Gay Patriot Header Image

NJ Senate Defeats Gay Marriage

So late today the Senate in New Jersey, one of the blueist of blue states (based on recent Prez elections), defeated a gay marriage proposal.

Gay rights advocates were confident of a legislative win and they pushed for passage while defeated Gov. Corzine was still holding his bill-signing pen.

So WTF? What has happened to the gay marriage movement? If you lose in CA and NJ, where do you go now?

I think it is a dead issue. Dead.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Share

63 Comments

  1. I think it is a dead issue. Dead.

    If ONLY!

    But liberals dont work like that. They will devise new dishonest schemes and engage in even more outright thuggery to try and force their will on the unwilling people.

    Its what they do.

    Comment by American Elephant — January 7, 2010 @ 8:50 pm - January 7, 2010

  2. i.e. Back to the courts! Quick quick!

    Comment by The_Livewire — January 7, 2010 @ 9:05 pm - January 7, 2010

  3. Copen HAG en?

    Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — January 7, 2010 @ 9:10 pm - January 7, 2010

  4. No, it’s not a dead issue. In NJ it now goes back to the courts, given the ruling from that state’s High Court. How this new case will fare I haven’t a clue. The struggle goes on state by state, which will no doubt take longer in some than previously thought. Do you really think that we won’t see this come back in Maine and California, for example? Or that in 2-5 years efforts won’t be made for full marriage rights in Washington state? SSM is now legal in 5 states, the Federal District and out-of-state SSM is recognized in New York. Those actions will not be undone and actually may provide the best thing for this. We will now see whether claims by both sides bear fruit or hold merit. By no means is this going away.

    Comment by John — January 7, 2010 @ 9:27 pm - January 7, 2010

  5. I don’t think it’s a dead issue at all, just an issue that needs a little more patience.

    I am very Conservative on just about every other issue, but have no objection to gay marriage, and I do think it’s going to happen eventually; most young people are highly supportive of it.

    I realize it’s easy for me to say “be patient”, when no one could tell me I couldn’t marry the man I love, but here is a little insight from someone who supports the cause, but has a few suggestions.

    Dial back the hate speak. Please. This cause has been taken over by the usual vitriolic left wingers, and for whatever reason, your average Joe just doesn’t want to hear that kind of viciousness. And yes, I know, there are some nasty, nasty, nasty homophobes out there…but please don’t sink to their level.

    Secondly, and I think this is a huge issue….can you just leave it at marriage??

    I voted in favor of gay marriage twice here in Southern California, but the third time, much to my own shock, I actually voted against it. Maybe it’s because I live in Orange County, and we hear more details against it here, but is it really necessary that kids have to be taught about gay relationships in school? Is it really necessary to insist preachers get charged with hate crimes for saying homosexuality is a sin? Those two things really, really upset me.

    I don’t want my kids to be taught about ANY kind of relationship in school; that’s MY job. If I don’t like that the preacher is saying, I can, and have, gotten up in the middle of the sermon and walked out.

    But I can’t stomach the idea of the Reverend Wright types being free to say whatever the heck bullcrap they feel like saying and getting away with it, while some other preachers get busted for teaching what is in the Bible, wrong though I believe he is. But wrong isn’t a crime.

    One last thing, I do have concerns about polygamists and animal fetishists suing to be allowed to marry multiple people and their pet goats. I think that’s a large part of what some people mean when they talk about saving traditional marriage….they don’t mind gay folks getting married, but they do have a problem with the entire marriage issue being turned in to a bit of a joke.

    Again, not saying that it’s right, just saying what I hear people talking about when this comes up. Oh, and many people get annoyed when they hear this being framed as a “rights” issue. I think the timing on this is bad, when it frankly seems like everyone thinks EVERYthing is a right. I’m not sure I believe getting married is a “right” myself, though I think the argument is more that people are being denied something because of their sexual orientation correct? At least that’s how I try to frame it when I make the argument.

    Anyway, I hope I haven’t offended anyone on either side, just trying to help people who might feel discouraged see how people who are NOT homophobes see things. And for what it’s worth, I think same sex civil unions would pass in every state, by large margins.

    Comment by MissTammy — January 7, 2010 @ 9:28 pm - January 7, 2010

  6. GayPatriot » NJ Senate Defeats Gay Marriage…

    Trackback from PunditKix…

    Trackback by PunditKix — January 7, 2010 @ 9:31 pm - January 7, 2010

  7. I would guess that NJ is the scene of many large Pride parades and rallies with people swinging giant dildoes–could there be a connection?

    The reason gay marriage is failing is because gays don’t want to get married. Women who fought for the right to vote wanted to vote. They didn’t say, “We think voting is an oppressive institution which we have grown out of, but, hey, if there are some less evolved women who feel they need to imitate men, fine, let them vote.”

    Blacks wanted civil rights. They didn’t say, “Hey, man, the party’s in the back of the bus. And our fountains have the coolest water anyway. But if you want to imitate the oppressive white folks, fine. Whatever.”

    Gays have made it clear that marriage is the last thing on their minds, so, in response, no one wants to give it to them. I think we should all be happy that we all got what we wanted in the first place.

