Now gays get to be a miserable as everyone else is. Just kidding, just kidding.
The D. C. City Council predictably voted to legalize gay marriage in a 11-2 vote. Couples should be able to tie the knot as soon as March. Congress, which has the power over D. C. laws, could reject the action of the city council but the democrat-controlled congress has indicated it is reluctant to do so.
Gays and gay rights supporters have suffered a series of defeats in recent months. The latest defeats were in Maine and New York. According the News and Messenger:
David Catania, who introduced the bill and is one of two openly gay council members, called the bill a “matter of social justice” before the vote.
Two members voted “I do” when their names came up, and when the vote finished a packed chamber erupted into cheers and clapping. The “no” votes included former mayor Marion Barry, now a council member.
If Congress does not reject the bill, the district will join Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts and Vermont in issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. They will be able to wed in New Hampshire starting in January.
Gay marriage supporters have had less success elsewhere recently. Maine voters overturned the state’s same-sex marriage law last month. Earlier this month, the New York state Senate rejected a bill that would have allowed gay couples to marry. And New Jersey’s legislature, which had been working on a same-sex marriage bill, postponed a recent vote when the measure appeared headed for defeat.
Tuesday’s vote in the district came after several months of discussion, including two marathon council hearings at which some 250 witnesses testified.
Opponents included the Archdiocese of Washington, which said it might have to stop providing adoptions and other services because the law would force it to extend benefits to same-sex couples. But most who testified in this overwhelmingly Democratic city were supporters.
Is this a matter of civil rights and social justice? Does gay marriage or civil union hurt those of us who are not gay? Are there legal implications to being married that gays have not been able to partake of? How will Virginia with its defense of marriage amendment react to having a gay marriage neighbor right across the Potomac River?
They say married people live longer……it just feels longer. 🙂
Gay marriage is a civil rights issue and it does not hurt non-gays.
I support this decision. I think elected officials should look forward, even when some of their loudest constituents demand we go backward or keep the status quo. Speaking of backward, what are the chances Congress will reverse this, or force them to allow anti-aircraft artillery in elementary school classrooms as a trade-off?
I believe it is a civil rights issue also, Firedancer.
I also think it is also only a matter of time before the courts decide on the issue as a civil rights issue.
I do not see where gay marriage in any way threatens my marriage or the marriage of any other straight person.
I could care less… to me this issue is about number 54 on the priority list.
I have absolutely nothing against gays (had many many gay friends when I lived in midtown Atlanta). In fact, I’ll go so far as to say that some of the best people I know are gay. I do think this is a state issue (to the extent it’s a government concern at all). DC is pretty much the bottom of the barrel, nasty lib-world anyway, so this makes sense. The bizarre thing is that Mexifornia doesn’t have gay marriage….those darn “citizens, voters”. Oh well, hey, have fun in DC!
Oh, now that I’m thinking about it…..how do we think Congress will come down on this, since this vote doesn’t mean much unless Congress agrees.
Guys porking guys, why that’s as natural as wings on a frog! I can see why society is all for it.
SA, frankly, it is going to happen whether there is gay marriage or not. It isn’t an issue of whether we are for it or not.
Slow, I have to disagree that it should be a state issue. Why should a couple be legally married in one place and not in the other? How about interracial marriage? Should a couple be married in Maryland and not in Virginia?
You picked maybe the best example, there! When states have the power, as our founding fathers (who were infinitely more intelligent than we are today) intended, then degenerate liberals can live in Maryland with their illegal immigrants, their gun control, and just “live it up”. And meanwhile, others can choose to live in Virginia, where some counties have the guts to take care of matters and keep it’s people free. I like your example. The folks who love their cesspools can stay in Maryland, and don’t have to come to Virginia! It’s perfect!
And meanwhile, Howard Dean does an interview where he says: “Kill the Bill”……..HYAAAAHH!!!
From a moral standpoint, I understand the range of opinions and am personally
uncomfortable around open homosexuality.
From a jurisdiction’s fiscal standpoint, they are GREAT. Normally two good incomes,
below normal demands for most services including NO kids to fill schools,
and they take care of their property – and yours next door if you let them.
Model citizens.
And I think it is ok to be uncomfortable around people doing things that should be saved for private. I don’t particularly want to have to watch straight or gay people.
It reminds me of Margaret in college. Preacher’s kid. Her bf rode the bus up a couple times a month and they sat in the lobby. My dog doesn’t slobber that much. Finally someone passed the hat and she got told to go get a room. Back in those days not nearly as much bothered me but that was disgusting.
