Vermont Gay Marriage
Yesterday, 7 April, 2009 the Vermont House of Representatives, by one vote, overrode Gov. Jim Douglas’s veto of a bill allowing gay couples to marry. By only one vote but that is all that was needed. Vermont is the first state to allow same-sex marriage through legislative action instead of a court ruling. This I support.
In 2000, Vermont became the first state to adopt civil unions for gay couples. It is now the fourth state to allow same-sex marriage. In addition to Iowa, Connecticut and Massachusetts.
Also yesterday, the District of Columbia gave initial approval to a plan to recognize same-sex marriages performed outside of the District. That could open this to a Federal case because of Congressional oversight of the District. In 1996 Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act. Bill Clinton signed that bill. As a result of that act the federal government may not recognize same-sex marriage, no social security survivors benefits etc.
Last week the Iowa Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriages. That is not the job of any court. Courts are not qualified to make laws. The judiciary of that state is out of line and it needs to be corrected as California voters did to its Supreme Court.
The founding fathers concept of separation of powers is more important to my mind than government recognition of gay marriage. My representative and senator speak for me and write the laws. The judiciary makes decisions based on the Constitution and those laws. The executive branch enforces those laws. Simple. (Then there are the separate states. As a Texan, I like that too.)
In California, Proposition 8 was approved by the voters. That act amended the state’s Constitution to ban same-sex marriage. This was in response to the abuse of power by the state Supreme Court which decided that a handful of lawyers dressed like Catholic Priests could change the will of a few million fellow citizens. They were wrong and the people told them so.
Now the California GLBT ‘community’ has an even greater hurdle to climb. It will take more that a few years to correct. 26 States have existing bans on same sex marriage. Some of those are constitutional bans I guess that is one critical vote to the negative if you are thinking of a U.S. Constitutional Amendment. In other words, it will not happen any time soon.
My point here is that to make a law; more specifically to change a law for same sex marriage, it must be done right. Through the law making bodies. Stop trying to back door this through the courts or executive decree. Be up front and honest.
Gays are quite literally asking straights to help. To grant recognition as equals. If they ask right, it might happen.
Californian faggots dressed in white face and French clown suits went into a Catholic Cathedral in San Francisco and took communion from the Arch-Bishop. These faggots don’t have the courage to show their real face or name. They then walked back down the isle sticking their tongue out at old ladies and young children with the communion host still on their tongue. This was clearly to help convince Christians on which way to vote for Gay rights. It worked like a charm. Prop 8 passed. Gay marriage is unconstitutional in California. Then gay people walked around with ‘H8 and Hate’ signs to show their appreciation. That pretty much secured the law for a generation or more.
As a Roman Catholic, conservative, expert marksman, disease free, father of four sons, TEXAN, I am proud to be the partner of this blogs owner. This is my first independent post here. I hope my position is clear.
Gay rights will happen. Get the idiots out of the spotlight. Maybe carry signs saying “I Love too!”, “I love You!”, stuff like that, no hate. It will happen faster. This ’in your face’ drag queen style crap will send exactly the message California voters sent back in the State Constitution. “NO.”
I applaud the Vermont House of representatives for it’s override of the governors veto. My partner, DeWayne and I look forward to this happening in more states.
Albert in Texas
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIf anyone saw my previous deleted comment approving of Albert's analysis, I apologize, I had only skimmed it at that point. I do NOT agree with the statements about the court's role in all of this. The judiciary has a duty to protect the rights of minorities in accordance with the Constitution.
ReplyDeleteAlso Albert, the church action in SF was many, many years ago, I believe, and had NOTHING to do with the passage of PropH8. And your use of the term "faggots" for those whom you disagree with is beneath you.
Other than that, good post.
Point taken on the "faggot" thing. I reserve the right to use it again for affect but doubt I will. This was maybe too much emphasis for some parts of the country. Using my 'straight' brain cells, they portraid themselves as faggots.
ReplyDeleteI recall that incident at the Cathedral as being about a year and a half before the Prop 8 movement. In Catholic circles, (voters) that story is fresh to those who have never heard it. It was a stupid idea. The sisters need to focus on good work.
Besides that, thank you so much. You are my very first commentor ever. You were kind.
What kind of celebrant would give the Host to anyone who had not been to Vigil and Confession? Must be a weird RC thing. You don't just plop the Corpus Christi into the open maw of any stranger off the street, much less some freak in clown face.
ReplyDeleteAlbert I might add the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence make no apologia for their anti-catholic political actions. They were created by and are defined as Ex Catholic and Anti Catholic, They RELISH their role as Social Outcasts and the contempt with which they are regarded by Catholics is Mutual.
ReplyDeleteThey are an Anti-Church or as one San Franciscan labeled them "The Church of the Profane"
A professorial explanation...
In Cathy B. Glenn's paper "Queering the (Sacred) Body Politic: Considering the Performative Cultural Politics of The Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence" (The Johns Hopkins University Press) she summarizes, in part,
"the Sisters example may help us to understand how it is possible, more generally, to utilize identity politically without the traps of identity politics.
That is, identity politics have a general tendency to limit and fix both the political ground on which groups stand and the subjectivities presupposed by the identities claimed in the name of political action.
The Sisters' utilize identity in their politics precisely by un-fixing, from the norms established in various socio-political contexts, both the subjectivities they embody and the political ground they occupy.
Put differently, rather than limit the possibilities for politics and the political subject, SPI queers both and creates the conditions for the possibility of a multitude of political subjectivities and modalities."
Some interpret this along the lines of queer liberation theory which also speaks to all human rights - that you can be who you are or liberated from who you are (or perceived to be) regardless of social-political, cultural or class constructs.
By even existing, let alone flourishing, the Sisters manifest hopes and dreams that outcasts and outsiders can work for a better future and achieve it outside nuclear family and binary gender constructs.
source for Cathy B Glenn is Wikipedia
Albert
Put simply the Sisters are a throwback to the Trannies,Hustlers and Draq Queens who rioted at Stonewall in 1969 thus setting in motion the Gay Liberation of the 1970's.
That most Gays feel uncomfortable with SPI today is a good indication of how far we have come.
The first acts at the conclusion of Any Revolution is to get rid of the radicals! ;)
That is just Human nature.
Geoff. The Prelate was the Most Reverend George Hugh Niederauer, installed as the eighth Archbishop of San Francisco on February 15, 2006 as the Metropolitan Archbishop of the Ecclesiastical Province of San Francisco, which includes the suffragan dioceses of Honolulu, Las Vegas, Oakland, Reno, Sacramento, Salt Lake City, San Jose, Santa Rosa and Stockton.
ReplyDelete. He had previously been Bishop of Salt Lake City, Utah. He attended St. John’s Seminary in Camarillo, California. I have been there. I also attended the sister Seminary in Perryville, Missouri. He and I shared many of the same professors. In 1959 he earned a Bachelor of Philosophy degree. He also earned a Bachelor of Sacred Theology degree from the Catholic University of America in Washington, D.C. and a Master of Arts degree in English Literature from Loyola University, Los Angeles in 1962. Niederauer also earned a Ph.D. in English Literature at USC. Niederaue was ordained to the priesthood on April 30, 1962. He was raised to the rank of Honorary Prelate of His Holiness in 1984, and was appointed the eighth Bishop of Salt Lake City by Pope John Paul II on November 3, 1994.
The man is a scholar. Not a parish priest. He had no knowledge of the various sub groups of the local community. He did come from being the Bishop of Salt Lake City. That should have been a warning to any planner with a brain. It should have raised some flags.
It is extremely uncommon for anyone to be denied communion today in a Catholic Mass. That is most likely a politician taking a stand against the Church very publicly for a particular teaching forcing the local Bishop’s hand. The politician is than publicly denied communion. Publicity is the goal but not much else.
After the Cathedral Mass in question, his aids explained to the Arch-bishop who those people were. He was not much amused I guess. You have got to know who and what you are dealing with.
You see. Christians can unite together behind the scenes for a common cause, no matter how much they disagree in public.
Get gays to unite.
I can read and understand Martin Heidegger fairly well. What was that?
ReplyDeleteRight on for the sisters part though.
"It is extremely uncommon for anyone to be denied communion today in a Catholic Mass." That is a major malfunction, isn't it? The RC's are so concerned with putting on a megashow in a high concept cathedral mass with a star celebrant that they are relatively unconcerned with the spiritual readiness of those who are about to receive the Body and Blood of Christ. Keep the Archbishop in the monastery until there is an occasion where all the prospective communicants have been vetted by the parish clergy.
ReplyDeleteIn the Orthodox Church, you go to Saturday Vigil and Sunday Morning Hours, and in an interlude therein, you have face to face confession, not annonymous. Fr. "Spyridon" evaluates the condition of your soul, and based on that, you are admitted to communion, or you are not. In monasteries, it is common to see monks with their foreheads pressed to the anterior sides of pillars of the nave with their arms crossed while others take communion.
ReplyDeleteIf you are correct that a Supreme court has no “right” to protect an oppressed minority from restrictions imposed by the tyranny of a majority then you have broken the sword of justice on the rocks of hate and prejudice. I suppose Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954), was a serious breach of constitutional protocol to you?
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, I must say that I don’t care in the least that some people dressed as clowns got a cracker put on their tongues. Seems to me all concerned were foolish participants in an unimportant exercise. I hope you and Geoff Harvard got a hard on talking about it but this religious gobbledygook, I confess, just leaves me limp. But please feel free to continue discussing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin and other such nonsense. I wouldn’t want any legislature to pass a law against it. Then a court might have to rule that the law was invalid and that would of course make you very unhappy.
A Supreme Court may well declare a particular law unconstitutional. That is part of it’s job description. They are not 'philosopher kings.' Just because they declare a law unconstitutional does not mean they may then unilaterally declare that the opposite is therefore the law. That is not an authority they have.