    Comment by Ashpenaz — January 7, 2010 @ 9:33 pm - January 7, 2010

  8. Homosexuals are not discriminated against in marriage law. Two straight men (or women) cannot get married to one another. A gay man and a lesbian woman CAN marry one another, so long as they’re not related and neither is married currently. Where’s the discrimination? And don’t give me that “it’s all about love” crap. Words have meanings.

    Comment by Brendan In Philly — January 7, 2010 @ 9:35 pm - January 7, 2010

  9. Miss Tammy,

    And you nail it dead on in your 6th point. I really don’t care about gay marriage, but my faith does not accept gay relationship and I do not really want my priest arrested for hate crimes. Nor do I want the abuses multi-spouse marriages cause. (I don’t even want to think about people and their pet poodle)

    The problem is there is no good evidence it will stop. Progressive (this weeks word for liberalism) is like a cancer in that it eats everything. Look at what has happened with evolution. Once it was acceptable to accept that and believe in God, now any belief God has something to do with it means you are a creationist. Like its pure form of communism, liberalism allows no departure from the party line. I think many people who vote against this see it as not a civil rights issue but as another intrusion of the elitism overlords into people lives by telling us what our churches have to do.

    Comment by Kevin — January 7, 2010 @ 9:36 pm - January 7, 2010

  10. I don’t think you can judge the entire gay community by the guys that put on the show at Pride parades. I have gay friends who get all crazy like that, but I know plenty of people who are not into the over the top stuff.

    Honestly, they’re just like “normal” people, Ashpenaz…you got your high-strung, over the top, pushing the envelope types in ALL walks of life.

    Comment by MissTammy — January 7, 2010 @ 9:42 pm - January 7, 2010

  11. Kevin, I like your point about no straying from the party line among Liberals…we have it to an extent on the Right, but it’s a real problem on the Left.

    Comment by MissTammy — January 7, 2010 @ 9:45 pm - January 7, 2010

  12. From Alex Singletonwho writes about politics from a free-market perspective in the UK Telegraph:

    I don’t suppose you follow New Hampshire’s politics, but if you do you’ll know that the state has just legalised gay marriage. Cheered by this good news, American supporters of gay marriage are saying that the US Supreme Court should strike out bans on gay marriage across the whole of that country. Writing in today’s New York Daily News, Bob Levy of the libertarian Cato Institute points out that the US constitution’s 14th amendment says that it’s illegal to “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws” – something that bans on gay marriage arguably violate.

    A Supreme Court ruling against restrictions on gay marriage couldn’t come soon enough, if you ask me, because if the whole of America legalises gay marriage, there’ll be a huge cultural pressure on Britain to follow suit – pressure that British politicians will struggle to resist.

    Bigots will foam at the mouth at the very suggestion, but fully fledged gay marriages are the mark of a civilised society. Just as it is wrong for governments to judge people by their skin colour or sex, it is unethical for them to discriminate by sexual orientation. By letting heterosexuals get married, while treating homosexuals as second-class citizens by only offering them civil partnerships, our government acts immorally.

    Comment by rusty — January 7, 2010 @ 10:14 pm - January 7, 2010

  13. I am confused about these argument about children forced to learn about gay relationships, when does that ever happen? What does that have to do with gay marriage? I went to public school and most all the historical figures who were gay or had gay relationships, like Alexander the Great, gets swept under the rug and hardly brought up. It might help some gay kids gain a little more confidence about themselves if they did hear that some great figures in history had gay relationships. Not saying it has to go any further than, Oh and he and he were connected as lovers or she and she…and thats the end.

    I thought most states that had passed gay marriage had passed protections for churches and religions, so that they wouldn’t be forced to marry couple arrangements they didn’t agree with. I don’t think there is a huge ground swell of liberals that want to force that on any church…

    Comment by Darkeyedresolve — January 7, 2010 @ 10:45 pm - January 7, 2010

  14. I don’t think it’s a dead issue at all, just an issue that needs a little more patience.

    I am very Conservative on just about every other issue, but have no objection to gay marriage, and I do think it’s going to happen eventually; most young people are highly supportive of it.

    MissTammy, right on all points. It’s not dead; it’s inevitable in some form – be it called civil unions, “Fred” or whatever. It’s already gone farther than I thought it would in my lifetime, when I first started supporting it in the mid-1990s (way before it was cool). And the younger generations don’t seem to be turning rightward on it as they get older – as they do on other conservative issues like, say, taxes.

    Dial back the hate speak. Please…

    Oh, and many people get annoyed when they hear this being framed as a “rights” issue…

    Indeed it is NOT a “rights” issue – just good policy, the right thing to do for society – and indeed the Gay Left are their own worst enemy at this point, actually delaying the progress of gay marriage / civil unions by their awful campaigns and poorly chosen protest actions.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 7, 2010 @ 11:12 pm - January 7, 2010

  15. The new healthcare bill reinstalls a marriage tax on couples getting health care. For two folks making $25,000 each, it is $2,000 – that is 4%. Who wants to pay a 4% tax per year just for being married? Who wants to get married?

