Associated Press story, via Yahoo News- Argentina legalizes gay marriage in historic vote "BUENOS AIRES, Argentina – Argentina became the first Latin American nation to legalize gay marriage Thursday, granting same-sex couples all the legal rights, responsibilities and protections that marriage brings to heterosexuals."
Funny, isn't it? It's been more than twenty years since a Muslim nation, Pakistan, elected a woman Prime Minister; we have yet to manage even a Vice-President. Now a Catholic nation, one that mentions God by name in their constitution, has legalized Gay Marriage while we, supposedly a secular state, haven't even revoked "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" yet. Do you suppose that the American Catholic and Mormon churches are more powerful than the Roman Catholic church in Latin America, or are their gay rights advocates more persuasive than ours?
Showing posts with label marriage equality. Show all posts
Showing posts with label marriage equality. Show all posts
Thursday, July 15, 2010
Friday, June 11, 2010
Oil spill help refused and other news
"Three days after the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon in the Gulf of Mexico, the Dutch government offered to help.
It was willing to provide ships outfitted with oil-skimming booms, and it proposed a plan for building sand barriers to protect sensitive marshlands.
The response from the Obama administration and BP, which are coordinating the cleanup: “The embassy got a nice letter from the administration that said, ‘Thanks, but no thanks,'” said Geert Visser, consul general for the Netherlands in Houston." Read more here A related story, closer to home: "John Lapoint of Packgen in Auburn, Maine, says he’s got plenty of floating oil containment boom and can make lots more on short notice. There’s just one problem: no one will buy it from him.
He’s already had a representative from BP visit his factory and inspect his product. The governor of Maine, John Baldacci, visited the facility and made a video plea to no one in particular to close the deal. Maine Senators Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins wrote a letter on May 21 to the secretary of the Interior, the administrator of NOAA, and the commandant of the Coast Guard to alert them to the existence of Packgen, their supply of boom, and their demonstrated capacity to make more. I have no idea if those are the correct persons and agencies to notify about the manufacturing capacity and the availability of boom. One wonders if the senators know." Read Miles of Oil Containment Boom Sit in Warehouse, Waiting for BP or U.S. to Use
Astroturfing for Elena: the DNC wants you to call talk shows.
Reuters once again alters photographs used in coverage of Israel.
"Does Studying Economics Make You More Republican?", asks the NY Times "Most notably, the study found that the more economics classes a person took, the more likely he or she was to be a member of the Republican Party and to donate money to a political candidate or a cause." The Wall Street Journal answers the question: "Who is better informed about the policy choices facing the country—liberals, conservatives or libertarians? According to a Zogby International survey that I write about in the May issue of Econ Journal Watch, the answer is unequivocal: The left flunks Econ 101.", says Daniel Klein.
In twelve states, it's illegal to video police brutality.
A pair of studies with relevance to the marriage equality debate: Study finds teens raised by lesbians are well-adjusted, and a study showing- amongst other things- that a child raised by two gays is better off than a child raised by a single straight parent.
And, some levity to lighten the Friday
It was willing to provide ships outfitted with oil-skimming booms, and it proposed a plan for building sand barriers to protect sensitive marshlands.
The response from the Obama administration and BP, which are coordinating the cleanup: “The embassy got a nice letter from the administration that said, ‘Thanks, but no thanks,'” said Geert Visser, consul general for the Netherlands in Houston." Read more here A related story, closer to home: "John Lapoint of Packgen in Auburn, Maine, says he’s got plenty of floating oil containment boom and can make lots more on short notice. There’s just one problem: no one will buy it from him.
He’s already had a representative from BP visit his factory and inspect his product. The governor of Maine, John Baldacci, visited the facility and made a video plea to no one in particular to close the deal. Maine Senators Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins wrote a letter on May 21 to the secretary of the Interior, the administrator of NOAA, and the commandant of the Coast Guard to alert them to the existence of Packgen, their supply of boom, and their demonstrated capacity to make more. I have no idea if those are the correct persons and agencies to notify about the manufacturing capacity and the availability of boom. One wonders if the senators know." Read Miles of Oil Containment Boom Sit in Warehouse, Waiting for BP or U.S. to Use
Astroturfing for Elena: the DNC wants you to call talk shows.
