The Bishop and the Butterfly: Murder, Politics, and the End of the Jazz Age
    The Liberal Mob's picture

    I Don't Want Uncle Sam To Be My Best Man

    By The Liberal Mob on Mon, 08/22/2011 - 3:22pm |

    As the token black guy at of The Liberal Mob blog, I have been informed by my cohorts that it is my responsibility to conform to their pre-disposed stereotypes and be against all things “gay", including same-sex marriage. However, being the token gay guy of this blog I am also required to be pro gay rights. But I think I have found a way to split the difference. Please feel free to leave a comment telling me if you think I have failed to live up to either of these stereotypical roles that have been laid out for me. Worst case scenario: Even If I fail I will still be a gay black guy which increases the chances I will get a scholarship for graduate school, right? If only I were an impoverished, blind, Jewish, Native American, lesbian in a wheelchair with a learning disability. The scholarship money would be rolling right on in! But alas, nobody is perfect.

    DISCLAIMER: If you are either easily offended by political incorrectness or do not have a sense of humor you should not have read that introduction.

    The recent passage of marriage equality in the State of New York was greeted with great fanfare by many Americans, gay and straight alike. Except for people in the south and the plains states…they were all pretty much pissed (kidding, kidding). In joining Vermont, New Hampshire, Iowa, Connecticut, Massachusetts and Washington D.C., New York became by far the most populous place in the nation to allow same-sex couples the right to legally marry. Many pundits have pointed to the fact that the passage of this law through the Republican controlled New York State Senate may be signaling a sea change in American politics surrounding marriage equality. But not so fast. Although this was a huge achievement and a step in the right direction, passage of this law is far from a departure from the divisive national politics that will no doubt continue to surround this issue. I do applaud New York Republicans for being on the right side of history and for spending political capitol on this vote. But the issue of same-sex marriage must not be viewed as a partisan issue. Because it is about the eradication of inequality, it must be viewed as an American issue. This eradication of inequality is a journey our nation has been on since it’s founding, and it is a journey that we will be on for some time to come.

    43-6-2 is a great record…if you’re a sports team

    These numbers reflect the marriage laws of our 50 U.S. and the District of Columbia. Now don’t get me wrong, I like the 10th amendment just as much as the next godless, big government, socialist, liberal. Not having a federal marriage equality law has led us to a point where we have a patchwork of confusing, disconnected, and divided state laws across the nation, just the way the founding fathers intended (see The Articles of Confederation v. The Constitution)!

    I support the right of the states under the 10th Amendment to confuse the hell out of us!

    Now here is where it gets confusing. Of the 45 states that do not allow same sex marriage: 2 states (NM and RI) have no need for same sex marriage laws as there are obviously no gay people there. 18 States (ID, UT, TX, OK, SD, ND, NE, KS, AR, LA, MI, OH, KY, VA, GA, AL, SC, FL) have used their state constitution to ban same-sex marriage and civil unions and grant no same-sex recognition rights to gay couples what-so-ever. 6 states (AZ, MT, MO, TN, MS, AL) have used their constitution to ban same-sex marriage but not civil unions (but these 6 still do not grant civil unions or enumerated rights to gay couples). 6 states (WY, MN, ID, PA, WV, NC) have statue bans on same-sex marriage and civil unions and grant niether. 3 states (OR, CA, NV) have constitutional bans on same-sex marriage but do allow civil unions. 3 states (IL, HI, DE) have statue bans on same-sex marriage but do allow civil unions. 1 state (ME) has bans on same-sex marriage and civil unions but does grant limited enumerated rights to gay couples. 1 state (CO) has a ban on same-sex marriage, no ban on civil unions, but does grant limited enumerated rights to gay couples. 1 state (WI) has a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage and civil unions but does grants limited enumerated rights. And finally, (MD) has no ban on or recognition of same-sex marriage or civil unions, but it does recognize same-sex marriages that are performed in other states, and grants its own same-sex couples limited enumerated rights (this one is my favorite). California had its same-sex marriage law overturned by voters in 2008. But al of the same-sex couples that got married while it was legal are still married. Confused yet! Here’s the ridiculous map. And yes, it's from Wikipedia so it's totally legit!!!

    1 in 10

    I have heard it said that approximately 1 in 10 people in the US self identifies as LBGT. This is fitting since approximately 30 million people, or one in ten, now lives in a state where same-sex couples can marry. But forgive me if I do not celebrate for the people of New York as enthusiastically as many. As long as 90 percent of Americans live in states without marriage equality, I will not be able to celebrate with very much enthusiasm. Especially since I live in one of those “group of 18” states that bans all marriage and civil union rights to same-sex couples though the state constitution.

    I’ll support your right to discriminate if you support mine

    I am fully in favor of religious institutions having the right to discriminate against LGTB couples. I couldn’t care less honestly. That is their right. Churches and churchgoers have the right to practice or not practice the basic tenets of their religions. But I do not extend that same luxury to governments. Governments have an obligation to extend legal protections, including marriage, to all citizens and their families. It is not the place of government to judge the quality of any couple or their relationship when they're seeking a marriage. Personally, I think the “Bachelorette” shouldn’t be allowed to get married. Why is it more acceptable for wannabe actors/models, who are utterly incapable of strong lasting relationships (hence why they are on the show in the first place) to marry a complete stranger on a television reality show when committed and loving same-sex couples cannot marry?

    Hands off our Marriages Uncle Sam!

