Posts archived in Marriage Equality

0 comments

The Gay Marriage Decision

I’m reading the Federal Court decision holding that marriage inequality violates the US Constitution and I am SHOCKED that, as of yet, it appears the Court IN NO WAY relied on any Tom-C-like testimony about the behavior of homosexuals in bar bathrooms.

Are not our Courts interested in the truth? How can we let the behavior of people in the bathrooms of alcohol-serving establishments be so totally ignored in a determination whether to offer or deny a fundamental right to a certain group of people? Why didn’t the Proponents of Prop 8 subpoena Tom C so the Court could hear his shocking observations about what he has personally seen the gays doing in various bathrooms all across this great nation?

A travesty of justice, surely.

Fox news publicizes the work of Jenny Block. She writes a column titled “Fox on Sex.”

She wrote an autobiographical book about the joys of open marriage.

Let’s face it: the destruction of traditional marriage is perfectly okay with Fox News as long as they don’t have to think about two guys kissing.

So confused… head hurts… Paul.. LePage… sending.. mixed.. messages.. on.. marriage.. equality…

Remember when I brought up Paul LePage’s original statement on civil unions? He said that everyone should get the same legal standing, whether gay or straight, through the creation of civil unions.

Then he went to a candidate forum and said that he didn’t support civil unions. If that seems like the opposite of what he said before then you’re obviously not smart enough to run a surplus and salvage retail chain.

Al Diamon had this to say about the flippity-flop:

Why did LePage give a contradictory answer at the forum? Maybe he heard from folks who’d been married by a justice of the peace and who weren’t pleased about having their coupling converted from wedded bliss to unionization. More likely, he got an earful from GOP right-wingers.

Hey, numb nuts, they politely explained, under your plan, gay people can get civil unions and then have church weddings, which means they’re married. We’re against that. And we’re the people whose votes you need if you don’t want to become one of those unfortunate afterthoughts of Maine political history that only get mentioned when snarky columnists are looking for somebody to pummel.

And now, courtesy of As Maine Goes we see this video of Paul LePage suddenly having no idea what anyone means when they say “civil unions.”

I don’t mind a candidate asking for a definition of a term if you need one to honestly answer the question, but I am confused by Mr. LePage’s answer. Ray Richardson said (and, let me tell you what a strange world we live in when Ray Richardson is the best person we can find to moderate a Republican debate) that civil unions were something that gave everyone, gay or straight, equal rights without conveying the “sacred sacrement of marriage.” To me, that means marriage in everything but name. Paul LePage said sure, he’d support that.

What the hell? Which definitions of “civil unions” wouldn’t you support? The ones that let you marry a goat? Please. I tried really, really hard and I can’t think of a more liberal definition of civil union than the one Ray Richardson gave. ARGH! MY HEAD! IT HURTS!

So far, Mr. LePage’s answers have been “Yes,” “No,” and “Depends” in that order. Way to take a stand, hombre. We’re right there with you as soon as we figure out where there is.

Lastly, I’d like to point out that while Matthew Gagnon did the original interview I believe I was the first person to notice how mind-numbingly ill-thought through was the original answer given by Mr. LePage. Go me!

6 comments

Ha!

From Augusta Insider, via As Maine Goes. Paul LePage flip flops on civil unions. He supported them before he didn’t.

Said the old Paul LePage:

…I go one step further than many because I say if you’re going to get married by the State, its a civil union, period.  Whether you’re a homosexual, lesbian, heterosexual.  Everybody.  That way everybody gets the same legal standing.”

“New” Paul LePage no longer feels it is important for everyone to have the same legal standing.

I might understand why he would switch because it would seem that the newer position would be more endearing to his base, but to be honest no one on the very conservative side seemed to care much about what LePage said. They really seemed to assume that it was a liberal plot or something to make it seem like Paul LePage said he wanted to equalize gay and straight relationships under the law, but they knew deep down in their heart that a guy like Mr. LePage could never really mean it. If no one was giving him any flack, why bother changing his position? Yet another mysterious move by the Mardens’ man.

