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.
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?
Proponents 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.
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.
A week or so ago Walker issued a list of questions to both sides, who have now submitted their responses.
From the responses to the questions we can get a sense of the arguments that both sides are going to make in their closing remarks.
Those who support Prop 8 continue to rely heavily on the claim that the state has an inherent interest in making sure that marriage is about procreation, that marriage is nothing more than a means for creating babies. It sort of goes back to the Christian idea that sex shouldn?t be for pleasure, that it?s only purpose is to reproduce. Unfortunately that idea has always been contrary to human nature.
They also cling to to the idea that marriage has always been between a man and woman, but to believe that is to ignore thousands of years of history and the cultures of civilizations, some of which helped lay down the very foundations that make up the idea of Democracy, such as Ancient Greece. Even the Roman Emperor Nero was married to another man. Homosexuality and same sex marriage weren?t outlawed in the Christian controlled lands of the Eastern Roman Empire until the 5th Century and there have been many other civilizations since then that have had recognized and legal forms of same sex relationships.
Plaintiff’s will argue that harm is done to families of same sex couples by ban?s on marriage equality. There is significant evidence of this, from discrimination faced by same sex parents and their children, to the extra costs associated with the legal contracts that same sex couples have to establish in order to secure even a small portion of the rights that marriage brings to a family, contracts that are easily and often overturned by other family members intent on not accepting the same sex couple?s love.
And while I?s fairly confident that Judge Walker will rule that Prop 8 violates the US Constitution, that conclusion is not a given, and no mater how he rules, the matter will be far from resolved. The ruling will undoubtedly be appealed no mater what, which would presumably take the case all the way to the US Supreme Court. Which leads to concern in regards to the conservative leaning court and the possibility of setting the march to equality back decades.
But there is hope. Attitudes are changing, especially among the young. More and more of us are refusing to stand locked in a closet. We live our lives openly in order for our friends and neighbors to get to know us. So that they can see that our lives are no different than theirs, that we not the monsters that groups like the National Organization for Marriage, or NARTH, or Mass Resistance claim that we are. We are simply American?s who deserve the right to live our lives as our own.