…and this is a 
It wasn't that long ago that it was illegal in many states for black people to marry white people — this was the same kind of sentiment promoted by people who are defending marriage from gays nowadays, and I hope it will someday soon look as unbelievable as those old laws. Old laws? They were only overturned on this day in 1967, in the Supreme Court case of Loving v. Virginia!
Roy Zimmerman (with Laura Love, John McCutcheon, and Sandy O) has a song for this day, of course.
You can see the Lovings in this short news piece.
Aaargh! Obama screws up, very, very badly! I could forgive his religious leanings and vote for him, but denying civil rights to our citizens is not the kind of thing I can overlook. He must be hoping that the Republicans will nominate an extremely distasteful thug in the next election, so we'll vote for him anyway.
Comments
Posted by: M | June 12, 2009 2:19 PM
It beggars belief that active discrimination still takes place all in the name superstitious beliefs from the Iron Age. The difference with the opposition to gay marriage as opposed to racial discrimination is that it is supported by senior church leaders such as the Pope.
I just hope that in a few years from now people will look back at this unenlightened age and wonder how we could have been so bigoted and ignorant.
Posted by: Moggie
|
June 12, 2009 2:29 PM
Less laughs than usual for Zimmerman, but very good.
Posted by: Matt | June 12, 2009 2:31 PM
Those "small government" conservatives never cease to amaze me with their hypocrisy. They claim that marriage has always been static, but this is not the case. They then claim that marriage should be a religious institution, but atheists regularly marry in town halls and backyards, do they not?
Majorities cannot always dictate minority rights. Once upon a time, a majority in the military did not favor integrating African Americans into their units. Now we fully know how unenlightened we were back then, drinking on fear of progress. If two consenting, law-abiding men/women want to enter a union, why should the government block them? Social conservatism, like the old Prohibitions, ultimately fails as society adapts.
Posted by: davidlpf | June 12, 2009 2:31 PM
I am all equal marriage except for purple people, first they need air then they can get married.
(Stolen from some comedian on the "Just for Laughs festival" I saw on tv.)
Posted by: Kevin(NYC) | June 12, 2009 2:33 PM
OT but this poll needs some help....
http://www.newsvine.com/_question/2009/06/12/2922412-should-david-letterman-apologize-for-comment-about-sarah-palins-daughter?
Posted by: Verde | June 12, 2009 2:37 PM
Marriage Equlity for All!
However, I never should have watched that video.
I've now got that horribly corny song stuck in my head.
thanks.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | June 12, 2009 2:38 PM
And on this Loving Day, let us reflect on the actions of the administration led by a "fierce advocate" for the rights of LGBT people:
http://www.americablog.com/2009/06/obama-justice-department-defends-doma.html
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | June 12, 2009 2:39 PM
Enjoyed that.
Kind of a shame to have John McCutcheon on stage and use a recorded instrumental track, though.
Posted by: kabin | June 12, 2009 2:45 PM
Thank...
Kabin
Konteyner
Posted by: HenryS
|
June 12, 2009 2:57 PM
The Obama/Holder is defending DOMA in Federal Court in California. Among the legal argument that they use are that prohibiting same sex marriage is no different than prohibiting incest and child marriage. Also they make the argument that same sex marriage would cost the Federal Government too much money and finally they reject Loving by saying:
"the Full Faith and Credit Clause. That Clause ensures that each State retains the authority to decline to apply another State's law when it conflicts with its own public policies. DOMA is fully consistent with that constitutional principle, as it permits States to experiment with and maintain the exclusivity of their own legitimate public policies — such as whether that State chooses to recognize or reject same-sex marriages."
http://www.americablog.com/2009/06/obama-justice-department-defends-doma.html
Posted by: Big Gay Al | June 12, 2009 3:01 PM
And I love YOU PZ....
Posted by: Matt | June 12, 2009 3:04 PM
Same-sex marriage is different from pedophilia (which involves non-consent) and child marriage. To argue otherwise is not only insulting to LGBT Americans that abide by the law, but utterly incorrect. I'd think that permitting same-sex marriage would boost the wedding industry and turn profits over for each individual state, as the businesses involved with granting contracts and preparing for a wedding would experience a surge in interest.
Posted by: AdamK | June 12, 2009 3:22 PM
Obama and Holder have utterly betrayed gay people.
Posted by: Ted Herrlich | June 12, 2009 3:23 PM
Let us also not forget that such laws were still on the books for years after. I think it was 2000 or 2001 when Alabama finally repealed theirs.
Ted
tedhohio@gmail.com
http://sciencestandards.blogspot.com
Posted by: Ouchimoo | June 12, 2009 3:26 PM
Hopefully humanity will someday put bigoted prejudices behind them. Until then we still have people who are so racist they are falling over themselves over a semi black president. We still have people who think that womens only roll is to be in the kitchens barefoot and pregnant and oh yes, gay people are sinful disgusting people. I wonder how long it will take for such thinking to become "old laws".
Damn I don't know what the deal is, am I always this cynical?
Posted by: truthspeaker | June 12, 2009 3:50 PM
Yep. Can't say I'm surprised. Obama already betrayed opponents of the Iraq War and Americans oppposed to torture. At least he didn't betray opponents of unconstitutional warrantless wiretaps - he made it clear before the election that he supported unconstitutional warrantless wiretaps.
Posted by: aratina cage
|
June 12, 2009 3:51 PM
Loving Day, is it? Obama sure knows how to step on the toes of LGBT people. Andrew Sullivan is now linking to Politico who got this response from Obama's Department of Justice:
Sorry, the ball was in Obama's hands to do the right thing and not defend this blatantly discriminatory law. Instead, not only did his team defend DOMA, they pulled arguments straight from Rick Warren's mouth to defend it while relegating LGBT civil rights to a lower level than civil rights for racial minorities on the back of Loving v. Virginia, or so it seems. Where is the love? I don't see it.Posted by: daveau
|
June 12, 2009 3:54 PM
Puts me in mind of these Zappa lyrics from 1968-
There will come a time when everybody
Who is lonely will be free...
To sing & dance & love
There will come a time when every evil
That we know will be an evil...
That we can rise above
Different day, same struggle.
Posted by: Blake | June 12, 2009 3:58 PM
LOL - great line at 2:05:
"in a white dress or a tux,
it aint nobody's business who a person... MARRIES"
(say it out loud if it's not obvious)
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | June 12, 2009 4:15 PM
The Justice Department should ignore existing law for political reasons?
You don't see a little problem there?
Or should they ignore it for ethical reasons?
Should the future Jeb Bush administration do the same?
My knee just doesn't jerk that quick.
[this is in no way a defense of DOMA]
Posted by: Kristjan Wager | June 12, 2009 4:16 PM
I suggest that everyone who hasn't read it yet, read Mildred Loving's statement on the 40th anniversary where she came out in full support of gay marriages
Loving for All (.pdf)
Posted by: Michelle R
|
June 12, 2009 4:17 PM
Wow. That's such a hippie sounding song. LOVE THE LOVE!
Posted by: HenryS
|
June 12, 2009 4:18 PM
"As it generally does with existing statutes,"
******
Interesting...Generally??? Not obligated??? The Obama/Holder defenders are saying that Obama's DOJ had no choice...If they were forced to defend the law, no one forced them to use a homophobic legal defense. Just like their defense of DADT..."necessary for the good order of the military"...Jeebus, the nightmare that began in 2000 continues.
Posted by: Patrick | June 12, 2009 4:19 PM
This post reminded me of a guest on the Colbert Report that said unions should be the govt's job and marriage should be left to the churches, and Colbert joked that that would be a way to keep atheists from getting married. I think this is a way of churches trying to keep themselves in business with faultering numbers
Posted by: Russell Wilson | June 12, 2009 4:19 PM
This was the same kind of sentiment promoted by people who are defending marriage from gays nowadays.
No it is not. Right now any man can marry any women. Any women can marry any man. There is no discrimination. Most folks have no opposition to gay unions. However, when you invoke the word marriage they do.
Folks first recognize that two folks having the same chromosomes playing mommy and daddy are not the same as marriage. Having this view is hardly discrimination and is certainly not racial discrimination. Furthermore, folks like you that make this argument skim over the topic of adoption. Should two hetero men be able to adopt young girls? No. Should two homosexual men be able to adopt young boys? No
So at least try to have some context or argument instead of resorting to name calling. Yes you called everyone a racist that did not agree with you.
Reasonable arguments are the scientific way after all.
Posted by: Russell Wilson | June 12, 2009 4:19 PM
This was the same kind of sentiment promoted by people who are defending marriage from gays nowadays.
No it is not. Right now any man can marry any women. Any women can marry any man. There is no discrimination. Most folks have no opposition to gay unions. However, when you invoke the word marriage they do.
Folks first recognize that two folks having the same chromosomes playing mommy and daddy are not the same as marriage. Having this view is hardly discrimination and is certainly not racial discrimination. Furthermore, folks like you that make this argument skim over the topic of adoption. Should two hetero men be able to adopt young girls? No. Should two homosexual men be able to adopt young boys? No
So at least try to have some context or argument instead of resorting to name calling. Yes you called everyone a racist that did not agree with you.
Reasonable arguments are the scientific way after all.
Posted by: Rob Lonardo | June 12, 2009 4:22 PM
Hi,
First and foremost, I love your blog; it's certainly a breath of fresh air. I also have been following the marriage equality debate pretty closely (well, if one can actually call it a debate...) for a while now.
And, yes, it is personal. The Human Rights Campaign just posted on their YouTube site this video of a man in a god suit ranting/lying/cursing/damning homosexuality and homosexual persons at a DC hearing on recognizing same-sex marriages legally performed elsewhere. The video is at this link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFFYYjWjVuE
I don't even have the words sufficient enough to respond to this ignorant/irrelevant/outrageous/hateful man.
Religion in practice. Ugh.
P.S. That video is disgusting. If you're offended by outright lies and deception as well as hateful language... proceed with caution.
Posted by: Kristjan Wager | June 12, 2009 4:23 PM
By that logic there was no discrimination before Loving, since no one could marry someone of a different skin color (an argument which was actually used by some).
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | June 12, 2009 4:23 PM
Should two homosexual men be able to adopt young boys? No
Are you fucking kidding me?!
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | June 12, 2009 4:25 PM
an argument which was actually used by some).
Like the Commonwealth of Virginia.
