No matter what you do, gay people are still going to fuck each other*.
The only thing that this will accomplish is to keep them from doing hot, naughty, marriage-undermining things like visit their partners in the hospital and make end-of-life decisions for them. Dirty, sweaty, leather-clad end-of-life decisions.
Tell me again how this isn't about hating gay people? Because if going out of your way to help make sure they die alone and apart from the person that they love isn't hateful, I don't know what is.
*They will also fall in love, build lives together, argue over who's turn it is to do the dishes, celebrate holidays, spend lazy evenings on the couch, get annoyed when their partner hangs the toilet paper the "wrong" way, inadvertently hurt each others' feelings, laugh over things that only they share, patiently indulge each others' taste in music, fight over pointless shit, get bored with each other, fall in love all over again, share in each others' triumphs and tragedies, go to the movies, paint the house, walk the dog, and do all the wonderful, horrible, and mundane stuff the rest of us do with the people we are lucky enough to share our lives with.
8 comments:
you want the constitution changed by judicial fiat, instead?
gino
RTFA. This isn't about changing the constitution, it's about not defending a law already put on the books via the legislative process. (In other words, exactly the sort of thing that Obama did with DOMA, and was accused of "treason".)
AND IT ISN'T EVEN ABOUT FUCKING MARRIAGE. The law literally affords people the opportunity of registering a civil partnership for some very narrow purposes. They can't even file joint tax returns or adopt as a couple.
When courts expand rights for gays, it's "judicial fiat", and it should be done through the political process. When a ballot initiative or a law is passed, it's unconstitutional.
It's all bigoted bullshit.
While it is probably not a good idea to get into a habit of doing this, I'm going to quibble with B's argument. The exact constitutional test reads: "Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized in this state." (emphasis added) B is confusing constitutional with support. I can say that I think DOMA is unconstitutional violation of the full faith and credit clause of the US Constitution; I can also say that I oppose gay marriage. Those are not contradictory statements. In this case, I see Gov. Walker's point ... since the Wisconsin constitution essentially bans gay marriage in name or fact, and common property, survivorship rights, etc. are de facto components of "traditional" marriage, he has a constitutional obligation, as part of his oath of office, to argue against state laws that apparently violate the state's constitution. If B wants to say that the Wisconsin's ban on gay marriage is silly and should be repealed, well ... that's a reasonable argument. But to suggest that a governor (or any other government official) should ignore the parts of the state constitution that he doesn't like, even though he's subscribed to an oath to support and defend that constitution, is, it would seem to me, to be unintentionally undermining the foundations of our system of constitutional government.
yeah! what Dave said.
which is basically what i nwas alluding to.
ftr: i dont oppose gay marriage. i oppose judges instituting it, and in many cases, legislators.
a referendom of the people? then i'll go along.
All points well taken. I don't think the statute in question creates a status that is substantially similar to marriage. It is very, very limited.
@Gino--in what cases are you opposed to legislatures making or changing laws?
actually, most of the time anymore. at least in CA, where the system is rigged as bad as it is, and representative democracy is little more than a facade.
Post a Comment