of logic!

DOG could one get these jokers tied up in rhetorical KNOTS with this stuff.

Too bad I work with people a little lower on the IQ food chain who would likely pop one in the nose after a while.

[jberryhill]

46. Thanks

Just find out if they would support gay marriage on the condition that gay couples are not allowed to get divorced or engage in adultery.

After all, I doubt gay couples want to sully marriage the way that straight people have.

Let THEM argue FOR legal divorce and legal adultery.

[MuseRider]

45. Ha Ha

I never thought of that.

I thought you were going to say that if it was so sacred then the government should make it illegal to get a divorce. Scared me there for a moment because I would guess I am not the only person who has held the ability to get a divorce as a reason to try to stick out the hard times. There is always that if things do not work out.

[TechBear_Seattle]

47. I had proposed the idea as an initiative

Last year, I was the lead sponsor in Washington State's Initiative 957. Since the state Supreme Court had ruled that there was a legitimate state interest in reserving marriage for the purpose of having and raising children, and because this legitimate state interest allowed the Legislature to prohibit marriage to same-sex couples because they were incapable of having children, it follows logically that all non-reproductive couples can be banned from marriage, right?

Anyway, the press kits from the devilishly named Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance (WA-DOMA, the acronym of the state's Defense of Marriage Act) mentioned two other initiatives we would consider, both based on the same court ruling that led to I-957. One would have prohibited divorce or legal separation where a married couple had children together. The other would have made having a child out-of-wedlock an identical act to marriage, with additional charges of bigamy if either or both parents were already legally married to someone else.

[Tyler Durden]

48. Oh.My.Gawd. Don't EVER let me get on YOUR bad side!

I have to say that is nothing short of a stroke of GENIUS. Of course, when the JURISTS are not geniuses, they might just rule like the idiots they sometimes are.

I would love to know how that all shook out. Here in Michigan, they prohibited ANY pairing other than a man and a woman from receiving any of the benefits extended to married couples, and ruled out ANY pairing that even LOOKED like it was approaching marriage from any legal standing.

Nice, huh? And this is supposed to be a BLUE state. Shows what a little solid Gerrymandering will do.

[TechBear_Seattle]

49. Was there any explanation as to why this law was put in place?

Has it been challenged and, if so, what was the excuse given by the courts to uphold it?

You might want to try doing something similar in your state. Sometimes the best way to fight ignorance is to ridicule it out of existence.

[jberryhill]

51. "Sometimes the best way to fight ignorance is to ridicule it out of existence."

I'm a firm believer in that principle.

My clients often laugh at my briefs.

[TechBear_Seattle]

52. You might try wearing pants into the office once in a while

:patriot:

[jberryhill]

50. We did a similar thing in Delaware a while back

...on the topic of a parental consent law for abortions.

A companion bill was introduced requiring teenagers to obtain parental consent to becoming pregnant, and that any pregnancy conducted by the teenager without parental consent was unlawful.

Both bills failed.

[TechBear_Seattle]

26. You are free to marry whomever you like

Provided, of course, that the person is of the opposite gender and is not withing the prohibited bounds of consanguinuity (ie parent, sibling, child, etc.)

Sadly, I hear that line A LOT. The Commonwealth of Virginia used a nearly identical line in arguing Loving v Virginia before the US Supreme Court, that whites were free to marry other whites and blacks were free to marry other blacks and so there was no inequality before the law. The Court claimed the argument was bogus and a violation of the 14th Amendment.

Now, if only I had faith that a Democratic president would create a Supreme Court willing to make the same argument with regards to same-sex marriage. Alas, the vast amount of homophobia expressed here in DU and the abject refusal of either Dem candidate to take a stand in favor of equality leads me to believe it will be at least 8 years before I can even pray for this to happen.

[NMMNG]

30. I get irritated when I hear that

Because it's always stated by some bigot with the intent to insult. But what makes me even angrier is when some people don't get why the arguments against same-sex marriage are so insulting. Don't they realize how familiar they are, and how we declared them invalid--at least for interracial marriage--so many years ago?

[jberryhill]

38. Minor nit in your analysis there....

The Supreme Court observed that the Virginia statute applied to mixed race marriages involving whites, and did not, for example, prevent marriages between blacks and hispanics. Hence, it set whites apart as a race which could not be married by members of other races.

Query whether the same result would have come from an across the board ban on racially-mixed marriages.

[TechBear_Seattle]

39. My bad; you are correct

I'm annoyed, as I've been using that one for a while. Now I have to find another example, thanks a lot. :hi:

[Stinky The Clown]

34. K&R

"The only thing of which I am intolerant is intolerance." Stinky the Clown, many years ago