Marriage Bill Passes Judiciary Committee
Minutes ago the same-sex marriage bill that is being considered in the Maryland House of Delegates was passed by the judiciary committee, to be sent to the floor for a vote.
Let's quote Fox News this time ...
If the House passes the bill -- and that's still iffy -- the governor has said he will sign it. Then a referendum effort seems inevitable.
Let's quote Fox News this time ...
A Maryland House committee has moved forward a bill to legalize gay marriage in the state.
The panel voted 12 to 10 to approve the bill Friday.
The bill, which already has been passed by the state Senate, now goes to the full House of Delegates.
Same-sex couples in Maryland would have the same full marriage rights as heterosexuals under the bill. It includes protections for religious groups and institutions to keep them from being forced to participate in gay weddings. Maryland House Committee Passes Gay Marriage Bill
If the House passes the bill -- and that's still iffy -- the governor has said he will sign it. Then a referendum effort seems inevitable.
posted by JimK at 2:56 PM
48 Comments:
abominable
Anon, why is allowing loving same sex couples the same rights, responsibilities, and respect as straight couples "abominable"?
"Reporting from Washington — House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) said Friday that that he and other House leaders plan to appoint a lawyer to defend in court the 1996 law that says the federal government will not recognize gay marriages or give federal benefits to gay couples.
"It is regrettable that the Obama administration has opened this divisive issue at a time when Americans want their leaders to focus on jobs and the challenges facing our economy," Boehner said."
So tell us Mr. Boehner, how does defending DOMA in US courts "focus on jobs and the challenges facing our economy?"
Using tax payer money to pay high priced lawyers to deny American citizens their rights when the 2010 election was all about the creations of jobs is abominable.
When the president chooses to ignore a federal law, that is serious. Our lawmakers must make time to address the issue.
If same sex marriage passes in Maryland, and five years later, the governor declares that he is going to simply ignore the same sex marriage law and not allow the marriages, would you like that?
Sometimes, you have to fight for principle, which is what Boehner is doing.
"The attorney general’s announcement makes clear that the administration, in fact, will continue to enforce and abide by DOMA, in spite of the president’s objections to it. What’s different now is that the administration will inform the courts of its view that the law is unconstitutional and should be struck down. Unless and until the judiciary makes such a determination itself, however, the administration will continue to comply with the law.
There are a few, narrow circumstances in which a president is justified in announcing a unilateral decision that he will not comply with a law he believes to be unconstitutional. This is not such a case. Here, the president has decided to comply with the law and leave the final decision of its constitutionality to the courts, a course of action that respects the institutional roles of both Congress, which passed the law, and the judicial branch."
"why is allowing loving same sex couples the same rights, responsibilities, and respect as straight couples "abominable"?"
because it implies that that type of relationship is the equivalent of marriage, an institution created and defined by the Creator
"So tell us Mr. Boehner, how does defending DOMA in US courts "focus on jobs and the challenges facing our economy?"
Using tax payer money to pay high priced lawyers to deny American citizens their rights when the 2010 election was all about the creations of jobs is abominable."
Affirmation of rubbages is not a right. I would say such arrangements should be permissible among consenting adults if they keep it to themselves but there is no right to have the government subsidize, preference or endorse the arrangement.
Whatever the lawyers cost, it will be dwarfed by the amount we will spend giving benefits to homosexual partnerships if DOMA is eliminated.
Of course, we'd also save a lot of money if the person we hired to defend the law would do his job.
We give Obama a nice salary as well as perks such as free lodging, travel, meals and entertainment to defend the law. If he refuses to do the job he applied for, he should pay us back.
"When the president chooses to ignore a federal law, that is serious. Our lawmakers must make time to address the issue."
indeed, impeachment hearings seem called for
When the president chooses to ignore a federal law
Keep repeating the lie all you want but that won't make it true.
