Login

Register

Member List

RSS Feed

Amanda | Contact

Auguste | Contact

Jesse | Contact

Pam | Contact

Next entry: Premium Channel Question Previous entry: Environment presents cognitive dissonance

Good news for marriage equality in MA and CA, bad news for fundies

Today’s big victory for marriage equality comes from Massachusetts, as its House passed a bill to repeal the “1913 law” that bars same-sex couples from other states who wish to marry there. Governor Deval Patrick will sign it when it hits his desk. (Bay Windows):

The bill cleared a final hurdle this afternoon, when the House of Representatives passed the bill on a roll call vote after about 45 minutes of debate. The vote was 118-35, with five members not voting.

The 1913 law prohibits out-of-state couples from marrying in Massachusetts if their marriage would be considered void in their home state, and it has prevented most same-sex couples from out of state from marrying in Massachusetts. LGBT advocates and their allies in the legislature have argued that the law was passed in 1913 in part to prevent interracial couples from skirting anti-miscegenation laws in their home states.

Check out this w-e-a-k defense by a Republican:

Republican Mary Rogeness spoke against the repeal, stating her concern that underage couples who were not allowed to marry in their home state might come here to get married if the law is repealed.

***

In equally satisfying news, it’s time to take out the tiny violin for the supporters of the California marriage amendment. As pointed out in a post at my pad, the wording of Prop 8, as rewritten for the ballot by Attorney General Jerry Brown, clarifies the intent of the measure:

Proposition 8
ELIMINATES RIGHT OF SAME-SEX COUPLES TO MARRY.
INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT

Changes California Constitution to eliminate right of same-sex couples to marry. Provides that only a marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

Fiscal Impact: Over the next few years, potential revenue loss, mainly sales taxes, totaling in the several tens of millions of dollars, to state and local governments. In the long run, likely little fiscal impact to state and local governments.

Although the changes to the proposed amendment are subject to legal challenge, this summary accurately describes what the proposition will do. Prop. 8 would eliminate a constitutional right guaranteed to same-gender couples and would decrease revenues coming in to the state from marriages between same-gender couples.

This completely obliterates the conservative framing of the issue (“protecting marriage”, “preserving the traditional family,” etc.) and shows that supporters of the ballot initiative want to repeal a civil right that is now in place. And the fundies are hopping mad. More below the fold.

So what, exactly, do these bigots object to? Isn’t that the intent of the measure—to limit the right to marry to heterosexual couples? The only way to do that is to ban same-sex couples from marrying.

Gay rights backers cheered Brown’s decision, but Jennifer Kerns of the Protect Marriage coalition told the Los Angeles Times the revised wording is “inherently argumentative.” Kerns said the wording had the potential to “prejudice voters against the initiative.” “This is a complete about-face from the ballot title that was assigned” for the petition drive, she said.

...Political analysts on both sides suggest that the language change will make passage of the initiative more difficult, noting that voters might be more reluctant to pass a measure that makes clear it is taking away existing rights.

The rewording does not make the initiative inaccurate in any way. What Kerns is objecting to is the conservative frame being tossed out the window (“protecting marriage”) for the blunt bigoted intent of the amendment. It so sucks to be called out for what you are, fundies, doesn’t it?

Check out the bible-thumping outcry over in the comments at OneNewsNow:

*  “It is not just the state that is trying to defeat this, but PG&E has donated $250,000 to the No on 8 campain”

*  “I just want to say “thank you” and “Amen” to the first three posters. That’s how many I see at this time. I’m just thankful that I no longer live in California, but I pray for those who do. Stand up and fight for decency in America!”

*  “Why should this not surprise me. Leftist politicians are always looking for new ways to stack the ballots in favor of their political agenda.”

*  “I agree with the article above that says America is going to Hell in a hand basket. All we have to do is study how Rome fell, from within and America is going that way. This is definitely against the teaching of the Bible. If we cast God out of all our buildings and schools and every where else how can we expect God to bless our country? The founding Fathers did not expect this of all things. I think we have to get back to the Bible if we want God to bless this country again. He is long suffering but He will only take so much. Look at all the weather patterns and you can see God has taken His hand off of America. The Bible tells us definitely homosexual activity is an abombanation.”

