The Mumbo Jumbo Of Excluding Gays
Bush says he wants to ìprotect marriage as an institutionî...îbetween a man and a woman.î Let me get this straight. An ìinstitutionî is what? An abstract way of referring to something more concrete? (ie, the purposes and practices of the couple who is married -- lifelong commitment, setting for raising children, and lots of other dull stuff.) Why would you want to protect ìan institutionî? And, come on: How could it possibly hurt any hetero married couples if gay people are allowed to share in the legal protections the state grants straight people (who partake of the delusion that committing to somebody for a lifetime makes sense)?
Maybe it has something (or everything) to do with the insitution of marriage being solidly based in religion. Promoting the viewpoint that gays shouldnít be allowed to marry is the antithesis of separation of church and state.
And then there's all this "slippery slope" stuff. The fundamentalists gasp, "Well, what if people were allowed to...marry more than one person!?" Well, why shouldnít they be allowed to? Why, in fact, shouldnít consenting adults be allowed to do whatever they please, with whichever consenting adults they please?
By the way, like Bush's seemingly bizarre mention of Dred Scott during the last debate (which Slate's Timothy Noah suggested was fundamentalist code for Roe v. Wade), all this "protection of the institution of marriage" crap is code for another institution: continuing discrimination against gays by a bunch of primitives who are secretly inserting as much of their religion into the governing of this country as they can. Here are a few words from religious right powerhouse Paul Weyrich on how to turn the country into the fundamentalist nation:
1) Falsehoods are not only acceptable, they are a necessity. The corollary is: The masses will accept any lie if it is spoken with vigor, energy and dedication.2) It is necessary to be cast under the cloak of ìgoodnessî whereas all opponents and their ideas must be cast as ìevil.î
3) Complete destruction of every opponent must be accomplished through unrelenting personal attacks.
4) The creation of the appearance of overwhelming power and brutality is necessary in order to destroy the will of opponents to launch opposition of any kind.
Sound familiar?
This week, while writing a column about "coming out" in the workplace (the girl wanted to bring her partner of five years to work functions just like everybody else), I learned something chilling:
ÝInÝ36 states,Ýit is legal to fire someone based on their sexual orientation.
Yes, it's hard to believe, but you can literally be fired for being gay.
Those who experience this form of discrimination have no recourse under current federal law or under the Constitution as it has been interpreted by the courts.
This is America? Be terrified. Be very, very terrified.
Oh my god, Bush was disingenuous about something? That's incredible!
Sorry.
What's so fucking asinine about this DOMA bullshit is that it has zero chance of passing and even its supporters, even the people proposing it must know that, so it's just a waste of everyone's time in order to pander to the neanderthal vote.
Merkin at October 15, 2004 6:16 AM
"In 36 states, it is legal to fire someone based on their sexual orientation."
Who wants a job anyway? Work only interferes with the time I'm trying to devote exclusively to sodomy! I'm much more concerned that I might get thrown in jail for fucking someone in the ass. (On the other hand, jail is probably a great place for someone with my proclivities.)
Lena Cuisina and the Strap-Ons, Live at the Hollywood Bowel at October 15, 2004 8:04 AM
> This is America? Be terrified. Be
> very, very terrified.
What is this fascination the left has with interior conditions?
Cridland at October 15, 2004 6:48 PM
See, that's why I like dropping in here. Lena you crack me up. Anyway, let's don't be getting so terrified. Yes, there are some pretty awful criminal and civil laws still on the books throughout the nation. Most of them have been around for decades, layer upon layer until the legal books require libraries to hold them all. The key is that although they are there, it still takes a prosecutor to bring a case to trial. The majority of them seem to ignore the out of date crapola laws because they know the Supreme Court would throw them out on their butts. There must be a gazillion asinine laws floating around. But you never hear much about a real court case over them. It's assumed they'd never get past the first appeals court anyway. Ugh, I'm talking about legal stuff. I hate legal stuff. What a waste of money and productive brain power.
Here's my solution. If you create or alter a law, you gotta take one off. You choose. A little off topic, but a decent corollary would be pass a new program to spend tax monies, you gotta take an equal amount off of something else. Say like a sugar subsidy program that makes US sugar something like 10 times the world price to the consumer. No new debt. Doesn't that sound reasonable? Whoa, why stop there? How about one law on, five off? I'm liking this better and....
allan at October 15, 2004 7:10 PM
Who, Crid, is "left"? Certainly not me. Fiscally, I'm highly conservative; socially, libertarian. I don't like Kerry. But I would vote for my dog before I vote for that fundamentalist spendthrift who calls himself "conservative," George Bush. Moreover, what about granting rights based on what's fair in a secular sense is "interior"? Or was that a reflection on sodomy?
Amy Alkon at October 15, 2004 7:51 PM
Check out the link below. I've heard several stories in 2004 about enforcement of these arcane laws. I'll go with Amy on this one - CHILLING.
http://www.unmarriedamerica.org/News-About-Us/Anti-cohabitation.htm
Sunday, March 28, 2004 - Anti-cohabitation laws still being enforced:
A story published in the Los Angeles Times reports that a criminal anti-cohabitation statute in North Carolina is being enforced in that state.
