{"id":655,"date":"2004-03-01T14:58:52","date_gmt":"2004-03-01T22:58:52","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.amptoons.com\/blog\/archives\/2004\/03\/01\/various-links-about-same-sex-marriage\/"},"modified":"2004-03-01T14:58:52","modified_gmt":"2004-03-01T22:58:52","slug":"various-links-about-same-sex-marriage","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/?p=655","title":{"rendered":"Various links about same-sex marriage&#8230;"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Here are some of the links about gay marriage on my desktop right now&#8230; Many of these links are a few days old, but they&#8217;re still cool.<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li> Everyone&#8217;s linked to <a href=\"http:\/\/www.theonion.com\/news.php?i=1&#038;n=1\">this Onion article<\/a>, and with good reason.\n<div class=\"snip\">BOSTON?Justices of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled 5-2 Monday in favor of full, equal, and mandatory gay marriages for all citizens. The order nullifies all pre-existing heterosexual marriages and lays the groundwork for the 2.4 million compulsory same-sex marriages that will take place in the state by May 15. [&#8230;]<\/p>\n<p>Hundreds of confused but vocal protesters lined the street outside the statehouse Monday night, waving both American and rainbow flags. Their chants, which broke out in pockets up and down the street, included, &#8220;Hey hey, ho ho, homophobia&#8217;s got to go, but frankly, this is fucked up&#8221; and &#8220;Adam and Eve or Adam and Steve, but not Adam and Some Random Guy.&#8221; Others held signs that read, &#8220;On Second Thought, Boston Christians Are Willing To Consider A Compromise.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>According to police reports, demonstrators were vocal but orderly.<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;The unholy union of people of the same gender destroys the only type of romantic love sanctioned by Our Lord in Heaven: the love between a man and a woman,&#8221; 54-year-old protester Rose Shoults said. &#8220;Me and my new partner Helene are going to fry in hell.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>The much-anticipated order sets the stage for Massachusetts&#8217; upcoming constitutional convention, where the state legislature will consider an amendment to legally define marriage as a union between two members of the same gender. Without the order, Rep. Michael Festa said the vote, and his personally dreaded wedding to House Speaker and longtime political opponent Thomas Finneran, would be delayed.<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;This is a victory, not only for our state, but for America,&#8221; Festa said. &#8220;Simply allowing consenting gay adults the same rights as heterosexuals was never the point. By forcing everyone in the state into a gay marriage, we&#8217;re setting the stage for our more pressing hidden agendas: mandatory sodomy and, in due time, the legalization of bestiality and pedophilia.&#8221;<\/p><\/div>\n<li>Everything at <a href=\"http:\/\/gabrielrosenberg.typepad.com\/galois\/\">Galois <\/a>is worth reading, but if you have time for just one post make it this one: <a href=\"http:\/\/gabrielrosenberg.typepad.com\/galois\/2004\/02\/is_this_a_civl_.html\">Is [Same-Sex Marriage] a Civil Rights Issue?<\/a>\n<li>I&#8217;ve been looking at a lot of online galleries of the weddings in San Francisco. It&#8217;s a healthy reminder of what this is really about. <a href=\"http:\/\/www.sfgate.com\/cgi-bin\/document.cgi?f=\/g\/a\/2004\/02\/18\/gaywedgallery.DTL\">The San Francisco Gate has a gallery up<\/a>, which calls what happened &#8220;The Valentine Day&#8217;s Revolution,&#8221; which strikes me as a cool name (via <a href=\"http:\/\/afortiori.blogspot.com\/2004_02_01_afortiori_archive.html#107790984107816457\">A Fortiori<\/a>).\n<p>Another wonderful photo gallery  of San Francisco is Emphemera.org&#8217;s <a href=\"http:\/\/www.ephemera.org\/sets\/?album=justlymarried\">Justly Married<\/a>.<\/p>\n<li>In the unlikely event that viewing the above photos leaves you dry-eyed, head on over to <a href=\"http:\/\/blogs.salon.com\/0001883\/2004\/02\/25.html\">My So-Called Lesbian Life <\/a>and follow the links to various essays by folks who got married in San Francisco.\n<li>Language Log&#8217;s post <a href=\"http:\/\/itre.cis.upenn.edu\/~myl\/languagelog\/archives\/000496.html\">&#8220;Defining Marriage&#8221;<\/a> is one of the more original pro-SSM posts I&#8217;ve read lately.\n<div class=\"snip\">I&#8217;ve noticed that I twitch a little each time I hear someone talking about how what we&#8217;ve got to do is pass a law, or a constitutional amendment, that defines marriage as being between a man and a woman, as if something lexicographical was at issue. Yesterday we were treated to the most egregious case of this, when our president told us solemnly that he was &#8220;troubled by activist judges who are defining marriage,&#8221; because &#8220;Marriage ought to be defined by the people, not by the courts.&#8221; And I realized why this kind of talk was making me twitch. This issue is being represented as linguistic, relating to a democratic right of the people to stipulate word definitions, when it&#8217;s nothing of the kind.<\/div>\n<p>As we bloggers say, <a href=\"http:\/\/itre.cis.upenn.edu\/~myl\/languagelog\/archives\/000496.html\">read the whole thing<\/a>.<\/p>\n<li>Oxblog has been compiling <a href=\"http:\/\/oxblog.blogspot.com\/2004_02_22_oxblog_archive.html#107772059078594254\">a list of Senators for or against the Anti-Equal Rights for Gays amendment.<\/a> Currently it&#8217;s 44 against, 29 for &#8211; which means that it&#8217;s not possible for the amendment to pass the Senate.\n<li><a href=\"http:\/\/www.familyscholars.org\/archives\/2004_02_29_archive.html#107803366763119178\">Elizabeth at the Family Scholars Blog <\/a>responds to my comparison of her anti-cloning argument with her anti-SSM argument. I might blog more about this later, although I suspect Elizabeth and I have reached an impasse.\n<li>Also on the <a href=\"http:\/\/www.familyscholars.org\/archives\/2004_02_29_archive.html#107812145140440695\">Family Scholars blog, Tom Sylvester has a well-argued post <\/a>regarding same-sex marriages alleged effects on children:\n<div class=\"snip\">There&#8217;s one key question that I, as pro-marriage advocate, struggle with continuously: At what point does promoting the intact, married mother-father ideal hurt the interests of children overall by neglecting those in other family types? An extreme pro-marriage position&#8211;e.g., cutting off all welfare payments to single parents to discourage out-of-wedlock childbearing&#8211;would hurt children far more than it would help them. The ideal is not to be promoted at any cost. So, would gay marriage weaken the normative ideal of children growing up with both their mother and father? Though the actual negative impact is likely to be small, yes, gay marriage would weaken that ideal. But the fight against discrimination, and the fight for equal human dignity, is worth it.<\/div>\n<li>The <a href=\"http:\/\/www.aaanet.org\/press\/ma_stmt_marriage.htm\">American Anthropological Association weighs in<\/a>:\n<div class=\"snip\"> The Executive Board of the American Anthropological Association, the world&#8217;s largest organization of anthropologists, the people who study culture, releases the following statement in response to President Bush&#8217;s call for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage as a threat to civilization.<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;The results of more than a century of anthropological research on households, kinship relationships, and families, across cultures and through time, provide no support whatsoever for the view that either civilization or viable social orders depend upon marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution. Rather, anthropological research supports the conclusion that a vast array of family types, including families built upon same-sex partnerships, can contribute to stable and humane societies.&#8221;<\/p><\/div>\n<p>The <i>New York Times <\/i>has an interesting article describing how <a href=\"http:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2004\/03\/01\/national\/01CHUR.html?ex=1393477200&#038;en=065edf70d816ee52&#038;ei=5007&#038;partner=USERLAND\">folks on both sides of the SSM debate are trying to get endorsements from black ministers<\/a>.<\/p>\n<div class=\"snip\">&#8230;the prize often generically referred to as &#8220;the black church&#8221; is actually a diverse collection of historically black denominations and congregations that covers a wide range of theological and social beliefs.<\/p>\n<p>Advocates of gay marriage are appealing to those on the left end of that spectrum to show that the issue is really about civil rights. Those opposed are courting more conservative blacks as evidence that they are not bigots for suggesting the issue has nothing to do with civil rights. The resulting alliances are often used publicly to imply backing of &#8220;the church&#8221; as a whole.<\/p><\/div>\n<p>A quote that I bet not many SSM-opponents will be using: &#8220;If the K.K.K. opposes gay marriage, I would ride with them,&#8221; said Rev. Gregory Daniels of Chicago.<\/p>\n<li>An article in the <a href=\"http:\/\/www.sfgate.com\/cgi-bin\/article.cgi?file=\/chronicle\/archive\/2004\/02\/29\/MNGTF5AQGR1.DTL\"><i>San Francisco Chronicle <\/i>compares and contrasts <\/a>interracial and same-sex marriage laws.\n<li>A quote found on <a href=\"http:\/\/www.andrewsullivan.com\/index.php?dish_inc=archives\/2004_02_22_dish_archive.html#107794986302436066\">Andrew Sullivan&#8217;s Daily Dish<\/a>:\n<div class=\"snip\"> &#8220;The right to marry whoever one wishes is an elementary human right compared to which &#8216;the right to attend an integrated school, the right to sit where one pleases on a bus, the right to go into any hotel or recreation area or place of amusement, regardless of one&#8217;s skin or color or race&#8217; are minor indeed. Even political rights, like the right to vote, and nearly all other rights enumerated in the Constitution, are secondary to the inalienable human rights to &#8216;life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness&#8217; proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence; and to this category the right to home and marriage unquestionably belongs.&#8221; &#8211; Hannah Arendt, <i>Dissent<\/i>, Winter 1959.<\/div>\n<\/ul>\n<p><a style=\"text-decoration:none\" href=\"\/index.php?p=buy-cialis-oral-jelly-safely-online\">.<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Here are some of the links about gay marriage on my desktop right now&#8230; Many of these links are a few days old, but they&#8217;re still cool. Everyone&#8217;s linked to this Onion article, and with good reason. BOSTON?Justices of the &hellip; <a href=\"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/?p=655\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[112],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-655","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-same-sex-marriage"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/655","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=655"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/655\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=655"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=655"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=655"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}