The jig is up. We can now officially put to bed the lie that advocates of gay marriage only want equal rights. According to a Reuters story out of Connecticut, eight gay and lesbian couples are asking that state’s Supreme Court to mandate the legalization of gay marriage. You should know that Connecticut is a state that already grants the “rights and benefits” of marriage to homosexuals under a civil unions law.
The couples claim they are seeking the right to marry because “a ban on gay marriage violates their constitutional rights”. They claim not being able to marry is a violation of their equal protection rights under the Constitution. Oh? What rights as individuals are they being deprived of? Surely not privacy. The Supreme Court covered their rights to conduct their special behavior under the un-enumerated right to privacy several years ago in its Lawrence vs. Texas decision.
What this is really about is their “right” to force everyone else, via the state, by way of the judiciary, to approve of – and officially sanction – their behavior and grant them rights and benefits on the basis of that behavior alone. It would seem that, if they have the right to everyone else’s approval, then everyone else no longer retains the rights to their own opinions. Of course, that irony isn’t lost on them, just ignored.
They’re proving that they don’t just want their rights to privacy, and they’re not satisfied with being granted equal rights based on their behavior. They want it all baby! They’re opposed to marriage licenses with checkboxes marked “husband” and “wife”. They’re against the state issuing birth certificates that identify “mother” and “father”. Essentially, they want the eradication of sex as a distinction.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Jet in Columbus
How on earth do you justify calling marraige a "special" right. That's an equal right. It's not like they're asking for anything additional to what's normally granted to married couples. Civil unions don't grant Next of Kin rights that marriage does.
You're going to get sand in your ears with your head like that.
2 - Dave Nalle
Civil Union laws are not all the same - that's part of the problem - some of them do grant next of kin rights. This is something the courts are going to have to deal with, but it seems to me that without ALL the rights then civil union laws are indeed not 'equal protection', and I suspect that the courts will mandate that next of kin rights go with them whether written into them or not.
Dave
3 - Steven M.
What's special about wanting the same (read equal) rights as provided by marriage? When the civil union can fill out a joint federal tax form and check off all the same boxes as a married couple, you can talk... Or when they can go to another state and enjoy all the priviledges allowed to a married couple, you can talk... Until then, don't blather on about 'special' rights.
4 - Steven M.
What's special about wanting the same (read equal) rights as provided by marriage? When the civil union can fill out a joint federal tax form and check off all the same boxes as a married couple, you can talk... Or when they can go to another state and enjoy all the priviledges allowed to a married couple, you can talk... Until then, don't blather on about 'special' rights.
5 - D'oh
Another PR consultant trying to gin up some fire for the base to take attention away from current disasters.
What Dave said in number 2 hits most of the high points.
the original poster closes with , "Methinks we may have replaced Sandra Day O'Connor just in time."
Thank you for stating part of your agenda so clearly.
6 - Jet in Columbus
D'oh by calling them "Special rights" they think they can anger those less ignorant than us in to thinking we want something more than what they have.
It's a catch phrase to miguide people, just like this article.
All I had to read was "their behavior" to ascertain that.
7 - D'oh
I know, Jet. Hence my statements.
PR people frame their contentions,slanting them as they feel like it , regardless of accuracy. Their entire profession is based upon lying to convince people of what they want for profit.
Hence my contention that they and marketers have a special place in Hell with other liars and betrayers.
At least, according to Dante.
8 - Kam
This article is right on with its analysis, regardless of its point of view. Whether you think that society should welcome same sex couples on an equal basis with opposite sex couples or not, the analysis is right. It is disingenuous for the same-sex crowd to pretend that same-sex marriage is not about forced acceptance of their lifestyle across society. Nor is same-sex marriage equal to the civil rights era, when people of color generally had rights in most of the states but not in some few former-slave states.
Same-sex marriage should be addressed by the society in general, through the representative democratic process, rather than by the choice of 4 or 5 judges. It seems to me that much of society is now comfortable with tolerance, but not acceptance. Ramming a wholesale revolution in marriage down the throats of the people will not generate that acceptance.
