Connecticut becomes the third state to provide marriage equality for same-sex couples. That's good, except we've learned that court mandated marriage equality can have stinging political repercussions. I hope that's not the case again, and it may be that Connecticut itself avoids a voter backlash and constitutional amendment. But with three statewide anti-gay marriage initiatives coming up, and Californians being bombarded by an anti-gay marriage ad featuring San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom declaring same-sex marriage is here to stay "whether you like it or not," the timing of the court decision is not good.
Connecticut had already advanced to civil unions via an act of the elected legislature; achieving marriage equality through the legislative process would have been better.
More. Dan Blatt over at Gay Patriot blogs that Prop 8 opponents need a better narrative than "don't believe their lies."
24 Comments for “Another Pyrrhic Marriage Victory?”
posted by Jorge on
I don’t like this decision at all. From what I’ve read, most of it is superbly reasoned. But it finds that there is a constitutional difference between a legal marriage and civil unions which grant all the legal benefits of marriage.
Oh I agree there’s a social difference and that legal marriage grants a higher social status–but that’s regulated by the people, by religion, and by the inept psychologies of gays who cannot bring themselves to exert their independence and declare themselves married no matter what other authorities say. There is no reason why, over time, civil unions cannot enjoy the same social status as legal marriages. Just as when the Massachussets Supreme Court said it, I think the idea that it is stamp on a piece of paper called a marriage license that grants all these intangible benefits really cheapens the meaning of marriage.
I think the gay rights movement has been profoundly unsuccessful at communicating to the general public why legal marriage is a civil rights issue. The courts do a good job at citing the unconstitutionality of “Separate but Equal” doctrines, but as Stephen says, we’re seeing the courts get overturned when they stand as our only champions.
posted by tavdy on
There is a difference between civil unions and marriage, however.
Look at the ruckus that’s happening in Europe over France’s lack of willingness to fully recognise foreign civil unions. In the USA, because the Federal government won’t recognise civil unions, there is no recourse for those disadvantaged as there is in the EU – the case is now being dealt with by Brussels. If the EU states which have civil unions had legalised gay marriage instead there would be none of these complications.
posted by Bobby on
If they do legalize the damn thing, I hope they come up with a mail-order groom service. Then at least gays would have the opportunity to travel to Russia or Colombia, pick a man, marry him, get him a greencard, and then have the ungrateful sonbitch dump them in a year.
posted by Rob on
Talk about bad timing. They couldn’t wait for after the elections. Not that it matters in California, since Prop 8 is completely worthless. The petitioners need a constitutional revision in order to ban same-sex marriage.
And I agree with tavdy: there most certainly are legal differences between domestic partnerships/civil unions/polka dot registries. It’s basically a hodge-podge, causing expensive beauraucratic and legal problems.
Also, some gay folks posting at Gay Patriot have stated ambilvance and even support for proposition simply because of a bunch of loudmouth moonbats in the Castro (i.e the last gay subgroup that would get married), and due to the No on prop 8 shooting itself in the foot. I think that in this case the ‘traitor’ moniker is applicable.
posted by Carl on
“They couldn’t wait for after the elections. ”
Gays won’t get the blame this time. The country is in a far worse place than 2004. If McCain wins it’s not going to be because of gay marriage. Even the usual lazy, homophobic media didn’t do the dog calling they excelled at in 2003-2004 and 2006.
The real concern I have about this ruling is that in CT, people are trying to force a constitutional convention via the ballot, and one of the goals people are trying to get done at this convention is to pass an amendment banning gay marriage. That’s more likely to happen now.
posted by Attmay on
I’m still waiting for someone to make the case for why heterosexual ANYTHING should continue to be allowed. I remain unconvinced that heterosexuality is good for society anymore. Science, as usual, has already improved on nature with test-tube babies. The sooner science comes up with a better way to allow reproduction than the heterosexual sex act, the better.
Any homosexual who supports breeders is, by definition, a traitor.
posted by Jorge on
Watch your tongue, and show a little respect, Attamay. My parents and grandparents are straight. I’ll take being a traitor for them.
posted by Attmay on
They’re not “straight,” they’re heterosexual. Please do not misuse the word “straight” to describe heterosexuality.
posted by Jorge on
Are you suggesting it is necessary to separate sexual orientation from sexual behavior?