Posted by: Matt | June 12, 2009 4:28 PM
Russell,
By that logic, a black man could still marry a black woman. There was no discrimination whatsoever. Unfortunately, your hideous logic doesn't hold up. Two loving, consenting individuals, whether they are gay or heterosexual, are suitable parents. Scientific studies have attested to this. My brother is gay, and he is the best man with children I know. He's a community volunteer and a terrific reader.
Posted by: daveau
|
June 12, 2009 4:30 PM
Russell Wilson @24&26
So you're saying that the only reason that hetero couples (opposite-marriage) can adopt any child is that since they are different genders (presumably with different uncontrollable desires), one spouse can keep an eye on the other one?
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | June 12, 2009 4:31 PM
Reasonable arguments are the scientific way after all.
Then make some. The only thing present in your comment is anti-gay animus.
Posted by: Sastra
|
June 12, 2009 4:32 PM
Russell Wilson #26 wrote:
Huh? What "folks" are you talking about here? Two people in love -- of whatever gender -- who wish to commit themselves to a permanent relationship are not "playing mommy and daddy." Nor are they "playing" husband and wife, or wife and wife, or husband and husband. They are all real marriages, between real people.
You are apparently trying to appeal to a universal intuition which doesn't exist. It just sounds like playacting to us.
Also -- what Kristjan Wager #28 said. Your line of argument would justify any type of discrimination.
Posted by: AdamK | June 12, 2009 4:32 PM
Russell Wilson, you're a fucking bigot. Gay people are not pedophiles, and gay fathers don't seduce and pervert their own sons, you fucking piece of shit. Fuck you.
Posted by: Russell Wilson | June 12, 2009 4:35 PM
MAJeff,
No I am not kidding you. Should a hetero sexual man be allowed to take girl scouts camping?
Shouldn’t someone address MAMBA before allowing gay men to adopt boys? It should at least be talked about.
Kristjan,
No all women can marry any man and all men can marry any women is not the same argument. Hell if it is, this is not a science blog.
Posted by: Troublesome Frog | June 12, 2009 4:35 PM
The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.
-Anatole France
Posted by: Matt | June 12, 2009 4:36 PM
Furthermore, marriage has hardly been static. Women didn't always have the same legal rights as they do now in such unions, and, as we discussed, African Americans once had to contend with discrimination in this area. Homosexuals are not pedophiles, and I personally challenge any bigots who make this claim to actually meet gay Americans. They have fears, hopes, dreams, skills, and families - just like the rest of us.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | June 12, 2009 4:37 PM
Shouldn’t someone address MAMBA before allowing gay men to adopt boys? It should at least be talked about.
Homophobic bigot. Plain and simple.
Posted by: Russell Wilson | June 12, 2009 4:38 PM
Why that is quite an argument Adam K. Are you saying MAMBA dose not exist?
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | June 12, 2009 4:40 PM
What, exactly, is MAMBA?
The bigot can't even get the group he's trying to slur all gay men with right. An ignorant and stupid anti-gay bigot.
Posted by: Sastra
|
June 12, 2009 4:45 PM
Russell Wilson #36 wrote:
What you're really asking here is whether fathers should be involved with raising their daughters, and mothers involved with raising their sons. Absent specific evidence of abuse: yes.
Homosexuality or heterosexuality have no relevance.
Posted by: James F | June 12, 2009 4:45 PM
Of course mamba exists.
Posted by: Russell Wilson | June 12, 2009 4:47 PM
Adam K,
Never said that. Just pointing out the numbers. Gay adoption should be talked about, not swept under the table. For instance, I would have no problem with women adopting. It is just an uncomfortable fact that men are sexual predators.
Also, I have no opposition to two gay folks declaring their love and having legal protection. So why dose it have to be called Marriage? It is not the same thing. Can’t it be labeled differently?
Bigot? You folks are vile empty argument name callers.
and gay fathers don't seduce and pervert their own sons, you fucking piece of shit. Fuck you.
Some do. That is a fact. Some hetero fathers seduce their girls. Another fact. Hey are facts not allowed here? Is this a science site or a loony site? Anyway, I am talking about addoptiny kids, not a natural born son.
Posted by: daveau
|
June 12, 2009 4:48 PM
It's a kind of dance. No, wait, that's mambo...
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | June 12, 2009 4:48 PM
This from PZ's link, taken at face value, leads me to withdraw the questions I asked @#20:
And it does look like the brief is very bad.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 12, 2009 4:50 PM
Wait, homosexual men shouldn't adopt boys because of the misspelling of a Cuban dance?
huh?
Posted by: Watchman | June 12, 2009 4:50 PM
James:
You're darn right it does!
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | June 12, 2009 4:50 PM
Yes, Russel. Bigot. You are an ignorant, anti-gay bigot. You are unaware of any of the public policy debates, or the social scientific literature, on the issues you are raising. Instead, you decide to pull out, "the faggots are gonna rape your sons!" bullshit.
You really haven't said anything else. Yes, you are an ignorant, anti-gay bigot.
Posted by: Russell Wilson | June 12, 2009 4:50 PM
Err sorry, NAMBLA..... The North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) is a New York City and San Francisco-based unincorporated organization in the United States that advocates the liberalization of laws against sexual relations between adult and minor males - resolving to "end the oppression of men and boys who have freely chosen mutually consenting relationships".
Posted by: phantomreader42 | June 12, 2009 4:52 PM
So, Russell, since some heterosexual men seduce their daughters, should ALL heterosexual men be forbidden from adopting girls?
Your answer to this question should make your level of bigotry and insanity obvious.
Posted by: Draken | June 12, 2009 4:54 PM
Should a hetero sexual man be allowed to take girl scouts camping?
Why not? Do you think only heterosexual men (how do you identify those?) are bound to be pedophiles only attracted to young girls? If you fear the akela is going to molest his children, you'd better device some other form of social control.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | June 12, 2009 4:54 PM
It's been a while since I've seen one of the bigots raise a pedophile organization that has been pretty much thoroughly repudiated by the LGBT movement in an attempt to argue against marriage equality.
Posted by: littlejohn | June 12, 2009 4:54 PM
I thought this thing was run by a biologist. A mamba is an African snake, isn't it? In fact, it's called a black mambe, and I don't approve of black mambas marrying white mambas.
Personally, I want to marry a duck.
Posted by: Kristjan Wager | June 12, 2009 4:55 PM
I hadn't seen this part of the comment until MAJeff commented on it.
Russell Wilson, you're a sick man.
Normal people don't see a problem in people adopting children of any gender, because people, as a general rule, don't want to have sex with children, even if they are of the gender that fits their sexual orientation.
It's only pedophiles who are sexually attracted to children, and there is of course background checks, so pedophiles don't get to adopt.
Posted by: Russell Wilson | June 12, 2009 4:56 PM
Someone please explain why asking two men who want to spend the rest of their lives bound by some legal agreement to call it something other than marriage is bigoted.
And yes, the courts have generally frowned on leaving children with the father...historically. And yes, two heterosexual men shouldn’t be allowed to adopt young girls....kind of like Woody Allen.
Posted by: Geoff | June 12, 2009 4:56 PM
Betty Bowers explains Traditional Christian marriage here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFkeKKszXTw
Wild!
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 12, 2009 4:57 PM
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOH.
Never heard of it.
/eyeroll
Russell you are apparently a sheltered soul. get out a bit more and maybe your prejudices will fade.
I doubt it but just maybe.
Yep, no women sexual predators.
Russell, please clean up. You just left logic in pieces all over the floor and it's a fucking mess.
Posted by: Klokwurk
|
June 12, 2009 4:59 PM
Russell Wilson @ 50
From Wikipedia:
More recently, media reports have suggested that for practical purposes the group no longer exists and that it consists only of a web site maintained by a few enthusiasts.[citation needed] NAMBLA maintains a web site that shows addresses in New York and San Francisco and a phone contact in New York, and offers publications for sale, including the NAMBLA Bulletin.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | June 12, 2009 5:00 PM
And yes, the courts have generally frowned on leaving children with the father...historically
Actually, no. It wasn't really until the 19th Century that women came to be seen as the primary guardians of children and started to win custody. Prior to that, children (like wives) were father's property.
Posted by: Russell Wilson | June 12, 2009 5:00 PM
Geoff,
I love that clip! Seen it before though. I think it dose a great job.
Kristjan,
I am not talking about normal folks, I am talking about sexually deranged one. And no that dose not mean gays.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 12, 2009 5:01 PM
You must have missed Pilty a few weeks back.
Posted by: phantomreader42 | June 12, 2009 5:01 PM
Well, since Russell is a man, and his arguments depend on the (flagrantly and obviously false) assumption that all men are pedophiles, then Russell must be a pedophile. It's called projection, Rusty, you're a sick fuck, but you don't want to admit it to yourself, so you pretend everyone else is a sick fuck.
Do the little boys and girls (given that you seem like a closet case too, mostly boys) in your neighborhood a favor, and go die in a fucking fire.
Posted by: Sastra
|
June 12, 2009 5:01 PM
Russell Wilson #44 wrote:
Yes, it is the same thing. If you want to separate a marriage defined under conservative, religious rules from regular marriage, then you can use the special terms "holy matrimony" or "covenant marriage."
Yes. But nobody has ever said that this is a reason to prevent married couples from adopting a child -- the father might sexually abuse the daughter, or the mother might sexually abuse the son. We wait for actual evidence that a specific father or mother has done so (or beaten them, or starved them), before we take action. We don't take drastic preemptive action, and refuse to let anyone adopt -- or even have children in the first place, because of what a few others have done.
Again, this has nothing to do with gay marriage. I don't see your argument.
Posted by: Watchman | June 12, 2009 5:02 PM
Yes, for a highly idiocyncratic definition of "fact".
Women have also been known to exhibit predatory behavior.
"Seduce"? Surely you mean "molest or rape".
That objection aside, yes, they do.
By your logic, then, heterosexual couples should also not be allowed to adopt.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | June 12, 2009 5:02 PM
Oh, there's a couple of green mambas, too. All 3 with the dangerous adjective combination of bad-tempered and highly neurotoxic.
Posted by: daveau
|
June 12, 2009 5:03 PM
Are you saying Woody Allen is two heterosexual men, or that he is kind of like young girls?
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | June 12, 2009 5:04 PM
You must have missed Pilty a few weeks back.
