The Tempest Online™

~ Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc. ~

Posts Tagged ‘Marriage’

Don’t SHOH8!!!

Posted by Daniel on June 26, 2013

ImageOkay, with all the revelry over today’s landmark and HISTORIC decisions from SCOTUS, there is something I, as a gay American would like to say.

I’ve already seen the hateful venom being poured out on the media and internet from those who adamantly oppose marriage equality. I get that. It’s to be expected. And no amount of talk from myself or anyone else will ever really change many of their minds. This is, after all, based on their sense of morality/beliefs. We can do nothing to sway the diehard Prop 8 and DOMA supporters, other than to go forward as examples of how these decisions in no way threaten them. Religious or political views are, in many cases, something that they can’t change. I respect that. But it’s time to live up to that religious precept of not judging. It really is time.

And to all of my fellow revelers out there…Yes, we have reason to celebrate. This has, indeed, been a long hard-fought battle. But there are two things we, as a community need to remember…First, no matter how long this battle has been, it isn’t nearly won. There is still so very far we have to go to make marriage equality the law of ALL the land…not just parts of it. So celebrate our victories, but don’t put down that banner just yet. And second, in your revelry, please try to show a little class in NOT throwing F-bombs or other vitriolic rhetoric at those who oppose marriage equality. It’s not who we are and not helpful in our cause. In every decision there are winners and losers (not meant in any negative way). Someone wins and someone loses. Today was our day to win and while it’s been a long time in coming, lets try not to sling the same hate back at those who tried to hold us down. 

On that note, major congratulations to those who fought so very hard on our behalf, to those who sacrificed so very much, and to all of us who now are one MAJOR step closer to true equality.

Posted in GLBT, LGBT, Life, Media Matters, News, Op-Ed, Politics, Religion | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Democratic Drive By…

Posted by Daniel on June 18, 2009

Photobucket

So, what are we supposed to do now, Mr. President?  Just roll with it because that’s how you roll?

President Obama’s decision to grant some benefits to the same-sex partners of federal employees is seen by some as his attempt to extend an olive branch to the gay and lesbian community, but critics say it’s “too little, too late.”

“It seems to me at least to be a nice gesture, but a disappointment,” said Richard Kim, a senior editor at The Nation magazine.

The memorandum Obama signed Wednesday is not expected to grant health and retirement benefits to same-sex partners, as that is prohibited under the Defense of Marriage Act.

“It will absolutely be seen as something good — but I think, for example, it not including full health insurance — that is going to put a real microscope on that question. You know, why not?” Kim said, adding that the memo applies only to federal employees, so most people will not be affected by it.

Charles Moran, the spokesman for the Log Cabin Republicans, said the lack of full benefits in Thursday’s memorandum shows a lack of commitment to the gay community.

“That’s the part that just shows that the Obama administration really isn’t serious about their promises to the gay and lesbian community. Things like the health benefits, things like retirement benefits and coverage for spouses. These are the core issues,” Moran said.

“Why start the marathon if you’re not serious about ending the race?” he added.

White House officials involved in discussions with gay-rights advocates say that Obama favors extending full health care benefits to same-sex couples but that will take legislation to accomplish.

Moran said Obama has had multiple opportunities to fulfill his promises to the gay and lesbian community — including by repealing the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy and standing against the Justice Department motion filed last week in support of the Defense of Marriage Act.

“Here we are, several months after he’s been inaugurated, and we’ve gotten basically nothing. So it is too little, too late,” Moran said.

White House Spokesman Robert Gibbs said Obama will keep his word.

“[Extending benefits to same-sex couples] is a matter of fairness. The president is committed to ensuring that fairness as well as working on and fulfilling other promises that he has made in the campaign around things like ‘don’t ask, don’t tell,’ ” Gibbs said.

The president has faced sharp criticism over the Justice Department’s filing in support of the Defense of Marriage Act, which opposes same-sex marriage. The act used the government’s interest in opposing incestuous marriages to support its position against same-sex marriage.

Openly gay Rep. Barney Frank said the Obama administration made a “big mistake” and is calling on the president to clearly explain his views on the matter.

“The wording they used was inappropriate,” the Massachusetts Democrat told the Boston Herald in an interview published in the paper’s Wednesday edition.

Many gay activists have called on Frank and other gay members of Congress to speak out against the recent Department of Justice brief.

The rancor threatens to disrupt a big Democratic National Committee gay fundraiser in Washington next week.

Vice President Biden is the guest at next Thursday’s DNC’s LBGT Leadership Council 10th Annual Dinner in Washington. Critics are calling for Frank and other gay congressional leaders to boycott the dinner, for which tickets go for $1,000 to $30,000 a plate.

Activist David Mixner and blogger Andy Towle, two well-known gay rights advocates, announced that they were pulling out, citing disappointment with the Defense of Marriage Act brief.