2 comments

Henry Clay… WHAA?


Henry Clay further defends the indefensible decision of a certain Catholic archdiocese to not allow the child of lesbian parents to attend a daycare open to everyone else. Henry writes:

Questioning the morality of the decision of the church is a false argument because it is an argument where you feel that their morality should match your own rather than looking at what the organization’s position on the issue is in the first place.

Huh? What? Questioning the morality of other organizations is bad? What sort of America does Henry live in? My hypothetical Henry: “Oh, I noticed your drinking fountain only accepts white kids. That seems wrong to me, but it isn’t my place to question your morality, since that is your organization’s position on white drinking fountains after all.” Yea, sure Henry, that’s how it works.

The point is, Henry, that if you’re going to defend this Archdiocese’s decision then you’ve got to actually defend it. Questioning the morality of an immoral decision is never a false argument. The problem you’re having is that the it is very difficult to argue the Church’s position here without looking like someone that likes to single out gays and discriminate against them. Hmm.

The Archdiocese’s official statements aren’t much better:

It’s also true that some of our schools exist as a service outreach in largely non-Catholic communities.  Many of our schools also accept students of other faiths and no faith, and from single parent and divorced parent families.  These students are always welcome so long as their parents support the Catholic mission of the school and do not offer a serious counter-witness to that mission in their actions.

[....]

If parents don’t respect the beliefs of the Church, or live in a manner that openly rejects those beliefs, then partnering with those parents becomes very difficult, if not impossible.  It also places unfair stress on the children, who find themselves caught in the middle, and on their teachers, who have an obligation to teach the authentic faith of the Church.

The problem here is that the Archdiocese doesn’t reject everyone that lives in a manner openly rejecting Church beliefs, just lesbian’s children. How many children of unmarried parents go to these schools? Unmarried, cohabiting parents? How many children of parents on their second or third marriage? How many children of parents that openly support the death penalty, which the Catholic Church is against? How did the Archdiocese deal with children whose parents openly supported invading Iraq, which was unequivocally in violation of Catholicism’s “just war” policy? My guess: the Archdiocese didn’t care. It doesn’t care unless it is about homosexuality.

The Archdiocese has one set of standards for issues of homosexuality, and another set of standards for everything else. That is discrimination, plain and simple.

2 comments

Catholic “Bashing”

Stuff like this drives me crazy.

Dead Protestant/AMG-user “Henry Clay” is pissed off at what he sees as “catholic bashing.”

Here’s the story: A Catholic school in Colorado refused to re-enroll a pre-school age child because that child’s parents are lesbians.

Henry Clay gets upset and writes:

Private organization. They have the Constitutional right to deny membership to anyone they want to. They are privately funded. The parents can enroll the child in another school. Instead they are chosing to publicly criticize this private institution. Catholic-bashing simply to advance an agenda and using the kid as a pawn.

Look, Henry, I know your oratory and reasoning skills have probably declined a bit since you became reanimated and moved to Maine, but you are basing your criticism entirely on straw man arguments. The critics aren’t saying that the Catholic Church doesn’t have the right to deny any child they want, or that there aren’t other schools available. Those facts are irrelevant. The critics are saying that the church is wrong to do what it did! That the church is behaving unethically. Immorally. Like a big meanie.

I’m sure you’ve never dared to “publicly criticize a private organization.” You surely find it un-American to criticize and speak your mind and stuff. You must have been a great Senator.

Henry Clay, before he became a reanimated zombie living one-thousand miles from his Kentucky home.

Call it Catholic “bashing” all you want, but I don’t see how it is bashing the Church to point out something that the Church did and for which it doesn’t even apologize. If the Church thinks it is on the moral high ground here, why wouldn’t it want this news broadcast as widely as possible? Suck it up, Henry. There are consequences to organizations when they refuse to let little children join their pre-school program for reasons that most Americans find abhorrent. If you’re so sure you’re right on this, don’t try to hide it. Welcome the discussion.

And lastly, I despise the allegation that the parents are using their child as “a pawn.” As if the parents started it. As if they didn’t just try to re-enroll their child in the same pre-school he/she went to last semester. As if they asked the Catholic Church to ban their child, but not the children of athiests, or divorced parents, or never-married parents, or parents using birth control pills. As if they somehow concocted a grand scheme to make that Diocese look like a bunch of narrow-minded hypocrites.

I want to take a moment and speak seriously. Yes, getting on a soapbox can turn people off- but I’m paying my $5 per month for this soapbox so I can use it when I want. If you think this is too long, then all I can say is don’t read it.

I want to talk about how we perceive gays and lesbians in our society and on AMG.

First, for the record, let me say that I am not gay but I am married. I wish homosexuals across Maine could have that same blessing.

Ten years ago, a vote to legalize gay marriage would never have passed the legislature. A people’s veto would have repealed any gay marriage law with only the most hardcore liberal voting against. The issue was going nowhere. But in 2009, Maine showed how close we are to real equality. No on 1 lost by less than 6%. It is utterly disappointing for supporters, but 6% is only 6%. In terms of actual voters, we now only need to change the minds of a few dozen thousand people. That isn’t much. And let’s face it: no one that voted for gay marriage is going to vote against it next time. There is no attrition in the other direction. Every mind that comes over to equality is here to stay.

Polls support optimism. Here is a combined view of nationwide polls over the last fifteen years:

A 6% increase in support for gay marriage is only 3-6 years away if support in Maine increases at somewhat the same rate as shown above.

Similar trends can be observed outside of the marriage issue. Observe the change in American opinion on whether homosexuals should be allowed to openly serve in the military:

There is but one reason for this dramatic change in voter acceptance towards homosexuals over the last 40 years: the choice of many homosexuals to come out of the closet. Most people that really know a gay or lesbian person begin to understand pretty quickly that there is nothing of which to be afraid. They are friends. They work at regular jobs, just like you. They pay bills, just like you. They raise children. They work at the same jobs, eat at the same tables, and watch the same movies that you do. It may seem simply obvious to many people now, but for years it was not: homosexuals are regular people.

This is still not obvious to everyone. In particular, it is not obvious to hard-core social conservatives like we find on AMG. Look at my interaction the other week with Tom C and check out the thread on which it is based.

Tom is gloating on AMG because he sure taught the liberals a lesson:

Oh, gosh, Cuz, we just mopped the floors with the liberals.

It doesn’t seem sporting.

Hey, liberals, next time we have a “battle of wits” I’ll make it a fair fight and only use half of mine.

lol.

He seems to think that he wins the argument when the other side stops talking. Despite the stunning blow his wits inflicted upon liberals from Kittery to New Canada, his comments leading up to that point illustrate one reason why same-sex marriage will continue to gain traction with voters: those opposing same-sex marriage, when they’re not careful, do so tactlessly and without respect for the human beings they are discussing and, collaterally, the voters that know them.

What does a person think when told that homosexuality is but a hop, skip and a jump away from pedophilia, but their gay friend or co-worker shows no signs of such evil? What is the friend of a gay man to think when an anonymous person on the internet, a person that has never met the gay friend, accuses homosexual persons of general sympathy towards monsters that assault children? These words make an impression that will never be forgotten. They may score points with anyone already convinced that gays are somehow different, but they drive away those outside that narrow bubble.

Even worse is the barely guarded hatred expressed by AMG user Apollo when he attempts to counter Charlotte’s statement that sexual abuse of young children is, shockingly, not supported by the gay community. Apollo answered with the snide remark:

Then why was NAMBLA founded by gay men?

It is a despicable thing to say. A sexual orientation didn’t found NAMBLA- specific people did. Impugning Mainers who had absolutely zero to do with NAMBLA, and are as disgusted by it as any other Mainer, is tripe. Most Mainers recognize that.

Apollo, whoever he is, would probably not walk up to a gay person at work, or in the mall, or at a school and say, “Hey you! You probably love NAMBLA, don’t you?” Not because Apollo doesn’t think he is right to make such a comment, but because he probably has some sense of shame. It is much harder to tell a person you think they are a monster to their face. To someone like me, the thought that the homosexual persons I spend time with are guilty, by association, of being in cahoots with NAMBLA is a sick, twisted joke. Apollo, by making such asinine suggestions, has lost all credibility with me. It can never be regained. No words he says or types in the future will ever penetrate the wall of disgust he has created between him and me. Undoubtedly this experience is not unique to myself.

Tom C and Apollo think they “won” somehow, but I feel there are hundreds of readers of AMG that feel the same sinking feeling in their gut that I do when reading that particular thread. They recognize the tactic: dehumanization. Those gays, you can’t trust them with your children. You can’t trust them in society. They are not individuals, but part of a different group; a group that wants to do bad things. If you meet one, he or she is not quite as deserving of the same benefit of the doubt as your other neighbors. Be wary. Did you know they started NAMBLA?

That tactic of fear has some short term gain but slowly and surely it pushes the young and undecided away. Marriage equality is absolutely, unequivocally just a matter of time. And the more certain AMG types spread their laughing, indolent accusations towards people with whom they have never cross paths, the more they drive away the sympathies of those that separate rhetoric from reality.

0 comments

The Paul LePage Marriage Equality Act

Only five people are needed to start a citizen initiative. On the off-chance that Paul LePage somehow does not become Governor, I’d like to make sure his gay marriage plan becomes law. I know, I know, Mr. LePage is so far in line with the average Maine voter- how could he lose? Especially after his stunningly smart decision to appear on the Aroostook Watchmen radio program. Paul LePage is crazy like a fox; the mentally ill demographic is rarely courted this seriously! It seems destiny that the Marden’s Lady will soon be Secretary of State, but I still would like to have a backup plan.

So here it is: Let’s have a referendum on Paul LePage’s marriage plan.

You might remember that I asked Mr. LePage to clarify his position on marriage because conservatives just don’t seem to believe me. He responded via Facebook:

I believe marriage to be between a man and a woman. Further, I see no need to change marriage nor do I believe government has any role in marriage. Having said that everyone should have the right to enter into a binding legal contract. Contracts can be entered into by companies, agencies, governmets, people or any combinations of the above. I simply cannot imagine anyone would prevent two males or two females from entering into a contract. It is my belief a contract and marriage are completely different issues. Therefore, if all people are created equal how can we prevent a certain class of people from entering into a contract. How can government prevent churches from adopting rules that govern their religion. Therefore, government should oversee contracts, while churches should oversee marriage. If churches adopt rules allowing marriage betwwen people of the same sex, government should mot be allowed to intervene.
Paul

Some of this is nonsensical. “I see no need to change marriage nor do I believe government has any role in marriage?” Government has had a role in marriage for a long, long time. Getting government OUT of marriage would be a radical change. Nevertheless, I still like the concept of states enforcing contracts between people, gay or straight, and letting churches marry anyone, gay or straight. Equality just seems cool to me, you know?

He does say he is against gay marriage. This is, however, in the same way that John Kerry is against abortion. He isn’t going to get one, but he isn’t going to stop you, either.

So what I’d like to do is start a referendum. We need five people to get this question on a petition to circulate. Then we can get signatures to put it on the ballot. First up would be Paul LePage. Then Roger Ek, no doubt, would sign on, as would most AMGers. Only 55-odd-thousand to go after that.

Bob Emrich might not sign it, however. I asked him what he thought of this whole thing. He wrote back:

I would want to see more specifics, but I am not inclined “get government out of marriage”. I believe that government has a compelling interest in promoting marriage.

Uh-oh. Well, maybe he’ll make up his mind when he sees the “specifics.” We’ll call his signature in-play.