Gay Patriot Header Image

Massachusetts May Vote on Gay Marriage

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 6:39 pm - January 2, 2007.
Filed under: Civil Discourse,Gay Marriage

In two successive votes today, the Massachusetts legislature voted today to advance a measure “backing a proposed ballot initiative that could ban gay marriage.

The proposed amendment, which would define marriage as between one man and one woman and ban future gay marriages, still needs approval of the next legislative session before it can go onto the ballot.

Those opposed to the ban include Massachusetts Governor-elect Deval Patrick, “fought all day to hold off the vote.

It’s amazing how some people are so eager to prevent debate on this very important topic.

As I’ve said before, I think a referendum in Massachusetts would be a good thing. First, it would get people talking about gay marriage, giving advocates a chance to make clear why they believe marriage is good for gay people. Second, should this referendum be defeated (as Bay State polls indicate), it would provide momentum for gay marriage.

If Massachusetts voters reject this referendum (limiting the definition of marriage), advocates could show that, in the first (and only) state which recognized gay marriage, there was no popular backlash against the court’s decision.

I have long believed that the people of the several states — and their elected legislators — should decide whether or not to change the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples. In the Bay State, where there seems to be significant popular support for such a change, a referendum would give gay marriage considerable legitimacy. And help keep the issue of same-sex relationships at the forefront of the national conversation.

Share

45 Comments

  1. We live (and thrive as individuals) in a constitutional system designed to protect the minority from tyrannies of the majority. Do you really believe human freedom and dignity and the ideal of equality-before-the-law should be put to a public vote.

    Comment by Ashley Hunter — January 2, 2007 @ 7:31 pm - January 2, 2007

  2. I am in general not a huge fan of referendums, but in this case given the court decision and the court essentially telling the legislature what legislation they had to write a referendum may be a good way for Mass to deal with the issue.

    In the end I don’t think the voters would opt to prevent gays from marrying, I suspect the referendum would end up affirming the right for gays to marry in the state, but it would provide all voters the ability to have some say in the matter-whether they are on the losing or winning side of the referendum.

    Comment by just me — January 2, 2007 @ 8:10 pm - January 2, 2007

  3. I worry that it the pollsters are wrong and it DOES pass that it will be the “iceberg” that sinks much of the gay-agenda for 2007 and 2008…including the ending of DADT. On a national-level, eliminating DADT will have a greater “politically” impact in the long-view of History than state-by-state gay marriage with respect to the G/L fully being part of the National polity.

    Comment by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) — January 2, 2007 @ 9:16 pm - January 2, 2007

  4. Dan, even were I to accept for a moment your premise that basic civil rights were open to majoritarian vote on (I don’t), the way in which this current vote came about, where only 25% of the legislature had to give its assent for the measure to go forward, can’t be considered “significant popular support.”

    The banning of gay marriage has already come before the legislature several times over the past few years, all as a result of the initial court case. It lost each time. When is the matter settled?

    Comment by Jody — January 2, 2007 @ 10:46 pm - January 2, 2007

  5. Jody, I disagree that state-recognized marriage is a basic civil right.

    As long as the state is not blocking gay couples from living together freely — and calling their relationships whatever they want to call them, it is not infringing on our rights. The issue here is one of the state granting privileges to people who elect to marry and undertake the responsibilities of that institution.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — January 3, 2007 @ 12:04 am - January 3, 2007

  6. Do you really believe human freedom and dignity and the ideal of equality-before-the-law should be put to a public vote.

    That’s an interesting one.

    I was never much of the mind that my dignity was negatively affected by being unable to marry with whatever I wished to have sex; I always thought it was more how I acted and handled myself as a person.

    I was never much of the mind that being unable to marry with whatever I wished to have sex impinged my freedom; after all, marriage represents an assumption of responsibility and restraint that is quite counter to unlimited freedom.

    And finally, there is more than enough legal precedent to show that it is not “unequal” to deny people the right to marry with that which they wish to have sex; after all, we’ve been “unequally” treating pedophiles, polygamists, bestialists, and incest practitioners for years.

    Furthermore, if one looks at it, Massachusetts has a population of 3 million. Assuming 5% of them are gay and eligible, that would represent over 75,000 couples; however, only 8,000, or barely over 10%, have taken advantage of what they said they so desperately needed, and of those, several, including Goodrich et. al, have summarily ditched their partners that they swore they would love forever if only the state would legitimize their relationship.