Forget it.
posted by Bobby on
Attmay, you’re clearly jocking, what’s next? A license to breed? Are you advocating for some kind of fucked up science-fundamentalism where the state decides who gets to breed and what they breed and when they abort? Have you read 1984? Seriously.
“Any homosexual who supports breeders is, by definition, a traitor.”
—While I like using that term in jest, unless you happen to work for a gay company, rent from a gay landlord, pay a mortgage at a gay bank, and grow or buy your own gay food, you’re already a traitor.
posted by Throbert McGee on
Any homosexual who supports breeders is, by definition, a traitor.
Icenay objay with the eerquay eftistlay ickschtay, attmay.
posted by Jorge on
If the EU states which have civil unions had legalised gay marriage instead there would be none of these complications.
That might be true.
But maybe not. I do not think legalizing gay marriage in one nation or state would change the fact that gay marriages are not seen as legitimate marriages. I do not know Europe. However in the US a lot of states passed constitutional amendments banning gay marriage in reaction to the Massachusetts Supreme Court decision. I’m sure most or all of them have provisions denying the recognition of gay marriages done in other states.
Anyway, it’s always possible that someone will ask the US Supreme Court to legalize gay marriages and/or civil unions.
posted by Jorge on
You know, I can see why that pro-Proposition 8 ad was pretty devastating. And it’s not lies. There are plenty of people who do want to hurt the churches for opposing gay marriage, and what self-respecting gay person wouldn’t want schools to acknowledge gay couples one way or another.
What is this gay marriage fight really for, anyway? There are times when it looks to me that it’s more about stirring up the conflict between gays and conservatives than about one’s own rights.
I think I will eschew this solidarity business, too.
posted by Attmay on
When I use the term “breeder”, I am not using it in jest. Can you think of another derogatory term for heterosexuals?
No, I am not advocating that breeding be controlled by the state. I am advocating technology makes it easier to make continue the species without the heterosexual act. If the heterosexual act of reproduction is used as the reason why they “deserve” marriage and gays do not, then a theoretical future technology in which a gay couple could have genes extracted from both partners to create offspring will end millenia of hetero exclusivity in the process of continuing the human race. No one will be forced to breed or forbidden to by the state (in fact I would prefer that these services be privately owned and/or offered by hospitals), nor do I support Nazi-style eugenics to create a “master race”. Nor do I believe this theoretical gay-breeding process should be exempt from a code of ethics.
I did read 1984 in high school, and I did not consider it an instruction manual. I don’t believe in speech codes.
And I am not a leftist just because I disapprove of heterosexuality. I happen to despise Obama. Even leftists naively put up with these perverts. What have breeders done to deserve tolerance that they have systematically denied to gays? And don’t think I am letting gays off the hook that easily either for their shenanigans (things like Folsom Street Fair, the bareback subculture, “open” marriages, and those embarrassing parades). I am merely sick of having the heterosexual agenda shoved down my throat. I intend to spit it up.
Heterosexuals have a good idea with the concepts of monogamy and families. It’s a pity that they don’t always practice what they preach.
Jorge: I do not think legalizing gay marriage in one nation or state would change the fact that gay marriages are not seen as legitimate marriages.
And somehow I’m the bigot?
posted by Attmay on
To put it another way, I’m pro-heterosexual until science comes up with something better.
posted by Jorge on
And somehow I’m the bigot?
Well I think so. You just implied that the only reason you’re not using a more hateful term for straight people is because nothing else more derogatory exists.
If you’re suggesting that by simply pointing out that legalizing gay marriages will not change the way most people view gay relationships makes me a bigot, then I am at a loss to understand why you will not or cannot engage a logical argument.
If you’re serious, though, then it is helpful information. I hope you will take the time to learn from this site and the self-styled chessmaster thinking of its blog posters.
posted by Attmay on
I didn’t mean you were a bigot. I was talking about the same people you were who viewed gay marriages as a joke.
posted by Bobby on
“I am advocating technology makes it easier to make continue the species without the heterosexual act.”
—Oh, like plastic wombs where the baby can be formed and developed in 9 months without even using a woman? Sure, I support that.
“If the heterosexual act of reproduction is used as the reason why they “deserve” marriage”
—It does not matter what we do. I support cloning, most people don’t. Our society isn’t really pro-choice, they support a woman’s right to have an abortion and that’s pretty much it.
However, unlike you, I don’t think breeding is that important. People breed enough without additional encouragement, overpopulation is a serious problem. Gays should be admired for not breeding.