    Comment by Fran — January 7, 2010 @ 11:14 pm - January 7, 2010

  16. P.S. I slightly misspoke with the following, or want to say more about it:

    the younger generations don’t seem to be turning rightward on [gay marriage] as they get older
    I should not have implied that gay marriage is leftist and being against gay marriage is rightist. On the contrary, gay marriage is fundamentally a conservative cause – a statement that marriage is so good and so important, even gays should be expected to adopt it and live up to it. And perhaps -that- is why the younger generations don’t change their views on it much, as they get older and more conservative – i.e., because it is, in a real and important sense, a conservative cause to begin with.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 7, 2010 @ 11:15 pm - January 7, 2010

  17. (aargh, and sorry for bad blockquoting)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 7, 2010 @ 11:15 pm - January 7, 2010

  18. ‘gay marriage is fundamentally a conservative cause”

    Interesting. A conservative issue that is opposed by conservatives and supported by liberals.

    I understand your logic, ILC – it is basically the argument David Brooks has been making for a long time. But I think you are simply getting way ahead of things.

    Gay marriage WILL be a conservative issue in a generation or two. As with any other advancement in our society, it will come against fierce conservative opposition, will eventually become mainstream, and then finally in the end, will be accepted by conservatives.

    Then they will claim to have supported it all along.

    Comment by Tano — January 7, 2010 @ 11:30 pm - January 7, 2010

  19. Yeah, those horrible red-state Republican conservative New Jerseyites have done it again…

    ..oh, wait…

    Comment by DaveP. — January 7, 2010 @ 11:31 pm - January 7, 2010

  20. I understand your logic, ILC

    Doubtful. Tano, I don’t want your support, even when you think you agree with me (or want to pretend you do).

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 7, 2010 @ 11:33 pm - January 7, 2010

  21. Oh, you are such a hard man ILC.

    For the record though, I did not express any support for you, so don’t worry – your cred around here is not under any threat. I merely said that I understand your argument, since it is a oft-expressed argument by people like Brooks. In fact, to the extent that you seem to be implying that marriage is a conservative issue as opposed to a liberal, or lefty issue, then you are ridiculously wrong.
    Are you happier now?

    Comment by Tano — January 7, 2010 @ 11:48 pm - January 7, 2010

  22. I would say that same sex marriage is dead for at least four years in NJ, as our next governor has stated that he would veto any such bill. Christie has said that he would be okay with a referendum that supported same sex marriage, but I don’t see a push for that happening in the next four years.

    The trend is still toward same sex marriage. Younger voters are much more supportive than older voters. And if this went to a vote even as recent as five years ago, I doubt that it would have received 25% of the vote of the legislators.

    7.I would guess that NJ is the scene of many large Pride parades and rallies with people swinging giant dildoes–could there be a connection?

    Ashpenaz, although I have never attended a Pride parade here in my home state of NJ or anywhere else, I am fairly confident you are in error here. We have one state pride parade in Asbury Park in the first weekend of June every year, and some smaller ones in cities like Jersey City in August. But they are dwarfed big time by the Pride parade in NYC.

    I have been to some pride events and rallies, but never noticed the giant swinging dildoes. Perhaps I attended the wrong events.

    The reason gay marriage is failing is because gays don’t want to get married.

    While it is true that a smaller percentage of gay couples (than straight couples) get married in the states that have same sex marriage, I don’t agree with your reasons why same sex marriage has failed in NJ. It pretty much came down to the politics of each of the 40 districts. I don’t have the voter breakdown, but my understanding is that most, if not all, Republicans voted against it, while most of the Democrats voted for it. And the Democrats that voted against it are in districts that are more conservative.

    Comment by Pat — January 8, 2010 @ 12:09 am - January 8, 2010

  23. I understand the physiological hold that the term “marriage” has on some gay activists, but why not push for NJ-style “Civil Unions” as tactical victory rather than denigrating it as a separate and unequal failure. Many here in NJ are just not ready to use the word “marriage”….yet.

    I may just be old-school, but I’ve never been convinced that “Gay” marriage is just-the-same-as traditional marriage, especially considering it’s social and religious entanglements. And it’s certainly NOT the same argument as miscegenation..or even plural marriage forms like polygamy or polyandry. It’s different so why not acknowledge it’s different and concentrate on results not “political correctness” or some forced argument on “equality”.

    I’m not even convinced that it’s a civil rights or human rights issue since it’s NOT about the individual. It’s about a social compact, and property and contract-rights. It’s not about if or can you live with someone…have sex with them…or even procreate in some form. Those don’t require a social compact..or permission in any physical form, even if there might be some social or legal sanctions.

    Marriage requires that it be recognized by third-parties,,,not just the principals. Many ceremonies invoke the the company-present both as witnesses and as being bound by it’s terms as well as the principals. And invoke the power and authority of the State recognizing it’s contractual and property aspects.

