Allowing same-sex marriages will not make more people gay.
There’s only one governmental action that can make more people gay: reinstating the draft.
Imagine how many people will discover their new sexual orientation when that happens!
Justice Ian Binnie, of the Canadian Supreme Court, in response to arguments by opponents of same-sex marriage, had a lovely rejoinder.
One lawyer said marriage pre-dates the constitution. “This is not a creature of statute.” Justice Ian Binnie pointed out that the divine right of kings had been around for a long time. “Why is it that the divine right of kings has to give way to constitutional change but marriage doesn’t?”
We went to see Tying the Knot today. It does a very good job of showing the price real couples pay for the lack of civil marriage rights, counters the usual arguments against (including a point-by-point comparison between anti-miscegenation arguments and the current anti-same-sex-marriage arguments), and includes discussion of the history of marriage and how it’s not the “immutable institution” that the anti folks like to pretend it is.
I encourage anyone in areas where it’s showing this week to see this movie, especially if you (or someone you can convince to come along) is on the fence on this issue. I hope that it can get the visibility it deserves and show people why this is an important civil rights issue.
These three appeared side-by-side in my RSS reader, and the juxtaposition just required a blog entry.
Choir chief fired for backing gay marriage
Or, according to the pastor, for claiming that half the congregation agreed with him. In any case, not a First Amendment case per se, but a freedom of speech issue.
Man defends spreading manure at gay parade
According to Wesley Bono, dumping cow manure in front of a gay couple’s home and spreading it along two city streets is just exercising his First Amendment right to protest.
Husband arrested for murder of his missing wife
A shining advertisement for the folks who want to restrict marriage only to opposite-sex couples, since only such a restriction could prevent anti-family activities like lying about enrolling in medical school.
One of the letters from today’s Globe was somewhat amusing.
AS OF May 17, my family will not patronize any Massachusetts business, purchase any products originating there, or visit, for any reason. You are driving our nation down the path of decadence. JOHN C. O’NEILL Keystone Heights, Fla.
Now, who wants to bet that this guy will still buy things made in, say, China? You know, forced abortions, Tienanmen Square, et cetera?
But hey, that’s not as bad as letting same sex couples marry, is it?.
So, not content with repeatedly trying to stop same-sex weddings, Mitt Romney is now using playground taunt tactics to make them less enjoyable for the participants.
In this case, A petty win for Romney points out that the governor’s made it harder to have your wedding presided over by a person of your choice, even though the one-day waivers have been routine in Massachusetts for years.
According to a Romney spokeswoman, applications have been reviewed; they’re just not releasing the decisions until May 17th. “I know something you don’t know, nyah nyah!!”
Sheesh. Grow up, Governor.
Romney’s backed down a bit and is no longer going to require proof, just the standard affidavit, to show Massachusetts residency for couples getting married after May 17th.
The article does say:
Neither Winslow nor Romney’s spokeswoman Shawn Feddeman would say whether penalties might be imposed on out-of-state couples who lie on their applications. Under Massachusetts law, the maximum penalty for lying on a marriage application is $100.
If this is enforced on anyone, I would be interested to hear if anyone brings up the case of his predecessor Jane Swift, who lied on hers in 1994. The lie was eventually revealed, and even though it was after the statute of limitations had expired, she and her husband paid the fine.
The lie? They’d said he’d been married only once before; in fact, his marriage to her was his fourth.
Ron Crews of the Massachusetts Family Institute is quoted in today’s Boston Globe as saying “States should be able to set definitions around marriage, and then one state should respect another state’s definition.”
Why do I get the feeling that the only “respect” he wants is for Massachusetts to deny marriage to same-sex couples from other states, and not for other states to recognize legal Massachusetts same-sex marriages? Since, when he lived in Georgia, he spearheaded their ban on same-sex marriage, I think the answer is pretty clear.
For Ron Crews, “respect” really means “do it my way.”
Many opponents of same-sex marriage argue that, if it’s allowed, then polygamy (among other things) is not far behind. These are often the same folks who aver that “marriage has always meant one man and one woman” (including Mitt Romney, who should know better; Brigham Young had as many as 19 wives at one point).
However, apparently having polygamy doesn’t lead to same-sex marriage.
The UN wants to allow spousal benefits for same sex couples (if they’re from countries that already have such benefits, such as the Netherlands), but the Organization of the Islamic Conference is against the idea.
The United Nations has already recognized polygamy, a common practice in the Islamic world, as a legitimate form of marriage and permits employees to divide their benefits among their wives. But the decision to expand that right to same-sex partners has fueled intense opposition. Iran’s representative, Alireza Tootoonchian, speaking on behalf of the 56-member Organization of the Islamic Conference, said there was “no justifiable basis” for awarding benefits to same-sex couples. He demanded that the UN clarify its position. The OIC is “seriously concerned about extending the scope of the family definition for the purposes of entitlements,” he said.
