Look, you stupid fuck, nobody cares who you do or do not sleep with. You don’t want to have sex with a transsexual. Bully for you. What makes you an idiot is when you suggest that, if you do have unwitting sex with a transexual, that’s somehow the equivalent of rape, and that the person you just screwed should be sent to jail, because you feel all creeped out by having sex with someone who used to be a guy. Tough shit, asshole. Bad things happen when you have indiscriminate sex with people you don’t know. Instead of locking up anyone who violates your petty little prejudices, howzabout you grow the fuck up and deal with life’s little disappointments? The justice system isn’t there to make you feel better about your sexuality.
That would be the man who has no visceral reaction, although I do give credit to those who have a visceral dislike of someone and overcomes it. I don’t see how either category applies to you, though.
I wondered why I got the feeling that I was the only one in Kansas who voted against banning gay marriage. Oh well. At least I got some joy from telling my mother that I just cancelled out her vote.
Well, here’s a question I’ll regret asking, but I would like a thoughtful, non-sarcastic, honest answer.
Let’s say you’re dating a woman for a few weeks and you really love her and she really loves you, and before you’ve had sex, she tells you that she was born male, but is now physically female and fully functional sexually.
What’s your reaction? What’s her reward for her honesty?
If I really loved her, and her body was fully-functioning female, then I, personally, wouldn’t be turned off. I’d be disappointed that this woman I’d fallen for could not have our children, should we marry.
But my original point is valid, not sarcastic. Let’s assume that my answer is non-typical – that most men are going to react badly and break up.
Is that justification for being less than forthcoming?
I mostly saw the “defense of marriage” slogan. This amendment was touted by proponents as preventing anybody from, as my mother-in-law said, “changing anything”. She was adamant that what SHE voted for was to keep judicial and legislative hands off marriage and prevent anyone from messing with it. In her view, she wasn’t voting for or against Gay Marriage, or Gays at all, she was simply saying she did not want to change anything about marriage.
My husband and I (I tried to lay back not to piss of the in-laws-- a monumental act of self-control) were so frustrated. My husband asked, “so you voted yes?”. The response was, “I don’t remember, I know I just voted to keep anyone from changing laws”. So, of course, she listened to the talking heads, probably never read the fucking law itself and thought she was simply “defending marriage”.
When my husband confronted her further on it, she said “I just don’t want any new laws saying gay marriage is ok”. My husband responded, “Don’t you understand-- the courts are ruling that gay marriage is ok, and that is the whole point? People have to pass these laws to make gay marriage against the Constitution because it is already legal.” She, of course, says that she does not have anything against gays, she is not for or against them, but they need to keep marriage for a man or a woman.
Ending the conversation so as not to ruin Christmas, my husband simply told her, it was a yes or no ballot, you either are for or against. There is no middle ground. You are either supporting gay rights or against them. This is the same as it was in the 50’s and 60’s with Black Americans.
So, the whole campaign was expertly devised. It gave the people who are prejudiced against gays the justification they needed to vote their prejudice, but not feel bad about it.
They were not denying blacks water (perish the thought!), they were just saying, “Let’s not change anything and blacks can simply keep using the one over in THAT corner. Oh, it doesn’t work? We’ll get maintenance right on that.”
While I understand the point your husband was trying to make, unles he was speaking specifically of MA (which I doubt), he was factually incorrect. SSM is legal in MA, but not in any other state. I really don’t think it helps the cause to make an erroneous argument. People are passing anti-SSM amendments becasue they fear that courts in their respective states WILL make SSM legal, not because it already is.
I’m no expert on the legalities of this, but isn’t another motive for these state amendments to get around the “full faith and credit” clause in the Constitution, whereby states are meant to honor each other’s laws?
That’s probably part of it, too, but most legal experts I’ve heard agree that it doesn’t apply. The FF&C clause has a loophole for laws which are explicitly against policy in a given state. You don’t need a constitutional amendment for that-- a DOMA type statute would be enough, and you might not even need that.
So, yeah, but I doubt that the anti-SSM amendment craze would cease even if the SCOTUS were to explicitly rule that the FF&C clause didn’t apply to SSM.
If your quote is any indication, it looks like ff&c is almost a dead principle. I mean, couldn’t you make an argument that virtually anything a state chooses to oppose could come under the “public policy exception”?
Guess these people don’t believe in sexual polysomy (or however you spell it in English) and other medical situations that lead to problems figuring out the sex of the baby. Must be friends with that nice guy who explained to me that when I saw the Earth as being round, having jumped from a plane, it was because…
the Devil’s minions were projecting a movie on my goggles (“that’s why they tell you not to take them off,” he explained). :smack:
Ach. This not only makes me sad, it makes me sick. Reminiscent of the amendment in Hawaii when I lived there. It’s not so much someone voting against SSM that bugs me – that just makes me sad – it’s the not knowing what the amendment says and not bothering to find out – that’s what makes me sick. If someone says, flat out, “I think there should be a ban on gay marriages” I can at least disagree while respecting them for voting their beliefs.
I don’t think he was incorrect. At least, not in the way that I’m understanding your point. Yes, I would grant that SSM was not explicitly legal. But, in most states, the matter was undecided. I don’t think there are any states in which anti-SSM laws have come before the courts and been decided to be constitutional. If that’s true, and I’m sure you’ll correct me if I’m wrong, then it would be more accurate to either explicitly state SSM is undecided or infer (by induction from the states where it has gone before the courts) that anti-SSM laws are unconsitutional, and therefore SSM is legal.
No. There are plenty of state court decisions upholding anti-SSM laws, before any constitutional amendments came into play.
Nor is your induction argument valid. No state has found a FEDERAL right to SSM; they have found a right to SSM in their own constitutions, which cannot reasonably be used as comparisons to each other. And in states in which the judiciary has found a state right to SSM, the populace has, in the majority of cases, responded with a constitutional amendment forbidding it – which leads to the conclusion that SSM is NOT legal.
Finally, it’s not MOST states where the issue was in doubt. MOST states have laws that specify man and wife, male and female, or somerhing along those lines.
As I said, I was sure I’d be corrected if I was wrong. I still can’t name one; you’ve added nothing to my knowledge.
That’s a valid point regarding state vs. federal. However, the state constitutional amendments are the point; until passed, it was undecided and in question. As an aside, I knew I should have used different phrasing than “induction”. I wasn’t trying to supply a strict logic proof, just a sense of context.
Is that true? Again, you’ve added nothing to my knowledge. The key is that I explicitly said to my knowledge. I humbly ask you to provide more than unsubstantiated statements, being more than willing to concede that you may very well be correct. But the laws on the books aren’t really the point; the point is that, to my knowledge, anti-SSM laws have been repeatedly struck down as unconstitutional. Which implies that SSM is (or rather should be, according to various, pre-amendment, constitutions) legal.
Actually, it was an hour long conversation, and yes, he was referring to states like MA that have already had these rulings. However, the statement I put in here was a reflection of the broad discussion from the general philosophical point of view. These moves for Constitutional Amendments were a sign that everyone had seen the writing on the wall and that without an amendment, the Constitution would not allow this kind of discrimination. The point is, you need a Constitutional amendment to prevent gay marriage and that inherently means that it would inevitably be allowed under the current system. This was the topic of the discussion, it is hard to sum up a one hour+ debate in a few sentences.
Sorry if my choice of words gave you the wrong impression, I hope this clarifies it since you make a very valid point.