If you’ll remember, the president also rankled gay advocates before his inauguration when he named megachurch pastor the Rev. Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at his swearing-in. Warren, in an interview with Belief.net, likened homosexuality to bestiality and incest. He also supported California’s Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriage in that state.

During the Warren controversy, Obama — who frequently spoke in favor of gay and lesbian rights during the campaign but has said he opposes same-sex marriage — declared himself “a fierce advocate for gay and lesbian Americans.”

Given the support Obama received from the gay community during the campaign season,  so far the Obama administration has let gay and lesbian rights activists down.

On election day Obama got 70 percent of the vote from those who identified themselves as gay, lesbian or bisexual.

“I think there is an overwhelming feeling that he has not lived up to expectations on these matters,” he said.

But, he added, “there’s some sympathy for him — there’s the worst recession since the Great Depression, troops are in two different countries in the Middle East — so there’s a lot on his plate.”

Kim said Obama’s full agenda, however, shouldn’t be used as an excuse to delay action on gay rights issues. If the administration waits until there is a news hole, then the issues will be subject to a lot of debate, he said.

“In the middle of the health care debate, saying we’re going to do health care, we’re going to fix the economy and then this other [gay rights] stuff — of course it’s right. It doesn’t require a national debate,” he said. “This is stuff that’s been debated forever. America does not need a huge national debate on some of these issues,” Kim said.

Kim said while Obama has disappointed the gay community, he still has some time to make good on his campaign promises.

“I think people will wait through the first two legislative sessions, but then after that some of this stuff does need to move to the front,” he said.

Share this Post

Posted in Campaign 2008, Common Sense, GLBT, Media Matters, News, Today's Rant | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments »

No On H8…Unless…

Posted by Daniel on May 27, 2009

Photobucket

1. Being gay is not “natural”. Real Americans always reject un-natural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.


Photobucket

2. Gay marriage will encourage people to be “gay”; in the same way hanging around tall people will make you tall.

Photobucket

3. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of “crazy” behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

Photobucket

4. Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn’t changed at all; women are still property, blacks can’t marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

Photobucket

5. Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britney Spears’ 55-hour “just for fun” marriage would be destroyed.

Photobucket

6. Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn’t be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren’t full yet, and the world needs more children.

Photobucket

7. Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

Photobucket

8. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That’s why we have only one religion in America.

Photobucket

9. Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That’s why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.

Photobucket

10. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven’t adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, and longer life spans.

Share this Post

Posted in Common Sense, GLBT, Life, Media Matters, Our Writings, Politics, Religion, Today's Rant | Tagged: , , , , | 1 Comment »

Let’s Ban Divorce While We’re At It

Posted by Daniel on December 22, 2008

Photobucket

Sponsors of the California ballot measure that banned same-sex marriage are seeking to nullify thousands of marriages between gay and lesbian couples performed after the state Supreme Court ruled them constitutional.

The sponsors Friday filed responses to three anti-Proposition 8 lawsuits with the state Supreme Court. The briefs also defend Proposition 8 against opponents’ legal challenges, including an argument that the amendment needed a constitutional convention to be added to the state’s constitution.

“We are confident that the will of the voters and Proposition 8 will ultimately be upheld,” said Andrew Pugno, General Counsel for ProtectMarriage.com and the Proposition 8 Legal Defense Fund.

California Attorney General Edmund “Jerry” Brown called on the court to reject the initiative.

“Proposition 8 must be invalidated because the amendment process cannot be used to extinguish fundamental constitutional rights without compelling justification,” Brown said in a written statement.

Rick Jacobs, founder and chair of the anti-Proposition 8 Courage Campaign, said he was “appalled” that the initiative’s supporters wanted to nullify the same-sex marriages that are already on the books.

“The motivation behind this mean-spirited and heart-breaking action should not be allowed to be buried in legal brief,” he said. “If Proposition 8’s sponsors plan to destroy lives, they should at least have the courage to admit it publicly.”

Opponents filed suit quickly after the November 4 election in which Proposition 8 passed 52 percent to 48 percent, effectively reversing a California Supreme Court decision that it was unconstitutional to deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

The vote also prompted a series of protests, some aimed at supporters of the proposition.

The proposition, which added an amendment to the state constitution, defined marriage as between one man and one woman.

Opponents argue that the amendment cannot be applied retroactively, but proponents say the amendment is clear on that issue.

“Proposition 8’s brevity is matched by its clarity,” one of the briefs read. “There are no conditional clauses, exceptions, exemptions, or exclusions: ‘Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.’

” … Its plain language encompasses both pre-existing and later-created same-sex (and polygamous) marriages, whether performed in California or elsewhere. With crystal clarity, it declares that they are not valid or recognized in California.”

