Another setback today for the gay marriage folks from a liberal state court. (Andersen vs. King County)
Wash. Court Upholds Gay Marriage Ban – Washington Post
The Washington Supreme Court upheld the state’s ban on gay marriage Wednesday, dealing the gay rights movement its second major defeat in less than a month in another liberal-leaning state that had been regarded as a promising battleground.
Massachusetts is still the only state that allows same-sex couples to wed.
In a 5-4 decision, the court said lawmakers have the power to restrict marriage to a man and a woman, and it left intact the state’s 1998 Defense of Marriage Act.
Earlier this month, New York’s high court dealt gay couples a similar blow when it upheld a state law against gay marriage.
Some initial reaction from GayOrbit….
Marriage is about child-rearing and pro-creation.
Personally, I think judges are getting squeamish about ruling in favor of the gays.
And thoughts from Dale Carpenter over at The Volokh Conspiracy…
For gay-marriage litigants, July has been the cruelest month. Prior to today’s 5-4 Washington Supreme Court decision in Andersen v. King County, there were two substantive state marriage decisions against them (New York and Connecticut), one quasi-substantive federal decision against them (the 8th Circuit, whose broad dicta went beyond the state constitutional ban at issue), and three procedural decisions against them upholding the propriety of ballot initiatives (Massachusetts, Tennessee, and Georgia).
But this may turn out to be the hardest day of all. Andersen is the most careful, closely reasoned, and comprehensive judicial opinion to date rejecting constitutional claims to gay marriage. It is much better, as a matter of conventional legal analysis and craftsmanship, than the New York Court of Appeals decision in Hernandez v. Robles rejecting gay-marriage claims a couple of weeks ago. Since the principles and arguments on this issue from state-to-state, and even in the federal courts, are not that different, the Washington decision will deserve close attention from other courts.
And finally this from Log Cabin Republicans in Washington State…
“Log Cabin Republicans of Washington are committed to educating citizens and lawmakers about the importance of enacting civil marriage equality in this state,” said Ken Nielsen, the President of Log Cabin’s Washington State chapter.
“Log Cabin will work with other organizations in the years ahead to educate and lobby lawmakers about why civil marriage equality should be enacted. Sharing our stories and explaining why all families deserve basic protections and responsibilities will help move more citizens and lawmakers to our side. Civil marriage equality for gay or lesbian couples is truly a conservative goal that will improve the lives of all Americans,” said Nielsen.
“Civil marriage equality”?? When did this phrase start being used by the Gay Lobby? Or is Nielsen onto something that the Human Rights Campaign, Log Cabin National and Natl. Gay & Lesbian Task Force have missed for years? Perhaps they should have been pursuing “civil marriage equality” instead of alienating 70% of America with their tactics of “marriage only.”
All I know is…. I’m just glad Dale Carpenter does the reading and thinking for me. *grin*
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
Shouldn’t that headline be:
WA State Supremes Uphold Gay Marriage Ban
A Freudian slip, perhaps?
Er, what are you trying to tell us, “Butch”? That GP is insufficiently butch, er, gay, because he doesn’t use italics on demand?
Oh, puhLEEEEZE…
the legislature was entitled to believe that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples furthers procreation, essential to survival of the human race, and furthers the well-being of children by encouraging families where children are reared in homes headed by the children’s biological parents. Allowing same-sex couples to marry does not, in the legislature’s view, further these purposes.
Here in the state of Washington, my 81-year-old next-door neighbor lost his wife last spring. Now he’s engaged to a 72-year-old woman. This does not further the purposes of procreation or the well-being of children, so why are elderly couples such as this allowed to marry?
YAY!!! Another loss for the liberal gays and The Gay Left!!! YAY!!
Where’s my nose and why does my face feel spited?
jimmy, it’s unfortunate that you feel that way and didn’t take this opportunity to say, as a GayLeft voice commenting here often, that these two decisions ought to lay to rest any debate over the failure of the radical GayLeft agenda to bring civil rights to our community.
The leaders of the GayLeft in DC and elsewhere ought to be in hiding.
Instead, like so many GayLeft commentators here, you play the VictimCard. Predictable? Sure, it’s what you’ve been trained to do when the reality of public policy goes against all the heated air you and your buds on the radical Left have generated for years on this issue.
Here’s a different approach for you jimmy: admit defeat. Finally admit that this approach toward universal marriage for all is a failure in the Courts, the ballot box and even among those noble “gay-friendly” leaders like Slick Willy, JohnFKerry and HowieWeScreamDean. Take off those blinders they gave you on the Democrat Plantation and become more interested in advancing gay rights than in recruiting and defending failed leadership.
