Disillusioned but then again not surprised.....

[gimmethesimplelife]

I have to say I am upset about the judge in Ohio yesterday upholding the ban on same sex marriage in Ohio and I believe this applies to the four states in this particular circuit, Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky, and Tennessee. This may actually be a good thing for same sex marriage supporters as the issue may get forced to the Supreme Court but I don't have the faith that the Supreme Court will vote in favor of human rights and basic decency on this one, I just don't have that basic faith. I also think that if they don't vote in favor of same sex marriage there will be a tsunami of lawsuits, and that smart countries may offer eased restrictions on immigration for those affected with some talents and saved cash.....some but not all of the persons a negative decision would apply to have some creative talents/knowledge economy skills and realistically would have no loyalty and much reason to jump ship....can we afford to lose those people in a world this competitive? It always amazes me that I am one of the few people I have ever met who sees things from a very brutally capitalistic perspective on such issues, even though I am in the segment of the population who is going to take any decision period personally.

It will be interesting regardless to see how this issue plays out. I read today that the Supreme Court may take up this issue by next April, and I think it would be wise for all committed (repeat, committed) same sex couples that can get married now do so - to increase lawsuit and or immigration potential down the road, and also to have the memory of the marriage as it may not last.....

Realistically, I blame myself for getting excited about the ban falling in Arizona and a number of other conservative states - I have lived in the United States long enough to know better than to believe that it would necessarily last. For this I take responsibility. I really should have known better, I guess all I can say is in the future I will not make the same mistake again with this type of faith. Rob

[Alan]

I have to say I am upset about the judge in Ohio yesterday upholding the ban on same sex marriage in Ohio and I believe this applies to the four states in this particular circuit, Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky, and Tennessee. That was actually a panel of judges and I believe their reasoning was correct. Their ruling essentially said that although same-sex marriage across the nation is practically inevitable, it should be settled through the democratic process and not the judicial one. It seems reasonable to me.

[gimmethesimplelife]

That was actually a panel of judges and I believe their reasoning was correct. Their ruling essentially said that although same-sex marriage across the nation is practically inevitable, it should be settled through the democratic process and not the judicial one. It seems reasonable to me.Alan, I'm not entirely against your reasoning here, I'd like to make this clear. My problem is that based on passed history, and my experience from living 46 years in this country - some time out living in Europe and also Canada due to family drama in the 70's - I don't have the basic faith that the Supreme Court will uphold same sex marriage....I just don't have it. I'd love to be pleasantly surprised and I will be the first to admit I'm wrong if that proves the case, but at this point, I just don't have that basic faith. My instinct is that there will need to be numerous lawsuits and the loss of many talented people to better countries offering basic human rights via recognition of same sex marriage before nationwide permanent change can happen. Once again, I'd love to be wrong on this one but I just can't see human rights mattering enough in America so I instinctively distrust and don't have the basic faith. Rob

[Alan]

Well Rob, I'm not sure that having the Supreme Court uphold it is the correct way to go. Wouldn't it be better if the various state legislatures carried the burden?

Besides that, I've never been convinced this is a human rights issue. Everyone has the ability to partner with whoever, whenever, however, how-often, they please. It seems to me that the issue really revolves around acceptance and benefit, neither of which are human rights. In both cases, I believe you're better served legislatively.

[gimmethesimplelife]

Well Rob, I'm not sure that having the Supreme Court uphold it is the correct way to go. Wouldn't it be better if the various state legislatures carried the burden?

