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?

[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...

[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.

[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]

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."

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[lobowolf.livejournal.com]

Well, that's my point..that is the seriousness of this ploy...what's to stop him from introducing any discriminatory amendment if he can get all his bible-thumping buddies to vote for it?

Let's keep the separation of church and state. I have nothing against religion as long as it stays the hell out of my laws.

[daikitsune.livejournal.com]

Aye, many states are passing laws. But I do still have some faith in the democratic party at least...More than a third of the democrats would have to go along with the Republicans, even if all of the Republicans stood for it, at least in the senate. If the Congress actually passes this, I...Well, I don't know what I'd do.

How would you fight against something like that? It would be decades of struggle before we got rid of it. And there's no real guarantee it would even move in that direction. I don't know if I could live in this country once that was passed...

[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.

[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.

[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]

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...)

[hellmutt.livejournal.com]

Evil liberal antiAmerican pinko scarves! :D

[altivo.livejournal.com]

It took 14 years to get rid of Prohibition, which was another equally ridiculous and futile attempt at legislating religious morality through the Constitution. In spite of the screechy and vocal minority who are pushing this idea, the social change in the US will continue and the table will turn in the end. But in the meantime, there could be a lot of vicious happenings. That's what concerns me.

Attempts, for instance, to cancel out other gay rights laws. Or to somehow pressure large corporations that have granted domestic partnership benefits to their employees to rescind those benefits. These are the changes that really matter and that have been proceeding on local and state levels for a couple of decades now.

The really bothersome part of the whole thing is the truth behind it. There is nothing "Christian" about discrimination and persecution of people who are not like the majority. There is nothing to support it in the teachings of Jesus or the basic doctrines of the church. The social changes of the last hundred years, however, have taken away most of the security blankets that narrow minded people depended upon. They need something to make them feel superior and elite. Now that they are not permitted to look down on blacks, women, or poor people (at least not officially or in public) they have chosen gays as the safe target on which to vent their spleens.

[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.

[altivo.livejournal.com]

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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[altivo.livejournal.com]

Hmm. You're right, they do have some pink stripes.

[zenicurean.livejournal.com]

There is nothing to support it in the teachings of Jesus or the basic doctrines of the church.

Well, except for Romans, and possibly 1st to Corinthians and Timothy. If we, say, accept that St. Paul had divine guidance behind him and that the current conservative readings are valid, well, then we can always go back on to the example of Jesus himself, what with his "He who is not with me is against me, he who does not gather with me shall be scattered" thing. (Luke 11:23)

Religion aside, the main theoretical thrust of the capital-C Conservative argument against gay marriage seems to be about parenting at least as much as it is about marriage an sich. Conservatives distrust gay couples' ability to raise healthy, balanced kids.

The argument goes as follows: A gay couple will obviously not be able to produce a new taxpayer, like a heterosexual couple probably could. For government, subsidising marriage is not relevant except insofar as it serves as a conduit through which economic benefits can be distributed to a family economic unit. The chief motive is to promote population expansion because population expansion is in the government's rational self-interest. Since a gay couple cannot naturally produce offspring, a government has absolutely no incentive to subsidise gay marriage with taxpayer money.

While technically this would mean that, say, elderly and infertile couples should also be prohibited from marrying (that is, gaining marriage perks), it is not possible to shift through every couple one by one to determine which heterosexual couples can or even will produce offspring. Enforcing laws "against infertile couples marrying" would be impossible and/or inconvenient. Nevertheless, it is patently clear that whatever a gay couple does, they will absolutely not produce kiddies naturally, and therefore subdising gay marriage ought to be ruled out.

This ties in to the parenting thing because there is always the adoption option. I'm not entirely sure what the Conservative case on the parenting side of the equation is.

[cabcat.livejournal.com]

What fun is life if you can't have a few evil scarves *sulks*