Same-Sex Marriage Issue in MA

[Lynne]

BB Stacker - thank you so much for posting here!  Nice observation about the parallels with race relations.  Since we're both in the SE US, you know I can relate to that.  I've said elsewhere that the 'civil union' vs 'marriage' debate reminds me of the 'separate but equal' stage of the civil rights era.

From the interview Chris cited:

JOHN HOWARD, PRIME MINISTER: The institution of marriage as historically understood and we do not intend to allow that to be in any way undermined.

er...would that be that same history where women were transferred as property?? (still are in places, actually)

Being a typical American, I could not have named Australia's leader yesterday if my life depended on it.  Thanks for enlightening me.  Sounds as if he and George W. would be (are?) good pals.

BTW, that was a really nice analysis of the 'statistics', Chris.  I knew I could count on y'all for that and my brain was tired last night - sorry to just post w/o any commentary.

That's what makes gay marriage -- and Brokeback Mountain -- so scary to these bigots.  If society recognizes that being gay is as much about love as it is about sex, the foundation of their heterocentrism comes crumbling down.

...which is why I will keep spreading the word.
-Lynne

[juneaux]

My opinion only, but I think this is the same as how many blacks would like to be able drink from the same waterfountain as the whites. It's personal choice, but we're not allowed a choice.

Back in the day, they at least had their own waterfountain.

I am Black and although I wasn't active during the heart of the civil rights movement (I'm 39), this is quote explains the primary reason why volunteer for such organizations as Lesbian Gay Right Lobby of TX (http://www.equalitytexas.org/).  Lynne's original post asked if this film changed how people felt about same sex marriage.  It didn't for me~ I have always supported it. I only wish this film had been released a year earlier. This time last year LGRL was canvassing neighborhoods asking voters if they would vote against an amendment that defined marriage in the TX constitution as being between one man and one woman.  (TX already has a law that says same sex marriages were illegal.  The amendment was essentially homophobic overkill.) Talk about interesting conversations~ when I asked the reasons for supporting the amendment some quoted the scripture other gave no tangible reason.  When I stated the similar if not identical arguments were used against people of color (like ME) 40 plus years ago many of them backpedaled and some stated "it was different".  That is when it hit me that  most people don't view gay rights as civil rights.   I truly believe this movie would have helped to defeat this unnecessary and idiotic proposition through its subtle yet powerful message.  Although the amendment did pass    I was extremely proud that 70% of my county voted against it. 

[Aussie Chris]

Further to the issues of laws and amendments...

One thing that I find curious is the fact that homosexuality is deemed to be legal and not just decriminalised.  The distinction I am making here is that it is completely legal to be a homosexual, as opposed to it being not illegal because the "offence" is so minor or un-police-able that it doesn't warrant a law in the first place.  Another parallel I'll draw [loosely] is the distinction between "not guilty" and "acquitted".  If you are acquitted of a crime, your pre-existing conviction is overturned but this is not the same thing as innocent, which only occurs if you're found to be not guilty.

So it's ok to be a gay person.  Now, let's think about what the legal definition of gay is [note that in this context I'm using gay to mean both gay and lesbian, but I'm leaving out bisexual and trans-gendered for the moment].  Presumably, gay means a person who has a sexual relationship with someone of the same biological sex.  Can we also assume that the person is consenting and of sound mind so we can eliminate issues of "state of mind"?  I’m trying to be as precise as I can now.

Ok, legally speaking I'm leading to the point that being gay is not a psychological condition or state of mind, but characteristic in exactly the same way that build, height, or hair colour is?  We are told that from a medical stand point, gay and straight are measurably different.  Is this still true?  In other words, being a gay person is [legally] not a choice, but living as a gay person is.

So my question is this.  If it's legally ok to be gay, and it is a biological characteristic rather than a state of mind, how is it legally possible to discriminate against gay-marriage?  Wouldn't this be the same as saying that marriage is only for people with four limbs or over 3.5 feet tall?  Clearly there must be some legal protective measures to prevent discrimination in terms of a trait or characteristic.

I'm not sure if I have explained this thought process well or not, but I'd love to hear what you think.  Does anyone understand the legal aspects of this?

[Impish]

So my question is this.  If it's legally ok to be gay, and it is a biological characteristic rather than a state of mind, how is it legally possible to discriminate against gay-marriage?  Wouldn't this be the same as saying that marriage is only for people with four limbs or over 3.5 feet tall?  Clearly there must be some legal protective measures to prevent discrimination in terms of a trait or characteristic.

