The "human rights" issue....again

[Deleted]

Your evolution is totally gay

By Mark Morford, SF Gate Columnist | 5:41PM - Tuesday, March 26, 2013

OUT OF the cheap woodwork they come, these swiftly “evolving” politicians, racing as fast as they can to get with the foregone program and support gay marriage ASAP because they see the writing on the Supreme Court wall, which is the same as the writing on the bathroom wall, which is the same as what appears in every poll and survey and sample across the civilized, intelligent, non-Republican world.

And that writing says one thing: Idiots and fools, cretins and political roadkill are ye who do not get over your uptight sexual fears and ignorance of God, pronto.

The hottest story of all right now? Aside from the “leery”, “reluctant”, dully conservative Supreme Court whimpering toward a half-baked, non-sweeping decision on Proposition 8 and DOMA that no one will really like? Speed.


Somewhere in there, Scalia is chortling.

Which is to say, everyone’s amazed at the breathtaking, almost impossible-to-believe quickness at which the gay marriage issue has “evolved”, not just for politicos desperate for the love of younger voters who don’t give a damn for the ludicrous “culture wars” of their elders, but for the entire culture, how quickly gay marriage has skyrocketed to a majority of public support in a short handful of years, so fast that no one can really answer why.

What’s your theory? How do you explain the staggering shift in support, from around a mere 42 percent in 2009 to a upwards of 57 percent (a walloping 81 percent if you’re under 30) today?

Is it because lots of meek, “undecided” homophobes finally realized the world wasn’t collapsing and their own unhappy marriages weren’t affected in the slightest? Did they finally see that, hey look, lots of gays have been married for years now across multiple states and countries, and the sky didn’t fall, Jesus didn’t wreak havoc and Pat Robertson really is a bit of a goddamn lunatic?

Or is it because of pop culture itself, the tipping point finally reached as enough celebs, athletes, military personnel, musicians, “It Gets Better” videographers, even President Obama himself basically shrugged off the issue en masse, declaring it no longer a big deal, thus instantly making anyone who doesn’t support it (Hi, Boehner), even more of a stiff, nasty old relic than they were even a week ago?


Thanks, Nate Silver.

Death! Do not forget death. As I not-so-humbly predicted in a column just a few years back, death is a key deciding factor in the gay marriage debate, as the older, panicky generations die off and are replaced by Obama’s younger, mixed-everything rainbow coalition. Gay marriage has always been a generational issue. But even I didn’t predict how quickly the shift would happen.

It’s not easy to quantify, but it’s safe to say the Grim Reaper has casually eliminated (and continues to eliminate) enormous numbers of aging, right-wing homophobes, huge chunks of the “Greatest Generation” who, it turns out, weren’t all that great when it came to women or blacks or gays or sexual freedom or equality or religious tolerance, but who totally kicked ass in WWII. So there’s that.

Was it Obama who first used the savvy “my position on gay marriage is evolving” line, back in 2010 (even though he fully supported gay marriage as Illinois senate candidate in 1996)? Might’ve been; sounds like him. And it’s a good one, too. So good that it’s been filched by every politician looking to sound even remotely thoughtful, since. So good that if one more politician utters it, it’s going to turn obnoxious and suspicious and will appear as complete, obvious bullshit.

Which, of course, it totally is. Bullshit. A lie. A joke. An opportunistic political ruse. How do we know? Because the same law of “evolved” consciousness has been ignored and rejected and stomped into a hateful, bloody pulp everywhere else. I mean, obviously.

Behold! Here are 20 massacred children in Newtown, followed by huge national support for universal background checks and a complete ban on assault weapons. Here is widespread disgust for the National Rifle Association, for our national fetish for ultra-violence, for our global standing as the most childishly gun-obsessed, pseudo-cowboy country in the world. Curious how not a single pro-gun politician has suddenly declared his position “evolved” enough to fight the NRA, no?

Look here! A mountain of irrefutable evidence of (and widespread belief in) global warming’s increasing havoc and destruction, coupled to enormous public support for congress to so something serious about it. And yet, not a single congressperson has come forth to announce her position has “evolved” enough to passionately advocate for real environmental legislation. Wonders.

Here is the much-lauded “rise of women!” Here was Obama’s irrefutable victory with the fairer sex in the 2012 election, and yet apparently the good news still hasn’t reached pallid hateswamps like North Dakota, where the (old, white, male, Republican) Governor Jack Dalrymple just signed into law a batch of the most restrictive, hostile anti-choice regulations in the country, laws that should send a deep shudder of fear into the freedom-loving womb of every sexually charged woman in the entire state.

Women are increasingly in charge, Governor Dalrymple. Didn’t you hear? Even the Secret Service is now run by a woman. Better “evolve” your repulsive misogyny soon.


The hoariest roadblock remaining to sweeping gay marriage reform? Him.

Of course, this is not news. The fact that so many politicians are jumping on a fast-moving, sexually charged bandwagon when it’s the easy and opportunistic thing to do is only evidence that they’re politicians, doing what politicians do. Which is, making everyone gag at their hollow and pseudo-spiritual “awakenings,” right on cue.

Should we care? Should it matter much? The gay marriage issue is racing like a turbo rainbow condom techno leather strap-on dance party toward no one cares anymore. The last civil right is very nearly wholly victorious.

Speed bumps will persist, the Supreme Court may or may not have the balls to declare as valid what everyone already knows is imminent, hateful states and staunch conservatives will go to their graves waving their sad flags of religious ignorance and fear, same as it ever was.

But gay marriage is essentially done. Liberals won. Your kids have already moved on, long ago. And of course, they also de facto/by and large support gun bans, women’s rights, environmental action, et al. And would you look at that? They didn’t even have to “evolve” to do it. Go figure.

•

• Mark Morford on Twitter and Facebook.

blog.sfgate.com/morford/2013/03/26/your-evolution-is-totally-gay

[Deleted]

From the Los Angeles Times....

Supreme Court appears timid about expanding same-sex marriage

By DAVID HORSEY | 5:00AM - Wednesday, March 27, 2013



THIS WEEK, the United States Supreme Court is delving into arguments about same-sex marriage and doing so with apparent reluctance and unease.

Today, the justices will consider the federal Defense of Marriage Act that denies federal benefits to same-sex married couples. On Tuesday, the issue before them was California’s Proposition 8, the voter-approved initiative that placed a same-sex marriage ban in the state constitution in 2008. A U.S. District Court judge subsequently declared the ban unconstitutional, and in 2012 the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that ruling.

During oral arguments, some of the nine justices appeared uncomfortable jumping into the gay marriage debate at all. Much time was spent arguing about whether the petitioners on the pro-Proposition 8 side had legal standing to bring the appeal. Determining that they do not, the court could let the lower court’s ruling stand. They could also simply uphold the 9th Circuit’s decision. Either way, the justices could avoid a broader judgment that homosexuals have a constitutional right to marry in all 50 states.

Also wanting to stop short of that outcome, yet still urging the justices toward a somewhat broader middle ground, Solicitor General Donald Verrilli Jr. offered a position that would open the way to same-sex marriage only in states such as California that already give homosexual couples every legal benefit accorded married persons except the right to marry. Because such states have essentially conceded that there is no societal harm in established domestic partnerships, those states cannot reasonably contend there would be harm in letting same-sex partners marry, Verrilli argued.

The perverse aspect of this position was readily apparent to the justices, however. They noted that following this path would force gay marriage on states that have been generous to same-sex couples while demanding nothing from the most regressive states that grant no legal benefits to homosexual partners.

Even more untenable was the core argument of the attorney for the pro-Proposition 8 petitioners, Charles J. Cooper. He asserted that marriage is primarily an institution that society has established to formalize and manage the production of offspring. Since, by nature, children cannot be conceived by two women or two men, homosexuals cannot carry out that prime purpose of marriage and, therefore, have no equal claim on matrimonial rights, he said.

This led to an amusing exchange between Cooper and Justice Elena Kagan. Kagan said, by Cooper’s reasoning, a 55-year-old couple could be barred from marrying since they could not produce offspring. Laughter erupted from the courtroom audience when Cooper responded by noting the 55-year-old man, at least, would be fertile. Justice Antonin Scalia chimed in with weird comments about the fertility of the very elderly former senator from South Carolina, Strom Thurmond. How that was germane only Scalia knows.

Oddly, no one pointed out that homosexual couples actually are producing children through sperm donors and surrogate mothers. They are also becoming parents via adoption. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy noted that, in California alone, 40,000 children are being raised by homosexual parents. In the modern world, there is more than one path to parenthood.

Seeking more solid ground for their skeptical view of same-sex marriage, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and the other court conservatives rallied around the idea that moving too fast on same-sex marriage would be unwise because it is a novel idea that breaks with tradition. Theodore B. Olson, representing the anti-Proposition 8 side, offered the obvious and most pertinent rejoinder: interracial marriage was illegal until the Supreme Court invalidated laws against it in 1967. Such laws enforced a traditional view and were supported by large majorities, not just in the South, but all over the country. Yet the court went against the majority of Americans and against the status quo in that decision.

The principle is exactly the same in the case of Proposition 8 as it was with interracial marriage: a certain class of citizens should not be denied the right to marry simply because they were born different from the majority. It looks doubtful, though, that the current court will be as brave in asserting equal rights as were their counterparts back in ’67.

www.latimes.com/news/politics/topoftheticket/la-na-tt-supreme-court-timid-20130326,0,7851530.story

[Deleted]

Meanwhile, in New Zealand's Parliament....



Gay marriage bill could pass next month

By KATE CHAPMAN - The Dominion Post | 10:18PM - Wednesday, 28 March 2013


LOVING SUPPORT: Rosie Jimson-Healey holds a sign as Emma Fawcett and Phillipa Walker kiss during
a rally outside Parliament as the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill is debated inside.
— CHRIS SKELTON/Fairfax NZ.

THERE WAS little fanfare in Parliament last night as the bill to legalise gay marriage passed another hurdle.

The bill was subject to a conscience vote meaning MPs could make up their own minds on how to vote, rather than following the party line.little fanfare in Parliament last night as the bill to legalise gay marriage passed another hurdle, but outside more than 800 people were gathered in a two-sided protest.

Parliament's front lawn was divided in half with anti-gay marriage proponents holding a prayer vigil and sing-along on one side, and supporters waving flags and signs on the other.

The protest remained peaceful with about 500 anti-marriage equality proponents saying the Lord’s Prayer and singing along to a bag piper.

The roughly 300 supporters of the bill sang "we're going to the chapel and we're gonna get married" and waved signs including: "Do you really want your son to marry this dyke?".

Gay marriage could be legalised as early as next month after Louisa Wall’s Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill passed its committee stages 77 votes to 43.

National minister Gerry Brownlee’s proxy vote was not cast, he dropped his support of the bill in the second reading.

Two suggestions that a referendum on the matter be held we ruled out of order, while other proposed amendments, such as allowing religious movements to preach marriage as being between a man and woman and allowing churches to refuse to host same sex marriages, were voted down.

Green MP Kevin Hague said the proposals were based on "imaginary concerns".

"The speeches that have been heard in this House against the bill have, I am sure, been sincere; they have largely been motivated by fear, by fear of concerns that are largely imaginary, fear that has been worked up by a campaign in the community."

Labour MP Sua William Sio introduced several amendments aimed at strengthening religious freedoms.

"My intention ... is to make appropriate distinction between the affairs of the state — protecting the equality rights of all citizens — and the affairs of a church and its members whom have a traditional view of marriage."

Outside, minister Margaret Mayman, of St Andrew’s on the Terrace, said she was comfortable with the safeguards that we in the bill and had turned out in support of marriage equality to show not all Christians were against it.

"We support it because of our faith not in spite of our faith. I’m saddened because I think [the opposition] comes for a position of ignorance."

But itinerant minister Rasik Ranchord said marriage pre-dated the state and government and was not a piece of putty to be moulded into different shapes.

"We want to see marriage protected. We are not against gay people we are simply protecting what we believe to be what marriage is meant to be."

The bill was subject to a conscience vote meaning MPs could make up their own minds on how to vote, rather than following the party line.

www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/politics/8483292/Gay-marriage-bill-could-pass-next-month

[Deleted]

From the Los Angeles Times....

Despite fears, same-sex marriage will boost American marriages

By DAVID HORSEY | 5:00AM - Thursday, March 28, 2013



MY FRIEND Mark says he is against gay marriage – but it’s the marriage part, not the gay part he finds objectionable. Mark is a confirmed bachelor who marvels that anyone would want to get married. Still, he says, if gays and lesbians are crazy enough to want to tie the knot, they have as much right to do it as anyone else.

Plenty of same-sex couples are, indeed, crazy enough to desire marriage. This is a recent revelation for quite a few Americans, and I include myself in that number. Over the years, I have counted quite a few gays and lesbians among my friends, acquaintances, colleagues and relatives. It was always clear to me they had not just made a lifestyle choice; their different sexual nature was the way God made them. But, like many progressive, tolerant people — including, most notably, Barack Obama — I figured legal marriage for same-sex couples was not especially necessary, as long as there were domestic partnership laws that gave them equivalent rights and benefits.

Part of this assumption was attributable to the conventional gay mystique. The more flamboyant members of the gay community appeared to be having way too much fun being single. Why would they care to saddle themselves with the mundane responsibilities of marriage and forsake the endless party?

Well, the reality is different from the stereotype, as I could easily see with my gay friends. Even the party boys eventually wanted to have what their parents and brothers and sisters had: a home, a constant partner with whom they could share life and even kids. A couple of years ago my attitude toward gay marriage finally flipped from why to why-not. Reading a wise and moving essay by maverick conservative columnist Andrew Sullivan is what did it for me.