9 - Jason
Yes, yes, by all means, let's let the Mob rule, because we know that the Majority is always correct when it comes to civil rights. That is why we do have a court that can (or should) look at things impartially, without the bias or religion or preconceptions.
10 - Bliffle
The gays just want to get in on the same Special Rights scam that the straights have used for a long time.
11 - Jet in Columbus
Oh Kam, you poor thing, I shall say a prayer for your misguided soul and light a candle. Don't you know that God created us all and loves us all in Christian fellowship.
It is the Devil Satin who has invaded your soul and taught you to hate and prejudge others. for Jesus said, "Judge not, lest you be judge yourself" and also we are taught let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Are you without sin Kam, just as Drew is?
As the Lion was created by our almighty God to co-exist with all creatures, until the devil taught it to kill, you were created to love your fellow mankind, until the devil taught you to hate.
For the love of our Saviour Jesus Christ you must exocise the demons of self-righteousness, for it is a sin and you will be judged at the gates of heaven for it.
In other words stop beating your bible and start reading it dumbass!
12 - Kam
The American public is not the Mob, if you think so, you don't know us well. Back in 1964, if there were a vote on whether or not the race discrimination that existed in several of the states should be ended, I am confident (having lived through the era) that the people would have voted to end race discrimination. And it is not enought that 'the courts' look at marriage laws impartially, many have done so. Pretty much, except for one or two judges' votes one way or another, the states of Massachusetts and New Jersey would not have been mandated to create new laws. So, the bias, or opinion, or logic, or emotion, of only two people, one NJ judge and one MA judge have turned marriage on its' head. Is that preferable to having the body politic address it?
What will happen when 2 judges of an opposite view force laws upon the rest of us in some other situation, say euthanasia or privacy or parental rights, or even representative democracy?
13 - D'oh
Kam, you do know we are a Republic and not a democracy, do you not?
You are aware that the reason the founders set it up that way was so that mob rule (their words) would not abridge nor over rule the rights of a minority?
You might want to actually read the Constitution, and maybe a bit of history.
14 - Kam
Jet, I am not a Christian. Too, I favor same-sex marriage.
However, I think that you cannot force democracy down the throat of Iraqis with a gun, and I think you cannot force acceptance of gay marriage down the throat of the public with a judge's gavel. I am not alone in my views against using force as the method to attain my desires. Winning over another person to my viewpoint is more effective than attacking that person, or slandering him, or hauling him off to court. The power of persuasion and changing the hearts and minds of people is the best way to accomplish change.
15 - Jet in Columbus
Kam, you must allow the love of Jesus into your heart and be born-again in his wisdom and acceptance.
There is no other way
Bless you
16 - handyguy
Having criticized Richard Rothstein on the other side of this issue because I thought his article was shrill and self-defeating, I have to say this one is far, far worse. It's a despicable distortion, a really ugly piece of doublespeak.
If Mr. McKissick were covering the subject fully and honestly, he'd have to note that a majority of Americans are now unopposed to civil unions for same-sex couples. The poorly conceived and reactionary ballot initiatives in those 28 states rarely or never asked voters about civil unions. Thus the American people have not "spoken loudly" through the ballot initiatives - they haven't been asked the full question. The writers of the initiatives are always extremists who agree with Mr. McKissick, and have no interest whatsoever in fairness.
McKissick begins by citing a case of gay couples unhappy with the 'second-class' status of civil unions as opposed to marriage. This distinction will have to be decided in court; it's possible that pushing it too hard in states like Connecticut and New Jersey may cause more reactionary ballot initiatives elsewhere. Some of us believe the Vermont/CT/NJ model has the best chance of being widely accepted across the country, and should be treated favorably rather than with protest and legal action. But this is an issue to be honestly discussed among those who disagree - it doesn't prove anything about gay people wanting something other than equal rights, as the nasty and meaning-twisting first sentences of the article imply.
But then McKissick later in his article lumps civil unions and marriages together, finding them equally threatening. He doesn't bother to point out his own inconsistency, of course - but he manages to make clear how repugnant the idea of sharing the world with us homos is to him.
People who want to declare their unions are taking a positive step, favorable to society. And committed couples who want to claim the legal and financial privileges accorded to married men and women are seeking fairness, not disruption. Claiming that they are destroying institutions in the process is bigoted rhetoric, not honest analysis.
17 - Kam
I actually have read the Constitution, and do know a bit of history as well. The framers of the Constitution certainly tried to address the tyranny of the majority; however, it should not be replaced with the tyranny of the minority. The checks and balances of our 3 branch system is intended to move the country forward without one branch ruling over the others. Yet here, it seems that the lawmaking branch, the legislature, has been replaced by the judiciary in the writing of laws. For over 200 years in America, and many more before, marriage was conceived as between a man and a woman. So, where is the republic aspect of having 2 people decide to change what has been accepted by the vast majority?
Countries around the world, and States here, are addressing the issue again as it relates to gay people. It is a process. But the process, in my view, needs to be recognized as a change that society wants to undertake, rather than as the whim of a couple of judges. After all, two other judges could just go the other way next month, right?
18 - D'oh
Kam, I will lay it out for you, since you do appear to be quite sincere.
The decisions you are bemoaning were made by the Supreme Courts of those states, whose job it is to rule on the state constitutionality of things brought before them. These are NOT individual judges, but a full "supreme court" as outlined in those state constitutions.
In each of the cases, they ruled that denying these rights to individuals due to sexual preferences was unconstitutional.
This was done legally and in accordance to the constitutions of the states in question.
No "activist" bullshit, just straight up decisions rendered by state supreme courts as per their state constituional duties outlined in said documents.
That's their jobs.
Not "two judges", but Supreme Courts of the states.
Your statements about 200 year traditions of marriage are just as wrong as the arguments used about slavery and women's rights to vote, among others.
Our Constitution is NOT about "tradition" or the sanctity of words, it's about the rights of each and every individual under the law.
19 - Kam
Decisions split 5-4 are one judge decisions, and two of them make two one judge decisions. Chief Justice Warren in Brown v. Bd. of Ed. strongly felt that a unanimous decision in a case of this sort was extremely important since he knew he was changing the direction of a substantial part of the country. He worked very hard to make it a unanimous decision.
I certainly know that Supreme courts of NJ and MA legitimately reached their decsions, but the Supreme Courts of other states reached opposite decisions, so, in my view, this still remains two one-judge decisions.
Had NJ and MA come up with unanimous decisions, things would be different.
The Great State of Virginia is now at odds with The Great State of Vermont. Also, the Great State of Rhode Island is now at odds with the Great State of Massachusetts. Both problems are the dissolution of relationships legal in one state but not the other.
Again, in my opinion, I agree with the Chief Justice that unanimous decisions in cases of this sort carry weight. There is no question that the country is divided. In just about the 4 most liberal states: NY, NJ, MA and CA, there were 2 in favor of gay marriage and 2 not in favor.
Which brings me way back to the valid point made in the article (note, professionally, I often need to deal with the family laws of marriage, divorce and inheritance among the several states). Forcing State Two to amend its soverign relationship laws to accomodate State One's changes poses a myriad of problems, and these just can't be resolved with court decisions flying all over the place.
At the moment, I do not want to see this question get to the Bush Supreme Court, do you?
20 - D'oh
No problems in those states being REQUIRED to accept the rulings of other courts. This is also covered under the Constitution under the "equal protection" clause.
As for it reaching the current SCOTUS, it should ,and it probably will soon. Then we will have the decisions in writing and can more accurately determine the suitability of the Justices.
I might wish for unanimous decisions, but they are the exception rather than the rule. I am also aware that big changes take time. We still have much progress to make in the realm of racism and sexism, but those laws are on the books and recognized.
This is just another step in the growth and maturity of our Republic.
21 - Jason
Kam, I guess it comes down to these questions:
1.) Is Marriage about joining someone you love or joining a man and a woman?
2.) Is Marriage a civil right as put forth in Loving v Virginia?
3.) We have determined that gender is a classification, and it is illegal to discriminate based on gender. Now you want to limit people from choosing life partners based on gender. How is that not a violation of the above statute?
Anyway, there are more, but I would rather see those three answered before we delve into the more convoluted equality discussions.
22 - Kam
Are you so sure they are REQUIRED? A careful reading of the Constitution's Article IV and the 14th Amendments "equal protection" clause says:
"Article IV
Section 1. Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof."
"Amendment XIV Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
So, it is quite possible that Article 4 gives to Congress the right to decide how one state must relate to the acts, records and procedings of other states. Also, the 14th Amendment says that STATES can't make laws, yadda yadda yadda, equal protection.
The Constitution therefore can be read to say that Congress can do what States cannot, and that Congress can make laws that prescribe how one state interacts with another state's laws.
Congress went one step further, and passed a law called the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) of 1996 which attempts to specifically forbid gay marriage from being recognized in Federal questions, and allows states to recognize or not recognize gay marriage.
DOMA has not yet been tested, but again, do you want Bush's Supreme Court ruling on this? Or perhaps there is a better way to change society's views.
23 - Kam
Jason, my opinion on your questions:
1. Impossible to answer. People go around joining or not joining, marrying or not marrying with and without love.
2. Whether or not it is a civil right, will depend on whether the involved judges say it is. In my view, it is not listed among any of the lists of rights in the constitution or elsewhere, so maybe no.
3. Your logic is faulty. Gender is a classification, but so is occupation a classification. Laws are written regarding specific classifications. So, it is illegal to discriminate in housing based on race, but not on occuaption. A landlord can legally refuse to rent to an attorney because he is an attorney, but not to a black person because he is black.
Oddly enough, here in the Federal Government, we cant discriminate in hiring based upon sexual orientation. But you can in private industry because SO is not a protected classification, and our protection here is based on an executive order.
As far as the rest, in my view, people can live and love with whomever they choose as long as the opposite partner is of an age of consent. I care not about the gender or race of any two people who can make each other happy.
However, marriage is a legal establishment, and the power of the state is often called in to resolve matters. Marriage burdens individuals, businesses, and the state with requirements. The state must often get involved in resolving issues between married people.
I have 2 questions.
1. Can anyone marry just anyone (or many), and therefore decide to bring the power of the state upon the rest of the citizens? Or is it the state who decides which relationships it choses to support and enforce?
2. Can I marry my son (I don't have a son) and force my employer (Uncle Sam) to pay surviving spouse benefits from my pension for the rest of my son's life? Can I just put anyone I want on my health insurance? Can I go around inheritance taxes and IRA laws and property rights just by marrying my son?
Who decides what is a marriage that the state will enforce, each person, or the state?
24 - handyguy
July 2003 Gallup poll:
57% oppose legalizing same-sex civil unions
40% favor civil unions
March 2004 Gallup poll:
the figures are reversed -
42% opposed
54% in favor
but
59% oppose same-sex marriage
Nov. 2006 Quinnipiac poll:
"If you had to choose in your state, which would you prefer: allowing same-sex couples to form civil unions or allowing same-sex couples to get married?"
Civil unions: 44%
Marriage: 24%
Neither: 27%
There's much more of this data, from 2004 to the present, and from many different sources on this page. Fascinating, and it helps avoid throwing around nonsense instead of facts.
Note: the Gallup numbers came from MSNBC.
25 - Baronius
Kam, congratulations! You found the one raw nerve on Blogcritics. You could support gun rights for infants and write love poems to Castro, and someone on the site would agree. But when it comes to gay activism there is no diversity of opinion around here. You either stand with the Blogcritics, or you're shunned to the wastelands along with 70% of the US population and 99% of human history. See ya there!