I replied to Mr. Krauthammer directly when this editorial was printed in the Washington Post. Although I do agree that the amendment is not needed, I called him on the concept of "activist judges" imposing their own views on society. One of the hallmarks of the anti-gay marriage argument is a complete dismissal of the idea that any judge could actually be acting from sound legal, ethical and judicial history and opinion.

After all, the Supreme Court has twice declared marriage a civil right (in Loving v. Virginia, and another case involving the rights of convicted felons to be married while still in jail), and there have been huge advances in the social, psychological and medical understanding of gay people in the past few decades. Is it not possible that judges, having understood that gay people are simply humans whose relationships are not treated equally under the law, have ruled from something other than mere "opinion"?

I also pointed out to Mr. Krauthammer, who IIRC is confined to a wheelchair, that it was dangerous to argue that the voters have some supreme right to dictate the bounds of marriage to their neighbors. After all, a sizeable number of Americans seem to believe marriage is for procreation, and according to Mr. Krauthammer's logic, it would therefore be completely acceptable for them to define marriage as between "a fertile man and a fertile woman" - thereby rending many wheelchair-bound and otherwise disabled people up the proverbial creek. Given the unfortunate history of eugenics throughout the Western World, that is a slippery slope that we really should be concerned about.

CPT and others interested in intelligently discussing this, take a look at the article "An Economic Assessment of Same Sex Marriage Laws," by Prof. Douglas Allen of Simon Fraser University, in the current issue of the Harvard Journal of Law & Social Policy. It's a PDF so you'll need Acrobat Reader to access it, but here's the link to the index of current issue.. He makes some very good points showing why different is not necessarily unequal.

Where'd you get that? In fact, Douglas Allen implies the exact opposite after arguing the economic impropriety of same sex marriage:

[Not being petty, just FYI/disclaimer for Outsports:
(1) There is no Journal of Law & Social Policy at Harvard Law School, it is the Journal of Law & Public Policy; (2) JLPP is the most conservative legal journal at HLS.]

See italicized portion for basis of my earlier post. If you're looking to constantly cavil, your bold excerpt might be read to mean that "same social status" implies a difference in rank as opposed to a difference in type, but I choose not to read it that way, and doubt if the author intended it as such, in light of his more positive, closing sentiments, which are "the last word" on the subject from him, for now at least. And while you are correct on the name and the perspective of the Journal, you neglect to note that like the Federalist Society which is heavily involved in it, it enjoys a significant amount of respect from reasonable minds at all points along the political spectrum, however begrudging that respect may be from the left.

Prague sees its first gay marriages

Finally I can propose to Lukas Ridgeston! He's been waiting soooooo long.

for some reason I thought Lukas was from South Africa. :confused:

Gee Cuz, you maybe watching too much porn when you know what country the talent is from. Do you know his birthday as well?

He does porn!?!?! Gah! The little bastard told me he was an architect!

April 5, 1974

[quote]Maddog
[QUOTE]He does porn!?!?! Gah! The little bastard told me he was an architect! [/QB][/quote]I love you,Maddog!

Ah yes,another beautiful man born in the month of April! wink Anyway,I stand corrected as I see he is from Slovakia.Either way he's hot!!

[ July 04, 2006, 07:54 AM: Message edited by: eddiec. ]

Man, that is so funny sounding. Like gay people are a species on National Geographic. Or like gay people have a different anatomy requiring different medicines, etc...

"Today ladies and gentleman, we're in the wilderness of San Francisco, where we will be observing the untamed homosexual male..."

Sounds like a fun safari!

LOL...keep your hands and feet inside the trolley at all times.

Guuuurrrrrrrrrrrrr!

Oh, but we get to feed the animals, right? wink

The question now pending in the California state courts is whether Prop. 22, CA's version of DOMA, trumps the SF Superior Court decision allowing gay marriages or vice-versa. The 1st District Court of Appeals in SF is having a marathon hearing session on those issues all day tomorrow, Monday, 7-10-06 and you can watch the oral arguments online. Go to the court's press release for info.

And on the opposite coast, MA voters will have the chance to override their Supreme Court's allowing gay marriages. Interesting turn of events. Link to story.

Actually, that's not quite precise. The SJC merely said that the amendment meets the requirements for a citizen initiated amendment. The amendment still needs 25% of the vote of two constitutional conventions before being placed on the ballot.

25% bar is very low, and it is clear that it would receive the necessary votes. The only thing in question is whether or not it will actually be put to a vote.

The way it works here in Mass. is that the state's legislature has to pass the proposed "citizen's amendment" in two consecutive legislative years and then it will get on the general ballot for the public. The first of the two sequential votes is expected this week. I say "expected" because there's been lots of talk that Democrats are going to try to kill the amendment vote via a procedural move before it can come to a vote. Doing so will kill the amendment. If that approach fails, the proposed amendment should pass this year (unfortunately) because all they need to get is 50 votes in favor of the amendment.

The soonest the citizen's amendment can get to the voters, assuming everything goes like clockwork for the amendment's supporters, is in 2008.

I didn't see today's Boston Globe, but allegedly in it is a full page ad signed by 165 of the city's business, political and cultural leaders (including Robert Kraft, owner of the New England Patriots) saying that gay marriage is good for business and a healthy move for the Commonwealth.

The bad news: the Mass. legislature failed to kill the anti-gay marriage amendment yesterday.

The good news: they put off a vote till *after* the November elections, meaning that the rabid anti-gay folks (yes, we have a few of them here) can't hold a legislator's "no" vote to the amendment against him/her on election day.

Lawmakers delay vote on gay marriage measure


[Post modified for hyperlink format - Outsports moderator]

[ July 13, 2006, 07:01 AM: Message edited by: m1 ]

So much for the People having a voice. Nice to see the Democrats taking away the People's rights just because they don't like what a majority of MA. residents seem to like.

Duh. And Republicans want to ban abortions despite the majority of Americans favoring abortion rights. It's called a Republic not a Democracy.

Exactly. That's why I laughed when I saw "let the people vote" signs in Mass. back in 2003. This is a representational democracy at best, you don't get to vote on everything. And thank God for that, I'd hate to see what this country would be like if it were a true democracy.
eek!

In light of the posts subsequent to my last, this article is as reassuring as it might be reconciling.

Here's the latest in the string of defeats of gay marriage cases, this time from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit regarding NE's anti-marriage initiative. Link to opinion. (Citizens for Equal Protection v. Bruning.)

I still believe it's the word "marriage" that's the issue. If we called it civil union or bondage or whatever, I think the legal rights would be ours. There would be people fighting against that but I believe there would be less opposition.

Is that the separate but "almost equal" arguement?

CBC - Darren Hayes marries

Since we are on the topic of gay marriage, Darren Hayes of the Australian band Savage Garden came out of the closet and married his same sex partner in London on Monday. The Aussie goverment of John Howard does not recognize same sex unions.

Some will say that. In fact, one of my buddies stated that the courts would have to come in and make that determination. But if the government grants the same legal rights to both hetero and homosexuals does the separate but "almost equal" argument have a leg on which to stand? There is the separation of church and state issue.

And do gay atheists want their union mired in religion?

Congratulations to Darren Hayes.

Well perhaps the US could adopt the model of many European nations which require everyone (str8 & same sex) to have a civil ceremony that is the only legal union. Religious ceremonies, if any, must take place after the civil ceremony. In that way governments could recognize/regulate all civil unions and then the religious arguement would be removed because even the government would not recogize them as having any legal validity.

Bondage is very, very different.

In a good way of course.

(is it getting hot in here?)

From Reuters:

Massachusetts Same-Sex Marriage Pioneers Split Up

BOSTON (Reuters) - The lesbian couple whose landmark lawsuit helped Massachusetts become the only state in America where same-sex couples can marry legally have split up, a spokeswoman said on Friday.

Julie and Hillary Goodridge and six other gay and lesbian couples sued Massachusetts for the right to marry and won when the state's highest court ruled narrowly for them in 2003.

Their suit helped spark a nationwide debate on gay marriage.


[Post modified for link format - Outsports moderator]

[ July 31, 2006, 10:03 PM: Message edited by: m1 ]

Cool! Hopefully that will show gay marriage opponents that we're human too.

While they split up, Paris and Nicole get a lesbian couple hitched and actually, (God, I hate saying this ... ) it's really sweet.

Yeah, let's have gay marriage all right.

Useless.


[Post modified for quote format - Outsports moderator]

[ July 31, 2006, 10:05 PM: Message edited by: m1 ]

Aaaaaawwwwww MIB, don't give up so soon. You'll find someone to love you, I just know it!

"Lookin' for love, in all the wrong places, lookin' for love..."

or is it:

"Nookin' for nub, in all the wrong places, nookin' for nub..."



But I digress. Why the heck would I want to get married? So I can get divorced? Forget it.

LOL...

Nail on the head time there. I really don't see you as the marrying type, MIB.

I think you're more of the, "Have a guy over, tie him up, play Gitmo detainee all night and then let him go in the morning after you've had your fun" type.

LOL2! MIB, I see you more as willing to be humiliated, given the reception you often get here. More a "have a guy over, let him tether YOU to a shopping cart and play "homeless" all night, while he throws money at you and reads passages from "Walden Two," before he does a little earthy ramming of his own" kinda guy. wink

The Washington State Surpeme Court has finally reached a decision re: gay marriage and the lawsuit filed in King County by a gay couple. My understanding is that the decision will be announced about 8:00am this morning....I have no idea as to what to expect, but should DOMA be found unconstitutional, and gay marriage allowed in Wash. State there will be no residency requirements....updates as soon as they become available.

The ban on gay marriage has been upheld in a decision just announced out of Olympia.........a sad day in the State of Washington. frown

It'll come one day Tom. Maybe not in our lifetime but it will come.

I guess our only alternative is move to Canada and marry us a couple of professional hockey players. wink

Now your talking Maddog!!!!!!

Well, sort of.

Yesterday was kind of a double whammy here. In addition to losing the gay marriage battle, a local lesbian, Major Margaret Witt, lost her lawsuit against the Air Force for being kicked out of the military, because somebody ratted on her. She is going to continue the battle she said, in an article in the Spokesman-Review. Two steps back yesterday. frown

[ July 27, 2006, 05:37 AM: Message edited by: hockeyTom ]

Hypothetically, what if all the gays in the military said we are done and walked out. How many gays are in the military and would it disable it a great deal?

If all the gays in the military got up and said we have had enough of this crap, and left the military, the US would be in a world of hurt. Seriously! There is yet another web headline I saw this morning, where another gay linguist has been kicked out of the military....I mean you get to a point where you have to wonder, if your gay and thinking about the military, are you really prepared for what could happen?

In UK, lesbians fail to have marriage recognized

My guess is that if they appeal to the European Court of Human Rights the ruling would be overturned.

God! There's an oxymoron if I ever heard one.