Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
A good week for marriage equality (Maybe)
57 views
Skip to first unread message
Ed
Mar 28, 2013, 1:47:18 AM3/28/13
to
I'm sure I'm not the only one that's been following the arguments in the Supreme Court here in the US on a couple of key cases regarding gay marriage. But I found it very interesting and thought I'd share my impressions. There's lots of legal geeking about gay marriage, so feel free to move on if that doesn't interest you. :)
The first issue, argued yesterday, was Proposition 8 in California, which would have banned gay marriage rights previously instituted by the legislature. The initiative, which passed the same day that Barack Obama was elected the first time, was a confusing initiative, made all the more so by deliberately confusing ads funded by outside groups, most notably the Mormon church. Some voters admitted in exit polls that they had thought a yes vote was a vote for gay marriage, not a vote against it.
So it passed, narrowly.
Two lawsuits were immediately filed. One, filed in the California Supreme Court upheld the initiative. The other, filed in US District court went the other way. The plaintiffs in the case, two couples, one gay male and one lesbian, were represented by two high powered lawyers who, ironically enough, had been the competing lawyers in the Bush vs Gore case that ended the recount in 2000 election that resulted in Bush being designated the winner.
Ordinarily, it would be left to the executive branch of the state to defend the initiative. But the attorney general for the state, Democrat Jerry Brown, a former governor of the state (and now governor again) refused to defend the initiative. Instead, another team with no real standing in the case took it on themselves to defend the case.
The district court ruled Proposition 8 unconstitutional citing equal protection rights under the 14th Amendment. What I found interesting about the lengthy decision in that case is that the judge in the case wrote a lengthy finding of fact that supported the plaintiffs' case that there was not sufficient state interest to justify denying what he considered to be a basic civil right. The reason this is significant is that, while, higher courts will often overturn a finding of judgement based on the facts unearthed in the case, they almost never dig back into the facts themselves which left the upper courts with the limited role of deciding, based on fairly compelling facts, whether the lower court had drawn the wrong conclusion.
On appeal, the 9th Circuit Appeals Court, narrowly upheld the District Court's ruling leaving Proposition 8 overturned. (There was some mildly amusing drama about one of the judges decision not to recuse himself because he was, himself, gay).
Naturally, the defending counsel appealed to the US Supreme court and, as I said, arguments on that case were held yesterday (Tuesday, March 28).
The case they argued today was regarding the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). This act, came about because the Hawaii supreme court had just ruled that gay marriage was a constitutional right and other states were starting to float the idea of legalizing gay marriage or civil unions. The bill, enacted in 1996 by a Republican congress and signed under duress by Bill Clinton had two main provisions. First, in direct contradiction to a the Full Faith and Credit clause in Article IV of the Constitution that requires states to recognize the legislative actions and records of other states, DOMA exempted states from having to recognize gay marriages from other states. Second, it explicitly prohibited the federal government from recognizing any state-sanctioned gay marriage as it might apply to some 1100 federal statutes that provide benefits to married couples (lower tax rates, Social Security survivor benefits, exemption from estate taxes, immigration rights and many others).
In 2009, a lesbian couple that had been together for more than 40 years, got married in Canada. Sadly, one of the couple died later that year due to advanced MS. Worse, when she died, her wife got a bill from the IRS for $360,000 in estate taxes. With the help of a compassionate attorney, she filed suit in US District Court trying to get Section 3 of DOMA (the provision that prohibits the federal government from bestowing marriage benefits on gay couples) declared unconstitutional.
The course of this case was quite similar to that of the Proposition 8 case. As in the Proposition 8 fight, the executive branch (Obama and attorney general Holder) declined to defend DOMA so congressional Republicans appointed counsel to defend it instead. The district court ruled the section unconstitutional and the appeals court upheld that ruling. Arguments today were for the appeal of that case to the Supreme Court of that case.
The two days of arguments were interesting individually, but especially so in tandem.
The arguments yesterday seemed to revolve more about technicalities than merits. There were some sympathetic comments from the liberal justices but the likely swing justice, Justice Kennedy, seemed annoyed that they were even hearing the case, doubting that the self-appointed conservative defending attorneys had standing to even be there.
Today was more interesting. There was some concern about the standing of the congressionally appointed defense team in this one as well, but the justices sounded more inclined to actually judge the merits of the case. The four reliably liberal justices clearly seemed skeptical that DOMA was constitutional. Justice Kennedy seemed also ready to strike down DOMA but his position seemed to be more of a Federalist concern, that Congress didn't have authority to dismiss the judgements of the States on who is and who is not legally married.
There are several possible outcomes in each case.
In the Proposition 8 case, the court could rule, broadly, that marriage is a constitutional right that all states must grant to gay people. This would require doing more than simply upholding lower court rulings dismissing Proposition 8. They could positively affirm the lower court rulings that Proposition 8 was unconstitutional because it took away rights that the state had previously granted (which would limit the ruling only to California and not establish any president that would apply to other states. Or it could simply rule that the case was "improvidently granted" since the defense team had no standing in the case. This would have the same practical effect as upholding the lower court case but would not create any sort of precedent that could be used in even similar cases. The good money seems to be assuming this last outcome.
In the DOMA case, the range of possibilities is just as broad. If they were really ambitious, they could strike down DOMA entirely, including the provision that exempts states from needing to recognize marriages that occur in other states. This would mean that, not only would the federal government be required to grant benefits of marriage to gay people, but require all of the states to do the same, whether they were married in that state or not. They could uphold the lower course ruling that deems Section 3 of DOMA to be unconstitutional. This would have somewhat less broad ramifications in that it would eliminate the ban on federal benefits, but would say nothing about states that don't recognize gay marriage. And, of course, they could also rule that the defense team didn't have legal standing and simply dismiss the case, which, again, has the affect of leaving the lower court ruling that Section 3 is unconstitutional but without setting any real precedent.
The betting on the latter case is a little more mixed between a positive declaration that Section 3 is unconstitutional and dismissing the case as improvidently granted.
That all said, it looks there is a very good chance that, after the final rulings come in in June, gay people will be marrying again in California and that some of the federal benefits available to straight married people will start to be available to gay married people as well.
These are just my impressions from obsessively watching the coverage and listening to the actual arguments (a lot of audio which was, unusually, made available). If anyone picked up other impressions, feel free to add them.
I have no idea how long it will be before poly marriage rights will be on the docket, but it feels to me like the general sense of tolerance is moving in the right direction. I was excited about the week's events and thought I'd share.
Ed
The first issue, argued yesterday, was Proposition 8 in California, which would have banned gay marriage rights previously instituted by the legislature. The initiative, which passed the same day that Barack Obama was elected the first time, was a confusing initiative, made all the more so by deliberately confusing ads funded by outside groups, most notably the Mormon church. Some voters admitted in exit polls that they had thought a yes vote was a vote for gay marriage, not a vote against it.
So it passed, narrowly.
Two lawsuits were immediately filed. One, filed in the California Supreme Court upheld the initiative. The other, filed in US District court went the other way. The plaintiffs in the case, two couples, one gay male and one lesbian, were represented by two high powered lawyers who, ironically enough, had been the competing lawyers in the Bush vs Gore case that ended the recount in 2000 election that resulted in Bush being designated the winner.
Ordinarily, it would be left to the executive branch of the state to defend the initiative. But the attorney general for the state, Democrat Jerry Brown, a former governor of the state (and now governor again) refused to defend the initiative. Instead, another team with no real standing in the case took it on themselves to defend the case.
The district court ruled Proposition 8 unconstitutional citing equal protection rights under the 14th Amendment. What I found interesting about the lengthy decision in that case is that the judge in the case wrote a lengthy finding of fact that supported the plaintiffs' case that there was not sufficient state interest to justify denying what he considered to be a basic civil right. The reason this is significant is that, while, higher courts will often overturn a finding of judgement based on the facts unearthed in the case, they almost never dig back into the facts themselves which left the upper courts with the limited role of deciding, based on fairly compelling facts, whether the lower court had drawn the wrong conclusion.
On appeal, the 9th Circuit Appeals Court, narrowly upheld the District Court's ruling leaving Proposition 8 overturned. (There was some mildly amusing drama about one of the judges decision not to recuse himself because he was, himself, gay).
Naturally, the defending counsel appealed to the US Supreme court and, as I said, arguments on that case were held yesterday (Tuesday, March 28).
The case they argued today was regarding the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). This act, came about because the Hawaii supreme court had just ruled that gay marriage was a constitutional right and other states were starting to float the idea of legalizing gay marriage or civil unions. The bill, enacted in 1996 by a Republican congress and signed under duress by Bill Clinton had two main provisions. First, in direct contradiction to a the Full Faith and Credit clause in Article IV of the Constitution that requires states to recognize the legislative actions and records of other states, DOMA exempted states from having to recognize gay marriages from other states. Second, it explicitly prohibited the federal government from recognizing any state-sanctioned gay marriage as it might apply to some 1100 federal statutes that provide benefits to married couples (lower tax rates, Social Security survivor benefits, exemption from estate taxes, immigration rights and many others).
In 2009, a lesbian couple that had been together for more than 40 years, got married in Canada. Sadly, one of the couple died later that year due to advanced MS. Worse, when she died, her wife got a bill from the IRS for $360,000 in estate taxes. With the help of a compassionate attorney, she filed suit in US District Court trying to get Section 3 of DOMA (the provision that prohibits the federal government from bestowing marriage benefits on gay couples) declared unconstitutional.
The course of this case was quite similar to that of the Proposition 8 case. As in the Proposition 8 fight, the executive branch (Obama and attorney general Holder) declined to defend DOMA so congressional Republicans appointed counsel to defend it instead. The district court ruled the section unconstitutional and the appeals court upheld that ruling. Arguments today were for the appeal of that case to the Supreme Court of that case.
The two days of arguments were interesting individually, but especially so in tandem.
The arguments yesterday seemed to revolve more about technicalities than merits. There were some sympathetic comments from the liberal justices but the likely swing justice, Justice Kennedy, seemed annoyed that they were even hearing the case, doubting that the self-appointed conservative defending attorneys had standing to even be there.
Today was more interesting. There was some concern about the standing of the congressionally appointed defense team in this one as well, but the justices sounded more inclined to actually judge the merits of the case. The four reliably liberal justices clearly seemed skeptical that DOMA was constitutional. Justice Kennedy seemed also ready to strike down DOMA but his position seemed to be more of a Federalist concern, that Congress didn't have authority to dismiss the judgements of the States on who is and who is not legally married.
There are several possible outcomes in each case.
In the Proposition 8 case, the court could rule, broadly, that marriage is a constitutional right that all states must grant to gay people. This would require doing more than simply upholding lower court rulings dismissing Proposition 8. They could positively affirm the lower court rulings that Proposition 8 was unconstitutional because it took away rights that the state had previously granted (which would limit the ruling only to California and not establish any president that would apply to other states. Or it could simply rule that the case was "improvidently granted" since the defense team had no standing in the case. This would have the same practical effect as upholding the lower court case but would not create any sort of precedent that could be used in even similar cases. The good money seems to be assuming this last outcome.
In the DOMA case, the range of possibilities is just as broad. If they were really ambitious, they could strike down DOMA entirely, including the provision that exempts states from needing to recognize marriages that occur in other states. This would mean that, not only would the federal government be required to grant benefits of marriage to gay people, but require all of the states to do the same, whether they were married in that state or not. They could uphold the lower course ruling that deems Section 3 of DOMA to be unconstitutional. This would have somewhat less broad ramifications in that it would eliminate the ban on federal benefits, but would say nothing about states that don't recognize gay marriage. And, of course, they could also rule that the defense team didn't have legal standing and simply dismiss the case, which, again, has the affect of leaving the lower court ruling that Section 3 is unconstitutional but without setting any real precedent.
The betting on the latter case is a little more mixed between a positive declaration that Section 3 is unconstitutional and dismissing the case as improvidently granted.
That all said, it looks there is a very good chance that, after the final rulings come in in June, gay people will be marrying again in California and that some of the federal benefits available to straight married people will start to be available to gay married people as well.
These are just my impressions from obsessively watching the coverage and listening to the actual arguments (a lot of audio which was, unusually, made available). If anyone picked up other impressions, feel free to add them.
I have no idea how long it will be before poly marriage rights will be on the docket, but it feels to me like the general sense of tolerance is moving in the right direction. I was excited about the week's events and thought I'd share.
Ed
David Weinshenker
Mar 28, 2013, 2:27:30 AM3/28/13
to
Ed wrote:
> In the Proposition 8 case, the court could [...] simply rule that
had their days in court and then some: stepping in to argue a side
of an existing filed case is one thing, maybe... but I think granting
them any standing to cause the filing of an appeal on their own motion
may have been a step too far already: at what point does the respondent
of record in the underlying case -not- have final standing to concede
defeat and act to grant the relief sought by the original plaintiffs?
When -does- the State of California get to say to the marriage applicants
who filed the primary case, "OK, you win, we don't want to argue about this
anymore... we'll give you what you want"?
> This would have the same practical effect as upholding the lower
> court case but would not create any sort of precedent that could
> be used in even similar cases. The good money seems to be assuming
> this last outcome.
Well, yeah - that's what I'd guess... it certainly seems that
they -don't- want to set much precedent here (except perhaps
on the limits of "intervenors" to file appeals!), and might hate
to waste such a low-hanging opportunity to dispose of this case
on a procedural basis (which judges seem to be fond of doing in
general)...
-dave w
> In the Proposition 8 case, the court could [...] simply rule that
> the case was "improvidently granted" since the defense team had no
> standing in the case.
Which to my mind is correct on the merits... the "intervenors" have
> standing in the case.
had their days in court and then some: stepping in to argue a side
of an existing filed case is one thing, maybe... but I think granting
them any standing to cause the filing of an appeal on their own motion
may have been a step too far already: at what point does the respondent
of record in the underlying case -not- have final standing to concede
defeat and act to grant the relief sought by the original plaintiffs?
When -does- the State of California get to say to the marriage applicants
who filed the primary case, "OK, you win, we don't want to argue about this
anymore... we'll give you what you want"?
> This would have the same practical effect as upholding the lower
> court case but would not create any sort of precedent that could
> be used in even similar cases. The good money seems to be assuming
> this last outcome.
they -don't- want to set much precedent here (except perhaps
on the limits of "intervenors" to file appeals!), and might hate
to waste such a low-hanging opportunity to dispose of this case
on a procedural basis (which judges seem to be fond of doing in
general)...
-dave w
Todd Michel McComb
Mar 28, 2013, 2:51:06 AM3/28/13
to
In article <8f70c822-5ae7-47c6...@googlegroups.com>,
gay couples. Maybe this year will be decisive. Even if not, I
think the "good direction" is clear (in the US anyway), and that's
reflected in voter polls too.
I don't expect any action on the poly side any time soon, however.
There isn't a clear agenda for one thing, and part of the general
public's sympathy for gay couples has been based on ideas of monogamy.
Ed <absolu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>I have no idea how long it will be before poly marriage rights
>will be on the docket, but it feels to me like the general sense
>of tolerance is moving in the right direction.
I agree that it does seem things are moving in a good direction for
>I have no idea how long it will be before poly marriage rights
>will be on the docket, but it feels to me like the general sense
>of tolerance is moving in the right direction.
gay couples. Maybe this year will be decisive. Even if not, I
think the "good direction" is clear (in the US anyway), and that's
reflected in voter polls too.
I don't expect any action on the poly side any time soon, however.
There isn't a clear agenda for one thing, and part of the general
public's sympathy for gay couples has been based on ideas of monogamy.
A
Mar 28, 2013, 7:34:53 AM3/28/13
to
On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 22:47:18 -0700 (PDT), Ed wrote:
> Two lawsuits were immediately filed. One, filed in the California
> Supreme Court upheld the initiative. The other, filed in US District
> court went the other way. The plaintiffs in the case, two couples, one
> gay male and one lesbian, were represented by two high powered lawyers
> who, ironically enough, had been the competing lawyers in the Bush vs
> Gore case that ended the recount in 2000 election that resulted in Bush
> being designated the winner.
I'm curious which case was which -- that is, whether the female couple was
> Two lawsuits were immediately filed. One, filed in the California
> Supreme Court upheld the initiative. The other, filed in US District
> court went the other way. The plaintiffs in the case, two couples, one
> gay male and one lesbian, were represented by two high powered lawyers
> who, ironically enough, had been the competing lawyers in the Bush vs
> Gore case that ended the recount in 2000 election that resulted in Bush
> being designated the winner.
the winning case and the male couple the losers, or the other way around.
I've always had a vague sense that gay men catch it worse from society and
the system than lesbians do, but I'm not sure if that's true.
> That all said, it looks there is a very good chance that, after the
> final rulings come in in June, gay people will be marrying again in
> California and that some of the federal benefits available to straight
> married people will start to be available to gay married people as well.
everyone should be allowed in.
--
A
Ed
Mar 28, 2013, 11:28:52 AM3/28/13
to
On Thursday, March 28, 2013 6:34:53 AM UTC-5, A wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 22:47:18 -0700 (PDT), Ed wrote:
>
> > Two lawsuits were immediately filed. One, filed in the California
> > Supreme Court upheld the initiative. The other, filed in US District
> > court went the other way. The plaintiffs in the case, two couples, one
> > gay male and one lesbian, were represented by two high powered lawyers
> > who, ironically enough, had been the competing lawyers in the Bush vs
> > Gore case that ended the recount in 2000 election that resulted in Bush
> > being designated the winner.
>
> I'm curious which case was which -- that is, whether the female couple was
> the winning case and the male couple the losers, or the other way around.
> I've always had a vague sense that gay men catch it worse from society and
> the system than lesbians do, but I'm not sure if that's true.
Neither case has yet been decided.
> On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 22:47:18 -0700 (PDT), Ed wrote:
>
> > Two lawsuits were immediately filed. One, filed in the California
> > Supreme Court upheld the initiative. The other, filed in US District
> > court went the other way. The plaintiffs in the case, two couples, one
> > gay male and one lesbian, were represented by two high powered lawyers
> > who, ironically enough, had been the competing lawyers in the Bush vs
> > Gore case that ended the recount in 2000 election that resulted in Bush
> > being designated the winner.
>
> I'm curious which case was which -- that is, whether the female couple was
> the winning case and the male couple the losers, or the other way around.
> I've always had a vague sense that gay men catch it worse from society and
> the system than lesbians do, but I'm not sure if that's true.
As I said, the Proposition 8 case had two sets of plaintiffs, one male couple and one female couple. This case is likely to be dismissed for lack of standing on the part of the intervening defense team meaning that, essentially, the plaintiffs will win as will other gay folk in California that would like to marry.
In the DOMA case, the plaintiff was a lesbian who was seeking to avoid estate taxes as a result of her wife. That case will also likely result in a win for the plaintiff but it it's not clear how broadly sweeping their decision will be.
So, in short, neither "case" lost.
> > That all said, it looks there is a very good chance that, after the
> > final rulings come in in June, gay people will be marrying again in
> > California and that some of the federal benefits available to straight
> > married people will start to be available to gay married people as well.
>
> Here's hoping. I'm no fan of marriage, but if the system must exist,
> everyone should be allowed in.
Ed
Russ Allbery
Mar 28, 2013, 12:56:27 PM3/28/13
to
David Weinshenker <daz...@earthlink.net> writes:
> When -does- the State of California get to say to the marriage
> applicants who filed the primary case, "OK, you win, we don't want to
> argue about this anymore... we'll give you what you want"?
While that would be a lovely outcome in this particular case, I do think
> When -does- the State of California get to say to the marriage
> applicants who filed the primary case, "OK, you win, we don't want to
> argue about this anymore... we'll give you what you want"?
the route wherein we bless a state government just deciding not to enforce
a law is fraught with peril. What if, for example, the next governor of
California was a Republican and decided to just stop enforcing all state
environmental regulations because he doesn't believe in them and thinks
they're unconstitutional?
It seems to give a *lot* of power to the executive. And to the extent the
executive already has that power, abuse is already rampant: selective
prosecution by district attorneys is heavily biased towards prosecuting
poor people and minorities and letting rich white people walk.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@stanford.edu) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Ed
Mar 28, 2013, 1:13:07 PM3/28/13
to
On Thursday, March 28, 2013 11:56:27 AM UTC-5, Russ Allbery wrote:
> David Weinshenker <daz...@earthlink.net> writes:
>
> > When -does- the State of California get to say to the marriage
> > applicants who filed the primary case, "OK, you win, we don't want to
> > argue about this anymore... we'll give you what you want"?
>
> While that would be a lovely outcome in this particular case, I do think
> the route wherein we bless a state government just deciding not to enforce
> a law is fraught with peril. What if, for example, the next governor of
> California was a Republican and decided to just stop enforcing all state
> environmental regulations because he doesn't believe in them and thinks
> they're unconstitutional?
Curiously, this very point came up in the DOMA arguments. Chief Justice Roberts noted that the Obama administration chose not to defend DOMA because they considered it unconstitutional and then asked why the administration simply didn't enforce it.
> David Weinshenker <daz...@earthlink.net> writes:
>
> > When -does- the State of California get to say to the marriage
> > applicants who filed the primary case, "OK, you win, we don't want to
> > argue about this anymore... we'll give you what you want"?
>
> While that would be a lovely outcome in this particular case, I do think
> the route wherein we bless a state government just deciding not to enforce
> a law is fraught with peril. What if, for example, the next governor of
> California was a Republican and decided to just stop enforcing all state
> environmental regulations because he doesn't believe in them and thinks
> they're unconstitutional?
The obvious answer for me was that it doesn't address the state of affairs when there is another Republican president someday.
> It seems to give a *lot* of power to the executive. And to the extent the
> executive already has that power, abuse is already rampant: selective
> prosecution by district attorneys is heavily biased towards prosecuting
> poor people and minorities and letting rich white people walk.
The theory is that those who are harmed by excess hubris on the part of the Executive can seek redress in the Judiciary. It sort of shifts the burden to sue on those that support the legislation instead of those that oppose it.
I, for one, wouldn't have minded seeing Obama overrule the IRS and order them to grant the estate tax exemption and let the anti-gay-marriage people do the suing.
Ed
Guy W. Thomas
Mar 28, 2013, 1:51:55 PM3/28/13
to
using multiple marriage as a possible negative consequence of allowing
gay marriage. I think we have a while before marriage of more than 2
people will get much traction. I'm not particularly energized about
getting married to both of my partners, I'm just not wired that way I
guess. However I do think another hurdle for poly marriages is how to
untangle a lot of the legal benefits. If 3 people are married to each
other how does health care and other insurances get apportioned? I think
those issues are going to be problematic in accepting marriage between
more than 2 people.
--
Guy W. Thomas
San Leandro, CA
http://www.xango.org http://stonebender.livejournal.com/
"There's a rule in acting called, 'Don't play the result.' If you have a
character who's going to end up in a certain place, don't play that
until you get there. Play each scene and each beat as it comes. And
that's what you do in life: You don't play the result."
-- Michael J. Fox
Guy W. Thomas
Mar 28, 2013, 2:08:28 PM3/28/13
to
On 3/28/2013 8:28 AM, Ed wrote:
> On Thursday, March 28, 2013 6:34:53 AM UTC-5, A wrote:
>> On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 22:47:18 -0700 (PDT), Ed wrote:
>>
>>> Two lawsuits were immediately filed. One, filed in the California
>>> Supreme Court upheld the initiative. The other, filed in US District
>>> court went the other way. The plaintiffs in the case, two couples, one
>>> gay male and one lesbian, were represented by two high powered lawyers
>>> who, ironically enough, had been the competing lawyers in the Bush vs
>>> Gore case that ended the recount in 2000 election that resulted in Bush
>>> being designated the winner.
>>
>> I'm curious which case was which -- that is, whether the female couple was
>> the winning case and the male couple the losers, or the other way around.
>> I've always had a vague sense that gay men catch it worse from society and
>> the system than lesbians do, but I'm not sure if that's true.
>
> Neither case has yet been decided.
True.
> On Thursday, March 28, 2013 6:34:53 AM UTC-5, A wrote:
>> On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 22:47:18 -0700 (PDT), Ed wrote:
>>
>>> Two lawsuits were immediately filed. One, filed in the California
>>> Supreme Court upheld the initiative. The other, filed in US District
>>> court went the other way. The plaintiffs in the case, two couples, one
>>> gay male and one lesbian, were represented by two high powered lawyers
>>> who, ironically enough, had been the competing lawyers in the Bush vs
>>> Gore case that ended the recount in 2000 election that resulted in Bush
>>> being designated the winner.
>>
>> I'm curious which case was which -- that is, whether the female couple was
>> the winning case and the male couple the losers, or the other way around.
>> I've always had a vague sense that gay men catch it worse from society and
>> the system than lesbians do, but I'm not sure if that's true.
>
> Neither case has yet been decided.
> As I said, the Proposition 8 case had two sets of plaintiffs, one male couple and one female couple. This case is likely to be dismissed for lack of standing on the part of the intervening defense team meaning that, essentially, the plaintiffs will win as will other gay folk in California that would like to marry.
>
> In the DOMA case, the plaintiff was a lesbian who was seeking to avoid estate taxes as a result of her wife. That case will also likely result in a win for the plaintiff but it it's not clear how broadly sweeping their decision will be.
like other surviving spouses wouldn't pay them.
> So, in short, neither "case" lost.
>
>>> That all said, it looks there is a very good chance that, after the
>>> final rulings come in in June, gay people will be marrying again in
>>> California and that some of the federal benefits available to straight
>>> married people will start to be available to gay married people as well.
>>
>> Here's hoping. I'm no fan of marriage, but if the system must exist,
>> everyone should be allowed in.
>
> I actually agree with you. I would rather the government not provide special privileges for married people but, they do.
benefits to marriage aside from tax benefits etc. Separate from
everything else, the social recognition of people being family without
long explanations would be cool. Carol and Serene are my partners, but I
have lots of non-blood related people in my life that I think of as
family. I've been lucky, but past hospital stays could've been a lot
harder if my hospital was more doctrinaire in their recognition of family.
Russ Allbery
Mar 28, 2013, 2:29:59 PM3/28/13
to
"Guy W. Thomas" <xang...@gmail.com> writes:
> I essentially agree with you, but I'd like to mention, there are
> benefits to marriage aside from tax benefits etc. Separate from
> everything else, the social recognition of people being family without
> long explanations would be cool. Carol and Serene are my partners, but I
> have lots of non-blood related people in my life that I think of as
> family. I've been lucky, but past hospital stays could've been a lot
> harder if my hospital was more doctrinaire in their recognition of
> family.
This was the argument that persuaded me that civil unions wouldn't cut it,
> I essentially agree with you, but I'd like to mention, there are
> benefits to marriage aside from tax benefits etc. Separate from
> everything else, the social recognition of people being family without
> long explanations would be cool. Carol and Serene are my partners, but I
> have lots of non-blood related people in my life that I think of as
> family. I've been lucky, but past hospital stays could've been a lot
> harder if my hospital was more doctrinaire in their recognition of
> family.
even if they came with every single legal privilege that marriage did.
Message has been deleted
Ed
Mar 28, 2013, 3:22:55 PM3/28/13
to
On Thursday, March 28, 2013 1:08:28 PM UTC-5, xang...@gmail.com wrote:
> On 3/28/2013 8:28 AM, Ed wrote:
>
> > In the DOMA case, the plaintiff was a lesbian who was seeking to avoid
> > estate taxes as a result of her wife. That case will also likely result in
> > a win for the plaintiff but it it's not clear how broadly sweeping their
> > decision will be.
>
> You're right, one nitpick: she doesn't want to pay estate taxes just
> like other surviving spouses wouldn't pay them.
I didn't mean to imply any more nefarious reason. :)
> On 3/28/2013 8:28 AM, Ed wrote:
>
> > In the DOMA case, the plaintiff was a lesbian who was seeking to avoid
> > estate taxes as a result of her wife. That case will also likely result in
> > a win for the plaintiff but it it's not clear how broadly sweeping their
> > decision will be.
>
> You're right, one nitpick: she doesn't want to pay estate taxes just
> like other surviving spouses wouldn't pay them.
> > I would rather the government not provide special privileges for married
> > people but, they do.
>
> I essentially agree with you, but I'd like to mention, there are
> benefits to marriage aside from tax benefits etc. Separate from
> everything else, the social recognition of people being family without
> long explanations would be cool. Carol and Serene are my partners, but I
> have lots of non-blood related people in my life that I think of as
> family. I've been lucky, but past hospital stays could've been a lot
> harder if my hospital was more doctrinaire in their recognition of family.
progressive in acknowledging your acknowledged family as your actual family.
It's funny, my social network includes a lot of very close friends that, on
various occasions, I spend enough time with them and, frankly we are
affectionate enough, that people assume we are dating when in fact we are not.
Those who know me well just roll there eyes and say, oh, there's Ed with
another one of his boys and don't ask me to describe the nature of the
relationship. But others frequently are confused when they ask things like,
"So how long have too been together" and I say, "We're not."
Of course, I've never minded watching people's heads explode. :)
Ed
Todd Michel McComb
Mar 28, 2013, 4:01:13 PM3/28/13
to
In article <Y_6dnTICicugHsnM...@giganews.com>,
realm of marriage, but rather within the realm of general entitlement.
I also like your Michael J. Fox quote.
Guy W. Thomas <xang...@gmail.com> wrote:
>I do think another hurdle for poly marriages is how to untangle a
>lot of the legal benefits. If 3 people are married to each other
>how does health care and other insurances get apportioned? I think
>those issues are going to be problematic in accepting marriage
>between more than 2 people.
Agreed. I wouldn't even attempt addressing those issues within the
>I do think another hurdle for poly marriages is how to untangle a
>lot of the legal benefits. If 3 people are married to each other
>how does health care and other insurances get apportioned? I think
>those issues are going to be problematic in accepting marriage
>between more than 2 people.
realm of marriage, but rather within the realm of general entitlement.
I also like your Michael J. Fox quote.
Guy W. Thomas
Mar 28, 2013, 8:14:28 PM3/28/13
to
employment. Health care for everyone irregardless of employment.
>
> I also like your Michael J. Fox quote.
>
Thanks.
> I also like your Michael J. Fox quote.
>
Guy W. Thomas
Mar 28, 2013, 8:24:01 PM3/28/13
to
On 3/28/2013 12:22 PM, Ed wrote:
> On Thursday, March 28, 2013 1:08:28 PM UTC-5, xang...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On 3/28/2013 8:28 AM, Ed wrote:
>>
>
>>> In the DOMA case, the plaintiff was a lesbian who was seeking to avoid
>>> estate taxes as a result of her wife. That case will also likely result in
>>> a win for the plaintiff but it it's not clear how broadly sweeping their
>>> decision will be.
>>
>> You're right, one nitpick: she doesn't want to pay estate taxes just
>> like other surviving spouses wouldn't pay them.
>
> I didn't mean to imply any more nefarious reason. :)
Of course not just clarifying. :-)
> On Thursday, March 28, 2013 1:08:28 PM UTC-5, xang...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On 3/28/2013 8:28 AM, Ed wrote:
>>
>
>>> In the DOMA case, the plaintiff was a lesbian who was seeking to avoid
>>> estate taxes as a result of her wife. That case will also likely result in
>>> a win for the plaintiff but it it's not clear how broadly sweeping their
>>> decision will be.
>>
>> You're right, one nitpick: she doesn't want to pay estate taxes just
>> like other surviving spouses wouldn't pay them.
>
> I didn't mean to imply any more nefarious reason. :)
>
>>> I would rather the government not provide special privileges for married
>>> people but, they do.
>>
>> I essentially agree with you, but I'd like to mention, there are
>> benefits to marriage aside from tax benefits etc. Separate from
>> everything else, the social recognition of people being family without
>> long explanations would be cool. Carol and Serene are my partners, but I
>> have lots of non-blood related people in my life that I think of as
>> family. I've been lucky, but past hospital stays could've been a lot
>> harder if my hospital was more doctrinaire in their recognition of family.
>
> I respect that and agree. Of course, ideally, the hospitals would be more
> progressive in acknowledging your acknowledged family as your actual family.
>
> It's funny, my social network includes a lot of very close friends that, on
> various occasions, I spend enough time with them and, frankly we are
> affectionate enough, that people assume we are dating when in fact we are not.
>
> Those who know me well just roll there eyes and say, oh, there's Ed with
> another one of his boys and don't ask me to describe the nature of the
> relationship. But others frequently are confused when they ask things like,
> "So how long have too been together" and I say, "We're not."
People assume my partners aren't really my partners. Which does annoy me
at times
>
> Of course, I've never minded watching people's heads explode. :)
As long as you're far enough away not to get messy. :-)
> Of course, I've never minded watching people's heads explode. :)
David Weinshenker
Mar 28, 2013, 8:53:16 PM3/28/13
to Russ Allbery
Russ Allbery wrote:
> David Weinshenker <daz...@earthlink.net> writes:
>
>> When -does- the State of California get to say to the marriage
>> applicants who filed the primary case, "OK, you win, we don't want to
>> argue about this anymore... we'll give you what you want"?
>
> While that would be a lovely outcome in this particular case, I do think
> the route wherein we bless a state government just deciding not to enforce
> a law is fraught with peril. What if, for example, the next governor of
> California was a Republican and decided to just stop enforcing all state
> environmental regulations because he doesn't believe in them and thinks
> they're unconstitutional?
Well, in this case at least, it's not a question of the state simply
> David Weinshenker <daz...@earthlink.net> writes:
>
>> When -does- the State of California get to say to the marriage
>> applicants who filed the primary case, "OK, you win, we don't want to
>> argue about this anymore... we'll give you what you want"?
>
> While that would be a lovely outcome in this particular case, I do think
> the route wherein we bless a state government just deciding not to enforce
> a law is fraught with peril. What if, for example, the next governor of
> California was a Republican and decided to just stop enforcing all state
> environmental regulations because he doesn't believe in them and thinks
> they're unconstitutional?
"deciding not to enforce", but rather that they've been already told,
twice, by two different judges, that it would be unconstitutional to
do so.
-dave w
David Weinshenker
Mar 28, 2013, 8:57:52 PM3/28/13
to
as "edge cases" in otherwise-rigid policies: I've heard of cases where
"marriage" vs. "registered partnership" made the difference between e.g.
ambulance attendants letting someone ride along to the hospital with their
companion, vs. having them be all stiff-necked about how that was forbidden
by "medical privacy requirements".
-dave w
Ed
Mar 28, 2013, 10:46:02 PM3/28/13
to chic...@gmx.co.uk
On Thursday, March 28, 2013 1:36:45 PM UTC-5, Chickpea wrote:
> http://images.ucomics.com/comics/tmmda/2013/tmmda130327.gif
I like it.
Ironically, here in the States, I'm not sure it applies. Several of
the states that have gay marriage rights do so because of court action,
including Hawaii, which was the first state to provide them.
Even before then, in 1992 in the Romer v. Evans case, the US Supreme Court
overturned a Colorado constitutional amendment denying the cities of
Boulder, Denver and Aspen their duly elected protections against anti-gay
discrimination.
Then, in 2003, the US Supreme Court overturned sodomy laws in the
Lawrence v. Texas case (I was living in Austin in the time...fair to
say the party was raucous).
So, here, the courts are a bit head of legislative action with regards
to gay rights (though, perhaps, not as far ahead of public opinion).
Ed
> http://images.ucomics.com/comics/tmmda/2013/tmmda130327.gif
I like it.
Ironically, here in the States, I'm not sure it applies. Several of
the states that have gay marriage rights do so because of court action,
including Hawaii, which was the first state to provide them.
Even before then, in 1992 in the Romer v. Evans case, the US Supreme Court
overturned a Colorado constitutional amendment denying the cities of
Boulder, Denver and Aspen their duly elected protections against anti-gay
discrimination.
Then, in 2003, the US Supreme Court overturned sodomy laws in the
Lawrence v. Texas case (I was living in Austin in the time...fair to
say the party was raucous).
So, here, the courts are a bit head of legislative action with regards
to gay rights (though, perhaps, not as far ahead of public opinion).
Ed
Russ Allbery
Mar 28, 2013, 11:27:29 PM3/28/13
to
Ed <absolu...@yahoo.com> writes:
> So, here, the courts are a bit head of legislative action with regards
> to gay rights (though, perhaps, not as far ahead of public opinion).
It seems to be a tradition in the US going back to Earl Warren, but very
> So, here, the courts are a bit head of legislative action with regards
> to gay rights (though, perhaps, not as far ahead of public opinion).
much *not* a tradition prior to that. (For the first 60 years of the
country, for example, the Supreme Court did only a few things of general
interest, and mostly rather reactionary things, and then for the latter
half of the 19th century they were mostly supporters of the rights of
businesses over people.)
I wish I understood more about how it came about and what led to the
judiciary adopting the mantle of progressive change (if slowly and
haltingly). It probably has something to do with Roosevelt's push during
the New Deal, but it seems like it was more than that too.
Serene Vannoy
Mar 29, 2013, 1:41:43 PM3/29/13
to
On 03/28/2013 10:51 AM, Guy W. Thomas wrote:
> On 3/27/2013 11:51 PM, Todd Michel McComb wrote:
>> In article <8f70c822-5ae7-47c6...@googlegroups.com>,
>> Ed <absolu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> I have no idea how long it will be before poly marriage rights
>>> will be on the docket, but it feels to me like the general sense
>>> of tolerance is moving in the right direction.
>>
>> I agree that it does seem things are moving in a good direction for
>> gay couples. Maybe this year will be decisive. Even if not, I
>> think the "good direction" is clear (in the US anyway), and that's
>> reflected in voter polls too.
>>
>> I don't expect any action on the poly side any time soon, however.
>> There isn't a clear agenda for one thing, and part of the general
>> public's sympathy for gay couples
Not gay couples. Same-sex couples.
> On 3/27/2013 11:51 PM, Todd Michel McComb wrote:
>> In article <8f70c822-5ae7-47c6...@googlegroups.com>,
>> Ed <absolu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> I have no idea how long it will be before poly marriage rights
>>> will be on the docket, but it feels to me like the general sense
>>> of tolerance is moving in the right direction.
>>
>> I agree that it does seem things are moving in a good direction for
>> gay couples. Maybe this year will be decisive. Even if not, I
>> think the "good direction" is clear (in the US anyway), and that's
>> reflected in voter polls too.
>>
>> I don't expect any action on the poly side any time soon, however.
>> There isn't a clear agenda for one thing, and part of the general
>> public's sympathy for gay couples
> has been based on ideas of monogamy.
>>
> *nodnod* And most people who are arguing against same-sex marriage were
> using multiple marriage as a possible negative consequence of allowing
> gay marriage.
> I think we have a while before marriage of more than 2
> people will get much traction. I'm not particularly energized about
> getting married to both of my partners, I'm just not wired that way I
> guess.
> However I do think another hurdle for poly marriages is how to
> untangle a lot of the legal benefits. If 3 people are married to each
> other how does health care and other insurances get apportioned?
children--you just adjust the system's expectations and make some things
mandatory (fsvo "mandatory") and free (for kids, it's things like a K-12
education; for adults, in my opinion, it should be basic health care).
> I think
> those issues are going to be problematic in accepting marriage between
> more than 2 people.
>
objecting to homosexuality because it's "unnatural" -- the people who
think that don't mind using polyester or other unnatural things; it's
just a thing to say to support their anti-homosexual attitudes. There's
a cultural resistance to polyamory, and I think a lot of the arguments
against it are not even real attitudes people hold, just ways to justify
that resistance.
Serene
A
Mar 29, 2013, 2:36:50 PM3/29/13
to
I'll steal it, if you don't mind.
> There's
> a cultural resistance to polyamory, and I think a lot of the arguments
> against it are not even real attitudes people hold, just ways to justify
> that resistance.
on the subject here:
http://lesswrong.com/lw/wj/is_that_your_true_rejection/
I've heard it's also a well-known issue in business. What a customer gives
as their reason for refusing to buy often is not the actual reason. (and
they may not be consciously aware of the actual reason)
--
A
Todd Michel McComb
Mar 29, 2013, 2:42:07 PM3/29/13
to
In article <1YmdndB5tLR6QcnM...@giganews.com>,
Guy W. Thomas <xang...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Which is one of the reasons I'd disentangle all kinds of benefits
>from employment.
Yes, this is absolutely critical.
>Which is one of the reasons I'd disentangle all kinds of benefits
>from employment.
David Weinshenker
Mar 29, 2013, 4:13:18 PM3/29/13
to
Serene Vannoy wrote:
> I think it gets done the same way it does when people have multiple
> children--you just adjust the system's expectations and make some things
> mandatory (fsvo "mandatory") and free (for kids, it's things like a K-12
> education; for adults, in my opinion, it should be basic health care).
Yeah - you don't have to have a card that shows that you're Covered under
> I think it gets done the same way it does when people have multiple
> children--you just adjust the system's expectations and make some things
> mandatory (fsvo "mandatory") and free (for kids, it's things like a K-12
> education; for adults, in my opinion, it should be basic health care).
some particular Education Plan from your employer when you sign your kids
up for grade school...
-dave w
Todd Michel McComb
Mar 29, 2013, 4:21:22 PM3/29/13
to
In article <1vCdnT0RDeEea8jM...@earthlink.com>,
David Weinshenker <daz...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Yeah - you don't have to have a card that shows that you're Covered under
>some particular Education Plan from your employer when you sign your kids
>up for grade school...
Let's not give anyone ideas!
>Yeah - you don't have to have a card that shows that you're Covered under
>some particular Education Plan from your employer when you sign your kids
>up for grade school...
Guy W. Thomas
Mar 30, 2013, 12:12:42 AM3/30/13
to
On 3/29/2013 10:41 AM, Serene Vannoy wrote:
> On 03/28/2013 10:51 AM, Guy W. Thomas wrote:
>> On 3/27/2013 11:51 PM, Todd Michel McComb wrote:
>>> In article <8f70c822-5ae7-47c6...@googlegroups.com>,
>>> Ed <absolu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> I have no idea how long it will be before poly marriage rights
>>>> will be on the docket, but it feels to me like the general sense
>>>> of tolerance is moving in the right direction.