    Perhaps the G/L community would be better-served to concentrate on Civil Unions as a fulfilling state and achievable result. The majority of te Electorate supports civil unions, and it doesn’t offend the religious or personal sensibilities of many who otherwise see the need for legal sanctions by civil unions. Marriage too-many see as a religious prerogative that should not be changed by legal fiat of a judiciary or a legislature…or even a majority at the expense of a minority’s religious rights.

    Even the argument about the State and Federal rights and privileges could be resolved by State and Federal recognition of Civil Unions as equivalent due process.

    Rather than beating heads against a bloody wall for the next 50 or 200-years, perhaps it’s wiser to rethink this issue and press for State and/or Federal civil unions as an acceptable solution…not as some inferior compromise.

    Comment by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) — January 8, 2010 @ 12:11 am - January 8, 2010

  24. You know, it doesn’t require a law for gays to form lifelong, monogamous, publicly accountable relationships. Why don’t we work to form the kind of relationships which fulfill the requirements of marriage, and then see if voters will help us to make them legal?

    I think the slaves who learned to read even when it was illegal can serve as an example here. I think when people saw how dedicated the slaves were to getting an education even when it seemed impossible led many to say, “Gee, maybe we were wrong–maybe education is a good thing for the black community.”

    Where are the Frederick Douglasses of the gay community? The ones who heroically remain in lifelong, monogamous couples so that future generations can have the benefits of marriage? Who willingly sacrifice multiple partners and promiscuity so that tomorrow’s gays can have the legal recognition they couldn’t?

    Oh. I know. At Mr. International Muscle putting condoms on bananas.

    Comment by Ashpenaz — January 8, 2010 @ 12:26 am - January 8, 2010

  25. Marriage requires that it be recognized by third-parties,,,not just the principals.

    Exactly. That is why the Supreme Court of the United States has long recognized a marriage license as *not* being something that individuals or couples have an automatic entitlement to. They must meet qualifications that the People get to set – and to change at will. (So long as the qualifications don’t involve invidious discrimination, e.g. racial.)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 8, 2010 @ 12:28 am - January 8, 2010

  26. “Rather than beating heads against a bloody wall for the next 50 or 200-years,”

    Would you feel differently if it only required beating heads against a bloody wall for 5 or 10 years?

    Comment by Tano — January 8, 2010 @ 12:32 am - January 8, 2010

  27. leftists are so violent

    Comment by American Elephant — January 8, 2010 @ 12:35 am - January 8, 2010

  28. “So long as the qualifications don’t involve invidious discrimination, e.g. racial.”

    In what possible sense is discrimination against gays not invidious?

    Comment by Tano — January 8, 2010 @ 12:35 am - January 8, 2010

  29. #27: Tano, you have already admitted on this blog that you unequivocally support discrimination on the basis of skin color. You’re admitted racist. So, the pertinent question is: how can you possibly imply that discrimination against gays is invidious while simultaneously maintaining the position that racial discrimination is not?

    Comment by Sean A — January 8, 2010 @ 1:06 am - January 8, 2010

  30. In what possible sense is discrimination against gays not invidious?

    Because, child, as has been explained to you literally hundreds of times, the marriage laws discriminate against heterosexuals who, for whatever reason, would like to marry a person of the same sex as well.

    What you are whining and crying is that you have the constitutional “right” to marry that with which you want to have sex, regardless of anything else. That is why you and your fellow pedophiles have flocked to the gay community — because it is the only one stupid enough to support that argument.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 8, 2010 @ 1:25 am - January 8, 2010

  31. I find very interesting the frequent blithe, blanket assertion that “gays” don’t want to marry. Most lesbians, at least eventually, do. But of course lesbians simply don’t exist.

    The fundamental issue is not one of rights, but of freedom. Do human beings own themselves, or are they owned by the collective? Whenever I ask this question, I get puzzlement. We’ve been told for so long that the collective owns us that we can scarcely get our minds around the concept that it might not.

    Self-ownership is the key to the American experiment. If it fails, so, too, does America. It seems easy enough for people here to grasp that concept with regard to healthcare, but the underlying issue in the gay marriage debate is the same.

    The State has no legitimate right to do anything but protect our freedoms — and that means the freedom of every citizen. It has no obligation other than to protect us from violations against our freedoms by those who would rob us of them by force or fraud.

    If that is a crazy liberal idea, then Jefferson, Madison, Washington and Franklin were crazy liberals, because they believed that, too. And if the principles upon which this country was founded were still taught in our schools, more than a few people might actually know that.

    Comment by Lori Heine — January 8, 2010 @ 2:13 am - January 8, 2010

  32. [...] NJ Senate Defeats Gay Marriage - GayPatriot [...]

    Pingback by “Same-sex marriage bill defeated in New Jersey” and related posts | Movie Listings Central — January 8, 2010 @ 2:30 am - January 8, 2010

  33. I find very interesting the frequent blithe, blanket assertion that “gays” don’t want to marry. Most lesbians, at least eventually, do. But of course lesbians simply don’t exist.

