Monday, July 17, 2006

(Nebr)askin' For It

Posted by codemorse

From CNN.com:


Supporters of banning gay marriage won two major court rulings Friday, with a federal appeals court reinstating Nebraska's voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage and the Tennessee Supreme Court ruling that voters should have a say on the issue...

In the Nebraska case, U.S. District Judge Joseph Bataillon had ruled that the ban was too broad and deprived gays and lesbians of participation in the political process, among other things. The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed, saying in its ruling Friday that the amendment "and other laws limiting the state-recognized institution of marriage to heterosexual couples are rationally related to legitimate state interests and therefore do not violate the Constitution of the United States."

Seventy percent of Nebraska voters approved the ban in 2000....

The Nebraska amendment went farther than similar bans in many states in that it also barred same-sex couples from many legal protections afforded heterosexual couples. For example the partners of gays and lesbians who work for the state are not entitled to share their health insurance and other benefits.



That'll show the gays.

Truly, Friday was a banner victory for the common man. Seventy percent of the voters went to the polls to affirm this basic truth:

America's freedoms and benefits are not, and have never been, for all Americans. It's bad enough that blacks and women get to vote (thank God we were at least able to stall them) - the thought of some fairy recieving the same compensation for doing the same work at the same business in pursuit of the same sort of life goals is enough to make decent, red-blooded heterosexuals quake with rage.

RAGE!

RAAAAAGE!

[Explodes in a mushroom cloud of sarcasm]

3 Comments:

At 2:22 AM, Anonymous Thogek said...

Wow. Guess that says a lot for the state of bigotry and intolerance in the states of Nebraska and Tennessee.

These states have effectively decided to adjust their law to officially narrow further the definition of "eligible marriage couple" to that preferred by a specific sub-set of the population (and for no reason other than that sub-set's preference), legally denying the right of anyone that violates that narrowed definition.

Shall we apply that reasoning in other places, as well, such as to adjust the law to officially narrow the definition of "eligible voter" further to that preferred by a specific sub-set of the population (and for no reason other than that sub-set's preference), legally denying the right of anyone that violates that narrowed definition? (Oh, wait, we had that. We called it racism and sexism.)

I suppose I just don't understand what are the actual logical legal arguments against limiting the eligibility of any two legal adults people to marry. I only see intolerant people attempting to outlaw that which is different from themselves. If I'm missing something in that, I wish someone would [attempt to] explain it to me.

 
At 8:02 AM, Blogger codemorse said...

I suppose I just don't understand what are the actual logical legal arguments against limiting the eligibility of any two legal adults people to marry. I only see intolerant people attempting to outlaw that which is different from themselves. If I'm missing something in that, I wish someone would [attempt to] explain it to me.

I'm sort of torn.

On the one hand, it'd be nice to have some basic understanding of why anyone would consider it their duty to keep homosexuals from getting their lovers' insurance.

On the other hand, I consider myself a pretty considerate guy, in the literal sense of the word. I try to examine as many sides of an issue as I can before coming down firmly into one camp or another.

But with gay marriage, as I've said before, I just don't see another "side" to the debate. I see bigotry and I see intolerance, but nothing approaching the realm of logic or reasoned thought.

"Gays are bad!"

"Gays are scary!"

That, my friend thogek, IS the entirety of the anti-gay marriage argument.

Now, does that make you more or less angry?

And while I see you're still hard at work on your site, I invite you to come on back and see us again sometime.

 
At 11:31 AM, Anonymous portia said...

Personally, I think an apt challenge is for a Tennessee couple, married first cousins (it's legal here) move to Massachusetts and petition the state for recognition of the marriage.

Similarly, a couple who were formerly step-siblings from Massachusetts should move on down and petition TN for a marriage license (that's illegal in TN).

Want to talk about legitimate state interests in limiting and regulating marriage? Sure, let's talk about it. But let's talk about the whole thing, not just some bigot's pet peeve.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home