Definition of Marriage

May 13th, 2009

For several days now, I?ve been in a running argument with an individual who goes by the name of ?On Lawn? over in the comments sections of the blog ran by anti-gay equality group National Organization for Marriage. In several comments here, here, and here, this person seems to imply that procreation, or at least the potential for procreation, is a requirement of marriage. I?ve tried several times to get this person to explain this concept but they keep brushing off the question calling it absurd. When I tried to point out that there is no link between marriage and procreation they came back with this.

Well, there shows the damage they want to do to the institution. If marriage can?t look equally at the interests of all involved in the practice of human mating, then you tell me what can.

Prehistoric humans didn?t marry before they mated, they just found a bush did it. When you look at the whole of human history, marriage is a relatively new creation, only being a few thousand years old. Our very existence proves that marriage is not a requirement or an essential element of the human mating process.


Read more

< |||| > 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Marriage Equality

Questions

In response to Jennifer Roback Morse’s remarks to the Minnesota house I have asked them the following questions. I post a screen shot of them here since NOM and the Ruth Institute are generally not interested in open civil debate. I don’t expect them to provide any answers to them.

New Picture

Gay and Lesbian people exist. We always have and always will. Regardless of what NOM, the Ruth Institute, or any of the other discriminatory organizations that continue to turn our own government against us hope to achieve. Sometimes I truly wonder what their goal really is. Is it to try and somehow cure us and eliminate us? I don’t think that there really is a clear answer to that question and frankly if that is the goal, it’s a fool’s goal because it can never be achieved. More Gay and Lesbian Americans are born everyday. Trying to rid America of us makes about as much sense as trying to get rid of everyone with red hair.

So if we aren’t going away what sort of protections do we deserve if not marriage? The reality of the mater is that we do fall in love. We do have children. We do build lives and families together. We buy homes together. We go on vacations together. We worry about paying the bills together just like any other family. Is it right that when one of us dies we have no say over burial or that we have to pay gift taxes on the things we bought together as a couple? If one of us becomes sick do we not have a right to visit our partner? Should we not have any rights to the children we may have spent years raising together simply because the state won’t allow us to adopt our partner’s biological child?

These are questions that can’t be answered by a simple contract other than that of civil marriage. Contracts other than marriage can be and often are challenged in court by family members that may not approve of the same sex relationship.

Without marriage are we just supposed to live a life without love, in solitude, and unhappiness? If you deny us marriage, then what will you allow?

MN Marriage Debate

Last night he MN state senate passed bill that will put on the 2012 ballot an amendment to their state constitution that will steal from the LGBT community the right to marry.

HT: Joe My God

Prop 8 Tape

imageProponents of California’s Proposition 8 which revoked the rights of LGBT citizens to marry filled a motion in the 9th Circuit court to have all of the video recordings that were made during the trial returned after retiring Judge Vaughn Walker used a 2 minute clip of the trial in a lecture at the University of Arizona on cameras in the court. The lecture was later broadcast on C-Span.

Proponents claim that Walker violated the court seal that he placed on the recordings as well as the Supreme Court’s ban on broadcasting of the tapes.

Walker responded by explaining how he used the clip and that he felt he did not violate the orders but would return the tapes if so requested.

On the same day that the House held their anti-gay propaganda hearing in DC, Olsen and Boise submitted a motion stating that the tapes were part of the public record and should be released.

Now, the Associated Press, along with 12 other news and media organizations have also filed a motion asking for the video to be released.

One has to wonder if the Prop 8 proponents are kicking themselves for even bringing it up. As Alex Blaze at the Bilerico Project states…

What is interesting to me is that the trial wasn’t supposed to be broadcast and there was a large fracas made about not letting video get out back when the trial was happening last year. The Supreme Court’s ruling against broadcasting the trial has expired, so what Walker did is legal.

But with the AP is asking for the tapes just now, just after the right filed to have them taken away from Walker, I have to wonder: did the AP, et al., just find out that video existed as a result of the Walker being asked to hand over the tapes?

If so, perhaps they should have remained content to see two minutes of those tapes used college presentations about courts.

Proponents claim that if the video is made available to the public that the witnesses could be put in jeopardy; and while LGBT folks are beaten and murdered almost on a daily basis in this country for simply being who they are, proponents have not been able to provide any proof that any such threat actually exists.

The only conclusion I can really come to is that what proponents are really afraid of is that evidence that their desire to strip LGBT’s of our right to marriage is based solely on discrimination and religion, with no rational merit, will get out into the hands of the public. A public that they are starting to loose.

Maryland House Punts

flag-maryland

The Maryland House of Delegates returned the Marriage Equality bill back to committee today, presumably because they didn’t have the 71 votes that were needed to pass it.

The which narrowly passed the state senate and is supported by Governor Martin O’Malley is most likely dead for this year. Polls have shown that a slight majority of Maryland residents support full marriage equality for same sex couples.

Indiana House votes for Discrimination

imageOn Tuesday the Indiana House of Representatives voted 70-26 in favor of adding discrimination against same sex couples to their state constitution. The National Organization for Marriage and other hate groups rejoice.

The Courier Press reports that the bill now moves on to the state Senate where similar bills have passed before. Indiana’s amendment process is similar to Iowa’s in that the bill will have to pass both chambers again in 2013 or 2014 before it can be put on the November 2014 ballot.

Hopefully by then the US Supreme court will have upheld the tenants of the 14th amendment.

Categories