Reuters once again alters photographs used in coverage of Israel.
"Does Studying Economics Make You More Republican?", asks the NY Times "Most notably, the study found that the more economics classes a person took, the more likely he or she was to be a member of the Republican Party and to donate money to a political candidate or a cause." The Wall Street Journal answers the question: "Who is better informed about the policy choices facing the country—liberals, conservatives or libertarians? According to a Zogby International survey that I write about in the May issue of Econ Journal Watch, the answer is unequivocal: The left flunks Econ 101.", says Daniel Klein.
In twelve states, it's illegal to video police brutality.
A pair of studies with relevance to the marriage equality debate: Study finds teens raised by lesbians are well-adjusted, and a study showing- amongst other things- that a child raised by two gays is better off than a child raised by a single straight parent.
And, some levity to lighten the Friday
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Proposition 8 Trial Re-enactment Brings Closed Proceedings to the Viewing Public
From the press release for MarriageTrial.com, a re-enactment of the federal Proposition 8 trial Perry v. Schwarzenegger: "January 18, 2010 (Los Angeles) -- Last Wednesday, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling blocking indefinitely the broadcast of a video feed from the San Francisco Federal Court trial challenging California's Proposition 8. Within a few hours, a film production team in Los Angeles was readying a script from court transcripts, securing a courtroom set and casting actors in an effort to bring the trial to the people by way of re-enactment...
"We both jumped in and started calling all of our contacts and never looked back," says John Ireland, who is co-producing the "made for the web" series with actor and producer, John Ainsworth... The production is using professional actors and, where possible, they are casting as close to the appearance of the real people the actors portray.
The team is being advised by constitutional law scholar and Professor, David B. Cruz, from the University of Southern California Gould School of Law, which has made the replica courtroom available. He is reviewing scripts and advising on courtroom dynamics and flow."
"We both jumped in and started calling all of our contacts and never looked back," says John Ireland, who is co-producing the "made for the web" series with actor and producer, John Ainsworth... The production is using professional actors and, where possible, they are casting as close to the appearance of the real people the actors portray.
The team is being advised by constitutional law scholar and Professor, David B. Cruz, from the University of Southern California Gould School of Law, which has made the replica courtroom available. He is reviewing scripts and advising on courtroom dynamics and flow."
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Another argument against gay marriage disproved
One of the most used arguments against gay marriage is that it devalues the institution of marriage itself. The obvious counters- how does what two other people you've never even met live affect your marriage, and how can gays do any more damage to the state of marriage than Hollywood stars have done- are rejected out of hand by opponents of gay marriage. But neither side has been convincing, because they were opinions; there weren't any real numbers or hard evidence to support either position. Until now.
The most obvious test of the health of the state of marriage is the rate of divorce, and at the national level, it's been improving the last decade or so; divorce rates are down. But that's the national average; individual states vary wildly, with many showing an increase in divorce. Could gay marriage be having an effect? Nate Silver at the blog FiveThirtyEight has put numbers to it. 538 used marriage and divorce rates from the CDC - 43 states reporting, from the 2004-2008 period- and correlated them against the level of marriage equality, using a four-stage rating: Legal, Not Performed, Forbidden By Statute, Forbidden By State Constitution, displayed as a chart.
The results? "As is somewhat visually apparent, those states which have tended to take more liberal policies toward gay marriage have tended also to have larger declines in their divorce rates. In Massachusetts, which legalized gay marriage in 2004, the divorce rate has declined by 21 percent and is the lowest in the country by some margin. It is joined at the top of the list by Rhode Island and New Mexico, which do not perform same-sex marriages but idiosyncratically also have no statute or constitutional provision expressly forbidding them, as well as Maine, whose legislature approved same-sex marriage only to have it overturned (although not banned constitutionally) by its voters.
On the other hand, the seven states at the bottom of the chart all had constitutional prohibitions on same-sex marriage in place throughout 2008. The state which experienced the highest increase in its divorce rate over the period (Alaska, at 17.2 percent) also happens to be the first one to have altered its constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage, in 1998."