Far from being "ignored," DOMA will still be enforced, but the White House will no longer ask the DOJ spend tax payer money to support DOMA against constitutional challenges in court because the White House and the Attorney General have determined that DOMA is unconstitutional. They have found it violates the equal protection clause of the US Constitution.
On the other hand Speaker Boehner has decided that spending tax payer money to defend DOMA is more important than creating jobs or lowering federal spending, so he will have the House of Representatives spend tax payer money to lawyers to defend DOMA in court from constitutional challenges.
"the White House will no longer ask the DOJ spend tax payer money to support DOMA against constitutional challenges in court because the White House and the Attorney General have determined that DOMA is unconstitutional. They have found it violates the equal protection clause of the US Constitution"
DOMA hasn't changed since Obama campaigned for the presidency and said he supported it. His duty is to uphold the law and the DOJ is there to argue the case of the laws passed by Congress.
Just like it will be his duty to cooperate with the impeachment hearings he will be facing.
"On the other hand Speaker Boehner has decided that spending tax payer money to defend DOMA is more important than creating jobs or lowering federal spending, so he will have the House of Representatives spend tax payer money to lawyers to defend DOMA in court from constitutional challenges."
Under the logic you've been arguing, Bea, any expenditure will stimulate the economy. Why aren't legal fees and expenses stimulative under Keyensian economics?
Truth is, the real threat to our economy is currently the debt being racked up by Barry O. If DOMA is overturned because it wasn't properly defended, the cost of extending benefits to any guys who want to fool around with each other will be enormous.
I don't hear much talk about impeaching Obama,but I sure have read a lot lately about tea baggers wanting to oust Boehner in the next primary because of his overspending.
"In another display of the Tea Party movement turning on its own ideological supporters, the head of one prominent group has said that House Speaker John Boehner looks “like a fool” as House Republicans push spending cuts in their budget proposal. And that leader wants the Tea Party movement to set a goal for 2012: to defeat Boehner in a Republican primary.
To help make his point, Tea Party Nation founder Judson Phillips even referenced a story currently feeding a pop-culture frenzy.
“Charlie Sheen is now making more sense than John Boehner,” Phillips wrote in a post to his group’s website (link to: teapartynation.com) on Wednesday."
"Phillips said Boehner has backpedaled on his promise to cut $100 billion from the 2011 budget with a continuing resolution spending bill passed in the House last month that included $61 billion in cuts, and is declaring victory before the House and Senate have agreed on a bill that funds the government for the rest of the year and not just the next two weeks. And the messages coming from the speaker have been confusing and contradictory, Phillips said.
“John Boehner is saying when the Senate comes back and they start negotiating with ‘Dingy’ Harry Reid, who does not want to make any cuts, the $61 billion figure is not safe,” Phillips wrote. “Then, Boehner had the gall to have a ‘mission accomplished’ moment when he declared they had fulfilled their commitment by passing a budget in the House that cut only $61 billion. Not making it law or making it happen, but only by passing the budget in the House.”"
yeah, you're right
Obama's a Tea Party favorite
Can the House of Representatives hire lawyers without approval of the Senate and the President? Anyone know?
I know:
they sure can
and America will thanks them for doing it and will dump our do-nothing bumbler-in-chief at the earliest possibility
Anonymous responded to my question, "why is allowing loving same sex couples the same rights, responsibilities, and respect as straight couples 'abominable"?'" with this response:
"because it implies that that type of relationship is the equivalent of marriage, an institution created and defined by the Creator"
This is a theological, not a moral, viewpoint. Under our system of government, it has no place in civil law. (That, for example, is why we no longer have blue laws, barring certain activities on Sundays.) Can you identify a non-theological reason for your opposition to allowing my gay sons the same rights and responsibilities as their straight friends and their parents?
Robert,
The House has the authority to participate in the litigation, without joining with the Senate.
That was the point of Attorney General Holder's letter to Speaker Boehner, formally informing him of the decision by the Executive Branch to not continue to defend Section 3 of DOMA in the pending litigation. Here is a link to the entire letter:
http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2011/February/11-ag-223.html
"Can you identify a non-theological reason for your opposition to allowing my gay sons the same rights and responsibilities as their straight friends and their parents?"
I wasn't talking about your sons. I avoid addressing personal circumstances on this blog.
But, if you'd like to ask the question abstractly, as you originally did, with "loving same sex couples", then I'd say:
because it implies that that type of relationship is the equivalent of marriage
whether you try to exclude God from the conversation or not, the truth remains that marriage is uniquely heterosexual and that's an integral part of how it works
btw, there's nothing wrong with individual citizens making decisions based on religious considerations
the Founding Fathers were trying to avoid people being forced to speak and act against their conscience by government, such as often happened in British history
they weren't trying to extinguish spirituality from the public conversation
Anon,
Individual lives are important. Abstractions that are not tied to actual living can be heartless and destructive of a society in which each person can live fulfilling lives. The importance of the individual underlies the difference between America and the countries from which people fled to become Americans.
I do not question people's right, in the public conversation, to say anything they wish. You are free to say whatever you believe about sexual orientation, as am I.
But simply saying, "I believe God commands XXXX" is insufficient to deprive people of equal rights under the law. This is the argument that was used to support slavery in the 19th Century. Pastors from Baltimore to New Orleans argued that slavery was ordained by God. Unless you believe we should disregard an important founding principle of our republic -- that people are free to follow whatever religion they please, but theologies should not be imposed on everyone else -- I respectfully suggest that you should be able to find an articulable basis for relegating a group of fellow Americans to second-class status.
homosexuals are free to do as they please
they aren't entitled to affirmation or endorsement by others
no right has been denied to homosexuals in America
what you want is for the rest of us to be forced to maintain objectivity toward the practice
it is perfectly acceptable for society to preference some behaviors over others
if there were some unfair burden or duress placed on homosexuals by society, you might have some point, but there is no such situation
if they want to start an institution of their own, similar, in their estimation, to the institution of marriage, no one will stop them
they can seek benefits and preferences for this insitution, if they wish- it's a free country- but they have no right to a guarantee of success
Anon blathered:
“whether you try to exclude God from the conversation or not, the truth remains that marriage is uniquely heterosexual and that's an integral part of how it work”
That’s why they call it “GAY marriage” Anon, to distinguish it from the mundane and sordid history of plain ol’ regular “marriage.” You know, the kinds of marriages that society has had for centuries, many of which “had” to be done because SOMEONE couldn’t keep their pants on and a kid is on the way - and the new grandpa has a shotgun. Or the kinds of marriages that were arranged because the parents thought “that’s what would be good for you” - regardless of whether or not the two kids liked each other or not.
GAY marriages don’t have a long history of wedding off their heirs to the royalty of other countries to keep them from going to war with each other, much less one King Henry the VIII’s history of serial spousal executions and re-“marriages.” Nor do they have the history of treating one’s spouse to be as a property object that has to be bribed off with a significant dowry. Nor does it have the dubious history of “plural marriages” where 14 year old girls are shuffled off against their will to be the concubine of some 50 year old pervert with political ties to a religious community appointed “prophet.”
No Anon, we’re talking about *GAY* marriage, the kind that two loving people like Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon had to wait 56 years for before they could finally marry 2008, after being together since 1952. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Del_Martin_and_Phyllis_Lyon )
We’re talking about the kind of relationship that stays together in spite of the fact that for decades, much of our society has conspired to tear them apart. We’re talking about couples who really WANT to be in a committed relationship, in spite of the fact that many family, friends, and even some of their churches are telling them what they are doing is absolutely wrong. We’re talking about people willing to commit their lives to each other in spite of the fact an entire political money making and fear mongering machine has been built to denigrate them, conflate them with pedophiles, criminalize their behavior, and mercilessly tries to marginalize every aspect of their lives, whether it’s getting and keeping a job, or serving openly in the military.
We are talking about people willing to shout to the world “We are Committed to Each Other!” and “We are going to devote our lives to each other,” when much of the world is shouting back “You are Despicable Faggots!”
Just calling this a “marriage” isn’t enough. In fact, calling it a “Gay Marriage” doesn’t really do it justice - considering what these couples have had to face from some quadrants of society. But “Super Fantabulous and Extravagantly Marvelous Gay Marriage” would just seem to demean the mediocre masses of heterosexual marriage.
“if they want to start an institution of their own, similar, in their estimation, to the institution of marriage, no one will stop them”
Then why did the same folks who always try to stop Gay Marriages try to stop Washington State’s domestic partnership law from going into effect with a referendum? After all, those weren’t “marriages.” ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Referendum_71_(2009) )
If you’re going to make wild assertions, at least check to see whether or not they conflict with actual facts.
Have a nice day.
Cynthia
"That’s why they call it “GAY marriage” Anon, to distinguish it from the mundane and sordid history of plain ol’ regular “marriage.” You know, the kinds of marriages that society has had for centuries, many of which “had” to be done because SOMEONE couldn’t keep their pants on and a kid is on the way - and the new grandpa has a shotgun. Or the kinds of marriages that were arranged because the parents thought “that’s what would be good for you” - regardless of whether or not the two kids liked each other or not.
GAY marriages don’t have a long history of wedding off their heirs to the royalty of other countries to keep them from going to war with each other, much less one King Henry the VIII’s history of serial spousal executions and re-“marriages.” Nor do they have the history of treating one’s spouse to be as a property object that has to be bribed off with a significant dowry. Nor does it have the dubious history of “plural marriages” where 14 year old girls are shuffled off against their will to be the concubine of some 50 year old pervert with political ties to a religious community appointed “prophet.”"
sounds like you hate the whole idea
makes you wonder why you're so desperate to make it available to gays
oh, that's right: the real plan is to destroy marriage
"No Anon, we’re talking about *GAY* marriage, the kind that two loving people like Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon had to wait 56 years for before they could finally marry 2008, after being together since 1952."
there you go
no one stopped them from "being together" for over half a century
it's a free country
"We’re talking about the kind of relationship that stays together in spite of the fact that for decades, much of our society has conspired to tear them apart. We’re talking about couples who really WANT to be in a committed relationship, in spite of the fact that many family, friends, and even some of their churches are telling them what they are doing is absolutely wrong. We’re talking about people willing to commit their lives to each other in spite of the fact an entire political money making and fear mongering machine has been built to denigrate them, conflate them with pedophiles, criminalize their behavior, and mercilessly tries to marginalize every aspect of their lives, whether it’s getting and keeping a job, or serving openly in the military.
We are talking about people willing to shout to the world “We are Committed to Each Other!” and “We are going to devote our lives to each other,” when much of the world is shouting back “You are Despicable Faggots!”
Just calling this a “marriage” isn’t enough. In fact, calling it a “Gay Marriage” doesn’t really do it justice - considering what these couples have had to face from some quadrants of society. But “Super Fantabulous and Extravagantly Marvelous Gay Marriage” would just seem to demean the mediocre masses of heterosexual marriage."
so, you think it should be against the law to say homosexuality is wrong, right?
"Then why did the same folks who always try to stop Gay Marriages try to stop Washington State’s domestic partnership law from going into effect with a referendum?
If you’re going to make wild assertions, at least check to see whether or not they conflict with actual facts."
there you again, Cynco
they are perfectly free to partner domestically
that hasn't nothing to do with getting a piece of paper from city hall
if the citizens of a locality don't want to award such a relationship with an official piece of paper, they have that right
"Have a nice day."
yeah, throw a bag of pet rocks straight up in the air and wait for them to conk you in the head
Anon writes:
"if there were some unfair burden or duress placed on homosexuals by society, you might have some point, but there is no such situation"
Actually, there are such unfair burdens. The fatal flaw in your argument is that there are, in fact, over 1,000 legal rights and responsibilities conferred by the government on married couples. Social Security survivor benefits, for example. The ability of a federally-employed gay person to include their spouse on their health insurance, for another. Gay couples cannot now avail themselves of those rights and responsibilities.
"Actually, there are such unfair burdens. The fatal flaw in your argument is that there are, in fact, over 1,000 legal rights and responsibilities conferred by the government on married couples. Social Security survivor benefits, for example. The ability of a federally-employed gay person to include their spouse on their health insurance, for another. Gay couples cannot now avail themselves of those rights and responsibilities."
When a law is passed, it doesn't confer a "right", it confers a benefit. Married people don't have an intrinsic right to social security benefits or health insurance. It was given to them by statute because our society wants to encourage marriage. If legislators decide to change these laws married people couldn't sue that there rights were violated.
If society wants to encourage marriage, it doesn't by so doing have an obligation to give the same encouragement to homosexual relationships. It's not unfair. It's an expression of society's values and what behavior it wants to encourage.
"Actually, there are such unfair burdens. The fatal flaw in your argument is that there are, in fact, over 1,000 legal rights and responsibilities conferred by the government on married couples. Social Security survivor benefits, for example. The ability of a federally-employed gay person to include their spouse on their health insurance, for another. Gay couples cannot now avail themselves of those rights and responsibilities."
David's argument here is completely fallacious. Gays don't have any burden or harship that other singles don't have.
Why, for example, can't two single people get together and form a platonic partnership and get social security benefits and health insurance breaks? Even if they have nothing else to do with each other.
Would that be an unfair burden, if we don't allow that? Would their rights be violated?
And if everyone gets a benefit, does anyone get a benefit?
The end result would be that marriage wouldn't be encouraged.
And, really, isn't that the true goal of the gay agenda?
C'mon.
"The end result would be that marriage wouldn't be encouraged."
How do you expect to encourage marriage when you want to deny it to the same sex couples who want it?
marriage is a life long commitment to a heterosexual relationship
"same sex" and "marriage" are oxymorons
what society wants to encourage is marriage, because society believes marriage is beneficial to the society in general
"...Religious fundamentalism is dangerous because it cannot accept ambiguity and diversity and is therefore inherently intolerant. Such intolerance, in the name of virtue, is ruthless and uses political power to destroy what it cannot convert.
It is dangerous, especially in America, because it is anti-democratic and is suspicious of "the other," in whatever form that "other" might appear. To maintain itself, fundamentalism must always define "the other" as deviant.
But the chief reason that fundamentalism is dangerous is that, at the hands of the Rev. Pat Robertson, the Rev. Jerry Falwell and hundreds of lesser-known but equally worrisome clerics, preachers and pundits, it uses Scripture and the Christian practice to encourage ordinarily good people to act upon their fears rather than their virtues.
Fortunately, those who speak for the religious right do not speak for all American Christians, and the Bible is not theirs alone to interpret. The same Bible that the advocates of slavery used to protect their wicked self-interests is the Bible that inspired slaves to revolt and their liberators to action.
The same Bible that the predecessors of Mr. Falwell and Mr. Robertson used to keep white churches white is the source of the inspiration of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. and the social reformation of the 1960's.
The same Bible that anti-feminists use to keep women silent in the churches is the Bible that preaches liberation to captives and says that in Christ there is neither male nor female, slave nor free.
And the same Bible that on the basis of an archaic social code of ancient Israel and a tortured reading of Paul is used to condemn all homosexuals and homosexual behavior includes metaphors of redemption, renewal, inclusion and love -- principles that invite homosexuals to accept their freedom and responsibility in Christ and demands that their fellow Christians accept them as well.
The political piety of the fundamentalist religious right must not be exercised at the expense of our precious freedoms. And in this summer of our discontent, one of the most precious freedoms for which we must all fight is freedom from this last prejudice.
Peter J. Gomes, an American Baptist minister, is professor of Christian morals at Harvard"
http://www.nytimes.com/ref/opinion/op-classic-gomes.html?ref=opinion
We'll just ignore the ignorance of Gomes about what fundamentalists believe or who they are. Robertson was a charismatic and Falwell was a run-of-mill Southern Baptist.
The more significant fact is that most Americans are not fundamentalists and, yet, they have repeatedly rejected the imposition by the government of a redefinition of marriage.
I'm not a fundamentalist myself but the statement: "It is dangerous, especially in America, because it is anti-democratic and is suspicious of "the other,"" is wrong.
Anon writes:
"David's argument here is completely fallacious. Gays don't have any burden or harship that other singles don't have."
Anon, it seems that you cannot bring yourself to accept the reality that there are gay people who do not want to be single. That there are gay people who form families that are essentially the same as other families, except for the sexual orientation of the adult couple in that family.
I am still waiting for an explanation from you that is not simply a conclusion, or is utterly unresponsive to what I have posited.
And, oh, Anon, Anon! What of the three people who are madly in love with each other, but each have the heartwrenching drama of not being able to marry both of their beloveds? They must, alas, choose only one! Shouldn't they all be allowed to marry each other? They, too, will have a family and not only that, since there are three, they can have a family with the mother and father present!
And oh, Anon, Anon! Is marriage really fair at all? What of the single people who must watch the happy couples around them, while they yearn for a marriage!? What of them? What of them? We must do away with marriage so that their feelings are spared!
Oh, Anon, Anon, you heartless creature!!
"Anon, it seems that you cannot bring yourself to accept the reality that there are gay people who do not want to be single."
David, you are now creating your own reality.
I'll take your word for it that there are gays that don't want to be single.
That wasn't the point.
Your point was that not giving them the benefits of marital status was an unfair burden.
My point is that it isn't any burden that millions of single people don't bear.
Really, not having every benefit that any other person might have is no burden that every person who ever lived didn't bear.
To quote your fellow Democrat, Jimmy Carter, "life is unfair"
"Gay marriage is continuing to gain acceptance among the public -- the latest survey from the Pew Research Center shows Americans almost evenly split between those who oppose and those who support same-sex marriage.
According to the poll, conducted during the last week of February, 45 percent of Americans say gays and lesbians should be allowed to marry, up from 37 percent in 2009 (and just 27 percent in 1996) while 46 percent oppose same-sex marriage, down from 54 percent two years ago, and down from a 65 percent disapproval rate in 1996.
Partisan differences remain stark, with 57 percent of Democrats and 51 percent of independents backing gay marriage. Only one in four Republicans support the right of gays to marry, but that is up from 15 percent in 1996.
Newly released data from the General Social Surveys (GSS) shows an even more striking shift, with a solid majority of 46 percent supporting gay marriage and just 40 percent in opposition.
As Charles Franklin notes at the Huffington Post, recent polls on same-sex marriage show approval for for civil unions, which was once considered by many to be the "safe alternative" to gay marriage, has remained flat while support for same-sex marriage itself has surged. And the rise is occurring not only among younger Americans.
"The trends here show that opposition to gay marriage is becoming a less and less acceptable position through the public more generally," Franklin writes. "It is not merely the young who are shifting views. While individual states are certain to vary widely in the balance of public opinion, the national shift is so striking and so regular that it is hard to imagine this issue will remain in doubt for much longer."
The latest shift is especially notable in that it comes as social conservatives have drawn a line in the sand against gay marriage, and just after President Obama announced his administration would no longer argue in court on behalf of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defines marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman.
But Republicans are ascendant in Washington and in statehouses across the country. And pollsters note that the public often reacts to shifts in political power by backing issues of the party that is perceived to be losing influence, preferring that lawmakers not go too far one way, especially on uncomfortable and polarizing issues like gay marriage and abortion.
In fact, support for legal abortion dropped from 55 percent to 47 percent in the first year of Obama's term, perhaps reflecting concerns that he would move too far too fast in liberalizing abortion rights. Support for abortion rights had since rebounded, the recent Pew survey shows, to 54 percent -- again a possible backlash against the GOP's sweeping takeover of the U.S. House in January and the Republican decision to make curtailing abortion rights and funding its top priority.
Social conservatives can take some solace in the fact that the degree of support for the anti-abortion position has remained relatively stable.
But the trend lines on gay marriage do not bode well for the conservative cause, and as Politics Daily reported, the relatively low-key Republican response to Obama's DOMA decision suggested that waning public backing is going to translate into diminishing political clout.
Indeed, Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, told Focus on the Family's Jim Daly last week that "it's clear that something like same-sex marriage -- indeed, almost exactly what we would envision by that -- is going to become normalized, legalized, and recognized in the culture."
"It's time," Mohler added, "for Christians to start thinking about how we're going to deal with that.""
The trends will start shifting the other way, as parents catch on to what is going on in the gay community in relation to their children.
What do you think parents will object to that "is going on in the gay community in relation to their children?"
And what about all the voters who are not parents? Do you think they will start "shifting the other way" too?
Anonymous, dear, your repeated and unflinching pejorative comments here about queer people put the lie to your current assertion that you are "only defending marriage." You don't like us. We get that. It's a shame for you, you miss out on so much that is good in this world.
Parents won't like it when gay marriage is taught in the schools. Maryland legislators voted down a bill that would keep it out of the schools.
When parents catch on to what is happening, attitudes will shift.
Count on it.
Your fear is imagined.
Look for a Maryland curricula where "gay marriage is taught in schools" and then tell us about it.
You won't find one.
Count on it.
"Life is unfair." Jimmy Carter used the phrase in an effort to wrap himself in John F. Kennedy's mantle. The first presidential use of the phrase was Kennedy's: http://www.thisdayinquotes.com/2010/03/life-is-unfair-as-john-f-kennedy.html
Note that the context of Kennedy's statement was that, when something in the national interest was required, some people (there, reservists who were being called back to active service in the ramp-up to our deeper involvement in Viet Nam) would bear a greater burden than others.
The question must be whether a particular unfairness in life -- imposed by our government -- is a necessity. Sometime it is. I have yet to hear a convincing argument that the unfairness imposed by depriving loving, committed gay couples (many with children) of the rights, responsibilities, and respect of marriage is a societal necessity.
Footnote: Jimmy Carter used it as justificcation for denial of federal funding for abortion under Medicaid, in response to a question noting that poor women would then not be able to secure abortions, while wealthier women could. See http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,915176,00.html
The concept of gay marriage isn't taught in the schools now because it's not legal in Maryland.
Anon, it's not taught in schools because there's nothing to teach. It's no different from heterosexual marriage. Same thing.
What are parents going to "catch on to" so "trends will start shifting the other way" if "the concept of gay marriage" isn't taught in Maryland schools?
Actually, there are such unfair burdens. The fatal flaw in your argument is that there are, in fact, over 1,000 legal rights and responsibilities conferred by the government on married couples. Social Security survivor benefits, for example. The ability of a federally-employed gay person to include their spouse on their health insurance, for another. Gay couples cannot now avail themselves of those rights and responsibilities.
I’m tired of these non-arguments. Boohoo! Gays are one of the highest earners in this country! Each of them therefore work and have their own SS benefits when they retire. They don’t need Social Security survivor benefits! Each has his own health insurance plans. What about the federal employee that retires on their federal pension plan but is not eligible to receive SS survivor benefits from his/her spouse? What about the mom who has the gay son living with her who cannot receive Social Security survivor benefits from her son? The mom can’t receive health insurance either. By the way, health insurance premiums for couples cost more than for individuals. Life is not fair is it?
there are, in fact, over 1,000 legal rights and responsibilities conferred by the government on married couples.
And it is unconstitutional for these rights to be allowed for some state recognized married couples and not for other state recognized married couples because of the equal protection clause of the US Constitution. Maybe life isn't fair, but the laws, rights, and responsibilities of this great nation are to be fairly and equally granted to ALL citizens.
Guess what? Everyone currently has the right to marry.
Oh brother.
Do you think being dishonest and marrying someone you do not love and then trying to live in the closet pretending you do love them strengthens the institution of marriage?
I don't.
Sounds fine to me.
Anon,
If you want to argue that Social Security benefits should be means-tested, go ahead and make that argument. And then explain why, if Social Security benefits should not be means-tested, heterosexual couples should be treated better than gay couples.
As for the argument that none of it matters because all gay people are rich, that is patently ridiculous. Neither of my children -- who graduated from Ivy League colleges -- chose to go into lucrative professions (although they could have). But, under current law, they will be at an economic disadvantage re Social Security not faced by their straight friends.
Sorry to talk about actual lives again, but this is where the impact is felt.
And now, I will indulge myself in a snarky comment:
Aunt Bea asks you if "being dishonest and marrying someone you do not love and then trying to live in the closet pretending you do love them strengthens the institution of marriage?" Your response is "Sounds fine to me."
Would it be fine with you if it turned out that your spouse was one of those closeted people? Or if a child of yours was straight and married a closeted person. That would, I would think, make for a strained and unsatisfying marriage. Real world, real consequences.
And Anon, I suggest you also ask your wife how she'd feel if you were to suddenly emerge from the closet after years of marriage and a couple of kids.
There will always be good and bad marriages. Can't legislate it.
That doesn't mean there haven't been attempts to enact legislation to spend tax dollars to make more marriages good and healthy.
At the federal level, there was Bush's 2005 Healthy Marriages Initiative that appropriated "$150 million each year for healthy marriage promotion and fatherhood."
In addition, three states have enacted covenant marriage legislation.
Wikipedia reports: "In 1997, Louisiana became the first state to create covenant marriage as a legal category; since then Arkansas and Arizona have followed suit. People who are already married in these states may change their marriage to a covenant marriage.
Legislation has been introduced to create legal covenant marriage in a number of other states, including California, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maryland, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, and West Virginia; these efforts have not to date been successful."
In 2009, Gambit/Best of New Orleans.com reported on Lousiana's experiences with covenant marriages:
"In its 1997 session, the Louisiana Legislature passed several important bills. It legalized slot machines at state racetracks, declared shooting a carjacker to be justifiable homicide and redefined marriage.
House Bill 756, the nation's first covenant marriage law, began as an attempt to stem divorce rates. Those who desire a covenant marriage need only tick a box on the one-page state marriage application and execute a declaration of intent, including a statement that "we understand that a Covenant Marriage is for life." Premarital counseling is required. Ending a marriage is still possible, though no-fault divorce is eliminated and grounds for divorce are limited; they include physical or sexual abuse (of either a spouse or child), infidelity, a felony conviction or abandonment.
Covenant marriage was hailed by supporters as an attempt to strengthen the family and protect children. Critics called it a potentially dangerous injection of religious belief into a civil commitment and worried that it might trap women in loveless or abusive marriages. Two months after its passage, then-Rep. Tony Perkins, R-Baker [now President of FRC], predicted, "I think in about a year a majority of couples will make [covenancy] part of their marriage plans."
He was wrong. In its first year, only 1 percent of Louisiana marriages were covenants. Today, nearly 12 years later, the total has edged closer to 2 percent. Nor has covenant marriage reduced general divorce rates. In 1997, when covenant marriage became law, 13,836 divorces were granted in Louisiana. In 2003 (the most recent year for which statistics are available), the divorce total was 15,230.
Figures are similar in Arizona and Arkansas, the only two other states that have adopted the practice. More than 20 other statehouses have introduced covenant marriage into committee, only to have the bills wither and fail.
"The pioneers of covenant marriage thought their followers would flock to it," wrote William Saletan in The Washington Post in 2006. "They were wrong."..."
Post a Comment
<< Home