Slowpoke, back in those days states were like countries. We are way too national now. Distances are covered quickly. I can go to Virginia, Maryland and West Virginia and be home in less than 2 hours. You are applying old world rules to modern society.
We live in one nation. We are Americans. We can’t have one set of marriage rules for one group of people and something different for another. I am proud to be a Virginian. I am not proud of some things my state does however. That marriage amendment is one of the things I feel shame over. Why not just arrest interracial couples. I see no different. Or let’s just not recognize their marriage.
Marriage offers some huge benefits (believe it or not). Same sex couples are denied these benefits. Same with those who prefer not to have the state regulate their relationship.
We probably won’t agree on any of this having to do with states vs national. I am not real big on states rights. The way I see states rights–they were done away with with a war…the Civil War.
Moonhowler, you make a great point…and you crack me up while doing so:)
There was a huge upper receiving room in Russell dorm. Probably a 50 x 50 at least. It was the cut through for everyone who lived on 2nd, 3rd and 4th floor. When the bf, the carless wonder, arrived in town, everyone just went around the long way. They had the entire room to themselves. No one watched TV, no one went to the other side. It was like the room was quarantined. The sound effects were actually worse than the visual.
Two questions.
If two men or two women can get married to each other, must they be gay?
Also, should there be a restriction on the number of adults allowed to be married to each other, ie, 2 women and one man, 3 men, etc?
I see no reason to arbitrarily limit “marriage” at all, now.
The world’s a circus, and we’re becoming the clowns!
Cargosquid, I am sure the fundamentalist LDS would like to say no to number of wives. I am not sure that would end up being a civil rights issue though. I see plenty of reason to restrict marriage to 2 people at a time. We already have serial marriage. To those who aren’t comfortable witht the idea of 2, then they can just do as the polygamists do now and rely on church marriage rather than state marriage.
I would say no, people don’t have to be gay to be married. Who would peep through the windows to check it out? Right now I am sure some gay people marry as heterosexuals. There is no test to pass.
Does anyone know when the HBO series Big Love is going to resume for this season?
I found my own answer: Jan. 10
Meanwhile: http://www.hbo.com/biglove/index.html
You bet your bippy I am! I do apply old world rules and will continue to until I expire!
Slow, don’t you think that is frustrating? I am sure (considering the approximate ages of our children) that I am much older than you are. However, I can’t stay stuck in the mode of thinking how everything used to be. How many Virginians does it take to change a light bulb? 2. 1 Virginian to change it and the other to stand around and talk about how good it was back in the good old days. [music symbols] That good old song of Wah-hoo-wah–we’ll sing it o’er and o’er
Seriously, when states rights was such an issue, it took several days for most people to even get out of their state. With modern transportation and communication, it can be done in hours and minutes rather than days. We simply cannot exist as little countries or fifedoms and have a patchwork of laws about various issues: guns, abortion, marriage, just to name a few.
Sadly, MH, the issue of states rights was not because of the time it took to go somewhere. It was because the founding fathers believed that the further government got from the people, the less it represented the people. We must never forsake Lincoln’s words “government OF THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE AND FOR THE PEOPLE”.
Would one today believe they have more effective say in national government than they do when addressing the Board of Supervisors? To have elected officials living among its citizens is why Virginia has rightly formed a government composed of mainly citizen-legislators rather than professional ones.
That issue is still the same today as 200+ years. The closer things get to national control, the more diluted an individual’s vote becomes and the less say an individual has in his/her government.
Rez, I never said that is why the states rights issues came up. Actually, I would go so far as to say that the way the founding fathers viewed the world had a great deal to do with their view of space, time and travel.
State government can be just as oppressive as Federal government. For that matter, depending on one’s point of view, so can local government. Dillon Rule is an example that pops into my mind.
As for the type of government Virginians formed, what else was around then? I know of no professional legislators in our past. I think we have to look at time, place distance when we start looking at the most practical way to run our country.
We probably will never agree on this issue. I see the constitution as a much more fluid document than many people on this blog. I also see any states rights issues as having been solved during the Civil War. After that, there are none, or darn few.
If there were states rights, I promise you, there would still be segregated schools in the south. States rights do not benefit everyone.
“I see plenty of reason to restrict marriage to 2 people at a time. We already have serial marriage. To those who aren’t comfortable witht the idea of 2, then they can just do as the polygamists do now and rely on church marriage rather than state marriage.”
If it is to be considered arbitrary to restrict marriage to one man and one woman, for the traditional support and protection of children, under law, then why are there reasons to restrict marriage to just 2 people. Consider the statement about polygamists….why does that not apply to gays?
