Wednesday, May 6, 2009


Sorry about shouting. It's really not that exciting, but I noted in comments of "Vermont Legalizes Gay Marriage" that though I didn't use full caps in "Iowa legalizes gay marriage" that I would use full caps next time. So it seems like a building trend rather than inconsistent headlines. Maine became the second state to simply pass a law to allow it rather than legalize it by way of the courts.

This is a pretty good trend. I doubt it will be even five more years before it's properly legalized.


Spork In the Eye said...

While I agree the dominoes are falling... there will be some long term holdouts -- probably holding out until the SCOTUS steps in or someone amends the US Constitution. Hello, Texas.

Anonymous said...

New Hampshire is hours away from doing the same. Who would have thought that Rhode Island would be the stronghold of conservative values in New England?

Tatarize said...

Nobody needs to amend the US constitution save to make it illegal. The argument is pretty straight forward, it's the same as Loving v. Virgina.

I, as a man, have the right to marry women. Therefore all citizens, by the 14th amendment, need to have the right to marry women. However, women are denied this right because of their gender. It is unconstitutional to grant one individual a right while denying that same right to other because of their gender.

Spork In the Eye said...

I totally follow your argument... though it isn't me you have to convince. It's the religious Bubbas you have to convince. And I suspect it will take some sort of Federal intervention to force the issue in the South.

I've actually had that conversation with some of the more reasonable. After all, what it all boils down to is contract law. When you point that out, they have difficulty saying WHY they oppose it. But deep down, its the old Leviticus argument.

Sparrowhawk said...

I say we need to stop even trying to convince the religious "Bubbas" on this one. Aside from the fact that some of them are in positions of power to deny people their rights, I'm sick of trying to engage them on equal terms on this issue. The Constitution has nothing to say on this issue specifically, but an honest application of the 14th amendment leaves us needing to justify DENYING homosexuals their right to get married. Religious reasons or scary slippery slope arguments NOT backed up by any aspect of reality do not work. It's time to start calling a spade a spade and telling the religious people that it simply doesn't matter if they have a religious reason for wanting to deny gays rights. They're wrong. We live in the United States of America. We are not allowed to deny people their rights because we don't like them. Period. If you think otherwise, you are wrong and you will be fought at every step by rational people. I'm done trying to justify it to people like that. Get over it.

Spork In the Eye said...

Sparrowhawk, the reason I make this argument with them (and again, only the "more reasonable") is because it stops them in their tracks. If you ask a religious man for a legal reason for disallowing gay marriage, he gets stumped.
...and when they do fall back to Leviticus and punt, it's always nice to skip over a few verses and suggest additional state constitutional amendments: outlawing lobster, rabbit, pork -- just to show how ridiculous it would be to legislate from the bible.

[You'll have to excuse my bitter tone today, having just had an election yesterday where the days of prohibition were again upheld by the county.]