Another really awful "argument" against same-sex marriage

Regular readers of this blog are likely to be familiar with the many insipid “arguments” used by opponents of marriage equality to deny LGB people the right to marry. These “arguments” all have one thing in common: they fail to present a compelling justification for the government to deny same-sex couples the right to marry. Take the can’t have children “argument”, for example (please, someone take it and burn it). Opponents of marriage equality claim that marriage is about children, and since gay people cannot have children, they shouldn’t be allowed to marry. The first problem with this is that marriage is not about children. Sure, some people believe that (and they’re entitled to), but not everyone does.  Marriage means different things to different people, and no one should have the right to unilaterally decide what marriage means for every citizen of the country (strangely enough, conservatives often claim they want less government intrusion in their lives, yet in the same breath, they support the government dictating the conditions under which consenting adults may marry one another). Secondly, when bigots speak of same-sex marriage, they typically are referring to gay men, and in the process, ignore the existence of bisexual people and lesbians.  Last time I checked, both groups can and do have biological children. Anti-equality opponents might try to refute this point by saying “sure they can have children, but those children are not the offspring of both individuals in the relationship”. By moving the goalposts in this manner (which is itself a problem), they open up their “argument” to further criticism. If they think marriage should be about children and that the institution of marriage should only be open to people who can have biological children together, where then does that leave infertile couples who wish to marry? Where does that leave couples who choose not to have biological children, opting instead to adopt or serve as foster parents? Where does that leave senior citizens who want to marry? By the reasoning of these social regressives, couples who choose to adopt or foster, seniors, and those who are infertile should be prevented from marrying. Curiously, anti-marriage equality activists aren’t lobbying to keep marriage out of the hands of members of those groups.

Another “argument” put forth by bigoted anti-equality activists is that every child needs (and has a right to) a mother and father. Aside from the question of whether or not that is truly the case (I think a loving home environment is faaaaaaaar more essential, no matter the makeup of that environment), this is an easy one to refute because it is irrelevant to the debate over marriage equality. That debate is about whether or not same-sex couples should enjoy the right to marry, not whether or not they should be allowed to have children. If marriage equality opponents want to argue against allowing LGB people to have children, they are free to do so, but that must be a separate argument, because again, marriage is not about children.

The argument from god is often deployed by theocratic anti-marriage equality activists seeking to warn people about the consequences of legalizing same-sex marriage. They claim that baby jesus doesn’t like same-sex couples getting married and will enact a terrible vengeance upon the U.S. if two men or two women are allowed to marry one another. This one is quite easy to refute as well-there is no evidence that any deity exists. There is no reason to fear retribution from an imaginary being.

Another “argument” popular with social regressives is the claim that marriage equality will lead to bestiality, pedophilia, and polygamy (bigoted blowhard Rush Limbaugh is the latest homophobe to play this card). This is fearmongering at its worst. Fearmongering that fails to address the fact that at its core, marriage equality is about the right of two consenting adults to get married. Bestiality and pedophilia do not involve two consenting adults, so neither is a valid comparison. Polygamy is a slightly different story, as it theoretically should be workable, so long as it involves consenting adults (in practice, however, polygamy has often played out as anything but consensual relations between adults; for example, the founder of the Mormon Church, Joseph Smith, had multiple wives, some of whom were minors).

Another absurd “argument” deployed by opponents of marriage equality is that banning same-sex marriage promotes procreation by heterosexual couples. This one is just flat-out asinine. Proponents of this really fucking dumb idea seem to think that if LGB people are prevented from marrying that they’re going to enter heterosexual relationships and have children. I think. Or maybe they think that heterosexual couples across the country will have more children if gay people can’t marry. Or maybe they’re just not doing the whole thinking thing correctly. Whatever the case may be, this nonsensical “argument” is a complete logic fail.

If you thought that the sheer inanity of the last example could not be surpassed, I present to you the words of Steve Beshear, Governor of Kentucky (D):

Kentucky Gov. Steve Beshear (D) argued in a brief filed to the Supreme Court last week that his state’s ban on gay marriage is not discriminatory because it does not allow gay or straight people to marry people of the same sex.

“Kentucky’s marriage laws treat homosexuals and heterosexuals the same and are facially neutral. Men and women, whether heterosexual or homosexual, are free to marry persons of the opposite sex under Kentucky law, and men and women, whether heterosexual or homosexual, cannot marry persons of the same sex under Kentucky law,” Beshear’s lawyer, Leigh Gross Latherow, wrote in the brief.

Can Governor Beshear really be that dishonest? Does he really believe that same-sex couples and mixed-sex couples are treated equally before the law when the latter group is legally allowed to marry the person they love, while the former is not? Dude, just resign. You suck.

I do have to admit, I am accustomed to preposterous comments of this nature coming from the mouths of Republicans. Thank you, Governor Beshear, for reminding me that the GOP doesn’t have the market cornered on homophobia.

Another really awful "argument" against same-sex marriage
{advertisement}

Another really awful “argument” against same-sex marriage

Regular readers of this blog are likely to be familiar with the many insipid “arguments” used by opponents of marriage equality to deny LGB people the right to marry. These “arguments” all have one thing in common: they fail to present a compelling justification for the government to deny same-sex couples the right to marry. Take the can’t have children “argument”, for example (please, someone take it and burn it). Opponents of marriage equality claim that marriage is about children, and since gay people cannot have children, they shouldn’t be allowed to marry. The first problem with this is that marriage is not about children. Sure, some people believe that (and they’re entitled to), but not everyone does.  Marriage means different things to different people, and no one should have the right to unilaterally decide what marriage means for every citizen of the country (strangely enough, conservatives often claim they want less government intrusion in their lives, yet in the same breath, they support the government dictating the conditions under which consenting adults may marry one another). Secondly, when bigots speak of same-sex marriage, they typically are referring to gay men, and in the process, ignore the existence of bisexual people and lesbians.  Last time I checked, both groups can and do have biological children. Anti-equality opponents might try to refute this point by saying “sure they can have children, but those children are not the offspring of both individuals in the relationship”. By moving the goalposts in this manner (which is itself a problem), they open up their “argument” to further criticism. If they think marriage should be about children and that the institution of marriage should only be open to people who can have biological children together, where then does that leave infertile couples who wish to marry? Where does that leave couples who choose not to have biological children, opting instead to adopt or serve as foster parents? Where does that leave senior citizens who want to marry? By the reasoning of these social regressives, couples who choose to adopt or foster, seniors, and those who are infertile should be prevented from marrying. Curiously, anti-marriage equality activists aren’t lobbying to keep marriage out of the hands of members of those groups.

Another “argument” put forth by bigoted anti-equality activists is that every child needs (and has a right to) a mother and father. Aside from the question of whether or not that is truly the case (I think a loving home environment is faaaaaaaar more essential, no matter the makeup of that environment), this is an easy one to refute because it is irrelevant to the debate over marriage equality. That debate is about whether or not same-sex couples should enjoy the right to marry, not whether or not they should be allowed to have children. If marriage equality opponents want to argue against allowing LGB people to have children, they are free to do so, but that must be a separate argument, because again, marriage is not about children.

The argument from god is often deployed by theocratic anti-marriage equality activists seeking to warn people about the consequences of legalizing same-sex marriage. They claim that baby jesus doesn’t like same-sex couples getting married and will enact a terrible vengeance upon the U.S. if two men or two women are allowed to marry one another. This one is quite easy to refute as well-there is no evidence that any deity exists. There is no reason to fear retribution from an imaginary being.

Another “argument” popular with social regressives is the claim that marriage equality will lead to bestiality, pedophilia, and polygamy (bigoted blowhard Rush Limbaugh is the latest homophobe to play this card). This is fearmongering at its worst. Fearmongering that fails to address the fact that at its core, marriage equality is about the right of two consenting adults to get married. Bestiality and pedophilia do not involve two consenting adults, so neither is a valid comparison. Polygamy is a slightly different story, as it theoretically should be workable, so long as it involves consenting adults (in practice, however, polygamy has often played out as anything but consensual relations between adults; for example, the founder of the Mormon Church, Joseph Smith, had multiple wives, some of whom were minors).

Another absurd “argument” deployed by opponents of marriage equality is that banning same-sex marriage promotes procreation by heterosexual couples. This one is just flat-out asinine. Proponents of this really fucking dumb idea seem to think that if LGB people are prevented from marrying that they’re going to enter heterosexual relationships and have children. I think. Or maybe they think that heterosexual couples across the country will have more children if gay people can’t marry. Or maybe they’re just not doing the whole thinking thing correctly. Whatever the case may be, this nonsensical “argument” is a complete logic fail.

If you thought that the sheer inanity of the last example could not be surpassed, I present to you the words of Steve Beshear, Governor of Kentucky (D):

Kentucky Gov. Steve Beshear (D) argued in a brief filed to the Supreme Court last week that his state’s ban on gay marriage is not discriminatory because it does not allow gay or straight people to marry people of the same sex.

“Kentucky’s marriage laws treat homosexuals and heterosexuals the same and are facially neutral. Men and women, whether heterosexual or homosexual, are free to marry persons of the opposite sex under Kentucky law, and men and women, whether heterosexual or homosexual, cannot marry persons of the same sex under Kentucky law,” Beshear’s lawyer, Leigh Gross Latherow, wrote in the brief.

Can Governor Beshear really be that dishonest? Does he really believe that same-sex couples and mixed-sex couples are treated equally before the law when the latter group is legally allowed to marry the person they love, while the former is not? Dude, just resign. You suck.

I do have to admit, I am accustomed to preposterous comments of this nature coming from the mouths of Republicans. Thank you, Governor Beshear, for reminding me that the GOP doesn’t have the market cornered on homophobia.

Another really awful “argument” against same-sex marriage

LGBT News Round-Up 10.8.14

Kennedy orders temporary stay in Idaho, Nevada same-sex marriage rulings

Justice Kennedy, lost in thought as he considers “Do I continue to deny Americans the right to marry, or do I do the right thing and allow LBGT people to get married. I’ll wear my pensive face for this photo so that people may see how tough a decision this is.”

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy on Wednesday temporarily blocked an appeals court ruling that declared gay marriage legal in Idaho and Nevada.

Kennedy’s order came a little more than an hour after Idaho filed an emergency request for an immediate stay and about 10 minutes before the state said that state and county officials would otherwise have been required to begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

The order also applies to Nevada, where marriage licenses to same-sex couples were going to start to be issued later Wednesday.

The delay could last just a few days. Kennedy’s order requested a response from the plaintiffs involved in Idaho’s gay marriage lawsuit by the end of day Thursday.

The full court almost certainly would weigh in to extend the delay much beyond the weekend. That has been the justices’ practice in other cases in which a single justice initially blocked a ruling from taking effect.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco declared gay marriage legal in Idaho and Nevada on Tuesday. A day earlier, the Supreme Court let similar rulings from three other appeals courts become final and effectively raised to 30 the number of states where same-sex couples can marry, or soon will be able to do so.

This is justice delayed. Again.

Update:

Justice Kennedy allows same-sex marriage to commence in Nevada

* * * *

Kentucky town rejects a non-discrimination ordinance 

The proposal failed on a 5-3 vote Tuesday night in the Kentucky town in the Appalachian foothills, according to media reports. The meeting drew a standing-room-only crowd, and others filled a former service station next door to watch the deliberations via television.

The measure would have prohibited discrimination against gay, lesbian and transgender people in housing, employment and public accommodations.

Councilwoman Violet Farmer, who opposed the measure, expressed support for the concept of treating everyone fairly but questioned the need for “another protected class.”

Chester Powell, another council member who voted against the proposal, cited a lack of documented complaints of discrimination based on sexual orientation. “I’m not seeing any reason for the ordinance,” Powell said.

Next time you’re looking for discrimination, why not try asking the LGBT people who have experienced it. For fuck’s sake, this is a town that denies that discrimination exists.  Do you people really think you’re that damn special? Do you think you live in some sort of bubble that prevents homophobia and discrimination from affecting the citizens of your town? Homophobia is a widespread problem and it occurs in Anywhere, USA. That you don’t see it is due to your heterosexual privilege, which allows you to navigate through life oblivious to the difficulties faced by LGBT people for their sexuality and gender identity.

* * * *

 Nevada Democratic State Senator Kelvin Atkinson proposes to his long time partner

“I’m black, I’m gay, I have dealt with a lot of what you folks are talking about,” Atkinson told his fellow Senators. “I know some of you,” he said, for first time are “hearing me say that, that I am a black gay male.”

Atkinson added he had “heard some people say some nasty, ugly things, because they didn’t know” he was gay.

Yesterday, speaking at an event hosted by Freedom Nevada at the Gay and Lesbian Community Center of Southern Nevada, Atkinson again surprised his audience who were celebrating the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals’ ruling striking down marriage bans in Nevada and Idaho.

“I didn’t want to go to another state,” Sen. Atkinson told the audience.

He said he always felt he’d stay in Nevada and would “stick it out,” until marriage came to his state, “and hopefully Woody would stick it out with me and we’d wait until this was done so that I could do what I thought that I wanted to do, and that was to propose to him.”

The crowd began to cheer, and Woody, Atkinson’s partner of six and a half years, Sherwood Howard, smiled, and looked surprised.

Atkinson observed that the cameras were “live right now,” and the audience screamed, “Do it!”

Howard nervously made his way on stage, and Atkinson said, “Woody, I know it has been six years, they haven’t alays been great, but we’ve been great partners.” He added that Woody does a lot of his political work and he is “the one person I trust the most toy be there with me, to be there for me, to be that confidant, to be my friend, and my partner.”

“So I’ll say it in front of everybody, will you marry me?”

Howard said “Yes”.  Hoo-Ray!

* * * *

Black America wants gay weddings protected from discrimination despite opposing gay marriage

Even though only around 4 in 10 African Americans support same-sex marriage, new research has found that a majority of them still feel that it is wrong for businesses to be legally able to refuse to provide goods and services to gay couples who are getting married.

The Pew Research Center found that 61% of the African Americans they surveyed agreed that it was wrong for for-profit businesses to deny same-sex couples goods and services based on the owner or employee’s religious beliefs.

In comparison only 45% of White Americans thought businesses should not be allowed to deny wedding related services to same-sex couples.

This was despite 53% of White Americans saying they supported the legalization of same-sex marriage.

Researchers at the Pew Research Center believe the high level of support among African Americans for gays and lesbians to be legally protected from discrimination may be a result of their shared experience of being discriminated against.

Why do I think the opposition to same-sex marriage is religiously based? LGBT Americans have the same rights as enumerated in the Bill of Rights.  To deny that is to deny citizens of this country basic human rights.  To deny rights to a segment of the population based on their sexuality is homophobia. It’s bigotry. I don’t care what your justification is.  Even if your god existed, it would still be bigotry.

LGBT News Round-Up 10.8.14

KABLOOEY! Bigots' heads explode in the wake of SCOTUS decision on Marriage Equality

Conservatives across the country, especially in Utah, Wisconsin, Oklahoma, Virgina, and Indiana hoping SCOTUS would weigh in on marriage equality were bitterly disappointed today.  Several lower court rulings in those states found the bans on same-sex marriage to be unconstitutional, and of course conservative assholes across the country got their fee fees hurt.  They appealed to SCOTUS in the hopes that the highest court in the land would take up their appeals and rule in their favor. Today, SCOTUS decided they would not take up any of the lower court rulings on marriage equality. That means those states where the rulings were stayed will be null and void (though not immediately). Lesbian, gay, and bisexual people in those five states will be able to get legally married very soon.  But wait, there’s more. Six other states–North and South Carolina, Kansas, Colorado, Wyoming, and West Virginia–all fall under the jurisdiction of the appeals courts that struck down the bans.  This means that same sex marriage will soon be legal in 30 of the 50 states in the US.

marriageisaboutlove-300x224

Continue reading “KABLOOEY! Bigots' heads explode in the wake of SCOTUS decision on Marriage Equality”

KABLOOEY! Bigots' heads explode in the wake of SCOTUS decision on Marriage Equality

KABLOOEY! Bigots’ heads explode in the wake of SCOTUS decision on Marriage Equality

Conservatives across the country, especially in Utah, Wisconsin, Oklahoma, Virgina, and Indiana hoping SCOTUS would weigh in on marriage equality were bitterly disappointed today.  Several lower court rulings in those states found the bans on same-sex marriage to be unconstitutional, and of course conservative assholes across the country got their fee fees hurt.  They appealed to SCOTUS in the hopes that the highest court in the land would take up their appeals and rule in their favor. Today, SCOTUS decided they would not take up any of the lower court rulings on marriage equality. That means those states where the rulings were stayed will be null and void (though not immediately). Lesbian, gay, and bisexual people in those five states will be able to get legally married very soon.  But wait, there’s more. Six other states–North and South Carolina, Kansas, Colorado, Wyoming, and West Virginia–all fall under the jurisdiction of the appeals courts that struck down the bans.  This means that same sex marriage will soon be legal in 30 of the 50 states in the US.

marriageisaboutlove-300x224

Continue reading “KABLOOEY! Bigots’ heads explode in the wake of SCOTUS decision on Marriage Equality”

KABLOOEY! Bigots’ heads explode in the wake of SCOTUS decision on Marriage Equality

That Prada wearing Devil

I’d change it to say “marriage equality”, but other than that, I like this image

That Prada wearing Devil