Only then can we, as an instructed and learned gay community, move forward as one and press for civil unions and legal protections… screw the approach that said getting in the face of religion and conservatives will get gays what a small percentage of the gay community wants. It ain’t working bigtime.
The tact you and your buds put us on have led us to a deep deep deep trench on the farside of political marginalization… to put it in terms you can understand readily: you’ve made our cause for civil rights impotent and wasted precious time and scarce political resources. Why? Because of a deepseated grudge and antipathy toward religion and religious institutions like marriage. Once again, the self-interest of a few disgruntled, anti-religion radical liberals have failed the greater good of our community.
For that, you shouldn’t be falling back on old games like playing the VictimCard… you ought to be down on your knee begging the rest of the gay community for forgiveness. You and your buds ought to be down on knees seeking forgiveness –and I don’t mean at 3 AM on the dance floor of the next circuit party.
That, jimmy, would have been the better tact to take instead of playing the VictimCard. Shame on you and your buds on the radical GayLeft.
From the post
“Civil marriage equality”?? When did this phrase start being used by the Gay Lobby?
Is this another of the silly “when did you stop beating your wife” posts that seem so prevalent here. Actually, if you had bothered to do a google search (you know, http://www.google.com) using the keywords “gay civil marriage equality” you might have turned up MARRIAGE EQUALITY FOR GAYS AND LESBIANS IS FOCUS OF EQUALITY FORUM 2004:
Human Rights Campaign (HRC) presents “Developments in Civil Marriage” on Saturday, May 1 at noon at Temple University Center City. The fight for civil marriage equality will be discussed, including the progress of the Federal Marriage Amendment and the effects of the Goodridge case by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court..
That was from a press release dated February 19, 2004, which, I presume that you might recognize, is over two years ago. I didn’t bother going back any further.
Sorry to disrupt your reverie with the facts.
NB: On the general subject, hey, what do I care about this decision out of Washington State? I’m in Massachusetts, and I’ve got mine. I’m a perfect conservative.
I think what is happening here, is the courts have started to realize this is a debate that belongs in the legislature. And it is.
Yes, going through the legislature may be slower, it may require more patience, and it also may require a shift back to a push for Civil Unions and then a later move towards actual marriage. The problem is that now rather than just a legislative measure in all the states, some places those seeking these rights will now have to overcome marriage amendments, not just DOMA type statutes.
raj/ian writes at #6… “Sorry to disrupt your reverie with the facts.”
Once again, the sockpuppet artistry of raj/ian trying to discredit any little thing and, presto change-o, thereby appearing to discredit all once again misses the boat, the tree, the forest and relevancy. Oh, to be but a humble ambulance chaser and not need worry about facts. Such a life “It” has.
The outline of the Equality Forum was written by a former LCR communications staffer –who still works closely with the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association—for your information raj/ian. If you care to look –and I can’t be bothered with continuing education requirements for an ambulance chaser—you’ll find her work scattered across a wide mix of progressive social groups. Sharon is one of those professionals who –unlike you—think words and phrases actually matter and precision in speech is critical in public outreach and policy debate.
So stop trying to discredit all with a sly wink and rhetorical device better suited for getting that invalid ER patient signed up for legal representation before they pull the plug on the IV. You’re really looking quite silly these days, raj/ian… and your sockpuppet artistry is in need of an overhaul. Quite silly indeed.
7: In Michigan we need to overturn the constitutional amendment, pushed by the Religious Right, that says “the union of one man and one woman in marriage shall be the only agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union for any purpose.” The practical effect, though the conservative supporters claimed it was not the intent of the amendment, is that even civil unions and domestic partnerships would be illegal in the public realm.
At least the Log Cabins aren’t screaming for judicial monarchy. Give them credit for that.
Br K, in Michigan that language “or similar union” was included by a Grand Rapids based Democrat operative on the State Board of Canvassers seeking to mobilize the base of universities and cities with domestic partner benefits… nice try. The bipartisan group of activists pushing the initiative said “OK” to the addition. Bad strategy, stupid politics. What can one expect?
Do over, please.
And frankly, Br K, where the Hell were all those great Democrat leaders like Gov GoodSmile, Sen StupidCow, Sen LyingLevin and DemocratParty union goon Mark Brewer when fighting this intiative required CASH? Eh? The chickens were running for cover, giving lip service to keep the gays on the Democrat Plantation, and doing little to defeat the initiative. I know, I was crisscrossing the state speaking in forums 3-4 times a week against the initiative… and joined by 11 other GOP members who are gay. Democrats? Anyone see one lately? We didn’t expect in the Union Halls where we felt physically endangered. Or at the black churches in Detroit, Flint, Saginaw, Lansing, Port Huron, Battle Creek, Westland, Garden City etc.