In fact, looking at his chart, it's immediately obvious from the chart that all 24 states in which divorce rates declined had either become more liberal or remained the same through the reporting period. While this does not imply a cause and effect- there's no reason to believe that liberalizing marriage will reduce divorce rates- it does in fact demolish the claim that liberalizing marriage laws harm marriages.
The most obvious test of the health of the state of marriage is the rate of divorce, and at the national level, it's been improving the last decade or so; divorce rates are down. But that's the national average; individual states vary wildly, with many showing an increase in divorce. Could gay marriage be having an effect? Nate Silver at the blog FiveThirtyEight has put numbers to it. 538 used marriage and divorce rates from the CDC - 43 states reporting, from the 2004-2008 period- and correlated them against the level of marriage equality, using a four-stage rating: Legal, Not Performed, Forbidden By Statute, Forbidden By State Constitution, displayed as a chart.
The results? "As is somewhat visually apparent, those states which have tended to take more liberal policies toward gay marriage have tended also to have larger declines in their divorce rates. In Massachusetts, which legalized gay marriage in 2004, the divorce rate has declined by 21 percent and is the lowest in the country by some margin. It is joined at the top of the list by Rhode Island and New Mexico, which do not perform same-sex marriages but idiosyncratically also have no statute or constitutional provision expressly forbidding them, as well as Maine, whose legislature approved same-sex marriage only to have it overturned (although not banned constitutionally) by its voters.
On the other hand, the seven states at the bottom of the chart all had constitutional prohibitions on same-sex marriage in place throughout 2008. The state which experienced the highest increase in its divorce rate over the period (Alaska, at 17.2 percent) also happens to be the first one to have altered its constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage, in 1998."
In fact, looking at his chart, it's immediately obvious from the chart that all 24 states in which divorce rates declined had either become more liberal or remained the same through the reporting period. While this does not imply a cause and effect- there's no reason to believe that liberalizing marriage will reduce divorce rates- it does in fact demolish the claim that liberalizing marriage laws harm marriages.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Whose rights are they anyway?
There are two schools of thought concerning individual rights: one says that rights are granted to the individual by society (or the state, or whatever term fits the issue); the other says that rights reside in the individual, and society must show some compelling interest to restrict them. Conservatives like to say that this is the difference between a liberal and a conservative, but it upon examination, both sides sometimes argue both ways.
This thought struck me while listening to my favorite radio talk show, Abdul in the morning . The discussion was a proposed change in Indiana's liquor laws to allow Sunday sales. Many who would describe themselves as conservative were saying, "Are you incapable of thinking ahead and buying on Saturday? Why should we allow you to buy on Sunday?" But if you believe in the rights of the individual, the question should be, "What is the compelling state interest in restricting the sale of a legal product? Is alcohol more potent on Sunday than Saturday?" The same reversal of burden occurs in the discussion of gay marriage. If you believe in individual rights, the question is not "Why should the state recognize gay marriage?", but "If the state recognizes any marriage, what is the compelling interest preventing the recognition of this one?".
Conservatives are not alone in hypocrisy, of course. If the issue is guns, then the right to own and bear them resides in the state, to be extended to or withdrawn from the individual at the state's pleasure- but if the issue is abortion, then the right resides in the individual, and cannot be withdrawn by the state. The personal right of choice and the principle of competition are so important that there must be a public healthcare option to provide that choice and competition, with the proviso that the public choice must sink or swim on its own merits, so that the competition is genuine. Unless the issue is education, of course, in which case the public option is paramount, regardless of cost, efficiency, or effectiveness.
The lesson is that human nature dictates that the core guiding principle is "Whose ox is being gored?"*
*Do oxen gore each other? I thought bulls were made oxen and stallions were made geldings to calm them down so they wouldn't fight each other.
This thought struck me while listening to my favorite radio talk show, Abdul in the morning . The discussion was a proposed change in Indiana's liquor laws to allow Sunday sales. Many who would describe themselves as conservative were saying, "Are you incapable of thinking ahead and buying on Saturday? Why should we allow you to buy on Sunday?" But if you believe in the rights of the individual, the question should be, "What is the compelling state interest in restricting the sale of a legal product? Is alcohol more potent on Sunday than Saturday?" The same reversal of burden occurs in the discussion of gay marriage. If you believe in individual rights, the question is not "Why should the state recognize gay marriage?", but "If the state recognizes any marriage, what is the compelling interest preventing the recognition of this one?".