“And I am not a leftist just because I disapprove of heterosexuality. I happen to despise Obama.”
—I’m impressed.
“What have breeders done to deserve tolerance that they have systematically denied to gays?”
—They don’t treat us that bad anymore. They’re a lot more open minded. Besides, they’re the majority, hating the majority doesn’t make a lot of sense. Otherwise you end up like the radical muslims in europe, living in ghettos, not adapting, beating people up.
Besides, can you really choose one group over the other? Neither group will welcome you with open arms, for that you need individuals.
posted by Rob on
Any homosexual who supports breeders is, by definition, a traitor.
That doesn’t make any sense.
I do have a statement to make to this matter though: Michigan Matt and NDT, despite their fiery rhetoric on this forum, would not go as far as to vote for constitutional amendments against same-sex marriage, and that’s why I’m open to their viewpoints (at least when they’re not throwing fallacies like feces). In fact I sometimes agree with them about how national and state wide gay PACs tend to shoot themselves in the foot.
But any homosexual who’s actually voting FOR proposition 8 is a TRAITOR to lesbian and gay FAMILIES, and deserve nothing but disdain and shame. Quite frankly, I couldn’t care less if they got lynched, regardless of what their rationale is, or more accurately lack of.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Ah, the contradictions of modern gay philosophy.
This quote:
In fact I sometimes agree with them about how national and state wide gay PACs tend to shoot themselves in the foot.
Followed by this quote:
But any homosexual who’s actually voting FOR proposition 8 is a TRAITOR to lesbian and gay FAMILIES, and deserve nothing but disdain and shame. Quite frankly, I couldn’t care less if they got lynched, regardless of what their rationale is, or more accurately lack of.
The main reason these PACs “shoot themselves in the foot” is because they make of sexual orientation a required set of political and personal beliefs.
Furthermore, Rob, what it makes clear is that you only like people as long as they do exactly what you want and believe exactly what you want — and if they don’t, you would be just as happy to see them physically harmed.
There’s a rather supreme irony in seeing the same liberal gays who whine constantly about the need for “hate crimes” laws calling for lynchings of people who don’t vote the way they want.
posted by Rob on
Furthermore, Rob, what it makes clear is that you only like people as long as they do exactly what you want and believe exactly what you want — and if they don’t, you would be just as happy to see them physically harmed.
I don’t like you simply because you express yourself like an ass on this forum. Yet I’ve clearly and concisely stated that even though I don’t agree or believe in the same things as you do, even though you voted for Rick Perry who later on signed a state constitutional amendment to ban any state legal recognition of same-sex couples, I don’t consider you a traitor to gay rights issues.
Also, there are plenty of people that I like, which I don’t agree with them on major issues. However I draw the line when it comes to removing full legal recognition of my family.
There’s a rather supreme irony in seeing the same liberal gays who whine constantly about the need for “hate crimes” laws calling for lynchings of people who don’t vote the way they want.
Guess what NDT: I never cared about hate crime laws. In fact my solution to reducing anti-gay crimes is by having every gay peep exercise his or her second amendment rights. And I never condoned or encouraged a lynching as you fallaciously state. I simply wouldn’t condemn or prevent one either.
But let’s turn the tables on you NDT, do you like anyone from the left? How about Michelangelo Signorile, or the folks at Daily Kos?
posted by Mark F. on
Nice that you are linking to an obscure blog called “Gay Patriot,” a ridiculous gay GOP brownnosing site.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
And I never condoned or encouraged a lynching as you fallaciously state. I simply wouldn’t condemn or prevent one either.
I would, regardless of who it was. But that’s the difference between you and I.
I don’t like Michelangelo Signorile, or the folks at Daily Kos, mainly because they are completely unable to separate their lives from their leftist and political views. However, just because I choose not to associate them does not mean I would allow them to be lynched or fail to condemn it if it were to happen.
posted by Attmay on
Rob | October 14, 2008, 8:26pm | #
But any homosexual who’s actually voting FOR proposition 8 is a TRAITOR to lesbian and gay FAMILIES, and deserve nothing but disdain and shame. Quite frankly, I couldn’t care less if they got lynched, regardless of what their rationale is, or more accurately lack of.
Rob | October 15, 2008, 3:48am | #
And I never condoned or encouraged a lynching as you fallaciously state
So you say one thing and then deny it. The logical gymnastics required to reconcile these two statements would earn you a perfect 10 at the Olympics.