I must have missed that particular performance. These folks are particularly odious fuckwits.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 12, 2009 5:04 PM
I've asked him to clean that logic up. It's in pieces all over the floor. I doubt he'll put it together anytime soon.
Posted by: Butter | June 12, 2009 5:06 PM
littlejohn:
Speaking of duck marriage rights: There's a white tufted female domestic duck that's become partnered with a possibly hybridized American Black drake at our local park. They've been swimming around together for the last year and a half or so, and I think one of the littler brown ones might be their offspring. Perhaps we should ask Russell if we should split them up, based on whether their relationship is setting a good example for the other ducks.
Posted by: Geoff | June 12, 2009 5:06 PM
Why does Christianity have to be called a religion? It makes less sense than most religions.
Can't we just call it 'dumbass'?
Posted by: Russell Wilson | June 12, 2009 5:07 PM
MAJeff,
I stand corrected. Thank you. That was much nicer than Bigot. You are an ignorant, anti-gay bigot
So please answer, why is asking two men who want to spend the rest of their lives bound by some legal agreement to call it something other than marriage is bigoted.
Posted by: James F | June 12, 2009 5:07 PM
littlejohn #54 wrote:
You're not the only one.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 12, 2009 5:08 PM
I have absolute no problem calling it marriage. The Redhead and I have been married 30+ years. Now tell me why having married homosexual couples degrades our marriage...If you aren't a bigot, at this point the correct answer is to simply stop posting.
Posted by: phantomreader42 | June 12, 2009 5:09 PM
Russell Wilson, bigoted pedophilic closet case @ #61:
So, your argument is that NO gay men should be allowed to marry or adopt children because children need to be protected from "sexually deranged" men, but you're trying to pretend you're not saying ALL gay men and NO straight men are "sexually deranged", even though that absurd claim is the only way your plan would work.
Apparently, you're so stupid the only way you can think of to protect children from the "sexually deranged" (such as yourself) is to infringe on the rights of innocent people while doing nothing at all to even inconvenience the "sexually deranged".
So you're a bigot and a moron, but then those traits tend to be found together.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 12, 2009 5:09 PM
equal rights.
Posted by: Kristjan Wager | June 12, 2009 5:10 PM
No. As a matter of fact, you were talking about normal people when you said that a homosexual couple shouldn't be allowed to adopt. Like when you said that men are "sexual predators".
You keep referring to the fact that this is a science blog, but you provide no evidence for your claims.
Adoption by homosexual couples have been studied again and again, and it has been found that children raised by such couples do as well as children raised by heterosexual couples, and in some cases, they even do better.
Posted by: LinzeeBinzee | June 12, 2009 5:12 PM
I wish Obama would get a backbone and stand up for what's right. I mean, he has to know that gay marriage is not wrong. He's just playing it safe with all the civil union mumbo jumbo. It's asinine. He's not campaigning anymore, do something! Maybe once he's re-elected he'll have enough balls to do what's right. It's a total cop-out that he hasn't already legalized gay marriage.
Also-What's with the tendency of anti-gay marriagers to think that everyone's a pervert out to fuck anything that moves? Grow up and get your mind out of the gutter.
Posted by: Lilie | June 12, 2009 5:13 PM
It's interesting when you hear the argument "whats next? Are we going to legalize pedophilia?" Actually, it seems that pedophilia is looked on more favorably than gay marriage. How many states allow you to get married at 16? And that would make it perfectly legal for a 50 year-old to marry a 16-year old. That seems borderline pedophilia to me. And don't get me started on the Catholic church harboring known pedophiles. People can be so stupid when they depend on an absolute sense of morality that doesnt exist.
Posted by: daveau
|
June 12, 2009 5:14 PM
It has already been ruled by SCOTUS that "separate but equal" is not equal.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | June 12, 2009 5:15 PM
Mr. Wilson has made his position quite clear. Children are not safe with men of any kind, except for, possibly, some of those that are married to women. Given the existence of fast-moving Asian and African elapid snakes of the genus Dendroaspis, adoption of male children by male homosexuals should be
sinfully delightfulbanned! But as long as they do not adopt male children, two men living together and sharing love and life is just fine, but please forGodssakes don't call it "marriage"!!! That's the main thing! 'Cause it's a special, heterosexual word only. Just because.And who could disagree with that?
Posted by: Russell Wilson | June 12, 2009 5:16 PM
Now tell me why having married homosexual couples degrades our marriage... Never said it degrades marriage or enhances marriage. I said it is different and therefore not marriage. So why can we not call it something different, pass it and move on? What I said was, marriage involves the union of two folks that have different chromosome pairs. Two folks joining with the same chromosome pairs would be something else. I am not saying that it is bad.
Now, If you aren't a bigot, at this point the correct answer is to simply stop posting.
Ha Ha AH ahhhh I am soooo smart.
Posted by: Sastra
|
June 12, 2009 5:16 PM
Russell Wilson #72 wrote:
It's bigoted because it is a real marriage, and you want to deny that by making them use some other term. Again, those who want a 'special' sort of marriage based on specific conservative religious views should create special terms. "Holy matrimony" or "covenant marriage." Or maybe "Godly Union."
Gay couples are just as 'normally married' as inter-racial couples, or straight couples. What would you think of someone who insisted that inter-racial marriages -- or marriages between people of different religions or nationalities -- needed to be called by a different term? You'd think it bigotry.
Posted by: Lilie | June 12, 2009 5:17 PM
It's interesting when you hear the argument "whats next? Are we going to legalize pedophilia?" Actually, it seems that pedophilia is looked on more favorably than gay marriage. How many states allow you to get married at 16? And that would make it perfectly legal for a 50 year-old to marry a 16-year old. That seems borderline pedophilia to me. And don't get me started on the Catholic church harboring known pedophiles. People can be so stupid when they depend on an absolute sense of morality that doesnt exist.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | June 12, 2009 5:21 PM
Where by "different chromosome pairs" I mean "Just because."
Posted by: Russell Wilson | June 12, 2009 5:21 PM
Mr. Wilson has made his position quite clear. Children are not safe with men of any kind, except for, possibly, some of those that are married to women.
You sir are a liar.
What I will say is that I would not leave my children at a day care center run entirely by men. Would you? On the other side of the coin, I would leave them a t a day care run by women or women and men. Are you saying the Catholic Church has had no problems with their men priests? Any of you?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 12, 2009 5:22 PM
Russell, for fuck's sake. Blockquote or use quotes or Italics or something. ANYTHING.
Posted by: Ichthyic | June 12, 2009 5:24 PM
If they were forced to defend the law, no one forced them to use a homophobic legal defense.
This sparked a thought in my head.
Could the administration be playing double-agent here? On the one hand, placating the right by saying: "See? We did our best to defend DOMA." While on the other, using the most ridiculous defense imaginable.
Perhaps the administration is actually hoping to LOSE the argument "on the (lack of) merits"?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 12, 2009 5:24 PM
And, that sir, is why you are a bigot. We see through your irrationality.Posted by: Kristjan Wager | June 12, 2009 5:26 PM
Ichthyic, nice thought, but I doubt it.
Posted by: Sastra
|
June 12, 2009 5:26 PM
Russell Wilson:
No. We don't accept your definition. Marriage involves the union of two folks.
Adding in that they have to have "different chromosome pairs" is just as arbitrary as adding in that they have to be of the "same race," or that they have to have "different eye colors." If you're going to add in something special, then this special form of marriage should invent and use the special term.
Posted by: daveau
|
June 12, 2009 5:26 PM
Wait. Now I'm confused.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
June 12, 2009 5:26 PM
Russell Wilson whines
Because, bigot, if you had limited yourself to that topic, the cries of bigot would have been less. Not zero, because you haven't explained why "marriage" only refers to a male-female bonding and why the word shouldn't refer to similar bondings between two men, two women, or two anything elses?
However, you chose to bring up gay men adopting boys, pedophilia in general, and NAMBLA. I'd never heard of NAMBLA before homophobes (usually conservative, fundamentalist Christian homophobes) brought the group to my attention. Since then, the only folks who talk about NAMBLA are homophobes (yourself included).
So far you've protested gays getting married because (a) only straights can get married, (2) gays getting married leads to pedophilia, and (iii) NAMBLA will get married to MAMBA. In other words, you're a homophobic bigot.
Posted by: Russell Wilson | June 12, 2009 5:28 PM
Satra, I am not religious so it is hard for me to understand what you are inferring.
Satra, I am not religious so it is hard for me to understand what you are inferring.
Big dump Chimp,
Sorry, I never do this sort of thing so...there you have it. I'll try better.
After all, I am a sub human or something. I never meet so many well educated scientists before...or all of these folks actually just students?
Posted by: Roger
|
June 12, 2009 5:30 PM
Thanks, Obama. Keep this up, I'll wind up sitting out the general election in '12 like I did with Clinton in '96 (he also ditched LGBTs at warp speed once he got into office).
Posted by: Draken | June 12, 2009 5:30 PM
What I said was, marriage involves the union of two folks that have different chromosome pairs.
[reference needed]
...or could you point to the USPTO number on the term "marriage" you've just read?
Posted by: robhoofd | June 12, 2009 5:32 PM
Here's some followup on the Obama issue.
http://www.americablog.com/2009/06/obama-doj-lies-to-politico-in-defending.html
Big fat fucking disappointment.
Posted by: Ichthyic | June 12, 2009 5:32 PM
Ichthyic, nice thought, but I doubt it.
why?
there is a long history of introducing fundie-sponsored bills in congress, only to shoot them down in committee.
After seeing the rise in violence on the part of the far right over the last couple of months, I could easily envision a coordinated effort to calm them down by doing similar things.
The idea of "defending" DOMA with a horribly poor argument would fit into that quite nicely.
It would be worth tracking the judge's responses to the Administration's arguments.
Posted by: Watchman | June 12, 2009 5:33 PM
Squirrel!
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | June 12, 2009 5:34 PM
Satra [sic], Mr. Wilson is not religious (x2).
He knows that "marriage" is biologically defined. Different chromosome pairs.
Posted by: Russell Wilson | June 12, 2009 5:35 PM
Draken,
Are we having a legal argument here? It is certainly not my intent.
