Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘gay marriage’

I’m no stranger to shitty arguments, having made my share. But this, just, wow:

Marriage should be limited to unions of a man and a woman because they alone can “produce unplanned and unintended offspring,” opponents of gay marriage have told the Supreme Court. By contrast, when same-sex couples decide to have children, “substantial advance planning is required,” said Paul D. Clement, a lawyer for House Republicans.

This argument brought to you by the same people who almost shut down the Federal Government in order to kill planned parenthood. Not even Scalia, world’s biggest hack, could find that argument persuasive. (via)

Advertisements

Read Full Post »

Haven’t been blogging in a while because all anyone can talk about is the fiscal cliff and its just so stupid I can’t bring myself to do it. Luckily for you, I’ve managed to find a couple of non-cliff topics. Justice Scalia was promoting his book* in Princeton yesterday and was asked by a gay student why he sees equivalence between banning sodomy and banning murder. Scalia responds:

“I don’t think it’s necessary, but I think it’s effective,” Scalia said, adding that legislative bodies can ban what they believe to be immoral.

According to Article 1, section 8, congress can make laws which it considers “Neccesary and Proper” to carrying out its powers. But according to Scalia, this law is not neccesary! Scalia may also be interested to learn that, as a Supreme Court Justice, he is not a member of a legislative body! His job is not to ban what he believes to be immoral. I agree that a legislative body can ban what it considers to be immoral, but the job of the Supreme Court is not to point that out, its to make sure such bans are constitutional. The necessary and proper clause can be used here (a ban on murder is not based on moral grounds for example, but is necessary and proper to protect the public at large) but Scalia has admitted directly that a sodomy ban would fail this test. Scalia should articulate why he finds such a ban acceptable, rather than just making absurd arguments about bestiality and murder and then saying its a moral thing.

*Something about a Justice running around promoting a book seems a bit off to me. I get that it happens, it just seems odd. Maybe they should retire earlier, then write their books.

Read Full Post »

My opinion of Mitt Romney is not exactly a secret, and I kind of figured I really couldn’t like him any less.

I was so very wrong (all emphasis is mine):

It seemed like a minor adjustment. To comply with the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruling that legalized gay marriage in 2003, the state Registry of Vital Records and Statistics said it needed to revise its birth certificate forms for babies born to same-sex couples. The box for “father” would be relabeled “father or second parent,’’ reflecting the new law.

But to then-Governor Mitt Romney, who opposed child-rearing by gay couples, the proposal symbolized unacceptable changes in traditional family structures.

He rejected the Registry of Vital Records plan and insisted that his top legal staff individually review the circumstances of every birth to same-sex parents. Only after winning approval from Romney’s lawyers could hospital officials and town clerks across the state be permitted to cross out by hand the word “father’’ on individual birth certificates, and then write in “second parent,’’ in ink.

The practice of requiring high-level legal review continued for the rest of Romney’s term, despite a warning from a Department of Public Health lawyer who said such a system placed the children of same-sex parents at an unfair disadvantage.

The changes also would impair law enforcement and security efforts in a post-9/11 world, she said, and children with altered certificates would be likely to “encounter [difficulties] later in life . . . as they try to register for school, or apply for a passport or a driver’s license, or enlist in the military, or register to vote.”

Mitt Romney personally created a legal loophole designed to punish gay people and newborn babies because he doesn’t like gay people. Rather than complying with the spirit of the law, Mitt Romney set out a system to harass gays and their children from the moment of birth. Indeed, it seems like gay bashing is a bit of a life long pattern for Mitt. I previously wrote that one incident was not enough to label Mitt Romney a gay basher,  but what he did as Governor was a direct attack on gays because he didn’t like them. It was not a physical assault, but it was malicious nonetheless.

Unbelievable. The next time this guy talks about family values, laugh in his face.

Read Full Post »

Our Common Humanity

Civil marriage is at once a deeply personal commitment to another human being and a highly public celebration of the ideals of mutuality, companionship, intimacy, fidelity, and family … Because it fulfills yearnings for security, safe haven, and connection that express our common humanity, civil marriage is an esteemed institution, and the decision whether and whom to marry is among life’s momentous acts of self-definition.

  –  Massachusetts Supreme Court Chief Justice Margaret H. Marshall in the opinion in Goodridge v. Dept. Of Public Health which legalized gay marriage in the state.

(via The Dish)

Read Full Post »

Worth Repeating

I’ve seen this sentiment expressed a lot today, but if eating a chicken sandwich is really the best the anti-gay marriage folks can come up with, then it really doesn’t say much for them. 

Not that there’s really anything that can be said for them in the first place.

Read Full Post »

I found this gem of a John Rocker op ed yesterday:

Technically, as our Founding Fathers intended, we are all given the undeniable right to voice our thoughts and opinions freely without fear of scorn and/or ridicule derived from non-agreement.

Technically, bullshit. You have the right to say whatever you like (with a few exceptions, ie bomb threats and the like) without fear of government reprisal. I however, retain the right to disagree with you, ridicule you, treat you scornfully, and call you an idiot.

Our constitutional scholar seems to believe that everyone must agree with everything he says, by virtue of the fact that he said it. If they don’t, they certainly don’t have the right to say so. Freedom of speech means freedom of speech, not freedom from disagreement. But it gets worse! Rocker goes into a “leave Chil-fil-a aloooooooooone!” rant and then just starts contradicting himself (something that the first amendment apparently should prevent him from doing):

Now, the fact that a litany of opinions exists regarding a vast array of socially sensitive topics needs no elaboration. For the good of our nation and to insure that as a society we are always growing and evolving, this must remain an absolute. I fear, however, that absolute is being taken from us and replaced with a media-perpetuated system that is depriving Americans the ability to disagree, debate and evolve.

But I thought we had freedom from disagreement! I’m so confused!

To comprehend why a group would band together at a certain level against an individual or group who does not share the same ideals is to understand basic human nature. To have media and politicos incite such sanctions, however, on the basis of differing opinions, is quite another –and it is these type of consistent efforts that are eroding our first and perhaps most important freedom, one we should all enjoy as Americans.

So, not sharing the “same ideals” with someone is human nature, but having “differing opinions” is a media assault on free speech?

Ok here’s the deal. Chik-fil-a can hate on gay marriage all they want. Everyone else can decide what they think about that, and react accordingly. That’s the whole point. Saying that no one should disagree with them because they’re just poor, downtrodden, conservative, heterosexual white males is just crazy.

A company can take any stance on any issue. Customers who agree will support them, those who don’t will take their business elsewhere.

Freedom of speech does not come with freedom from public opinion.

And now, if you’ll excuse me, I’m gonna go try to find examples of this guys columns in which he voices his disagreement with something that someone said.

Read Full Post »