January 4, 2008
Gay Marriage Punted to Maryland Lawmakers
The AP via Baltimore's WJZ-TV reports the issue of same-sex marriage rights in Maryland will pop up again next week. This time around, it's the state legislature and not the courts who get to rule on the matter.
Back in September, the Maryland Court of Appeals ruled that laws banning same-sex marriages did not violate the state constitution. This contradicted a January 2007 ruling in the Baltimore Circuit Court that the laws were discriminatory and therefore unconstitutional. The case could not be further appealed in the court system and the ruling effectively passed the ball to Maryland lawmakers, who don't think gay marriage will gain much traction.
Proponents of same-sex marriage plan to back the Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act, which would make it clear that clergy are not obligated to perform gay marriages. In the past, opponents have said that laws allowing same-sex marriage would force clergy to perform marriages they disagreed with on moral grounds.
And now for a little fun with comparative media style, click over to the the Washington Times, which picked up the same AP story. Note the Times' use of scare quotes when referring to same-sex marriage -- you can just about picture the finger quotes the newspaper wants you to insert around the word marriage.
A show of hands: who's got some fingers the WashTimes can quote?
Photo by graemeking
|
So because the Washington Times chooses to side with the 'other' side of the story, you think we should all somehow be upset? Let me guess, FoxNews (and anyone else who doesn't agree with you) should get the same 'finger'?
Who remembers Chris Farleys finger skit?
Thats all I got...
Then why did WT changed the more politically charged word “gay” to the more PC friendly term “same-sex”…because we all know right wing nuts love PC terms. I suggest you take your finger and turn your sensitivity button down from 11 to a more manageable 7.23.
I like how they put "domestic partnership" in air quotes. I wonder if they had to run that one by the editor.
WT Reporter: "I don't know...domestic partnership?"
Editor: "Heathens, all of 'em. Air quotes!"
I know it was you Fredo.
People actually read the Washington Times? I tried to line my helper monkey's cage with a Tom Knott editorial and he sternly refused to even defecate on it. Just not good enough for it, I suppose. Luckily, I had a stack of old National Reviews holding up the dining room table leg. Nothing gets the old loaf a-pinching like William F. Buckley.
"Worst" use "of" "scare quotes" "ever."
Pull my finger.
There is no 'other' side here. Either you are for gay marriage or you are a fucking bigot loser elitist asshole that deserves to be choked with Elton John's fannie pack while being powdered and diapered by dozens of tiny mutant ninja Larry Craigs.
Isn't the WT run by Moonies? Don't they have mass group weddings?
The WT actually has decent coverage of local issues, often digging out stories the WP doesn't cover. But their editorial local coverage is essentially "DC ghetto scary, suburbs are dream come true".
I actually wrote these losers about a year ago about the use of quotations around the term gay marriage and on their homo-hatred in general. Shockingly, my concerns fell on deaf Moonie ears.
Either you are for gay marriage or you are a fucking bigot loser elitist asshole that deserves to be choked with Elton John's fannie pack while being powdered and diapered by dozens of tiny mutant ninja Larry Craigs.
That's a very O'Reilly/W/Right Wing Lunatic War on Terror kind of statement you're making there. No room for people of goodwill to have an honest difference of opinion on the topic?
Hillman - As a hetero, I take offence at your insinuation. Larry Craig was a men's room goblin, not a diaper fetishist. You're thinking of whoremonger David Vitter. Please get your hippocritical hetero perverts straight.
Hillrat:
Nope. 'People of goodwill' aren't bigots. 'People of goodwill' don't go out of their way to make life difficult for others for no damn good reason.
It really is that simple.
I've debated this topic for years and I have never had anyone actually mount a logical argument against gay marriage. Ever. It always, in the end, boils down to the fact that they get an icky feeling from gay man butt sex.
If you've got a real argument against gay marriage let's hear it. But I'll warn you. You'd be the first ever.
Monkey:
Mine was a composite character, taking the best from a variety of dumb-ass political figures.
And I have so many to choose from here lately....
So does anyone have real proof of Vitter's diaper love? I've heard lots of rumor but no proof.
What about an athiest/libertarian who doesn't believe the gov't should be in business of allowing or disallowing any kind of unions between people, hetero or otherwise?
For the record: I don't care if you and your boyfriend get married or not.
I believe the Rev. Willie Wilson summed this up quite high-lariously when he quipped, "No wonder your behind is bleeding! You can't make no connection with a screw and another screw."
As for Witter's diaper fetish, my operatives in New Orleans are working around the clock interviewing prostitutes and Pampers factory night shift workers. When I have the smoking diaper, dcist will be the first to break the story.
"What about an athiest/libertarian who doesn't believe the gov't should be in business of allowing or disallowing any kind of unions between people, hetero or otherwise?"
That's really out of the scope of the debate, though.. and this person is deluded because there is a need for legally recognized unions, otherwise the courts will be unable to deal with inheritance issues, custody of children, etc.
That's not the same as being opposed to gay marriage by itself.
Actually in a perfect world you are right, sortof - there would be civil unions done by the government, and then Baptist or Shintoists or Frog Worshippers or whoever could dream up whatever ceremony they wanted.
But the fact is you need a government role because of the property and legal protections given to a life partner. Things like protection against testifying against your spouse in court, the ability to immigrate, etc....
But I'd actually argue that you should get one 'civil union' regardless of who it is - a best friend, a sibling, someone you met on Craigslist..... Why should my partner and I get a civil union but someone else who I may be equally close to can't get one with me? Is it the butt sex that should qualify me? Why can't two old destitute women in a nursing home 'marry' or claim each other as a life partner so they get better benefits? Because one doesn't have a penis we have to condemn them to their last few years on earth being harder than they should be?
I agree about the athiest portion of your argument (and, sadly, the pompously religious in America have coopted marriage like they have nearly everything else..... they really brought this on themselves when they insisted government call unions 'marriage'..... yet another prime example of why religion in politics is stunningly bad).
But having an absolute libertarian view that government shouldn't be involved at all doesn't really work practically, at this point in our society..... it's too late for that.
But on theoretical grounds alone if you wanted to ban all marriage then I'd actually be fine with that, since at least it wouldn't convey special rights on one group..... (it's always struck me as the height of hypocrisy for some straights to claim gays want 'special rights' when in fact some straights are hell bent on keeping the 1000 plus rights of marriage all to themselves... literally the definition of 'special' rights)...
Oh, and welcome back. Where've you been?
Wasn't Willie Wilson the one tossed out of the Catholic Church because he had a harem of very young boys and other shenanigans? Or am I getting my arrogant hypocrites propped up / legitimized by the DC Govt mixed up?
Oh, and welcome back. Where've you been?
Started a new job a couple of months ago and DCist was on the no-no list, but that has since been changed.
To some extent, I can sort of understand the anti-gay marriage argument. In addition to the obvious buttsecks squirmishness, there's the feeling that granting legal status to gay marriage is giving tacit approval in a lifestyle choice that they find morally repugnant. Kinda like how I find it morally repugnant that churches are tax exempt. Every dollar they they don't pay in taxes is a dollar every non-churchie has to kick in. They're using the facilities and services for which my tax dollar was paid, yet I find it morally repugnant that my money is indirectly subsidizing international for-profit organizations peddling zombie death cults that worship a dead jewish vampire on a stick, that coverrup child rape, and think basic scientific concepts are tools of Satan. And don't even get me started on Opus Dei.
So how about this: if they want to maintain the straight monopoly on marriage, they have to pay their fair share. Until then, they can stifle their urge to tell me what I can stick in my partner's butt, and I can continue to stifle the urge to yell "eat f**k pie" in a church.
Jeebus, this soft fagbashing is almost as bad as the nutjobs that think dead soldiers coming back from Iraq is God's punishment for tolerating the 'mos. That makes about as much sense as that flat tire I got this morning being God's punishment for me enjoying the song "Seasons in the Sun" on a completely unironic level.
Monkey:
I'm shocked at your insensitivity. Clearly the dead soldiers coming back are God's punishment for those new Army uniforms which make Army guys look like they have no butt.
So I'm wondering.... we are honoring the troops and all, but does that include the gay ones? I get so confused over all this. After one of the 'mos goes and serves his country and gets blown up, should we honor him or should we still treat him, his loved ones, and his memory like shit?
As for 'Seasons in the Sun'.... I found myself turning up The Bangles 'Manic Monday' the other day. I hated myself for it instantly, but damn if that wasn't 3 minutes of cold stone ecstasy.....
Your linking gay marriage to church freebie status is amusing. Gets me back to my whole 'special rights' thing. The whole concept of one group getting to pay no taxes while the rest of us do is pretty much the definition of 'special'.
What I find extremely stupid (from a policy point of view) is that these churches pay no taxes for decades, then sell their tax-free property for millions in profit. Yet we don't demand that they then pay back taxes.
Churches ain't the cute little poor country church anymore, having a bake sale to raise money to paint the pastor's modest 1 bedroom quarters. They are multimillion dollar corporations, with everything from daycare centers to gyms, all operated with resources that the rest of us pay for whilst the church folks collect income tax-free. Quite the scam. And quite the hypocrisy, especially given the actual Biblical teachings about spending your resources to help your fellow man.
And sadly some (but not all) churches are using their freebie status to spend even more money and effort advance their cause of treating people like me like shit, making sure me and my friends are less likely to have medical care when we're old, literally making sure that some old people have to go without medical care and eat cat food all because they enjoyed the butt sex decades ago when they still gave a crap about that sort of thing.
But me wanting decent health care and benefits would be 'special rights'. So, you know, better to eat cat food in a dingy basement apartment while your perfectly treatable condition kills you...... I'd hate for those 'special rights' to kick in...
So I have to ask 'Who would Jesus require to die slowly and painfully in squalor, eating cat food, whilst churches build yet more massive taxpayer-supported buildings to show off their wealth'? Clearly, it's the butt-sexers that will have to bite the bullet on this one.....
That ain't no Fancy Feast, baby.