North Carolina is one of seven states that prohibits men and women from living together unless they are married. Laws against cohabitation are still in place in Florida, Michigan, Mississippi, North Carolina, North Dakota, Virginia and West Virginia.
Jeff R at October 15, 2004 10:04 PM
Amy: "Fiscally, I'm highly conservative"
But you've picked up the dinner tab more times than I could ever count!
Jeff R: "a criminal anti-cohabitation statute in North Carolina is being enforced"
Anti-cohabitation is now the rule of the day at the House of Lena as well. After a while, I got tired of cleaning out the remains of roommates from the coffee grinder.
Lena Cuisina at October 15, 2004 11:00 PM
> Who, Crid, is "left"? Certainly not me.
Are too! Are too, are too, are too.
> what about granting rights based on
> what's fair in a secular sense ...
Lefties are obsessed with fairness, in a teenaged sort of way, and there's no limit to the number of laws they're will to enact in order to get it.
> In 36 states, it is legal to fire someone
> based on their sexual orientation.
If that were true, and the world were the hateful place you want to us to be "scared" that it is, there'd probably be a lot more unemployed gays. Not because they're gay, precisely, but just because people are shits.
> Or was that a reflection on sodomy?
I'm too old to think about sodomy that carefully.
Read Seipp more! She had this thing today where.... FUggit, just go read her WSJ piece.
Anonymous at October 16, 2004 12:51 AM
I prefer to just kick unwanted guests out the door. Grinding them up in the coffee grinder takes forever.
"But you've picked up the dinner tab more times than I could ever count!"
Well, for worthwhile dinner guests. They are few and far between.
Crid, I sent Miss Seipp a note complimenting her on her WSJ piece -- she's written on this topic before, too. And she's right. Morons have no business voting. Madonna not being registered? A good thing. Well, except that she'd vote for the unworthy candidate I'm voting for, instead of the other unworthy candidate.
> In 36 states, it is legal to fire someone
> based on their sexual orientation.
If that were true, and the world were the hateful place you want to us to be "scared" that it is, there'd probably be a lot more unemployed gays. Not because they're gay, precisely, but just because people are shits."
It is true. I interviewed a lawyer from LAMBDA about it for 20 minutes, but chose to not make it part of that particular question I wrote, because I wanted it to focus on another topic -- essentially, gay people with corporate jobs (not working drag queens and all) are just as boring as everybody else. And when they come out at the work place -- no, not by decorating with butt plugs, but simply by mentioning their partner the way somebody might mention their husband -- the homophobes and fundamentalists can see...as Cheney did...they're actually just daughters...and people...who are as unexotic about double coupons and cleaning the kitchen counter as the rest of the population.
In my Biography Channel spots, there was a tranny named Cairo, who wanted a boyfriend. And that's what he wanted - not somebody who was fetish focused - but somebody to live with him and do the laundry while he was cooking dinner.
The sicko religious fanatics still want to prosecute gays for having sex -- funny, since there are probably many more closet McGreevy's in their ranks. Too bad there aren't more atheists and agnostics. I'm a godless live-and-let-live-er all the way. Except, and this is to Crid, you can pay for your own damn health insurance...and, in fact, you can pay for your own damn kids to go to school. I'll pay for poor kids. But if you're middle class or above, you pay their way.
Amy Alkon at October 16, 2004 1:11 AM
"Morons have no business voting."
Unfortunately, non-morons probably have no business voting either, since pretty much any intellegent analysis of public policy issues boils down to a decision between Tweedle-Dum and Tweedle-Dee. I hate Nader as much as anyone else, but he's dead right about the sorry state of electoral politics in the U.S. I've grown to hate the sound of Kerry's voice as much as I hate Bush's.
But I love my blogging niggas and nigettes!
Lena Doggy Dogg at October 16, 2004 9:37 AM
I'm lost in your response, but FWIW, I've been paying (thou$and$) for my own insurance for the last 12 years. The only way health care is going to get cheaper is when people stop asking other people to pay for it.
Cridland at October 16, 2004 8:19 PM
Well, you don't have to be a religious zealot, a fascist, or a homophobe to know that homosexuality is wrong. And no, I don't have to call it " gay " and be " politically correct ".... I don't like politics :) I call it what it is. And to all of you out there who are atheists, or liberals, or Bush bashers, or for those that make the Castro District in San Francisco their home away from home, there's no need to take religious philosophy into consideration on this topic. Lets just keep it simple. Well then, do we legitimize your " relationship " by changing the law allowing you to be " Married ".. Well, lets simply look to nature in an attempt to distinguish right from wrong. It's a simple fact. Not a lot of same sex activity in nature now is there?