Great questions!  I think, in essence, that's what attempts at amending the Constitution are all about.  As treating gay people differently vis-a-vis marriage is, by definition "discrimination," the anti-gay groups realize that they have to make it constitutional to discriminate.  A vote to amend the U.S. Constitution will happen this summer.

Is there anything like that going on in Australia?

[Aussie Chris]

Is there anything like that going on in Australia?

No, I think we manage to discriminate just fine without the need to make it "constitutional".  The P.M. just says it's for men and women only and the majority agrees.  I was talking with some straight friends over dinner tonight about that very thing.  We concluded that social issues and "majority rules" are mutually exclusive factors, at least in terms of what should be as opposed to how it is in western society.  The P.M.'s remark is a concise example of that.  So the next question I asked my friends is: if majority rules always overrides issues related to minority groups, then how does a society ever mature (assuming that it actually does)?  We really didn't get an answer to this one because the conversation degenerated into the political processes around the world and how that none of them really "work".  Socialism and Communism don't, and if we want to call our version democracy, well that doesn't either because it can too easily be influenced by commercial/evangelical agendas (I think we know who leads the way with this).  The only alternative that made any practical sense was a dictatorship, as long as the leader is "wise" or at least unbiased.  Actually there was another suggestion, and that was getting different minority groups to join forces so they were a stronger political force (like worker's unions I guess).  Not sure how that would work in this case, I'll have to ponder it some more.

[Lynne]

For those of us interested in the gay marriage debate in the U.S. and activist opportunities surrounding the issue, please check out this website:

http://www.freedomtomarry.org

I had the privilege of hearing an interview on a morning radio show with Evan Wolfson a few days ago while driving through Birmingham, Alabama.  I may have missed the first part, but I believe there is currently an advertising campaign promoting equality in marriage being planned in Alabama; local stations seem to be debating whether or not to air the ads.

I found Evan Wolfson's comments to be both thoughtful and articulate.  He did an excellent job explaining why marriage is preferable to civil unions or other legal contracts.  Moreover, he was gracious and polite when faced with the typical bigoted questions - both from the morning DJs and the even more ridiculous callers.

Tell you what, I am pretty sure some of these people's IQ's don't break double digits...two cases in point:

1)  Evidently, legalizing gay marriage would somehow lead to marriages between 5 people or between people and their pets 

2)  Gay men have the same rights as straight men because both are legally able to marry any woman they want.

WTF?

[Aussie Chris]

Tell you what, I am pretty sure some of these people's IQ's don't break double digits...two cases in point:
1)  Evidently, legalizing gay marriage would somehow lead to marriages between 5 people or between people and their pets 
2)  Gay men have the same rights as straight men because both are legally able to marry any woman they want.

ROTFL!  Hey there Lynne, long time no hear eh?  I've always found these questions to be hysterically funny, but then again I sympathise when there's enough publicity of people "marrying" their cats or their cars.  But I'd really like someone to explain to me how or why this would result.  Anyone?  It doesn't have to be your theory, I just need someone to explain this to me.  But number 2 takes the cake as being the most juvenile and sexist thing I've ever heard on the subject.  One of these days I'd like to meet someone who actually believes this...  It would be fun!

[Daniel]

This reminds me of the time a young woman wanted to make a special sacred communion with herself, was ordained as a minister, and then married herself to herself in a special ceremony. Apparently her application for marital status got up pretty high in the food chain before someone realized what had happened, because then she found herself charged by the State of California for breach of the California Family Code (I forget specifically which section) with the promotion of incestuous relationships, or something like that. She was charged once as the person performing the ceremony and twice more for being the married parties.

[delalluvia]

This reminds me of the time a young woman wanted to make a special sacred communion with herself, was ordained as a minister, and then married herself to herself in a special ceremony. Apparently her application for marital status got up pretty high in the food chain before someone realized what had happened, because then she found herself charged by the State of California for breach of the California Family Code (I forget specifically which section) with the promotion of incestuous relationships, or something like that. She was charged once as the person performing the ceremony and twice more for being the married parties.

I think I read this story as well.  One of her friends commented to the news guy "It'll never work out." 

[Scott6373]

By way of an update on the issue.  Pro same sex marriage supporters report that they only need three more votes in order to quash the initiative that would put a same sex marriage ban on the 2008 ballot.  The next senate vote will occur in June.

Oddly enough, this morning, for the first time, I saw a television ad by Mass Equality.  It showed a young man talking about how happy he was that his parents (two women) were able to marry.  It pointedly portrayed the young man as a sports loving, totally hetero-centric, and "normal" guy.  I have mixed feelings about that, but that's another thread I guess.