Heh

[altivo]

So after more than two years on LJ and well over a hundred long term friends, someone I barely know decides to ban me from his journal simply because he disagrees with my rather mild politics. It's amazing how prejudiced and opinionated people can be, I guess. Oddly enough, he still lists me as a friend so he may read this. No matter to me. I did nothing wrong, other than present a few unbiased facts.

So, if I'm going to be hung for simple words, I might as well be hung for the real truth: Even though I don't particularly favor the idea of same sex marriages, I do agree that if the legal privileges of marriage are to be available to some, they should be available to all. It serves society and the government not one bit to be spending civil resources to enforce the views of certain religions, even if those religions are in the majority. We have separation of church and state, folks. It's a basic tenet of our society and law. The churches can say and do what they will about same sex marriage. But the state does not have that freedom. It is required by the Constitution to grant the same protections and privileges to all citizens equally. That means regardless of race, gender, or sexual orientation.

Yes, I also think barring gays from the military services is unconstitutional, even though I can't understand why anyone in their right mind would choose to serve the US military as it is presently structured and operated.

The wording of this amendment that Bush has just supported is mean-spirited, twisted, and devious. It will deny recognition not only to same sex "marriage" but will deny the awarding of any benefits normally conferred upon those who are in a married state to same sex couples, even if their civil union, domestic partnership, or whatever you should choose to call it is in fact sanctioned and recognized by the state in which they live. This goes way beyond the authority of the federal government, and is a violation of the tenth amendment as far as I can see. They will have to repeal or amend the tenth amendment, and probably the fourteenth as well.

Can this amendment pass and be ratified? Alas, I suspect it can. With a Congress and Executive that is willing to try to exempt laws from judicial review, in direct contravention of the Constitution, and both apparently believing they can actually do so, passage seems likely if congresscritters think there will be political advantage to passing it. The US voter population appears to be almost equally divided on the subject of same sex marriage, but also seems to be easily stampeded if scary enough arguments are presented. One is reminded of the Equal Rights Amendment, which failed ratification by the states after a silly campaign opposing it claimed that rest rooms would have to become unisex and boys and girls would have to share common locker rooms and showers in school gymnasiums. We will see the same sort of scare tactics in support of this ridiculous amendment, folks.

I say if "marriage" is in need of legal "defense" then something is already critically wrong with the institution and it's time for a complete overhaul, rather than knee-jerk resistance to any social change.

Comments

[lobowolf.livejournal.com]

This country is going down the toilet and Bush is the one doing the flushing.

The whole thing is on one hand laughable..as in "How does legalizing marraige or civil unions for gays do ANYTHING to harm straight marraige?" On the other hand, it's sickening that our president has decided that's it's all well and good to pass an amendment that will deny a specific subgroup of Americans from realizing their civil rights under the Constitution. What's next? The repeal of slavery?

[altivo.livejournal.com]

Well, of course it is true that the institution of slavery was defended on religious grounds by the same kind of churches that oppose gay rights and same sex marriage. So if he's willing to do anything to get the support of the religious right wingnuts, he ought to be willing to repeal the 15th amendment and reinstitute slavery. Why not? He's already in favor of using Mexicans as slaves because "it's good for business."

[daikitsune.livejournal.com]

To put this in the constitution would be horrendously difficult. 2/3 of the house and senate as well as 2/3 of the states. They might get the states, but I sincerely doubt they'll manage to get 2/3 of the representatives to go along with it, especially since the population is pretty much split down the middle. I would expect it to slice down party lines...

Either way, I agree with pretty much everything you said here. This is trash, and is definitely an attempt to pander to the right wing religious nutballs out there. Notice that the last time he mentioned this whole thing was before the 2004 elections...

[altivo.livejournal.com]

Looking at the amazing and absurd voting records of both houses of Congress over the past four years, I see few obstacles to passage as long as the Republican party backs it firmly enough.

As for the states, how many have already passed ludicrous laws opposing same sex marriage and trying to deny the validity of Massachusetts marriages or Vermont civil unions? How many more have such laws pending and expected to pass?

[kamodragon.livejournal.com]

Agreed. I don't know the extent of what will happen in years to come, but I do know this country is just about as policed as any third world country. The land of the free is nothing but conditional freedom that applied only to straight, white, middle-upper class american families with their 2.5 kids, yorkshire terrier and picket fence. Sometimes when I look at their 'big picture' it feels like a modern version of Natzi Germany, only things happen less bluntly and the ignorance of those who follow is rampant. Although there are many things I like about this country, the government is not one of them. I feel that in the next few years if things do not take a drastic change for the better I will be on a plane elsewhere.

[altivo.livejournal.com]

You left out a word. "Freedom" in the US applies only to males. Females still have no freedom to speak of. ;p

Yes, unfortunately, the present direction of our society and government is very similar to that of Germany back in the early 1930s. I am not at all comfortable about this, but we live in a culture that no longer knows any history. They know who Hitler was, but few details about what he did or how he came to power. Bush is no Hitler, he's nowhere near sly or clever enough, but having Nazi like attitudes and powers invested in a group of leadership who have a lot of power divided among them is, if anything, even more frightening.

[chibiabos.livejournal.com]

You're the third friend on my list to get banned by someone. Maybe they're just dumping you 'cuz you're friends with me, heh.

[altivo.livejournal.com]

I doubt it. The puzzling thing is that I didn't even say anything incendiary or controversial. Just presented a few other viewpoints. Seems to me if you don't want other viewpoints, you shouldn't be allowing comments at all.

He friended me first, actually. Guess he really didn't read much of what I write, or look at my interests, or he'd have known I was likely to challenge social conservatism.

[altivo.livejournal.com]

I bothered to look at the next posting in his journal. It appears that he banned me because I said something to suggest that George Bush was not a saint, and had specific devious political motives in backing this amendment. Sure enough, he has said he will ban anyone who criticizes "our leaders." Gah.

[kildoo-lonewolf.livejournal.com]

I totally agree with you. Sadly, I think we will have the same problem here with our new Prime Minister (Harper) :(

BTW' as long as you state your disagreements in such a nice manner, I can assure you I wouldn't ban you from my journal. And even if you were ruder I would do as I did once; ask for respect in my den and just erase the inflammatory post and let people rephrase their point of view.

[altivo.livejournal.com]

Thanks. I'm not really bothered about being banned, though the fact that LJ lets you type in a whole long comment before telling you is irritating.

I suppose I should be a little more careful about taking strangers at face value, though.

[cats-haven.livejournal.com]

I couldn't have put it any better. I'm in a domestic partnership with no real intention of being married; ever. There is nothing wrong with it and there should be nothing wrong with gay people wanting to be married either.

I do agree completely that we need to overhaul our whole polical system from top to bottom if we actually have to defend the basics of 'marriage' for anyone.

I say, boot everyone out of D.C. then start all over; making sure to clarify even the simplest concepts and close as many loopholes as possible. If someone wants to elad the country, then they should lead it, not cater to the whims of some bible thumper that cannot see beyond the end of their own nose due to the fact they have their heads shoved so far up their asses they can see the back of their tonsils.

[altivo.livejournal.com]

Would that it were so easy. Unfortunately, money still controls power here, and does so very effectively.

[toy-dragon.livejournal.com]

Actually, while it's tempting to assume that the administration can merely wave a hand and get its way right now, that's not true. Aside from the fact that Bush's supporters are, at last, truly starting to get tired of the way things are going (it can only last so long before even the most dense redneck or most paid-off politico realizes they're going to get hurt too), even the conservative analysts have predicted from the start that this amendment will never fly. It just won't get near the votes it needs - and the analysis is that the real reason for this entire initiative is to distract everyone and tie up the political process with /this/ amendment attempt so that Bush and Co. are not in quite as immediate danger of other actions being taken against them. Remember how little time a week congress and the senate actually work ;p

The other reason for all the emphasis of course, is for the Republicans to say "see! We remember you!" to their right wing, religious bigot voting base which has itself been grumbling about where a lot of their upper-middle class money has been going. You see, being ignorant of how the world beyond the borders of the United States (and their gated communities) works, they didn't know things like war are expensive.

[altivo.livejournal.com]

I agree with you entirely that this thing is a deliberate red herring to distract people's attention from the more serious crimes of this administration. The domestic spying issue really is crucial, and is the same sort of issue as the ones that forced Richard Nixon to resign. So far it doesn't look like there is sufficient reaction to that, but the administration is bringing this forward in order to confuse the radar, so to speak.

I'm still worried though that it could actually pass. It wouldn't stand in the long run, and like Prohibition I expect it would get repealed. What a waste of energy it would be. The other gains that could be taken away as a result of this are a much more serious issue.

[cabcat.livejournal.com]

quotey: *I doubt it. The puzzling thing is that I didn't even say anything incendiary or controversial*

It was the evil scarves.

[hellmutt.livejournal.com]

Evil liberal antiAmerican pinko scarves! :D

[altivo.livejournal.com]

Those are your fault, not mine. I'm just about to steam the evil spirits out of them with a hot iron, by the way.

[hellmutt.livejournal.com]

Even though I don't particularly favor the idea of same sex marriages, I do agree that if the legal privileges of marriage are to be available to some, they should be available to all.

Hear hear.

I'm not sure I understand this "ban everyone who doesn't agree with you" malarkey. Heh. I enjoy being disagreed or reasoned with. (Though not accused of being a [whoever]-hater, which has happened in a few of the touchier communities I read...)

[altivo.livejournal.com]

Oh, it's immature behavior, of course. In this case, the subject is a high school student who lives in a benighted and intolerant part of the country, so in truth he probably knows no better. Of course, like his neighbors, he will learn no better either if he seeks to silence everyone whose views he finds disturbing or threatening.

[deffox]

Banned for the small amount of politics you mention?

For the amendment at the federal level, there is no chance of it passing this time. It's just a stupid political ploy. They knew before they brought it up that it wouldn't pass.

The bans all seem to pass easily on the state level unfortunately. So I do worry that a federal amendment is possible someday.

But hopefully they are starting to leave voters behind on the issue. I found this article interesting:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13121953/site/newsweek/

In particular how they claim support for gay marriage has gone up 10% in just two years. I don't think attitudes can change that fast, but it is a ray of hope in the last several years of gloom.

I've always voted against any attempt to take away freedoms. The most recent was a Wisconsin amendment to bar felons from running for public office. Naturally it still passed by a huge margin.

[chibiabos.livejournal.com]

Would that mean they couldn't elect Cheney to an office? :p

[avon-deer.livejournal.com]

Breaking news

[altivo.livejournal.com]

Interesting but not unexpected. The real point of this whole fiasco, of course, is not to actually pass the amendment, though they wouldn't mind that, but to rally support among the more rednecked voting constituencies.

[pioneer11.livejournal.com]

I promise not to ban you. Unless you advocate putting
babies on spikes.

I don't agree with same sex marriages. Its all very political,
all very "the revolution is the point". It seems to be, not
so much a liberation for gay marriage, as an attack on the
nasty proles in their little conservatism.

Thats just stupid and, actually, very scary.

Homosexuals? I can't really commit them to the flames
of some inquisition. But this whole "same sex marriage"
thing reeks of power politics and not civil liberties.

And if you got banned for your views on it...feh...>.<

[altivo.livejournal.com]

No, as it turns out, I got banned for suggesting that George Bush's motives for pushing this amendment right now have nothing to do with "protecting the sanctity of marriage" and everything to do with stirring up his crumbling popular support. "Criticizing our national leaders" is not allowed in that person's journal, it seems. They must be gods who cannot be questioned. ;p

Some people are, as you suggest, pushing gay marriage for political in your face reasons. Certainly I disapprove of that. On the other hand, I do agree that our society grants certain rights and privileges automatically to married couples for no good reason and that those rights ought to be available to everyone or else to no one, which is the point of the much disputed court decisions at this time.

[nekura-ca.livejournal.com]

I just wanted to make some points, I'm usually not very political, but this issue has been getting me more and more pissed off and scared. They keep going on about how letting gay people marry destroy the institution of marriage. How? How will me and my partner getting the same benefits as everyone else in any way affect John and Mary Q. Public's lifelong commitment to each other? You know what's really destroying the institution of marriage? DIVORCE! Marriage is no longer a life long commitment, when people can zip down to Vegas, get a quickie marriage, and then divorce a month later. There is no respect for the fundamental meaning behind the word. When public figures use the words "Married" and "Divorce" like replacements for "Dating" and "Broke Up" ... I just get so mad at this whole thing, it's stupid and hurtful.

I'm glad I live in Canada, but with the way things are going here, I'm getting nervous.

Just my $0.02

[altivo.livejournal.com]

I agree with you completely. And you are fortunate to live in Canada at the moment, even with the threat of your current government hanging over you. It could be worse, and you need only look south to see that. :)