ReplyDeleteOf course the courts must defend minorities as well as majorities and independents. They must follow the law. Not make up laws as it suits them. Making laws is the decision of the people through their elected representatives.
I know that as a minority, (upper middle class white guy) the courts are not the place I would put my trust. I look at how the courts have dealt with other minorities; the unborn, fathers in divorce cases, the filthy rich; obviously the courts don’t give a damn about these minorities.
I suspect that is what you meant though, only the minorities you support. Not the ones I support. Your personal feelings for another minority group (Christians) is also well noted.
That is why the separation of powers is so critical. It keeps all on a level playing field. We are a republic but a democratic one. Our officials must listen to the populace.
You want to give extra power to officials that do not have to listen to the people. That is tyranny, also socialism, same thing.
Thank you for your response Albert.
ReplyDeleteSorry you have been confused by my poor wording. I did however use the term “oppressed” minorities. I define this as a group of people in a culture not allowed to have the same rights, as the majority of people due to characteristics that have no relation to ability or danger to themselves or others (e.g. children or sexual predators). There are of course groups who seem to have received more than their share of privileges in our society.
http://atheism.about.com/od/christianismnationalism/p/ChristianPriv.htm
I don’t see ‘upper middle class white guys’ as being oppressed and I don’t want to oppress Christians. I would like them to cease their complaints of oppression when what has occurred is a diminution of privileges. The point I was ineptly making was that if such oppression was in the law, I think you would want the courts to be able to stop it.
I don’t understand this talk of the courts making laws.
http://atheism.about.com/b/2004/07/18/judicial-tyranny-judicial-activism.htm
From the above:
“Most importantly, it is not only right for the judiciary to step in when the state fails to justify itself in depriving people of liberty, but it is also extremely dangerous to encourage, by denunciations of the judiciary, the notion that the majority has legitimate authority to bind us in all cases whatsoever, or in all cases not specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights. The Clerk, and Hatch, and others, say that the courts are “legislating” or “making policy,” when they have done no such thing. What policy did Lawrence make? What legislation did Goodridge enact? None. All these decisions said was, “Legislature, you have gone farther than you are allowed to go.” It was not the courts that legislated in these cases, it was the legislature that had legislated—and gone beyond the Constitution in doing so. By attacking judicial review (one of very few dams that stand between us and the onrushing flood of the Absolute Rule of The Mob), Sen. Hatch, and the Clerk, are threatening a serious constitutional catastrophe.”
So, Albert, Please explain this court law making, as you see it, with more specifics. Like the above author, I don’t see that this is what they have done. I don’t see any extra power.
Are we in agreement that judicial review is an important part of our constitution’s separation of powers? This talk of law making by the judiciary, until I get a better explanation, just seems incorrect.
Ernie, I think that you tend to divide people into there separate minorities. That is sad. You seem to also want to decide which ones get special treatment in the courts. I suspect you like the courts because they are the least responsive to the will of the people. For that same reason, the authority of the courts must be limited.
ReplyDeleteYou may extend whatever rights you want to, to whatever groups you approve of by whatever means you care for, in your State. That is part of the beauty of separate States. We can laugh and learn from each others stupidity. I like the idea of keeping the Federal Government out of the business of the individual states. Also, let them (states) go bankrupt on their own. No State is too big too fail, except Texas of course.
I gave an example of judicial activism in my original post. Another type of activism occurred this week when over 300,000 tax-payers, in over 1,000 locations held peaceful protests against taxes on Wednesday. They were called Tea-party’s. This was admittedly a mostly middle to upper-class crowd. Not all but mostly. Who would you expect to show up at an anti-tax rally, on a Wednesday afternoon, downtown, with no free buses or free food? Probably just tax payers!
Albert,
ReplyDeleteSince you have not provided any information to back up your opinion and instead have engaged in an inconsequential rant concerning your perceptions of my personality, I assume this debate has concluded in my favor. Nonetheless I will attempt to rebut your most recent statements.
Everyone divides others into groups. I admit I do that because that is part of my heritage as a Human. This attribute must have had and maybe it still does have a benefit to the species or it would have resulted in our extinction. So it’s not sad. It just is and you do it also since you are a member of the same species as I.
As far as treatment in the courts is concerned I want everyone to be treated equally under the law. That is in the Constitution of the United States and Iowa. That was what this case was about. That is why I agree with the decision of the Iowa Supreme Court. I can’t extend any rights to anyone. The rights are extended to all equally under the law by our Constitution.
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
If you care to you may read the opinion of the Iowa Supreme Court at:
http://howappealing.law.com/07-1499.pdf
I stand by my previous opinion. The courts have made no new law. They have only done away with one that violates the protections guaranteed by our Constitution.
Finally, this debate is not about taxes. Save it for another time.
You can purchase devices you need to set up you, which with guidance is before long comprehended.
ReplyDeleteAcupuncture - is used to endorse healing and relieve ache.
Review my web site :: flex mini