The anti-gay marriage movement IS homophobic

If the uptight religious who oppose homosexuality would just shut up and not interfere, and if the uptiight pro-gay-marriage crowd would just be willing to compromise on a single word (pick another word for marriage), everybody could have what they want and need and that would go a huge way toward creating a more tolerant and compatible environment for everybody.

The all or nothing approach to the issue is not likely to get it done in this decade or even maybe in our lifetime.

● Text of the amendment it proposes:

● To preserve and protect marriage in this state, only a union between one man and one woman shall be valid and recognized as a marriage by this state or its political subdivisions and no legal status for unmarried persons shall be created or recognized by this state or its political subdivisions that is similar to that of marriage.

To preserve and protect marriage in this state, only a union between one man and one woman shall be valid and recognized as a marriage by this state or its political subdivisions

and no legal status for unmarried persons shall be created or recognized by this state or its political subdivisions that is similar to that of marriage.

Foxfyre, Clearly the backers of the Arizona iniative would not be willing to compromise on any word.

Drive is on to ban gay marriage

Quote:

● Text of the amendment it proposes:

● To preserve and protect marriage in this state, only a union between one man and one woman shall be valid and recognized as a marriage by this state or its political subdivisions and no legal status for unmarried persons shall be created or recognized by this state or its political subdivisions that is similar to that of marriage.

Less clear is whether such a proposal, even if approved, would withstand a court challenge. Just last week, a federal court in Nebraska voided a similar provision in that state.

Judge Joseph Bataillon said the amendment works to deprive certain people, namely gays, of their prerogative to petition their state and local lawmakers for various rights, such as domestic partner benefits.

The Arizona measure, if adopted, would have the same restrictions, blocking even state legislators from deciding unmarried couples are entitled to certain rights currently enjoyed only by those who are married.

In a decision that has been anticipated for several months, Nebraska federal district court judge Joseph Battaillon on May 12 struck down the Nebraska marriage amendment, also called Section 29, which was passed by 70 percent of Nebraska voters in the November 2004 election, on the basis that it violated the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, and constituted a "bill of attainder" (see explanation below) prohibited by the U.S. Constitution.

The amendment consists of two parts: 1) a definition of marriage; and 2) invalidity and non-recognition of same-sex civil unions, domestic partnerships, or anything similar. It reads as follows:

Only marriage between a man and a woman shall be valid or recognized in Nebraska. The uniting of two persons of the same sex in a civil union, domestic partnership, or other similar same-sex relationship shall not be valid or recognized in Nebraska.

The court found a First Amendment violation in the second sentence of the state amendment because it effectively foreclosed specific classes of people or groups from seeking redress for grievances (i.e., asking the legislature to fix problems) or attempting to advocate for legislation relating to benefits for same-sex couples. This is the same reasoning the U.S. Supreme Court used in the 1996 case of Romer v. Evans.1

The equal-protection claim also relies on Romer for striking down the marriage amendment. The court found that Section 29 was "indistinguishable from the Colorado constitutional amendment at issue in Romer," in that it bears no rational relationship to any legitimate state interest, and the court concludes that "the intent and purpose of the amendment is based on animus against this class." It denies access to the political process to a singled-out group. . . .

The case is styled Citizens for Equal Protection v. Bruning, 4:03CV3155.

Perhaps the most interesting development to dot the landscape was a ruling issued just last week by a federal court in Nebraska. The court, in Citizens for Equal Protection, Inc. v. Bruning, struck down an amendment to Nebraska's constitution containing a broad ban on recognition for same-sex relationships.

Section 29 of the Nebraska constitution, adopted by voter referendum in 2000, provides that "[o]nly marriage between a man and a woman shall be valid or recognized in Nebraska. The uniting of two persons of the same sex in a civil union, domestic partnership, or other similar same-sex relationship shall not be valid or recognized in Nebraska."

This ban is especially troubling - as the Nebraska federal court found - because it smacks of bias, pure and simple. Rather than purporting simply to "protect" the institution of marriage by limiting it to heterosexual couples, it reaches out to try to invalidate any possible legal status another state might confer on same-sex couples, no matter how unlike marriage it might be.

Although more than four-fifths of the states ban same-sex marriage by statute or constitutional amendment, fewer than ten go beyond banning "marriage" itself. But Nebraska is part of the minority that has enacted more extensive bans on legal recognition of same-sex relationships. The meaning of scope of these various provisions is unknown, since they are essentially unprecedented. Thus, the Nebraska case was especially significant.

The case arose because Nebraska's attorney general opined that a bill to allow the domestic partner of a deceased person the power to authorize an anatomical gift, or dispose of remains, would violate the constitutional ban on legal recognition of a same-sex relationship.

If this interpretation is correct, then the Nebraska ban not only prohibits same-sex marriage, but it may also bar a whole host of other protections as well. Indeed, in the suit, the plaintiffs argued that Section 29 interfered with a variety of federally protected constitutional rights.

The district court agreed and struck down the provision on multiple grounds.

First, the court wrote, Section 29 interferes with two rights of association protected by the First Amendment - the right of expressive association and the right of intimate association. Both are implicated by Nebraska's ban, which expressly forbids certain forms of intimate association, and interferes with the ability of like-minded individuals to associate and petition the government for redress of their grievances.

It is the unusual breadth of the Nebraska provision that got it into trouble. A mere ban on same-sex marriage could be more easily (though not necessarily correctly) sustained under federal constitutional principles, since most courts would be likely to find that states have a compelling interest in protecting the institution of marriage. But, here, the ban on same-sex relationships is so broad as to call the state's motives into question.

In reaching its holding, the Nebraska federal district court drew on the U.S. Supreme Court's holding in Romer v. Evans. There, the High Court struck down an amendment to the Colorado Constitution that prohibited municipalities from adopting any law to protect gay rights. In Romer, the Court found especially objectionable the "special disability" that had been placed on gays and lesbians: They could only seek governmental protection through constitutional amendment - as opposed to the usual, majority-rules legislative process. This was truly an imposition of second-class citizenship.

The Nebraska federal court found Section 29 of the Nebraska Constitution objectionable for similar reasons: As the court explained, a "blanket prospective prohibition on any type of legal recognition of a same-sex relationship [such as Nebraska's] not only denies the benefits of favorable legislation to these groups, it prohibits them from even asking for such benefits." This prohibition "creates a barrier to participation in the political process that no minority population is ever likely to surmount."

On this same analysis, the Nebraska federal district court concluded that Section 29 violates the federal Equal Protection Clause as well. In Romer, the Supreme Court concluded that the constitutional amendment must fail even the most deferential standard of review, if it is borne solely of animosity to a particular group. The Nebraska court ruled that the provision here was similarly unconstitutional.

In addition, the court held that Section 29 constitutes an unlawful Bill of Attainder. Article 1, section 9 of the federal constitution prohibits legislatures from inflicting punishment on an identifiable person or group without judicial trial. This is a fundamental part of the American justice system: Crimes must be defined by statute, and convictions must be the result of trial by jury.

In the Nebraska court's view, "a legislative act that singles out a group and restricts its ability to effect political change amounts to punishment and can be a bill of attainder." The court viewed the nature of the deprivation embodied in Section 29 to constitute punishment, since it effectively disenfranchises them from seeking legislative protection for their relationships.

(If one doubts the validity of the court's logic, it's worth considering that felons are, in many states, deprived of the vote. In impairing the right of those in same-sex relationships to participate in the political process, Nebraska thus imposes the very kind of punishment that one must usually commit a serious crime to incur.)

Section 29, the court concluded, was intended to prohibit the ability of gays and lesbians to "effectuate changes opposed by the majority" and is thus invalid.

This ruling could potentially be very significant - if federal courts in other states follow its logic. If so, then even those states that seem locked into a position on same-sex marriage, may see their apparently-entrenched positions uprooted.

And, again, that is unfortunate, Mesquite. When either side pushes what is unfair or unreasonable for the other, the remedy is often extreme and excessive such as you are seeing in that initiative in Arizona.

It is not unreasonable (or homophobic or anything else) for people to want to keep the traditional definition of marriage for all the reasons that have been posted all over A2K for months now.

Here is Thompson speaking against the [Texas] Legislature's recent folly of putting a superfluous anti-gay marriage measure into the state constitution:

"I have been a member of this august body for three decades, and today is one of the all-time low points. We are going in the wrong direction, in the direction of hate and fear and discrimination. Members, we all know what this is about; this is the politics of divisiveness at it's worst, a wedge issue that is meant to divide. ...

"Let's look at what this amendment does not do: It does not give one Texas citizen meaningful tax relief. It does not reform or fully fund our education system. It does not restore one child to CHIP [Children's Health Insurance Program] who was cut from health insurance last session. It does not put one dime into raising Texas' Third World access to health care. It does not do one thing to care for or protect one elderly person or one child in this state. In fact, it does not even do anything to protect one marriage.

"Members, this bill is about hate and fear and discrimination. . . . When I was a small girl, white folks used to talk about 'protecting the institution of marriage' as well. What they meant was if people of my color tried to marry people of Mr. Chisum's color, you'd often find the people of my color hanging from a tree. . . . Fifty years ago, white folks thought interracial marriages were 'a threat to the institution of marriage.'

"Members, I'm a Christian and a proud Christian. I read the good book and do my best to live by it. I have never read the verse where it says, 'Gay people can't marry.' I have never read the verse where it says, 'Thou shalt discriminate against those not like me.' I have never read the verse where it says, 'Let's base our public policy on hate and fear and discrimination.' Christianity to me is love and hope and faith and forgiveness -- not hate and discrimination.

"I have served in this body a lot of years, and I have seen a lot of promises broken. . . . So . . . now that blacks and women have equal rights, you turn your hatred to homosexuals, and you still use your misguided reading of the Bible to justify your hatred. You want to pass this ridiculous amendment so you can go home and brag -- brag about what? Declare that you saved the people of Texas from what?

"Persons of the same sex cannot get married in this state now. Texas law does not now recognize same-sex marriages, civil unions, religious unions, domestic partnerships, contractual arrangements or Christian blessings entered into in this state -- or anywhere else on this planet Earth.

"If you want to make your hateful political statements then that is one thing -- but the Chisum amendment does real harm. It repeals the contracts that many single people have paid thousands of dollars to purchase to obtain medical powers of attorney, powers of attorney, hospital visitation, joint ownership and support agreements. You have lost your way. This is obscene. . . .

What's Their Real Problem With Gay Marriage? (It's the Gay Part)
By RUSSELL SHORTO
Published: June 19, 2005

...But for the anti-gay-marriage activists, homosexuality is something to be fought, not tolerated or respected. I found no one among the people on the ground who are leading the anti-gay-marriage cause who said in essence: ''I have nothing against homosexuality. I just don't believe gays should be allowed to marry.'' Rather, their passion comes from their conviction that homosexuality is a sin, is immoral, harms children and spreads disease. Not only that, but they see homosexuality itself as a kind of disease, one that afflicts not only individuals but also society at large and that shares one of the prominent features of a disease: it seeks to spread itself.

THe banning of gay marriage is really unfortunate because it makes it so much tougher to arrive at a compromise and subsequent win-win proposition.

If everybody could be broad minded about this whole thing, one side could see how important the traditional definition of marriage is to a great many people and allow them to have that. And everybody could understand the need for same sex couples and others to have the protections and benefits inherent in the marriage contract.

No, gay sex is not a moral issue. Gays can have all the sex they want. Gay marriage, is the issue.

Marriage has too much baggage attached to it. As I have explained in the past, and will continue doing so in the future, forcing the population to accept gay marriage is not the direction the gay community should be tacking. They should be trying to get a legal social contract that allows gays the equivalent rights in partership that a marriage does now.

Were I a homosexual, I would be demanding that ALL unions be performed thusly. Allowing the religious to keep the idea of marriage whole, but leveling the playing field for all.

It is not a VIABLE life style for most of us in the rest of the society who wish to have heirs.

Again, I would refuse to have my child attend a school class in which active cases of TB had been discovered and left alone untreated. I similarly would protect my child from the prosleytising that goes on in some school district fearing that he would become homosexual.

It is my right to set the conditions under which I wish to have my child educated.