    Maybe the government shouldn’t recognize any marriages. Why does government give us a license to marry the one we love? Is marriage not a spiritual/religious ceremony? What about that whole separation of church and state thing? Im pretty sure I read that somewhere once.....  Isn't a marriage license the very thing that is cheapening marriage to nothing more than a legal contract?  If the federal government is not going to create a national standard for marriage equality for all Americans then it must tell the states to stop issuing marriage licenses altogether. Then again, we can't take away married couple's marriage licenses now, can we? I mean, it would be wrong to deny two tax-paying, consenting, heterosexual, American adults who are of sound mind the right to get married to one another. Government has no right to do that....to straight people.

    Posted by Scott

    [email protected]

    Comments

    I knew a person in college that to my surprise was gay ... really shocked me. However, once I knew it , it didn't stop me from lending him some technical assistance with my electronic, radar and telemetry field work to help him with his senior project in electrical engineering. And he gave me credit in the project for specific points of reference were my assistance provided him with insight on how theory conflicts with real world activities. After he graduated,  he got a position with an Army R&D center that was going to pay for his masters program.

    The trick was that what he did in the privacy of his home was his business and never was a subject to be discussed in the workplace. He was open to me because he knew I had some casual friends who were known lesbians and never hit on them so he didn't think it would be an issue ... which it wasn't once the shock wore off.

     As for your marriage rant, isn't it more about the tax incentives a marriage is entitled to as opposed to filing as a single? Perhaps what you should focus on would be a tax code that taxes people as individuals regardless of their marriage status and number of dependents? Marriage is a religious ceremony and belongs in the church and the bridge between the religion and taxes needs to be severed so everyone is on equal footing.

    Perhaps you should petition Congress to create a legal partnership status that is equal to marriage in taxes and common law rights between consenting adults? That way you're not stepping on the the religious right's turf, but can enjoy the same perks as they do.

    Sometimes it better to devise an end run around the opposition, especially when they're dug in and hunkered down expecting a frontal assault.


    by Beetlejuice on Mon, 08/22/2011 - 6:14pm

    Maybe the government shouldn’t recognize any marriages.

    In theory, this makes sense. In practice (as many homosexual couples will no doubt attest), marriage recognition goes far beyond tax codes. Sure, many of the other features could be covered by some sort of legal documents, but again that's only a good idea in theory. In practice, you're talking about trading a $50 fee (approximately, it varies by state) for a $500 fee or greater (to a lawyer, no less). OK, maybe someone could come up with a way to simplify that into some sort of $50 process, but in the end what you'd end up with is something an awful lot like a marriage or civil union. In computer science, we have something called "duck typing", so that although you might call that new process something else, in the end it'd still be marriage.


    by Verified Atheist on Mon, 08/22/2011 - 6:08pm

    Well, as the national media always says, Vermont is a "quirky" state and is many times not of interest unless it is on the subject of Bernie Sanders. One reason that state is quirky is it's early, if not the first, adoption of a civil union law--which nearly tore the state in half.

    Anyway, pause for advertisement. Vermont allows both civil unions and same sex marriages. If ya'll are interested in an 1850's era large two family house at a reasonable price, with the only drawback being it sits on a heavily traveled two lane road so probably not the best place to have kids or dogs but a great place to have a bookstore or possibly a business selling crafts, please contact me.

    Just kidding. Good post, mob.

     


    by Oxy Mora on Mon, 08/22/2011 - 6:24pm

    Anyone that brings up religion to defend "traditional" marriage should be asked to explain why non-religious straight couples are allowed to marry at their city hall.

    When they talk about "procreation" as the reason that gay couples should be banned from marrying, they should be asked to explain why senior citizens, barren couples and those that don't want children are allowed to marry; and why procreation has never been a requirement to getting married.

    Those that say that marriage is being "redefined" should be asked, "Exactly WHOSE marriage has been redefined because Tom and Steve got married?" If that were true, then every opposite-sex marriage in Massachusetts would have been destroyed 7 years ago; straight couples would have stopped getting married (because they wouldn't know what marriage means anymore); and divorces would have skyrocketed. Of course, none of those things has happened. In fact, Massachusetts has the lowest divorce rate in the country.


    by David in Houston (not verified) on Mon, 08/22/2011 - 6:43pm

    All of the northeastern states with large Catholic populations have low divorce rates.


    by Dan Kervick on Mon, 08/22/2011 - 11:03pm

    Federal and most State laws recognizing and licensing marriage, regardless of the gender, race, national origin, or religion are inherently unconstitutional.  The framers claimed ALL rights for the individual, giving up only very limited powers to the government for those purposes enumerated.  The protection of persons from other persons, and the limitations on government intrusions into your personal lives and freedoms are the basis for each article and most amendments.  Marriage is, by every measure and history, a symbolic and personal issue that may have religious overtones.  There is no federal interest in regulating it, recognizing it, punishing or supporting it.  Most States constitutions also limit their power for the purpose of keeping state and local agencies out of your personal business.

    The original immigrants from Europe who settled here, came to find new places where the King would not dictate their lives and beliefs. Then they forced there beliefs on the indigenous population, demanded laws to enforce those beliefs on anyone who disagreed, and finally did much better than Hitler, Stalin and Mao combined as they massacred, enslaved, imprisoned and exterminated anyone who was not just like them.  If you want to learn about domestic terrorism, just ask a Navajo.

     


    by Thundercloud (not verified) on Fri, 09/02/2011 - 4:47pm