.
.
.
In yet another all-too-rare LURCH FORWARD for this nation, the very populous state of New York has finally, after great debate and suspense, taken the plunge into full civil rights for our gay brothers and sisters. Thanks to the bravery of a few GOP state senators there – who may well face electoral backlashes from their knuckledragging constituents, but were at long last responsive to sound and just arguments and overwhelming public pressure (pulling teeth that was) – New Yorkers will no longer be forced to either marry someone of the opposite sex or stay single.
Damn! Now New York is ahead of us, with our Talibanic Prop 8. When the hell is that getting overturned? I’ll check for you. First, a word from the Courage Campaign:
Dear Vern,
We did it: the NY State Senate just voted to legalize same-sex marriage! Gov. Cuomo is ready to sign the bill, which already passed the Assembly, and NY will become the largest state in the union to grant couples the equal rights they deserve.
You helped make this happen! In partnership with the Human Rights Campaign and New Yorkers United for Marriage, Courage members made call after call until we picked up the six votes we needed. Previously undecided Senators like Addabbo, Huntley and others publicly cited the number of calls they got from folks like you as a reason they supported equality. Now, we’ve got to keep this train moving.
Here’s why this is important, Vern: we can use the success in New York as a tool to move residents and lawmakers in other states. At Courage, our Testimony project helps compelling stories go viral.
In Minnesota, where voters will face a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage in 2012, we can use the story of a Buffalo, NY couple getting married after 52 years together to convince an undecided Duluth, MN voter. When we’re pushing Senators to repeal the “Defense of Marriage Act” (DOMA), we can show them the stories of couples who get married from New York, but live in or move to another state, so they lose the rights from that marriage at the border.
Will you chip in so we can bring what worked in New York to other states?
This will help us beyond marriage. We can also change hearts and minds in states like Tennessee, where the governor just signed legislation banning any protections for LGBT people and where the Senate passed the odious “Don’t Say Gay” bill. We can show the rest of the country why they should stand on the right side of history. We’ll use your contribution to tell those stories through viral videos and ads in other states so we can speed up the day when all Americans, LGBT or straight, can finally be equal.
We’re ready to move on to the next state. Will you join us?
Thanks for everything you’re doing,
Adam Bink
Native Western New Yorker and Director of Online Programs, Courage Campaign
I still don’t understand the claim of discrimination. All of us, gay or straight, have had the right to marry a person of the opposite sex and have been prohibited from marrying someone of the same sex. So, it seems to me that we have all been treated equal under the law, so where is the discrimination?
Really, Fool, that sounds like a bad joke. How would you like it if the majority were gay, and made it legal for you to only marry another DUDE, not a woman? Have a freaking bit of empathy!
Fool, perhaps you are just being a troll in saying such a thing, but does it not seem obvious that prohibiting someone from marrying his/her true life partner for no good reason is the most blatant form of discrimination? Of course, if you have a reasonable argument, please set it forth. And don’t go to the “now we can marry our dogs and 10 year old children” crap, please, I beg of you.
No, not being a troll. Just trying to get to the basics – which to me is if a law treats everyone the same with regard to what they can and can’t do, I just do not see discrimination. There is nothing in the law I am aware of that heterosexual couples have to be life partners, in love, etc. so that is not a requisite to get married under the law for anyone. I do not begrude gay relationships, just do not see how one can claim it discrimination when the law says anyone can marry the opposite sex, no one can marry the same sex. I understand fighting for the right, I just do not understand the claim of discrimination – I think that is a weak argument.
OK. What do I say to this guy?
Don’t you realize, hasn’t it filtered through to you, that many of us are born attracted to the same sex, not the opposite?
How is it the government’s business to say that you can only marry somebody of the opposite sex? It is absolutely discriminatory toward the 10% of us who are born gay. Let’s just say – it doesn’t fit the reality of human life. Please discontinue being so obtuse.
Okay. How about a law that says you have to sign all contracts with your right hand? When so many of us are left-handed? Does that work for you??
Or that from now on, Fool, you are only allowed to marry men (assuming you’re a man.) No different sex marriages allowed from now on–hey, it’s an equal application of the law!
Vern, arguing with characters like this is akin to trying to teach a pig to sing. It’s bound to fail, and you annoy the pig.
I guess I am not making myself clear. I do not oppose gay realtionships. I am just saying that a law that treats everyone the same does not discriminate against anyone in my book – it can still be a bad law, just not discriminatory. If I like to drive 80 mph but the law limits me to 65, am I being discriminated against whereas the person who does not like to drive fast is not being discriminated against? I just don’t see it that way. And, if there was a law – to use Vern’s illusrtration- that said you can only marry someone of the same sex I do not think that would be discriminatory if it applied to everyone, but it would indeed be a bad law. I think perhaps you are too emotionally involved to understand my perspective, so let’s move on – but please, understand I am not intolerant of the gay lifestyle (nor do I like being called a pig).
Vern – as you know I support Prop 8. However, that being said – New York is the first state to actually do it the right way without some Court Forcing it on them.
That is the way American Government is supposed to work.
It was a metaphor, FMO. Sorry if you took it the wrong way.
And, Mr. Park? The court did not “force” anything upon anyone. Courts interpret laws as to their Constitutionality. Lets say a law was passed fobidding Muslims to be out after dark. That would be deemed unconstitutional, and voided. See how it works?
Exactly. And then the usual retort to that observation is that the Courts are too “activist”. Well, the truth is that when the Courts rule the way a person would like, they don’t consider the courts activist. But when things don’t go their way…
As far as the Supreme Court goes, with the current 5-4 conservative majority, isn’t it interesting how we’re hearing far less of this “activist court” rhetoric.
The most pro business 5 vote majority in history, I believe. It’s not even funny how predictable they are–it must be disheartening to be a consumer advocate lawyer who’s stuck arguing in front of that cabal.
I don’t like to call these people “pro-business,” not much of what they do helps small businesses. They are pro-corporate; and so closely and unquestioningly aligned with every little greedy whim of the nation’s hugest corporations, that you wouldn’t be far off base calling them fascist.
The Robert’s Court is the very definition of “judicial activism”, and Vern is scary right on how corporate friendly the 5 ‘conservative’ justices are;
From Huffpo;
Nan Aron President of the Alliance for Justice
June 11, 2010
Who’s Activist Now? The Roberts Court Bends Over Backwards For Its Corporate Friends
… The conservative battle cry is the same as always: beware judicial activism! …
“The Roberts Court’s Record of Overreaching,” a new report released by Alliance for Justice, shows that the current Supreme Court, led by the five conservatives (but sometimes joined by others), is ready, willing, and able to twist the law to protect powerful interests at the expense of everyday Americans. We found some of the most egregious examples of overreach – dare I say, “judicial activism” – in modern history.
It’s not just a question of generally conservative justices ruling on disputes that come before the Court and finding corporate rights in the narrow issues embedded in the cases. This is something else entirely. Our analysis looked at 13 cases in the period since John Roberts became Chief Justice and found a consistent pattern of the Court taking cases it does not need to hear, answering legal questions not squarely before it, making up new law out of thin air, and settling questions best left to fact finders in lower courts.
As retiring Justice John Paul Stevens said in his dissent in the notorious Citizens United case, “Essentially, five Justices were unhappy with the limited nature of the case before us, so they changed the case to give themselves an opportunity to change the law.” I believe that’s what Sen. Sessions would call a “willingness to inject … views into the courtroom.”
For example, as a general rule, the Court agrees to hear a case if there is an unsettled question of law or if the appeals courts have come to conflicting decisions. But the Roberts Court, especially in environmental cases, has taken cases that don’t meet that standard, often over the objections of Solicitors General in both the Obama and Bush Administrations. It’s the reverse of “judge shopping” by litigants. This is “case shopping” by Supreme Court justices. Companies like Monsanto, Entergy Corp., and Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railroad have all seen their cases steered into the willing arms of conservative justices eager to weaken environmental protections and protect corporate prerogatives.
Similarly, in Citizens United, which undermined 100 years of precedent to open up the political system to unfettered corporate spending, the Court ignored the narrow issue before it that could have been resolved with a legal scalpel, and instead used a judicial scythe to cut down long-held principles dealing with the proper limits on corporate influence in American democracy.
Professor Chemerinsky, whose great lecture I attended at UCI recently, calls it not the Roberts Court but the Kennedy Court. The other eight justices are so unified four against four, that the prima donna Anthony Kennedy finds himself deciding each case (and getting a lot of attention.)
He always joins the four “conservatives” when the interests of corporations are involved. And then he sometimes joins the four liberals on questions of civil rights & liberties… especially gay rights.
“Put another log on fire…….” What was Bloomberg saying again? What did Elliot Spitzer say about it again? What did Rudy say about it? What did George Pataki say?
What did Mario Cumo say? What did Hillary say? What did Schumer say?
“America: Land of the Free….Home of the Brave”……all inclusively of course!
Why do people feel gay…. mating is natural?
In natural animal kingdom, all of gay practicing species would go extinct….. in due time.
Dunno, Burn. Ask God. Why did he make 10% of us gay? And you do see it in the animal kingdom as well.
Of course if you’re not gay yourself, Burn, then it’s really none of your business.
It’s more like a .01% …. are you feeling like to say 200,000 OC gays are standing in line to get married today?
You must be attracted to all male drivers on Harbor Blvd.
Wanting to love same sex is OK… whatever rocks your world… but “marriage” is clearly wrong.
Oh, now I’m gay, because I stick up for them. Whatever, who cares. Enjoy your little cloistered fact-free world. And “clearly wrong” is in your knuckle-dragging noggin.
Stick up for them?
Their bedroom matters?
Poor excuses……..
Are you paying for their weddings ?
You still make no sense, but I appreciate your bringing up the commercial fact of their weddings… because New York has determined that they’re going to make – I forget how many more hundreds of thousands a year – from having legalized the innocent and beautiful ceremony.
Attracted to same sex?
My quality department had a little glitch.
OR
It was designed for a population control.
OR
Simply, you some men couldn’t find the right entrance door.
Stop entering from the exit door and you will be cured.
It’s late, I’l look it up… maybe it’s millions or tens of millions…