>>>
>>> I agree that it does seem things are moving in a good direction for
>>> gay couples. Maybe this year will be decisive. Even if not, I
>>> think the "good direction" is clear (in the US anyway), and that's
>>> reflected in voter polls too.
>>>
>>> I don't expect any action on the poly side any time soon, however.
>>> There isn't a clear agenda for one thing, and part of the general
>>> public's sympathy for gay couples
>
> Not gay couples. Same-sex couples.
>
>> has been based on ideas of monogamy.
>>>
>> *nodnod* And most people who are arguing against same-sex marriage were
>> using multiple marriage as a possible negative consequence of allowing
>> gay marriage.
>
> Not gay marriage. Same-sex marriage. :-)
Of course, thanks for the correction.
> On 03/28/2013 10:51 AM, Guy W. Thomas wrote:
>> On 3/27/2013 11:51 PM, Todd Michel McComb wrote:
>>> In article <8f70c822-5ae7-47c6...@googlegroups.com>,
>>> Ed <absolu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> I have no idea how long it will be before poly marriage rights
>>>> will be on the docket, but it feels to me like the general sense
>>>> of tolerance is moving in the right direction.
>>>
>>> I agree that it does seem things are moving in a good direction for
>>> gay couples. Maybe this year will be decisive. Even if not, I
>>> think the "good direction" is clear (in the US anyway), and that's
>>> reflected in voter polls too.
>>>
>>> I don't expect any action on the poly side any time soon, however.
>>> There isn't a clear agenda for one thing, and part of the general
>>> public's sympathy for gay couples
>
> Not gay couples. Same-sex couples.
>
>> has been based on ideas of monogamy.
>>>
>> *nodnod* And most people who are arguing against same-sex marriage were
>> using multiple marriage as a possible negative consequence of allowing
>> gay marriage.
>
> Not gay marriage. Same-sex marriage. :-)
>> I think we have a while before marriage of more than 2
>> people will get much traction. I'm not particularly energized about
>> getting married to both of my partners, I'm just not wired that way I
>> guess.
>
> Fortunately, neither are your partners. :-)
>> However I do think another hurdle for poly marriages is how to
>> untangle a lot of the legal benefits. If 3 people are married to each
>> other how does health care and other insurances get apportioned?
>
> I think it gets done the same way it does when people have multiple
> children--you just adjust the system's expectations and make some things
> mandatory (fsvo "mandatory") and free (for kids, it's things like a K-12
> education; for adults, in my opinion, it should be basic health care).
that, basically I'd like to disentangle all the healthcare from
employment and give everyone healthcare and then there's no problem.
>> I think
>> those issues are going to be problematic in accepting marriage between
>> more than 2 people.
>>
>
> I think that's true, but only as a smokescreen. I equate it to people
> objecting to homosexuality because it's "unnatural" -- the people who
> think that don't mind using polyester or other unnatural things; it's
> just a thing to say to support their anti-homosexual attitudes. There's
> a cultural resistance to polyamory, and I think a lot of the arguments
> against it are not even real attitudes people hold, just ways to justify
> that resistance.
A
Apr 1, 2013, 7:35:09 AM4/1/13
to
On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 10:41:43 -0700, Serene Vannoy wrote:
> Not gay marriage. Same-sex marriage. :-)
I've heard the word "queer" used as a catchall for nonstandard sexual
orientations. Might I suggest "queer marriage" as something that would
cover all corners (including polyamory)?
--
A
Serene Vannoy
Apr 1, 2013, 9:47:59 AM4/1/13
to
Serene
--
My food blog: http://www.momfoodproject.com
My small-press literary magazine: http://42magazine.com
A
Apr 1, 2013, 10:16:06 AM4/1/13
to
On Mon, 01 Apr 2013 06:47:59 -0700, Serene Vannoy wrote:
> On 04/01/2013 04:35 AM, A wrote:
>> On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 10:41:43 -0700, Serene Vannoy wrote:
>>
>>> Not gay marriage. Same-sex marriage. :-)
>>
>> I've heard the word "queer" used as a catchall for nonstandard sexual
>> orientations. Might I suggest "queer marriage" as something that would
>> cover all corners (including polyamory)?
>
> No.
Okay. Why not, if you don't mind me asking? Does "queer" carry a negative
> On 04/01/2013 04:35 AM, A wrote:
>> On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 10:41:43 -0700, Serene Vannoy wrote:
>>
>>> Not gay marriage. Same-sex marriage. :-)
>>
>> I've heard the word "queer" used as a catchall for nonstandard sexual
>> orientations. Might I suggest "queer marriage" as something that would
>> cover all corners (including polyamory)?
>
> No.
connotation I'm unaware of, beyond that accorded words like gay, lesbian,
trans, etc? Or am I just plain misusing the term to mean something it
doesn't?
--
A
David Weinshenker
Apr 1, 2013, 12:30:11 PM4/1/13
to
marriages specifically as "not normal",
rather than simply describing something
about the individuals in a given one as
e.g. "same-sex" or "different-sex" - an
expression like "queer marriage" seems
to mark it as more of a special case (as
does something like "gay marriage".)
Maybe we should just refer to the special case of
marriage "specifically between One Man and One
Woman" as something like "square marriage" or
"straight marriage" or maybe "het-binary marriage",
just to be sure that we set it off as Something
Different from all the other sorts of marriage
that people might -normally- be involved in!
-dave w
Steve Pope
Apr 1, 2013, 6:19:07 PM4/1/13
to
David Weinshenker <daz...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Maybe we should just refer to the special case of
>marriage "specifically between One Man and One
>Woman" as something like "square marriage" or
>"straight marriage" or maybe "het-binary marriage",
>just to be sure that we set it off as Something
>Different from all the other sorts of marriage
>that people might -normally- be involved in!
This is tangential, but for me the phrase "marriage
>Maybe we should just refer to the special case of
>marriage "specifically between One Man and One
>Woman" as something like "square marriage" or
>"straight marriage" or maybe "het-binary marriage",
>just to be sure that we set it off as Something
>Different from all the other sorts of marriage
>that people might -normally- be involved in!
is specifically between one man and one woman" makes
it sound like there are exactly two individuals in
the entire nation who are entitled to get married.
Probably just my penchant for taking things literally.
Steve
Serene Vannoy
Apr 1, 2013, 9:02:45 PM4/1/13
to
you're straight, you're not queer -- again, this is my opinion as a
queer person). Most poly people are not queer.
Another thing that bothers me about your suggestion may be due to a
mistake on my part. I gather that you are heterosexual. If you are, you
have no business deciding to co-opt the term "queer" for some use you like.
Also, I don't think we need a term to cover both same-sex marriage and
polyamorous marriage.
Also also, "queer" isn't a nonstandard sexual orientation any more.
Being queer is just part of the gamut of orientations out there.
Todd Michel McComb
Apr 1, 2013, 9:13:57 PM4/1/13
to
In article <2pudnYK3iLKos8fM...@posted.sonicnet>,
acknowledge by noting your opinion as your opinion).
To me, these two sentences have a lot to unpack. First, I guess,
is the difference between "straight" and "heterosexual" -- a
difference in implication that I won't claim is consistent. Second
is that I mainly relate to your statements as statements about how
people self-describe. I don't want to tell them they can't
self-describe, but I also don't think that's the whole story.
>Also, I don't think we need a term to cover both same-sex marriage
>and polyamorous marriage.
I thought your correction about "same-sex marriage" was warranted.
Admittedly, I was looking a bit askew at a slightly different
conjuncture. However, I'm not sure the term entirely accomplishes
an ambition to normalize, an ambition I'm merely imputing.
>Also also, "queer" isn't a nonstandard sexual orientation any more.
>Being queer is just part of the gamut of orientations out there.
This is the part where I'm really feeling disagreement. Going back
to the remark on straight versus heterosexual, I find "queer" to
be a worthwhile term for anyone exploring & questioning issues of
sexuality or gender in a concrete way. In that sense, I think of
it as a pole, not a situation (I hope that last isn't jargon).
If the space I've suggested is meaningful in some way, and "queer"
doesn't cover it well for you, do you have a language suggestion?
Serene Vannoy <ser...@serenepages.org> wrote:
>Not all transpeople are queer (because if you're straight, you're
>not queer -- again, this is my opinion as a queer person). Most
>poly people are not queer.
I think this is an area where opinions can & do differ (which you
>Not all transpeople are queer (because if you're straight, you're
>not queer -- again, this is my opinion as a queer person). Most
>poly people are not queer.
acknowledge by noting your opinion as your opinion).
To me, these two sentences have a lot to unpack. First, I guess,
is the difference between "straight" and "heterosexual" -- a
difference in implication that I won't claim is consistent. Second
is that I mainly relate to your statements as statements about how
people self-describe. I don't want to tell them they can't
self-describe, but I also don't think that's the whole story.
>Also, I don't think we need a term to cover both same-sex marriage
>and polyamorous marriage.
Admittedly, I was looking a bit askew at a slightly different
conjuncture. However, I'm not sure the term entirely accomplishes
an ambition to normalize, an ambition I'm merely imputing.
>Also also, "queer" isn't a nonstandard sexual orientation any more.
>Being queer is just part of the gamut of orientations out there.
to the remark on straight versus heterosexual, I find "queer" to
be a worthwhile term for anyone exploring & questioning issues of
sexuality or gender in a concrete way. In that sense, I think of
it as a pole, not a situation (I hope that last isn't jargon).
If the space I've suggested is meaningful in some way, and "queer"
doesn't cover it well for you, do you have a language suggestion?
David Weinshenker
Apr 1, 2013, 9:55:34 PM4/1/13
to
Todd Michel McComb wrote:
> the difference between "straight" and "heterosexual"
Yeah - which one is "queer" the opposite of? (And what
> the difference between "straight" and "heterosexual"
do the different answers mean to those who give them?)
-dave w
Todd Michel McComb
Apr 1, 2013, 10:00:13 PM4/1/13
to
In article <RNydndQNUuOlpsfM...@earthlink.com>,
opposite of straight (and heterosexual in some different dimension),
but there's clearly room for plenty of discussion.
David Weinshenker <daz...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Yeah - which one is "queer" the opposite of? (And what do the
>different answers mean to those who give them?)
Good questions. Personally, I prefer a language that has queer the
>Yeah - which one is "queer" the opposite of? (And what do the
>different answers mean to those who give them?)
opposite of straight (and heterosexual in some different dimension),
but there's clearly room for plenty of discussion.
Steve Pope
Apr 1, 2013, 11:01:34 PM4/1/13
to
Serene Vannoy <ser...@serenepages.org> wrote:
>Not all transpeople are queer (because if
>you're straight, you're not queer -- again, this is my opinion as a
>queer person). Most poly people are not queer.
That certainly was the meaning of queer 30 years ago -- it meant
>Not all transpeople are queer (because if
>you're straight, you're not queer -- again, this is my opinion as a
>queer person). Most poly people are not queer.
being something other than zero on the Kinsey scale.
But since that time, the usage has been murkier -- some straight
people have been choosing queer as a term of self-description,
for various reasons, and there doesn't seem to be a huge chorus
of opinion that this is out of bounds.
Steve
A
Apr 2, 2013, 10:29:15 AM4/2/13
to
On Mon, 01 Apr 2013 18:02:45 -0700, Serene Vannoy wrote:
> On 04/01/2013 07:16 AM, A wrote:
>> On Mon, 01 Apr 2013 06:47:59 -0700, Serene Vannoy wrote:
>>
>>> On 04/01/2013 04:35 AM, A wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 10:41:43 -0700, Serene Vannoy wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Not gay marriage. Same-sex marriage. :-)
>>>>
>>>> I've heard the word "queer" used as a catchall for nonstandard sexual
>>>> orientations. Might I suggest "queer marriage" as something that would
>>>> cover all corners (including polyamory)?
>>>
>>> No.
>>
>> Okay. Why not, if you don't mind me asking? Does "queer" carry a negative
>> connotation I'm unaware of, beyond that accorded words like gay, lesbian,
>> trans, etc? Or am I just plain misusing the term to mean something it
>> doesn't?
>
> The latter, in my opinion. Not all transpeople are queer (because if
> you're straight, you're not queer -- again, this is my opinion as a
> queer person). Most poly people are not queer.
Okay. Going by the other replies there's some question on this point, but
> On 04/01/2013 07:16 AM, A wrote:
>> On Mon, 01 Apr 2013 06:47:59 -0700, Serene Vannoy wrote:
>>
>>> On 04/01/2013 04:35 AM, A wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 10:41:43 -0700, Serene Vannoy wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Not gay marriage. Same-sex marriage. :-)
>>>>
>>>> I've heard the word "queer" used as a catchall for nonstandard sexual
>>>> orientations. Might I suggest "queer marriage" as something that would
>>>> cover all corners (including polyamory)?
>>>
>>> No.
>>
>> Okay. Why not, if you don't mind me asking? Does "queer" carry a negative
>> connotation I'm unaware of, beyond that accorded words like gay, lesbian,
>> trans, etc? Or am I just plain misusing the term to mean something it
>> doesn't?
>
> The latter, in my opinion. Not all transpeople are queer (because if
> you're straight, you're not queer -- again, this is my opinion as a
> queer person). Most poly people are not queer.
it's not my area of expertise so I may just stay out of it. I probably have
more to learn by observing the discussion than I have to gain by arguing
the point.
> Another thing that bothers me about your suggestion may be due to a
> mistake on my part. I gather that you are heterosexual. If you are, you
> have no business deciding to co-opt the term "queer" for some use you like.
suggestion; I wasn't trying to co-opt the term, but to suggest a useful
usage for what appeared to be an existing meaning. If I was wrong about the
term's existing meaning (not unlikely) then the suggestion is perfectly
rejectable. And indeed I have no problem with your "no"; I just wanted to
know where it was coming from.
I thought I'd made my intent clear in the original post, but on second
reading I think I see how it could be misunderstood.
> Also also, "queer" isn't a nonstandard sexual orientation any more.
> Being queer is just part of the gamut of orientations out there.
"two straight people dating, then engaged, then married" is still a
substantial supermajority, and socially assumed unless specified otherwise.
One could say that shouldn't be the case, but it would be hard to argue
that it *isn't* the case.
--
A
Stef
Apr 3, 2013, 2:41:43 AM4/3/13
to
In article <1f50zgf16lcom.w...@40tude.net>, A <x@y.z> wrote:
>It's nonstandard in the sense that the set of relationships conforming to
>"two straight people dating, then engaged, then married" is still a
>substantial supermajority, and socially assumed unless specified otherwise.
If we're talking about marriage as a legal entity, then sexual
>It's nonstandard in the sense that the set of relationships conforming to
>"two straight people dating, then engaged, then married" is still a
>substantial supermajority, and socially assumed unless specified otherwise.
orientation is irrelevant. US law currently restricts marriage based on
gender but not sexual orientation. That's why the term "gay marriage" is
wrong, because "gay" is a sexual orientation.
"Queer marriage" won't do either, because queer is a controversial term
that still carries negative baggage, and there's significant disagreement
about what counts as queer. Some people seem to think it should mean
"anyone whose identity or lifestyle doesn't fit the mainstream ideal and
who wants to march in the parade" and other people think it should mean
"a sexual orientation other than straight." Neither of those definitions
has any place in a legal definition of marriage, that's for sure.
--
Stef ** st...@cat-and-dragon.com **
** firecat.dreamwidth.org ** fatfriendlydocs.com **
**
"Can you imagine a world without men?"
"No crime, and lots of fat, happy women."
-- Nicole Hollander, in the cartoon "Sylvia"
nickie{D}
Apr 3, 2013, 6:25:34 AM4/3/13
to
On 01/04/2013 14:47, Serene Vannoy wrote:
> On 04/01/2013 04:35 AM, A wrote:
>> On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 10:41:43 -0700, Serene Vannoy wrote:
>>
>>> Not gay marriage. Same-sex marriage. :-)
>>
>> I've heard the word "queer" used as a catchall for nonstandard sexual
>> orientations. Might I suggest "queer marriage" as something that would
>> cover all corners (including polyamory)?
>>
>
> No.
>
> Serene
>
LOL - you got there before me!
> On 04/01/2013 04:35 AM, A wrote:
>> On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 10:41:43 -0700, Serene Vannoy wrote:
>>
>>> Not gay marriage. Same-sex marriage. :-)
>>
>> I've heard the word "queer" used as a catchall for nonstandard sexual
>> orientations. Might I suggest "queer marriage" as something that would
>> cover all corners (including polyamory)?
>>
>
> No.
>
> Serene
>
--
nickie{D}
nickie{D}
Apr 3, 2013, 6:30:25 AM4/3/13
to
--
nickie{D}
Ed
Apr 4, 2013, 10:27:59 PM4/4/13
to
Serene Vannoy <ser...@serenepages.org> wrote in
news:arm22n...@mid.individual.net:
> On 03/28/2013 10:51 AM, Guy W. Thomas wrote:
>> *nodnod* And most people who are arguing against same-sex marriage
>> were using multiple marriage as a possible negative consequence of
>> allowing gay marriage.
>
> Not gay marriage. Same-sex marriage. :-)
I've been struggling with whether or not to respond to this, partly
because it took me a while to put my finger on why it bothered me.
I get the point of the distinction. And, from a technical perspective, I
guess I agree with it.
But I think what has been bugging me is that the fight for the rights of
same-sex couples to marry is part of the broader fight for civil right
for GLBT folks. I could entertain an argument that using "gay" as a
shorthand for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender is dismissive of
the last three groups in that acronym but I can't think of a single
queer person I know (apologies to those on this group who disagree) that
seems too bothered by that shorthand.
But if I were to concede that objection, I would still want think
recognizing that the fight for marriage rights is part of the broader
fight for civil rights feels important to me and insisting that the
attained rights are simply same-sex marriage rights without the broader
context seems dismissive to me of the people who have fought so hard to
even be recognized as legitimate citizens, even before the bestowal of
rights to marry.
Ed
news:arm22n...@mid.individual.net:
> On 03/28/2013 10:51 AM, Guy W. Thomas wrote:
>> *nodnod* And most people who are arguing against same-sex marriage
>> were using multiple marriage as a possible negative consequence of
>> allowing gay marriage.
>
> Not gay marriage. Same-sex marriage. :-)
because it took me a while to put my finger on why it bothered me.
I get the point of the distinction. And, from a technical perspective, I
guess I agree with it.
But I think what has been bugging me is that the fight for the rights of
same-sex couples to marry is part of the broader fight for civil right
for GLBT folks. I could entertain an argument that using "gay" as a
shorthand for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender is dismissive of
the last three groups in that acronym but I can't think of a single
queer person I know (apologies to those on this group who disagree) that
seems too bothered by that shorthand.
But if I were to concede that objection, I would still want think
recognizing that the fight for marriage rights is part of the broader
fight for civil rights feels important to me and insisting that the
attained rights are simply same-sex marriage rights without the broader
context seems dismissive to me of the people who have fought so hard to
even be recognized as legitimate citizens, even before the bestowal of
rights to marry.
Ed
Steve Pope
Apr 4, 2013, 11:05:28 PM4/4/13
to
>> Not gay marriage. Same-sex marriage. :-)
>I've been struggling with whether or not to respond to this, partly
>because it took me a while to put my finger on why it bothered me.
>
>I get the point of the distinction. And, from a technical perspective, I
>guess I agree with it.
>
>But I think what has been bugging me is that the fight for the rights of
>same-sex couples to marry is part of the broader fight for civil right
>for GLBT folks. I could entertain an argument that using "gay" as a
>shorthand for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender is dismissive of
>the last three groups in that acronym but I can't think of a single
>queer person I know (apologies to those on this group who disagree) that
>seems too bothered by that shorthand.
What I have noticed is people using "gay marriage" in casual conversation
>I've been struggling with whether or not to respond to this, partly
>because it took me a while to put my finger on why it bothered me.
>
>I get the point of the distinction. And, from a technical perspective, I
>guess I agree with it.
>
>But I think what has been bugging me is that the fight for the rights of
>same-sex couples to marry is part of the broader fight for civil right
>for GLBT folks. I could entertain an argument that using "gay" as a
>shorthand for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender is dismissive of
>the last three groups in that acronym but I can't think of a single
>queer person I know (apologies to those on this group who disagree) that
>seems too bothered by that shorthand.
but using "same-sex marriage" when speaking for the record.
>But if I were to concede that objection, I would still want think
>recognizing that the fight for marriage rights is part of the broader
>fight for civil rights feels important to me and insisting that the
>attained rights are simply same-sex marriage rights without the broader
>context seems dismissive to me of the people who have fought so hard to
>even be recognized as legitimate citizens, even before the bestowal of
>rights to marry.
envision that courts might uphold same-sex marriage without generally
making discrimination against GLBT folks illegal. I do not think,
for example, that a ruling on Prop 8 will change any of the laws in
places like Texas that prohibit various forms of sex. Neither
would such a ruling necessarily reform family law as much as one
would like to expect.
So I would say your concern -- that the wording "same-sex" tends to
narrow the question to one that is less than progressive --
is well-founded, even if that is not usually peoples' intent
when using this wording.
Steve
Ed
Apr 4, 2013, 11:42:26 PM4/4/13
to
spo...@speedymail.org (Steve Pope) wrote in news:kjlf1o$mt2$1@blue-
new.rahul.net:
> Given that the law is, and always will be, an ass, one can easily
> envision that courts might uphold same-sex marriage without generally
> making discrimination against GLBT folks illegal. I do not think,
> for example, that a ruling on Prop 8 will change any of the laws in
> places like Texas that prohibit various forms of sex.
Fortunately, Lawrence v. Texas took care of that problem in 2003. (I lived
in Austin at the time and the party was fun!)
(This is only remotely related, but I just heard Stephen Colbert read a
faux argument against laws guaranteeing equal pay for women on the grounds
that men may pretend to be women in order to get equal pay. Seemed like
logic similar to some of the anti-marriage equality crowd.)
Ed
new.rahul.net:
> Given that the law is, and always will be, an ass, one can easily
> envision that courts might uphold same-sex marriage without generally
> making discrimination against GLBT folks illegal. I do not think,
> for example, that a ruling on Prop 8 will change any of the laws in
> places like Texas that prohibit various forms of sex.
in Austin at the time and the party was fun!)
(This is only remotely related, but I just heard Stephen Colbert read a
faux argument against laws guaranteeing equal pay for women on the grounds
that men may pretend to be women in order to get equal pay. Seemed like
logic similar to some of the anti-marriage equality crowd.)
Ed
Steve Pope
Apr 4, 2013, 11:56:14 PM4/4/13
to
Ed <absolut...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>spo...@speedymail.org (Steve Pope) wrote in news:kjlf1o$mt2$1@blue-
>new.rahul.net:
>
>> Given that the law is, and always will be, an ass, one can easily
>> envision that courts might uphold same-sex marriage without generally
>> making discrimination against GLBT folks illegal. I do not think,
>> for example, that a ruling on Prop 8 will change any of the laws in
>> places like Texas that prohibit various forms of sex.
>
>Fortunately, Lawrence v. Texas took care of that problem in 2003. (I lived
>in Austin at the time and the party was fun!)
Thanks. I had to look this up, and found (Wikipedia) that the problem
>spo...@speedymail.org (Steve Pope) wrote in news:kjlf1o$mt2$1@blue-
>new.rahul.net:
>
>> Given that the law is, and always will be, an ass, one can easily
>> envision that courts might uphold same-sex marriage without generally
>> making discrimination against GLBT folks illegal. I do not think,
>> for example, that a ruling on Prop 8 will change any of the laws in
>> places like Texas that prohibit various forms of sex.
>
>Fortunately, Lawrence v. Texas took care of that problem in 2003. (I lived
>in Austin at the time and the party was fun!)
wasn't quite taken care of in 2003, and as recently as 2008 the Texas
Obscenity Law was upheld in federal court before finally being struck
down; but that the circuits are split and a similar law is in force
in Alabama. At least according to a Wikipedia editor.
Steve
Ed
Apr 4, 2013, 11:59:11 PM4/4/13
to
spo...@speedymail.org (Steve Pope) wrote in
news:kjli0u$nrd$2...@blue-new.rahul.net:
them. But I was very happy to be able to continue my physical
relationship with my partner without fear of being arrested by
overzealous law enforcement officers. No small thing.
Ed
Message has been deleted
Ed
Apr 5, 2013, 12:17:44 PM4/5/13
to
Chickpea <chic...@gmx.co.uk> wrote in
news:13stl8p0cr46eum3i...@4ax.com:
> In alt.polyamory, (Ed) wrote in <kjlh71$rri$1...@dont-email.me>::
> Eh?
>
> Equal with whom?
>
> This sounds like nonsense of the first water.
LOL. Stephen Colbert is a commedian whose schtick is to pretend be a
conservative in order to parody conservative arguments. It was a joke
and, IMHO, a funny one. :)
Ed
news:13stl8p0cr46eum3i...@4ax.com:
> In alt.polyamory, (Ed) wrote in <kjlh71$rri$1...@dont-email.me>::
>
> Equal with whom?
>
> This sounds like nonsense of the first water.
LOL. Stephen Colbert is a commedian whose schtick is to pretend be a
conservative in order to parody conservative arguments. It was a joke
and, IMHO, a funny one. :)
Ed
nickie{D}
Apr 6, 2013, 1:42:42 AM4/6/13
to
On 05/04/2013 03:27, Ed wrote:
> Serene Vannoy <ser...@serenepages.org> wrote in
> news:arm22n...@mid.individual.net:
>
>> On 03/28/2013 10:51 AM, Guy W. Thomas wrote:
>>> *nodnod* And most people who are arguing against same-sex marriage
>>> were using multiple marriage as a possible negative consequence of
>>> allowing gay marriage.
>>
>> Not gay marriage. Same-sex marriage. :-)
>
> I've been struggling with whether or not to respond to this, partly
> because it took me a while to put my finger on why it bothered me.
>
> I get the point of the distinction. And, from a technical perspective, I
> guess I agree with it.
>
> But I think what has been bugging me is that the fight for the rights of
> same-sex couples to marry is part of the broader fight for civil right
> for GLBT folks. I could entertain an argument that using "gay" as a
> shorthand for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender is dismissive of
> the last three groups in that acronym but I can't think of a single
> queer person I know (apologies to those on this group who disagree) that
> seems too bothered by that shorthand.
It seems to me that you either don't mix with bisexuals or you dismiss
> Serene Vannoy <ser...@serenepages.org> wrote in
> news:arm22n...@mid.individual.net:
>
>> On 03/28/2013 10:51 AM, Guy W. Thomas wrote:
>>> *nodnod* And most people who are arguing against same-sex marriage
>>> were using multiple marriage as a possible negative consequence of
>>> allowing gay marriage.
>>
>> Not gay marriage. Same-sex marriage. :-)
>
> I've been struggling with whether or not to respond to this, partly
> because it took me a while to put my finger on why it bothered me.
>
> I get the point of the distinction. And, from a technical perspective, I
> guess I agree with it.
>
> But I think what has been bugging me is that the fight for the rights of
> same-sex couples to marry is part of the broader fight for civil right
> for GLBT folks. I could entertain an argument that using "gay" as a
> shorthand for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender is dismissive of
> the last three groups in that acronym but I can't think of a single
> queer person I know (apologies to those on this group who disagree) that
> seems too bothered by that shorthand.
them, or you are part of the huge problem of bisexual erasure then. As
a bisexual person I can't enter into either a straight or a gay
relationship. All my relationships are bisexual relationships, to the
extent that a relationship can even have an orientation, which i think
has already been explained as a fallacious idea else-thread.
Using gay as a shorthand term to include other groups in the LGBT
acronym? No, not funny.
> But if I were to concede that objection, I would still want think
> recognizing that the fight for marriage rights is part of the broader
> fight for civil rights feels important to me and insisting that the
> attained rights are simply same-sex marriage rights without the broader
> context seems dismissive to me of the people who have fought so hard to
> even be recognized as legitimate citizens, even before the bestowal of
> rights to marry.
actually - because this is about civil rights and recognition of those
for marginalised persons.
--
nickie{D}
> Ed
>
Ed
Apr 6, 2013, 2:09:10 AM4/6/13
to
nickie{D} <nic...@meeble.net> wrote in news:as9qunFbm5qU1
@mid.individual.net:
> On 05/04/2013 03:27, Ed wrote:
>> Serene Vannoy <ser...@serenepages.org> wrote in
>> news:arm22n...@mid.individual.net:
>>
>>> On 03/28/2013 10:51 AM, Guy W. Thomas wrote:
>>>> *nodnod* And most people who are arguing against same-sex marriage
>>>> were using multiple marriage as a possible negative consequence of
>>>> allowing gay marriage.
>>>
>>> Not gay marriage. Same-sex marriage. :-)
>>
>> I've been struggling with whether or not to respond to this, partly
>> because it took me a while to put my finger on why it bothered me.
>>
>> I get the point of the distinction. And, from a technical
>> perspective, I guess I agree with it.
>>
>> But I think what has been bugging me is that the fight for the right
I also clearly stated that my experience was my own and apologized to
others who have a different experience.
>>As a bisexual person I can't enter into either a straight or a gay
> relationship. All my relationships are bisexual relationships, to the
> extent that a relationship can even have an orientation, which i think
> has already been explained as a fallacious idea else-thread.
I wasn't disagreeing with the idea that a relationship doesn't have an
orientation. I was arguing for some recognition that the fight for same-
sex marriage was largely in the context of the fight for civil rights
for gay people.
> Using gay as a shorthand term to include other groups in the LGBT
> acronym? No, not funny.
Never intended it to be funny. But, let's be clear. There weren't
bisexual pride parades. There weren't transexual pride parades.
I am extatic to include all the ranks of queer folk under the standar of
the rainbow flag but my point was that it was the gay folk and drag
queens at Stonewall that kicked off the movement for those who didn't
conform to the relatively stodgy notions of sexuality of even the 60s. I
just think that deserves a little homage.
>
>> But if I were to concede that objection, I would still want think
>> recognizing that the fight for marriage rights is part of the broader
>> fight for civil rights feels important to me and insisting that the
>> attained rights are simply same-sex marriage rights without the
>> broader context seems dismissive to me of the people who have fought
>> so hard to even be recognized as legitimate citizens, even before the
>> bestowal of rights to marry.
>
> Hence why thinking people are choosing the term "equal marriage"
> actually - because this is about civil rights and recognition of those
> for marginalised persons.
And that's fine. My obejection was certainly not to the term "equal
marriage" (I did in fact, write the subject line to this thread). My
objection was to the abject dismissal of the term "gay marriage" because
I just felt that it missed the broader context.
To be clear, it is not my intention to belittle the struggles of other
sexual minorities. Or, frankly, any other group that suffers
discrimination at the hand of closed-minded individuals. I will be the
first in line to march in a bi pride parade (just as my bi friends march
in gay pride parades...for better or worse, they are still called that).
I personally just feel that there is nothing wrong with discussing the
topic of marriage equality in the context in which it exists. Gay
couples are fighting for the right to marry the people they love. It's
the fight on the table right now. When the topic changes to another
fight involving others whose rights are being infringed, I will be right
there pulling for them too.
Ed
@mid.individual.net:
> On 05/04/2013 03:27, Ed wrote:
>> Serene Vannoy <ser...@serenepages.org> wrote in
>> news:arm22n...@mid.individual.net:
>>
>>> On 03/28/2013 10:51 AM, Guy W. Thomas wrote:
>>>> *nodnod* And most people who are arguing against same-sex marriage
>>>> were using multiple marriage as a possible negative consequence of
>>>> allowing gay marriage.
>>>
>>> Not gay marriage. Same-sex marriage. :-)
>>
>> I've been struggling with whether or not to respond to this, partly
>> because it took me a while to put my finger on why it bothered me.
>>
>> I get the point of the distinction. And, from a technical
>> perspective, I guess I agree with it.
>>
>> But I think what has been bugging me is that the fight for the right
>> of same-sex couples to marry is part of the broader fight for civil
>> right for GLBT folks. I could entertain an argument that using "gay"
>> as a shorthand for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender is
>> dismissive of the last three groups in that acronym but I can't think
>> of a single queer person I know (apologies to those on this group who
>> disagree) that seems too bothered by that shorthand.
>
> It seems to me that you either don't mix with bisexuals or you dismiss
> them, or you are part of the huge problem of bisexual erasure then.
Actually I do mix with bisexuals and, in fact, in good numbers.
>> right for GLBT folks. I could entertain an argument that using "gay"
>> as a shorthand for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender is
>> dismissive of the last three groups in that acronym but I can't think
>> of a single queer person I know (apologies to those on this group who
>> disagree) that seems too bothered by that shorthand.
>
> It seems to me that you either don't mix with bisexuals or you dismiss
> them, or you are part of the huge problem of bisexual erasure then.
I also clearly stated that my experience was my own and apologized to
others who have a different experience.
>>As a bisexual person I can't enter into either a straight or a gay
> relationship. All my relationships are bisexual relationships, to the
> extent that a relationship can even have an orientation, which i think
> has already been explained as a fallacious idea else-thread.
orientation. I was arguing for some recognition that the fight for same-
sex marriage was largely in the context of the fight for civil rights
for gay people.
> Using gay as a shorthand term to include other groups in the LGBT
> acronym? No, not funny.
bisexual pride parades. There weren't transexual pride parades.
I am extatic to include all the ranks of queer folk under the standar of
the rainbow flag but my point was that it was the gay folk and drag
queens at Stonewall that kicked off the movement for those who didn't
conform to the relatively stodgy notions of sexuality of even the 60s. I
just think that deserves a little homage.
>
>> But if I were to concede that objection, I would still want think
>> recognizing that the fight for marriage rights is part of the broader
>> fight for civil rights feels important to me and insisting that the
>> attained rights are simply same-sex marriage rights without the
>> broader context seems dismissive to me of the people who have fought
>> so hard to even be recognized as legitimate citizens, even before the
>> bestowal of rights to marry.
>
> Hence why thinking people are choosing the term "equal marriage"
> actually - because this is about civil rights and recognition of those
> for marginalised persons.
marriage" (I did in fact, write the subject line to this thread). My
objection was to the abject dismissal of the term "gay marriage" because
I just felt that it missed the broader context.
To be clear, it is not my intention to belittle the struggles of other
sexual minorities. Or, frankly, any other group that suffers
discrimination at the hand of closed-minded individuals. I will be the
first in line to march in a bi pride parade (just as my bi friends march
in gay pride parades...for better or worse, they are still called that).
I personally just feel that there is nothing wrong with discussing the
topic of marriage equality in the context in which it exists. Gay
couples are fighting for the right to marry the people they love. It's
the fight on the table right now. When the topic changes to another
fight involving others whose rights are being infringed, I will be right
there pulling for them too.
Ed
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Steve Pope
Apr 6, 2013, 2:17:24 PM4/6/13
to
>>>> Not gay marriage. Same-sex marriage. :-)
>>> I've been struggling with whether or not to respond to this, partly
>>> because it took me a while to put my finger on why it bothered me.
>>> I get the point of the distinction. And, from a technical
>>> perspective, I guess I agree with it.
>>> But I think what has been bugging me is that the fight for the right
>>> of same-sex couples to marry is part of the broader fight for civil
>>> right for GLBT folks. [..]
>>> I've been struggling with whether or not to respond to this, partly
>>> because it took me a while to put my finger on why it bothered me.
>>> I get the point of the distinction. And, from a technical
>>> perspective, I guess I agree with it.
>>> But I think what has been bugging me is that the fight for the right
>>> of same-sex couples to marry is part of the broader fight for civil
>> It seems to me that you either don't mix with bisexuals or you dismiss
>> them, or you are part of the huge problem of bisexual erasure then.
>Actually I do mix with bisexuals and, in fact, in good numbers.
>I also clearly stated that my experience was my own and apologized to
>others who have a different experience.
I think you brought up a real issue with an aspect of the current
narrative.
Steve
Todd Michel McComb
Apr 6, 2013, 3:07:55 PM4/6/13
to
In article <7la0m8dfnejeqma9s...@4ax.com>,
Chickpea <chic...@gmx.co.uk> wrote:
>"Whenever two people meet, there are really six people present. There
>is each man as
>he sees himself, each man as the other sees him, and each man as he
>really is."
> - William James, The Principles of Psychology (1890)
William James... smart guy, and in fact, radical empiricism is very
much in vogue right now... but surely it's that last set of people
that doesn't exist.
Chickpea <chic...@gmx.co.uk> wrote:
>"Whenever two people meet, there are really six people present. There
>is each man as
>he sees himself, each man as the other sees him, and each man as he
>really is."
> - William James, The Principles of Psychology (1890)
William James... smart guy, and in fact, radical empiricism is very
much in vogue right now... but surely it's that last set of people
that doesn't exist.
Steve Pope
Apr 6, 2013, 3:32:54 PM4/6/13
to
Steve
Message has been deleted
Todd Michel McComb
Apr 8, 2013, 12:29:37 PM4/8/13
to
In article <47e5m8lhig0l72j03...@4ax.com>,
Chickpea <chic...@gmx.co.uk> wrote:
>In alt.polyamory, (Todd Michel McComb) wrote in
><kjprqb$954$1...@usenet.stanford.edu>::
>reality. Whether it can be usefully perceived is a question for another
>day.
Ah, well, James believed that the measure of truth was whether it
was useful, so it's that last question that would have concerned
him. Nor is it solipsism, since as you'll note, there were already
entities outside of the self given. The last entities James notes
in your quote are artifacts of his theology.
Chickpea <chic...@gmx.co.uk> wrote:
>In alt.polyamory, (Todd Michel McComb) wrote in
><kjprqb$954$1...@usenet.stanford.edu>::
>>William James... smart guy, and in fact, radical empiricism is very
>>much in vogue right now... but surely it's that last set of people
>>that doesn't exist.
>I'm not enough of a solipsist to believe that there is *no* underlying
>>much in vogue right now... but surely it's that last set of people
>>that doesn't exist.
>reality. Whether it can be usefully perceived is a question for another
>day.
Ah, well, James believed that the measure of truth was whether it
was useful, so it's that last question that would have concerned
him. Nor is it solipsism, since as you'll note, there were already
entities outside of the self given. The last entities James notes
in your quote are artifacts of his theology.
David Weinshenker
Apr 10, 2013, 2:58:45 AM4/10/13
to
Serene Vannoy wrote:
> Also, I don't think we need a term to cover both same-sex marriage and
> polyamorous marriage.
Yeah, more like the other way around. We need a special term to single out
> Also, I don't think we need a term to cover both same-sex marriage and
> polyamorous marriage.
marriages with neither of those attributes, of course. There's marriage,
and then there's polyqueertrans-free Str8Marriage [tm]...
-dave w
David Weinshenker
May 18, 2013, 3:01:29 AM5/18/13
to
Steve Pope wrote:
> David Weinshenker <daz...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> Maybe we should just refer to the special case of
>> marriage "specifically between One Man and One
>> Woman" as something like "square marriage" or
>> "straight marriage" or maybe "het-binary marriage",
>> just to be sure that we set it off as Something
>> Different from all the other sorts of marriage
>> that people might -normally- be involved in!
>
> This is tangential, but for me the phrase "marriage
> is specifically between one man and one woman" makes
> it sound like there are exactly two individuals in
> the entire nation who are entitled to get married.
>
> Probably just my penchant for taking things literally.
I have similar thoughts when I encounter politicians going
on about "the voter" or "the taxpayer"...
Then there's this:
"Do you have to be 100% directed at women and away from men in thought, feeling,
word, and deed from birth to death to qualify as a "real" lesbian? That would rule
out all but about two women on the planet. I hope they can find each other." [1]
-dave w
[1] (Greta Christina, quoted in Stacey Young: "Bisexuality, Lesbian
and Gay Communities, and the Limits of Identity Politics" in _Bisexual
Politics: Theories, Queries, & Visions_ [Naomi Tucker et. al. (eds.)]) [2]
[2] you know you're in trouble when the source citation
is almost as long as the quoted text!
> David Weinshenker <daz...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> Maybe we should just refer to the special case of
>> marriage "specifically between One Man and One
>> Woman" as something like "square marriage" or
>> "straight marriage" or maybe "het-binary marriage",
>> just to be sure that we set it off as Something
>> Different from all the other sorts of marriage
>> that people might -normally- be involved in!
>
> This is tangential, but for me the phrase "marriage
> is specifically between one man and one woman" makes
> it sound like there are exactly two individuals in
> the entire nation who are entitled to get married.
>
> Probably just my penchant for taking things literally.
I have similar thoughts when I encounter politicians going
on about "the voter" or "the taxpayer"...
Then there's this:
"Do you have to be 100% directed at women and away from men in thought, feeling,
word, and deed from birth to death to qualify as a "real" lesbian? That would rule
out all but about two women on the planet. I hope they can find each other." [1]
-dave w
[1] (Greta Christina, quoted in Stacey Young: "Bisexuality, Lesbian
and Gay Communities, and the Limits of Identity Politics" in _Bisexual
Politics: Theories, Queries, & Visions_ [Naomi Tucker et. al. (eds.)]) [2]
[2] you know you're in trouble when the source citation
is almost as long as the quoted text!
Orlando Enrique Fiol
May 20, 2014, 4:32:52 PM5/20/14
to
x@y.z wrote:
>Okay. Why not, if you don't mind me asking? Does "queer" carry a negative
>connotation I'm unaware of, beyond that accorded words like gay, lesbian,
>trans, etc? Or am I just plain misusing the term to mean something it
>doesn't?
The term "queer" definitely carried (and perhaps still does) negative
>Okay. Why not, if you don't mind me asking? Does "queer" carry a negative
>connotation I'm unaware of, beyond that accorded words like gay, lesbian,
>trans, etc? Or am I just plain misusing the term to mean something it
>doesn't?
connotations towards homosexuality and gay men in particular. Gays and lesbians
have largely "reclaimed" that term by giving it positive connotations, but it
seems too historically loaded to encompass polyamory.
0 new messages