Undoubtedly if that were the case, a lot of species would simply cease to exist, now wouldn't they? That goes for homosapiens too. Oh, wait... I see, the argument. Being a " man " or a " woman " with a " thinking " brain and a " right to choose " makes you different from the animal kingdom, right? No it doesn't, it simply makes you perverted. I can hardly see Cromagnum men running around screwing each other in the ass..... They were too busy trying to eat and to stay alive. You on the other hand, are to busy trying to find the next sordid pleasure in your jaded life, or are concerned about getting a financial break by being " married ", or better yet, the right to use you lovers insurance from work. Well, we don't need to change history or rewrite the Constitution or State Legislature in order to offer you acceptance by legitimizing your " lifestyle " by labeling you " married " . It's not acceptable for most people, because it is not natural. Religion and politics completely aside. Just because " the liberal media bombards us with " Queer Eye " or " Will and Grace " doesn't change the fact. All the liberal media does is dull your weak mind, jade you, until suddenly we find the unacceptable, acceptable. Right? NOT. This is not movie ratings.
Well I, like many ( who may or may not be affiliated religiously, I'm certaingly not ) think marriage is meant to be between a man and a woman. I don't really care if its defined as an " institution " or not. It doesn't need to be labeled, so let's cut to the chase, shall we? Show me a point in history ( of any significance ) where " same sex " marriage was accepted, or better yet, the order of the day.. MMmm... hard to do, indeed.
Ya know, given all the references to the L.A. and N.Y. Times at this site, I can certainly understand why everyone seems so confused over such a simple fact. You whine because you have bought into this leftist crap, that " being gay " has suddenly become some acceptable standard that we should all abide by, and that we should actually consider legitimizing it by labeling you and your homosexual lover " married ". The people that would do that are exactly what is wrong with this Country. And no doubt they'll definitely continue that way. However, I don't need to read the Times, or have someone liberal whine to me until I'm half deaf to decipher what is right and what is wrong. I already know. Its simple. And " its natural ".
So just wandering now, hmmm... how did I get to this site? Oh yes, I was considering boycotting Proctor and Gamble and ended up here somehow, now I remember. Well then, off to do some good work.
Who Dat? at October 23, 2004 8:13 PM
In fact, under-literate one, there's a good deal of homosexuality in other animals; the bonobos, for example. I'm not a leftist, by the way; I'm fiscally conservative, very libertarian in terms of policies I'm for, and pretty much live-and-let live. So sorry it makes you so terribly nervous that gays might want rights your bible didn't explicitly grant them. It's scary how many primitives like you there are out there. Quite frankly, I'm against any kind of marriage privileging. But if it's offered to heterosexual taxpayers, it should be offered to homosexual taxpayers, too. The fact that you are unconfortable with gays being granted rights should not be an issue, you anonymous weenie. The posts here are all under my name. How typical that you post and run, with no intention of standing behind your primitive spew. By the way, a few decades back, I would guess you would have been among those uncomfortable with granting blacks equal rights. You're disgusting and backward. In what way would it hurt you if gays were allowed to marry? Perhaps you should explore your sexuality a little more. Maybe a blow job in the Castro from some hot man would get you a little closer to your real issue.
Amy Alkon at October 23, 2004 8:24 PM
Well, hey there Amy!
Gee, I'm sorry Amy, a blow job in Castro? You must have confused me with your Father. And please.. I'm not religious, backward, or unintelligent. I'm sure my IQ is as high, and likely, MUCH higher than yours. You don't know me for shit, so lets stop the labeling, K? Obviously you are quite confused to begin with, and that only makes you look more pitiful. So why don't you just keep to your libertarian agenda and go off and protest for the legalization of narcotics and prostitution, hmmmm ? That would be another great step for America, right? Just like homosexual " marriage ". What a wonderful direction, you must be very proud of yourself. Even the hopeless and pitiful Socialist French shot Homo-marriage and drug legalization down. Boy are you progressive, I'm so impressed! NOT.
Maybe if your Daddy would of brought you up with some decency, you would have a better grasp of right and wrong. Oh well, we know he's been busy with all that dope and man sucking, no time for poor confused Amy....
What's really important here is that you don't give any credible evidence to your " argument " whatsoever in regards to the subject at hand. Nothing but blind rationalization based on a pitiful example of some atypical organism. What no societal examples? Cat got your tongue? So let's see, let me give you 1,000,000 examples of why I am correct.... However, I don't feel the necessity to waste my breath on the likes of you. You are simply another whiner, and full of crap as well. And please.... don't try to legitimize yourself by saying that you are consersative anything. The topic under discussion is not the economy, or the tax code, or if you wear pajamas or sleep in the buff with your friends on dope. Its whether we should change the law to include homosexuals in marriage. I am against it because I know it is wrong. You are for it because you don't understand right from wrong. Even your new hero John Kerry is against it. I guess he does understand right and wrong on one issue. And yes Amy, YOU ARE what is wrong with this Country. Not the dissenter, just the fact that you are another dumbass that doesn't understand right from wrong, everything is gray. We'd all be dead if we left history to the likes of you. A little advice: Grow up and face reality. Have some backbone. Quit bending like Gumby. This country wasn't built by people like you, and it won't survive with people like you. Ok then, well we're all waiting for your facsist / homophobic label, your little rant. Is that coming now? PS: And I do explore my sexuallity, just not with men, like your Daddy. It's the natural thing to do. So Amy, having fun with your vibrator tonight? " TOM "
Whodat at October 29, 2004 8:20 PM