As you said, there are good reasons…..for any number of things. Once the traditional definition and custom of marriage is discarded, there is no reason to restrict it at all.
Also, because of our litigious society, will churches be forced to accommodate gay couples? The Catholic Church is thinking of closing down adoption and medical services because of laws that will mandate policies that go against Church teachings. Once codified, will this law allow suits against institutions that do not approve of gay marriage?
As to state’s rights in this matter, marriages in one state are not automatically viable in other states. Some states do not recognize common law marriages. The joy of federalism is that one size need not fit all.
“If there were states rights, I promise you, there would still be segregated schools in the south. States rights do not benefit everyone.”
I think you are right that we probably will not agree on the role of the Federal government. However, the issue of segregation of schools was originally decided by the Supreme Court through the constitution and not by Federal action. Federal action through troops and various legislation (including Civil Rights Act) were means to enforce Supreme Court actions, which found that States had exceeded the rights granted to them and enforeceable through the 14th amendment.
So the constitution worked the way it was supposed to, not by Federal legislation but by application of the limitation of the rights of both the States and the Federal government.
The Federal government by the way has not had clean hands as far as the treatment of citizens in this country either. It had its own segregation policies as well.
Since I was part of many marches about segregation and civil rights in the 60’s, it is a subject near and dear to me.
Rez, I will resist calling you a geezer. I might have to call myself one. 😉
Yes, it was via the courts. I maintain the same thing will happen with gay civil union. It will be decreed by the courts. No chance of legislation I do not think. I would agree. Usually when the will of the majority overpowers the will of the minority, it is the courts who are the equalizer.
Had the Supreme Court not stepped in, do you think schools would be integrated today? I do not.
Cargo, plural marriage just isn’t the same thing. Our infastructure isn’t set up to deal with it. If nothing else, the tax codes don’t mesh with multiple spouse marriage.
The issue I think that will be the deciding factor is that a certain class of people is being denied the right to marry. Polygamists may marry, but just one person at a time unless they do an ecclesiastical marriage.
I suppose if a gay couple married in DC and lived in Maryland, then they would file a joint federal form and individual state forms.
I am fairly passive on this issue. It doesn’t bother me one way or another. I do think that the tax code will end up ruling, like it does everyone else. I do see it as eventually being decided as a civil rights issue. That is just a prediction rather than a sword I want to fall on.
Rez, I hope you know I was teaching in my opening comments. Good for you for being politically active. I wasn’t in those days. Too self centered and probably too young, but not by much.
It is not at all frustrating! The core of it is to always keep in mind that just because it’s 2009, or 2010, that doesn’t automatically mean we’re smarter than someone in 1860, or 1794, or even 1438 for that matter. The amount of data available to any individual has no effect on how much data someone is able to understand. I’m not advocating “always thinking of the way things used to be”. I am saying that there are some principles that were true in 1801 that are actually still true today, and will be true tomorrow. All the garbage around it might look different, but respect, honesty, responsibility, and the value of learning haven’t really changed, no matter what things might look like. I’m not stuck in the past, but I am mindful of it, and the lessons to be learned from it.
Gay marrige sets out a very slippery slope for alot of legal changes, to include taxes, health benefits, retirement benefits, adoption, etc, etc. when the legal benefits of same-sex cohabitation can be achieved without insulting the rest of us with family or religous values. I agree with you that its coming, — so is unecessarilly bigger government, less individual freedom, responsibility and privacy (smoking and guns) and higher taxes. The problem for me is that it needs to be consistent. If gay marrige is a civil rights issue , then poligamy is a Freedom of Religion issue – right? Its a very Slippry Slope that we should well consider before expanding civil rights to the loudest group of self centered political advocates. BTW the hit on the LDS community is bigoted, I read somewhere that there are more moslem poligomists in the US that any other group.
And I think those things you mentioned are important. I think those people were probably just as smart. They just needed to do different things. We need to do different things than they did. But, our time and space has changed since then. We cannot function as a little fifedom any longer.
I guess I am saying the bad values things are still going to go on regardless of what we do or don’t do. We live in a world where can go across the entire USA in 5 hours when it used to take 5 months if we were lucky. We live in a world where we can all talk to each other instantly whether is it via telephone, cell phone, internet etc. We can see what someone is doing around the world almost instantly. I am not sure we can function with the same set of rules. Too much information and distance has literally shrunk.
@PWC Taxpayer
The hit on the LDS community? I beg your pardon? In the first place, I said the FUNDAMENTALIST LDS. They very much believe in polygamy. You might want to do some reading before you make a statement like that.