If the chromosome talk confuses you maybe this will help
The male gametes or sperm cells in humans and other mammals are heterogametic and contain one of two types of sex chromosomes. They are either X or Y. The female gametes or eggs however, contain only the X sex chromosome and are homogametic. The sperm cell determines the sex of an individual in this case. If a sperm cell containing an X chromosome fertilizes an egg, the resulting zygote will be XX or female. If the sperm cell contains a Y chromosome, then the resulting zygote will be XY or male.
Posted by: Kristjan Wager | June 12, 2009 5:36 PM
There are a number of scientists here, some students, and quite a few who is neither. Me, I am just a plain IT-consultant, living in the first country in the world which made that different-but-equal trick on homosexual couples. Know what, now - 20 years later - they are still not equal.
Calling it something else than marriage shows that it's not considered on equal level with marriage. That's discriminatory, and, yes you're are a bigot if you support discriminatory practices.
Posted by: Ouchimoo | June 12, 2009 5:36 PM
So since I'm a women and my husband is a man it's okay to marry because we can reproduce. I have no intention on reproducing, would you then say our marriage license should be revoked? Why is it that if I do want children and I decide to adopt that's okay, but two women or two men can't? Are you fucking telling me that if my dad took me out camping I'd get molested? As someone mentioned before, if you are projecting not every man is a sick fuck like you. Oh by the way, since we're on girl scouts and I hadn't addressed it exactly, I just heard a report that every molestation case in BSA have been from straight males. When comparing that to similar scout groups that allow gays to be leaders in Canada and the UK, not a single attacker has been gay.Posted by: JohnDoe | June 12, 2009 5:37 PM
#88 and #98 FTW. I hope.
oh, and Russel Wilson- Ur doin it rong. Now leave, please. Bigot AND a loser... ouch!
Posted by: AdamK | June 12, 2009 5:38 PM
The DOJ lawyer who wrote this nasty, homophobic brief is a Mormon Bush Administration hold-over.
Good job running the government, there, Barack.
Posted by: Ichthyic | June 12, 2009 5:38 PM
If the chromosome talk confuses you maybe this will help
Ok, time for you to go you ignorant, patronizing piece of garbage.
Posted by: Sastra
|
June 12, 2009 5:40 PM
Russell Wilson #94 wrote:
I was pointing out that there are no secular arguments against gay marriages being real, normal marriages as practiced today. All the arguments which insist that they aren't, rely on religious assumptions about what either God or Nature "intended" -- and the necessity of keeping to a narrow definition because of that.
The narrow definition should create and use the special term -- if there needs to be special terms to distinguish different 'kinds' of marriage. Frankly, they all seem basically the same to me.
Posted by: Ichthyic | June 12, 2009 5:40 PM
It is just an uncomfortable fact that men are sexual predators.
Says the man who probably would like to be one, if he isn't already.
I rather think you need to spend less time HERE, and more time with your local mental health care professional.
Posted by: Kristjan Wager | June 12, 2009 5:41 PM
Ah. I now see the problem. Russell appears to be of the impression that "marriage" is a different word for "reproduce". Well, it isn't. Marriage is a legal definition.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
June 12, 2009 5:43 PM
I have a 32 year old daughter who lives with me. She's a very good looking woman with an impressive bust. In all the time we've been together I've never tried anything sexual with her (nor she with me). Apparently, in Russell Wilson's eyes, I'm a failure as a father for not going the incest route.
Posted by: Russell Wilson | June 12, 2009 5:44 PM
Well Ok Kristjan,
I don’t see it as being on an unequal footing, other than my reservations about gay men adopting. (And I am sure as the evidence unfolds I could change my view. Right now it is a concern). Couldn’t your unequal footing argument be handled legally?
And stop the bigot stuff. Do you call someone a bigot when they tax one group at a higher rate than another? It is discrimination. As a mater of fact, I had this argument with my buddy Gene Elder in San Antonio. He wanted to claim that gay rights were being violated by not allowing them to marry. I asked which rights were being denied. He listed social security, income tax favoritisms as some of the so called rights being denied. I then asked him if my rights were being denied for being taxed at a greater rate than his............................silence.
Posted by: AdamK | June 12, 2009 5:48 PM
On and on the ignorance flows from this troll, like fresh water from a mountain spring.
Posted by: Ouchimoo | June 12, 2009 5:48 PM
Ya think? Wilson's moronic talk of X+X and X+Y makes BABBY!!! Again fuck you, Wilson for indirectly suggesting that now I am required to factory out some children.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | June 12, 2009 5:49 PM
And stop the bigot stuff.
But ya are, Blanche! Ya are!
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
June 12, 2009 5:49 PM
Stop being a bigot and we'll stop calling you one. However, all you've shown us is bigotry, so we'll call you a bigot.
If it walks like a bigot and quacks like a bigot and is bigoted like a bigot, then it's a fucking bigot. Sorry if reality is upsetting to you, bigot.
Posted by: Ichthyic | June 12, 2009 5:50 PM
And I am sure as the evidence unfolds I could change my view. Right now it is a concern
So your "big" concerns are based on a...
LACK of evidence???
just get lost, you fucking hoser.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | June 12, 2009 5:50 PM
That's interesting. I'm not sure whether to be more or less disturbed.
Mr. Wilson is clearly not the hottest habañero in the salsa, and further engagement seems pointless.
Posted by: strange gods before me | June 12, 2009 5:51 PM
Actually, you are making exactly the same argument that the white supremacists made in defense of racial purity laws:
You conservatives' argument at the time was that because any white man could marry any white woman, and any black woman could marry any black man, there was no discrimination. And you already lost that argument before the Supreme Court:
You most definitely are a bigot, Russell Wilson. It's obvious, because you're using white supremacists' arguments.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 12, 2009 5:51 PM
up?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 12, 2009 5:53 PM
You fuck one goat...
Posted by: Kristjan Wager | June 12, 2009 5:53 PM
Russell, you might want to look up the concept of progressive taxing. You seem to not quite have understood the concept. That's all I am going to say on that subject, since it's a ridiculous argument of no relevance to the subject at hand.
Homosexual couples have some very big issues with inheritance, visiting rights in hospitals, and several other issues. Allowing them to marriage would solve these problems.
You seem to think that marriage is some kind of religious ceremony which ensures reproduction. That's not what it is, however. It's a legal procedures which grants the people involved specific rights and obligations. Denying this to homosexuals is discriminatory.
Posted by: Sastra
|
June 12, 2009 5:55 PM
"Bigotry" is a term used to signify unjust or unfair discrimination. Marriage is a contract with rights and duties. The government has to justify a refusal to grant a marriage license. Bottom line, it can't justify refusing it due to race or sex or religion.
If a special private group or church wishes to refuse to marry two people, they can use those reasons, or any reason they want. The government has a greater burden, because the presumption is that the liberty of the citizens trumps the power of the state.
And if that private group or church is bigoted by secular standards (though not by their own,) then it has to take its lumps. They are using special rules to discriminate where it otherwise makes no sense.
Posted by: Russell Wilson | June 12, 2009 5:57 PM
Thank you Satra,
I see what you mean. I don’t view God as being part of it although I realize most do. Thank you for clarifying. So no, I would not invoke the power of an unseen king to determine if a man should marry a man. It truly dose not matter to me. I think all should have their happiness. My concerns have been stated. It is something different and we could avoid this whole mess by calling it something different but equal. And I am concerned about males adopting, (when they do not live with a female.) So for example, if two men unioned with a women I would not have an adoption problem. I also have concerns about single parenting. Clearly the statistics show that this is not the way to go. Unfortunately I have no solution.
And so Kristjan, I do not view marriage as a different word for reproduce but you are close. I view marriage as a vehicle to raise a human infant from childhood to adult hood. Historically men have not cohabitated together so that they could raise children. Women of course have due to male abandonment.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 12, 2009 5:57 PM
Russell I haven't heard you talking about men marrying dogs or having 6 wives or marrying their toaster (or magical pig).
You're falling behind in Bigot bingo, but I've got faith in ya buddy.
Posted by: HenryS
|
June 12, 2009 6:00 PM
The DOJ lawyer who wrote this nasty, homophobic brief is a Mormon Bush Administration hold-over.
********
That would be W. Scott Simpson unfortunately the lead atty. on the brief if an appointed Obama supporter from SF, Tony West.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 12, 2009 6:02 PM
That worked so well in the past.
Posted by: strange gods before me | June 12, 2009 6:02 PM
Given how much child molestation occurs in households where a man is married to a woman, your specific objection to adoption by gay couples can only indicate that you specifically hate gay people.
Posted by: robhoofd | June 12, 2009 6:02 PM
This reminds me of an episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation, where a technician wants to take Data, an android, apart for research. Since Data himself does not think the technician has the skill to take him apart and put him back together again safely, he opposes it. But since he is not classified as a person but as a device and property of Starfleet, he does not have a say.
It is decided that there will be a hearing of both sides, Data's side represented by Captain Picard, and the technician's side by Lieutenant Riker, Data's fellow officer and friend. In this hearing, Data's status as either citizen of the Federation or technical device will be decided.
In the end, Riker almost wins the case by showing, dramatically, that Data has an off switch on his hip, and he states that because of it, Data is nothing but an advanced computer at Starfleet's disposal.
I'm thinking Obama might be feeling a bit like Lt. Riker right now, forced to defend something he knows he shouldn't.
Still, though, the incest and pedophilia remark was completely out of line and makes me question my own analogy.
Posted by: Victor
|
June 12, 2009 6:03 PM
I am appalled at Obama's bigoted decision. I will no longer be supporting the Democratic party because of it. Perhaps Obama will also see fit to overturn Loving vs Virginia and let the states decide if interracial couples can marry.
Posted by: Yossarian
|
June 12, 2009 6:04 PM
"And I am concerned about males adopting, (when they do not live with a female.)"
You know something, Russel? The rest of us normal, healthy guys would like it VERY much if you would stop projecting your own sick and twisted self image on us.
You sick fuck.
Posted by: Watchman | June 12, 2009 6:05 PM
A liar? Ok, you haven't explicitly stated exactly what Sven wrote, but Mr. Wilson, you are painfully unaware of what your arguments add up to:
Posted by: Blake Stacey | June 12, 2009 6:07 PM
I'm trying to read through that brief. It's hard when my brain stops every paragraph to scream, "The people who wrote this need to get fucked with spikes lubricated in boiling oil!"
We have a killfile script for blog comment trolls. I think I need one for the Department of Justice.
Posted by: Kristjan Wager | June 12, 2009 6:08 PM
I hate to say this, but currently, because of the US political system, there is no one else to support. Don't think for a second that McCain would have been better. At least Obama has done some right things as well as some bad things.
I hope, for the sake of not only you Americans, but also for the rest of us, that some viable parties will start to rise up in the US. It needs to be done at the local level first though - not through the presidential elections, as several have tried.
Posted by: Russell Wilson | June 12, 2009 6:09 PM
Hey Big dump,
Why don't we just call Pluto a planet? It obviously doesn’t mater now dose it?
Kristjan, Just saying plenty of GLBTG leaders have used that as an argument. And it is government discrimination.
There are plenty of problems. Why not solve them for all instead of one special interest group? For instance shouldn’t I be able to leave my SS benefits to anyone that I chose?
And as far as that other special interest group....Tax the churches.
I enjoyed our conversation. I will ponder some of your points. They were/are good ones.
Well see all of you folks later. Sorry that most of you make an argument by attributing false statements, using name calling, foul mouth langue and constructing straw men.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 12, 2009 6:10 PM
Thanks for the picture Rev. BDC. I recall seeing the same on a trip to Florida back in the sixties where we stopped in a small town somewhere south of the Ohio river for a bathroom break. That really started me thinking about the whole separate but equal (SBE) lie, which Russell is trying to perpetuate. And the people who were trying to perpetuate the SBE were all bigots. If the shoe fits Russell, you have to wear it.
Posted by: Yossarian
|
June 12, 2009 6:11 PM
"Well see all of you folks later. Sorry that most of you make an argument by attributing false statements, using name calling, foul mouth langue and constructing straw men."
Wow. Again with the projecting. We're still waiting for a logically sound argument from you.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 12, 2009 6:13 PM
Was that supposed to be an argument?
And dose? Are you on acid, because that would explain some of your idiocy.
Posted by: Sastra
|
June 12, 2009 6:14 PM
Russell Wilson #123 wrote:
It is not different in any way that's important or significant. We don't make a distinction between marriages which involve children, and marriages which don't involve children. They are both marriages. Creating a 'different but equal term' when dealing with gay marriage actually creates a mess that we don't need to have.
Imagine if they had invented a special word to refer to marriages between different races. Using the same term helped to smooth things over, in the long run -- because it was the right, fair, honest thing to do in the first place.
That's a separate issue. After all, single heterosexual men do adopt children already.
Most men are not child molesters. It happens, but it's relatively rare, and shouldn't be the automatic assumption. I think then that we need to deal with problems on a case by case basis, when there is an actual accusation, and actual evidence. Otherwise, you could be just as 'concerned' about married men having children at all.
Posted by: strange gods before me | June 12, 2009 6:14 PM
On second thought, maybe we should take Russell Wilson seriously.
I have just received photographic evidence that the Moscow Area Mountain Bike Association is trying to recruit young children into their "lifestyle."
http://www.bikemoscow.org/images/homeleft/biking29.jpg
Posted by: Watchman | June 12, 2009 6:16 PM
Rev BDC:
Yup!
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | June 12, 2009 6:16 PM
No, it really doesn't matter. Did you have a point?
?
with which you would not trust your strawchildren?
Posted by: Stu
|
June 12, 2009 6:20 PM
I hope, for the sake of not only you Americans, but also for the rest of us, that some viable parties will start to rise up in the US. It needs to be done at the local level first though - not through the presidential elections, as several have tried.
And it's simply not going to happen on either level because of the way campaigns are financed here. And campaign finance reform is not going to happen because the very people that can change it got to where they were because of the disfunction. Besides, it would raise taxes, and taxes are bad, remember?
Where's my pitchfork?
Posted by: strange gods before me | June 12, 2009 6:20 PM
There were no straw men or false attributions. As for name calling, you deserved even worse. You're the one who came in here making arguments straight from the white supremacist playbook. You are a thoroughly indecent person; you and your hateful ideas deserve zero respect.
Posted by: MadScientist | June 12, 2009 6:20 PM
I have no idea what 'DOMA' is, but the article seems to be going on about government handouts to couples. Screw that; why should spinsters and bachelors have to pay tax so government can hand things out to couples? I guess it was an old vote-buying scheme that just didn't die out; no one wants to be the president who says "no more handouts to couples".
Posted by: Watchman | June 12, 2009 6:22 PM
As David M. would say: "Day saved!" :-D
sgbm FTW
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 12, 2009 6:22 PM
Ok. Time for a beer.
Posted by: tomh | June 12, 2009 6:22 PM
Russell Wilson wrote: He listed social security, income tax favoritisms as some of the so called rights being denied.
He could have listed the approximately 1,400 legal rights that are conferred upon married couples in the U.S. Typically these are composed of about 400 state benefits and over 1,000 federal benefits. If he is not allowed to marry he is denied all of them.
Posted by: littlejohn | June 12, 2009 6:24 PM
This is just getting stupid. Who cares who marries who? And Butter, we've got to stop meeting like this.
Just bring me a goddamn duck! I want a duck!
Posted by: Stu
|
June 12, 2009 6:25 PM
I have no idea what 'DOMA' is
Lazy much?
http://tinyurl.com/cqkxs9
Posted by: strange gods before me | June 12, 2009 6:26 PM
Thank you, but I only held the threadwin for two minutes before Sven came along!
Posted by: The Other Ian | June 12, 2009 6:31 PM
#82, "...marriage involves the union of two folks that have different chromosome pairs."
That is the most ridiculous thing I've read all day. I'm curious, Russell, under your scheme, what would be the marriage rights of individuals with Turner's syndrome (single X chromosome) or Klinefelter's syndrome (XXY)?
Posted by: strange gods before me | June 12, 2009 6:35 PM
If they want to be American citizens, they should assimilate and learn our alphabet.
Posted by: Arkady | June 12, 2009 6:35 PM
The male gametes or sperm cells in humans and other mammals are heterogametic and contain one of two types of sex chromosomes. They are either X or Y. The female gametes or eggs however, contain only the X sex chromosome and are homogametic. The sperm cell determines the sex of an individual in this case. If a sperm cell containing an X chromosome fertilizes an egg, the resulting zygote will be XX or female. If the sperm cell contains a Y chromosome, then the resulting zygote will be XY or male.
Someone's only done basic biology I see... there's a gene on the Y chromosome that kicks off male development. If it's lost from the Y chromosome the resultant child is developmentally female but with XY chromosomes. If that gene accidentally gets stuck on the X chromosome you get XX males.
Does this mean you want the marriages of people who discover they have these chromosomal abnormalities annulled?
Posted by: Scrabcake | June 12, 2009 6:38 PM
Rev BigDumbChip
Magisches Schwein == Magical pig?
Did you just reference Zappa? I can think of no more appropriate song for this conversation?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 12, 2009 6:41 PM
I sure as hell did.
Just got my tickets for Zappa plays Zappa in July here in Charleston too.
Posted by: Scrabcake | June 12, 2009 6:42 PM
littlejohn,
Sorry, fresh out of ducks, but here...
Take this "Magical Pig" instead.
Posted by: Ouchimoo | June 12, 2009 6:44 PM
I haven't read comments after that point so I'm sorry if somebody already addressed this. Wilson if you are so worried about a couple of men adopting you need to remember this. The homosexual brain of men works near the same way as heterosexual women's brain. So your comment about that is absolutely pointless.
http://chattahbox.com/science/2009/06/05/study-brains-of-gay-men-look-like-straight-women/
Posted by: Shadow
|
June 12, 2009 6:45 PM
Marriage (for the purpose of insurance, taxes, common property, etc.) is just the government term sanctioning the joining of two families (households) and certain benefits arise from that.
Secular marriage should have no discrimination (gender or racial bias) between the consenting adults.
Religions are free to NOT sanction this union. Just as we (people in general) are free to NOT support/practice religion.
The government shouldn't interfere with the religion(s) or lack thereof. Religion shouldn't get involved with the secular side (they do anyway).
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 12, 2009 6:55 PM
huh?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 12, 2009 6:58 PM
Never mind.
Reading comprehension fail. A little dyslexia slipped in there and I reversed your meaning.
Posted by: Falyne | June 12, 2009 7:00 PM
Rev.,
The cracker people are free to not recognize gay marriage theologically, just as we're free to think crackers are silly. Problems only arise if cracker people can FORBID secular gay marriage, or if we could forbid crackery.
Posted by: Falyne | June 12, 2009 7:09 PM
And in case the silly silly person from before comes back, leaving beside whatever issues could cause a phobia of men with children, let's try this:
Equal protection says no class of citizen can have seperate rights from any other class. Currently, the set of people a woman can marry has no intersection with the set of people a man can marry. Fails equal protection.
Similarly, if legal contracts are to be drawn up between two consenting citizens, should the state have the power to dictate what type of citizen they are? The liberty-lover* in me says no.
*Attempting to avoid the l word, and in an entirely social and non-fiscal sense at any rate.
Posted by: Shadow
|
June 12, 2009 7:19 PM
RBDC@159/160:
Nobody's perfect. I probably state my point as clearly as possible.
I do get tired of the "Do as I say, because I have heard the Word" crowd trying to dictate to others how to live. If Tom and Tim want to create a household (marry), how does this differ from my marriage with Shadow-spouse? It doesn't, as long as they are committed to each other and their family.
Posted by: Carlie | June 12, 2009 7:33 PM
Shhh, nobody tell Russell about the sex chromosomes of the platypus. I think his brain would go all asplodey.
Posted by: strange gods before me | June 12, 2009 7:42 PM
Eight platypus researchers died from brain asplodeurysm before it became standard practice to study platypus sex under controlled laboratory conditions in an incredulity-dampening field.
Posted by: Rick S | June 12, 2009 8:12 PM
I use the Loving vs Virgina case often -- when arguing about bigotry and discrimination related to gay marriage.
How people can't see the analogy is beyond me.
Posted by: llewelly | June 12, 2009 8:16 PM
The idea that Obama (and/or Holder) are required by law to defend DOMA is nonsense. There is nothing in the constitution which justifies treating gays differently from anyone else. Therefor - by the 9th amendment - DOMA is unconstitutional.
Posted by: blueelm | June 12, 2009 8:19 PM
That is very sad. I had hoped that Obama would at least have sidestepped. That does lower my opinion of him some, those arguments don't sound any less bigoted coming from him.
Personally I think we have two honest options, either allow homosexual marriage or dissolve marriage completely.