Besides that, I've never been convinced this is a human rights issue. Everyone has the ability to partner with whoever, whenever, however, how-often, they please. It seems to me that the issue really revolves around acceptance and benefit, neither of which are human rights. In both cases, I believe you're better served legislatively.I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. Beyond that, supposedly due to the ruling yesterday, the Supreme Court is said to be more likely to hear this issue - I guess due to the conflict in rulings created by yesterday's ruling in Ohio upholding the ban there and the prior rulings elsewhere striking the bans down. It would be much less fear based for me to have the Supreme Court uphold same sex marriage as it would be harder to overturn....much more of a hassle in terms of cost and effort so I could trust it a little going forward. As things stand now there really is no reason to have any faith or trust in same sex marriage standing as legal in the states that currently allow it - this was proven to me yesterday by the ruling in Ohio. Plus I also believe the way you are advocating - letting the states sort it out - will lead to many more lawsuits ( another reason I believe all committed same sex couples should marry now while they can for possible litigation potential in the future) and also smart countries swooping down and letting the more talented of these folks immigrate in and the US losing them permanently due to human rights not be of upmost importance here. Your way is definitely the more traditional way to handle it, I won't disagree with that, but it also seems to be more costly going forward (just think of the attorney field day and all the frustrated couples attempting to cash in on how America couldn't care less for the dignity of their relationships! Most people today would LEAP on such litigation from a moral perspective if not a cash based one) and also runs the risk of permanently losing some creative and knowledge based people we might be smart to keep.

Your way seems to carry with it some risks - my point is have you factored such risks into your post above? No sarcasm here, I really am curious as to your answer. Rob

[Teacher Terry]

The Feds need to legalize it otherwise when couples move from one state to another they could find themselves not married. Also it is about having the same rights & privileges that heterosexual married couples enjoy.

[bae]

I don't understand why we accept having either the Federal or the State governments involved in our marriages, except to arbitrate disputes over the marriage contract and provide some protection for parties not competent to consent (such as any children involved).

If we *are* going to have the government involved, I don't quite understand why Article IV, Section 1 of the US Constitution would not require each state to honor the marriage licenses granted by other states, as they now honor drivers' licenses, civil judgments, child support orders, protection orders, and so on.

And if we *are* going to advance the federalist-States'-rights position and allow some states to control who gets to marry, we have to look at the basic civil rights issues carefully. I mean, it was once legal for people to be slaves in some states, free in others, depending on the whims of state legislatures. It was once legal to ban marriages between races...

I would hold that the freedom to voluntarily enter into a contractual relationship with another capable consenting individual and receive the same consideration as everyone else entering into such a contract is pretty basic stuff.

[kib]

I would hold that the freedom to voluntarily enter into a contractual relationship with another capable consenting individual and receive the same consideration as everyone else entering into such a contract is pretty basic stuff.

You'd think so, wouldn't you. Aziz Ansari (comedian) said what I believe might be the absolute root of the problem, and it's so ridiculous: "The true objection to homosexual marriage is, 'Eeew, that's gross'". Seriously, what other explanation makes any sense at all?

ETA: not sure what I said was clear, he wasn't saying it's reasonable to think that homosexual sex is "gross" or anyone's business, he was saying that this is what Anti Gay Marriage advocates are secretly all about. Probably the same reaction they had upon hearing about heterosexual sex.

[Alan]

My only problem with addressing the issue through the judiciary is that everyone insists on making it a human/civil rights issue, which invariably leads to the use of government force against anyone who disagrees. I think there are better ways to achieve a goal than to criminalize the opposition.

[kib]

I think you're right about getting easier passage legislatively than through judiciary, Alan, the problem is that it is a human rights issue, and the people who are being discriminated against have a right to be angry and heard. Which heaves it into the realm of judiciary. And no, I don't think it's reasonable to forego laws upholding fairness, if that's what you mean by "criminalizing the opposition". In a world where people are not being treated fairly and everyone who wishes to discriminate is free to do so, how would you propose making that happen?

[Alan]

And no, I don't think it's reasonable to forego laws upholding fairness, if that's what you mean by "criminalizing the opposition".
We've already seen cases of bakeries and wedding chapels facing prosecution for adhering to their religious beliefs re: same sex marriages. Is it fair to them?

[kib]

Frankly, yes. We also had lunch counters all over the south refusing to serve African Americans as their "god given right". Someone is free to say they don't want homosexuals, or African Americans, or anyone at all for that matter, in their home. If you do retail business in America, you do business with everyone, unless they're actually breaking the law. I realize the law is structured to give business owners the benefit of the doubt when it comes to throwing out "undesirables", but it is not structured to exclude whole groups of people.

[Alan]

Frankly, yes.
Which is exactly why I've always been in favor of civil unions rather than marriage and preferred that government not be involved in these social contracts. If they feel they must then simply to acknowledge the validity of the contract. When we get into the area of criminalizing acts of omission and prosecuting under civil rights laws, we've gone too far.

[kib]

As Rob said, agreeing to disagree. To me, "they" (whoever they might be) deserve the right to do whatever anyone else deserves the right to do, and reap the benefit of exercising those rights, which are upheld by the law.

[gimmethesimplelife]

The Feds need to legalize it otherwise when couples move from one state to another they could find themselves not married. Also it is about having the same rights & privileges that heterosexual married couples enjoy.Exactly! Dead on as far as I am concerned. Thank You! Rob

[gimmethesimplelife]

I think you're right about getting easier passage legislatively than through judiciary, Alan, the problem is that it is a human rights issue, and the people who are being discriminated against have a right to be angry and heard. Which heaves it into the realm of judiciary. And no, I don't think it's reasonable to forego laws upholding fairness, if that's what you mean by "criminalizing the opposition". In a world where people are not being treated fairly and everyone who wishes to discriminate is free to do so, how would you propose making that happen?Agreed completely, thanks KIB! And you are right about the anger - I have a great deal of anger that potentially if I were to marry another man - though to date no one has been fool enough to have me at that level, lol - that my marriage would not be as valid as the marriage of a man and a woman across the street, yet I am expected to pay taxes if my income meets this requirement or face consequences - this doesn't cut it in my book. Not at all. Rob

[bae]

We've already seen cases of bakeries and wedding chapels facing prosecution for adhering to their religious beliefs re: same sex marriages. Is it fair to them?

In my opinion, of course not. But I don't think the government has any business in forcing non-consenting parties to enter into contracts in the first place. I support the right of businesses to discriminate against any customer for any reason they wish. Race, religion, color of shoes, owning the wrong kind of yacht, whatever. No matter how distasteful I find it. That's the other side of the freedom coin.

I don't think holding up overbearing government behavior in forcing contracts on one side as justification to support the government denying contracts on the other side makes any sense - you're just dancing around the root cause of the problem... The fact that you have the conundrum in the first place is indicative you need to dig a bit deeper in your analysis.

[gimmethesimplelife]

Frankly, yes. We also had lunch counters all over the south refusing to serve African Americans as their "god given right". Someone is free to say they don't want homosexuals, or African Americans, or anyone at all for that matter, in their home. If you do retail business in America, you do business with everyone, unless they're actually breaking the law. I realize the law is structured to give business owners the benefit of the doubt when it comes to throwing out "undesirables", but it is not structured to exclude whole groups of people.Agree again, KIB. Thank you for your posts here! Rob

[gimmethesimplelife]

Which is exactly why I've always been in favor of civil unions rather than marriage and preferred that government not be involved in these social contracts. If they feel they must then simply to acknowledge the validity of the contract. When we get into the area of criminalizing acts of omission and prosecuting under civil rights laws, we've gone too far.Nope! I no longer will tolerate riding in the back of the bus. This gay man here is getting into the first seat beyond the driver from this point forward as close to the AC as he can....in all areas of life he possibly can. I've had my fill and won't go back. I'm afraid many other gays and lesbians have reached this point, too. And it's long overdue that we have.....Rob

[bae]

Nope! I no longer will tolerate riding in the back of the bus.

I suspect Alan is referring to "civil unions" as the solution for all marriages, so, everyone would be in the same privatized bus, the government wouldn't be meddling.

[kib]

I don't really understand why we have marriage advantages. In a way it's an unpleasant holdover from the days in which Good Women got married and bred, more or less the property of their husbands. We certainly no longer need to go forth and multiply, so why the preferred status? Civil union for everyone.