The measure states that only marriages between "one man and one woman" are constitu- tional and prevents state and local governments from recognizing "a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance or effect of marriage."

This is the thing that kills me the most about these anti-gay marriage ammendments. I suppose that voters didn't have much of a choice in the wording: voters who opposed gay marriage but supported civil unions were forced to choose between banning both or legalizing both, it seems. But still, those who did theoretically support civil unions were not secure enough in their own marriages or sexuality to vote against an amendment that denies basic rights to gay couples.

If that isn't homophobia, I don't know what is. What in the world is so frightening about two people who want a committed relationship that "approximates" marriage in legal status?

We live in a very scary country.

I don't understand. Didn't George Bush, among other conservative leaders, say that he wanted to prevent courts from defining marriage by amending the constitution to say that marriage is between a man and a woman? So, wouldn't that be considered defining marriage?

Thanks Matt, for taking the time to write this blog, about something which you admit from the beginning, doesn't directly affect you. It is always a good feeling to have people speak out on your behalf. And as always, bhw, you too.

Just today on another thread here, I had a civil rights lawyer tell me he/she was too busy defending the civil rights of those 'who really need it'. At least I can count on another everyday citizen on my side. Thanks again.

Steve,

I thought I might ruffle some feathers with this post.

It's good to see that so far, the opposite is true.

I think that this stuff is important, and too important to sit back and ignore. Stuff like this affects all of us, directly or indirectly.

I recently read a letter to the editor in one of the alternative weeklies here in Cleveland, from a former co-worker that recently moved out of town, due to the lack of acceptance he felt in this city.

I am not from Cleveland originally, but have been here almost 20 years, and one of the things that you learn when you move here, is that most of the people that are here, are from Cleveland, and have lived here all of their lives, and many of them have all of their relatives living here too. The fact that one such Cleveland felt "out in the cold" to the point that he needed to move away, really sucks, in my book.

Thanks for reading!

Matt

oops - that should read "Clevelander" in my last sentence, but I think you get the point...

"We live in a very scary country."

Delta offers one-way International flights...

wow, that 'ole "america, love it or leave it" suit never seems to fall out of fashion, no matter how moth-eaten or smelly it gets.

And repetitive. It's RJ's favorite thing to say when liberals [and only liberals, mind you] point out our country's flaws. Conservatives are free to rant and rave about the moral depravity of our country or some other problem they think they see, but they don't try to show each other the door. And liberals don't tell them to leave, either, because we don't think that the U.S. is just *our* country, like conservatives do.

At least I can count on another everyday citizen on my side. Thanks again.

Apparently, we're in the minority, those of us who fully support equal rights for all Americans. But we'll just have to keep chipping away at the legalized bigotry, one day at a time, Steve.

I should have said legalized discrimination, rather than bigotry, to be more precise.

Here comes the small world stuff.

What surprises me on this item is the position lawyer David Langdon has taken. The reason is that he represented the LPIN on First Amendment issues in 2003 & 2004, with me as plaintiff on onw case. I would *not* have expected him to be on the side of having drafted the Amendment that was put in front of the voters.

My wife's mother was one who put volunteer effort behind the Cleveland Heights registry.

I shouldn't be surprised at a lawyer being a hired gun taking whichever side is paying him, but this is issue advocacy, so I expect something much higher than that. I am disappointed to see this.

What is scary to me in all of this is the dynamic of democracy at work. I think it is clearly the will of the people that gay relationships should not be recognized. Well, that's a democracy. This country is a constitutional republic, however, and rights are supposed to be unalienable. I *never* want to see democracy trump republicanism (all lower case!) for this reason- any minority can be voted into oppression by the majority.

Btw, I've gotten my share of "here's the door" stuff from liberals in response to my positions on taxation and welfare. It's definitely a two-way street.

Matt, very good job and I agree entirely - this is an area that will take more time for some people to realize the intellectual unavoidability of "equal rights means equal rights," and of course those whose religious dogmatism extends to the political realm might never see the light. the overall change is inevitable, however: the attitudes of young people are much more favorable toward gay rights than older generations.

What is scary to me in all of this is the dynamic of democracy at work. I think it is clearly the will of the people that gay relationships should not be recognized. Well, that's a democracy. This country is a constitutional republic, however, and rights are supposed to be unalienable. I *never* want to see democracy trump republicanism (all lower case!) for this reason- any minority can be voted into oppression by the majority.

Very well put, Mike. But when judges do their jobs and apply the state or federal constitution to a case, they're called "unelected activist judges," as if having elected judges [which we do have in some places, but not all] would be a better solution because they could/would simply declare all laws made by the majority constitutional, simply because majority voted for those laws or polls show the majority to be in favor of those laws, whether or not they're actually constitutional and/or tread on someone's inalienable rights. These judges would be elected not to think, to be as objective as possible, or to represent the rights of all the people of the state/country, but to defend the majority's preferences with a rubber stamp.

The defense for these anti-gay marriage amendments tends to be that gays just have to accept that the majority of people don't want them to have the right to get married, whether or not that right is the majority's to give or deny. We, as a country, seem to believe the majority deems who has which rights and who doesn't. The whole idea of inalienable rights gets called up only when the majority thinks one of theirs is being threatened.

bhw - you say liberals don't tell anyone to leave or show them the door. Maybe you're right, but I have been hearing a lot of talk about succession from "jesusland" as liberals like to call it! WTF is that?

Reactionary nonsense. When you sense that the religious Right is taking over Congress, the White House, the circuit courts, and next the Supreme Court, it makes a liberal all itchy for a land of her own where one group's religion is not imposed on the entire populace. [See my score on the morality quiz for my desire for no interference on moral issues.] It also makes people in the blue states, who basically subsidize the reds, feel like they want to keep their tax money away from people who would run the country on a morality crusade.

None of this means any serious talk of secession is happening. It's just a little of the "I'm taking my toys out of the sandbox," reaction.

And come on, the Jesusland thing is funny.

RJ, however, brings up "don't let the door hit you on the way out" waaaaay to often for it to be anything but serious.

pluralism is the very essence of this country - the effort required to accomodate our enormous heterogeneity is at the core of our greatness

Eric, I swear, sometimes you remind me of Ralph Waldo Emerson in your ability to turn a phrase.

wow, thanks

Even if he can't spell :)

It seems as if anti-gay crosses political lines, just as gay support does. But that still means a lot more people hate gays then love em.

We really don't hear much about AIDS anymore, do we? It barely even caused a blip on National/World AIDS Day, two days ago.

Google had a Red Ribbon though. Wooo-hooo.

If people have a problem with the term gay marriage, then call a gay union, and move onto things more substantial then how someone chooses to lead their life.... enough already!

Music gifts, as the blog pointed out, most Ohioans have a problem with gay unions too.

"wow, that 'ole "america, love it or leave it" suit never seems to fall out of fashion, no matter how moth-eaten or smelly it gets."

If someone thinks the place they currently reside is "very scary" wouldn't a rational person just move away?

"And repetitive. It's RJ's favorite thing to say when liberals [and only liberals, mind you] point out our country's flaws."

Pointing out a flaw is fine. I do it all the time. So does every American.

But offering a lame blanket-condemnation of your own country? That's just plain weak.

If things are so "scary" here, go somewhere less scary.

You can't tell me to leave, RJ, although I'm sure that would fit your xenophobic vision for the country just fine.

Rational people stay and change it.

"You can't tell me to leave, RJ"

Three things:

1 - I never told you to leave. I simply offered the option.

2 - I CAN tell you to leave if I wanted to. Free speech and all. And then you are free to ignore me. Freedom rocks, don't it?

3 - If you think this country is so "scary," why do you wanna still live here in the first place?

"If someone thinks the place they currently reside is "very scary" wouldn't a rational person just move away?" NO, you can stay and use the democratic process and rights US citizens have to make it less scary.

I don't like seeing people slag our country either, RJ, but there is a big difference between a person hating the US for the nebulous sins of its past which can't be changed or amemded, and disagreeing with a specific law, which can be.

IT seems to me the sticking point is the word "marriage", of course the emotions behind that word being applied to gays is much deeper than that. Still, it seems to me a crafty and aggressive group could get a bill introduced and passed granting legal recognition to civil unions wihtout using the word "marriage" at all.

Leaving one's country or staying to fix it can both be a rational choice. It's a question of how intolerable a situation is to each observer along with whether or not a better option exists, along with how the climate at home seems to be for the fixing.

Millions of people who didn't like it elsewhere have come to the US as immigrants. Plus, there is constant migration within the country for better options.

I am a libertarian who chooses to stay in Indiana and fix by getting involved in the political process. I'm damn glad I left Cleveland a few years ago, because while the climate there was not exactly intolerable, it was very unfavorable towards the kind of fixes I wanted to see. I had no faith that they would be achieved in my lifetime.

It may be that migration towards places with more favorable laws will only make red states more red and blue states more blue, but I have to think that a better situation for enjoying the local political climate.

I never told you to leave. I simply offered the option.

was preceded by:

If things are so "scary" here, go somewhere less scary.

Hmmm....

Also, my point wasn't that you don't have the right to say what you want to say, but that you don't have the right to literally make that happen. Perhaps my wording could have been better.

Of course, you can continue your "love it or leave it" b.s. every time a liberal comments on something negative about the country. It speaks more about what YOU think about the country more than it does what I think.

I made a specific point about the country being scary in the degree of its homophobia. That's neither weak nor a blanket condemnation -- it's specific.

And it IS scary, since it illustrates just how far the majority is willing to go to "protect" some nebulous concept [that more than 50% of the people who partake in that concept's real form can't seem to "sanctify" themselves by living up to their "to death to us part" promise before GOD] and to keep others from having the same benefits society gives them.

When a majority votes to discriminate against a minority, it is SCARY to me. It should be scary to all of us.

You've better defined your point.

You find it scary that a vast majority of people disagree with you on the particular issue of "gay marriage." That's fine.

I find it "scary" that most people seem content with laws against marijuana and prostitution.

Of course, I wouldn't go so far as to suggest the entire country is "very scary" because of the majority's opinions on these two issues...

I think people are so against gays because they think that they wanna sleep with them. I'm not homophobic, but if some dude comes up to me saying comments like: "Nice ass", or "Do you mess around?", I'm going to punch his fucking face inside-out. I'm sorry, but that's how I feel.

I am extremely insecure when it comes to things like that, but if you're gay, you can be gay--just don't try that funny stuff around me.

Scoota, do you walk up to women and say 'nice ass' to their face? Why do you think another man (in your example, a gay one) would say the same to you?

Have you ever been standing in Wal-Mart and had a man walk up to you and ask if you mess around? When you are at a PTA meeting, do you turn to the woman next to you and ask her if she wants to screw?

Where do people come up with these irrational fears?

I am extremely insecure when it comes to things like that

Why? Why would you feel threatened? Why does it threaten your own sexuality?

It's unfortunate that should a compliment ever come your way, you'd feel a need to resort to violence. Thump your chest, scratch your ass, say "No thanks" and let out a burp if it makes you feel more like a man.

Steve, I actually had a dude come up to me and try to hit on me. It was devastating. I didn't punch him in the face but I was strongly compelled to.

It (other guys trying to hit on me) doesn't threaten my sexually, but it's kinda disgusting knowing that there's dudes out there who wanna sleep with me.

Dudes. Not women. But dudes.

Steve, I actually had a dude come up to me and try to hit on me. It was devastating. I didn't punch him in the face but I was strongly compelled to.

I'm very glad you didn't resort to violence. There are many gay people out there, who pass for straight, actually more than the easily identifiable stereotype. This can make it difficult for a gay person to connect with another, although most will refrain from passes unless they are certain, or in an environment that is known for being tolerant (i.e. a gay coffeehouse, bar or at a parade).

it's kinda disgusting knowing that there's dudes out there who wanna sleep with me.

No offense, but there probably aren't that many. But if it makes you feel better, there are guys out there that would like to poke holes in watermelons too. So don't take it too personally, if it comes from a complete stranger, it is someone who doesn't know you personally anyway, and hopefully you can just dismiss it as an unwanted compliment.

Dudes. Not women. But dudes

Yes, I understand the term.