Submitted by media girl on 5 August 2010 - 5:57pm
Let's repeat that:
Gay couples don't have equal rights. Gay people do.
As far as I know, couples are not mentioned in the US Constitution. However, people are. We the people (etc etc etc). So when the mainstream media, stuck in their tired old frames, too stuck in their ways and prideful of their privilege, go on and on about a "victory for gay couples," you need to step back and think about what's really happening.
The court ruled that gay people have equal rights.
And when you think about this, it's a no-brainer.
Example: If I want to marry Jane, and the government says, "No, you can't," what it's really saying is, "No, you can't marry Jane because you are a woman." Of course, if I were a man, sure, I could marry Jane.
That is plain and simple sex discrimination. It's not about gay-ness. It's not about couples. It's about the government requiring that I be of a certain sex in order to marry Jane.
This is why the right-wing hysteria over gay marriage is so misplaced and overblown — all the more so when it's a tea bagger. Tea baggers are big on saying how they're for shrinking government, but they sure want the government to protect them from their own homophobia.
For an eloquent post on this topic, see Derek Powazek's post:
In much of the news coverage today, I’ve seen the phrase “Pro-Gay Marriage” used to describe the people who are celebrating Judge Walker’s ruling. But this rubs me the wrong way.I’m not Pro-Gay Marriage, I’m Pro-Equality. I’m not Pro-Gay Rights, I’m Pro-Common Sense. I’m Anti-Discrimination. I’m Anti-Enshrining Your Queasiness About Buttsex In My Constitution. I’m Pro-When The Constitution Says We’re All Equal, It Means We’re All Equal.
I’m married, and it matters. It changes the way I look at the world, and the way the world looks at me. It comes with state and federal benefits and rights. Withholding those things from same-sex couples is discrimination, pure and simple. If you support withholding rights from people because of who they are, you’re a bigot. Period.
My grandmother taught me two important lessons. The first was tolerance. Enjoy people who are different from you. It’s the variety that makes life wonderful. The second was to always look out for the rights of others. Because if you sit by and let discrimination happen, you’ll be next.
So if you're against gay marriage, here's the easy solution: Don't do it. Now wasn't that easy? (If not, maybe you should ponder a bit on the source of your opposition.)
[Photo: Happy face of hate, by Burns! (cc)]
Comments
10 comments posted"We the people" never had gays in mind. Stop twisting history!
"We the people never had gays in mind" Give me a fucking break. That is about the most bigoted thing I've heard this decade.
how do you know there were no gays in the days of George Washington?
There were gays in George Washington's day and believe it or not there were gays even before George Washington's day! My goodness! Pick up a book and shut your mouth.
But don't let us keep you from your nostalgia.
Hi superb website! Does running a blog similar
to this require a massive amount work? I have very little understanding of programming
however I was hoping to start my own blog in the near future.
Anyways, if you have any recommendations or tips for new blog
owners please share. I know this is off topic nevertheless I
just needed to ask. Thanks!
Gay PEOPLE are deprived of rights. Homosexuals are not aloud to donate blood. They are bullied and tormented, and many anti-hate crime laws do not cover gays. So yes, gay PEOPLE do not have equal rights.
Gay PEOPLE are deprived of rights, they are not allowed to donate blood, they endure endless bullying, and some "Anti-Hate Crime" Laws do not cover homosexuals. So yes gay People do not have equal rights.
Actually, it is estimated that 75% of LGBTQ students have no state laws protecting them from peer harassment and bullying. 97% of teens report hearing homophobic remarks regularly. "that's so gay!!" is a phrase that should seriously die out... I know at my own middle school we had a lot of that.
Also, most anti-hate-crime laws do not protect gays. Around 20% of hate crimes are against the LGBTQ community, the majority violent. Perpetrators rarel serve justice.
Finally, the right to not be FOLLOWED WITH SIGNS (I've seen this) is totally not given to gay PEOPLE as well as couples. WBC needs to be locked up in a cave.
I would first like to point out that when the original Constitution was written, It was intended to apply to white, male, landowners and white male landowners only. However, over time, we have evolved our notion of what it means to be free, and to be human. Thus, your argument fails in even the most abstract sense. Now, we become more literal.
The Equal Protection Clause found within § I of amendment XIV has been applied to couples in the past, most notably in Loving v. Virginia (388 U.S. 1) a Supreme Court decision wherein the court ruled that that state's statute prohibiting interracial couples from marrying was unconstitutional pursuant to amendment XIV. The argument that the two had the right to marry any other person of their choosing, so long as it be of the same race, was invalid due to the plain fact that they did not want to, nor could they conceive of marrying anyone else. The fact that the state's discrimination against their relationship constituted a de facto discrimination against the individuals, aggravated by the intangibility of the state's proclaimed reasons for passing the measure, rendered the statute entirely in violation of the Equal Protection Clause. If one substitutes the term 'interracial' for 'same sex' the parallels between the two becoming strikingly apparent.
It is the states' attack upon individuals' ability to share a life with the person they love, upon individuals' ability to raise a family with that same person, upon individuals' ability to pursue their own happiness that constitutes a tangible trespass upon their Equal Protection. In this sense, given the wholly abstract and purely idealogical motives behind prohibiting gay marriage, it is impossible to classify one relationship as being inferior to another without first classifying one human being as being inferior to another.
Post new comment