In fact, you might want to consider toning it down a notch or two on this blog. We sort of pride ourselves here on being able to disagree without being contentious. We have evolved. Example, Rez and I probably disagree on this topic about as much as any 2 people can, but if you notice our tone, we are arguing our ideas, not throwing a punch in the back that someone is making biggoted statements.
We have the legal framework for same sex marriage. If it offends people, they will have to get over it. All sorts of things happen in this world that offend me that are perfectly legal. I have to suck it up and move on.
Plural marriage was a bargaining chip used when Utah was admitted as a state. (pardon my historical bigotry again.) You want statehood, outlaw polygamy. utah did and that was that. Our framework exists for 2 people to be married at the same time. These people may dissolve their marriage and move on to another marriage. No one checks one’s private parts to see if they are same sex or not so I don’t see where it will be a problem to incorporate same sex marriage.
It might be distasteful to some. Some people find interracial marriage distasteful. Should we cave in to their whims? Some religions feel that interracial marriage is wrong? Should we give in to those beliefs? It was illegal for blacks and whites to be married in Virginia until 1967. That isn’t the distant past.
I don’t have anything more to say about the gay marriage thing at the moment. I just wanted to compliment you on the tone of the comments in this blog. I was just thinking this as I read the last comment.
This blog has a very good comments section, not because of “enforcement”, but because of the apparent civilized nature of its visitors. Thanks for a pleasant visit.
“Our framework exists for 2 people to be married at the same time.” Not to be argumentative, MH–well maybe a little since you know that I am a devil’s advocate but–
Our framework also exists that marriage is between a man and a woman. So I think what PWC Taxpayer was saying — By changing the definition to include those outside any framework is a slippery slope and could lead elsewhere.
I am really not sure how I actually feel about the issue. If it is reduced to strictly religious terms, I can certainly say that I think it may be contrary to the teachings I learned but I was not annointed by God to condemn someone. I can only say that they may have a problem based upon my beliefs. They are also free to believe that they do not have a problem. Whether it is contrary to a higher law will be decided on judgement day and by a much higher authority than I.
I think it is best if everyone remembers that this issue is not necessarily based in hatred of another but can include a simple desire to follow the teachings they had.
Cargo, Thank you. We don’t always make the mark but we have gotten a lot better over the almost 2 years of existence. And feel free to remind us when we need to get back on track. I think civility makes us more productive in discussion.
Rez, I certainly wasn’t raised to accept such a notion either. But I wasn’t raised to accept a lot of things I have learned to accept over the years. And as I have said, I am not beating the drum FOR gay marriage, I am just trying to be a realist here.
And being a bit o’ the devil myself…what would have to change in our basic framework to accommodate gay marriage? Other than some readjustment in using the word husband and wife when referring to a gay couple, I can’t think of much else. Would I find it awkward? Yes. I probably would. I currently do not know any same sex couples who are legally married. But their legal status really should not have any impact on me. It certainly won’t hurt me or do anything to my marriage.
You are right. Not everyone is motivated by hate. Many people are uncomfortable with the notion of same-sex sex. Me? I don’t care what anyone else does as long as everyone is a consenting adult and I dont have to have my 5 senses come in to contact with it. That is code for:
Intellectually I don’t object to what people do. This tolerance is greatly reduced the more I have to personally witness any of it.
Is that what an arm-chair liberal is? I can be very tolerant when I don’t have to deal with things one on one.
Gays could have it worse:
http://malaysia.news.yahoo.com/ap/20091217/twl-eu-britain-uganda-gay-death-penalty-c8e2916.html
I hope when they start with the Gay greeting cards that they keep them in a ‘special’ section. I can hear it now, clean-up isle 11………again!
Second-Alamo, maybe you are joking out of sheer discomfort or fear, but I am getting a little offended. Do you have any gay friends? If so, are they cool with you talking about them in this way?
DG,
Hey, I’m greatly offended when unnatural acts are rejoiced by society as if they are trying to solicit our youth into this depraved lifestyle. If they want to allow it then allow it, but don’t glorify it as though it is something that one should aspire to emulate. Two people living together is one thing, but same sex sex is not the norm as nature intended. You need the right tool for the right job, and that’s not getting it done!
SA, actually I was being bad and snickering at your joke. But…I don’t think most people are celebrating unnatural acts or are soliciting youth.
Segue: if you want to attack something soliciting our youth please go comment on the drug raid thread where our youth are very much being solicited by drug dealers. They are using their poison on our children to get rich. They don’t care if our children end up addicts; in fact, they hope they do. More money for them. That one is too easy to ignore. I am offended over that.
ok, rant over. SA, don’t think about it. I am sure heterosexuals do many things that would gross me out also. Life is full of things that make us go ewwwwwwwwwww. Just living together would produce the same things that are making you go ewwwwwwwww as would marriage.
It is all about the various legalities afforded married people–Spousal rights kinds of things that have been codified. The fact that someone is not entitled to those same rights or even entitled to a spouse makes it a civil rights issue.
I’m just thinking that allowing two men or two women to ‘marry’ each other is so bizarre that why do we maintain any laws at all about what goes on behind closed doors. Why can’t we have multiple spouses? Why can’t 14 year olds marry? Why are some physical acts illegal? Why should we care about anything anymore? And as far as soliciting our youth goes, if we never said that gangs were bad, then how many more young ones would be entering gangs today? By not referring to Gay activity as inappropriate by default we are indicating it is appropriate, and then on top of that we start legislating benefits for them to boot! Now don’t tell me that isn’t society promoting homosexuality. The only good thing I guess is you wouldn’t have to worry about getting pregnant, but then I’m sure we’ll increase adoption benefits for Gay couples as the next great move by society. There’s that slippery slope thing again!
You are treating being gay as criminal. You are also treating it as a choice one makes. Can you accept that people cannot help who they fall in love with?
We aren’t legislating them benefits. The benefits are there already. Let’s name a person John. John is gay. John loves Larry. John cannot marry Larry because he lives in Virginia. John has 2 choices. He can shack up with Larry or he can go to DC and marry Larry. If he wants to be recognized as married, then he needs to stay in DC.
John has another choice. He can live a lie and go marry Mary. If he truly wants to be married for the benefits of marriage, he can marry Mary. Then we can have 2 miserable people.
Multiple spouses? We can have them and we can have them recognized by the church if we go to a church that ok’s it. The state won’t recognize it though. How about just one issue at a time. I can’t apply the same arguments to different situations.
14 year olds? They are too young. Same reason that we don’t let them vote I suppose. They can marry if their parents sign for it in some states. It is just a social norm.
Physical acts? I think the Supremes did away with saying certain physical acts that do not harm others are illegal. (consenting adult thing)
SA, are you willing to accept that people can be gay who never ever commit a ‘gay’ act?
Can you accept that some people can be hetero who never ever commit a heterosexual act?
Because we are the ruling majority as heterosexuals, there is no burden of proof. A person can live their entire life sex-free. Yet they are still considered to be a heterosexual.
Homosexuals and heterosexuals can all die as virgins. It doesn’t change what they are in their own being/souls/minds.
Wait a minute there Moon, you are for Gay Marrigaes for love, but against Big Plural Love. I thought you were arguing for the Freedom of Consenting Adults. If your going to give legal standing to something abhorent in the Bible and I think most if not all other religions – lets give legal standing to the marrigaes of the Prophets.
And tax’em.
Hmm, maybe heterosexuals will be a minority by 2105AD!!!
I meant to add, I’ve recently met an Alpaca. We love each other very much and we want to get married. I demand our marriage be acknowledged in DC, and throughout the nation.
OMG, John loves Larry, is that sick or what! I really can’t repeat that with a straight (no pun intended) face.
Go for it Slow! It’s no more bizarre than John and Larry rolling in the hay. I’d say make it an issue. Heck, everyone ‘loves’ their pets so why can’t we marry them? P. T. Barnum’s got nothing on some groups.
SA, you are aware that the state of being gay appears in nature and has been around since man first walked the earth. You know that it existed back in ancient times and that it was also found amongst American Indians. I don’t know what to tell you.
My only arguement is, it exists. People who are gay want the same rights as other people. I expect they will get it. I am not lobbying or or against them. I just think that it is going to happen via the courts. I do not ever believe gays will achieve rights such as being able to marry through referendum or legislation.
I also think it will be ruled on as a civil rights issue. Very few of the civil rights issues have been attained by legislation or referendum.
Slow, by definition, I am not sure that is possible 🙂
Yes MH, I’ve heard that story before, and I’m also aware that it is man’s natural tendency to want to bed every fine looking female that they come across (Tiger Woods being a fine example!) whether the female is willing or not, but hay they have laws against that, and society says that isn’t acceptable behavior. So society does have the ability to suppress certain ‘natural’ impulses in human behavior through peer pressure. Now the Gay thing is having just the opposite effect in that it is peer pressure from society to accept these actions that will cause it to increase even for those who don’t have a hormone imbalance to begin with. Not acceptable!