What Banning Gay Marriage Means
From a practical perspective:
In Michigan, Republican Attorney General Mike Cox and several conservative groups are arguing in court that the gay-marriage ban approved by voters in 2004 should be interpreted as barring local governments and public universities from providing health insurance to partners of gay workers.In Nebraska, state officials are trying to reinstate a ban on same-sex marriages that was struck down by a federal judge and is considered by gay-rights advocates to be the harshest such ban in the nation. Approved with 70 percent support in 2000, the constitutional amendment bars virtually any legal protections for same-sex couples, including shared health benefits for gays employed by the state. The amendment "made gay people into political outcasts," said American Civil Liberties Union lawyer Tamara Lange.
In Ohio, conservatives who helped win passage of a 2004 ban on same-sex marriages and civil unions are now suing to stop a state university from offering health insurance to employees' same-sex partners.
That Miami University program "violates state law by creating a legal status for same-sex couples designed to mimic marriage," said lawyer Jeff Shafer of the Alliance Defense Fund. "Granting special legal status to newfangled nonmarital relationships is a state policy option rejected by the voters."
Lambda Legal lawyer Camilla Taylor said the lawsuit, if successful, would validate discrimination. "I'm sure gay and lesbian families are wondering if Ohio is the right state for them to live in," she said.
In New Jersey, one of a handful of states with a domestic partnership law, activists were dismayed by two recent cases dramatizing the law's limitations. In one case, Ocean County officials refused to approve the transfer of death benefits to the lesbian partner of a cancer-stricken law enforcement officer, Lt. Laurel Hester. In another case, also involving lesbians who registered as domestic partners, 66-year-old Betty Jordan is suing the state because of a ruling that she is not entitled to the couple's home and cars after her partner's death in July.
This blog post is dedicated to all the people who think religion is harmless.
There you go condemning all religion based on the actions of a few. So much for logic and reasoning.
It's hard to get worked up over anti-marriage bans after they've been thrown out by the courts. You must be surprised that there hasn't been rioting in the street and public lynchings by Christians over this issue.
nash at December 4, 2005 1:46 PM
The other thing is that most people supported domestic partnership benefits before the push for same-sex marriage in the courts. But a large majority of people view the attempts to force recognition of same sex marriage in the courts as an attack on their religion. This has allowed some overzealous conservatives to slip in legislation banning domestic partnerships as well. So in a sense the advocates of same sex marriage have brought this on themselves.
But it's funny to hear you moaning the loss of marriage rights when I thought you didn't believe in marriage to begin with.
nash at December 4, 2005 2:23 PM
Just because a person doesn't believe in marriage doesn't mean that they don't recognize and oppose discrimination in regards to marriage. I don't believe in censorship but I do moan about idiots posting their non-sensical justifications all over the internet.
Christina at December 4, 2005 6:48 PM
I don't believe in marriage, but if straight people get special rights, gay people should be allowed them, too. Moreover, I think we should have a civil partnership agreement for people like me who don't believe in marriage, like the PACS in France.
Amy Alkon at December 4, 2005 7:39 PM
Um, Amy, which commenter in that other post claimed religion is *harmless*? Religion can indeed be harmful. Here's a non-exhaustive list of other things that can be harmful: food, alcohol, driving, sex, sun-bathing, swimming, operating heavy equipment after taking Nyquil. So what? As Nash says, your entire case against religion seems to consist of the attribution of the harmful effects of particular individual religious beliefs to *all* religious people. Since atheists were behind the worst cases of democide in human history, does that discredit atheism? I don't think so, but if I were to apply your reasoning about religion to the case of atheism, I might very well make that claim.
Artemis at December 5, 2005 10:56 AM
This says nothing of the damage inflicted by the continued and outdated insistence of the Catholic church that gay men not be ordained as priests.
The church is beginning to say those who've had 'transitory' homosexual experiences 'may' be considered.
Like the conservative stand that gay marriage shouldn't be allowed, fundamentalist Catholic rhetoric banning gays and women from the priesthood, says that the majority of their constituents cannot have any meaningful role in the direction of their church.
It's time the church moved into the 20th century, nevermind the 21st.
James Wanless at December 5, 2005 11:18 AM
I don't get it, James. Are you a Catholic? Do you want to become a Catholic priest? If you were/are a "practicing" gay man, why *would* you want to become a Catholic priest? You are aware of that whole "no sex except in the context of marriage" rule the Catholics have going, aren't you?
And you need to get your facts straight. The Catholic Church has not had a "continuing" policy of banning gay men from the priesthood. That's why there are lots of, you know, gay men in the priesthood. I think their position up to this point has been that it if you're going to take a vow of chastity, it doesn't matter if you're gay or straight. I don't like the *change* they recently made in their policy, but again, that's their prerogative. If you don't like their rules, you don't have to live by them.
Artemis at December 6, 2005 12:45 AM
Leave a comment