Sullivan wrote about his extended family. They were very accepting of his sexual orientation. They welcomed his longtime partner into family activities. And yet, Sullivan said, there was something not quite complete; something that made his relationship different from the relationships other family members enjoyed. Then, marriage became an option in a few jurisdictions, and he and his partner were finally able to make their pairing more than a love affair. Immediately, the rest of Sullivan’s family looked at his husband as a person with far greater significance — not a boyfriend who might easily go away, but a true member of their tribe, a real relative who was joined to the story of their family.

I think anyone can appreciate that transformation. Many of us have made the transition from being a boyfriend or girlfriend to being an in-law. If we are old enough, we have felt the shift in our own feelings when our son or daughter told us the person he or she has been dating is now joining the clan and pledging to be a permanent part of the family. It makes a dramatic difference, and it is no wonder gay and lesbian Americans long for this status they have been denied.

Marriage is a transformative relationship. That is why the passions about the issue of same-sex marriage run so hot. The deep concern of traditionalists is not just a matter of homophobia or bigotry; they believe marriage is such a vital part of our social fabric that it must be nurtured and protected. They are right about that. Marriage is a social stabilizer that is dangerously disappearing among disadvantaged socioeconomic groups that desperately need stability. But traditionalists are mistaken when they think allowing gays and lesbians to marry will undermine the institution.

Same-sex marriage will strengthen American marriage. Bringing an outcast group into the fold will be a positive social step. When we meet gay and lesbian married couples at Little League games and school plays and community fundraisers and church potlucks, we will see that they share the same concerns and joys. Eventually, even those who doubt it now will realize they have new allies who understand the virtue of leading responsible lives of committed love.

www.latimes.com/news/politics/topoftheticket/la-na-tt-boost-american-marriages-20130327,0,7309873.story

[Deleted]

From the Los Angeles Times....

Gays have an equal right to the folly of a Las Vegas wedding

By DAVID HORSEY | 5:00AM - Tuesday, April 02, 2013



NOW THAT the U.S. Supreme Court has heard the arguments on both sides of California’s Proposition 8 and the federal Defense of Marriage Act, the smart bet seems to be that, though both restrictions on same-sex marriage are very likely to be struck down, the court is not going to make a sweeping ruling that will allow homosexuals to marry in all 50 states.

That means the political fight will go on and on. Yes, the new conventional wisdom is that gay-rights advocates are certain to win the war, but, without a clear declaration from the high court that marriage equality is a constitutional right, there are many battles yet to be fought. And the easy ones are largely over. Getting approval of same-sex marriage in places such as Washington or California or the liberal Northeast is a cinch compared to what it will take to change hearts and minds and laws in states such as Alabama and Oklahoma and Utah.

A very hard task remains and the irony is that, for heterosexuals, getting married is ridiculously easy. Any pair of drunk, heterosexual fools in Las Vegas can fall in love over the craps table, run off to find an all-night chapel and wake to find themselves with hangovers, cheap wedding rings and membership in the sacred club of husbands and wives.

In 2004, Britney Spears showed up at the Little White Wedding Chapel in Vegas and married her childhood friend, Jason Allen Alexander, only to have their union annulled 55 hours later. Britney is hardly the only celebrity to have perfected the art of marriage as a short-lived publicity stunt (take a bow, Kim Kardashian!). Then there was blond bimbo Anna Nicole Smith who married an 89-year-old billionaire without having to prove it was for love, not for the inheritance.

Many fabled movie stars — Elizabeth Taylor and Zsa Zsa Gabor come immediately to mind — adored being married and had the multiple spouses to prove it. Marital antics are not just a Hollywood thing, though. No matter who they are or where they live or how many times they may have proved inept at matrimony or just plain unwise in the choice of a mate, anybody can get married and divorced and married over and over again — as long as he or she is not gay.

Meth addicts and gang-bangers can legally tie the knot and often do — sometime after the births of their children and before their own premature death. Even inmates in prison are sometimes allowed to marry. But two men who have built a home and spent devoted, monogamous decades together still cannot get married in most states.

That is not to say that gay people will prove to be any more successful and smart at marriage than straight Americans. I already am acquainted with two lesbian couples who married as soon as they could do it legally and divorced within a couple of years. Homosexuals are human. They will be just as foolish and unskilled at creating wedded bliss as the rest of us. But if a couple of gay guys or lesbian gals want to swill Gimlets and Cosmopolitans and then stagger to the altar at some neon-lit Las Vegas wedding chapel, they should have as much right to their folly as any other Americans.

www.latimes.com/news/politics/topoftheticket/la-na-tt-las-vegas-wedding-20130401,0,2579978.story