    Indeed. The double sexism of the assertion (insulting both men and women, in different ways) has long troubled me.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 8, 2010 @ 2:32 am - January 8, 2010

  34. Of COURSE Tardo thinks its invidious to acknowledge differences between the sexuality that is responsible for all human life on Earth (save One) and homosexuality which is incapable of producing any….if I were to point out to him the simple biological fact that what gays do doesn’t even technically qualify as sexual intercourse, he would probably pull his hair out, lose control of his bowels, and go bat-sh*t crazy!

    nonetheless, it remains true.

    We are not dealing with people with any sort of firm footing in reality here.

    What we are dealing with are people who have dealt with being different, not by actually dealing with being different, but by instead telling themselves they are the same.

    And because they haven’t dealt, they are now demanding that society humor, or worse, join them in that delusion and all we have to do is agree to massive new liberalization of the marriage institution and sacrifice the idea that kids deserve a mother and a father. I mean, hell, what could that possibly hurt? Who knows! lets find out! Because, hey, we all know how awesome liberalization has been for the marriage institution so far!

    No fault divorce? AWESOME! Single motherhood? Awesomely awesome! Visitation rights for non-related-lesbians the kid doesnt even know? Super Dooper Trooper Awesome!

    And since straights have made such a mess of marriage, you know what would totally make marriage better and more conservative? Way more liberalism! Or something like that

    You know who really needs gay marriage! The black community! Where 70% of kids are already born outside of wedlock and raised without their dads. Its no secret that those are the best, most well adjusted Americans in the United States prison system!

    And besides! Thirty percent of blacks still seem to be getting the old fashioned, obsolete idea that mothers and fathers matter! That marriage and kids have something to do with each other. We need to send them a stronger message that no! marriage is about whatever adults want it to be about!

    After all, every good little socialist knows that government exists to subsidize able-bodied adults doing adult things that there is no conceivable reason on earth they shouldn’t pay for themselves while making them feel their behavior is equal to behavior its not equal to! NOT to look out for those who cant take care of themselves like children, the disabled, and Joy Behar.

    And then we can move on to other “conservative” marriage reforms…like tolerating animal-f*cking with conventions and light, fluffy human interest stories on the evening news! But no slippery slopes here!

    Comment by American Elephant — January 8, 2010 @ 4:30 am - January 8, 2010

  35. I have gay friends who get all crazy like that, but I know plenty of people who are not into the over the top stuff.

    And guess which ones wind up on TV and thus we all get associated with.

    A conservative issue that is opposed by conservatives and supported by liberals.

    You mean a liberal like Liar in Chief Chairman Obama? No….

    How about Hillary??

    I know. Surely the Breck Girl did. No…hmmm.

    John F.You Kerry (who served in Vietnam) surely must. No. Who else….

    Plugs Biden? Nope. Uhhhmmm…..

    Sorry. I can’t think of any liberals who support gay marriage.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — January 8, 2010 @ 7:22 am - January 8, 2010

  36. Damn!

    BTW given the left’s destruction of the dollar, isn’t it meaningless when the Chief Idiot says that the buck stops with him?

    And when they’re predicting sleet and snow in central Florida, is that really the eeeeevil oil industry plot to discredit Algore in action?

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — January 8, 2010 @ 7:25 am - January 8, 2010

  37. So Tano, ever going to answer heliptrope’s challenge?

    or maybe NDT’s debunking of your health care talking points here?

    Or his exposing you as a liar (again) here?

    Or here?

    Or no rebuttal of this montage of “Tano gets his ass handed to him” here?

    Or how about helitropes smacking of you here.

    Think I’ll just save this and add to it as needed. Just post it in threads where Tano comes in, reads his script and leaves. This way any new readers can know he’s pointless, and save some time.

    Comment by The_Livewire — January 8, 2010 @ 7:44 am - January 8, 2010

  38. Lori,

    I understand your point ‘lesbian’s want to marry’ (I’d argue it’s a point of biology, but that’s off topic).

    There’s nothing stopping two lesbians from making a life long commitment to each other and working to maintain that union. I encourage it, in fact.

    However, there’s also nothing requiring a government to recognize the union. state recognized marriage has various qualifiers, one including marrying one (1) partner of the opposite sex. That qualification affects everyone equally.

    Comment by The_Livewire — January 8, 2010 @ 7:46 am - January 8, 2010

  39. Gays don’t want to get married. Voters don’t want them to marry. What’s the problem? Everyone gets exactly what they want!

    Comment by Ashpenaz — January 8, 2010 @ 8:36 am - January 8, 2010

  40. Many of the comments on this blog are shockingly heterosexist. Do you really feel that you or your relationships are so inferior? I don’t.

    I have been in a committed relationship for 23 years–nearly half my life. And, yes, we are married, though our marriage is not recognized in our state of residence.

    I am sick and tired if having to go to great legal expense and trouble to: assure access to shared and individual assets; assure that we can each provide care for the other should one become incapacitated; assure our property conveys as we wish should one of us die. I am tired of having to negotiate our tax system because of the complexity of accounting for our shared and individual assets and incomes–while also paying a heavier tax burden–because our relationship is not recognized. We’ve had to do legal gymnastics to secure the barest modicum of legal rights, rights that are granted automatically and in much fuller measure by our state and federal governments when one-man and one-woman decide, for whatever reason and sometimes at the barest of whim, to purchase a license and say “I do”. And then we watch as a shocking percentage of those Extra Special one-man-one-woman marriages fizzle and fall apart.

    It is discriminatory and it makes me angry. And, yes, it is invidious.

    Take the word ‘marriage’ out of the equation. It is a civil contract. Call it that. And then, if the one-man-one-woman couple wish to have their relationship santified as ‘marriage’ in the church of their choice, fine. BUT GIVE MY COMMITTED RELATIONSHIP THE RECOGNITION IS DESERVES.

    To the commentor who raised the issue that homosexual couples cannot have children: I want none, and many heterosexual couples also have none. That is a nonsequitor and has no bearing on the right of those people to enter into a civil contract.

    I will continue to advocate at the local, state and federal levels for affirmative change. I will continue to advocate to my friends, neighbors and family for affirmative change. I refuse to allow this discrimination to continue.

    Comment by Zack — January 8, 2010 @ 9:01 am - January 8, 2010

  41. And when they’re predicting sleet and snow in central Florida

    cooling is proof of global warming. war is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength

    Comment by American Elephant — January 8, 2010 @ 9:03 am - January 8, 2010

  42. Gays don’t want to get married.

    Speak for yourself. This gay – and plenty others I know in long-term, committed, monogamous relationships would like to get married. Don’t try to cover the entire “community” (not that that word applies) with one broad brush.

    Comment by Neptune — January 8, 2010 @ 9:15 am - January 8, 2010

  43. Zack,

    Guess what… I have a female roommate. We’ve taken those legal steps (and need to take more) to protect ourselves. The fact is that there are legal protections put in place to help ‘non-standard’ relationships. You and your partner can’t qualify for a government recognized marriage license. My roommate can’t qualify for a Drivers License. Life’s like that.

    Neptune, Ash does speak for himself, a lot ;-)

    Comment by The_Livewire — January 8, 2010 @ 9:33 am - January 8, 2010

  44. Livewire—

    Bravo! I was wondering if anyone was keeping track of the Tano stinkbomb and vanish routine.

    Comment by heliotrope — January 8, 2010 @ 9:43 am - January 8, 2010

  45. Rusty (#12) quotes from the UK Telegraph:

    Bigots will foam at the mouth at the very suggestion, but fully fledged gay marriages are the mark of a civilised society.

    Huh? All I can deduce from this carbuncle of witlessness is that if you suggest something that makes bigots foam at the mouth, you may enter the suggestion under “civilised society.”

    The vast evidence that editors have come to such a low standard that they pass over such inane drivel is …… well …… a cause for the educated to foam at the mouth.

    (As an aside, if you find someone foaming at the mouth, but he is wearing a “diversity” sweatshirt, is he a bigot?)

    (Also, if the Society of Bigots come to the debate and carry forth without foaming at the mouth, is it a draw?)

    (I could go on, but the thrill is gone.)

    Comment by heliotrope — January 8, 2010 @ 10:01 am - January 8, 2010

  46. Yup, like I said back to the courts.

    Comment by The_Livewire — January 8, 2010 @ 10:36 am - January 8, 2010

  47. Alex Singleton was referring to Robert (Bob) Levy of the Cato Institute. Levy concluded his piece with:
    One would hope, in the coming months and years, that more enlightened federal and state legislators will have the courage and decency to resist morally abhorrent and constitutionally suspect restrictions based on sexual orientation. Gay couples are entitled to the same legal rights and the same respect and dignity accorded to all Americans

    Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2010/01/07/2010-01-07_the_moral_and_constitutional_case_for_a_right_to_gay_marriage.html?page=1#ixzz0c2fvbFSz

    Comment by rusty — January 8, 2010 @ 12:19 pm - January 8, 2010

  48. Gay couples are entitled to the same legal rights and the same respect and dignity accorded to all Americans

    More vapid boilerplate full of kisses and pats, but basically meaningless blather.

    “Gay couples are entitled to the same legal rights (….) accorded to all Americans.” They are. In fact, a harem of gays are.

    “Gay couples are entitled to the same (….) respect and dignity accorded to all Americans” is just pure Hallmark prose. Do the cops respond if a gay couple is being harassed? If not, there is clear recourse.

    Comment by heliotrope — January 8, 2010 @ 1:11 pm - January 8, 2010

  49. “Gay couples are entitled to the same legal rights and the same respect and dignity accorded to all Americans.”

    Wait! Not all gay couples! Speak for yourself!

    Comment by Ashpenaz — January 8, 2010 @ 1:20 pm - January 8, 2010

  50. “However, there’s also nothing requiring a government to recognize the union. state recognized marriage has various qualifiers, one including marrying one (1) partner of the opposite sex. That qualification affects everyone equally.”

    Yes, Livewire, if the lesbians in question are wealthy enough, they can buy buy just about any sort of legal protection they need. Legal protection under the law, in this country, is not supposed to be for sale. That it is is a matter that should be of concern even to straights.

    Gays are the canaries in the mine. And you’re still not getting what I’m saying. This is not about caring what the government thinks about my relationship. It’s about getting it the hell out of my bedroom, out of my wallet and off of my back.