Tell me about “In Michigan we need to reverse…” Take off the blinders, leave the Plantation, put down your partisan robes and join the gay community working toward real civil rights, ok?
Until then, keep the uninformed opinions upstairs where they belong.
#8 Michigan-Matt — July 27, 2006 @ 9:11 am – July 27, 2006
Sorry do disturb your reverie with the facts. The fact is that the issue that had been addressed in #6 was the question that was raised in the post, namely, “Civil marriage equality”?? When did this phrase start being used by the Gay Lobby? .
I responded to that issue, you did not. You skated around the issue. What does the answer to that issue have to do with who wrote the outline of the Equality Forum? The issue was when it was written.
Address the issue. You’re proving yourself nothing more than another sycophant of the NDXXX line of argumentation: change the subject.
Michigan Matt makes a good point-while many a conservative religious right group was involved with promoting these amendments, they weren’t the only ones voting for them. Religious right makes up less than a majority of voters. Several states that now have marriage amendments or DOMA statutes had crossovers from the Democrats.
The problem here is that the gay left has decided that all democrats mean “good guys, and for us” instead of actually promoting only those individuals that are on the same page.
I think the one good thing these decisions have done, is it has probably put the brakes on the push for a Federal marriage amendment-given what I think mostly motivated that push was the fear that the courts were going to start imposing the changes.
Sure at this point the proccess is going to slow down and really require work at the state legislative level-but I suspect these decisions are going to slow up the push for actual marriage amendments in other states.
And frankly, Br K, where the Hell were all those great Democrat leaders like Gov GoodSmile, Sen StupidCow, Sen LyingLevin…
I thought the proper term was ‘Senator Carl Lenin.’ It suits him to a tee.
So, when do we get to vote on whether opposite gendered couples can marry?
OT but I guess raj was right to be suspicious all along:
“Landis Fails Drug Test After Triumph in Tour de France”
http://tinyurl.com/ggmyu
Interesting that the failed test was immediately after his phenomenal comeback in Stage 17.
#8: “The outline of the Equality Forum was written by a former LCR communications staffer”
But the original post also lumped Log Cabin in with HRC and NGTLF claiming these organizations “missed for years” this “civil marriage equality” phrase. As raj has rightly pointed out, that claim is simply wrong. Bruce slipped up – why do you get so defensive about that?
If memory serves, I believe LCR has been using that term for quite some time, at least in their newsletters when they talk about the issue. Not sure how long the others have used it but they may have picked it up from LCR.
It will require hard and long work at the grass roots level. However, I truly doubt that my relationship will recieve any kind of equity with my brother’s in my lifetime. The amendments will keep being used as a way to encourage the social conservatives to get out to vote (which they do in greater numbers than social progressives).
If the bile on both political sides of the “GLBT” Community could be put up for a change, this would be an excellent opportunity for cooperation on a single issue. {Hmmmm…must’ve smoked my lunch by mistake.}
I am bitter and angry about all the bad news we’ve gotten. I think it’s time to take to the streets… stop sheepishly asking some judge for equality under the law, and start demanding it. Life needs to get uncomfortable for those who stand in the way of equality under the law. The political process is not working in achieving our just goals in a reasonable amount of time, so it’s time to consider other (peaceful but very vigorous) methods.
According to an article I read this month in USA Today, 45 states now have either state constitutional amendments banning gay marriage or state statutes outlawing same-sex weddings. In the November 2004 election, voters in 11 states passed all 11 bans on gay marriage. Even in Oregon.
Marriage is not a right. It’s always been regulated by the state. You can’t marry your sister or (in most states) your cousin, or a ten-year-old, or someone who’s already married. Marriage is a benefit and privilege extended to certain people. I’d be very happy if that benefit were extended to me and a male partner, but it’s not a right that I can demand.
So kdogg36 wants to take to the streets with angry protest marches demanding gay marriage, which is a typical Leftist response to just about anything. Don’t you see all that’s going to do is encourage a couple more states to enact bans? Even in Massachusetts, the state’s high court recently ruled that a constitutional amendment to ban future gay marriages can be placed on the ballot. Remember, it was the courts in Massachusetts that allowed gay marriage, not the voters. Are you confident on how such a vote would turn out?
If they were confident, they wouldn’t have instructed their puppets in the Massachusetts Legislature to quash the amendment using backdoor methods.
I mean, look at RajIan, who claims to be from Massachusetts. Do you think he treats his neighbors and the people he interacts with any better than he does people here?