Conservatives are not alone in hypocrisy, of course. If the issue is guns, then the right to own and bear them resides in the state, to be extended to or withdrawn from the individual at the state's pleasure- but if the issue is abortion, then the right resides in the individual, and cannot be withdrawn by the state. The personal right of choice and the principle of competition are so important that there must be a public healthcare option to provide that choice and competition, with the proviso that the public choice must sink or swim on its own merits, so that the competition is genuine. Unless the issue is education, of course, in which case the public option is paramount, regardless of cost, efficiency, or effectiveness.
The lesson is that human nature dictates that the core guiding principle is "Whose ox is being gored?"*
*Do oxen gore each other? I thought bulls were made oxen and stallions were made geldings to calm them down so they wouldn't fight each other.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Update to "Issues of sex and gender more complex than commonly supposed"
The tests are back on the athlete I wrote about in Issues of sex and gender more complex than commonly supposed , and according to The Sun , she is a hermaphrodite- but it took internal scans to discover it; both gynecological exams and hormone testing of her urine were within female norms. As I said before, the question of sex is more complex than commonly supposed.
That being the case, I have some questions for those who oppose gay marriage: should she be forbidden to marry a man because she does possess testis? (even though it takes a CAT scan to find them) Or should she marry a woman, despite the things they might do when alone? (she does appear normal to a gynecologist) Or do you believe that God intended her to live alone and unloved?
If you said she could marry a man because she feels herself to be a woman, does that mean that her emotional state matters more than the physical realities? Or is that the same as any other "man" who knows inside she's a woman? How would you feel about a man or woman who would marry her?
Or would you tell me what Karrin Murphy told Harry Dresden in Jim Butcher's "White Night", "Stop making me think, I'm believing over here."
That being the case, I have some questions for those who oppose gay marriage: should she be forbidden to marry a man because she does possess testis? (even though it takes a CAT scan to find them) Or should she marry a woman, despite the things they might do when alone? (she does appear normal to a gynecologist) Or do you believe that God intended her to live alone and unloved?
If you said she could marry a man because she feels herself to be a woman, does that mean that her emotional state matters more than the physical realities? Or is that the same as any other "man" who knows inside she's a woman? How would you feel about a man or woman who would marry her?
Or would you tell me what Karrin Murphy told Harry Dresden in Jim Butcher's "White Night", "Stop making me think, I'm believing over here."
Friday, August 21, 2009
Lutherans may split, updated.
The vote over the issue of accepting gay clergy in the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) I posted about Monday has been taken; gay clergy are now recognized. The vote was close- it required a 2/3 majority, and the winning percentage was 66.67% More details are available here
Many are not happy with the vote, and schism is threatened. ""The word of the Lord will endure forever," said Wayne Jacobson, of the Northeast Iowa Synod, "and this vote won't change it."" The closeness of the vote indicates the depth of feeling, but I hope they find a Modus Vivendi. I often get a feeling that from marriages to churches to political parties to old friendships we're just too quick to divide, and the center just never seems to hold any longer. It's probably just an old man's regrets and sentimentality, but I wish everyone would work harder on keeping things together- let our new motto become Veni, Vidi, Velcro.
Many are not happy with the vote, and schism is threatened. ""The word of the Lord will endure forever," said Wayne Jacobson, of the Northeast Iowa Synod, "and this vote won't change it."" The closeness of the vote indicates the depth of feeling, but I hope they find a Modus Vivendi. I often get a feeling that from marriages to churches to political parties to old friendships we're just too quick to divide, and the center just never seems to hold any longer. It's probably just an old man's regrets and sentimentality, but I wish everyone would work harder on keeping things together- let our new motto become Veni, Vidi, Velcro.