    If we own ourselves, it shouldn’t matter what the government says about our marriages, because the only legitimate role the government has is to protect its citizens from force and fraud.

    The right way to explain this to straights would be to remind them that every time a government has begun to treat one group as if it owned them, it soon becomes apparent that this entity also believes it owns others. It’ll get around to presuming that it owns straights, too (oh, wait…
    it already has).

    Comment by Lori Heine — January 8, 2010 @ 1:26 pm - January 8, 2010

  51. How is the government in your bedroom then? I don’t follow.

    Comment by The_Livewire — January 8, 2010 @ 1:52 pm - January 8, 2010

  52. Lori, are you advocating libertarian anarchy?

    Comment by heliotrope — January 8, 2010 @ 2:51 pm - January 8, 2010

  53. She seems to be arguing that because she has to pay for a power of attorney, while straights do not, that the government is therefore in her bedroom, and in order for the government to get out of her bedroom it should therefore subsidize her lesbian relationship, or perhaps nationalize the legal industry…its unclear.

    Comment by American Elephant — January 8, 2010 @ 8:24 pm - January 8, 2010

  54. No, what I am saying is that in this country, a collective makes the decision as to who may legally do what, and who must pay for it. It determines that some get breaks from the exorbitant level of taxation imposed upon us all, and of course this means more taxes for whomever is not counted, by the Borg, as being worthy to be so exalted.

    Elephant has to see everything through the same, tired “liberal versus conservative” prism, so he is either unwilling or unable to grasp what I am saying. There are a wide variety of excellent books out there on libertarian philosophy. They can easily clear up everyone’s confusion.

    I would recommend, as a starter, “Healing Our World in an Age of Aggression,” by Dr. Mary J. Ruwart. David Boaz’s “Libertarianism: A Primer” would also provide a good beginning.

    I don’t want the government to “subsidize” my relationship. I want it to stop making me subsidize anyone else’s. As for “nationalizing the legal industry,” that remark is so ridiculous I won’t attempt to respond to it. I’m a libertarian. I support de-nationalization, rather than the other way around. Anyone who had even a kindergarten-level grasp of libertarian philosophy would understand that.

    Comment by Lori Heine — January 8, 2010 @ 9:10 pm - January 8, 2010

  55. Lori,

    Thanks for the Libertarian reading suggestions. I am fairly well read on the libertarian concepts and I am always troubled by the Lyndon LaRouche, Bob Barr, Ron Paul aspects of it. If libertarians are going to achieve any level of influence they are going to have to discover a way to stop acting out the plot line of The Lord of the Flies.

    I asked if you are a libertarian anarchist, because so far as I can see, true libertarians are destined to forming some isolated colony/commune where they all agree to disagree and then set about not killing one another.

    I am a conservative and I have no interest whatsoever in your love activities. However, if you want to go all activist and mess up the playground or try to force it on public education or gross me out at church, I will confront you in full voice. Those saggy baggy geriatrics in Vermont who wander the village naked are no different than black flies. They are a reality, but you don’t have to love them. Decorum is usually not a minority construct.

    Comment by heliotrope — January 9, 2010 @ 10:44 am - January 9, 2010

  56. “The trend is still toward same sex marriage. Younger voters are much more supportive than older voters.”

    Except when the young folks grow up. This assumption is incorrect and I base it on the current abortion debate. It has been decades since abortion was legalized by the Supreme Court yet it is still controversial. Shouldn’t everyone have accepted abortion law by now? Not really. The young people have grown up and don’t support abortion today.

    I don’t think people will ever support gay marriage in America based on demographics. Maybe we should ban abortions to get gay marriage, just saying!!!!

    Comment by Anon387823 — January 9, 2010 @ 11:23 am - January 9, 2010

  57. Anon387823, I agree with your analysis regarding acceptance of abortion. If there was ever a trend towards increased acceptance, it has stalled.

    I don’t tie those two issues (abortion and same sex marriage, or gay rights, in general) together. There is no contradiction inconsistency to hold any of the four combinations of opinions on these two issues as far as I’m concerned. Further, I don’t like it when gay organizations try to tie these two issues together.

    While I can understand one changing their views on abortion (in either direction) as one gets older, I just don’t see that happening with same sex marriage, except in the direction of acceptance. At least this is what we have seen with other gay rights. Yes, I’m sure there are examples to the contrary, but it seems like there are significantly higher percentage of persons who are more accepting of gay rights as they become older than the other way around.

    Time will tell which one of us is right, I suppose.

    Comment by Pat — January 9, 2010 @ 1:23 pm - January 9, 2010

  58. Thank you Lori for the clarification.

    I can respect (if not agree) with your stance when articulated that way.

    Comment by The_Livewire — January 9, 2010 @ 3:29 pm - January 9, 2010

  59. No, I am not an anarchist of any kind.

    People need to remember that even if — and it’s a huge if — the libertarian position ever became accepted, it would, by necessity, be piecemeal and very gradual in its implementation. Nobody’s going to flip a switch. Human nature simply isn’t amenable to change that happens that suddenly.

    Think, for a moment, about this. Libertarians KNOW there’ll be no flipping of a switch — that we’ll need to see our ideas implemented gradually. Which means…what? Well, that we’re pretty confident in them. If they don’t work, they’ll be strangled, so to speak, in the crib.

    The other day, yet another of my many liberal friends was warning me of the Apocalypse to come if libertarianism were ever to succeed. All roads, he assured me, would be toll roads. Dogs and cats would be biting everybody and giving them rabies. We would have a Mad Max world.

    I asked him to breathe a moment. Just breathe. Then I asked him to consider why, if people are so dumb they cannot be trusted to govern themselves without Nanny Sam, they could ever be trusted to run the government.

    He had no answer. Then he started the stuff I usually hear, from the Left, about how the libertarians “shill for the rich.”

    I reminded him that the rich (by whom I assume he means the legendary “evil rich,” as opposed to people who are merely successful because they serve society better than the average folks do) are quite savvy about politics. They know which parties serve their interests and which ones don’t. Which is why both the Republican and the Democratic Parties are major parties.

    The Libertarian Party? Please. Follow the money.

    No barking cats, no meowing dogs, no Mad Max, no rabies. We’re willing to put our ideas to the test. And given the constant statist propaganda blitz against us, we have quite an uphill climb.

    Comment by Lori Heine — January 9, 2010 @ 4:40 pm - January 9, 2010

  60. he is either unwilling or unable to grasp what I am saying

    Oh I suspect I grasp what you are saying better than you do. But I would hate to misrepresent the nuances of your position.

    She seems to be arguing that because she has to pay for a power of attorney, while straights do not, that the government is therefore in her bedroom, and in order for the government to get out of her bedroom it should therefore subsidize her lesbian relationship stop subsidizing marriage which has absolutely nothing to do with her bedroom since she isnt married.

    There, fixed it. And it’s still dumb. Possibly even dumber.

    Meanwhile, in the real world, marriage matters deeply to society and we all benefit greatly by promoting it.

    Comment by American Elephant — January 10, 2010 @ 8:07 pm - January 10, 2010

  61. Elephant, how long are you going to go on posing as a conservative? You are nothing of the kind. If you believe it is the government’s — and the taxpayers’ — duty to “promote” an institution that has gotten on quite well for thousands of years without it, then you are a socialist.

    There, fixed that.

    Like your hero, Saul Alinsky, you slime anyone who disagrees with you. Like most socialists, you’re more interested in attacking other people than in promoting your own ideas.

    What a phoney.

    Comment by Lori Heine — January 10, 2010 @ 10:43 pm - January 10, 2010

  62. Actually Lori, conservatives accept the fact that there are proper roles for government, it is only LOSER-tarians and anarchists who reject that idea. And ALL the available evidence supports the fact that it is good for society to support and encourage marriage and very bad for society to discourage or even ignore it.

    You see any conservative worth spit knows that the more you reward an activity, the more you get, and the more you punish an activity the less you get.

    The facts make very clear that rewarding marriage works, and we ignore it to our detriment. The less society emphasizes marriage and the more “accepting” society has become of alternatives, the less marriage we have gotten which invariably results in increased out of wedlock birth rates and all the social ills that go along with it– increased crime, violence, poverty, illiteracy, school drop outs, etc, etc, etc….

    I hate to burst your losertarian bubble, but history has proven Dan Quayle right.

    But I am sure conservatives, the vast majority of whom support marriage, and support supporting marriage will be very alarmed to find out that their position is indeed socialist. Either that, or they will just agree with me that you are a very angry woman who doesn’t have a clue what socialism is, or what shes talking about.

    There, fixed that.

    Comment by American Elephant — January 13, 2010 @ 1:43 am - January 13, 2010

  63. No explanation from Elephant, of course, as to why the government must subsidize heterosexual marriage. Of course not, because there is no rational explanation for it. Again, it has been going on for thousands of years without the State having to confiscate tax funds, at gunpoint, from single people so that straight marrieds can get a tax break.

    This is a problem that was caused by government meddling in the first place. We all have high taxes, and none of us like them. Therefore, the United States of Santa Claus will take more from some so that others can keep more — and the gullible sheeple will thank Santa accordingly, thinking they’ve really gotten some goodies.

    Elephant’s basic problem is that he doesn’t understand libertarianism. He is indeed a closet socialist, as are many “social conservatives.” But on their way to establishing a United States of Soviet Santa America amenable to their ideals, they will of course lie and deny this.

    Of course they get their argument garbled up, as liars usually do. If I wanted — as Comrade Elephant continually attempted to assert — to have the government subsidize my marriage, there is obviously no way I could hope to keep it out of my bedroom. The very reason government subsidizes certain activities is because it wants to invade and regulate them.

    The difference, of course, is that I said I wanted it out of my bedroom. I never said anything about wanting it to subsidize my marriage.

    Oh, what a tangled web is weaved by people who must desperately cast about for a foil for their deceptions.

    Comment by Lori Heine — January 13, 2010 @ 1:56 am - January 13, 2010

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.