Opponents are also seeking to have the amendment nullified, arguing that it alters the state’s constitution — meaning the state Supreme Court’s May ruling — and therefore, according to state law, is a revision that requires a constitutional convention. Proponents of the amendment disagree.

“Petitioners’ challenge depends on characterizing Proposition 8 as a radical departure from the fundamental principles of the California Constitution,” their briefs said. ” … But that portrayal is wildly wrong. Proposition 8 is limited in nature and effect. It does nothing more than restore the definition of marriage to what it was and always had been under California law before June 16, 2008 — and to what the people had repeatedly willed that it be throughout California’s history.”

California voters passed a ballot initiative in 2000 that changed the state’s Family Code to formally define marriage in the state between a man and a woman. After San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom performed same-sex marriages in 2004, which were promptly annulled, Newsom and others sought to have the ballot initiative struck down.

The California Supreme Court did so in May, and same-sex marriages were performed legally in California a month later.

The court’s ruling said the right to marry is among a set of basic human rights “so integral to an individual’s liberty and personal autonomy that they may not be eliminated or abrogated by the legislature or by the electorate through the statutory initiative process.”

But opponents had already been at work on Proposition 8, seeking to enshrine the marriage definition in the constitution, and the initiative was approved for the November 4 vote.

Proposition 8 supporters also announced the addition of Kenneth Starr to their legal team. Starr will serve as lead counsel and argue their case to the Supreme Court.

Starr, the dean of Pepperdine Law School, investigated the suicide of Clinton deputy White House counsel Vince Foster and the Whitewater affair. The $70 million investigation turned up evidence of President Clinton’s affair with Monica Lewinsky and led to Clinton’s impeachment by the House of Representatives. He was acquitted by the Senate.

Posted in Common Sense, GLBT, Life, Media Matters, Politics, Religion, Today's Rant | Tagged: , , , , , | 1 Comment »

Prop 8 Passes…Zealots Win Again

Posted by Daniel on November 6, 2008

I have a message for all those readers out there who don’t live in california who still think this state is the most liberal state in the country.

In addition to everything ELSE you’re wrong about, you may add the above-mentiond to that list.

For those of you who haven’t heard, here’s what Proposition 8 in California was all about:

ELIMINATES RIGHT OF SAME-SEX COUPLES TO MARRY.

INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT

Changes California Constitution to eliminate right of same-sex couples to marry. Provides that only a marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.
Fiscal Impact: Over the next few years, potential revenue loss, mainly sales taxes, totaling in the several tens of millions of dollars, to state and local governments. In the long run, likely little fiscal impact to state and local governments.

California’s Proposition 8 passed by 52.5 percent (in favor) to 47.5 percent (opposed) in Tuesday’s general election.

The question now is will the more than 18,000+ same-sex marriages that have been granted since June be overturned, or will they remain on the books as legal.  This is the question now before the state legislature…along with several suits that have been filed in the state’s high court since Tuesday for an immediate stay or an injunction to prevent the initiative from taking effect.

While the supporters are reveling in their win, the courts now have to determine how to explain to a section of society two arguements:

  1. That either the marriages legalized since June are no longer legal, in which case those civil rights granted will now have to be taken away from tax-paying citizens.
  2. Those marriages will remain legally recognized, but everyone else in the LGBT community will not be granted the same rights as their peers.

I don’t envy the courts or the state legislature in their job ahead.  Nor the arguements they have to face and ultimately decide.  The video below is a perfect example of that arguement..

What’s fascinating about opposition to gay-marriage is how unprincipled it is. I’ve heard every argument against preventing gays from marrying, and none of them, not even the ones based on the bible, holds up to logical scrutiny. Opposition to gay marriage is based on fear and ignorance, precisely the same kind of fear and ignorance that once led people to oppose interracial marriage — indeed, the same kind of fear and ignorance that once led people to oppose integration generally.

Eventually, gays will win the right to marry, just as blacks won the right to sit anywhere they wanted on a bus. Marriage equality will be both a consequence and a cause of society’s increasing acceptance that homosexuality is exactly as abnormal, evil, destructive, wrong, and immoral as left-handedness. It’s just a question of how long it’ll take, and how much pain will be suffered in the meantime by gays who want nothing other than to share the basic human right to make a lifelong, legally recognized, publicly sanctioned, monogamous commitment to the person they love.

Here’s something else to imagine: how you would feel if society denied you this basic right? Or if society told you you could have a few parts of it, but that you couldn’t call it a marriage, because that word is special and reserved for people who are different from you?

A generation from now, your children or grandchildren will ask you how you voted on the current initiative (or one that will eventually come to YOUR state) to exclude gays from this fundamental right. You have a chance today to tell them you voted against it — that you voted against fear and ignorance and discrimination and hate.

Posted in Campaign 2008, Common Sense, Family, Friends, GLBT, Life, Op-Ed, Our Writings, Politics, Religion, Today's Rant | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »