It's a Very Good Day

We’ve won this round in the War For Equality.  I was in a meeting when our Prop 8 victory was announced; I learned of it via text message.

My co-workers are vaguely pleased — and vaguely surprised, too, because most of them hadn’t been thinking about the court battle at all.  They don’t see it as making a big deal in their lives.

And that’s exactly right.

For all of NOM’s fretting over the institution of marriage, this decision only has a day-to-day impact on those of us who were robbed of our rights in November 2008.  None of my hetero colleagues are running around in a panic because their marriages have been redefined or devalued or deinstitutionalized.  They were married before.  They’re married in the same way now.  And no amount of scary propaganda from NOM is going to change that.

Share:
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • email
  • Reddit

24 comments to It’s a Very Good Day

  • 1
    Tre says:

    It’s a great day for ALL citizens of California – regardless of which side they are on, because today we saw that the constitution of the State of California, is alive and well. That all the money raised by bigots can’t sway that document, that truth, fairness and equality still means something and that meaning makes this state a better place for ALL of us.

    Now, the death threats have started. On the Free Republic website, people are now calling for the murder of gay Americans, as they post pictures of assault rifles with captions underneath that read, “the solution.”

    I think it’s pretty clear who has the “agenda” here….

  • 2
    Thursday says:

    Don’t forget: we’re winning. Slowly, sure, but common sense and common decency are winning.

  • 3

    For all of NOM’s fretting over the institution of marriage, this decision only has a day-to-day impact on those of us who were robbed of our rights in November 2008. None of my hetero colleagues are running around in a panic because their marriages have been redefined or devalued or deinstitutionalized. They were married before. They’re married in the same way now. And no amount of scary propaganda from NOM is going to change that.

    And later on, when pedophile, plural, bestial, and incestuous marriage are legalized, none of your hetero colleagues will be running around in a panic because their marriages have been redefined or devalued or deinstitutionalized. They were married before and they’ll be married in the same way then.

    Unless, of course, you can suddenly come up with a rationale for how any of those affect other peoples’ marriages without blowing up your own for gay-sex marriage.

  • 4
    Tre says:

    ND30 –

    Plural, pedophile and incestuous marriages already happen – in Utah. “Bestial marriages” – can and will never happen since marriages are between adults (you know – that whole legal, binding contract thing).

    Weak.

  • 5

    Plural, pedophile and incestuous marriages already happen – in Utah.

    With state or Federal recognition? I think not.

    But, since Walker has already established that bans on marriage are unconstitutional infringements against sexual minorities, perhaps not for long — which has always been the goal of the left in this whole matter anyway.

    “Bestial marriages” – can and will never happen since marriages are between adults (you know – that whole legal, binding contract thing).

    LOL…that’s just a law established by a majority that clearly demonstrates animus and bias against a small persecuted minority. Clearly unconstitutional, right?

  • 6
    Neil says:

    Oh dear. It sounds like the legality of the sky is about to fall down. It’s a slippery slope, I guess. Once you allow marriage contracts between any two individual adults not closely related, next the courts will recognise any contract between any entity, animal, vegetable or mineral.

    Pretty soon, granite boulders will be entering into business relationships with lobsters. Speaking personally, I’m not much fussed. These circumstances have always been my goal anyway, being a lefty poof.

  • 7

    Once you allow marriage contracts between any two individual adults not closely related, next the courts will recognise any contract between any entity, animal, vegetable or mineral.

    So how is your relationship affected by allowing incestuous or plural marriage?

    Better yet, since the laws that disallow those were established by a majority that clearly demonstrates animus and bias against a small persecuted minority, they’re clearly unconstitutional, right?

  • 8
    Kenny says:

    Heterosexual marriage is legal in Yemen and Saudi Arabia. Same sex marriage is illegal in Yemen and Saudi Arabia. Child marriages are legal in both Yemen and Saudi Arabia, so it would appear that traditional, heterosexual marriage, not same-sex marriage, leads to “pedophile marriages”.

    Marrying your first cousin seems incestuous to me. Alabama, for example, has no problem with first cousins marrying. Same sex marriage is illegal in Alabama. Traditional heterosexual marriage is legal in Alabama. So, apparently, traditional marriage, not same sex marriage, has already led to incestuous marriage.

    And, yes, these arguments are as silly and ridiculous as those offered by NDT.

  • 9
    Mrs. Chili says:

    My sister married her girlfriend this past Saturday. Far from feeling threatened, I finally feel like all is right with my world.

  • 10
    Jarred says:

    Anti-gay conservatives (and conservatives in general) don’t actually believe in this “slippery slope” nonsense anyway. This is evidenced by the fact that they keep on fighting. If they really believed in their arguments, they would have quit “defending marriage” the moment no-fault divorces became a reality.

    Don’t believe me? Consider this, then. The entire premise of a slippery slope argument is that if A happens, then B is inevitable. There’s no way of stopping B. It’s all over. Game over. If you accept that there are other ways to stop B, then you don’t have a slippery slope argument at all.

    Well, the original “A” that was supposed to irreversibly doom the institution of marriage was the introduction of no-fault divorce. That event happened, so if you accept the slippery slope argument, marriage is doomed. There’s no saving it.

    So you have to ask yourself. Why are these people still trying to “save” an institution that according to their own claims, has been inevitably and irreversibly doomed for over a decade now?

  • 11
    empirecookie says:

    “They don’t see it as making a big deal in their lives.”

    Too right. The reaction to court cases allowing same sex marriage in Canada was one huge collective yawn. Very few people were stupid enough to think it meant the sky was about to fall.

    “And later on, when pedophile, plural, bestial, and incestuous marriage are legalized…”

    Funny, none of those things have happened in countries where sex marriage is legal. Guess your slippery slope is just a slippery pile o’ crap.

  • 12
    Neil says:

    I’m terribly disappointed in the collapse of the slippery slope prospect. I have a bucket of compost that’s been getting along famously with a bag of manure, a pile of earth and a tigerella tomato plant. It now seems the fruits of their cohabitation will be consigned to bastardy.

  • 13
    arturo fernandez says:

    “And, yes, these arguments are as silly and ridiculous as those offered by NDT.”

    I disagree. Being pro-gay is more enlightened. More enlightened societies reject polygamy, child-adult marriages, and having sex with sheep.

  • 14
  • 15
    BradP says:

    The slippery slope argument can be made about anything. “If we let 16 year olds get driver’s licenses, we have to let dogs get driver’s licenses.”

    But, of course, last anyone checked, there’s no man-turtle/man-sister/man-boy marriage in Canada, Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Portugal, Norway, Sweden, South Africa . . .

  • 16

    Well, the original “A” that was supposed to irreversibly doom the institution of marriage was the introduction of no-fault divorce. That event happened, so if you accept the slippery slope argument, marriage is doomed. There’s no saving it.

    Not really.

    After all, if you reverse no-fault divorces, you reverse the process.

    Meanwhile, the gay and lesbian community has already played its hand in this regard on multiple occasions, not to mention its support of the repeal of age-of-consent laws.

  • 17
    Jarred says:

    After all, if you reverse no-fault divorces, you reverse the process.

    That’s nice in theory. Except that I don’t see one single person in the alleged “pro-family” crowd attempting to do that. They’ve moved on to their next windmill.

  • 18

    That’s nice in theory. Except that I don’t see one single person in the alleged “pro-family” crowd attempting to do that.

    That’s odd, because there are plenty.

    Perhaps you ought to try looking in the first place. But that wouldn’t suit your preordained conclusions, now would it? Better to just spout your statements in places where you would never be challenged.

  • 19
    Tony says:

    Better to just spout your statements in places where you would never be challenged.

    But wait, here you are challenging him. Which you knew, even as you typed that. Gee NorthDallasThirty, it seems no matter what you say, you turn out to be wrong.

  • 20

    And there’s the amusement value for me, Tony.

    Jarred clearly was either ignorant of the actual facts of the matter or outright lying. But instead of confronting his statements, who are you attacking? The person who pointed out, using facts, that he was either ignorant or lying.

    Hence my point. Jarred stated an outright falsehood. No one challenged him. When I ultimately called out the falsehood, using facts, you rushed in to attack me instead of calling him out for his falsehood. Clearly, you weren’t about to challenge him, nor was anyone else.

    Truly, did you ever think to check Jarred’s statements? Or did you just go on his minority status and repeat the talking points because, since another gay person with the correct political affiliation stated them, they must be true?

  • 21
    Jarred says:

    I stand corrected. There is a meager, underwhelming, and probably token attempt at lip service to the dangers of no-fault divorce. Forgive me if I don’t find an article by James Dobson that’s only on his site and a single letter written by someone I’ve never even heard of before all that much of a fight?

    I mean, seriously, where are are the attempts to amend state constitutions to make no-fault divorce illegal? Where are the videos by Maggie Galagher, James Dobson, and others begging for money so they can fight the insideous agenda of the pro-divorce activists? Where are the bus tours to spread the news of how some teacher might teach your kids that divorce is okay?

    Sorry, ND30, we’ve seen how the so-called “pro-family” crowd acts when they really want to fight against something. Your evidence that they’re fighting to overturn no-fault divorce is evidence that they just really don’t care beyond making some token effort. Because let’s face it, if that’s all the effort they put into Prop 8 into stopping same-sex marriage, same-sex marriage would be legal in all fifty states by now.

  • 22

    Sorry, ND30, we’ve seen how the so-called “pro-family” crowd acts when they really want to fight against something. Your evidence that they’re fighting to overturn no-fault divorce is evidence that they just really don’t care beyond making some token effort.

    And thus we can say that gays and lesbians support the sexualization of and sex with underage children, and in fact support and endorse promiscuous and unprotected disease-spreading sex.

    Because, after all, Jerrod, if you REALLY cared about it, you would be out protesting in the streets, screaming at politicians, demanding that people who practiced it and advocated it be socially ostracized and punished, etc., all the stuff you do over gay-sex marriage.

    Since you aren’t, clearly you don’t care, and in fact see nothing wrong with sexualizing and molesting children, or with having promiscuous and unprotected disease-spreading sex with multiple partners.

    Or would you like to suddenly change your logic?

  • 23
    Jarred says:

    First, ND30, please try to spell my name correctly in the future.

    Second, your “gays are pedophiles and support pedophiles” song and dance is getting pretty tiresome. Please learn a new argument.

    Third, please do some research on the logical fallacy known as “false equivalence,” then come back and try again.

    Until then, there’s really no point in me continuing this farce of a discussion.

  • 24
    Thursday says:

    Denmark: Come for the fjords, stay for the moral chaos!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvyluTaz9Bk

    Rick Mercer is handy this way.

Leave a Reply

 

 

 

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>