Issues of sex and gender more complex than commonly supposed
Reading the MailOnline's article Woman, man or a little bit of both? How deciding Caster Semenya's gender is more complex than you might think made me wonder... if the issue of sex is so complex that even an ordinary medical examination is not conclusive, how can it be considered so simple by the "proposition 8' crowd? If one member of a happy marriage were to discover through genetic testing to actually be a member of the other sex, would a Christian declare the marriage void? Should anyone who hasn't already proven their fertility be tested for androgen problems and genetic origin before a marriage license is issued?
You'd think that a God who made clear-cut demands about sex and marriage would have made sex more clear-cut in the first place.
You'd think that a God who made clear-cut demands about sex and marriage would have made sex more clear-cut in the first place.
Monday, August 17, 2009
Lutherans may split
The future of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America will be decided in Minneapolis this week. From the Minneapolis-St.Paul StarTrbune: "Members of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America arrive in Minneapolis today to tackle the most-divisive subject in 21st century religion -- the appointment of gay clergy.
What 1,045 voting members decide by the end of the week could determine the future of the 4.8 million member ELCA, which includes more than 830,000 Minnesotans." Read more here and here .
This is worth paying attention to; given the numbers- potential voters all- the outcome could affect the future of same sex marriage laws as well as their church.
What 1,045 voting members decide by the end of the week could determine the future of the 4.8 million member ELCA, which includes more than 830,000 Minnesotans." Read more here and here .
This is worth paying attention to; given the numbers- potential voters all- the outcome could affect the future of same sex marriage laws as well as their church.
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Why "civil unions" don't cut it
The majority of those who oppose same sex marriage offer civil unions as a substitute, saying that this negates the equality argument. The problem with that solution is that laws are enforced as written. There are literally tens of thousands of situations in civil law and common custom that involve marriage, from those of crucial import down to simple common courtesy, such as this story: Same sex couple, kids denied family rate at pool .
The only way civil unions can be equal is if they are declared legally to be identical to marriage in all circumstances, criminal and civil, and enforced... which would then put us in the untenable position of claiming that a union that is identical to marriage, was called a marriage by the church that married them, and was registered by the same county clerk as a marriage, is not in fact a marriage. Anyone who can do that has a promising career in theology or political science in front of them!
The only way civil unions can be equal is if they are declared legally to be identical to marriage in all circumstances, criminal and civil, and enforced... which would then put us in the untenable position of claiming that a union that is identical to marriage, was called a marriage by the church that married them, and was registered by the same county clerk as a marriage, is not in fact a marriage. Anyone who can do that has a promising career in theology or political science in front of them!
Monday, June 01, 2009
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
The California Supreme Court was right to uphold Prop 8
Seriously- the plaintiffs had no case at all; it wasn't even close. 6-1; that's one vote short of having the decision phrased, "You're lucky we don't fine you for wasting our time."
Look, marriage equality has few proponents more dedicated than I; one of my earliest posts on this blog was Why pro-marriage equality IS a conservative position . But as I noted in my previous post , I also believe in the rule of law and the democratic principle. Elections have consequences; I believe in these things even when they don't go my way. Principles that you uphold only when they favor you are not principles at all.
The only moral and ethical way to deal with this setback is to learn an important lesson from it: the Prop 8 supporters simply worked harder; this is an object lesson in "Nothing worth having comes easy." Don't waste your efforts writing blog posts castigating the Ca. Supreme Court for a terrible decision. Don't poison the waters by trying to take revenge on the supporters; preaching hate in the support of love is an untenable position. Just get out there and work as hard as they did.
Look, marriage equality has few proponents more dedicated than I; one of my earliest posts on this blog was Why pro-marriage equality IS a conservative position . But as I noted in my previous post , I also believe in the rule of law and the democratic principle. Elections have consequences; I believe in these things even when they don't go my way. Principles that you uphold only when they favor you are not principles at all.
The only moral and ethical way to deal with this setback is to learn an important lesson from it: the Prop 8 supporters simply worked harder; this is an object lesson in "Nothing worth having comes easy." Don't waste your efforts writing blog posts castigating the Ca. Supreme Court for a terrible decision. Don't poison the waters by trying to take revenge on the supporters; preaching hate in the support of love is an untenable position. Just get out there and work as hard as they did.
Saturday, February 07, 2009
Thursday, December 18, 2008
The inauguration invocation
We interrupt the regularly scheduled "UUdom is a microcosm of society part 2" post for a more timely story- the selection of Rev. Rick Warren for the Presidential inauguration invocation. LGBT community, welcome to politics 101: you got played.
The 1998 movie, Bulworth is about a politician whose political troubles and broken marriage causes a nervous breakdown. This breakdown causes him to start telling the truth. While speaking before an African American church, he is confronted with his failure to follow through on his promises to them, and is accused of lying. "Of course I lied!", he tells them, "What are you going to do- vote Republican?"
Democratic politicians have the freedom to betray their black constituents if they're in a tight situation, because they know that nothing they can do will make African Americans vote Republican. The same goes for any other locked-in constituency; once they can be relied on, they can be betrayed. And, of course, the same is true of Republicans. Fiscal conservatives have been calling Bush everything but a child of God for more than seven years; the response is the same- "What are you going to do, vote Democrat?"
President elect Obama is a cautious man, with an eye to the future. He knows that once he begins real work, the honeymoon will be over. Starting as soon as the next Congressional elections, he's going to need every vote he can get- which means he needs the religious vote, or at least as much of it as he can get. If that upsets the Gay and socially liberal vote, that's unfortunate, but... what are you going to do, vote Republican? Of course you won't. He knows that, and you know that, and all the faxes the Washington Office can send won't change the political reality. You can't even blame Obama for doing it- it's the political reality he has to work with.
Paradoxically, the more important a single issue is to you, the less likely it is that voting that way will change it. As long as the voting public is dominated by single issue or narrow range voters, this will be true. As long as politicians of all stripes know that the voting public will decide based on ninety second news stories and analysis by late night comedians, this will be true. Only when we forsake litmus tests and false party loyalties will change really happen.
The 1998 movie, Bulworth is about a politician whose political troubles and broken marriage causes a nervous breakdown. This breakdown causes him to start telling the truth. While speaking before an African American church, he is confronted with his failure to follow through on his promises to them, and is accused of lying. "Of course I lied!", he tells them, "What are you going to do- vote Republican?"
Democratic politicians have the freedom to betray their black constituents if they're in a tight situation, because they know that nothing they can do will make African Americans vote Republican. The same goes for any other locked-in constituency; once they can be relied on, they can be betrayed. And, of course, the same is true of Republicans. Fiscal conservatives have been calling Bush everything but a child of God for more than seven years; the response is the same- "What are you going to do, vote Democrat?"
President elect Obama is a cautious man, with an eye to the future. He knows that once he begins real work, the honeymoon will be over. Starting as soon as the next Congressional elections, he's going to need every vote he can get- which means he needs the religious vote, or at least as much of it as he can get. If that upsets the Gay and socially liberal vote, that's unfortunate, but... what are you going to do, vote Republican? Of course you won't. He knows that, and you know that, and all the faxes the Washington Office can send won't change the political reality. You can't even blame Obama for doing it- it's the political reality he has to work with.
Paradoxically, the more important a single issue is to you, the less likely it is that voting that way will change it. As long as the voting public is dominated by single issue or narrow range voters, this will be true. As long as politicians of all stripes know that the voting public will decide based on ninety second news stories and analysis by late night comedians, this will be true. Only when we forsake litmus tests and false party loyalties will change really happen.
Friday, November 14, 2008
Emotions still rising over Prop 8
Now there's a new blacklist . The sooner this goes to SCOTUS, the better.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
I felt a sense of deja vu reading the blog discussions of cultural misappropriation,
and I've finally realized why; I'd heard the same arguments from one of my brothers:
He: It's not their ritual; they have no right to it. It can't possibly have the same meaning for them.
Me: They draw their own meaning from it. And anyway, what skin is it off your nose? It doesn't affect your use of it.
He: But it does! It distorts the whole concept, makes it meaningless!
The only difference is that my brother was referring to gay marriage.
He: It's not their ritual; they have no right to it. It can't possibly have the same meaning for them.
Me: They draw their own meaning from it. And anyway, what skin is it off your nose? It doesn't affect your use of it.
He: But it does! It distorts the whole concept, makes it meaningless!
The only difference is that my brother was referring to gay marriage.
Wednesday, August 06, 2008
Good news on gay marriage
A minor controversy is swirling in Salt Lake City. According to The Salt Lake Tribune , a wedding announcement published by a suburban paper, The Herald-Journal for a lesbian couple has generated "...two letters to the editor (one for and one against), 10 e-mails, several phone calls and four subscription cancellations over publication of the announcement." Additionally, "A Friday letter to the editor denouncing the ad drew about 160 pro and con comments on the paper's Web site by late Monday."
Why is this good news? Because it's a minor controversy. Just a few years ago, in almost any city in North America, the response would have been reminiscent of the scene in Young Frankenstein, right after the line, "A riot is an ugly thing. I think it's about time we had one." This poll the Herald-Journal links to, "You Decide should gays be allowed to marry" run by KQED, is currently at 59% yes, 41% no- in Utah!
Why is this good news? Because it's a minor controversy. Just a few years ago, in almost any city in North America, the response would have been reminiscent of the scene in Young Frankenstein, right after the line, "A riot is an ugly thing. I think it's about time we had one." This poll the Herald-Journal links to, "You Decide should gays be allowed to marry" run by KQED, is currently at 59% yes, 41% no- in Utah!
Friday, June 27, 2008
This is why
"Civil Union" or "Domestic Partnership" is not an adequate substitute for marriage. A woman who was prevented from seeing her dying spouse- despite having a power of attorney in hand- is suing the Hospital involved. The hospital has not made a statement, but I doubt they can claim any medical reason for keeping her out- brain aneurisms are rarely communicable. details here
P.S. See Why pro-marriage equality is a conservative position
P.S. See Why pro-marriage equality is a conservative position
Thursday, July 19, 2007
Why get married?
Hadfidha Sofia has a fine entry on her blog entitled “Getting married phase 2: Why am I doing this? , in which she explores her feelings about the impending wedding. It occurred to me while reading it that there’s a principle involved that applies to another marriage issue we’ve been debating in the UU blogosphere.
One of the reasons for getting married that’s seldom mentioned is that there is a profound psychological difference between making a promise and taking a vow or swearing an oath. An oath or vow plays into your deepest ego, your image of who and what you are... nearly all people- even hardened criminals- hold themselves to certain standards, things they simply will not do because that’s not who they are, they’re not that kind of person- and we know down deep that “oath breaker” is one of the oldest and vilest pejoratives. A public wedding evokes that kind of imagery in most people, even if only subconsciously. This psychological effect is what makes marriage, as challenged as it is, the most stable of relationships. Even absent children, married people are statistically less likely to go to prison, die in traffic accidents, get fired, etc., and more likely to save, invest, and have insurance. This is true for both sexes, all ages and demographic groups, and as near as I can find out, all cultures.
This is an important reason why gays and polyamorists should have the right to solemnize their relationships in formal public weddings. Given our society, they will have more stresses on their relationships than “normal“- shouldn’t they have every help they can get in holding their relationship together? Isn’t it better for all of society that they have “normal” marriages, allowing them- and us!- to reap the benefits there from?
One of the reasons for getting married that’s seldom mentioned is that there is a profound psychological difference between making a promise and taking a vow or swearing an oath. An oath or vow plays into your deepest ego, your image of who and what you are... nearly all people- even hardened criminals- hold themselves to certain standards, things they simply will not do because that’s not who they are, they’re not that kind of person- and we know down deep that “oath breaker” is one of the oldest and vilest pejoratives. A public wedding evokes that kind of imagery in most people, even if only subconsciously. This psychological effect is what makes marriage, as challenged as it is, the most stable of relationships. Even absent children, married people are statistically less likely to go to prison, die in traffic accidents, get fired, etc., and more likely to save, invest, and have insurance. This is true for both sexes, all ages and demographic groups, and as near as I can find out, all cultures.
This is an important reason why gays and polyamorists should have the right to solemnize their relationships in formal public weddings. Given our society, they will have more stresses on their relationships than “normal“- shouldn’t they have every help they can get in holding their relationship together? Isn’t it better for all of society that they have “normal” marriages, allowing them- and us!- to reap the benefits there from?