*  “Secretary of State Debra Bowen is clearly trying to undermine the will of the people with her re-wording the Prop 8. The language that was in the original ballot proposal was very clear and without question as to the intent of the proposal. Secretary of State Debra Bowen has no convoluted the wording in an effort to confuse voters in the upcoming November elections when the issue the is really on the people’s mind will be the presidential election. How sneaky and sleazy can one person be? Remember, this is an elected official who has sworn to protect and defend the state constitution. How can one be so callous? Pray for the California people to raise up and defeat these anti-God people.”

*  “Thankfully the internet is providing a means of putting the information out to the American public when the national news media does not. Hopefully people will become angry about the attempt to silence us. I pray and hope it is not too late.”

*  “The good people of California DID stand up for their beliefs, and a few judges made a new law which totally disregarded the wishes of the majority of the voting public. Just another reason I’m glad I don’t live in California . . . but that doesn’t mean it can’t or won’t happen in other states.”

*  “How about changing the wording to “If you want to allow marriage between one man and more than one woman, start today by allowing it between two women or two men”. Because that’s the next step in the wicked’s attempt to justify their wicked behavior choices and force it upon the entire nation. People who claim they are Christians better start standing up to these God-rejecting unrepentant sinners. Matthew 25:26 “His lord answered and said unto him, Thou wicked and slothful servant, thou knewest that I reap where I sowed not, and gather where I have not strewed:”“

*  “What is the next step? How is it that the secretary of state can reword the ballot measure? Well I believe that those who are leading the way will do what it takes. We will need to be warriors and not give up.”

*  “Our country is going to hell in a hand basket, and no one even seems to care. if good people don’t start standing up for their beliefs, then they will get what they allowed to happen to them, happens. This is a shame, George Washington, must be turning over in his grave. The other sad part, is, that many current immigrants, don’t even know who i am talking about,.”

*  “The USA does not have much longer to enjoy God’s blessings upon this nation that is willfully turning from God at every opportunity. Marriage will not survive nor will abortion ever be outlawed. God has given us over to our sinful natures since we as a whole have rejected Him and His Son, our Savior.”

*  “That’s some twisted wording on the proposal now. What ‘right’ do homosexuals have to ‘marry’? From where? Nowhere but from perverted minds. God help America.”

*  “After the election, the people of California shoudl vote the Secretary of State out of office.”

*  “The Missouri Secretary of State, Robin Carnahan, and the state attorney general also tried the same trick by making the ballot initiative, that they didn’t like, negative. Fortunately we were able to sue to get it changed back thanks to a judge who saw through their ploy. Sue CAs secretary of state also and then use it against them to vote them out of office the next election. Liberals will lie, cheat and steal to get their way and won’t allow somthing lie morals or the law to get in their way. That’s why I left the Democratic Party, because it became the party of leftist special interest groups and no longer stood for the people.”

 

------

Registration is now required! We're still in the process of getting it all squared away, so for the moment don't forget to Login or Register using the links in the upper left menu before starting to write your comment.

Posted by Pam Spaulding on 09:56 PM • (37) Comments

Excellent.  Now we have FINALLY gotten rid of an old racist relic of a law recently repurposed as homophobia.

Those thirty five idiots, including the one from my district who doesn’t get how strong his war veteran opponant is poling with all the “new” people, are going to have to answer for their stupid.

Comment #1: Ms Kate  on  07/29  at  10:35 PM

Ya know what? Fuck all of ‘em over at OneNewsNow.  Fuck ‘em hard with no reach-around or lube. Fuck ‘em sideways with their own bibles.  Hell, fuck ‘em with cookie’s gerbils.

Comment #2: MAJeff, the God of Biscuits  on  07/29  at  10:52 PM

Republican Mary Rogeness spoke against the repeal, stating her concern that underage couples who were not allowed to marry in their home state might come here to get married if the law is repealed.

Then raise the fucking marriage age in Massachusetts, dumbass.

Jesus. What good is transparent, ideologically-driven disingenuousness when it’s left in the hands of people as profoundly stupid as Mary Rogeness?

Comment #3: Dan, Grand High Emperor of Bananas Foster  on  07/29  at  10:53 PM

Good news about Prop 8. I’d feel better if they’d just toss the whole thing since it’s a revision, but this is at least something.

Comment #4: Incertus, Nacho Daddy  on  07/29  at  10:56 PM

...why would it cause fiscal loss? They’d be making more money from marriage licenses and taxes on wedding purchases, no?

Comment #5: Rebecca  on  07/29  at  11:06 PM

I especially liked the comment from OneNewsNow that the Secretary of State should be defending the State Constitution. What, by changing it?

Rebecca: they mean if Prop 8 passes, it’ll result in fiscal loss.

Comment #6: Gillian  on  07/29  at  11:16 PM

...why would it cause fiscal loss? They’d be making more money from marriage licenses and taxes on wedding purchases, no?

Wait, are you using logic?  Stop that!  You’ll only give the other side a complex.

Comment #7: Jennifer  on  07/29  at  11:18 PM

Ah, got it, thanks Gillian. (Point, though, Jennifer.)

Comment #8: Rebecca  on  07/29  at  11:58 PM

underage couples who were not allowed to marry in their home state might come here to get married if the law is repealed

I’m sure the state is now girding its loins for the flood of under-21’s from Mississippi. Why can’t some republican legislators at least pay lip service to the notion of a fact?

Comment #9: paul  on  07/30  at  12:21 AM

wait. again, i must ask - do you wingnut even READ YOUR OWN HOLY BOOK?!?!?!!?


you know, the one with all the POLYGAMY???????

morons.

Comment #10: denelian  on  07/30  at  12:41 AM

...why would it cause fiscal loss?

IIRC, the argument is that right now, gay people with partners pay into things like the state pension system and Social Security, but their partners don’t get those benefits and the state/SSA gets to keep them if the person dies.  If you let gay people get married and have all of the benefits and privileges of marriage, their partners will get death benefits just like any other widow or widower and the government won’t get to blow that money on wars in the Middle East.  So therefore that’s a fiscal loss on the books.

I mean, you’d think that “Gimme My Money!” Republicans would be in favor of letting people inherit the death benefits that their partner earned just like anyone else, but apparently not.

Comment #11: Mnemosyne  on  07/30  at  02:19 AM

Um, folks, you’ve got it exactly backwards. In the near term, preventing gays from traveling to California to get married would cause a loss of revenue. They travel here, stay in hotels and get married. In effect they’re tourists.

Eliminating gay marriage in California would be like eliminating gambling in Vegas.

Comment #12: bad Jim  on  07/30  at  04:32 AM

“Eliminating gay marriage in California would be like eliminating gambling in Vegas.”

Exactly - and that is why it is considered a “short term” thing, because they are quite sensibly noting that this is going to be a fiscally big thing at first, with the backlog of Californians marrying and those of us out of staters traveling in (our wedding is scheduled for September 10) will be disproportionately high at first and then level out to the 2% of the population or so that it should steady at. And as more states (hooray for Massachusetts!) allow their own and out-of-staters to marry, the fiscal upswing will lower still more.

I love the reworded ballot initiative. And it is unassailable, since even the FACT of the rewording is justified since the initiative was started when marriage was not legal (to prevent it) and once the ruling came down it actually does have the very different effect of eliminating it. The wingers don’t get that this IS the neutral wording, and things like “protect” and “traditional” are the loaded words.

I do love the “what right does the AG have to rewrite the ballot?” Umm… it’s in his JOB DESCRIPTION, moron! Right up there with “what right does the Supreme Court have to interpret the Constitution.”

Comment #13: Lymis  on  07/30  at  08:40 AM

Look at all the weather patterns and you can see God has taken His hand off of America. The Bible tells us definitely homosexual activity is an abombanation.

Shit, we need to get rid of all the Red Lobsters!  And Wal*Mart with their poly-cotton blends!  Sodomy isn’t an abomination—>SHRIMP are!  And look at the weather—more hurricanes from the OCEAN where the SHRIMP live.

It’s very clear that the SHRIMP have all converted to the proper, correct, and one true form of Christianity as God is now smiting their evil human foes, namely us.

If only we could talk to the shellfish and learn the true faith…

Comment #14: Caren-Sun-blocking Creator of Animorphic Pancakes  on  07/30  at  09:21 AM

I will definitely have to remember “abombanation” and figure out some way to use it. How very Monty Python!


“If only we could talk to the shellfish and learn the true faith…”

Well, you could always partake of their flesh and become one with them in spirits…... they are great with Bloody Marys.

Comment #15: Lymis  on  07/30  at  09:45 AM

If people are looking for a nice welcoming place to get married in Southern California, may I suggest Neighborhood Unitarian Universalist Church in Pasadena?  Lovely setting with a Greene & Greene house on-site (and the famous Gamble House next door for outside picture-taking), not super-expensive for So Cal, and a mile away from Old Town Pasadena.

Though looking at the website it seems that the minister who married us is now gone.  Phooey.  I’m sure the new assistant pastor is just as nice, though.

Comment #16: Mnemosyne  on  07/30  at  11:47 AM

Where “man lieing with man” is called an abomination and subjects the sinner to stoning, adultery is listed right along with homosexuality. This is why I don’t understand the suggestion that homosexuality makes someone not deserving of legal status, or fair treatment. When “those people” that speak about the bible’s sanction against homosexuality mention adultery with the same enthusiasm, I’ll pay attention. But, then the mask will be off won’t it?

Comment #17: killer  on  07/30  at  11:55 AM

Shit, we need to get rid of all the Red Lobsters!  And Wal*Mart with their poly-cotton blends!  Sodomy isn’t an abomination—>SHRIMP are! - Caren

IIRC, the Hebrew word to describe eating of shellfish is different than the one used to proscribe certain homosexual behaviors (whether that prohibition applies in any way to those whom we today would call homosexuals or whether it only prohibits certain homosexual behaviors among people who otherwise are heterosexuals is a whole other debate). 

At least certain homosexual behaviors are proscribed as a “toevah” (we can have a whole debate on how best to translate that term—I would translate it as “that which ‘those people’ do that marks them as inferior to us who don’t do that”, others translate it more simply as taboo ... what toevah means has direct bearing on what exactly is prohibited in Leviticus).

OTOH, eating shrimp and other shellfish is merely labeled as “disgusting”.  Which it is, when you think about it.  Would you eat insects and vermin?  Well then why so happily eat shrimp and lobsters?

Also, Jewish tradition holds that the laws of Kashruth are only obligatory to Jews.  OTOH, certain laws of sexual morality are, according to Jewish tradition, applicable to everyone.  Christianity, I reckon, figures that they keep the laws applicable in Jewish tradition to non-Jews but not those only applicable to Jews (like not eating shrimp).

This doesn’t explain why most Christians have no problems eating blood sausage, which is prohibited, AFAIK, to non-Jews according to Jewish law.  And the point about adultery still stands, too.

But let’s not make dubious comparisons to shrimp eating, which is a whole ‘nother matter Biblically speaking ...

BTW—it’s only linen and wool blends that are not allowed, AFAIK ... the issue is that such blends are actually reserved for priestly garments (and for the fringes, tzitzith, on talithoth).

Comment #18: DAS  on  07/30  at  12:12 PM

Now we have FINALLY gotten rid of an old racist relic of a law recently repurposed as homophobia. - Ms. Kate

Indeed.  NPR brags about how they provide context for the news.  How come NPR didn’t point out what exactly prompted people to pass that particular law?  The Democrats would be wise to call the GOP on their re-directed racism here and spin this as “we are reversing a law that was set up for racist reasons”.

Comment #19: DAS  on  07/30  at  12:14 PM

I’ve heard that the level of discourse at OneNewsNow has gone down since they lost Jim D. Adkisson.

If you “threaten” Israel, or draw a picture of W with his head on a pike -homeland security will lock you up without charges.

If you threaten Liberals et al, you get a show on CNN.

OPPOSE RIGHTWING ELIMINATIONIST RHETORIC.

Comment #20: feckless  on  07/30  at  12:21 PM

At least certain homosexual behaviors are proscribed as a “toevah” (we can have a whole debate on how best to translate that term—I would translate it as “that which ‘those people’ do that marks them as inferior to us who don’t do that”, others translate it more simply as taboo ... what toevah means has direct bearing on what exactly is prohibited in Leviticus).

That falls in line with something read once.  Man lying with man was forbidden, because it was a part of godess worship and thus violating the “no other gods” clause in the commandments.

Comment #21: Geeno  on  07/30  at  12:44 PM

Does anyone know how the initiative was worded before Brown changed it?

Comment #22: bobbo  on  07/30  at  01:27 PM

“Would you eat insects and vermin?  Well then why so happily eat shrimp and lobsters?”

‘Cause they’re delicious? Insect scampi and vermin roll on the other hand… leave something to be desired.

 

Oh, and I think the rewording of the ballot initiative is fair.

Comment #23: Julie  on  07/30  at  01:30 PM

Do these people EVER realize that the descent of Rome coincides with the ascendancy of Christianity?

Comment #24: Matthew  on  07/30  at  01:39 PM

On top of the sheer bigotry of their comments, many of the posters abuse the comma so horribly I have the urge to send their comments back to them with edits.

Comment #25: Kris  on  07/30  at  01:50 PM

Insect scampi and vermin roll on the other hand… leave something to be desired.

I dunno—I hear that deep-fried crickets are actually pretty tasty.

Comment #26: Mnemosyne  on  07/30  at  02:07 PM

The ballot title originally approved for Proposition 8 described the proposal as an amendment “to provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”

Comment #27: Pam Spaulding  on  07/30  at  02:14 PM

From a cached version on the Protect Marriage website: the previous wording was

“LIMIT ON MARRIAGE. CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
Amends the California Constitution to provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: The measure would have no fiscal effect on state or local governments. This is because there would be no change to the manner in which marriages are currently recognized by the state.”

At the time it was proposed, it was accurate that there was no fiscal effect, but since the Supreme Court ruling, the fiscal thing has changed. And it is no longer true that “there would be no change to the manner in which marriages are currently recognized by the state.”

So the description had to change no matter what in order to be true at all, impartial, partial, or whatever.

I suppose you could make a case (as they are trying to do) that the previous title of “Limit on Marriage” would still apply, since the Supreme Court explicitly stated that there is a right under the Constitution for individuals to marry a same-sex partner, it is perfectly accurate, and hardly violently biased. And there really is a fiscal effect now.

Me, I like it.

Comment #28: Lymis  on  07/30  at  02:30 PM

For those who seem to misunderstand the part about a “loss of revenue”.

It doesn’t say there will be a loss of revenue if gay marriage is allowed, they are saying there will be a loss if gay marriage is OUTLAWED.

The average wedding costs about $28,000.  Since gays have a higher average income than heterosexuals, I’d suggest the weddings will be even more expensive.  All of that brings income to California, and jobs.

Not only that, allowing homosexuals the same rights as heteros is the right thing to do.  Of course, most of these fundamentalists don’t understand the concept of “right thing to do”.

Comment #29: Pope Ratzo  on  07/30  at  02:53 PM

Dan @7/29|9:53
Re: Rogeness’ idocy

Then raise the fucking marriage age in Massachusetts, dumbass.

You have to be over 18 in MA, with proof of age, or with parental consent, regardless of state of residency.

Is there a state that actually requires anyone to be over 18?  Aha:  Mississippi (21), Nebraska (19).  I think we should market ourselves to them (although I’m pretty sure they’re already covered by going to Las Vegas).

Our remaining GOoPers are insane.

Comment #30: FlyingToaster  on  07/30  at  02:57 PM

There are few things that make me happier than fundies that are hopping mad!  Maybe a kitten or a puppy but not much more.

Comment #31: FastMovingCloud  on  07/30  at  04:05 PM

“The average wedding costs about $28,000.  Since gays have a higher average income than heterosexuals, I’d suggest the weddings will be even more expensive.  All of that brings income to California, and jobs.”

Plus, the state makes money off of licensing and city hall marriages

Comment #32: FastMovingCloud  on  07/30  at  04:07 PM

“It’s very clear that the SHRIMP have all converted to the proper, correct, and one true form of Christianity as God is now smiting their evil human foes, namely us.”

Very true.  Leviticus tells us that the shrimp and lobster are our enemies.  Also, that we can own Canadian and Mexican slaves (slaves are OK if they are from neigboring states) and that we should burn in hell for wearing a polyster/cotton blend.

Comment #33: FastMovingCloud  on  07/30  at  04:10 PM

I have been legally married for 5 years (Canadian).  Although people may get more benefits, they also pay more taxes.  And by legalizing gay relationships, a lot of relationships that were outside the margins of civil society are now being counted… and taxed.  Not to mention, as other posters pointed out, all the costs related to the ceremony—our small wedding alone saw 8 people fly across country and book hotels etc.  It MAKES the government money.  Far more importantly, it was MORE MEANINGFUL than my husband or I ever anticipated it would be!  The sense of commitment, of security, of deep peace of being recognized as kin, in a public swearing, legally, was unexpected and wonderful.  In those 5 years since the happiest day of my life, your country has moved BACKWARDS:  26 states have passed Pro-discrimination laws!  As a whole, legally and civil-rights wise, the U.S. is moving in the opposite direction of the rest of the First World—pathetic.  If you are in love and truly committed, GET MARRIED!  Even if not, FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT!  My thoughts are with you!
(and if all else fails….. come to Canada ... wink

Comment #34: Strepsi  on  07/30  at  05:04 PM

Now we have FINALLY gotten rid of an old racist relic of a law recently repurposed as homophobia.

One of the ‘concerns’ stated on the radio this morning is that scrapping the 1913 law might turn Massachusetts into the ‘Las Vegas of gay marriage.’  And I said out loud (alone in the car): ‘So what?’

Comment #35: Kristen from MA  on  07/30  at  06:39 PM

I saw a Hagee-ite got in their little comments section.

I’m from Michigan, but I lived in L.A. for the past three years, and I love that state and that city.  I am thrilled that the rightie framing got tossed on this, and I cannot understand the loathing that these people have for homosexuals.  I just cannot understand that irrational loathing, but I strongly suspect most of it comes from a lack of education, and of course it’s these idiots that have gotten ahold of education and health policy for the past eight years in this country.  I mean, you’ve got neanderthals running these things that are cut from the cloth of a Jesse Helms.  It’s outrageous.

And you gotta love the guy who said it was LIBERALS who would lie, cheat and steal to win elections, this coming from the group of people who stole Florida in 2000 and Ohio in 2004.  This from the group of people who lie about the goddamn weather to your face.  This from the group of people who say they aren’t trying to shove religious beliefs down our throat when they pass these bans, but that is exactly what they are doing.  I wrote a diary at Kos a couple of years ago about my debate with a Dobsonite (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/4/22/125714/110) and made that very point with him.  Marriage is a civil function in America.  It can be done concurrently with the religious ceremony, but you don’t need a reverend, priest, rabbi, imam, etc. to marry you, so why should those religious bans intrude on our civil laws?  They shouldn’t, but try telling one of these fundie maniacs that and by and large their heads tend to explode.

Comment #36: Thad  on  07/31  at  11:13 AM

I really like the new version of the proposition! VERY nice to see something put like that on the ballot for once.

Comment #37: Nenya, Vala of Peanut-Butter Cookies  on  08/01  at  06:02 AM
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.