We need to talk about the events in the Supreme Court (and on the streets and on Facebook) this week — and thanks to singer Katie Goodman and her friends, I finally found a suitable conversation piece to kick things off. The song is subtitled“The Homophobia Song”; I’ll hold off on the title for now, for reasons that will probably be obvious.
Meanwhile, a big shout out, half a day later than Martin Longman’s, to Alan Lowenthal for what I had not thought would be an unprecedented act on Capitol Hill. (And that’s how you know that I’m not talking about gay sex itself.)
Displaying solidarity with gay-marriage advocates on the first day of Supreme Court hearings on the issue, Rep. Alan Lowenthal, D-Long Beach, has planted the rainbow-striped gay pride flag outside his congressional office, beside the U.S. and California flags.
…
Lowenthal believes it may be the first time a pride flag has been posted outside a Congress member’s Washington office.
“I am honored to be the first and I am certain I will not be the last,” Lowenthal said.
Each office has fixtures for three flags – one each for the U.S. and state flags, and one for a flag of the lawmaker’s choosing.
Well — boy, howdy! I think that Lowenthal has earned a definite “A” in this class.
(Note: this post is not dedicated to anyone in particular, not even to the occasional OJB commenter whom I suspect suspects that it is dedicated to him.)
Your views are welcome — although some expressions of them may be mildly punished.
Problem is no one is going to be happy no matter what is chosen. I would all be for Civil Unions for same sex couples as long as 99% of the 1000+ benefits are offered.
Come on bro, show some pride. Why should it even be called anything less than (for example) *I* had twice?
It’ll happen in June, at least in California.
I think the supreme court does not want to repeal it entirely now because they don’t want the Roe V Wade type situation happening. They want America ready for it before it is opened up in places like Mississippi.
Many of the far right wingers on my friends list get very testy when they think of marriage as any two people of either configuration.
Problem is most of the right wingers who say civil unions are ok, are just closetly against it anyways. So I am purely for marriage equality all the time.
Matt, do you mean “not everyone is going to be happy”? I’d be happy if Prop 8 is tossed out and today’s case leads to heightened scrutiny for laws treating gays and lesbians differently, the same as exists for laws regarding gender.
If 10 benefits are withheld, the reason that people will ask is “why?” Would you be happy if, by law, 10 benefits were withheld from Blacks, Asians, or Jews? Same thing here.
Based on this:
how can that be so?
“Not everyone will be happy” != “no one is going to be happy,” the latter being what he wrote. Not a big deal, but it is why I asked if this was a typo.
Blacks and the Jews can marry but keep out the damn Irish.
That should go without saying. (I mean that in both the humorous and literal senses, but I know that you only intended the former!)
“Aw, prairie-shit, ok, the Irish can marry too.”
(Blazing Saddles paraphrase)
*Two things: First off, when the LBGT folks finally decided to do for others, like the Susan G. Pink Ribbon and other outreach programs to help the Abused in our society……the general public started looking at these folks more as neighbors and friends. That was the first and most important step….because restraining the more angry in those communities was a very good thing.
2nd, is exactly what Matt is saying: The Goods and Partnership issues which occured without viable Federal “Civil Union Legislation” or Same Sex Marriage.
If the Congress had caught on…..and which may still, depending on the the Supreme Court Decisions being made as we speak……There is still time to make those Same Gender Couples capable of enjoying all the same benefits as Straight Marriage Partners. It could be done with a Federal Law….for goodness sake. States have been able to do it anytime they wanted and can do the same thing – right now. Will they do it?
Will be interesting to see how this all plays out.
I say civil unions for EVERYONE! end of problem
On board with that. If we really want to make it a secular institution, then make it a secular institution.
Whether or not people are “happy” is not at issue in deciding this law. Their right to pursue happiness, (however chimerical) however is. What is the one percent Mark Munson would see it legally viable to withhold from married gay couples – the word itself which seems to make many gay couples at least as happy as its use makes opposed parties unhappy? And what would be the political rationale supporting it’s being withheld?
i have seen a bunch of lesbians in movies…they seem to be a very tactile, giving group
Marriage is between a MAN and a WOMAN….period!! The sexual acts between gays is disgusting…and not normal. That being said metal health needs to come into play. The upbringing of many gays had abuse involved. There for…..no ruling should be made…..but massive therapy
Please watch that video above.
I’m approving this for publication just so that people will realize that, for all our societal progress, people like you are still out there.
Wow, so there are still some of you people left – kinky!
I dunno about this “metal health” though, sounds too uncomfortable.
Sick DISGUSTING NOT NORMAL and wrong !,oh but love love love…..get some help and love love love the NORMAL WAY ! Gross
LOL don’t worry we won’t make you gay marry. Just go mind your own business now.
Hey matey!
Quit thinking about how other people have sex. That is weird. I don’t care how you have sex…or who you do it with. Normal for you is probably not normal for me.
If you are obsessed with what other people are doing sexually, you need a therapist.
It would be an insult for the straight partner to have a loveless relationship with a LGB partner. Id rather have people compatible for each other. Forcing people to do it the “NORMAL WAY” can cause more pain to the couples who are not meant to love each other.
I’ve been thinking about “maty” (whose real name is Mary, but she was so upset thinking about what gay people do that she mistyped her name, forgot to capitalize it, and never noticed as she posted over and over as “maty.”)
And I can see her point. What gay people do IS so gross and disgusting, compared to all the oral sex and anal sex that we straight people love to have, not normal like that at all!
Oh, wait…
Stop putting pictures in my head about your sexual proclivities, Vern.
It’s going to be hard to get that stain out !
Maty, you sound like your trying to convince yourself your not gay. Anyone who sounds as homphobic as you is usually a closet gay.
so, are we having a lesbian film festival or not
willie, you might have to aim the limo south to get that kind of entertainment….
http://www.filmoutsandiego.com/lgbt-festival-2013.htm
Have your driver ice down some Veuve Clicquot, head towards the border, and pop a couple of corks. The needle like bubbles will get you in the proper frame of mind for what you are about to see. Don’t get any on ‘ya.
ok guys, here is the plan,,,we all meet friday at seven at greg’s house…the limo and drinks are on me, greg is responsible for chips and dips, dema you call stub hub and secure the tickets, vern, i am getting the limo with the piano bar and as such you are responsible for the travel entertainment
I’ll stay behind and live-blog the affair via the on-board camera.
Wait… are some of these lesbians getting married? We need some kind of justification if I’m gonna be spending OJ funds…
Shouldn’t be hard to find a couple who would like to do so. At the end of the evening, it’s on for a road trip to Washington for the nuptials.
“But you know, if gay marriage becomes legal, people can marry their dogs. Who wants to do that?” said an elderly relative of mine. How can you argue with that logic?! 😉
As a Christian, I consider it sad to see the arguments from those of my faith to preserve traditional marriage. I will also be happy for both sets of my gay neighbors the day the decision will come out, as I know all 4 are anxiously waiting for that historic day for what I think will be a favorable one for them.
“But you know, if gay marriage becomes legal, people can marry their dogs. Who wants to do that?” said an elderly relative of mine. How can you argue with that logic?!
Actually that’s pretty easy Kim (setting aside how insulting it is when loving gay people have their relationships compared to dog-fucking.)
1. Marriage is a contract. Animals cannot enter into contracts, as cannot children or dead people.
2. About one in ten of us are born gay, which is why there’s a mass movement afoot for their equality. I would not say one in a hundred or possibly many thousands are eager to marry their pet. Good luck there ever being a mass movement to allow that.
Still, very interesting points (snark.) We had a contributor on this blog back in the dark Prop 8 days of 2008 who tried to make those arguments as well as he could. His name was Phobius. Here he is on the slippery slope toward bestiality:
http://www.orangejuiceblog.com/2008/11/extrapolating-on-the-devore-principle-where-will-we-draw-the-line-on-marriage-dogs-fire-hydrants/
And here is perhaps his masterpiece, where he tries to sketch out the damage that can come to straight marriages from allowing gay marriages, using Senator Joe Lieberman’s marriage as an example:
http://www.orangejuiceblog.com/2008/09/defend-the-octopus-of-marriage-yes-on-prop-8/
Vern,
To be clear, marriage is NOT a contract. A prenup might be . . . but a marriage is not.