Posted by: Shmussel Shmilson | June 12, 2009 8:22 PM
I am not racist. I simply believe that Chinese people should not be permitted to own pets, because they eat them.
I am disappointed that you cannot argue against this without ad-hominem name-calling.
Also, left-handed people are illiterate. Now, you all might say things like "they can write", but they "write" with the LEFT hand, while as we all know it's normal to write with the RIGHT hand. Notebooks, desks, corkscrews, scissors---all of civilization is based on right-handed writing. Even the words "right" and "write" sound exactly alike. Meanwhile, left-handed people smear the ink when they put pen to paper, or else they have to contort their hand into a ridiculous position in order to simply produce legible script. They are different: therefore, they are not really literate.
You're mean, so I'm going home.
Posted by: MosesZD
|
June 12, 2009 8:34 PM
I said he was a gutless wonder. I said he was going to cave on the tough issues. And, so far, I've been right.
So to all the Obama bots that wore my ass out: fuck you and the horses you rode in on. Any cursory examination of his behavior would have told you he was going to be like this...
We have him behaving just like I said he was: he's religious, bigoted and spineless, caving in on virtually everything important. And now he's just shoved a shiv in the backs of all my gay friends.
Posted by: tomh | June 12, 2009 8:47 PM
Shadow wrote: Just as we (people in general) are free to NOT support/practice religion.
Yet, under our current system, we all support religion. The billions of dollars that religious organizations are exempted from paying in taxes are a direct expense for the entire population. Sure sounds like we're all supporting them to me. All because we are indoctrinated from childhood with the principle that religion is so important that it must be protected and privileged, no matter what the cost.
Posted by: strange gods before me | June 12, 2009 8:51 PM
But that unconstitutionality isn't up to the executive branch to decide. The attorney general has to argue for the law before the judiciary.
This is more accurate: http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/06/is-the-doj-lying-about-the-doma-brief-ctd.html
Posted by: Rey Fox | June 12, 2009 9:03 PM
"What I will say is that I would not leave my children at a day care center run entirely by men. "
Sexist pig.
"So please answer, why is asking two men who want to spend the rest of their lives bound by some legal agreement to call it something other than marriage is bigoted."
Because they want to call it marriage but are being denied that right (as well as the above-mentioned thousands of legal rights that come with the term "marriage") because of their sexual orientation. It's really bloody simple.
And if they were allowed this non-marriage civil union that was equal to marriage, then they would be allowed to adopt children, which seems to be exactly what you're afraid of. So all this pointless wagon-circling around the term "marriage" can only imply that either a) you believe that allowing different kinds of partners to get married would devalue marriage or b) you're a bigot, or most likely, c) both a and b.
In any event, I'm glad that whackjobs like you ultimately weren't allowed to dictate the relationship between my cousin in California and his loving partner (they managed to get a marriage while the getting was good).
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
June 12, 2009 9:04 PM
what a fascinating argument. sooo.... since all men are predators, and we shouldn't allow those predators to adopt children just on the off chance they might molest some of them.... well, then the only people who would be legally allowed to adopt would be single women and lesbian couples.
also, that claim that a relationship is somehow fundamentally different whether the people in it are of different genders or not is an absurd claim. a legal contract is a legal contract, and we don't name legal contracts differently based on the genders of the people involved: a lease is still a lease even when both the leasee and the leaser are male; an adoption is still an adoption even when both the adoptee and the adopter are female; and a marriage is still a marriage even when both people doing the marrying are male (or female)
legal contracts are named after the specific combinations of rights and duties inherent in them, not the type of people entering into them.
Posted by: Chris A | June 12, 2009 9:05 PM
NAMBLA needs to be considered before we discuss gay marriage to the same extent that the KKK needs to be considered before we consider allowing white men to vote. Or maybe less.
Posted by: Don Rowe | June 12, 2009 9:25 PM
I think many here, including PZ and with the exception of the like of post #20, have overreacted.
I would expect an elected official to defend the application of standing laws. A personal viewpoint on the validity of the law is irrelevant.
Even on this site, there's an outcry about the President defending the application of an existing law in one thread and a resounding condemnation of the Attorney General for openly opposing lawful abortion in another thread.
Show some consistency and integrity, please. I am a proud atheist because we generally determine a point of view from evidentiary investigation; we don't let personal views obscure the truth of the matter.
Do you actually expect the President of the USA to publicly condemn the application of the law? Understand the position for what it is, and not how it grates against your personal sensibility.
I denounce the denial of gay marriage as much as anyone, but I have the ability to do that publicly because I haven't been elected into a position that requires me to defend the law.
I've not been reading Pharyngula very long, but I am concerned about the amount of hate that stems from a supposedly humanist and rational sub-set of society.
Posted by: strange gods before me | June 12, 2009 9:32 PM
Don Rowe, if you could grasp a little more subtlety, you'd see that many of us are not upset about the Department of Justice doing its job, but rather the specific content of the brief, which is full of homophobic lies, as it was written by a Bush-appointed Mormon.
Posted by: ckitching | June 12, 2009 9:39 PM
There's only ever three positions on this gay marriage issue that have ever made sense to me.
1. Eliminate government marriage. Remove all laws about marriage, and all the benefits of marriage. Obviously, this wouldn't be an easy sell, or even desirable by a large number of people. It's the position some of the more serious libertarians take.
2. Eliminate the restrictions. Anyone who wants to get married can get married, as long as all parties consent and are capable of giving legal consent (i.e. No child or animal marriage, for instance). This is close to the typical liberal position.
3. Rename the governmental definition of marriage to something neutral, and let religious groups grant "marriage" versions of these contracts as desired. It's silly, expensive, and difficult, and the religious nuts who are the driving force against gay marriage wouldn't like this solution any more than the other two. Despite the big noise made about the word "marriage", this has never been about marriage.
This really is a proxy battle. It's not really a fight over the word "marriage", it's a fight over if gay couples will be allowed to occupy the same place in society as everyone else. History shows that regardless of what we do today, eventually they will be granted these rights. The only thing we really get to decide is if it'll happen sooner or later.
If marriage was little more than a silly but exclusive religious ceremony, there would be few complaints. However, marriage has become more and more secular as time passed. Today, it hardly even resembles the religious ceremonies they originated from. Today people choose their own mates, can marry people of other skin colour and religious background, and across "class". Those arguing for a historical model of marriage should be careful and understand what they're really asking for. Modern marriage is nothing like historical marriage, and we should not want to go back to those ages.
Posted by: Ref | June 12, 2009 9:52 PM
"Virginia" and "in ya" may well be the worst rhyme since Cris Williamson's "Warrior...Bore yer" debacle. Honestly, if you want to make a polemical speech, do it. If you want to sing a song, do that. Don't try to mix the two.
This curmudgeonly statement is made without any disagreement with the socio-political message contained within the mess!
Posted by: Don Rowe | June 12, 2009 9:54 PM
[S]trange gods before me, 'many' may have been a little strong to describe the number of posts I'm refering to; 'some' was probably better. I'll concede that.
But when PZ starts with "Obama screwed up very, very, badly!", it doesn't seem to be a go at the brief to me as much as a judgement about a person.
Posted by: Ouchimoo | June 12, 2009 10:05 PM
Indeed, which is why it is so annoying that so many people are trying to fight it in the regards to what their religion says it should be. I got my marriage license signed last night so I am officially now married. I was really hoping that MN would drop the ball and allow gay marriages. I wanted to cross out marriage and put in 'civil union' even though I am in a heterosexual relationship. That was going to be my little protest, unfortunately I won't wait another election year when Pawlenty finally gets lost.
Posted by: Megs | June 12, 2009 11:04 PM
How odd that you are putting the entire burden of American homophobia on this president. Have you heard of Prop 8? I don't recall you laying it at the guvernator's feet. Have you watched the horrid attitudes that are prevalent in white communities large and small across the country? I have.
But Obama and Holder can say it is so, and it shall happen? Yeah, right.
Posted by: Megs | June 12, 2009 11:06 PM
How odd that you are putting the entire burden of American homophobia on this president. Have you heard of Prop 8? I don't recall you laying it at the guvernator's feet. Have you watched the horrid attitudes that are prevalent in white communities large and small across the country? I have.
But Obama and Holder can say it is so, and it shall happen? Yeah, right.
Posted by: strange gods before me | June 12, 2009 11:16 PM
Schwarzenegger came out forcefully against Proposition 8, and his attorney general Jerry Brown actually fought against the law before the state's supreme court, a risky move that might not even have been legal.
Posted by: TheVirginian | June 12, 2009 11:27 PM
I'm certainly ashamed that it was my home state that fought so hard for bigotry. I take a little pride that, in 1967, my home town (under court order unfortunatley) peacefully integrated my high school, actually building a brand new high school big enough for the larger student body. On my first day of the New Millennium, there were no flag-burning segregationist protests, no segregationists attacking school buses of black children, no mayor/governor standing in the doorway. I simply walked into my first class and sat down (we were seated alphabetically) behind a black student and next to another black student, with no bfd involved. That was what it was like for the next three years. Tragically, not every Virginia school district put the welfare of its children ahead of its blind hatreds. But enough did. My hometown was not 1970s Boston. :)
For those who are interested, here are a few tidbits of Va. legal history regarding what we now call interracial marriage. To understand what you're reading, note that the first known usage of the word "race" in the modern sense was in 1774, so there was no "racism" in the modern sense in 17th-century England or its colonies.
“September 17th, 1630. Hugh Davis to be soundly whipped, before an assembly of Negroes and others for abusing himself to the dishonor of God and shame of Christians, by defiling his body in lying with a negro; which fault he is to acknowledge next Sabbath day.” It was a matter of ancient theology and Christian law that for a Christian to have sex with a pagan or other non-Christian was a form of moral pollution that could bring damnation.
From the 1662 law that, as far as I can tell, was the first ban on "interracial" sex or marriage in Va., approximately at the same time that the indentured servitude status of Africans and their descendants was turned into slavery (both indentured servitude and permanent slavery are based upon Bible passages): “… And that if any christian shall committ Fornication with a negro man or woman, hee or shee soe offending shall pay double the Fines imposed by the former act.”
In 1680, fearing slave rebellions, the Va. legislature banned blacks from meeting privately and “if any negroe or other slave shall presume to lift up his hand in opposition against any christian, shall for every offence …” get thirty lashes.
An interesting tidbit from the 18th century, when James Otis defended the rights of the colonists, he also challenged slavery, arguing: “The colonists are by the law of nature free born, as indeed all men are, white or black. … Does it follow that ’tis right to enslave a man because he is black? Will short curl’d hair, like wool, instead of Christian hair …”
I presume by now that people are noticing an interesting distinction --- it's always "christian" vs. "negro," not "white" vs. "black." In this same period, English courts ruled in 3 separate lawsuits challenging blacks' slavery (Butts vs. Penny, twice, 1677, and Gelly vs. Cleve, 1693) that because Africans were pagans, Christians could lawfully enslave. This has been traced back to Calvin's Case, a ruling by Lord Coke in 1608 that pagans were considered "perpetual enemies" of Christianity and servants of the Devil, a matter of fundamental Christian theology going back to the founding of the cult.
One clinching law is from Maryland in 1663: "And all Children born of any Negro or other slaue shall be Slaues as their ffathers were for the terme of their liues And forasmuch as divers freeborne English women forgettfull of their free Condicion and to the disgrace of our Nation doe intermarry with Negro Slaues by which alsoe diuers suites may arise touching the Issue of such woemen and a great damage doth befall the Masters of such Negros for preuention whereof for deterring such freeborne women from such shamefull Matches Bee itt further Enacted ..."
Although this cites an economic motive, I must point out that by law, a "freeborne English woman" had to be a Christian, so that was an understood component of this law. The really interesting thing is that enough "interracial" marriages occurred to concern people. If "racism" existed in the 17th century, why were there enough such marriages even to register on the 17th-century equivalent of a radar screen.
Christianity is the sole source of racism and the race laws that were struck down in 1967, just as Christianity is the sole source of homophobia and the sick, pathetic bigotry that keeps same-sex couples from getting married today. So I argue that the First Amendment ban on an establishment of religion automatically nullifies all gay-marriage bans and any other form of government discrimination against gays. I do not know of any credible secular basis to discriminate against gays. It's purely a morally indefensible form of religious bigotry. Obama sided not just with homophobes but with the Klan, George Wallace, Jesse Helms, Ronald Reagan and all the other segregationists in this legal action.
Posted by: CalGeorge | June 12, 2009 11:46 PM
"Aaargh! Obama screws up, very, very badly!"
I feel like screaming. This is so upsetting.
Any respect I had for Obama is completely gone.
Posted by: Phoenix Woman | June 12, 2009 11:49 PM
PZ: Obama's DOJ has no choice but to follow laws that are on the books. Also, many gay groups believe that the Smelt case is not only weak, it could, should it make it up to the SCOTUS while John Roberts runs the joint, wind up setting back the cause of marriage equality.
Posted by: Phoenix Woman | June 12, 2009 11:52 PM
PZ: Obama's DOJ has no choice but to follow laws that are on the books. Also, many gay groups believe that the Smelt case is not only weak, it could, should it make it up to the SCOTUS while John Roberts runs the joint, wind up setting back the cause of marriage equality.
Posted by: CalGeorge | June 12, 2009 11:53 PM
"I would expect an elected official to defend the application of standing laws. A personal viewpoint on the validity of the law is irrelevant."
NO!
AMERICABlog:
In fact, George W. Bush (ACLU et al., v. Norman Y. Mineta - "The U.S. Department of Justice has notified Congress that it will not defend a law prohibiting the display of marijuana policy reform ads in public transit systems."), Bill Clinton (Dickerson v. United States - "Because the Miranda decision is of constitutional dimension, Congress may not legislate a contrary rule unless this Court were to overrule Miranda.... Section 3501 cannot constitutionally authorize the admission of a statement that would be excluded under this Court's Miranda cases."), George HW Bush (Metro Broadcasting v. Federal Communications Commission), and Ronald Reagan (INS v./ Chadha - "Chadha then filed a petition for review of the deportation order in the Court of Appeals, and the INS joined him in arguing that § 244(c)(2) is unconstitutional.") all joined in lawsuits opposing federal laws that they didn't like, laws that they felt were unconstitutional. It is an outright lie to suggest that the DOJ had no choice.
http://www.americablog.com/2009/06/obama-doj-lies-to-politico-in-defending.html
Posted by: Bckcntry | June 13, 2009 12:02 AM
Thanks for the history lesson, TheVirginian. I found that, and some your previous posts very interesting.
Posted by: strange gods before me | June 13, 2009 12:20 AM
CalGeorge,
IANAL and neither is Andrew Sullivan, but he suggests that AmericaBlog is misstating the issues: http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/06/is-the-doj-lying-about-the-doma-brief-ctd.html
Posted by: littlejohn | June 13, 2009 12:29 AM
PZ, I just don't get your anger at Obama. OK, he's not perfect. No one who espouses your (or my) views could possibly be elected. But Obama is probably as close as we can get.
We survived eight nightmare years under Dubya. Even McCain would have been a slight improvement. Obama is a huge improvement.
He ended the bans on stem cell research money, he permits family planning that includes abortion and condoms. He ended torture. He's trying to close Gitmo.
He hasn't ended don't ask don't tell or faith-based crappola, but I figure he's trying. He's promised to get us out of Iraq.
Not perfect. But a huge improvement. Who would you prefer among politicians with any chance of being elected?
Furthermore, given the disarray of the Republicans, I can't imagine Obama failing to get re-elected. And that's a good thing.
Posted by: SaynaTheSpiffy
|
June 13, 2009 12:49 AM
You spelled "rape" wrong, dipshit.Posted by: SaynaTheSpiffy
|
June 13, 2009 12:52 AM
You spelled "rape" wrong, dipshit.Posted by: strange gods before me | June 13, 2009 12:52 AM
Too simplistic. Racism exists where Christianity does not. And the prohibitions on enslaving a Christian were quickly dispensed with when slaveholders became interested in converting their African slaves. Your story also allows no explanation of how non-slaveholding white people were made to have an interest in racism.
We get racist and homophobic atheists here on a weekly basis. You'll find these traits in people who were never raised Christian at all. Placing all the blame on Christianity allows white and straight atheists license to ignore their own benefits from white and straight privilege.
Posted by: strange gods before me | June 13, 2009 1:02 AM
Shorter littlejohn: "gay people will get nothing, and ought to be thankful for it."
Posted by: Blake | June 13, 2009 1:07 AM
Let me explain it to you real slow-like then john. I'm gay, I'm not seeing any fucking "improvement" in any of the areas that mean a LOT to me as a citizen of this country and that this man promised ENDLESSLY in his campaign to be a "fierce advocate" for. I am a person who is always willing to give someone the benefit of the doubt again and again. When Obama refused to eliminate to don't ask don't tell, I gave him a pass, when he then refused to even put a temporary injunction on the practice while it was considered in the legislature, I gave him a pass, when he defended the choice of Rick Fucking Douchebag Warren for the inauguration address, I gave him a pass, when his administration tried to backpedal on the rights they promised to people like me on the White House website, I gave them a pass, when Obama refused to do shit to lift the ban on travel and immigration to the United States for HIV infected people (a process begun by BUSH!), I gave him a pass. Up until yesterday, I was willing to give him a few more months to get his shit together and start moving in the right direction on DADT and DOMA and the like. Not anymore, not only has he COMPLETELY betrayed his campaign promise to "100% work toward repealing DOMA", but now, NOW, he has, through the DOJ, actually begun to undermine my right to equal treatment under law by lacing his support of this piece of indefensibly discriminatory piece of shit legislation with the most disgusting, homophobic, idiotic arguments I could possibly imagine. I'm now through with giving passes, I'm fucking pissed. I hope that was clear enough for you.
Posted by: CalGeorge | June 13, 2009 1:33 AM
If Obama is so fucking interested in "upholding" the fucking law, if that's what this fucking DOJ DOMA bullshit is, then why the FUCK is he not also prosecuting Cheney & Co. for war crimes?
Obama is FULL OF BULLSHIT!
Posted by: TheVirginian | June 13, 2009 2:02 AM
"Strange Gods"
I should have qualified my statement by adding "in the Western world." There is no other source of racism in the West than Christianity. It put discrimination against Africans into the law in the 17th century. When some early scientists, trying to understand the variety of species and the variety of humanity, developed the modern idea of "race" as one possible explanation, Christians seized on it to "explain" why dark-skinned pagans were so inferior as to resist conversion.
Another limited qualifier: Ideas that contributed to "race" and racism can be traced back to the Greco-Roman era. But, to put things in simplified terms (I don't feel like a long post here), these ideas were not part of the vernacular until after Africans (and their mostly-pagan descedants) had been permanently enslaved and barred from sex/marriage with Christians. ("The Invention of Racism in Classical Antiquity" by Benjamin Issac explores what he calls "Proto-Racism," acknowledging its full-fledged development much later.)
The concept of racism did spread to other cultures, notably the Japanese, and in the later 19th century it entered some non-Christian, even anti-Christian circles in the West. But its origin in the West starts with Christian prejudice against pagans. Once they were legally differentiated and demonized, Christians readily seized upon the concept of "race" to "explain" dark-skinned pagans' infidelity.
For anyone who wants to know more, I highly recommend, as a start, "The Arrogance of Faith" by Forrest G. Wood, a historian of the Reconstruction era who, in this book, went back to learn how racism came about (he cites some of my material, not all of it). Also, most of the defenses of slavery in the U.S. were written by Christian clergy (and up into the 1840s, most of these clergy were in the NORTH, not the South). Read "Proslavery," by Larry E. Tise, an indepth study (basically his PhD thesis with lots of statistical analyses) on the religious background of slavery defenders. (Notable tidbit: Yale, Bush's school, educated about 10 percent of the clergy Tise ID'd in his study of slavery defenders. Princeton was Yale's big rival here. :) )
Posted by: TheVirginian | June 13, 2009 2:16 AM
I've noticed (belatedly :0 ) some comments about Obama and the DOJ being "required" to defend/uphold the law in court.
NO!!!!
They are required to uphold the Constitution first. If a law violates the Constitution, especially if the law was signed by a traitorous war criminal like Bush or a craven coward like Clinton, then it is all the more important that Obama uphold the Constitution and fight bad laws. The DOM and DODT laws are bad, immoral and blatantly unconstitutional (violating the First Amendment ban on religion, as I've argued earlier), so Obama's legal duty, under his oath of office, was to 1) fight them in court and 2) order noncompliance from the military and other depts., as the federal government is not allowed to violate the Constitution, no matter what Bush, Cheney, Ashcroft, Scalia, etc. claim.
This is one case where Obama, if he were a patriot, would be fighting on the beaches, fighting in the trenches, fighting in the streets, fighting in the hills ... you get my drift. There is no compromise or surrender on upholding the First Amendment's establishment clause.
Now, about that obscene, treasonous, Christian slogan on the money I'm required to use ...
Posted by: HenryS
|
June 13, 2009 2:19 AM
I'm now through with giving passes, I'm fucking pissed. I hope that was clear enough for you.
***********
For anyone who thinks Obama/Holter are playing brilliant 11th dimensional political chess and this will help repeal DOMA, read the brief. The lead atty is Tony West Head of the Civil Rights Division. The legal arguments that are used to prove that DOMA is Constitutional are truly hateful and ugly. This brief wasn't intended as a tactical move for the eventual repeal of DOMA.
Posted by: Brian X | June 13, 2009 2:47 AM
They certainly picked the wrong person to write the brief.
Obama seems like the sort who probably legitimately thinks it is a bureaucratic issue. That said, both he and Holder owe apologies all around for letting a Bushie zealot write the motion and stuffing all that homophobic horseshit in it. If apologies aren't forthcoming, a continued outcry is well-deserved.
I dropped an email to president@whitehouse.gov and cc'ed it to my congresscritter. Maybe we should all try this.
Posted by: Piltdown Man | June 13, 2009 5:01 AM
TheVirginian passim:
Louis XIV, par la grâce de Dieu, Roi de France, offered cash incentives to encourage intermarriage between Indians and French settlers in Canada.
Posted by: less is more | June 13, 2009 5:35 AM
Why is everyone pretending like 2012 is some magic number.
I have no use for Joe Biden, but I will back impeachment of this slick tongued lying lawyer from filthy Illinois in a hot flash. Screw him.
I could grant equal opportunity in 15 minutes with a cold computer.
I could close that obscenity of Gitmo in a day.
I could be out of those filthy wars in 2 weeks and not lose a man.
I could have half of wall street under indictement in 30 days.
I could fire all of the remaining bushcheneygang in 2 weeks.
I could have Gitmo restaffed and start war crimes investigations within 2 days of inauguration.
Give me a month and I could not only have single payer health care but half of congress under indictment for bribes and all of the presidents of the top 100 insurance companies in jail for fraud, bribery and conspiracy to defraud.
I need this two bit Illinois asshole like I need another bushco family member. Screw him. Let's introduce impeachment and get slick lying SOB's fucking attention preferably by meaning it.
1
Posted by: less is more | June 13, 2009 5:42 AM
Why is everyone pretending like 2012 is some magic number.
I have no use for Joe Biden, but I will back impeachment of this slick tongued lying lawyer from filthy Illinois in a hot flash. Screw him.
I could grant equal opportunity in 15 minutes with a cold computer.
I could close that obscenity of Gitmo in a day.
I could be out of those filthy wars in 2 weeks and not lose a man.
I could have half of wall street under indictment in 30 days.
I could fire all of the remaining bushcheneygang in 2 weeks.
I could have Gitmo restaffed and start war crimes investigations within 2 days of inauguration.
Give me a month and I could not only have single payer health care but half of congress under indictment for bribes and all of the presidents of the top 100 insurance companies in jail for fraud, bribery and conspiracy to defraud.
I need this two bit Illinois asshole like I need another bushco family member. Screw him. Let's introduce impeachment and get slick lying SOB's fucking attention preferably by meaning it.
1
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | June 13, 2009 5:54 AM
How odd that you are putting the entire burden of American homophobia on this president.
Bullshit. We place an expectation on someone that he would be a "fierce advocate" to, you know, be one. Instead, disappointment and backpeddling and "I'll get to you queers when I get to you queers" is what we get.
Have you heard of Prop 8? I don't recall you laying it at the guvernator's feet.
The one it took Obama until the last week of the campaign to come out against? The one the White House, led by a "fierce advocate," couldn't be bothered to comment on when it was upheld?
Have you watched the horrid attitudes that are prevalent in white communities large and small across the country? I have.
Relevance? Oh, the faggots are racist!
But Obama and Holder can say it is so, and it shall happen? Yeah, right.
blah blah blah blah
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
June 13, 2009 6:17 AM
less is more #206 & 207
You could have indictments written and 99% of them would be tossed out the first time a judge looked at them. Indictments are easy. Convictions are a lot harder.
Posted by: Insignificant Speck | June 13, 2009 7:37 AM
Take it easy on the Obama administration and DOJ. Since DOMA is the law of the land they are required to defend it (this is the duty of the Department of Justice after all). If they don't for political reasons or on "ethical/moral" grounds they are abdicating their responsibility in a very egregious way.
What if they refused for political reasons to prosecute rapists, or thieves, or...war criminals...or torturers...
Oh crap
Posted by: maddyhatter
|
June 13, 2009 8:00 AM
Obama defends DOMA in federal court.
There's absolutely no excuse at this point. I'll let people rationalize Clinton's fumbling way back in 1993, but now? I can't see an explanation other than pure bigotry. I mean, 70% of the American public is against DADT, 50% is pro-gay marriage, he's got an overwhelming mandate and majority in Congress. WTF is he doing?!
(Looking from outside America this is the thing I've always hated about the Democratic Party--falling all over themselves to placate insane raving bigots when the public is actually on their side!)
Posted by: maddyhatter
|
June 13, 2009 9:59 AM
Not being USian and agreeing with this--still, was there a candidate who was going to be any damn better? NO. This is why you have to hold his feet to the fire, force him with all the pressure you can muster, publicly embarrass the hell out of him to keep his GLBT promises. If the people who voted for Obama LET him get away with this you'll never get equal rights. Don't take it lying down, fight it-- is all I'm saying.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | June 13, 2009 12:20 PM
Yeah, but then Chris Mooney will start bitching about the lack of civility. One has to engage the bigots in dialog, don't you know!
Posted by: Escuerd | June 13, 2009 1:04 PM
Insignificant Speck @ 208:
They're required to uphold the law, but there is NO requirement for them to file a brief in support of DOMA before the court. That was entirely voluntary.
Posted by: llewelly | June 13, 2009 4:52 PM
littlejohn | June 13, 2009 12:29 AM:
As pointed out endlessly above, support for gay marriage is at 50%. Your sort of poll-ignorant self-defeating "that's the best we can hope for" thinking is why America has a conservative party, and an insane knee-jerk reactionary party. (yeah, I called the Democrats a conservative party - a fact which Obama has demonstrated on torture, on state secrets, on gay rights, ... and which Clinton and many others demonstrated by their collusion with the Iraq war idiocy ... admit the truth.)
Posted by: Brian X | June 13, 2009 6:28 PM
llewelly:
That's Nader logic. Do the math -- we have what we have and the barrier to entry is borderline insurmountable. The best we can hope to do is build third parties on the local level and run their candidates when we can, and endorse the Democrats when we can't. At this point we can more or less ignore the Right except as a source of stray bullets, but we're pretty much screwed without the center.
Anyone want to start the American Social Democrats? We could do exactly that, with a coherent platform and a strong local base.
Posted by: spaghettini | June 13, 2009 7:48 PM
"Stop complaining, dammit, and start complaining!"
If this is not a fair summary of what you wrote, just what was it you were trying to say?
Posted by: aebrain
|
June 13, 2009 11:07 PM
Arkady wrote:
That is the case in some US states, yes. Such people are deemed neither male nor female for the purposes of marriage.I'm Intersexed - and whether my marriage is deemed valid or invalid in the US would depend upon whether the sex on my UK birth certificate, or the sex on my UK passport, is correct.
Examine my appearance, you get one answer. Examine my bone marrow, you get another.
Posted by: MaxH
|
June 14, 2009 1:00 AM
Hey, Brian X, no need to start the party - we've already got it:
http://www.dsausa.org/dsa.html
Posted by: Alan Kellogg | June 14, 2009 3:45 AM
What if the Republicans nominate a distasteful violent thug who's pro gay marriage?
Posted by: Walton | June 14, 2009 9:03 AM
Commander Riker, not Lieutenant.
Yes. I am a geek.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
June 14, 2009 10:00 AM
Of course you're a geek, Walton. You're intelligent, introverted, and post on a science blog.
"Come, listen, my men, while I tell you again
The five unmistakable
markspeeksBy which you may know, wheresoever you go,
The warranted genuine
snarksgeeks."Let us take them in order. The first is the taste,
Which is meager and hollow, but crisp:
Like a coat that is rather too tight in the waist,
With a flavor of Will-o-the-wisp.
"Its habit of getting up late you'll agree
That it carries too far, when I say
That it frequently breakfasts at five-o'clock tea,
And dines on the following day.
"The third is its slowness in taking a jest.
Should you happen to venture on one,
It will sigh like a thing that is deeply distressed:
And it always looks grave at a pun.
"The fourth is its fondness for bathing-machines,
Which is constantly carries about,
And believes that they add to the beauty of scenes--
A sentiment open to doubt.
"The fifth is ambition. It next will be right
To describe each particular batch:
Distinguishing those that have feathers, and bite,
And those that have whiskers, and scratch."
-Lewis Carroll's The Hunting of the Snark
Posted by: A. Doyle | June 15, 2009 2:09 AM
This is the first time I felt compelled to post here which is odd because I'm usually turned off by the political stuff. I'm far more interested in reading about biology than whatever religious/political/scientific controversies are going on. However this issue in particular has really baffled and infuriated me as a citizen.
Marriage has existed in just about every culture both religious and secular dating back to before written language. Over that time it has been defined in a number of ways. It seems odd that any one culture could claim ownership over the institution of marriage. So why, in a country that supposedly supports personal and religious freedom, has this even become an issue. To define marriage as anything other than "a union between two or more consenting adults" is crossing a line I find unacceptable.
The opponents of gay marriage have framed this as protecting their religious rights, when in fact it does nothing but restrict religious freedom. To believe gay marriage infringes upon one's religious rights requires a complete lack of empathy and the inability to see the consequences of one's own actions. Afterall, how would these people respond if another religion similarly claimed ownership over the concept of worship or prayer and rallied for government support to "protect their traditions?" People have raised arms over much lesser offenses.