Tuesday, June 06, 2006
Why pro-marriage equality IS a conservative position
One way to separate the Goldwater/Reagan conservatives from the Christian right is the issue of gay marriage; a conservative would be in favor, a religious right type against. I can list 3 reasons an old-line conservative would support gay marriage:
1. Individual liberty. The quintessential conservative position is that all rights reside in the individual, and the state must come to the individual hat in hand begging to be granted some power. This is why it sets the teeth of a conservative on edge to hear someone speaking about government giving us the right to do this or that- a citizen’s rights are inherent, and limited only by covenant with fellow citizens. It is clear in every document of our founding fathers that a citizen’s rights may only be curtailed by the most immediate and pressing of social needs- and the burden of proof is on those wishing to curtail those rights, not on the citizen wishing to retain them. The proposed federal marriage amendment is an especially grievous violation of these inherent rights, as previous federal law already gives the states the right to refuse recognition of a marriage conducted in another state if it violates their own laws.
P.S. That law is, in my opinion, a violation of the “full faith and credence” clause in the Constitution. Suppose your state does not have “common law” marriage- would you then revoke marriage rights from couples now residing in your state because they haven’t a piece of paper from their state of origin?
2. Economics. A couple- of whatever sort- save a lot more money than do two singles; one of this country’s greatest economic weaknesses is the low rate of savings. Couples tend to have less personal debt than two singles, and high credit card debt is another of our problems. Couples are more likely to buy, as opposed to renting, than two singles (not counting property purchased as investment), and are more likely to spend money improving the property.
3. Social factors. Having a second person around the house to nurse you when you’re sick, help cover when someone must be home for repairs or installations, and listen to your rap when you’ve had it up to there will make you miss fewer days at work and be more productive while you’re there. It reduces medical costs if insurance needn’t pay for home visits, not to mention postponing (possibly eliminating) the day when you must enter a nursing home- I have seen couples where both had mild Alzheimer’s, but between them they made one functioning adult.
This is not to say that the debate is one sided- balanced against the conservative principals of individual liberty, economic gain, and greater social stability is the irrefutable fact that it makes millions of people feel icky. But for a Goldwater conservative, the issue of individual liberty alone would be enough to say “So go get married already, it’s no skin off my nose!”
1. Individual liberty. The quintessential conservative position is that all rights reside in the individual, and the state must come to the individual hat in hand begging to be granted some power. This is why it sets the teeth of a conservative on edge to hear someone speaking about government giving us the right to do this or that- a citizen’s rights are inherent, and limited only by covenant with fellow citizens. It is clear in every document of our founding fathers that a citizen’s rights may only be curtailed by the most immediate and pressing of social needs- and the burden of proof is on those wishing to curtail those rights, not on the citizen wishing to retain them. The proposed federal marriage amendment is an especially grievous violation of these inherent rights, as previous federal law already gives the states the right to refuse recognition of a marriage conducted in another state if it violates their own laws.
P.S. That law is, in my opinion, a violation of the “full faith and credence” clause in the Constitution. Suppose your state does not have “common law” marriage- would you then revoke marriage rights from couples now residing in your state because they haven’t a piece of paper from their state of origin?
2. Economics. A couple- of whatever sort- save a lot more money than do two singles; one of this country’s greatest economic weaknesses is the low rate of savings. Couples tend to have less personal debt than two singles, and high credit card debt is another of our problems. Couples are more likely to buy, as opposed to renting, than two singles (not counting property purchased as investment), and are more likely to spend money improving the property.
3. Social factors. Having a second person around the house to nurse you when you’re sick, help cover when someone must be home for repairs or installations, and listen to your rap when you’ve had it up to there will make you miss fewer days at work and be more productive while you’re there. It reduces medical costs if insurance needn’t pay for home visits, not to mention postponing (possibly eliminating) the day when you must enter a nursing home- I have seen couples where both had mild Alzheimer’s, but between them they made one functioning adult.
This is not to say that the debate is one sided- balanced against the conservative principals of individual liberty, economic gain, and greater social stability is the irrefutable fact that it makes millions of people feel icky. But for a Goldwater conservative, the issue of individual liberty alone would be enough to say “So go get married already, it’s no skin off my nose!”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)