pegkerr | Anti-Marriage Protection Week, Hurrah!

Anti-Marriage Protection Week, Hurrah!

I don't have time to write a long post about this myself, but read John's post and read Aja's post and read Msscribe's post and do what they say. I have added Anti-Marriage Protection Week to my interests lists, and I'll be looking through the lists of suggestions for more things to do. Anyone have an icon for me?

I really REALLY loathe our President.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I love marriage. I love being married. I love that marriage is thought of as something that should be protected. It should be. In our country we take it for granted.

But what infuriates me is that our President would use the guise of protecting a sacred institution to discriminate against those who would like to enter it, and can't, because it would mean his cronies might have to start paying health benefits.

Oh, and because he thinks the bible has something to do with government.

maybethemoon has *lots* of icons. Tis where I got mine. :)

Amen. Methinks I should post about it--I already sent an email, and received confirmation that the bastard isn't even going to read it. >.< Keep us posted on any more effective means of protest you find?

I'll post those links later and I'll try to make some icons if I can think of some snappy slogans.

If being in favor of protecting the institution of heterosexual marriage through law was good enough for Paul Wellstone, it should be good enough for the rest of us.

As much as I loved and respected Paul (and really, really miss and mourn him and Sheila), I think he was absolutely wrong on that vote.

George Bush may try to ignore them, but "the rest of us" includes people who are being prevented by law from enjoying the benefits of marriage only because their gender is the same as the person they love. They are Americans, too, and this proclamation is insulting to them. I'm a married woman myself--I believe in marriage--but I think that is totally unfair.

How can you say such a thing? It was not just "that vote." He didn't merely vote for it. He spoke out, eloquently, in favor of the Defense of Marriage Act that he also voted for, and made it clear that he believed that no two homosexuals could every have as deep and meaningful a relationship as he and Sheila had.

The bill he voted for is now the law of the land, and this minor proclamation merely helps to establish this law, which Paul fought and voted for, no matter if it angered part of his base of support.

Well, I repeat: Paul was wrong. And DOMA may be the law of the land, but DOMA is wrong.

I refer you to the case of Supreme Court Lewis Powell, who cast the deciding vote in Bowers v. Hardwick. He eventually admitted that he had been wrong and seventeen years later the Supreme Court caught up with him when it overturned Bowers v. Hardwick in Lawrence v. Texas.

Paul was an essentially fair person, and if he had lived long enough, I hope he would have realized that bigotry is bigotry and he would have changed his mind.

... why a Supreme Court justice changing his mind on whether it's any of the State's business if one homosexual inserts his penis into another willing homosexual has anything at all to do with whether or not two (or three or four or eighteen) people of various sexes should have their union, whatever it might be, be called "marriage" by the state, or how that would have affected Paul.

My point is that Powell changed his mind on the question on whether the State should say that what is acceptable for heterosexuals is not acceptable for homosexuals. Originally Powell said "Yes, the State has the right to discriminate like that." Eventually, he realized he had errored, and the Supreme Court realized it, too, and overturned Bowers v. Hardwick. What underlay Bowers v. Hardwick was bigotry, the same bigotry that underlies DOMA: the idea that "what applies to you doesn't apply to me.

Our culture changes slowly on social issues, but it does change. Plessy v. Ferguson was a mistake and the Civil War resulted. People eventually came to understand that the Supreme Court had made a mistake, that blacks were entitled to the same civil rights as whites. And yes, people did argue during the 19th century that the separate and unequal situations for whites and blacks was "natural" and "the way God wanted things to be." It took almost a hundred years until the Civil Rights act of 1964, but the culture finally caught up to the truth.

Bowers v. Hardwick was a mistake, and has been overturned.

I'm waiting for America to see that same truth about DOMA. My point on Wellstone is, I hope that Wellstone, like Powell, might eventually have become one of those people who admit, "I was wrong" on this particular issue--had he lived.

"Plessy v. Ferguson was a mistake and the Civil War resulted."
How could a case in 1896 cause a war to happen decades before?

Ah, you are correct. I had mixed up in my mind the Plessy v. Ferguson decision with the Dred Scott decision. Dred Scott is the one I was thinking of that led to the Civil War (you'll remember that one: it declared that slaves who went North were not freed but must be returned to their owners). Both were dreadful decisions on the part of the Supreme Court, and both were eventually realized to be mistakes. The Plessy v. Ferguson was the one that the Civil Rights act of 1964 eventually addressed. Sorry for the confusion.

(I adore Supreme Court history, but it's been years since I took AP American History.)

I hope that Wellstone, like Powell, might eventually have become one of those people who admit, "I was wrong" on this particular issue -- had he lived.

For what it's worth, Wellstone said this in The Conscience of a Liberal:

When Sheila and I attended a Minnesota memorial service for Matthew Shepard, I thought to myself, "Have I taken a position that contributed to a climate of hatred?" Of course, I had never believed this when I voted for [the Defense of Marriage Act.] But if you deny people who are in a stable, loving relationship the right to marry, do you deny them their humanity? I still wonder if I did the right thing.

That aside: a lot of people use "because Paul said so" in arguments about gay rights, but I've never seen it done with *that* Paul before! Disagreeing with Paul Wellstone is the best way I can think of to honor his memory.

-- R

Wow, I hadn't seen that quotation before. Thank you for that. Yeah, I like your last point, too. And Paul, I think, as a thinking person, wouldn't have said, "I've decided, and that's that." He would have kept testing and honing his beliefs.

Now I recall why you ended up on my friends list. ;-)

My "Jesus didn't teach me to hate gay people" icon will be put on default for this week. I will also do other things, which I am in the process of posting on my LJ.

This is so vile -- Shrub's proclamation, not your outrage -- that there are no words for it. But mark my words: I am about to become a very visible GLBT Ally.

With the notion that to oppose legal sanction of gay marriage is to hate gay people.

Yes, he probably would have disagreed; you're right.

That wouldn't mean, however, that the DOMA act isn't unfair discrimination.

With all due respect to the late Paul Wellstone, whom I admired in many ways, he was not infallible. I realized that some people oppose the equality of GLBT people due to well-meaning beliefs inherited from their religious or cultural influences. However, the fact remains that this kind of opposition to recognition of committed same-sex relationships IS hurtful, and comes across as hateful even if no "hate" is intended. It sends the message that people are not being accepted for being who they are -- and there is nothing harmful about being gay or lesbian, any more than there is harm in being straight.

Lots of laws hurt lots of feelings. Should they all be changed because of that?

This law doesn't just "hurt feelings." It hurts PEOPLE. It hurts FAMILIES. There is no good reason to deny legal recognition to same-sex marriage. Period.

There's many good reasons for society to fail to give an imprimateur on many sorts of relationships. In this case, whether or not one likes it, it's quite clearly the wish of the majority that homosexual unions not be given the identical status of heterosexual marriages. Changing that, should be changeable, will be a matter of persuading people with far more effective agitprop than "it hurts PEOPLE," assuming it's possible to be done at all. At present, laws like DOMA can reliably be counted upon to pass with huge majorities, including the most reliable leftists to be found in the United States Senate.

I guess that's the President's fault, too.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Anti-Marriage Protection Week, Hurrah!

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

Good enough

no subject

With Paul Dead Less Than A Year

no subject

I'm not sure I understand...

no subject

no subject

no subject

Wellstone

no subject

no subject

Paul would have disagreed

no subject

Re: Paul would have disagreed

Re: Paul would have disagreed

Re: Paul would have disagreed

Re: Paul would have disagreed