Marriage is a contract. Ask anybody who’s tried to get a divorce.
It goes back to English Common Law. Obligations are different, but it’s still a contract.
Indeed, California law defines marriage as a “civil contract.” The same applies to domestic partnership. When you enter into marriage or domestic partnership, whether you know it or not, you are agreeing to a large set of rights and duties; but few people read the terms because no one hands them to you in writing.
According to California law, through marriage, “husbands and wives contract toward each other obligations of mutual respect, fidelity, and support.” (Fam. Code, § 720.)
Seems pretty clear.
I hear what you’re saying, but the family code isn’t using the term “contract” in the legal sense. The closest thing would be a non-binding contract, which is just a promise, which isn’t legally enforceable, which isn’t a contract.
The obligations listed in the code are things that by definition cannot constitute consideration. An agreement without consideration is not a contract.
Put differently, two parties have to exchange something of value to bind a contract. Matters of the heart are priceless and do not qualify as a material exchange.
Contract law was never my strong suit, but you’re gonna have to go with me on this one.
(of note, not get the terms in writing and not understanding the terms also demonstrates the lack of a contract as there is clearly no meeting of the minds necessary to form the intent to enter an agreement.)
In any case, one way in which it resembles a contract is that animals, children, or dead people are not qualified to enter into it, or couldn’t be expected to be allowed to any time this millenium.
Eh, not true either, Vern. Children may enter into a marriage, subject to certain conditions, in almost every state.
Animals and dead people? Yeah, that’s about right. Animals and dead people also can’t commit crimes or acquire property.
“Contract law was never my strong suit, but you’re gonna have to go with me on this one.”
No I don’t.
When you get into a marriage you are entering into an agreement to support the other spouse. After the community property runs out, that means that your separate property must be used to support your spouse. There is a definite value to that. Also there is value in spousal support if a judge orders that upon your divorce.
If you want to get out from under that obligation, you need a judge to do it.
How else can that happen to someone without a contract?
You also change your status in regard to debt obligation, taxes, medical visitation rights, and real property, not to mention your ability to play poker till 4am.
These are all things that should be considered by GLBT or S couples before entering into the marriage contract. Not off topic.
Alas, you answered your own question. The concerns you elevate are governed by property law and not contract law.
Why would spousal support and medical visitation be governed by property law and not contract law ?
I’m talking about the spousal support while you’re still married.
You promise to support your spouse through thick and thin.
That sounds like a contract involving material worth.
Is a “living will” a contract?
Wills are not contracts. Wills direct property or decision making authority.
Contracts deal with exchange of value (two way travel). A will is not an exchange, it’s a grant (one way travel.)
RE: Spousal support, meh, not exactly. You agree to become joint tenants in common among other things, but not necessarily. You can certainly negotiate out of typical community property relationships with a pre-martial contract though . . .
A promise to support one another is not an exchange of material worth. It’s an exchange of promises. You start wandering into quasi-contract la la land when actions are taken based on said promise. Such as . . .
One spouse ending a career to support the other at home
One spouse paying for the other spouses’s education
Gets fuzzier on items like standard of living, etc. In the two cases above, it’s still not a contract. Like I said way up the chain, it’s LIKE a contract. Not an actual contract.
Perhaps the contract is with the state — one made for two people to gain the benefits of state-recognized marriage?
Haven’t thought about this for a while.
Since when does a contract need a definite end date? A court can impute one, if one becomes necessary, using its general equitable powers.
Ryan — yes and no. It’s not a typical contract, but it has contractual elements similar, for example, to forming a partnership or corporation, which I think of as creating contractual obligations between parties and changing relationships (particularly regarding liability) with the government. So more yes than no.
All of this quibbling – my point was just to show that the bigots who worry about gay marriage leading to bestial marriage don’t have a paw to stand on. THAT IS ALL.
I think he should have called himself “Homophobius”
I was kidding, Vern…
Oh I know, sweetie, sorry if I didn’t make that clear. But I’m glad you brought up that lame old argument.
🙂
And I wrote my original comment at 3 in the morning. I personally feel that gay marriage will be legal again in California, but not throughout the US.
What bible are u reading ? Homosexuality is a sin….as well as gay marriage.
