Anything worth talking about, is worth blogging about

Prop H8 overturned

United States Federal Judge Vaughn Walker has struck down California’s Proposition 8, restoring marriage equality to California. It is the correct decision and currently stayed, although it will undoubtedly be appealed.

Be on the alert for wingnut and homobigot freakouts, as they obsess over how people they don’t even know, have nothing to do with, never interact with, and that they aren’t remotely affected by, now have more of the rights everyone else has.


Comments on: "Prop H8 overturned" (16)

  1. I guess I just don’t understand why it was an issue to begin with. Those bigots just love to make a huge issue where there isn’t one and then have us all fighting for our basic rights. I wrote my own piece on it on my own website.

    On a side note, we could solve the whole gay marriage issue tomorrow if the government just stopped sanctioning relationships. Do you really need them to endorse your marriage? It just invites them into your bedroom and opens themselves up for massive discrimination cases when they elect to endorse one marriage but not another.

  2. Indeed. No opponent of marriage equality has ever explained to me how same-sex marriage affects them or infringes on their ability to enter into a different-sex marriage. Marriage equality has not made anyone less married.

    And yes, the government should get out of people’s personal relationships. You can go get a “personal relationship contract” (to call it something) that provides the benefits of marriage. If you like, you can go to a church or whereever and have a wedding.

  3. The benefits of marriage are entirely unnecessary anyway. I would rather heteros lose their marriage benefits than we gain ours. Why? they’re unnecessary. They’re nice. They’re not entitled to us or them. But, when they get them but we don’t, that frosts my bum like a three-foot snowcone.

    I once had someone say, “What about hospital visitation rights?” to which I replied, “Marriage has just fucked that up. Without the government stating what is or isn’t a relationship, the hospital would make that decision based on what is best for the hospital and, I would hope at least, that if a guy wanted to see his boyfriend or husband, or whatever he was calling him in this new age of calling the relationship what you want and leaving the government out of it, that it would be in the best interest of the hospital to allow that.”

    I don’t know, though. Knowing companies, they’d find some way to screw us. If not that, then something. What I do know is that it’s no better with the government involved.

  4. The example about hospital visitation rights leads to problems if the person being visited is unconscious or temporarily incapacitated. Some recognition of the benefits of marriage allows one to prove that they have grounds to visit their spouse when their spouse is unable to make their wishes known.

  5. Marriage is entirely unnecessary for that to happen. I’ve seen cases where contracts specifically allowing gays to visit their partners in the hospital weren’t honoured, and that’s really what marriage is. A contract. That means that gay marriage being legal doesn’t guarantee gay hospital visitation and hetero marriage being illegal doesn’t deny those rights to heteros. The government’s understanding of relationship doesn’t bind the hospital, so there really is no marriage rights issue present there. It’s a hospital discrimination issue.

    All of the rights associated with marriage being a government institution are things no one really deserves anyway. But, if they’re going to give them to them, they can’t deny them to us.

  6. Are you sure they were actual marriages, or just external workarounds intended to circumvent a ban on same-sex marriage? If they were actual marriages, only a loathsome refusal clause could allow a hospital to refuse to respect it. If it was just a workaround, well then no law that I know of requires hospitals to respect them.

  7. They were legally binding contracts designed specifically for the purpose they were denied for.

    There WAS, of course, at least one case where a couple was legally married, yet still denied visitation rights because, “We don’t like your kind here,” or in other words, a state that unconstitutionally denied a legal marriage from another state. The full faith in credit clause makes a contract signed in one state legal in all states, so it’s unconstitutional to not observe an existing marriage because it is a contract.

    But, the thing is, these contract were more legally binding than legal marriages because it specifically allowed visitation rights and marriages do not. Marriages mean nothing to a hospital. They should mean nothing to the government. It’s not the government’s business.

  8. It is good to see that prop 8 was struck down, people can again access rights that they are entitled to. Even better the apoplectic fits of fiery rage from the social conservative loons. Priceless: all the money the LDS faithful illegally donated for nothing to get Prop 8 weaselled through in the first place.

  9. @The Ceej:

    I think that the DOMA ought to be struck down as unconstitutional, partly due to violating the US Constitution’s Full Faith and Credit Clause. And yes, I agree, the government has no place controlling or interfering with consensual activities between consenting adults (including relationships). However, so long as tax advantages and other priviliges (like automatic inheritance to your spouse in the case of intestacy) the government will be involved.

  10. @The Arbourist:

    Regarding the LDS church, several verses in the Book of Mormon state (in roundabout ways) that high taxes are bad and that low taxes are good. And yet they spend loads of money to deny same-sex couples in California the tax benefits of marriage!

  11. You know when the government got involved? Right after the civil war. Prior to the civil war, people were married when they said they were, and the government didn’t care. It wasn’t until after that that they started issuing marriage licenses. I imagine to prevent blacks from being able to get married.

    I guess what I’m saying is slavery fucked up a whole lot more than black rights.

  12. @The Ceej:


  13. And yet they spend loads of money to deny same-sex couples in California the tax benefits of marriage!

    Being coherent and consistent is not really high on the list of most religions’ priorities. 🙂

  14. In most cases, I would say that isn’t even a priority!

  15. Well, you know their religion is true, so even those of us who don’t believe it have to follow their rules. The hypocrites. They wouldn’t follow my rules. Why should I follow theirs?

  16. You shouldn’t have to follow their rules. If those rules are grounded solely in religion, the exact same sort of reasoning that they use to get people to follow their rules could be used to get them to follow someone else’s rules. For example, a priest, an imam, and a Buddhist monk would argue the same way.

    If someone doesn’t like what they see, turn away, change the channel, close the book, etc.

Feel free to leave a reply.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: