Posted by
Playful Walrus on Thursday, November 05, 2009 4:25:23 PM
If you've ever seen the audition episodes of American Idol, you've probably seen someone trying to convince the judges that they could be pop music superstars via the show, even after the judges have decided to turn them down. They keep singing, often badly, trying to change the minds of the judges. Sometimes their behavior becomes downright scary in response for not being affirmed by the judges as something they're not.
We're seeing that kind of behavior now when it comes to marriage licensing laws.
The Los Angeles Times editorial board reminds us that they are advocates of marriage neutering, just in case we forgot. They bemoan the vote in Maine, and how long it is taking for marriage to be redefined - after thousands of years of worldwide history - to accommodate a few people within a minority who want to force everyone else to call their relationship marriage. But they do see signs of "progress".
Washington state voters appeared to approve giving gays and lesbians in domestic partnerships the same practical rights as married couples.
Interesting that the editorial board seems to think this is a good thing, but the legislature passing it in California wasn't enough. Here, having "only" domestic partnerships was presented as the end of the world - an insult.
Newly approved federal law recognizes that crimes committed because of the victim's sexual orientation are hate crimes
Crime is crime. Assault, unless for self defense or to protect the innocent, should be illegal - period. But I can't wait for this to be used when a straight person gets assaulted and called a "breeder".
next on the federal agenda is ending employment discrimination against gays and lesbians.
As long as the federal government is going to intrude into the employer-employee relationship to prevent the employer from discriminating on the basis of personal identity or behaviors engaged in by the employee away from work, then I don't see why it shouldn't be involved here. However, I believe in property rights, and as such, I think employers should be able to discriminate on any basis they want to, including firing me for being a Christian, as long as they don't take tax money. Meanwhile, I wonder if a gay bar would really be prosecuted for not hiring me? After all, if the law truly protects from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, then it has to protect straight people, too, not just homosexual people, as the editorial implies.
Lifelong marriage traditions and deeply held religious beliefs have a strong grip on many voters.
Imagine that. It isn't just lifelong, either. It's since the dawn of human history. Yup. Observations about human nature, the valuing of both masculinity and femininity, the grasping of certain first things - that can have a string grip on many voters.
Gays and lesbians shouldn't have to wait for an entire generation to reach voting age in order to receive equal rights.
When it comes to marriage, they already have equal rights, and that is how it should be.
In related news, the paper's blog covered a Sore Losers march, choosing to use a picture that does nothing to dispel the notion that homosexual people are strange. Several comments from claimed eyewitnesses say that the picture is highly misleading in that virtually everyone else in the march was dressed normally. For what it is worth, I know homosexual people who find these people strange. Robert J. Lopez reports.
More than 200 people are marching north on Vermont Avenue from Santa Monica Boulevard to protest Proposition 8, the measure that banned same-sex marriages in California.
I think the paper is giving these things more attention than they deserve, given the size of the protest. I also find it odd that these people expect us all to reorient our society to cater to their feelings because they've run editorials or disrupted traffic. Saying that a marriage license is a "right" owed to brideless or groomless couples or that changing our laws to issue licenses to such couples is the right thing to do does not make it true. Even if some really fabulous people say it.
Time and again, the people have considered the pleas of those who want to redefine marriage, and we have said "No" each and every time.
If you haven't done so already, check out this entry over at The Opine Editorials.