#16 Ian — July 27, 2006 @ 12:11 pm – July 27, 2006
OT but I guess raj was right to be suspicious all along:
“Landis Fails Drug Test After Triumph in Tour de France”
Of course I was. I just posted something about it on the relevant comment thread. It was from my German language sources. I didn’t bother translating them, but I’m sure that Matty would oblige y’all. If you’re interested, of course–which I doubt that anyone is.
And this has to do with gay marriage because…?
More sockpuppet artistry from raj/ian… one to spew, the other to defend, the other to defend the defending one’s spewing while seeking to spew a bit more.
Gosh, now I know why when we read the raj/ian, it feels like being stuck in the Senate Democrat Caucus for a week… Boxer defends Reid while Reid defends Dodd while Dodd defends Kennedy while Kennedy dries out.
raj/ian, a day will come when you finally make sense… to someone, somewhere.
(#21) So kdogg36 wants to take to the streets with angry protest marches demanding gay marriage, which is a typical Leftist response to just about anything. Don’t you see all that’s going to do is encourage a couple more states to enact bans?
First, I’m not a leftist. I’m a free-market anti-statist… on left-oriented boards they call me a right-wing anti-government fanatic. 🙂
That being the case, my preferred solution to this issue is to get the government entirely out out the business of officially categorizing and recognizing intimate relationships. I’d like to get rid of marriage as a legal category altogether, and treat marriage as a beautiful personal commitment rather than a State matter. These commitments might well involve prosaic contractual issues to be worked out between the partners, which can and should be legally enforceable. Beyond that, though, the government has no legitimate reason to be involved in personal relationships beyond that.
Unfortunately, this logical solution is not even on the table in any state as far as I know. Until then, I most definitely have a right to demand that the government I pay for (through money stolen out of my paycheck) immediately cease descriminating against gay people and our relationships.
As for my suggestion that we “take to the streets” and vigorously demand equality under the law… this kind of activism was a crucial part of previous civil rights movements in the US. It’s all too easy for the powers that be to ignore our claims (as most Republicans do) or pander to us (as most Democrats do). We need to really start making our presence known to the world to overcome this intertia and make our demands known.
#24: OT = Off-Topic
#25: Yes, it already does make sense; to someone in a mental institution.
And no, Sybil, I don’t read or speak German. I don’t like the “people”, the “language:, the “culture”, or the “food”. They killed six million Jews and for that I will never forgive them. Why we didn’t just distribute the conquered lands amongst its neighbors after WWII I’ll never know. It doesn’t surprise me one bit that you want to be one of them.
#24: “And this has to do with gay marriage because…?”
Maybe Shari Lewis wants to marry Lambchop?
#29: And the Pets.com dog can be the best man.
#28
I apologize for insulting people in mental institutions.
These commitments might well involve prosaic contractual issues to be worked out between the partners, which can and should be legally enforceable. Beyond that, though, the government has no legitimate reason to be involved in personal relationships beyond that.
Unfortunately, this logical solution is not even on the table in any state as far as I know.
Well, actually, it is, in Colorado:
Proposed by Republican state Sen. Shawn Mitchell, the measure would allow “reciprocal beneficiary agreements,” where any two parties excluded from marrying under Colorado law could gain specific rights “including but not limited to health care insurance benefits.”
The parties who enter the agreement must not be married or in another reciprocal beneficiary agreement, and the agreement is terminated if either party enters a valid marriage.
But, instead of supporting that, which even Focus on the Family can live with, gay leftists are throwing a hissing screaming fit and demanding marriage, only marriage.
#32: That’s not what I’m talking about at all. I am talking about removing special treatment for any human relationships — keeping it for some and offering something else to gay people won’t fly. As long as there’s some special category for intimate relationships, I absolutely demand that my government not deny entry to gay people and our relationships.
#21
“Marriage is not a right. It’s always been regulated by the state. ”
That is not the test for whether or not something is a right. The state regulates ownership of property. Do you think individuals don’t have inherent property rights? The state in many countries regulates or even denies gun rights. Do you think individuals don’t have an inherent right to carry weapons?
#31— According to BOTW, 72% of participants at DU agreed with the statement, “I deal with severe mental illness in my home.”
#20 — Short version, “I didn’t get what I wanted, so I’m going to throw a tantrum.”
Indcidentally, North Dallas Thirty, you still owe me an apology for your comment #60 on this thread: http://www.abbeyfoodandbar.com/news/2004-06-08-party/images/4.jpg 🙂
OK, I fucked up on that link. Here’s the thread about which North Dallas Thirty owes me an apology: http://gaypatriot.net/2006/07/12/the-persistence-of-bias-against-gay-conservatives
I hope you enjoyed the photo, though. 🙂
And one more response:
But, instead of supporting that, which even Focus on the Family can live with, gay leftists are throwing a hissing screaming fit and demanding marriage, only marriage.
I will accept equality under the law, and only that. But I’m not throwing a hissing and screaming fit. I’m just trying to figure out what to do — everything, and I mean everything, is on the table as far as I’m concerned — to achieve that goal as soon as possible.
Kdogg, to what exactly are you referring with that link?
Next up:
I am talking about removing special treatment for any human relationships — keeping it for some and offering something else to gay people won’t fly. As long as there’s some special category for intimate relationships, I absolutely demand that my government not deny entry to gay people and our relationships.
Work on getting the “something else” offered first, then start worrying about removing the other. The worst thing that could be done is to equate benefits and protections for gays with degrading those already existing on marriage.
38: I messed up on that link. Go to comment #37 to see what I meant. Sorry about that. 🙂
Work on getting the “something else” offered first, then start worrying about removing the other. The worst thing that could be done is to equate benefits and protections for gays with degrading those already existing on marriage.
Well, in some states (like my own, Maryland), there’s virtually no chance of getting “something else” through the legislative process, but there’s at least a small chance of getting full marriage equality through the judicial process. And either way is fine with me; a just result is a just result, no matter how it’s achieved.
As I said, I view even that as short-term fix. I’m a full-blooded anti-statist, and I won’t lose sight of the ultimate goal of getting government out of all the millions of things it needs to keep its filthy hands out of (including human relationships). I make no apologies for trying to keep that goal in sight.
#34: I wasn’t saying that marriage is not a right BECAUSE it’s always been regulated by the state. I was saying that marriage is not a right AND it’s always been regulated by the state.
The American Left thinks that health care, food, housing, transportation, affordable cable TV, and high-speed Internet access are all basic human rights. It’s no wonder that they include marriage on the list.
Well, in some states (like my own, Maryland), there’s virtually no chance of getting “something else” through the legislative process
Not quite.
I understand the attitude; it’s one constantly reinforced by plantation Democrats, who know that their power over gays will end the day that gays no longer consider themselves perpetual victims. To ensure that happens, Dems make sure that their puppet gays only support measures that Dems know are doomed to failure, and criticize other ones that have broad support and a good chance of passing. That way, Dems can claim to be “for gays”, while never actually having to face the ramifications.
But, what gays don’t realize is that this eventually backfires; witness, for instance, the recent ruling in Connecticut, which DOES have legislatively-passed civil unions that are in all respects equivalent to marriage. Gay activists, at the command of the Democrats, immediately went to the courts to have those overturned, an action virtually certain to end in failure, but one which would continue to reinforce gays’ victimhood.
41: Give me a break. You think any self-respecting gay person is going to accept advance medical directives as any kind of substitute for real equality under the law? The law to which you refer doesn’t really change anything at all; it just creates a registry for anyone (gay, straight, single, partnered) to register a document with the state that was already legally enforceable.
Don’t bring up straw-man arguments. I have never voted for a Democrat or in any way given aid and comfort to a Democrat (or any member of the criminal two-party establishment). The only way gay people defend Republicans is by tearing down Democrats, but that doesn’t work for those principled people who refuse to support the slightly lesser of two evils. If you want to try to persuade people to support Republicans, you’ll need to do better than just condemn the Democrats.
Seriously, go back and read my comment 51 on http://gaypatriot.net/2006/07/12/the-persistence-of-bias-against-gay-conservatives … I don’t know who you’re arguing with, but it’s not me.
I am not a victim. Victims lie down and take it up the ass and whine about it later. That’s not what I’m doing. I am going to do whatever is necessary to achieve a just world in my lifetime, or die trying.
#40 “Conservative Guy”:
None of those things are rights — no one has a right to get them from someone; they have to be earned. However, it is a right to demand that the government not legally deny us equal access to those things if we do work hard to achieve our goals.
I sure hope we’d both agree that the government would be violating rights if it passed a law denying access to “health care, food, housing, transportation, affordable cable TV, and high-speed Internet access” to gay people, even if the suppliers wanted to sell those things to us. This is not about claiming that I have a right to be married, or be given anything else in my life. It’s about claiming that, if I work to acheve these goals, the government has no “right” to stop me.
#5. Way too long…couldn’t read all of it. But from the opening lines, I just want to say that I am not a victim. I am a victimizer–I victimize America, christianists and, apparently, you.
YAY!! Defeat to liberal gays and The Gay Left EVERYWHERE!! YAY!!