The Bible is not the document that will determine the legality of gay marriage. The Constitution is.
The bible does consider gay marriage an abominiation. The bible and Christ’s teachings also teach us to not judge others though and leave it up to God.
There is a thing or two against gay sex somewhere in the Old Testament, in there with the shellfish and mixed textiles. I don’t think the actual question of gays MARRYING was considered in the Holy Book.
Are you gonna quote Leviticus on me, Vern?!
Nope it’s gotten pretty old, in 2013.
No, it wasn’t considered in the Holy Book because God simply said no. Don’t even think about it when he mentioned that a man cannot lie with a man.
With that being said, please don’t think that I am a homophobe. Some good friends are gay and I’ll happily support their choice if they do decide to get married. I’m just sad to see my faith not coming in to the 21st century with their arguments.
It has a lot to say about divorce, though! Pretty unequivocal there, too. And yet I don’t see religious people up in arms about that.
It’s the “ick factor,” not much if anything more (except the “if I denounce it loudly enough no one will suspect that I want to do it” factor.)
Proponents should admit that they find gay sex icky, but that that’s not enough to make gays second-class citizens, and move on.
*Pat Robertson said in 1980: “The bible says: Adam and Eve…..not Adam and Steve!”……..still cracks us up!
Maty are you just as concerned with fornication? working on the sabbath, etc??? we are not a Theocracy…hello Maty! If you don’t like gay marriage then DON”T MARRY YOUR BOYFRIEND!
Any story that uses the Flying Spaghetti Monster in the headline gets my attention! Should I dress in pirate garb to read the article?
Two FSMs in love, actually! The theological implications are astounding!
(If you were an Orthodox Pastafarian, you wouldn’t have to ask.)
Oh, I thought for a moment John was referring to the Octopus of Marriage illustrating Phobius’ old story. He would like that too.
are you guys changing the destination,,,are we now going to see dog fucking movies
It’s your limo….
On a serious note…
If we live in a secular society then we cannot base our civil law on ANY religious belief. Not yours or mine or someone else’s ideas. IF you want to live in a religious society you are free to do so, please avail yourselves of that freedom.
Last time I looked we have a secular society and secular laws based on the Constitution and Bill of Rights. (Although how long that will last is increasingly questionable) It seems only fair that they are Rights that are shared by ALL, not just those who are in the majority, or those we all agree with. Even when those Rights make us uncomfortable or afraid.
As an ultra conservative, I take offense at those who simply point to conservatives and blame them all as being bigots.
I’m constantly amazed by how bigoted people can be when pointing fingers and screaming: “BIGOT!”
I can live with conservatives like you, Ryan, Boutwell and Cynthia. I wish more of them were like you guys and less like The Church Lady.
Cynthia’s a strong social conservative. She’s just not (in my experience) a jerk about it.
Not completely true – she’s anti-abortion, but she loves Teh GAy!
Kinda like me. I find abortion sad. I think there are a good number of anti-abortion, pro-gay Republicans around. However I prefer to address the abortion issue as a voluntary issue and try to reduce the number of the number put down by voluntary means.
Fair enough, Vern.
Matt — that makes you pro-choice.
I’m happy to exclude you and other non-bigoted conservatives from the condemnation. The position itself would be classified as socially conservative. I use “conservatives” as shorthand for “those who promote this conservative position.”
Oh, so now I’m being excluded…I see how it is now!
Stupid Arizona wants to make it harder for trans people to do their business in the restrooms.
so here is the crux of the matter…a woman has donkey sex and gets pregnant…is she entitle to an abortion or because the baby is only half human, is it a mulligan
I think that comes under “between her and her doctor or vet”
If that ever happened, she’d be entitled to a reality show.
And this is what our last great President was referring to when he warned us of “human-animal hybrids.”
And he had good partisan reasons for his worry as well – this happens frequently with donkeys, but NEVER with elephants. And this is the dirty little secret of MY party – the real reason that there are many more Democrats each year and less and less Republicans.
Just thought you should know.
the best example of the success of such hybrids is in the movie “tank girl” with lori petty…and they sing cole porter
*What about that movie: “Species I, II and III”?
none had lori petty or naomi watts