Okay. Gay Rights, Gay Marriage.

by Little Miss Attila on April 23, 2009

I’ve held off on watching the Hilton-Prager debate, but I finally screwed my courage to the sticking point and gave it a peek.

Of course, they are both right.

And I agree with Cynthia that the goal should be full legal recognition of same-sex marriage, but I disagree with her that Miss California‘s remarks were impolite. And I agree with Darleen that Prager makes a good case against gay marriage—one, in fact, that I myself bought for years—but I do not agree with her that Prager won the debate on Larry King.

Naturally, though, I stand with Darleen in wanting a name to the name-calling, and the stifling of free speech that seems to be coming from the “politically correct” side of the divide.

These debates seem so often to come down to either (1) emotionalism [e.g., Prager’s “what about the kids?” argument], or (2) semantics [“Let’s have gay marriage, by all means, as long as we don’t call it ‘marriage.’ Because, after all, marriage was heterosexual thousands of years ago. Read the Bible. Why, look at all those marriages. We know they were marriages, because the words used to describe them are translated as ‘marriage.’ Never mind that what we call them now is ‘having a harem.’ Words mean things, you know.”]

The weakness in Perez’s argument is easy to pick out: it does rest on men and women being equal in the sense of “alike except for their plumbing.” Which is both right and wrong, on its face. The weakness in Prager’s argument is its mirror twin: men and women are, as he sees it, completely different: no woman can be a “father figure” to a child; nor can any man be a “mother.” (One assumes—and I’ll admit that I know—Prager is not referring here strictly to breast-feeding.)

We are back, in short, to nature vs. nurture. If the sexes were alike, we’d all be perfectly bisexual, and Perez couldn’t identify as gay. If, however, the sexes were as alien from each other as Prager always insists, there wouldn’t have been a Florence Nightingale, a Rosalind Franklin, an Elizabeth Blackwell, or a Marie Curie.

At this point, Prager usually pulls out some twaddle about how unusual it is for women to achieve in the manner that men achieve, even if it is not unheard-of. One wonders why that is the case, and hopes it’s not because we have other responsibilities, or because we aren’t encouraged to realize our potential. [Insert here the obligatory whiney reference to my mother dropping out of the UCLA graduate program in biology/genetics because her professor-turned-lover told her to.]

The semantic argument is easy to solve: eventually gays will have marriage rights in all 50 states. Evangelicals and conservative Roman Catholics will call these “unions,” or “partnerships,” or will use the word “marriage” with scare-quotes around it, forevermore.

The substantive argument is harder to resolve, and by “harder,” I mean completely impossible: there is no way of measuring the degree of true emotional/intellectual incompatability between men and women. I think those who are raised among siblings of the opposite sex often have an advantage, but that is not consistent. Complicating matters is the issue of which heterosexuals want disassorted mating, and which of them want “someone with whom I have something in common.” All of us, after all—gay or straight—want exactly the right amount of alienness from our mates. Not one teaspoon more, and not one teaspoon less. It’s got to be right on that line.

One cannot quantify the difference betwen the sexes: it is like trying to quantify whether it is better for heterosexual men to prefer skinny ladies, or woman with more meat on their bones. (Excuse me: I forgot I was blogging. Make that “boobies and butts.”) The matter is thoroughly subjective. Even the ways in which we ask the questions betrays our respective levels of subjetivity about the issue.

Virginia Woolf: “The truth is only to be found by laying together many varieties of error.” Perhaps. It seems more likely that the truth is not to be had at all.

(And do not, for heaven’s sake, give me any of your twaddle about neurons this and brain function that, Professor Linden. Facts are nice enough, but they hardly constitute holistic truth. Besides—you know I’m not any good at that science stuff.)

{ 1 trackback }

What SHE said — Cynthia Yockey
April 23, 2009 at 7:53 pm

{ 21 comments… read them below or add one }

smitty1e April 23, 2009 at 1:59 pm

I think gay marriage is a dog’s tail, in the context of Lincoln:
“How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it a leg.”

Reply

Darleen Click April 23, 2009 at 2:57 pm

Usually “think about the kids!” is a rhetorical ploy, but in this context I believe it is the core issue and not emotional. Certainly marriage as an institution much more than just waving a wand over two horny people … sometimes it was used to cement warring tribes, or to pass down property, etc. It’s about more than just the couple, which is why even though it has had a few different faces through the eons, it has always remained heterosexual.

What bothers me about the Perez Hiltons of the Left and their attempts to blacklist people like Prejean from any public institution is that tactic will be full court press if SSM is legalized. About five minutes after, lawsuits will be filed to strip every church that preaches against SSM of their tax exempt status. People will be fired for being members of such churches/synagogues. Hilton’s “outrage” is not a result of Prejeans “insensitivity”, it is a feature of campaign of demonizing non-leftists.

Reply

caltechgirl April 23, 2009 at 3:05 pm

Well, you didn’t say I couldn’t talk about the neurons and stuff. Fact is, men and women are wired differently. But the differences are subtle. The real truth is that a man will act like a man whether he wants to stick his penis in a vagina or somewhere else. A woman will act like a woman whether she has a relationship with a man or a woman.

FWIW.

Reply

Zendo Deb April 23, 2009 at 5:40 pm

You know, a couple things surprise me about the kerfuffle generated by the whole Miss America thing.

First I am surprised at how many people seem to watch this BS.

Next, the same people who told the Dixie Chicks that they are free to express their opinions, but are not free from the reactions to those opinions and the consequences of expressing themselves, are the same people saying that whats-her-name should be free from any consequences of any reactions to what she said. That’s what you call ironic. (Not pointing a finger at anyone here – am thinking about more of the radio-talk-show/TV-talking-head crowd.)

All those people saying that gay marriage will destroy straight marriage – or Western Civilization – are ignoring two things. 1) All the gays currently married in Canada, Israel, The United Kingdom, Belgium, The Netherlands, South Africa, etc. or the Civil Unions in France, Germany, Sweden, etc. must be nearing critical mass even as we speak, or maybe not. 2) Good old-fashioned straight marriage has only existed in its current form for a bit over 200 years (maybe 250), since before that time romantic love was not considered a good basis for marriage and so marriages were arranged. (That doesn’t even consider the impacts of things like no-fault divorce.) Gays haven’t had squat to do with that.

If you don’t want gays to be able to marry, OK I can see your point might be valid. Would be willing to give up all of the benefits – the CIVIL, LEGAL benefits – that currently adhere to straight marriage? (Insurance benefits. Survivor benefits for pensions and social security. Advantages in inheritance laws. Medical decision-making. etc. Depending on who is counting there are as many as 1300 benefits.) I didn’t think so.

Reply

Darleen Click April 23, 2009 at 5:53 pm

Deb

I believe as Dennis Prager says above (did you actually watch it?) that gays should have every right to secure inheritance, property rights, be insurance benificiaries (um, they can all this now), just don’t call it marriage.

And please point me to any time in history that same sex couples were married. No matter the configuration of marriage, it always contained elements of both sexes.

And yes, it will “destroy” marriage as we know it because it radically redefines it and with it, it makes mothers and fathers irrelevant. Everyone is a grey, generic “parent” and there is nothing unique about men and women.

A lie, but the politically correct must be placated.

In fact, I would rather the government stop registering ALL marriage then no gay-fascist like Perez Hilton would be going around looking for a legal way to shut up people who believe one man one woman marriage is the ideal.

Reply

Cynthia Yockey, A Conservative Lesbian April 23, 2009 at 7:37 pm

Darleen,

A lesbian lawyer drew up my life partner’s will and her second durable medical power-of-attorney. She was unaware that the will is not the document that empowers someone to make funeral plans for another person so she put my power to make funeral arrangements in the will — so I thought I had that power. Each state has a law setting out the hierarchy of who is allowed to do that and lesbian or gay life partners are not on the list.

I’m a planner by nature so we found out just in time before Margaret died.

When you’re married, you do not have to remember 1300+ things the law provides for you on account of your marriage. Your access to those 1300+ things doesn’t change from year to year, state to state, let alone country to country. Couples use them to build a life together. It is indeed deadly in a multitude of ways to have any of those rights and privileges of marriage unavailable, or an enormous hassle to establish. Ms. Prejean is the totalitarian here, not Perez Hilton, since she is the one with the rule that all must adhere to.

Also, on the subject of threats to marriage, just a reminder, if you are 60+ in a heterosexual marriage, be sure to see a tax and estate planning attorney to see if you can afford to stay married if one of you ever requires long-term nursing home care. Unless you are very well off, you probably can’t. This is because Medicaid is the health insurance most people will rely on for nursing home care and as a couple you must spend down your assets to $2500 for the sick spouse to become eligible.

I’m a giver, so I like to help people keep things in perspective.

Cynthia

P.S.

Joy — do you still need to know how to do transfers? It’s OK to call.

Reply

Zendo Deb April 23, 2009 at 7:47 pm

“um, they can [have] all this now”

Many examples of medical decision making taken away from a gay/lesbian partner and given back to parents against clearly-stated wishes in a medical power of attorney. Love the courts and the lawyers.

Ditto wills. Though trusts usually bypass the courts and anything held jointly with rights of survivorship are harder for courts to set aside. Insurance and 401K beneficiaries specifically bypass the courts. (See comment above about lawyers)

Inheritance tax is calculated slightly differently for married couples than for anyone else. (Lawyers – mostly – wrote the laws)

Social Security survivor benefits? Pension survivor benefits? Only for married couples.

I could go on.

“And please point me to any time in history that same sex couples were married.” It was easier to find good information on the internet when the only search tool was gopher. But if you do a google search on “Two Spirit” you will find (if you search hard enough) some information on various arrangements in Native American tribes. And it wasn’t the Two Spirits that destroyed Native American culture, it was the Europeans who did that.

Not everyone is wedded to example of “Adam and Eve” as the folks who follow the tradition of the Levant do. (That’s Christianity, Judaism, and Islam.) They may hate one another, but they all have exactly the same world view about some very basic things. Other cultures had other stories. (For example, “Who was the child of Hermes and Aphrodite?”)

Now I have a question for you: What about intersexuals? They are either 1 percent of the population or between 0.1% and 0.2% of the population – depending on how you count. 1 in every 1000 births is not unheard of. In modern day America, any intersexual is surgically assigned a gender so as not to embarrass the parents before they are more than a few days old. This isn’t done in all cultures, even today, and has been really only possible for the last 50 or 100 years in the West. So, the intersexed? They don’t get to marry in your world, since they they don’t fit nicely into your categories? Is the universe really a dichotomy?

Do we want to argue about affrèrement? Another time perhaps.

Reply

Zendo Deb April 23, 2009 at 8:14 pm

Darleen’s point is key. You don’t even think about all the 1300 things your marriage gets you. Even the lawyers can’t keep track of how everything fits together. (Imagine the grief of discovering you weren’t permitted to make those arrangements when your world just crashed on your head.)

You can call it civil unions if you like – I don’t care personally – as long as they are equal in terms of all of these things. And then you are in the realm of semantics. Do you like popular culture, or Shakespeare? “If it walks like a duck, and quacks like duck it’s probably gay marriage” or “That which we call a rose, By any other name would smell as sweet.” If you want to call Gay Marriage something else that’s fine with me, as long as it IS gay marriage, and not second-class-citizenship.

Or – as I don’t think I made clear – get all of the straights to give up all of those benefits, and then we will be equal. The issue of Gay Marriage goes away. “Marriage” becomes a religious ceremony with no social impacts. That is: No survivor benefits – except for minor children. No special deals on the death tax. No special considerations on hospital visits. N … Do you think equality is a good thing?

Reply

Doug Dever April 23, 2009 at 9:37 pm

Here’s an idea. Let’s get the state governments out of the “marriage” business all together. Call them civil unions, spousal agreements, whatever. They contain all the current benefits and standing for partners that marriages today do – regardless of if it is a homosexual or a heterosexual partnership. The two of you go down to the county clerk’s office, pay your $50, and Bob’s your uncle. Doesn’t matter the gender of the parties, the race of the parties – it just matters that there are two of you. 🙂

If you want to get “married” – a religious sacrament – you can go to the church of your choosing and do so. But that’s separate, unrelated, and has no legal standing.

Reply

Little Miss Attila April 24, 2009 at 12:23 am

Caltech Girl: I think Darleen’s issue is parenthood; how do you feel about SSM partners raising kids?

Cynthia: I grant you the moral authority here, but I still think Hilton’s question was inappropriate, and that the rush to silence Miss California is misguided. And I’m sorry, but I don’t think she was being rude–just calling it like she saw it. If we cannot debate these things, I fear that all is lost.

Thanks to everyone for the civil tone, here. It gives me hope. Um–the good kind.

Reply

Rignerd April 24, 2009 at 1:58 am

I think that the key to the original event is unlocked by “Monty python’s Holy grail” Not to trump anyone’s argument with a religious film, but I must.

So they come to a bridge and in order to cross the bridge thye have to answer some questions. One of the questions is “What is your favorite color” well the second chap was paying close attention and promptly says “red” and then is thrown in the the chasm.
Perez asked her opinion and she gave it. It isn’t his, and it may not be yours, but for her it was the right answer, I bet she can cross any bridge she wants now.

For all the pro SSM people all I want to know is what are you going to say to the polygamists, the people who want to marry their cat, pig, goat and sister? Once you open Pandora’s box you will not be able to close it again.

The benefits of marriage to the couple are good but the benefits to society are greater. Marriage is a factory that produces young adults, who should be well educated, well mannered, and ready to advance society by pushing the next generation a little further ahead than they were. As with all other things, the more the Government messes with it the worse it gets.

Reply

I R A Darth Aggie April 24, 2009 at 6:07 am

eventually gays will have marriage rights in all 50 states. Evangelicals and conservative Roman Catholics will call these “unions,” or “partnerships,”

Yes, and yes.

What I worry about is a gay couple showing up at a Catholic church and asking to get married. Then attempting to use the power of the state to force the church into compliance.

I eventually see that coming to pass as well.

Reply

Zendo Deb April 24, 2009 at 8:13 am

I didn’t comment on this yesterday – though I wanted to – but it really bothers me….

“sometimes [marriage] was used to cement warring tribes”

Are you freaking kidding me with this reference?

Sometimes beautiful girls were traded away to the king of a neighboring tribe to buy peace. Yeah, the sanctity of straight marriage really shows through in that reference.

How about the ancient Sumerian custom that let the king sleep with a bride on her wedding night before he turned her over to the groom? Would you like tell me how that shows us the long long history of how straight marriage is special? (Read the Epic of Gilgamesh. It was why Enkidu fought with Gilgamesh in front of the temple. )

Sometimes girls were sold by their parents to highest bidder. A lot of things were done in the past and called “marriage.” Hell the “age of consent” was pretty low in most of the US not that long ago, so that 15 and 16 year old girls could get married.

My great-great-grandmother got married at 16 because her father and older brothers had died the previous winter in an epidemic that hit their area. (Family history doesn’t say what it was.) They needed a man to run the farm. So yeah, marriage was used to pass down property. Was that a good thing? That women couldn’t own property of their own?

Reply

Little Miss Attila April 24, 2009 at 1:35 pm

Re: the Dixie Chicks analogy. Debra, that’s okay as far as it goes, but it’s not totally applicable here. The Dixie Chicks spoke up voluntarily, whereas “Miss CA” was forced into it (not in an absolute sense, of course, but as a practical matter). Unless one is going to assert that she should have lied, or refused to answer. Perez broke the rules, and in so doing ruined her chances of winning this contest (which is apparently a big deal to people who are not you or me). But more people are outraged by her answer than by his breaking the “no politics” rules. I think that makes the Christians and traditionalists grind their teeth.

Re: the fact of female slavery. That’s exactly right, and I’d love to see Darleen address that point, because it is key: her assertion that men and women are “unique” (“distinct?”) from one another undergirds her argument, and Dennis Prager’s. And it is wrong. Asserting that it’s self-evident, over and over, does not make it right.

Caltech Girl: I know that men’s and women’s brains work differently in some ways, and at times these differences can be complimentary, which is cool. But you know as well as I do that this complementary pairing of intellects, parenting styles, sensibilities, and academic strengths can occur in same-sex couples.

Darleen: the law should look as parents as parents, as “generic,” rather than as “mothers” and “fathers.” When it does not, this leads to horrible cases of discrimination in divorces, particularly WRT child custody. Men are usually the victims of this, but sometimes women are. It should not be up to judges or lawmakers to place their prejudices about sex roles above the rights of any individual, or above the best interests of the kids.

As to the idea that same-sex marriage will take down religion, I don’t see it. One could argue that it happened once, when the LDS church had to reformat its views on multiple marriages, but if the core of the law is a European civil marriage, and a religious marriage is the frosting on the cake–and quite optional–no one is going to argue that a couple must be allowed to get married in the church of their choice without being of that faith. If this were permissible, the Roman Catholics and the Jews would have already been forced to perform marriages-without-condition, and this has not occurred: for generations, it has been understood that if one wants to get married in a Jewish synogogue or temple, the female must be Jewish, or must convert. And if one wants to be married in a Catholic church, one must first go on a pre-cana weekend, be counseled by a priest, and the non-Catholic must sign a piece of paper stating that he/she understands that it is the duty of the Catholic parent to raise any kids that result from this union as Catholic.

So churches are given wide latitude in enforcing their restrictions on marriages in ways that might be considered very invasive by people who were not members of their respective faiths.

At the same time, those who proffer the slippery slope argument must surely be aware that (1) Mormons were, in fact, forced to give up polygamy in order to become part of the larger society, so plural marriages are unlikely to be “right around the bend”–the culture we live in doesn’t approve of harems; (2) animals cannot give “informed consent” for sex/marriage any more than children can; and (3) incest has been a universal taboo in all societies, and there is a physiological rationale for it (Franklin and Eleanor notwithstanding).

There must be a “civil marriage” (civil union) that gives full benefits and doesn’t require every non-married couple to sign 1300 different contracts (and still “suck it up” when they are heart-breakingly screwed out of their standing in these contracts). And it MUST include all Federal benefits, including social security.

In the meantime, though, we must keep our heads. After all, there are some people who don’t get benefits to which they should be entitled (such as those who were in military intel, and therefore not working officially for their countries for any number of years).

As Steve Schmidt says, “the day will come.” Speaking of which, absolutely NO ONE appears to give the Bush Administration any credit for being the first administration to give official standing to the life partner to a lesbian working for the White House. Mary Cheney’s wife was invited to all official functions, and in the 2004 campaign was seated next to her at most public events.

It was the Bush administration that (in addition to appointing more minority nominees than any previous administration, and more than Obama has) gave full ceremonial “benefits” (or is that duties?) to the life partner of the Vice President’s daughter, and led directly (via Cheney’s influence, and that of Bush and Rice, each of whom, BTW, know transgendered people to whom they have been kind and supportive) to a much better relationship between gays and the mainstream of the party. This in turn prepared the way for Schmidt, whose daughter is a happily partnered lesbian, to bring the Log Cabin folks into higher prominence within the Party, and the abandonment of the antigay “plank” in the national platform, which is how the Log Cabinites were able to officially endorse McCain last year.

But Bush, Rice, and the Cheneys were the John-the-Baptists for Steve Schmidt (and, if you like, Meghan McCain, though I do not really listen to what that child has to say–she seems quite intent upon stereotyping the GOP while declaring that she wants to do the opposite).

The main thrust of my rant, here, is that I agree with Deb’s assertion that when Darleen (and Dennis Prager) declare that they are simply following age-old traditions, they tend to pull out either 1) evidence that women were–and are–enslaved for thousands of years, and across a variety of cultures, or 2) resort to “aw, come on, you know deep down that men and women are different” kind of argument. Yeah. I do know that men and women are different. Is that enough to justify actual sexism, or actual heterosexism?

No. It is not.

Reply

John April 25, 2009 at 10:20 am

I’ve said here and in other places that there is no reason for a civil union to be based on a romantic relationship at all; there may be two celibate members of a religious order for whom the privilege of making these 1300 decisions for each other would greatly facilitate things. Or maybe an unmarried brother and sister, well advanced in years, who reside together. Or some other pair of people. There’s no need for the legal benefits of marriage to be granted solely to pairs of people who have sex with each other.

Another issue, that really needs to be solved in this county, is mentioned as part of this debate but is really greater, and that is the tendency for nothing to be settled until it has been vetted by two lawyers and a judge. If the law says A gets B when C dies, and C’s relatives persuade some judge to set the law aside, there is something seriously wrong. The fact that A and C are same-sex lovers will be used by some as a reason to up the volume level on gay civil rights, and by others as an excuse for dismissing the seriousness of the injustice, and I think that this is an error on both parts; for if our rights depend on persuading judges, then the vast majority of people are screwed.

Reply

Zendo Deb April 26, 2009 at 12:13 pm

“if our rights depend on persuading judges, then the vast majority of people are screwed.” Don’t worry John, as long as you are straight, you have very little to worry about – relative to these 1300 rights anyway.

The history of this nation is rife with examples where “rights” were granted to the majority, but withheld from the minority. Which is were the whole of the Civil Rights and Woman’s Rights and Gay Rights movements came from. Or do you think things like the Voting Rights Act were not needed?

Justice isn’t administered to everyone equally in this country, if you are just now realizing that this might be a problem, you aren’t paying attention. Either that you are a straight, white male and incapable of seeing why people didn’t really love the 1950s. (Look up what the Bureau of Indian Affairs did to Native American children at its boarding schools in the early 1900s and then lets talk about the right of freedom of religion and the 1st Amendment. Or look up how the DOD treated Wiccans in the 1980s, and then how the VA treated Wiccans 1990s, or how the IRS treated Wiccans…)

RE: Dixie Chicks and the issue of repercussions when expressing your opinion. People aren’t mad because Perez broke the rules; they are mad because an opinion they like (or hold) was punished. If Perez had asked another contestant a question about President Obama, and that someone had made a racist comment, no one would be defending that person based on Perez breaking the rules. No one would be defending that person at all. Everyone would be lining up to cast stones. It isn’t about Perez breaking the rules. It isn’t about dissing the majority. A very large majority of the people think some form of recognition is warranted – whether you call it marriage, or civil unions is the sticking point. It is about how people react when their opinions/views are discounted or punished. So, the boot is on the other foot now. When the Psychiatrists of the world band together and add religious belief to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, (or something similar happens) then I will agree that you have a problem. In the meantime, it is in the nature of minorities – and minority opinion holders – to feel put upon.

