- Blog
- Bios
- Boards
- Classifieds
- DIY
- Gallery
- Vendor Reviews
- Shop Weddingbee
Weddingbee boards
Those who support Prop 8 in California are now attacking the judge who ruled against them stating that he should've been disqualified for.... being gay.
wow.
This article sums it up way better than I ever could:
My favorite quote:
"So what’s more shocking here is the gall — the chutzpah, if you will — to just roll into court with a brief dripping with your own homophobic idiocy, dropping it down on a clerk and being like “whatssup.” He’s gay and he might want to be married and so he can’t judge whether or not it’s okay to deny people a civil right?"
ETA: The article is very sarcastic and is very directly aimed at those who already agree with the pro-gay rights movement. This post was for those who are pro gay rights to commune. Please don't start a debate about whether or not gay marriage is right.
I read about this last week and it truly pisses me off. I wish there was something that I could do to make people change their minds because everyone has the right to wake up next to their husband/wife and smile knowing that they're married.
That's crazy. I love that article, BTW. And I know people are up in arms because the Constitution was written "Under God" and all that crap, but seriously, give me an fing break already!! The world as it is today can not be run on "God's" word, things are so different then they were back when it was written. If it were God's word, then women wouldn't have any rights, and the only thing they would be good for is staying home and making babies.
Ugh, I'm gonna stop now, cuz I am hurting from a neck injury and might not be able to stop!
@TheFutureMcBride: agreed. I was raised in a world where people were judged by their actions, not the color of their skin or their culture, and certainly not by their sexual orientation. It still amazes me that people have these views, and unfortunately, all the religious fanatics are the ones behind it. No matter what or who you are, we all still bleed the same...
Opponents to LBGTQ laws in general disgust me. On a related note, the law firm that took $ from House Republicans to defend DOMA has already dropped the case and the partner who took the case has left the firm. Karma bitches. What I do like is the speculation that one of the reasons why the firm dropped the case was because Coca Cola (one of their biggest clients) directly pressured them to do so.
@Gwent09: How is that? I fail to see a GOOD non-religious (or religious for that matter) argument against gay marriage.
Honestly, that article, while it makes some good points, is clearly biased and judgmental. Is responding to bias with bias really the right approach to take?
Is it wrong for a black judge to hear any segregation cases or a female judge to rule on any abortion cases or a gay judge to rule on any gay rights cases? Of course not. But it’s not all that crazy to think that any human being could be influenced by their personal experiences. For example, say you have a female judge ruling on a rape case. And say she was recently brutally raped. One would hope that she would be able to separate her personal experience from her professional responsibilities. But we’re only human, and in this hypothetical situation, it’s not out of the realm of possibility that the judge would be more harsh on the defendant than she might have otherwise been. I'm not a lawyer, but don't judges sometimes refuse to hear cases because they themselves admit that they would be biased in that particular situation?
In the situation your article is discussing, the judge may or may not have a strong personal desire to get married, and that desire may or may not subconsciously influence his work. I agree that this is quite unlikely. And I agree that using this as a SOLE reason to overturn the decision is silly. But I do think it's a valid concern, and I understand why people who strongly oppose gay marriage would want to make sure that the judge hearing a case like this be completely unbiased.
By their arguments, a religious judge couldn't preside either because they might be against gay marriage for religious reasons, and thus be prejudiced in the opposite direction as judge walker! or a hetero judge couldn't rule either! we're going to have to find a celebate atheist judge somewhere people!
...seriously, though. This just shows their desperation. Their case is based on nothing but animus, and they know it, we know it, and the world knows it. They're grasping at straws.
@Potatoes: Ditto. I would be very interested to hear a non-religious argument against gay marriage.
PS I find it very ironic that the same people preaching love and acceptance use phrases like "homophobic idiocy" or "opponents of LBGTQ laws disgust me" just because someone happens to have a different opinion.
Many people, religious and non-religious, feel that a marriage is a union between one man and one woman.
You can certainly agree or disagree with those who hold that view, BUT, not everyone who has the view above has it because of religion.
Approximately 1/2 the country is not in favor of Gay Marriage. If those in favor want to win the day and change opinion I don't think name calling and insults make for the best method (no matter how frustrated one might be).
@GirlWithARing: It makes me mad, but I believe that everyone can have their opinion. We don't have to agree. In fact, my best friend and I disagree about politics, religon, same sex marriage, the environment, and much more.
@Gwent09: Okay, but why?
I'm not disputing the viewpoint itself, just asking on what it's founded if not religion.
@Gwent09: I've only ever heard that argument in the context that it is based on what the Bible preaches--that marriage is between a man and a woman (not saying that IS what the Bible preaches, since I haven't read it recently). Is there another justification for that argument?
@GirlWithARing: And we are going to ensure that how, precisely?
Describing a viewpoint and those who hold it as bigoted and advocating tolerance are not mutually exclusive. Those who disagree with me are welcome to their opinions and can make whatever factual arguments they choose in support of their positions.
That my subjective assessment of their positions may be less than rosy in no way impacts their freedom to argue or believe whatever they damn well please.
@Gwent09: I agree that name-calling isn't necessary.
That being said, just because you "think that marriage should be between one man and one woman" doesn't give you cause to take that BASIC civil right away from another individual. If that were the case we wouldn't have interracial marriages either.
One of my favorite quotes is "Don't like gay marriage? Don't get one." I think marriage should be a MYOB institution. You don't get a say in how someone else lives their life especially when it doesn't affect you.
@GirlWithARing: You have a point. It's entirely possible for a judge to be biased. However, I think one of the main points here is that it's clearly an attack based on animus, and nothing else. No one asks a straight religious judge to recuse themselves from a case involving gay people or gay marriage, and yet a gay judge is asked the same thing simply because he's gay. His life situation has nothing to do with his ruling, and if you go back and read the ruling, it's based very soundly on previous cases, and the law. Judge Walker reasons everything out, follows rationale basis test, and still comes up with the same answer- that Prop 8 is unconstitutional. There's nothing "opinionated" about his ruling, it's just fact.
About the comments... well, all I can say is that no one's perfect, not even gay people. 
There is an incredible amount of hurt that has built up in the gay community as a result of discrimination, and I think the wording is an expression of that.
If you look up the word marriage in a dictionary it does say a union between one man and one woman. That isn't a religious definition, it is just the meaning (perhaps old fashioned) of the word in common use.
I don't want to go down the path many do when fighting the other side, but why not the ability for a brother and sister to get married, or a man to marry 3 different women at once. I suspect many on this board would not support those unions, even many that support gay marriage.
I was just trying to point out it is a trickier subject than simply religion
@hilsy85: It's icky :). No seriously that's the only one I can come up with, and that's not really enough to justify discrimination.
@Gwent09: I think that it's a bit silly to equate marriage between two consenting adults, whether they be men or women, to marriage between brother and sister (have you ever met a brother and sister who would like to get married?) or to polygamy. It's like the arguments that say, "What's next? Will people be marrying dogs? Or goats?". It just makes the person arguing sound silly, IMO. And I would guess that the reason the dictionary defines marriage in that way is because the United States was originally founded as a religious country. Hence the "God" on our currency, etc. Which would then make it a religious argument, and IMO, not a good one.
There is a MAJOR difference between not allowing marriage between more than 2 people and letting 2 people of the same sex enjoy the same legal benefits and feedoms that married heterosexuals enjoy.
Marriage between blood relatives such as brothers and sisters is illegal because of the risk of birth defects to any children. I know some could argue that if they don't plan on having children, it shouldn't be an issue, but nobody plans accidents either so I can see why this is illegal.
So, as you can see, it all comes back to religion. Hence the reason i don't practice or believe in what most people believe. I think its all a bunch of crap made up by men who thought writing a "guide" to how people should live would be a good idea.
@GirlWithARing: Discrimination based on sexual orientation, or any other reason, is disgusting to me. To deny two loving and monagomous adults the right to marry is disgusting to me.
@Gwent09: By that logic we ought never do anything because the most absurd consequences of that action are inevitable. (ie: We shouldn't teach kids to walk because then they will inevitably run into traffic!)
And I can also find you lots of books that talk about how women are demonstrably biologically inferior to men, and others that define women as chattle, as we were generally understood to be until quite recently in human history. Point being: just because we stick something in a book or mutually agree on it for a long time doesn't make it an especially awesome way to go about daily life.
@NauticalBride2011: Just curious, since you say "two monogamous consenting adults" does that mean that you would not condone a couple who are "swingers" to be married. Even if they want to be married to each other, but still engage in sexual activity with other partners?
(not trying to stir anything up, just the first question that popped into my head)
@KatNYC2011: You're right. I have no problem with people who decide to have open marriages. I should have just said two consenting and loving adults.
I'll keep the brother and sister example out of it for now.
But if the only requirement is consenting people who love each other I really don't see how one can support gay marriage and not polygamy.
If you want to claim there is a MAJOR difference between the two I understand. But, if I can see that MAJOR difference I guess what I miss is why people can't see there is a MAJOR difference between a man and a woman getting married vs. a same sex marriage.
I'm not saying either is right or wrong, but they are different.
@TheFutureMcBride: This is exactly what I mean. I'm not interested in forcing my opinions on anyone, and I have plenty of close friends who hold different opinions on issues like this. Why do we need to resort to name calling?
@teaadntoast: I agree with you - it's not possible to ensure that any judge is 100% unbiased. All we can do is investigate any obvious potential conflicts. (And I don't think being gay, female, black, etc is a conflict, but something like the hypothetical situation from my previous post (i.e. a judge who has recently been raped ruling on a rape case) might be.
@Ayslinn87: I get what you're saying about the hurt in the gay community. I guess I would understand if the name-calling and negative remarks were directed towards people who actively discriminated against homosexuals. But there are plenty of people who don't agree with gay marriage but keep that opinion to themselves and don't actively try to prevent LGBTQ couples from marrying/doing whatever they want to do. So directing these negative comments at someone just because of an opinion they hold really seems unnecessary.
@All supporters of gay marriage: We all have the right to an opinion. What drives me crazy is when people make it sound like this gay marriage issue is the most obvious thing in the world, and OF COURSE it should be allowed, and anyone who thinks otherwise is stupid/ignorant/a religious zealot/evil/etc. Guys, there's a reason gay marriage has been a controversy for a while now and continues to be one - it's not as obvious and black-and-white as you seem to believe.
Our legal system is not set-up to handle multi-person marriages. (Taxes, etc) so that is why I feel it is a MAJOR difference.
I see no reason why two adults who wish to be married, regardless of gender, shouldn't be able to do so.
@Gwent09:I have no problem with polygamy either as long as ALL parties are consenting (i.e. not only does the husband have to consent to the new wife, but previous wives do too).
The problems surrounding polygamy may have more legal issues surrounding them (i.e. avoiding estate tax by continuing to have multiple spouses who are younger and younger and money can be gifted freely between husband and wives, etc).
Potatoes said it better than I did. The legal/tax issues of multiple person marriages are MUCH more complex than a marriage between 2 people.
I was thisclose to refusing to marry until gay marriage was legal. A part of me wishes I would have stuck to my guns on that one. Every time I think about the 'gay marriage debate' I want to cry. To me there's no debate.
P.S. A dictionary merely spews semantics. Love is unbounded by linguistics.
@Gwent09: Easily.
Marriage is basically a legal contract.
Bob marrying Steve, Jim, Carol and Susan while Susan is also married to Lisa and Steve is married to Marie has all kinds of crazy legal implications.
Bob and Steve getting hitched like, oh, everyone else? Not so much.
(And, for the record, I don't give a flip if two people marrying love each other. Plenty of folks have perfectly functional companionate marriages.)
Wow ok so I didn't really mean for this to turn into a pro vs. anti gay marriage debate. I just wanted to share the article with like-minded people who might find it interesting. I'm not going to address the anti-gay comments because i think others have done that (totally agree potatoes and hilsy!!).
Two things I will comment on:
1) Every person is made up of a lot of different beliefs. If we start making judges recuse themselves every time they have a personal interest, we would have no judges to hear cases. Think about all the super religious judges we have! Scalia comes to mind for one... you don't see him recusing himself every time a case involving religion comes upon the Supreme Court. It is insulting to claim just because he's gay he can't hear a gay rights case. Who can hear it then? I bet no one would try to get a practicing Catholic judge to recuse themselves if the case were assigned to them. Why do we assume the gay man is less trustworthy than the Catholic??
2) Yes the terms used are inflammatory-- but the article is not meant to change anyones minds. It isn't a legal argument. It isn't a pro-gay rights pamphlet. It is born of frustration and disgust and is targeted for similarly minded people. I try not to let politics color my view of other people, but when action born of hate is targeted at an already discriminated against group-- it makes me cranky. So sometimes I appreciate a little off-the-cuff rant.
@NauticalBride2011: And you're proving what exactly? I think sinking to the level of calling people disgusting is just silly and doesn't really advance your point. Do you really find virtually all civilizations throughout all of history disgusting just because they didn't permit gay marriage?
So why do those that are gay want it so badly? What is the logical reason, if there was an option for all the legal rights, but it would be called something else, that is generally not good enough for those that support gay marriage. I understand the concept of similar but not equal is again a tricky one.
I think the reason many people want their union to be called a marriage is because that word itself is important - not for religious reasons alone, but because it represents something.
I think many people in the 2 camps disagree on what that does or should represent.
@GirlWithaRing
To me, gay marriage is the most obvious issue in the world, and of course it should be allowed. I understand that to others, it is not, much in the same way that inter-racial marriages were a hot button issue (and still are for some people)
Bans on interracial marriage weren't struck down as unconstitutional until sometime in the 1970s. I think a lot of anti-gay marriage sentiments echo a lot of anti-miscegenation sentiments.
You must log in to post.
| Visit our sister sites | eHarmony Online Dating |
eHarmony Advice Dating Advice |
Project Wedding Wedding Songs |
JustMommies Pregnancy Calendar |
Create the honeymoon of your dreams.
| User | Posts Today |
|---|---|
| Lyndzo | 52 |
| Brielle | 43 |
| This Time Round | 37 |
| mypinkshoes | 34 |
| his chippymunk | 34 |
| Future Mrs K | 32 |
| Cady | 32 |
| fivemonthsnotice | 32 |
| TheLionQueen | 31 |
| AshleyR83 | 30 |
| User | Posts Today |
|---|---|
| eagle | 1 |
| lybarra | 1 |
| peachacid | 1 |
