Use these resources as a way to prepare for Wednesday's deliberation of gay marriage as a Policy Issue or a Constitutional issue.
______________________
First, starting today, former Bush solicitor general Ted Olson attempts to persuade a federal court to invalidate California's Proposition 8—the voter-approved measure that overturned California's constitutional right to marry a person of the same sex.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/229957/page/1
____________________
On the California case Perry v. Schmarzeneger, the U.S. Supreme Court Monday temporarily blocked a federal judge's plan to broadcast the trial over California's ban on gay marriage by posting video on YouTube.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE60A3II20100111
________________
Check out the maps, of where this is going here:
The Los Angeles Times has produced a nice interactive map showing that state-by-state status of gay marriage. The map is also a choropleth map on a red to green scale with each color share representing a different level of rights (interesting color spectrum, no?) Related is a map that shows the projected future of gay marriage in each state (I would have reversed the shading of the colors, personally).
______________
Last week, the New Jersey legislature rejected legalization of gay marriage. Earlier in Gay marriage became legal in Vermont and Iowa in 2009 and takes effect January 1, 2010 in New Hampshire.
In the District of Columbia, a city council vote passed same-sex marriage.
16 comments:
Simply put, looking back on this civil rights issue 20 years into the future, a majority of American citizens, gay or straight, will look back on this issue and realize how terrible we treat our citizens just like how we treated the black men and women from the Dread Scott case in 1857 to the Civil Rights legislation in the 1960's. Civil Rights do not stop at skin color, they also transcend sexual preference boundaries. These boundaries should be surpassed to ensure equality in the states.
Personally, I do not feel that Americans should be so passionately against gay marriage. When homosexuals have the right to marriage, the only people that are affected are those individuals. My rights do not change; therefore, I have no reason to be against it. I also believe that it is discrimination to prevent gays from having the right to at least a legal union.
I agree with Isha in that heterosexuals are not affected by giving homosexuals the right to marriage, thus are wasting their time fighting against it. Not allowing gay marriage is simply supporting the ideology of seperate but equal, which is unconstitutional. Gays deserve a normal marriage ceremony if that is what they want because the Constitution is supposed to view all US citizens equally.
I just have to say that this future of gay marriage map is completely inaccurate. First off, none of the states this guy figured would legalize gay marriage by 2009 actually did. Even if I were to ignore that, the presumption that this guy thought he could predict the future of a social issue based on three variables is fundamentally flawed. I think we'll be looking back at this issue and shaking our heads by 2020 at the latest.
It seems that the underlying reason that so many people are against gay marriage is because of the word "marriage" and how uncomfortable heterosexuals are with the definition of it. But the Constitution was not created with hindsight and it left room for change. Times have changed, people have changed, and that calls for definitions to change as well.
The people against gay marriage are only against it based on cultural and religious beliefs. Therefore, that is just a personal belief and opinion which doesn't give them more power over other people's lives. Giving gay couples the right to marriage is based on equalities not on personal opinions. Thus, the federal government's decisions should be based on freedom and equality.
I do agree with what the others have been saying. Personally I do not see anything in the Constitution that prohibits gays or lesbians from becoming married. I also do not think why we as a society are fighting so hard against this. They are exactly the same as the rest of us and should have the same rights as we do. Period. I personally feel that we have other issues right now that are affecting a greater percentage of our population that I feel people should be pushing more for. I am very much in favor of gay rights. I have a couple friends that are gay and some that are bisexual. Two of which were the victims of hate crimes. I just think it is disgusting the way that, as a society, we treat each other. Do I think it needs to be an Amendment, maybe. I just think that it would be sad that it would have to go that far. Personally, I think this is a no-brainer decision. Obviously not.
I don't believe that marriage between gay couples should be prohibited in the United States today. I also feel that the government needs to make a federal amendment providing gay marriage in a way that is separate from the church. The church is arguably the biggest opponent to gay marriage and they have points to support their arguments. However, marriage is a right whether or not it is accepted or rejected by the church. Since the Constitution provides a freedom of church and state, it seems logical that there should be some type of marriage law that does not involve the church and its moral views on the situation.
I agree with the points that have already been posted and I also believe that gay marriage should be legalized. Marriage can bestow a bevy of important benefits, including military and Social Security benefits, health care benefits, and nursing home coverage. Marriage may also qualify a person for unpaid leave from their job under the Family Leave Act and I think that this "separate but equal" attitude in the form of Civil Unions is absolutely unconstitutional. As some stated during class discussion, it goes completely against what this country stands for and is, to be frank, embarrassing to us as such a powerful and developed nation in the world to still be caught up in civil rights battles like this. I think we should be past this by now. It might cause slight controversy to pass legislation guaranteeing gay people this right, but I think not passing it and leaving up to the whims of the states would cause much more of an uproar. In California alone, Prop 8 has been wavering in and out for awhile, which brings up this issue over and over again every time one side manages to gain a slight upper hand. I think the American people should be given the benefit of the doubt and instead of trying to predict a reaction, lawmakers should go for it and pass the legalization of gay marriage. The United States has never been one to shy away from groundbreaking legislation because if it was, then women and African Americans wouldn't have equal rights, so I don't see why they can't cut the cowardly stance and take gay marriage head on.
I also think that gay marriage should be legalized. It seems to me that a good number of people against gay marriage are against it because of personal moral beliefs. There are going to be people who are gay even if they can't get married, and just because you personally disapprove doesn't mean you should deny these couples the benefits that other married couples have. I think that in time, people will be able to progress and that gays will eventually be able to marry and receive federal benefits. I just don't know how long it's going to take. One issue that I do see however, is where to draw the line when it comes to marriage. If marriage is such a basic right, what about issues like polygamy, or age requirement for marriage. Where do you draw the line?
Our constitution prides itself on supporting both individual rights, equal protection for all of our people and separation between church and state. Thus, gay marriage should be allowed legally. Also, I feel as if American society should be more empathetic towards the rights of gay citizens and that people should not judge others by the same standards they set for themselves; and rather, that they should be willing to tolerate, if not accept opposing ideas and ways of life.
This issue at hand is an issue of religion and government. Marriage is a term that is associated with religion and two people committing to each other under god. These two people are traditionally heterosexual people and it is for this reason that there is so much controversy. As someone in class has said before, it is for this reason that the term marriage should be taken out in recognizing two people united under the law. If two people want to be known as married, let that term be up to their religious affiliation rather than associating it with a term in government. If you want to be recognized as married, be recognized under your religion as married instead of the government coining this term for two people united under the law. People do use religion in order to dictate what they view and believe in and such but this religion and values should be their own private matter because it is what they believe in and not what many others would. Religion gives people a set of values that guide their lives and there is nothing wrong with that, but to instill these values on others who may have a differing view is wrong.
I think the issue on gay marriage parallels the Civil Rights movement in the 1960's. I don't think legislators should be prejudice to individuals that are homosexual. The United States of America is "the land of the free", and its foundation lies upon the escape from oppression, persecution, etc.
Even if Church and State homosexual marriage laws are separated, the time of nationwide civil rights advancement on this issue is coming. Maybe not within the predicted timeframe (see Derek's comment for more information), but soon. Churches are becoming more accepting of homosexuality. The Episcopalians have (a long time ago) elected an openly gay bishop, and other institutions have strong movements for full inclusion. Civil rights groups always win in the end.
And now, a joke. Remember Scalia's bit about the homosexual agenda? I managed to find a copy of it online, at this website: http://www.netfunny.com/rhf/jokes/99/Sep/agenda.html
Here's the text of the much-feared "homosexual agenda" (do not take this seriously like some stupid people have).
6:00 am Gym
8:00 am Breakfast (oatmeal and egg whites)
9:00 am Hair appointment
10:00 am Shopping
12:00 PM Brunch
2:00 PM 1) Assume complete control of the U.S. Federal, State and Local Governments as well as all other national governments,
2) Recruit all straight youngsters to our debauched lifestyle,
3) Destroy all healthy heterosexual marriages,
4) Replace all school counselors in grades K-12 with agents of Colombian and Jamaican drug cartels,
5) Establish planetary chain of "homo breeding gulags" where over-medicated imprisoned straight women are turned into artificially impregnated baby factories to produce prepubescent love slaves for our devotedly pederastic gay leadership,
6) bulldoze all houses of worship, and 7) Secure total control of the INTERNET and all mass media for the exclusive use of child pornographers.
2:30 PM Get forty winks of beauty rest to prevent facial wrinkles from stress of world conquest
4:00 PM Cocktails
6:00 PM Light Dinner (soup, salad, with Chardonnay)
8:00 PM Theater
11:00 PM Bed (du jour)?
Also, check the Colbert Report for a hilarious defense of marriage commercial.
Honestly, I think the idea of religion defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman is just an excuse for opponents of same-sex marriage. As others have stated, some Churches are actually accepting homosexuality, at least somewhat.
Most people today, even if they agree that church and state should remain separate, will use that argument to say that same-sex couples don't deserve it.
In my opinion, they just don't want to accept the fact that preventing marriage on the sole excuse of gender is discrimination. By defining "marriage" as a union between a man and a woman you are discriminating on the basis of gender.
The issue of marriage should be left to the states. I don't care if Texas or Alabama decided to prohibit gay marriage while Vermont and Connecticut allow it. My issue is with the Defense of Marriage Act that recognized a marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Citing the tenth and fourteenth amendments, I think DoMA is clearly unconstitutional.
Post a Comment