Reply

John April 27, 2009 at 4:20 am

I am starting to get weary of comparisons between same-sex marriage issues and the starkly greater injustices faced by racial minorities in earlier times. The meat of marriage is that of a lifelong commitment between two people to be exclusive sexual partners of each other “forsaking all others,” and all that). That essential factor of marriage is not denied to any couple in the US, regardless of gender composition. Mildred and John Loving were not merely denied the privilege of making medical decisions for each other, or being presumed each other’s heirs; they were sentenced to prison. That is not happening to gays. The difference in degree is sufficiently stark to represent a difference in kind.

Second, nobody disputed that the Lovings were actually married; it was, in fact, an essential element in their prosecution. The issue with same-sex marriage is different; there really are logical grounds for denying that the union of two men or two women can be a genuine marriage. Much of the opposition to gay marriage arises precisely because it currently involves a top-down, government imposition on the majority at the behest of a minority.

Third, as a libertarian I cannot accept what will certainly be coming: That private individuals will be stripped of the right to act, in the choice of their associations, upon their disapproval of same-sex unions. We already have a court case in which a print shop operated by Christians was taken to court because the refused to accept business that violated their religious principles. That hate crimes law now wending its way through Congress will be used to sue a church merely for teaching what the Bible says about homosexuality.

“Justice isn’t administered to everyone equally in this country, if you are just now realizing that this might be a problem, you aren’t paying attention. Either that you are a straight, white male and incapable of seeing why people didn’t really love the 1950s.”

Attributing ideas to race is racist, and should be beneath you. In any event, I have been long aware that our courts do not always dispense justice, and the fact of being a straight, white, or male does not appear to have insulated anyone from court-directed injustice based on race, gender, and sexual preference. Granted, I have not yet become a victim in this regard, but others have.

Reply

John April 27, 2009 at 4:21 am

Oops: Mr. Loving’s name was Richard, not John.

“We regret the error.”

Reply

Zendo Deb April 28, 2009 at 8:37 am

“Third, as a libertarian I cannot accept what will certainly be coming: That private individuals will be stripped of the right to act, in the choice of their associations, upon their disapproval of ….”

Fill in the blank with the group of people you want to discriminate against:

Blacks, Catholics, Jews, Muslims, any creed, the disabled….

The idea that you cannot, in the public sphere, refuse to associate with people you don’t like (i.e. have had your right of association stripped by the government) is old news.

You can’t exclude these people from your place of business, your employ, your rental property, …. You are free however to discriminate against gays/lesbians. You can fire them. In most of the country you can refuse to lease property to them, etc.

Reply

Zendo Deb April 28, 2009 at 10:25 am

And no, Gays/Lesbians haven’t been arrested and sent to jail for being married. They were arrested and sent to jail for being gay/lesbian.

The Black Cat Riots: LA, February 1967 (possibly you could date this Jan1)
http://www.articlearchives.com/trends-events/riots/1267604-1.html

The Stonewall Riots: NY, June 1967
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/lweb/eresources/exhibitions/sw25/case1.html

They have had publications confiscated and destroyed by the post office.
1958 – the year the Supreme Court Ruled that gay-themed magazines were protected by the 14th Amendment and the bill of rights. (I’m not sure, but I think the publisher that brought the case -ONE magazine – was arrested in 53 when the incident took place.

Black Cat – 1 JAN 1967: today those cops would have been charged with police brutality. But it was only against gays after all… “Police injured another person with a pool cue to the back of the head. When several people ran for cover to the New Faces bar, police followed them and raided that bar as well, beating one employee so badly his spleen ruptured.”

So no, you can point to marriage and say gays/lesbians were never arrested for being married. They were arrested for what they wore and who they were, however.

Reply

Zendo Deb April 28, 2009 at 10:41 am

Oh yeah, that 1953 edition of ONE magazine that the Post Office objected to? Dealt with the question of Gay Marriage.

Reply

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: