Archive for the ‘gayness’ Tag
It’s a little weird to contemplate that when I wake up around noon, equal marriage may be the law of the land by Supreme Court decision.
It’s appalling that we can’t be sure of the outcome in this day and age. The correct decision is blindingly, agonizingly obvious, and yet we cannot be sure that the Supreme Court will reach it.
It’s my bedtime now. I really hope that when I wake up, it’s in a better, more equal country.
In the quest for shame that is Ohio’s inability to dispense with its obscene ban on equal marriage comes the ultimate kick in the psychological nuts: Alabama will have gay marriage before we do.
No wonder our state symbol is the buckeye — that’s fucking nuts.
Oh, well done. While fucking Utah has marriage equality; I live under the jurisdiction of the only court that thinks institutionalized bigotry is just fine and dandy. By a 2-1 decision, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld the existing equal marriage bans in Ohio, as well as Michigan, Kentucky and Tennessee.
And if Judge Daughtry is right in her blistering dissent (starting at p 43 of the decision),
Because the correct result is so obvious, one is tempted to speculate that the majority has purposefully taken the contrary position to create the circuit split regarding the legality of same-sex marriage that could prompt a grant of certiorari by the Supreme Court and an end to the uncertainty of status and the interstate chaos that the current discrepancy in state laws threatens.
…or in regular English, that the majority is deliberately trying to force the Supreme Court to get involved, that is no comfort. As has been said in many other contexts, justice delayed is justice denied.
My regional appeals court just told me that my state has the Constitutional right to discriminate against me for no reason other than the simple fact that I am gay. Not because I have committed a crime, not because I have been found mentally incompetent, but simply and only because I am gay.
My regional appeals court — or 2/3 of it, anyway — can go fuck itself.
Okay, so I know Ohio does things in a boring, plodding, Midwestern way.
But seriously, being beaten to equal marriage rights by Idaho and Arkansas?
That’s just embarrassing.
Relative to the recent equal marriage decisions from the Supreme Court of the United States, I would have liked something more sweeping, but I certainly didn’t expect something more sweeping and I would have been (pleasantly) stunned with something more sweeping, but we essentially got the rulings I’d expected.
The thing I want explained most is why no one else seems to have noticed that the Biblical definition of marriage is emphatically not monogamous. Traditional Mormonism and Islam have Biblical marriage: polygamy. One man and one woman is NOT marriage as envisioned in the Bible and to suggest otherwise is simply and factually wrong.
Anyway, Ohio’s positively medieval anti-gay amendment just had its first shot across the bow — although this one was aimed more at its waterline. Judge Timothy Black of the US District Court for Southern Ohio has ruled that Ohio can not refuse to recognize legally performed same-sex marriages from other states. Since Ohio law already admits that it will recognize marriages between first cousins, or between minors, that are legally performed in other states even if the couple went to the other state to get married just to get around the Ohio restriction, there is no legal justification to not recognize same sex marriages performed in other states. While it leaves the anti-gay amendment in place, it both shoots a huge hole in it and points the way to its overturning (if it isn’t repealed outright first).
And good riddance to it. It’s a policy that has cost us nearly 70 Arabic and Farsi speakers in a time when all branches of the military are suffering acute shortages of specialists in those languages. Apparently shaming gays for being gay is more important than actually collecting live intelligence so we can better protect our troops.
DADT was a bad idea to begin with; before, gays were banned because they were considered a ‘security risk’ because it was assumed that they were blackmail targets just for being gay. Rather than lift the stigma, DADT codified it, ensuring that gays and lesbians in the military were blackmail targets for anyone who knew they were gay.
Of course, the Repubs (with a few exceptions), who claim to be the party of the strong military, found themselves at odds with the JCS, the Department of Defense, and the bulk of the services themselves, all of whom agree that there’s no reason gays and lesbians can’t serve openly in the military. Again, I guess it’s more important to hate gays than actually support the troops.
And who ate John McCain’s brain, anyway?
While we’re at it, let’s take a quick look at the military that arguably has to be the most prepared on the planet: Israel. They ended gay exclusion completely in 1993. Subsequent effect on preparedness, effectiveness and morale? Nil.
Anyway, a welcome end to a bad policy.
Washington, DC is on the verge of passing a law permitting gay marriage, with all the usual exemptions stating that churches are not required to perform them in contravention of their doctrine, or even rent event space for them.
Sadly, this isn’t enough for the local archdiocese, which is threatening to shut down their charity services in the city if it passes.
So, if the city extends civil rights to their citizens, the diocese’s response will be to punish needy people who have nothing to do with the dispute.
A statement from the chancellor of the archdiocese says that this has to be seen in the context of balancing “the interest of the homosexual community to be able to marry freely and the interests of the religious community to be able to practice religion freely.”
I fail to see any way in which the simple right to marry impacts anyone else’s right to the freedom of their own conscience. Nothing in the pending legislation requires a church, Catholic or otherwise, to officiate over same-sex marriages, and even exempts them from renting space for hosting the reception for a same-sex wedding. The church remains free to make their own determination as to whether or not they will sanctify such unions. The practice of one’s religion is not impacted one whit.
However, the church is attempting to force exactly the opposite. I am not a Catholic. Why should I be bound by the church’s rules on marriage, then? One would not apply the rules by which Jewish or Islamic marriages are made to a Catholic couple. It is therefore inappropriate for the church to expect the right to apply its rules to non-adherents.
As for myself, the only ‘rules’ I can think of for a couple to get married are: they are both of the age of majority and legally able to enter into contracts for themselves, and they love each other.
That the Catholic Church has additional requirements for a church service is entirely their business and emphatically not mine. But the any church’s rules for a wedding by necessity stop at the church door. That’s the fundamental basis of a civil society that honors freedom of conscience. One church may not tell another church what rules they must operate under, and neither may one dictate rules to non-adherents.
Fortunately, the city is not going to allow themselves to be bullied, but I can’t help but think of the thousands who will be directly hurt by the diocese’s action.
A better place to ask WWJD? I cannot think of.
Link had from my dear : J.K. Rowling says Dumbledore was gay. That’s nice. D’you think you might’ve actually put that somewhere in one of the books, Jo?
This is bothering me more, the more I think about it, actually.
First of all, I’m not a big fan of divining authorial intent by anything more than the marks they made on paper—if they meant to make a particular statement, then a writer should be able to bloody well write it that way. If they can’t, then either they should rethink what they’re trying to say, or start major edits. If they didn’t write what they meant to say, then either they didn’t mean to say it, or they’re not as good a writer as they thought. So what she says now about what she wrote seems pretty meaningless to me. If she wanted Dumbledore to be gay, give us some better clues in text, not after the fact. I mean, she may as well be telling us that McGonagall and Sprout have been having a lesbian affair for the last fifteen years. We lack canonical data to back up the statement.
Second, it’s contextless, which is a problem we’ve had with JKR’s writing from day one that caught up with her in a horrible way in the last two books. Things appear from whole cloth in later books—particularly in HBP and DH—that she did no setup for in the first five books. So Albus had the hots for Grindelwald. I might care if we knew anything about Grindelwald other than a few obscure and negative references before now. Our pre-DH knowledge of Grindelwald is little more than A) he was a big nasty dark wizard during the same time frame as WW2 and B) Albus defeated him. How are we supposed to divine anything more from that?
Third, she had a couple that was damn near canonically gay—Lupin and Sirius—and ran away from it, as far and as fast as possible.
At best, I can say her authorial intent was muddy. At worst, she completely lost her narrative thread and didn’t know how to get it back.
Mainly, I say that if you mean to say it, write it. Don’t backfill after the trees have already chopped down and covered in ink marks.
It’s not the rampant hypocrisy.
It’s not the Republican scandal of the week that the press will only play with long enough to get their money’s worth out of it before going back to deliberately ignoring Dumbass’ crimes.
It’s the fact that this scumbag is repeatedly shrieking “I’m not gay!!!” as though it would be some horrific, unforgivable thing if he were. As if being gay was a bad thing. As if it was a disease.
Shit, I don’t want him on my team, but I’m not the one who gets to divvy up the players.
Of course, what’s funny is that the more desperate his denials get, the more he sounds like a bitchy old queen. XD