Tuesday, March 02, 2010

Marriage Licenses in DC Tomorrow -- Supreme Court Will Not Intervene

Late breaking news story.
Chief Justice John Roberts has just released an opinion refusing to block D.C.'s same-sex marriage law from taking effect tomorrow. Opponents of the law had asked the Supreme Court to step in and issue a temporary delay so they could hold a city-wide referendum on the issue before the law took effect.

Lower courts had ruled against them, and Roberts said he saw no reason for the Supreme Court to step into such a local matter involving the referendum process.

As a result, gay couples can start applying for marriage licenses in D.C. tomorrow. Opponents still can pursue a ballot initiative to overturn the same-sex marriage law.

Roberts' decision can be read here. Supreme Court Refuses to Block D.C. Gay Marriage

43 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

question: will screening for HIV be required before issuing a license?

March 02, 2010 11:26 PM  
Anonymous Robert said...

Bitter, honey?

March 03, 2010 4:07 AM  
Anonymous addressing the slow-witted said...

'bout what, molasses mind?

March 03, 2010 6:57 AM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

A higher percentage of women get HIV from high-risk heterosexual contact (unprotected sex with a partner you do not know the HIV status of) than the percentage of men who get it through male-to-male sexual contact. If you don't want people with HIV getting married, we should already be screening heterosexuals who want to marry. Do you want to screen for other illnesses and deny people with them a marriage license too - cancer, diabetes, sickle cell anemia? Just where would you draw the line on this pre-marriage disease screening idea of yours?

March 03, 2010 8:46 AM  
Anonymous really, inane-B? said...

"Rates of HIV among adults in Washington, D.C., for example, now exceed 1 in 30 -- higher than reported rates in Ethiopia, Nigeria or Rwanda.

In urban areas across the country, 30 percent of men engaging in "sex with other men" are contracting HIV -- compared with overall population rates of 7.8 percent in Kenya and 16.9 percent in South Africa."

before any "marriage" license is issued to a homosexual in a place like D.C., where there is a historic epidemic of a sexually transmitted disease that disproportionately affect homosexuals, there should be testing to protect the innocent partner from entering into routine marital activities that will result in a loss of life

just common sense

"Do you want to screen for other illnesses and deny people with them a marriage license too - cancer, diabetes, sickle cell anemia?"

those three wouldn't be spread by routine marital activity

when the judge says "you may kiss the, uh, bride", it shouldn't be the kiss of death

March 03, 2010 9:15 AM  
Anonymous ha-ha said...

that oughta shut her up

March 03, 2010 9:26 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh, please "ha-ha"...is it possible for you to be more infantile in your comments?

But then again, we expect that from you. Hatefulness is not a becoming personality trait!

March 03, 2010 9:44 AM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

Note to ha ha Anone:

Chicken-*spit* bullies will never shut me up. In fact the more you try, the more truth I will report.

Wow RIB Anone, do you realize what you just said?

before any "marriage" license is issued to a homosexual in a place like D.C., where there is a historic epidemic of a sexually transmitted disease that disproportionately affect homosexuals, there should be testing to protect the innocent partner...

You said there is an "innocent partner" in a gay marriage! Holy cow, Anone! Which gay partner are you talking about?

But tell us Anone, why don't you want to protect the "innocent partner" in a heterosexual marriage too in this same locality of Washington DC?

The fact is that in 2007 in all 50 states plus the District of Columbia, 66% of women who were HIV positive got that way by having unprotected sex (no condom used) with a partner whose HIV status is unknown to them but only 62% of men who were HIV positive got that way by having male-to-male sexual contact. Unprotected sex with a partner of unknown HIV status causes a higher percentage of women than men to become HIV positive.

So tell us Anone, why do you only want to protect the "innocent *homosexual* spouse" by telling them the HIV status of their partner and not the "innocent *heterosexual* spouse" too?

What kind of double-standard hypocrisy is that?

March 03, 2010 9:55 AM  
Anonymous darn, she didn't shut up said...

well, I had no doubt my comment would cause you to continue to spout

I have no objection to testing marriage partners to determine their HIV status

and I never said the marriage should be denied on that basis

the purpose would be to inform the partner who is innocent of engaging in unsafe pre-marital promiscuity

"The fact is that in 2007 in all 50 states plus the District of Columbia, 66% of women who were HIV positive got that way by having unprotected sex (no condom used) with a partner whose HIV status is unknown to them but only 62% of men who were HIV positive got that way by having male-to-male sexual contact. Unprotected sex with a partner of unknown HIV status causes a higher percentage of women than men to become HIV positive."

an inane little factoid that ignores the fact that AIDS is disproportionately represented among homosexual communities

fact: if a guy gets into a sexual relationship with another guy in D.C., there's a 30% or higher chance they will contract AIDS

not the same chance for heterosexual women

and, yes, I know, facts won't really shut you up

you live in the Twilight Zone

March 03, 2010 10:13 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Hatefulness is not a becoming personality trait"

yes, a desire to protect public health is very "hateful" toward those intent on spreading disease

March 03, 2010 10:15 AM  
Anonymous Robert said...

It is simply impossible to discuss HIV/AIDS as long as anonymous comments here. He intentionally misinterprets statistics to bash gay people. That is his only purpose.

It's a shame that trolls impede discussion among genuine people.

March 03, 2010 10:20 AM  
Blogger Emproph said...

"yes, a desire to protect public health is very "hateful" toward those intent on spreading disease"

There’s your hatred.

March 03, 2010 10:58 AM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

I'm glad Anone clarified that Anone would not deny a marriage license to gay couples due to their HIV status and I'm glad to know Anone has "no objection to testing marriage partners to determine their HIV status." Given the mess the Bush administration created with it's requirements for abstinence-only sex education, we have a large STD testing deficit to make up for.

I am concerned that with all that abstinence-only education money thrown at sex education during the Bush years, not one of the programs funded that met his HHS requirements A-H encouraged STD testing for sexually active teens. While Item E stated that such programs are to "Teach that sexual activity outside the context of marriage is likely to have harmful psychological and physical effects," not one of these programs suggested that people who are sexually active outside of marriage should be tested for "physical effects" like STDs and HIV.

We know that 80% of Silver Ring Thing abstinence pledgers failed to maintain abstinence. Silver Ring Thing and sex education programs like it never mentioned that sexually active teens should be tested for STDs so they could know their own status. That means a good number of sexually active young American adults who received Bush's faulty sex education classes probably do not know they should determine their own HIV status.

Maybe Anone and I have found some common ground here. Sexually active people need to be tested to know their own HIV status, and they should also know the HIV status of their partner. Whatever the HIV status of the engaged couple, it should not preclude the granting of a marriage license.

March 03, 2010 11:12 AM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

an inane little factoid that ignores the fact that AIDS is disproportionately represented among homosexual communities

Nobody's ignoring any facts but you. Rates of HIV/AIDS are rising in heterosexual communities all over the world. Trying to ignore that fact in order to continue to demonize gays is not only hateful, but dangerous too.

March 03, 2010 11:18 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Anonymous"
You are intent on protecting public health by preventing those who are intent on spreading disease from doing so? ("yes, a desire to protect public health is very "hateful" toward those intent on spreading disease")


Been active in the "Anti-Street Prostitution" crusade lately, have you?

Wanna place a ban on the so-called "Swinging-Couples" weekends at the pricey resorts?

How about pushing for laws that ban unconscionable sexual misbehavior and violation of "sacred marriage vows" leading to the horrendous divorce rate? (The diseases that are accumulated in this sphere are kept notoriously quiet...after all, we wouldn't want to think that the moralistic and pure "Focus on the Family" types were ever guilty of this kind of behavior, would we?

Been an activitist leading the troops of morality to accomplish that? Here in Montgomery County?

As the old expression says: "Put up, or shut up."

March 03, 2010 12:31 PM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

Nice video of the first applicants for marriage licenses in DC today

"...Within 30 minutes and with a final keystroke, [Angelisa] Young and her partner, Sinjoyla Townsend, who met 13 years ago in a constitutional law class at the University of the District of Columbia, became the first same-sex couple to apply to be married in the District, as the city officially joined five states in allowing gay marriage.

"I'm just so happy. We're whole now. We will actually be a true family like everyone else," Young, 47, said as Townsend, 41, used her thumb to wipe away her soon-to-be wife's tears. After the couple rose from the desk, other couples in line behind them broke into applause and cheers.

The two women left their Southeast Washington home two hours before the bureau opened, standing in line in a light cold rain for about an hour before they, along with some 20 other couples mostly dressed in jeans, jackets and sweaters, were allowed inside the courthouse. The number of applicants grew slowly throughout the morning. By midafternoon, 124 couples had filed to be married, far surpassing the dozen applications the bureau typically collects on a single day.


The full WaPo story is here

March 03, 2010 4:19 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"It is simply impossible to discuss HIV/AIDS as long as anonymous comments here. He intentionally misinterprets statistics to bash gay people."

hey, molasses mind

why can't you discuss exactly how it is that the statistics were misrepresented?

why is it impossible to explain?

a fairly intelligent anon cited the NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE that 30% of men having sex with other men in urban areas contract AIDS

how is that misrepresented?

when you encourage teens with same sex feelings to indulge them, aren't you doing something that is detrimental to their health?

what if they go downtown and start taking part in the urban gay community on the weekends because you painted a fairy tale picture for them?

do you understand that is not in their best interest?

you seem concerned about what Jesus would do, what do you think here?

would he encourage them to go with their true feelings and contract a fatal disease as a result?

March 03, 2010 5:56 PM  
Anonymous Merle said...

what if they go downtown and start taking part in the urban gay community on the weekends because you painted a fairy tale picture for them?

Hey look everybody! Anon thinks that if you say nice things about gay people it will make kids turn gay!

March 03, 2010 7:14 PM  
Anonymous what about murl? said...

hey a-Merle the a-*!*:

that's not what I said

I said kids who have experienced some same gender attraction may be led to pursue homosexual activities after the double whammy indoctrination of the sex ed curriculum and the Gay-Straight sex club

your deception is that one is either "gay" or "straight"

there's actually a continuum of experiences and no person is hopelessly homosexual

some are more inclined than others but everyone can become normal

March 03, 2010 7:37 PM  
Anonymous Merle said...

First, Anon, you did not say that. You said "what if they go downtown and start taking part in the urban gay community on the weekends because you painted a fairy tale picture for them?"

There may be a continuum of sexual desire, maybe 2 percent of people describe themselves as bisexual, that's really beside the point. Some people are attracted to members of their own sex, whether exclusively or not. They don't become that way by reading blog comments or hearing about homosexuality in school. They know how they feel already, and they are going to act on their feelings just like everybody else.

It is obviously a wise thing for society to accept such individuals and to provide an institution that will encourage them to settle into stable families. You can say "they're going to be promiscuous anyway," but that's only because you're a flaming idiot.

March 03, 2010 7:48 PM  
Anonymous Ja ja said...

Ja ja, Anon thinks everybody chooses their sexual orientation, like he did!

March 03, 2010 7:49 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"First, Anon, you did not say that. You said "what if they go downtown and start taking part in the urban gay community on the weekends because you painted a fairy tale picture for them?""

if you read all the comments in this stream, it's obvious i was referring to kids who have experienced some same egnder attraction

"There may be a continuum of sexual desire, maybe 2 percent of people describe themselves as bisexual, that's really beside the point. Some people are attracted to members of their own sex, whether exclusively or not. They don't become that way by reading blog comments or hearing about homosexuality in school. They know how they feel already, and they are going to act on their feelings just like everybody else."

simplistic BS

they may indeed choose to pursue behaviors because of their perception of society's view

your wrong, their direction is not set in stone

"It is obviously a wise thing for society to accept such individuals and to provide an institution that will encourage them to settle into stable families."

same gender relationships are inherently unstable

the genders complement one another emotionally just as they do physically

"You can say "they're going to be promiscuous anyway," but that's only because you're a flaming idiot."

not really

interesting though that MCPS sends that message to heterosexual teens

March 03, 2010 8:04 PM  
Blogger David S. Fishback said...

Check out this link from NBC4, particulary the video.

http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local-beat/Supreme-Court-Refuses-to-Stop-Same-Sex-Marriage-Law-86063217.html

How could anyone, even the Anons, watch that and not be happy for the happy couples?

March 03, 2010 11:28 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

boring, Dave

btw, Duke sucks

March 04, 2010 1:23 AM  
Anonymous Robert said...

The notion that urban areas have high rates of HIV infection because of some sort of "urban gay scene" or acceptance of lgbt people in urban areas is complete claptrap. That's what I mean by misinterpreting data.

If you're interested, use your friend the google and dig a little deeper on the epidemiology of the epidemic.

Oh, wait, I forgot, you don't really care about people.

March 04, 2010 7:09 AM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

same gender relationships are inherently unstable

That is not true. Do some research. Start here:

"Correlates of Stability in Long-Term Gay Male Couple Relationships," 1984

"Commitment without Marriage: Union Formation among Long-Term Gay and Lesbian Couples," 2007

“Commitment Without Marriage: Union Formation Among Long-Term Same-Sex Couples," 2009

March 04, 2010 8:28 AM  
Anonymous molasses mind and inane said...

"The notion that urban areas have high rates of HIV infection because of some sort of "urban gay scene" or acceptance of lgbt people in urban areas is complete claptrap. That's what I mean by misinterpreting data."

This is just rhetoric by you, molasses mind.

Don't tell me to go to "my friend", Google.

I've provided stats. You haven't.

Right now, you're the one who appears to be interpretting facts to fit your own preferences.

me: same gender relationships are inherently unstable

inane: That is not true. Do some research.

Unlike disease, stability is more subjective and not necessarily quantifiable.

The stability is not just between individuals but for society as a whole. The male-female dynamic is the underpinning of the structure of society.

Hope we don't hearing horror stories of people who get a homosexual "marriage" and then get AIDS as a result.

We probably won't, of course.

Because premarital promiscuity is rampant among homosexuals. It's an inherent part of homosexuality.

So, unfortunately, testing is probably superfluous for the most part but still should be done for the protection of the innocent partner.

Like with safe sex, however, most homosexuals will rebel against any effort by society to encourage responsible behavior, regardless of the beneficiary.

March 04, 2010 8:55 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

OMG, "Anonymous"...you live in Cloud Cuckoo Land!!

"there's actually a continuum of experiences and no person is hopelessly homosexual (substitute "heterosexual" here)" Finally, an admission on your part that you are redeemable...your heterosexuality is a part of that continuum. Perhaps we can convince you to give homosexuality a try?

"some are more inclined than others but everyone can become normal" You, of course, are the paragon of "normality"! Laughable

"same gender relationships are inherently unstable" And your evidence? More convincing when you say that "opposite gender ralationships are inherently unstable". See: Current divorce statistics.

"Because premarital promiscuity is rampant among homosexuals. It's an inherent part of homosexuality." Get real, take the self-imposed blinders and self-righteous smirks off, and substitute "heterosexuals" in your rant.

"Like with safe sex, however, most homosexuals will rebel against any effort by society to encourage responsible behavior, regardless of the beneficiary." Again...your facts? cite studies, give statistics, etc.

What?? You can't? You mean you are just making up these ridiculous statements as an attempt to win converts to your discredited "moralistic" crusade to make over society in your own image? Doesn't your Bible say something about that particular sin on your part?

Horatio

March 04, 2010 9:41 AM  
Anonymous Robert said...

Do you really not know why urban areas have high rates of HIV infection?

If you're going to quote stats, a link or source would make sense. Otherwise, it's just you saying.

As I've said before, this topic, like most topics, is impossible to discuss with you here. Go play outside so the grownups can talk.

March 04, 2010 10:09 AM  
Anonymous Robert said...

Do you really not know why DC has an astronomical rate of HIV infection?

This topic, like most topics, is virtually impossible to discuss with you here.

March 04, 2010 10:11 AM  
Anonymous Robert said...

Oops, I said the same thing twice.

March 04, 2010 10:12 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

molasses mind

March 04, 2010 11:27 AM  
Anonymous that robert is sad said...

the same molasses dripped out the spout twice

that stats about homosexual rates are from the New England Journal of Medicine

you haven't provided any stats, molasses mind, much less a source

everyone's watching your pathetic display of denial and turning away, embarassed to watch

March 04, 2010 4:42 PM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

that stats about homosexual rates are from the New England Journal of Medicine

There aren't any stats about "homosexual rates" in the NEJM article. All the stats in that article are concerning prevalence of HIV in people.

You haven't read the NEJM article have you Anone? These authors didn't collect one bit of data themselves. All the statistics and data used in the text of the article come from these 5 references:

"References

1. District of Columbia HIV/AIDS epidemiology update 2008. Washington, DC: Government of the District of Columbia, Department of Health, HIV/AIDS Administration; 2008. (Accessed February 8, 2010, at http://dchealth.dc.gov/DOH/frames.asp?doc=/doh/lib/doh/pdf/dc_hiv-aids_2008_updatereport.pdf
2. Nguyen TQ, Gwynn RC, Kellerman SE, et al. Population prevalence of reported and unreported HIV and related behaviors among household adult population in New York City, 2004. AIDS 2008;22:281-287. [CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
3. HIV prevalence among selected populations: high-risk populations. Atlanta: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2007. (Accessed February 8, 2010, at http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/testing/resources/reports/hiv_prevalence/high-risk.htm.)
4. Hall HI, Song R, Rhodes P, et al. Estimation of HIV incidence in the United States. JAMA 2008;300:520-529. [Free Full Text]
5. Millett GA, Flores SA, Peterson JL, Bakeman R. Explaining disparities in HIV infection among black and white men who have sex with men: a meta-analysis of HIV risk behaviors. AIDS 2007;21:2083-2091. [CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]"


The data in Figure 1 comes from "the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the District of Columbia Department of Health, the New Jersey Department of Health, the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, and the Joint United Nations Program on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS)."

The data in Figure 2, which only includes data from US cities with populations of more than 500,000, comes from "the HIV/AIDS Surveillance Report, 2007, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The inset shows the proportion of persons living with HIV–AIDS in New York City. Data are from the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, Epidemiology and Field Services Program, October 2009."

March 04, 2010 5:46 PM  
Anonymous king tut-tut said...

"These authors didn't collect one bit of data themselves."

in your world do the peer-reviewed and accomplished authors published in the New England Journal of Medicine use false data as sources for their articles?

if so, I guess you can pretend any old fairy tale is true

of course, in the real world, homosexuals are dying because they were, at some point, emboldened to embrace a dangerous lifestyle

I can imagine why you'd like to forget that...

it's an inconvenient fact

March 04, 2010 9:48 PM  
Anonymous ha-ha said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

March 04, 2010 9:50 PM  
Blogger David S. Fishback said...

Anon,

I don't think "Duke sucks." But I was thrilled to see Maryland win the game last night.

Interesting, even when we agree on the result, we don't agree on how to feel about it.

March 04, 2010 10:45 PM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

in your world do the peer-reviewed and accomplished authors published in the New England Journal of Medicine use false data as sources for their articles?

Who said anything about "false data?" Not me! Anone made that one up.

My answer to that question is no, I don't think the data is false and I doubt its sources either. I was simply pointing out where the data discussed in the paper came from. These NEJM authors did not collect one iota of data themselves; they only used data from state and federal government agencies, which in Anoneworld means the data is suspect.

And rather than use the data to stigmatize people, like Anone obsessively attempts to do day after day here on Vigilance, the NEJM authors used the data to suggest constructive ways to improve the public health:

"...Preventive interventions must be rooted in science, not driven by ideological concerns. Homophobia may have impeded the development of sexually appropriate prevention studies among men who have sex with men. Reluctance to fund studies of needle exchange or conditional cash transfer (providing financial incentives for healthy behavior) or to support work in high-risk venues, such as bathhouses, has hampered progress. Cash transfer has proved effective in achieving desirable health outcomes, including weight control, smoking cessation, and decreased use of crystal methamphetamine, but until recently it was not being studied for use in HIV prevention in the United States.

What will it take to control the U.S. HIV epidemic? First, there is an urgent need to acknowledge that HIV remains a major health threat in the United States. Second, concerted effort and substantial resource investment — especially in innovative and courageous approaches — are necessary. Focused studies of the sociocultural dynamics that facilitate transmission are needed, as well as large studies assessing the effectiveness of multidimensional interventions, including behavioral, biomedical, and structural components. Disenfranchised communities must be engaged as partners in such efforts, along with new researchers drawn from the affected populations, if the nuances of local epidemics are to be addressed. The time has come to confront this largely forgotten and hidden epidemic."

March 05, 2010 8:56 AM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

Typo:

"My answer to that question is no, I don't think the data is false and I don't doubt its sources either."

March 05, 2010 9:01 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I don't think "Duke sucks.""

Of course they don't, David.

Otherwise, it wouldn't be so fun to beat them.

Don't be a geek.

March 05, 2010 10:28 AM  
Anonymous preventing the detriment of the few said...

but, don't you see, anon-B, that by saying there needs to be a change of behavior in the homosexual community, they are acknowledging that homosexual behavior is the problem

they think throwing more money will have an effect, but they aren't teachers, they're medical doctors

there is good reason to believe the homosexual community will never accept the message

they don't lack knowledge and a solid case has already been presented to them

dissuading teens from entering into a homosexual lifestyle, by presenting the facts, would be the most efficient way to improve health

before any of you launch into your robotic response, I'm not saying most or eeven many teens will be affected by the lessons of some MCPS PE teacher but a certain number, who are confused and having shifting hormones, will to the detriment of their health

March 05, 2010 2:57 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"dissuading teens from entering into a homosexual lifestyle, by presenting the facts, would be the most efficient way to improve health"

EDITED: dissuading teens from entering into a heterosexual lifestyle, by presenting the facts, would be the most efficient way to improve health

March 06, 2010 9:13 AM  
Anonymous what's TTF talking now? said...

I thought abstinence is already a part of the curriculum

March 06, 2010 11:33 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home