    In short, you need a better argument. That’s why we continue to have this issue, and that’s why we’re going to continue to have it; voters are tired of being fed bullshit.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 3, 2007 @ 12:48 am - January 3, 2007

  7. I strongly disagree that if a referendum to ban same-sex marriage in MA were to go before a vote of the people, it would be a very costly and hurtful battle to try to defeat the amendment. Look at what happened this fall in states that passed constitutional amendments to ban same-sex marriage. Wisconsin had a very good chance of defeating the amendment…during the summer poll results were close…52% for an amendment to ban same-sex marriage (civil unions and any equivalent) and 48% against the ban. Fair Wisconsin, the group who opposed the amendment had started working statewide 1.5 years before the amendment went to a vote and they had raised around $6 million to defeat it. I believe they did everything they could have possibly done, and in the end the amendment passed with around 60% of the vote. Wisconsin is a very progressive state…and they weren’t able to defeat the amendment with over 4,000 volunteers. I’m from MN and volunteered a lot the final weeks before the vote. I was shocked by the results, because I knew there wasn’t anything more they could have done to try to defeat it.

    So, in essence I’m suggesting that people from MA and the rest of us across the country do everything we can possibly do to prevent this amendment from going to a vote of the people. You can’t let the majority vote on minorities rights, especially creating a constitutional amendment that would take another constitutional amendment to undo. The time to start is now. This could be defeated in the next MA legislative session. There are new legislators that will replace some, but, their viewpoints are unknown.

    So, if you have friends and relatives in MA, make sure that they call or write their legislators to let them know how disappointed they are that a possible referendum could write discrimination in the oldest state Constitution in our country. For the rest of the country, the first state to allow same-sex marriage…can’t have this right taken away, MA is the state that we all hang our hope upon. We all know that the religious right will bring in all of it’s money, power, and people to pass such an amendment, denying the first state to allow same-sex marriage…would be a huge blow to our GLBT movement towards equality.

    Comment by Cheryl — January 3, 2007 @ 12:52 am - January 3, 2007

  8. If the people of Massachusetts are given the chance to vote on such a crucial issue. Now is the time for the gay community to come out and educate themselves and the general public about what it is they want.
    If marriage is considered to be only a right that has been denied – then the proposition will most likely go down in defeat.

    A real effort must be made, and with 3 years of Gay marriage in Mass. maybe more people have been exposed to the benefits of healthy stable relationships in the gay community. Just because the public has the right to vote, doesn’t mean they will automatically vote against it.

    Comment by Leah — January 3, 2007 @ 1:32 am - January 3, 2007

  9. #5: “Jody, I disagree that state-recognized marriage is a basic civil right.”

    If this be true, then African-Americans do not have a basic civil right to marry Caucasians. And the people of Virginia should have been able to vote on the issue. But the Supreme Court ruled otherwise. Do you disagree with the Supreme Court?

    Comment by Horace Kirkman — January 3, 2007 @ 2:48 am - January 3, 2007

  10. #6. Yeah, slaves had their own dignity, too. But that dignity wasn’t recognized by the law. So it was okay. (Couldn’t you bring dog humping in there?)

    Comment by jimmy — January 3, 2007 @ 4:33 am - January 3, 2007

  11. “Second, should this referendum be defeated (as Bay State polls indicate), it would provide momentum for gay marriage…. In the Bay State, where there seems to be significant popular support for such a change, a referendum would give gay marriage considerable legitimacy. And help keep the issue of same-sex relationships at the forefront of the national conversation.”

    Sorry that marriage, for you, for same-sex couples needs legitimacy. (Please scold him VK and Dallas lady–he’s claiming that someone else gives legitimacy to gay relationships!!) And where would this momentum be? In the states that Republicans haven’t passed amendments already? The issue of same-sex relationships will remain at the forefront of WHOSE conversations? Yours, maybe. But why do same-sex relationships have to even be at the forefront of the national conversation? Opposite-sex relationships might be at the forefront of the National Enquirer conversation, but we don’t talk about hetero marriages all the time. But, seriously, where is this conversation going to take place? In Blue States, the states that haven’t amended their constitutions to enshrine second-class status for gays. And you think that your beloved Red States will follow suit? Really? They will strike down their amendments and pass marriage equality because MA had a referendum? Please pass the pipe you are smoking, the one filled with the wacky tabacky of hypotheticals and abstractions divorced from reality.

    Comment by jimmy — January 3, 2007 @ 4:40 am - January 3, 2007

  12. #9

    I think NDT’s point is that dignity is not granted or taken. Our dignity is our own, and situations only express that dignity.

    As for the incest and polygamist and such arguments. Those arguments DO exist in the various community’s who are using the judicial usurpation of legislation in THIS case as an argument for THEIR case.

    It’s crap, but it’s their real strategy.

    Comment by Wickedpinto — January 3, 2007 @ 5:36 am - January 3, 2007

  13. #10. That’s nice–“dignity is our own”–if you live in a world of one. Reality, of which the Dallas lady is not a fan, shows that dignity is bestowed, granted, given, taken, etc. All cultures have intricate rituals for this, ranging from simple ‘tact’ in interations to laws that legitimize and recognize the dignity of people. The Dallas lady’s point is meaningless if you live in a world that includes culture and law, a world where there is this thing called “other people.”

    Comment by jimmy — January 3, 2007 @ 5:47 am - January 3, 2007

  14. “It’s amazing how some people are so eager to prevent debate on this very important topic.”

    When Republicans make sure that pro-gay laws get tabled in conferences and committees, etc., why aren’t you amazed that they “are so eager to prevent debate”? Funny how you are only amazed by gay folks protecting themselves from anti-gay movements but you are never amazed by anti-gay movements themselves. It isn’t the anti-gay people who are the problem, it isn’t the political party that they usually turn to in order to advance their anti-gay agenda, it is gay people themselves, gay organizations, gay leaders, and gay communities that are to blame for, well, anti-gay initiatives. Isn’t that funny how that always works on here?

    Are you even gay?

    Comment by jimmy — January 3, 2007 @ 6:04 am - January 3, 2007

  15. And I didn’t notice anywhere on here a mention of activist judges–the activist judges that ruled that state legislators have to vote and shouldn’t ignore their duty to vote on the matters brought before them. The anti-gay folks went to the activist judges and the activist judges said that this vote has to take place.

    Are you now for activist judges?

    Comment by jimmy — January 3, 2007 @ 6:07 am - January 3, 2007

  16. Those arguments DO exist in the various community’s who are using the judicial usurpation of legislation in THIS case as an argument for THEIR case.

    The only group I currently see using the argument are those advocating polygamy, and to be honest, I think if the argument is that gays have a civil right to marry whomever they want, then there isn’t a compelling argument for the state to keep polygamists and close relatives from marrying provided they are adults.

    I do think this is a topic that needs real debate in the public square.

    Comment by just me — January 3, 2007 @ 6:24 am - January 3, 2007

  17. The roll call breakdown:
    Republicans voted to move the amendment initiative forward at a much higher rate than Democrats. Democrats made the move forward possible, although 6 of 27 (22.2%) of Republicans, along with 126 Democrats (76%), voted No.

    HOUSE
    54 Yes, 100 No
    Yes: 35 D, 19 R
    No: 98 D, 2 R
    Republican Yes: 90.5% (19 of 21)
    Democrat Yes: 26.3% (35 of 133)

    SENATE
    7 Yes, 32 No
    Yes: 5 D, 2 R
    No: 28 D, 4 R
    Republican Yes: 33.3% (2 of 6)
    Democrat Yes: 15.1% (5 of 33)

    HOUSE AND SENATE
    Republican Yes: 77.7%
    Democrat Yes: 24.0%

    Comment by sean — January 3, 2007 @ 8:46 am - January 3, 2007

  18. If this does go to a public vote, it’ll be interesting to see who pours money, time, and energy into the campaign to save same-sex marriage in Massachusetts.

    And who doesn’t.

    Comment by vaara — January 3, 2007 @ 10:11 am - January 3, 2007

  19. “And finally, there is more than enough legal precedent to show that it is not “unequal” to deny people the right to marry with that which they wish to have sex; after all, we’ve been “unequally” treating pedophiles, polygamists, bestialists, and incest practitioners for years.”

    What crap!

    Anyone who is committed knows that marriage is not about sex.
    Its about being able to partner with someone you love and respect. That partner has rights to your hospital room, make decisions regarding health, money, and possibly raising children together.
    These are fundamental rights as discusses in article IX of the bill of rights and they have nothing to do with sex.
    No state should be able to vote for a marriage restriction law just like no state should be able to vote to bring back segregation.

    Anyone who is gay knows that being gay is not just about sex.
    By downgrading marriage to a simply a sexual issue shows you have zero credibility on this issue.

    Comment by keogh — January 3, 2007 @ 11:05 am - January 3, 2007

  20. “jimmy” seems to be coming a bit unhinged…first, what’s with “the dallas lady” krap? A sexist insult, from an evolved liberal? Shocking! I’ve met NDT, by the way…and I can assure you, he’s no lady ! And the final screech, “are you even gay?”…What are we supposed to do with that? It’s like yelling at conservative blacks, “are you even really black?”…Why is it so inconceivable that people who share a sexual orientation would have different ideas about everything else? Hell, most of us have different ideas about what our sexual orientation is. “jimmy”…honey…breathe. (And, by the way, I am a complete and total and happy man-humping homo…and I voted for Arnold Schwarzenegger…deal). Good Lord…I’m gonna go back and watch my soaps.

    Comment by EssEm — January 3, 2007 @ 12:14 pm - January 3, 2007

  21. If this be true, then African-Americans do not have a basic civil right to marry Caucasians.

    Only if race carries with it as many different biological, social, psychological, and other differences, including implications for producing children, as does gender and sexual orientation.

    The courts have wisely ruled that there is no significant difference of those sorts between “races” that would justify any restrictions on marriage. They have felt quite differently about other things, including gender, sexual orientation, age, being already married to someone else, and other things that limit what leftists claim is an inviolable “civil right” for anyone to marry anything with which they want to have sex.

    Reality, of which the Dallas lady is not a fan, shows that dignity is bestowed, granted, given, taken, etc. All cultures have intricate rituals for this, ranging from simple ‘tact’ in interations to laws that legitimize and recognize the dignity of people.

    Unfortunately, I know people who are not married or cannot be married that are quite dignified and considered by many others to have a great deal of dignity, and I know people who are married who receive the opposite.

    What you are arguing, jimmy, is that gays have no dignity recognized by others without marriage. And given your behavior here of hate speech, of insults, of antireligious bigotry, of bashing straight people, and of claiming that people who don’t agree with you are not gay, I can understand why you cling to the belief that the reason people don’t give gays like you dignity is because you can’t get married.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 3, 2007 @ 12:52 pm - January 3, 2007

  22. I have to admit to being queasy about any possible vote on gay marriage in Massachusetts. People tell pollsters what they want to hear, but it’s the voting booth where their true feelings are shown. By the way people, another vote in the legislature during the 2007-2008 session has to take place before it goes on the ballot. If gay marriage can’t win by popular vote in Massachusetts (of all places), we might as well throw in the towel & go for civil unions instead.
    #6 NDT: sorry to be picky, but the population of Massachusetts is hovering around 6 million, not 3 million.

    Comment by Jimbo — January 3, 2007 @ 1:19 pm - January 3, 2007

  23. 19. “Anyone who is gay knows that being gay is not just about sex.”
    For once I totally agree with Keogh.
    Unfortunately our popular culture displays only two images of gay men. (the squeemishness about gay marriage is much more about gay men than lesbians). Either they are involved with sex all the time with multiple partners, or they are the queens, feminized and a caricature. In Will and Grace – Wills’ emotional partner was Grace – men were simply for sex. And the other gay character , I forget his name, was the total queen.

    This is where the gay community must educate the general public. My guess is that the silent majority of gays are no different from their neighbors. And if they are willing to accept the responsiblities of marriage – monogamy being one of the cornerstones. Then there is a good chance that vote might pass.

    Please don’t come back at me that the hetero society isn’t monogamous. The silent majority of married couples are, we are never highlighted in the media – so if you use Hollywood marriage as an example, that won’t fly in middle America.

    Comment by Leah — January 3, 2007 @ 1:47 pm - January 3, 2007

  24. (the squeemishness about gay marriage is much more about gay men than lesbians).

    I think the squeamishness has to do with people who present in what people think of as “inappropriate” for their gender — whether gay or lesbian. I think it’s a general squeamishness about homosexuality in general — the “ick” factor, if you will — based on the challenge that some gay men and lesbian women present to what people think of as normative gender behavior.

    Comment by Novaseeker — January 3, 2007 @ 3:03 pm - January 3, 2007

  25. That partner has rights to your hospital room, make decisions regarding health, money, and possibly raising children together.

    But here’s the kicker, keogh; you can get all of those things perfectly well without marriage. Straight couples do it on a regular basis, including such luminaries as Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie, or as simple as sisters or brothers who want to be able to make financial and healthcare decisions for their single siblings and/or widowed or incapable parents. Indeed, in my own fair city of San Francisco, Supervisor Bevan Dufty and his lesbian friend are raising a child they produced together without the benefit of marriage, even though they theoretically could do it, being of opposite genders — and, since you insist that sex has “nothing to do with marriage”, totally morally and realistically.

    What this boils down to, keogh, is that, if you want the person you “love and respect” to be able to get into your hospital room, make financial and healthcare decisions, and raise children together, you can do it quite nicely and legally without marriage, and no one’s stopping you. Indeed, if the only thing making you “love and respect” a person is a legal bond, there’s a serious problem.

    In short, if sex is no object, you have all the rights and benefits you want. But you and your fellow gay leftists continue to insist that society has to give benefits to you and anyone with which you want to have sex.

    That to me exemplifies that it’s not the benefits and protections you and your fellow leftists care about; it’s the revenge and hate factor involved with taking marriage. And again, the fact that the overwhelming majority of Massachusetts’s leftist gays, despite screaming that they couldn’t live another second without gay marriage, haven’t taken advantage of it makes it obvious that leftist gays like you care not one whit about the benefits or protections.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 3, 2007 @ 3:32 pm - January 3, 2007

  26. Whether a referendum on gay marriage in Massachusetts would be good or bad for the cause is beside the point. A majority of citizens should NEVER be allowed to vote on the rights of a minority. If we support a vote on gay marriage, we then open up the doors to our fellow citizens voting on which other rights they think we should be denied.

    Or, consider the ridiculousness of the converse: Would it be OK for angry gays to amass a majority of people to deny Christians the right to marriage through a vote? Such a vote would be appalling. A vote on whether gays can marry would be similarly appalling.

    Comment by Tony — January 3, 2007 @ 3:39 pm - January 3, 2007

  27. Just to be clear, NDT … you’re against gay marriage unless a democratically-elected legislature passes a statute allowing for it — is that your view, in essence? In other words, nothing *inherent* in marriage is really relevant, because it isn’t necessary for anyone who is gay or lesbian — it’s strictly a matter of what the people’s representatives are willing to do, and because it has no impact on people’s lives, it’s nothing more than a distraction from more important issues. Is that basically your view?

    Comment by Novaseeker — January 3, 2007 @ 3:48 pm - January 3, 2007

  28. -If gay marriage can’t win by popular vote in Massachusetts (of all places), we might as well throw in the towel & go for civil unions instead.-

    I heard that the amendment in Massachusetts may also ban civil unions.

    -But here’s the kicker, keogh; you can get all of those things perfectly well without marriage. –

    It’s very difficult, and costly, to raise children together or make medical decisions or any of that, if the law isn’t there. A gay couple has to have every shred of paperwork at all times, they have to hope and pray that one of their relatives won’t go to court and find a judge who will declare their paperwork invalid, and so on.

    Remember how hard it was for the surviving partners of gays who were killed on 9/11? They didn’t just get an automatic free pass because they were in love. Many of them had to sit by helpless as relatives of the deceased cleaned them out. They had to pass a law in Congress to give these surviving partners benefits.

    Saying “our love doesn’t need laws” is a lot better in theory than in practice.

    Comment by Carl — January 3, 2007 @ 4:49 pm - January 3, 2007

  29. I’m also intrigued by the implications of NDT’s apparent belief that any right granted to the people should be forfeit if not enough of them decide to take advantage of it.

    Few people ever participate in demonstrations or rallies; should we then conclude that the First Amendment ought to be rewritten?

    Comment by vaara — January 3, 2007 @ 4:51 pm - January 3, 2007

  30. A gay couple has to have every shred of paperwork at all times, they have to hope and pray that one of their relatives won’t go to court and find a judge who will declare their paperwork invalid, and so on.

    So, Carl, you think marriage automatically prevents parents from filing lawsuits to override the will of a spouse?

    Two words: “Terri Schiavo”.

    The irony in that case is that a gay couple with medical powers of attorney and clear end-of-life directives would not have had a fraction of the problem in that case that the married straight couple did.

    Marriage is no bar to lawsuits; if it were, it would be unconstitutional. It makes it less likely that a lawsuit will succeed, but so do numerous other legal protections which are fully accessible to gay couples.

    Furthermore, Carl, if marriage or similar legal protections are such a life-and-death matter for gays, please explain to me why barely a fraction of the eligible couples in Massachusetts (or California, for that matter), have taken advantage of the opportunity given. You whine about how gays are suffering every second and being denied things left and right, but can’t explain why, out of a population of anywhere north of 75,000 eligible couples in Massachusetts alone, only 8,000 of them have wed.

    I think it’s because the story of gay oppression is much better than the dirty reality. And it also covers up why gay leftists can waste so much money on pointless lawsuits, but whine how we can’t afford legal fees for accessing the legal instruments that already exist to provide such protections.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 3, 2007 @ 5:33 pm - January 3, 2007

  31. -So, Carl, you think marriage automatically prevents parents from filing lawsuits to override the will of a spouse?

    Two words: “Terri Schiavo”.-

    That was the exception, not the rule. It took major religious organizations and the governor and Congress and the President to intervene, and even that failed. One of the reasons so many people opposed the Terri Schiavo meddling was because he was her husband and had the legal ability to make decisions for her. If that had been Tom Schiavo in the hospital with his husband Mike Schiavo making medical decisions, I don’t know if people would have had the same reaction.

    -You whine about how gays are suffering every second and being denied things left and right, but can’t explain why,-

    Not all gay couples get married. Some of them think it’s useless because the federal laws still make their relationships invalid. Others don’t want to put themselves on the record and face potential outing or abuse. I didn’t realize that marriage rights were based on all couples wanting to get married. For many years there were laws which barred gays from serving in the federal government. Some in your party would probably want those laws to return. Since most gays don’t serve in the federal government, does that mean you think they should ban them?

    Thanks for ignoring what I said about the 9/11 couples. I had a feeling that you would.

    Comment by Carl — January 4, 2007 @ 1:07 am - January 4, 2007

  32. And, to Novaseeker, yes, with one exception.

    In other words, nothing *inherent* in marriage is really relevant, because it isn’t necessary for anyone who is gay or lesbian

    I don’t think marriage is “necessary” for anyone, regardless of what their sexual orientation is.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 4, 2007 @ 1:43 am - January 4, 2007

  33. Thanks for ignoring what I said about the 9/11 couples. I had a feeling that you would.

    You know, Carl, you’re right; they, as an example, show what’s wrong with you gay leftists.

    These people, following 9/11, were the recipients of some of the greatest amounts of largesse and understanding in history. Businesses paid out benefits, life insurance companies recognized and paid out beneficiaries, and people received overwhelming amounts of charity.

    But all you and your fellow gay leftists can do is sit and bitch about what they didn’t get instantly. Not a kind word, not a recognization of what people did, not anything but whining about how awful everyone treats them and how, if they had marriage, they wouldn’t have any problems.

    People are slowly starting to realize the behavior pattern that gay leftists exhibit. They throw temper tantrums over not having marriage, but when they get it, they make all sorts of excuses for why no one’s using it. Then, when people express a strong desire to get rid of it, they try to ignore the law and disenfranchise them so people can’t exercise their right to decide on laws.

    In short, gay leftists act towards marriage like a spoiled toddler does towards toys; they don’t want it until someone else has it, they throw a tantrum until they get it, and once they get it they don’t want it any more and start demanding something else.

    You want to prove that marriage is so necessary for gays? Get married or get your ass into a domestic partnership yourself. Stop making excuses. I would fully understand peoples’ reasons for not getting into one if they weren’t demanding marriage — after all, I have my reasons as well and I’m not — but I simply cannot comprehend how you and yours can survive without taking advantage of something you have claimed is so necessary that it requires suspending voters’ rights and pissing millions of them off.

    In short, demonstrate that gays care about something other than whining and bitching about how badly straight people treat them.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 4, 2007 @ 2:36 am - January 4, 2007

  34. “Gay leftists act towards marriage like a spoiled toddler does towards toys”
    ???
    Gays want the same marriage rights as straight folks get. How is that controversial?
    Further, you failed to address the substance of carl’s 9-11 critique.
    the substance is as follows:
    Despite love and legal documentation the deceased families can and have stripped the surviving gay partner from shared assets and rights.
    I know of folks it has happened to and I am sure that most gay people have seen it happen too. Haven’t you?

    Thus legal bonding is necessary as covered in article IX in the constitution.

    Comment by keogh — January 4, 2007 @ 11:04 am - January 4, 2007

  35. Gays want the same marriage rights as straight folks get.

    Only because straight folks have them.

    But as I’ve demonstrated, when given rights, gay leftists don’t take advantage of them; instead they bitch and whine and make excuses as to why they aren’t taking advantage of that which they claimed they couldn’t live without.

    Despite love and legal documentation the deceased families can and have stripped the surviving gay partner from shared assets and rights.

    Really, leftist?

    Show me a case in which a family has sued successfully to overturn the established will of a gay person.

    And that’s why straight people don’t trust gays, keogh; you lie to them.

    Read what was actually said.

    The legislation creating the fund did not restrict unmarried relatives or partners from receiving compensation under the program, a development that prompted gay Congressman Barney Frank (D-Mass.) to say it opened the way for inclusion for domestic partners.

    But implementing regulations prepared by special master Kenneth Fienberg, whom President Bush named to run the program, called for leaving the decision on who was eligible for relief to the probate laws of the individual states where the victims lived.

    That policy meant that same-sex partners would likely be shut out of the program in nearly all states unless the couples had wills that designated the surviving partner the beneficiary of the deceased person’s estate.

    Pizer of Lambda Legal said her group knows of cases where some of the 22 known surviving gay partners worked amicably with blood relatives of the deceased person and obtained a share of the compensation allocation. Feinberg said the average disbursement came to more than $2 million for the estate of each person killed in the 9/11 attacks.

    In other cases, Pizer said, parents and siblings prevented a same-sex partner from receiving any compensation. In such cases, the same-sex partners did not have a bill or other legal documents that legally recognized their relationships.

    “One of the key lessons for our community in this tragedy is not to put off preparing basic legal documents such as a will,” Pizer said. “It’s a very affirming and loving thing to do.”

    But why write a will, when you can just bitch and whine about not having marriage?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 4, 2007 @ 12:41 pm - January 4, 2007

  36. “you gay leftists” … “your fellow gay leftists” … “gay leftists exhibit” … “gay leftists act” …

    I think your needle is stuck in the groove there, NDT.

    By the way, my partner and I are legally married, and we firmly believe that everyone else should be allowed to make the same choice we have. That’s what conservative-libertarianism is all about, isn’t it? Freedom to choose.

    Comment by vaara — January 4, 2007 @ 1:42 pm - January 4, 2007

  37. That’s what conservative-libertarianism is all about, isn’t it? Freedom to choose.

    Except when it comes to voting on a matter.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 4, 2007 @ 5:30 pm - January 4, 2007

  38. This is why we have legislators.

    Should people be entitled to vote on every decision government makes? Or just the ones that involve us icky homos?

    Comment by vaara — January 4, 2007 @ 5:48 pm - January 4, 2007

  39. Representative government works very well in most cases, vaara.

    However, in this case, the people specifically requested to vote on an issue and followed the proper procedure to do it; hence, their wishes to do so should be respected.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 5, 2007 @ 2:09 am - January 5, 2007

  40. -But all you and your fellow gay leftists can do is sit and bitch about what they didn’t get instantly. –

    So the people who had their homes cleaned out or were shut out by the family of their deceased partner were just sitting around and bitching.

    Good to know.

    Not everything is about the evil gay left, NDT, believe it or not. Not every decision or opinion that you dislike is a part of some gay left propaganda.

    Comment by Carl — January 5, 2007 @ 2:36 am - January 5, 2007

  41. Even if that means that the GayLibBorgTraitors (or whatever you people are calling them these days) earn a victory?

    Well, fair enough.

    I guess we now know which side of the gay-marriage fight you’ll be on. You’ve made abundantly clear your opinions that (a) the vast majority of your fellow homosexuals are disgusting, immoral libertines who are incapable for forming lasting monogamous relationships; and (b) marriage is not a thing we should aspire to anyway.

    So ¡Hasta la celibacía siempre! will be your battle call. To the barricades!

    Comment by vaara — January 5, 2007 @ 2:56 am - January 5, 2007

  42. NDT, I don’t where your head is regarding legal documentation. It may be may be perfectly legal and may hold up solidly in a court in YOUR state, but in many other states (19 of which have passed constitutional amendments banning same sex marriage, and/or any type relationship that even resembles a marriage, as VA did), a same sex couple can possess a library of paperwork, but state laws would render every word in those papers null and void. I don’t know why you can’t get your brain around that. Not all of us live in liberal areas like SF. Jesus, pull your head OUT, and read some news about other states, or listen to it once in awhile, and you may be enlightened!! There is NO valid reason that two same-sex couples who love each other and are committed life partners shouldn’t be able to sanctify that relationship legally, no matter where they live, just as opposite sex couples can. For crying out loud! UGH!

    Comment by ndtovent — January 5, 2007 @ 3:29 pm - January 5, 2007

  43. So the people who had their homes cleaned out or were shut out by the family of their deceased partner were just sitting around and bitching.

    Carl, did you read what I cited?

    In other cases, Pizer said, parents and siblings prevented a same-sex partner from receiving any compensation. In such cases, the same-sex partners did not have a bill(sic) or other legal documents that legally recognized their relationships.

    If you die without a will, that’s not really our problem. That’s your failure to think and plan in advance.

    What’s really funny is that you could solve this problem instantly — and prevent the same from happening again — by pushing gay couples to get wills, which are immediately and currently available. But you would rather waste your time and effort on whining for marriage, instead of helping gay couples take advantage of the benefits and protections which already exist.

    You’ve made abundantly clear your opinions that (a) the vast majority of your fellow homosexuals are disgusting, immoral libertines who are incapable for forming lasting monogamous relationships; and (b) marriage is not a thing we should aspire to anyway.

    Not exactly.

    I don’t think most gay people are incapable of having monogamous relationships; I simply think they loathe and mock them.

    And as for b), can you explain to me why we should aspire to a model that was built for monogamous heterosexual couples with children, when we have or are none of those?

    As I’ve told Pat elsewhere, acknowledging the fact that we are different and have different needs does not make us inferior or unequal.

    It may be may be perfectly legal and may hold up solidly in a court in YOUR state, but in many other states (19 of which have passed constitutional amendments banning same sex marriage, and/or any type relationship that even resembles a marriage, as VA did), a same sex couple can possess a library of paperwork, but state laws would render every word in those papers null and void.

    In that case, you should have plenty of examples in which courts threw out a will, healthcare proxy, power of attorney, or any other legally-executed agreement between gay couples based on these amendments.

    Be a dear and provide us a few, would you? Especially since you’re in Virginia; why, given that state law has expressly forbidden such things, or so people claim, since 2004, you should have a veritable fleet of them out there.

    Or you could take the sensible tack and recognize that courts are smart enough that they know that, while powers of attorney, for example, are included as part of the marriage package, they do not constitute marriage, and thus are not subject to this amendment — otherwise courts would be overturning them left and right. What these amendments are specifically against are package-deal setups that try to approximate marriage, not individual legal instruments like wills or health care proxies.

    And that really brings us to the main point, ndtovent; if you want to “legally sanctify” your relationship, there are numerous things out there, such as wills, health care proxies, and powers of attorney that you can use to do it. But, given that so many gays aren’t taking advantage of them, preferrring instead, like you, to whine about marriage, I have to seriously wonder; is it the “legal” you’re looking for, or is it your petty revenge fantasies, like vaara, of having a piece of paper to show those mean heterosexuals that you’re just as good as they are?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 6, 2007 @ 12:42 am - January 6, 2007

  44. North Dallas Thirty, let me get this straight: you oppose gay marriage, yet you proudly proclaimed earlier that you consider your boyfriend to be your “husband” — which, of course, implies that you consider yourself to be the wife of that man. Boy, is that ever having it both ways. I guess being gay and being a wingnut at the same time can really knot a guy up.

    Comment by Rheadher — January 6, 2007 @ 12:48 pm - January 6, 2007

  45. Nope, I’m his husband and he’s my husband. It’s actually much easier than you make it.

    Where I think you’re confused is the fact that we have a perfectly valid, loving, stable relationship — and neither of us thinks we need marriage. We do just fine with the various legal constructs we have, and if the worst ever happened, we could unravel them rather easily from a legal standpoint.

    It’s amazing what two adults who have no ideological need to have marriage or believe that they’re inferior without it can do.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 6, 2007 @ 4:11 pm - January 6, 2007

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.