#32. Forget marriage, I think we should just demand a nice box and a plot of grass sans dandelions. Anything less than what straight people get is fine with me.
To all the gay Republicans here, I have some questions:
(1) Will you be truly satisfied with measures (domestic partnerships, reciprical benefits, etc.) that fall short of equality under the law?
(2) If not, what is your plan to achieve true equality under the law?
(3) Why should I, or any other gay person, believe that the Republicans will bring us a good result?
(4) Is it possible that you’re just too comfortable with your own life to risk anything in the pursuit of real change?
(And don’t talk about how bad Democrats are. Yes, they’re very bad. You need to show why some other alternative is GOOD.)
As one of the few Washington residents that occasionally posts to this blog (and thus someone impacted by the decision), I have not yet had a chance to read through all 6 opinions rendered in this decision yet. But I will have a lot more to say about it once I have.
Does anyone else remember the Gay Liberation movement’s view of marriage in the 1970s? According to them, marriage was an old-fashioned institution for squares, marriage was for boring middle-aged straight people who lived in the suburbs. But gay men were liberated, gay men were swingers, gay men went to discos and bath houses and sex parties and would never be tied to one partner. Now gay marriage has become the holy grail of the gay rights movement. And in response to all the agitation of the gay rights movement, I’ll repeat, we know have 45 states with either state constitutional amendments banning gay marriage or state statutes outlawing same-sex weddings. In November of 2004, 11 states voted against gay marriage in one day. The push for gay marriage is achieving the opposite of its goal. But I’m sure we’ll hear the typical liberal response: “Don’t judge me by my results; judge me by my good intentions,” even after they’ve succeeded in getting gay marriage banned in all 50 states.
Kdogg36, you have equality under the law. You can marry a woman, same as I can or any other man can. We are also free to choose not to marry women. You shouldn’t believe “Republicans will bring us a good result” on this issue any more than Democrats will. Gay marriage just ain’t happening, through either Republicans or Democrats.
#25 Michigan-Matt — July 27, 2006 @ 4:19 pm – July 27, 2006
Poor Matty, unable to address the issue that I raised in # 12, so he tries to deflect it with another “raj” “Ian” rant.
(And don’t talk about how bad Democrats are. Yes, they’re very bad. You need to show why some other alternative is GOOD.)
I am not gay, so I can’t answer your other questions.
And I think this is half the problem. If you want to forward a specific agenda, you can’t play the political party game-you need to look for, and support only those candidates that are actually dedicated to furthering the goal of that agenda.
Supporting a democrat that is opposed to gay marriage isn’t going to get you any further than opposing republicans on principal.
Look to the pro life movement-you won’t find pro life groups endorsing pro choice candidates-you won’t find them providing monetary support for them either-gay groups haven’t quite figured this one out yet, and they need to.
jimmy said it best for the intellectual capacity of the GayLeft:
“Way too long…couldn’t read all of it.”
And the trolls of raj/ian, Gramps, CowBoyBob, QueerP and Mr Moderate get another member. “Rally now, freedom to post for all –even if it doesn’t make sense!”
#40 North Dallas Thirty — July 27, 2006 @ 7:01 pm – July 27, 2006
>>>>Well, in some states (like my own, Maryland), there’s virtually no chance of getting “something else” through the legislative process
Not quite.
Oh, wow. A proposal by the MD governor to establish a state registry of something that amounts to a living will, with an indication of who is to be designated “power of attorney” to give voice to medical care decisions if the person is not able to do so him- or herself. Big deal. Unless MD state is truly backward–which may be the case–individuals can already enter into a living will and give the “power of attorney.”
Big advance? No. The only possible advance is the central registry with the state. The cited article doesn’t give any indication what force it might have if a “family” member tries to intervene. Nor does it give any indication what force it might have in other states if an event occurs in other states. In other words, it’s a Bandaid that doesn’t provide any protection. Smoke & mirrors. Sophistry. To let the soccer moms believe that the Republicans are actually doing something to ameliorate discrimination against gay people.
#68 Conservative Guy — July 28, 2006 @ 8:23 pm – July 28, 2006
Then what exactly do you do on election day, kdogg36? Throw your vote away on third party candidates? Or just stay home?
Some of us vote for the Libertarian party largely so that the Libertarian Party might not have to go through the process of gathering petition signatures to get their candidates on the next ballot. As is typical in most states, if the Libertarian Party gets enough votes in one election, they don’t have to go through the petition route for the next election.
Of course, since we are from Massachusetts, the outcome of the election is pretty much fore-ordained as between the major parties. But I’m amused at the number of self-described libertarians who vote Republican–who are decidedly not libertarian–instead of Libertarian, who are.
This year, we’ll be voting for the Democratic party candidate for governor (even if we have to hold our noses and vote for the despicable Reilly), if only for the reason to defeat the Republican know-nothing cypher Kerry Heally, currently Mitt “the snitt” Romney’s lieutenant governess.
kdogg36, vote for whomever you want! I vote for third party candidates (at times) too, although I probably lean considerably more left than you. It is not, as some have stated, a wasted vote. Daniel
#57 North Dallas Thirty — July 28, 2006 @ 12:48 pm – July 28, 2006
I know that you are substantive-impaired, but, given the facts that Maryland already recognizes living wills and medical powers-of-attorney, just how is this proposal an advance for gay people?
Don’t BS me. Tell me just how this is an advance for gay people? How is this a change in substantive law. Other than maybe providing for a state registry–big deal.
#76: kdogg36, vote for whomever you want! I vote for third party candidates (at times) too, although I probably lean considerably more left than you. It is not, as some have stated, a wasted vote. Daniel
Well, thank you (and raj) for your support in going against the grain at times.
I suppose you might well lean more left, in economic concerns, but a glance at your blog suggests that your main focus is on things with which I fully agree. (I am, even as we speak, trying to get a job in development with the ACLU of Maryland. :))
Don’t BS me. Tell me just how this is an advance for gay people? How is this a change in substantive law. Other than maybe providing for a state registry–big deal.
Also, Robert Ehrlich vetoed two modest measures last year that would have brought some fairness for gay couples in Maryland (see http://www.equalitymaryland.org/PR_2005/PR2005.05.20.htm). One of them would have eliminated the transfer and recordation tax for couples who can’t legally marry.
What’s a Republican who vetoes a tax cut good for? (Supply your own witty answer. I have one in mind, but I’m afraid that it wouldn’t be taken as a joke by those who may be watching this page.)
Don’t BS me. Tell me just how this is an advance for gay people? How is this a change in substantive law. Other than maybe providing for a state registry–big deal.
I’ll give you a hint, Raj; I’ve added emphasis to show you. 🙂
Furthermore, thank you for undermining your own argument:
I know that you are substantive-impaired, but, given the facts that Maryland already recognizes living wills and medical powers-of-attorney, just how is this proposal an advance for gay people?
Of course, the reasons that leftists like you argue that gays need marriage is because, allegedly, they can’t make living wills or grant medical powers-of-attorney.
You see, admitting the fact that they do undermines your argument about “need” and exposes your drive for marriage at its antireligious, hate-filled, jihadist roots. And this is why voters keep repelling you — they know you’re using lies to cover up your real motives.
Kdogg, I suggest that you read those bills before you question Ehrlich’s veto of them. Especially the tax one.
#81: Kdogg, I suggest that you read those bills before you question Ehrlich’s veto of them. Especially the tax one.
I have read the Recordation and Transfer Tax bill (HB 1298). The only thing objectionable about it is that it was a very modest proposal that would have created a separate legal status that was not marriage — but I can’t see that being a reason that you’d find it objectionable. 🙂
Gov. Ehrlich’s veto statement is very telling. Here, as Andrew Sullivan might say, is the money quote:
“While I am a long-time proponent of lowering settlement costs for Maryland citizens, House Bill 1298 codifies in State statute a new relationship of domestic partners, which I believe undermines the sanctity of traditional marriage as codified by State law.”
I didn’t read all of the Medical Decision Making bill (SB 796) in detail. As far as I can tell, though, it would have simply allowed someone to designate a life partner as direct next-of-kin for the purpose of making medical decisions. Gov. Ehrlich’s veto statement invoked the same argument he used with the other bill:
“While Senate Bill 796 has the noble goals of ensuring that couples have access to important health-related decisions – compassionate goals that I embrace – the mechanism it uses, the creation a new term of life partner, will open the door to undermine the sanctity of traditional marriage.”
The man is not just against marriage equality. He thinks that any kind of legal recognition of the legimacy of a same-sex couple is going to somehow harm “the sanctity of marriage.” Same old same old.
HB 1298 text: http://mlis.state.md.us/2005rs/bills/hb/hb1298t.pdf
HB 1298 veto statement: http://www.gov.state.md.us/billvetoes/2005/message_HB1298.html
SB 796 text: http://mlis.state.md.us/2005rs/bills/sb/sb0796e.pdf
SB 796 veto statement: http://www.gov.state.md.us/billvetoes/2005/message_SB796.html
#80: And this is why voters keep repelling you — they know you’re using lies to cover up your real motives.
I know this wasn’t directed at me, but since they’re repelling me, too, I thought I would respond.
Voters are repelling us because they don’t think same-sex relationships are as fully legitimate — and equivalent in all essentials — to straight ones. At best, that’s a product of their ignorance, which I admit may not be entirely their fault.
The only thing objectionable about it is that it was a very modest proposal that would have created a separate legal status that was not marriage — but I can’t see that being a reason that you’d find it objectionable.
Governor Ehrlich outlined why it is objectionable:
While I am a long-time proponent of lowering settlement costs for Maryland citizens, House Bill 1298 codifies in State statute a new relationship of domestic partners, which I believe undermines the sanctity of traditional marriage as codified by State law.
The same problem exists in California. Gay leftists and pandering Democrats are attempting to override the voter-enacted Proposition 22, which very clearly bans gay marriage in California, by using the inane argument that it doesn’t apply to marriages made in-state and attempting to thus back-door the process.
I say that the laws are clear. Run a campaign to repeal Prop 22 (or in the case of MD, repeal the state DOMA), and then you have free rein to put in whatever you want. Anything else is an affront to voters’ intelligence and, in my opinion, the reason that voters so often put into place bans to prevent gays from using such manipulations.
Then, as far as SB 796 goes, Ehrlich has no problem with granting the right, only the method by which that right is granted. He made that obvious when he proposed his own rule this year that would grant that right to any couple without having to designate them as “life partners”, thus making the right more accessible to a wide range of people.
In short, he took the libertarian view — instead of limiting the right to just “life partnerships”, gay or straight, he preferred that it be applied to all different types of couples in a non-discriminatory fashion.
Of course, since it isn’t written to pander precisely to gays, in the mind of gay activists and, apparently, people like yourself, it’s antigay.
I say that the laws are clear. Run a campaign to repeal Prop 22 (or in the case of MD, repeal the state DOMA), and then you have free rein to put in whatever you want. Anything else is an affront to voters’ intelligence and, in my opinion, the reason that voters so often put into place bans to prevent gays from using such manipulations.
Here’s the entire text of Maryland Family Law, Section 2-201, the only relevant statute in Maryland law as far as I can tell:
“Only a marriage between a man and a woman is valid in this State.”
It doesn’t say anything at all about registries of domestic partners or life partners. It does not state or imply that any recognition of same-sex couples other than marriage would be illegal. For Ehrlich to claim otherwise would be an affront to my intelligence, but I really don’t think he meant to make that claim. It was a policy veto.
Of course, since it isn’t written to pander precisely to gays, in the mind of gay activists and, apparently, people like yourself, it’s antigay.
No, the advance directives bill that was passed wasn’t antigay. Ehrlich’s vetoes were, in some sense, antigay. Maybe not in the sense of “bigoted” or “hateful,” but in the sense that he plainly doesn’t recognize same-sex relationships as being as legitimate as “traditional marriage.” And he opposes even modest legal recognition of the legitimacy of same-sex relationships, which would in fact be perfectly consistent with Maryland law. (And which, I wager, would be perfectly acceptable to a majority of Marylanders, though I don’t have statistics to back this up off-hand.)
You know, your tone seems vaguely hostile, and I have no idea why; I have been trying to explain myself in a calm and reasonable fashion. One other thing, I don’t mind you calling me a gay activist, because I clearly am one; just don’t call me a liberal. 🙂
Oh, I found some statistics here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/postpoll_mdpolitics_062706.htm
According to question 36, as of June 25, 50% of all registered Maryland voters said they would favor “a state law that would allow gay or lesbian couples to legally form civil unions, giving them some of the legal rights of married couples.” 47 percent would oppose. Not exactly staggering figures, and not exactly the most precise wording, but it strongly suggests (to me) that a majority would support at least the modest measures involved in these two bills. I think it would be a stretch to claim that the bills were trying to subvert the will of the voters.
—————-
Now, I have another very important point to make. On 1/7/04, according to this poll, the split was 44% in favor, 51% opposed to civil unions, so support for civil unions has increased by 6%, and opposition decreased by 4%, since then.
What has happened in Maryland in the intervening years? On 7/7/04, a same-sex marriage lawsuit was filed by the ACLU and Equality Maryland. Arguments were heard on 8/30/05. Circuit Court Judge M. Brooke Murdock ruled in favor of same-sex marriage on 1/20/06.
This would seem to contradict the claim that the push for full marriage equality has alienated citizens and harmed efforts to achieve goals short of same-sex marriage. At least in Maryland.
Bruce’s original post threw you a red herring. Everyone’s been talking about “civil marriage equality” forever.
What they have not been talking about is the fact that civil marriage equality is “truly a conservative goal.”