Sarah Palin and Ugly Straight Weddings
In the meantime, the gay couple that hung an effigy of Palin in West Hollywood prior to the election is now calling on gay designers to boycott working for heterosexual weddings. An LA Weekly writer says that if Chad Michael Morisette and Mito Aviles are succesful with their drive, there'll be "a whole lot of ugly" at straight weddings. This is of course is part of the protest against Proposition 8 which outlawed same-sex marriages in California.
You all know that I was a strong opponent of Proposition 8. I hope it's overturned in the near future. That being said I find these types of protests and attitudes silly; more so I find the reverse bigotry by some of the Prop 8 opponents to be disturbing. We don't fight intolerance with more intolerance. Anger breeds anger. There are other ways to win hearts and change minds.
Labels: Chad Michael Morissette, proposition 8, same-sex marriage, sarah palin
Posted by Michael Higby @ 12/12/2008 01:00:00 PM
13 Comments:
Hey, I voted against Prop 8, but I woudn't do so next time.
Not since those bigots have distrupted my trip home from work not once, but twice, and then ruined a trip downtown on a weekend.
Democracy and rule of law prevail, else we have chaos. Gays who act stupid like the marchers will ruin the movement.
I no longer care; they can march there asses off, but I will vote against them next time.
"Anger breeds anger." Prop 8 opponents aren't breeders for the most part, but they are angry!
Prop 8 opponents are undermining their own cause with their protests and harassment of donors to Yes on Prop 8.
Civil unions in California give gay couples all of the same legal rights as married straight couples. The only issue is that those "civil unions" are not recognized by other states.
A will and a medical power of attorney can work just as well. With a will, one can leave money and property to anyone- even one's cat!
Yeah, sure. The Day Without Gay was such a stupid idea that even gay businesses wouldn't participate. Bad for profits!
Let's see wedding coordinators make a living from the gay-only celebrations--about 4% of the total population.
Has anyone noticed? The election is over.
The people have spoken, been overturned by judges and spoken again.
Which part of "No" do they not understand?
Let's move on.
This country would still be in the dark ages if it weren't for marchers in the street. Let's don't forget that it was once law that Armenians could only marry Armenians; Chinese could only marry Chinese and sometimes not at all; and blacks couldn't marry whites. No group's civil rights should ever be on a ballot or subject to "the people have spoken."
Anonymous is right.
THE ELECTION IS OVER is the wrong attitude, it´s always the right time to forge ahead. THE PEOPLE should always be shaping the country. THE DAY AFTER AN ELECTION IS A GOOD TIME to engage once again. Being prepared for the next time is what we should be doing ALL ACROSS THE BOARD.
As a genalization,Sarah
Palin is woefully ignorant about basic civics, we shouldn´t be.
December 12, 11:52 AM:
This challenge has great rhetorical force, but it is a silly objection.
Consider two men, one rich and one poor, seeking to withdraw money from their bank. The rich man is denied because his account is empty. However, on closer inspection, a clerk discovers an error, corrects it, and releases the cash. Next in line, the poor man is denied for the same reason: insufficient funds. "That’s the same thing you said about the last guy," he snaps. "Yes," the clerk replies. "We made a mistake with his account, but not with yours. You’re broke."
In the same way, it simply is not relevant that the same objection has been used to deny both interracial and homosexual marriage. It’s only relevant if the circumstances are the same, regardless of the objection. They are not.
Same-sex marriage and interracial marriage have nothing in common. There is no difference between a black and a white human being because skin color is morally trivial. There is an enormous difference, however, between a man and a woman. Ethnicity has no bearing on marriage. Sex is fundamental to marriage.
This approach won’t work to justify polygamous or incestuous unions ("In the past people wouldn’t allow interracial marriages, either."). It is equally ineffectual here. The objection may be the same, but the circumstances are entirely different.
11:47-I understand your point; I'm not sure I entirely agree.
Consdier this: given that homosexuals should have equal protection under the law, gay marriage should be allowed. Because it isn't allowed, it costs gay couples more for the legal documents (and possible future legal battles)to provide them the protection/rights already provided to married heterosexual couples.
Of course, like heterosexual couples, they may find themselves paying attorneys for prenups and divorce (equal rights goes both ways).
The basic rights given to legally married couples should be automatically given to gay "married" couples at the same price. If not, then it's discrimination.
Three words:
SEPARATE BUT EQUAL
The problem with the Prop. 8 opponents is that they just don't understand Constitutional Law.
ALL laws create classes of people. For example, a law banning underage drinking effectively creates a class of people (those under 21) who are discriminated against. In that they cannot partake in the fundamental right of what to put into their own bodily system.
Similarly, a law allowing people to withdraw from their 401(k) penalty-free at 62 also creates a class of people (those under 62) who cannot get the same benefits.
So, dumdums, you need to realize: ALL laws separate the people into classes. All laws discriminate in some way.
The only time a CLASS is NOT allowed to be discriminated against is when it is a protected class. For example, race and national origin. Gender is only pseudo-protected. Gay people have never been declared a protected class. Yes, it's an arbitrary system, but it is all that we have.
So to the extent this law separates people into who can marry and who cannot, it is just like any other law that prevents certain people (minors, those under 21, those under 62, etc.) from doing something they really want (voting, drinking, accessing their 401(k)), which in some cases (voting) can be fundamental rights.
Moreover, the arguments simply don't get that they are seeking to make semantical arguments. They are trying to define marriage as "a loving relationship between two consenting adults." This has never been the definition enshrined in law, despite your attempts to recast what the CA Supreme Court held. Remove your definition, which is absurd, when applied to the 1861 CA constitution, and there is no
"fundamental right" being removed.
Sorry Charlie.
I appreciate the discourse but your argument that the law creates classes is inaccurate. No one under 62 can withdraw from a 401K without penalty, means NO ONE, gay straight, race or ethnicity included. Gays, straights, people of all ethnicities and races are all different ages, but they are all human. Carrying your argument to the end, it would be logical to limit marriage to certain ages for all humans, but not to selected humans.
Dear December 15, 2008 2:43 PM,
Thank you!!!! Will you marry me?
If I wasn't married, yes!
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home