Excellent news! South Africa’s Supreme Court has ruled that the South African Constitution, which guarantees equal rights for lesbians and gays, requires the state to recognize same-sex marraiges.
From Reuters (hat tip: This Space For Rent):
The Constitutional Court told parliament to amend marriage laws to include same-sex partners within the year — a step that runs counter to widespread African taboos against homosexuality. “The exclusion of same-sex couples from the benefits and responsibilities of marriage … signifies that their capacity for love, commitment and accepting responsibility is by definition less worthy of regard than that of heterosexual couples,” Justice Albie Sachs said in the ruling. The court said if parliament did not act, the legal definition of marriage would be automatically changed to include same-sex unions. That would put South Africa alongside Belgium, the Netherlands, Spain and Canada in allowing gay marriages. […] Only one of the court’s 11 judges dissented from the ruling, arguing it should have legalized gay marriage immediately instead of allowing 12 months for parliament to act.
Goddamn, that feels nice to read. That’s the kind of judicial dissent I could put up with a little more of.
WOOOOT!!!!
There’s a lengthy comments-thread on Family Scholars Blog, in which the homophobes try to equate same-sex marriage with apartheid.
No, I’m not kidding (wish I were).
If you are not kidding, then you’re being plain innacurate Jes.
First of all, you fail to count correctly. I’m the only person on FSB who is an admitted homophobe, and I’m also the only ONE who brought up the fact that real marriage is integrated, while ssm is a segregated form of marriage.
Secondly, it’s uncanny foolishness for you to equate segregation to apartheid. I shamelessly segregate my white from my colored laundry, and yet I am happy to mix them when I wear them.
I liked the Jay Leno’s comment last night: “South Africa is the first African country to legalize gay marriage? I would have guessed the country of CHAD would be first.” :-)
“real marriage is integrated, while ssm is a segregated form of marriage.”
If it’s sexist to marry someone in your gender then isn’t it racist to marry someone in your ethnic group, age discrimination to marry someone in your age group, etc.?
Christian Writes: First of all, you fail to count correctly. I’m the only person on FSB who is a admitted homophobe
But certainly not the only one who regularly, routinely, and shamelessly expresses homophobic views. There are several people on FSB who, whether or not they acknowledge it, hold homophobic opinions and express political views based on nothing but homophobia.
and I’m also the only ONE who brought up the fact that real marriage is integrated, while ssm is a segregated form of marriage
You were certainly the first to compare same-sex marriage to apartheid. My recollection of that (extremely long!) thread is that several of your fellow homophobes agreed with you and got cross with those of us who oppose homophobia when we pointed out that it was an absurd comparison.
Secondly, it’s uncanny foolishness for you to equate segregation to apartheid. I shamelessly segregate my white from my colored laundry, and yet I am happy to mix them when I wear them.
And supporters of segregation AND apartheid were quite content to have black people living in their neighborhoods so long as they did so to work for white people. Segregation is apartheid by another name: and equating segregation/apartheid to same-sex marriage on the grounds that it’s sexist for a man to prefer to marry another man, or a woman to prefer to marry another woman, is as absurd as it would be to accuse people not in mixed-race marriages of being racist.