Click on the headline to link to a YouTube film clip of a movie trailer for Chloe.
DVD Review
Chloe, Liam Neelson, Julianne Moore, Amanda Seyfied, 2009
No, I am not reviewing this film, Chloe, based on the story line of this rather mundane (and theme done before) psychological thriller (maybe) about an upper class American family (slightly dysfunctional, of course) who when doctor mom gets “signals” that professor dad is cheating on her in his (and her) old age (40-50 something, okay) who gets catch up in the thrall of what is euphemistically called a high end escort (a.k.a. “hooker”, call girl, etc.). That’s enough detail about the plot.
What really interests me about this film is the sub-theme, the inter-generation lesbian theme that is rather graphic in its depiction. Here escort Chloe, through a series of machinations, beds doctor mom. And old lady doctor mom (and Chloe) likes it. Now the only reason that that theme resonates with me right now is that I have recently read Lillian Hellman’s play The Children’s Hour and seen the film (the 1961 version under that same name). That play and film with a very different plot line nevertheless deals rather more obliquely with lesbianism, almost as if it dare not speak its name (and it doesn’t in the first film version of Hellman’s play, These Three). So what makes Chloe of interest is as an example of how far, at least cinematically, we have come from the days when such topics, especially the “hot button” one of inter-generation sex, hetero, lesbian or otherwise, were relegated to underground movie houses or private viewings.
Showing posts with label same-sex marriage. Show all posts
Showing posts with label same-sex marriage. Show all posts
Thursday, January 06, 2011
Monday, October 12, 2009
*Support Gay Marriage Rights- Down With The Federal Defense Of Marriage Act And State Laws Against Same -Sex Marrage!
Click on title to link to "Boston Globe" article about the massive demonstration in Washington, D.C. in support of gay rights- the right of same-sex marriage and the right to be openly gay in the military.
Friday, June 05, 2009
*The Domino Theory In The Democratic Struggle For Gay Marriage Rights- New Hampshire Falls
Click On Title To Link To Boston Globe Article On The Recent Legislative Action In New Hampshire That Has Sanctioned Gay Marriage Rights.
Mini-commentary
I have already made the germane points about this issue elsewhere on this site overt the past couple of months as things have gone quickly. Kudos for New Hampshire as the fifth New England state to ratify, one way or another, gay marriage rights. This once rather stolid, conservative state has dramatically shifted from the days when the late, unlamented Willaim Loeb, publisher of the conservative "Manchester Union Leader" held sway over that body politic. Nevertheless I would feel a whole lot better about the fate of this struggle if places like Alabama or....California got on board. Forward.
Mini-commentary
I have already made the germane points about this issue elsewhere on this site overt the past couple of months as things have gone quickly. Kudos for New Hampshire as the fifth New England state to ratify, one way or another, gay marriage rights. This once rather stolid, conservative state has dramatically shifted from the days when the late, unlamented Willaim Loeb, publisher of the conservative "Manchester Union Leader" held sway over that body politic. Nevertheless I would feel a whole lot better about the fate of this struggle if places like Alabama or....California got on board. Forward.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
*Down With The California Same-Sex Marriage Ban ( Proposition 8)!
Click On Title To Link To July 2, 2009 "New York Review Of Books" Article Entitled "The Same-Sex Future" By David Cole That Gives An Update On This Struggle And A Capsule Of The Various Positions On The Issue.
Commentary
Sometimes the fight for a simple democratic right is not so simple. Moreover, sometimes it’s kind of messy when the issues get drawn up to the razor’s edge like the hot-button question of same-sex marriage. That is clearly the case with the recent electoral victory of Proposition 8 by a slim majority in California. That proposition, placed on the ballot after the California Supreme Court earlier this year correctly held that the ban against legalization of same-sex marriages was a denial of equal protection under the state constitution, has now embedded inequality into that constitution. Fortunately, there has been push-back on the part of pro-gay rights forces, both on the streets and in the courts.
Here is the part where it gets messy. In the normal course of events militants, as part of their fervent defense of democratic rights, are very much in favor of using initiative and referendum processes in order to get a hearing on particular issues. And, as a general premise, we still are in California and the other places where such procedures are in place. On this issue, however, we have a conflict. A basic substantial right-simply to get married- if the parties so desire. Against that, we have an inflamed, although possibility shifting majority, that wants to deny this right. The simple right trumps that inflamed desire to deny the right. Case closed. Now that may not accord with the beauties of democratic theory, such as it is, but there you have it. In a class-bound society, driven many times by irrational or thoughtless politics, we do not always get to choose our issues or have them presented by others in a manner that we can uphold. This should be one of my classic “no-brainer” issues. Oh well, our day will come.
In these quarters it is not clear whether the California Supreme Court will uphold its own correct initial impulses and strike down the amendment. (There is a legal question on the procedure followed by the Proposition 8 initiators about whether the matter should have been brought before the legislature first and then placed on the ballot or whether it could be placed directly on the ballot- the ‘amendment vs. revision’ argument). That is nether here nor then for our purposes. We, as always, will use the courts as best we can without having any illusions that justice will out. What is more important is to continue that pressure in the streets to keep the issue public.
On that question it is noteworthy that one of the central targets of the California demonstrators has been the Mormon Church, a key backer of the proposition (the other being the Roman Catholic Church). I am always reminded of a poster at a pro-gay marriage demonstration here in Boston when the reactionary forces here tried to overturn the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court’s gay marriage decision- Mitt (Romney, then governor of Massachusetts and subsequently a 2008 Republican presidential contender) Your Great-Grandfather Had Five Wives- I Only Want One! (The main Mormon Church group permitted polygamy until 1890.) That, my friends, says it in a nutshell. We defend either social arrangement and deny the state the right to interfere with those preferences. Down With California's Proposition 8 Ban! Defend The Right To Same-Sex Marriage!
Commentary
Sometimes the fight for a simple democratic right is not so simple. Moreover, sometimes it’s kind of messy when the issues get drawn up to the razor’s edge like the hot-button question of same-sex marriage. That is clearly the case with the recent electoral victory of Proposition 8 by a slim majority in California. That proposition, placed on the ballot after the California Supreme Court earlier this year correctly held that the ban against legalization of same-sex marriages was a denial of equal protection under the state constitution, has now embedded inequality into that constitution. Fortunately, there has been push-back on the part of pro-gay rights forces, both on the streets and in the courts.
Here is the part where it gets messy. In the normal course of events militants, as part of their fervent defense of democratic rights, are very much in favor of using initiative and referendum processes in order to get a hearing on particular issues. And, as a general premise, we still are in California and the other places where such procedures are in place. On this issue, however, we have a conflict. A basic substantial right-simply to get married- if the parties so desire. Against that, we have an inflamed, although possibility shifting majority, that wants to deny this right. The simple right trumps that inflamed desire to deny the right. Case closed. Now that may not accord with the beauties of democratic theory, such as it is, but there you have it. In a class-bound society, driven many times by irrational or thoughtless politics, we do not always get to choose our issues or have them presented by others in a manner that we can uphold. This should be one of my classic “no-brainer” issues. Oh well, our day will come.
In these quarters it is not clear whether the California Supreme Court will uphold its own correct initial impulses and strike down the amendment. (There is a legal question on the procedure followed by the Proposition 8 initiators about whether the matter should have been brought before the legislature first and then placed on the ballot or whether it could be placed directly on the ballot- the ‘amendment vs. revision’ argument). That is nether here nor then for our purposes. We, as always, will use the courts as best we can without having any illusions that justice will out. What is more important is to continue that pressure in the streets to keep the issue public.
On that question it is noteworthy that one of the central targets of the California demonstrators has been the Mormon Church, a key backer of the proposition (the other being the Roman Catholic Church). I am always reminded of a poster at a pro-gay marriage demonstration here in Boston when the reactionary forces here tried to overturn the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court’s gay marriage decision- Mitt (Romney, then governor of Massachusetts and subsequently a 2008 Republican presidential contender) Your Great-Grandfather Had Five Wives- I Only Want One! (The main Mormon Church group permitted polygamy until 1890.) That, my friends, says it in a nutshell. We defend either social arrangement and deny the state the right to interfere with those preferences. Down With California's Proposition 8 Ban! Defend The Right To Same-Sex Marriage!
Sunday, November 02, 2008
VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 8 IN CALIFORNIA- THE GAY MARRIGE BAN AMENDMENT
Click On Title To Link To July 2, 2009 "New York Review Of Books" Article Entitled "The Same-Sex Future" By David Cole That Gives An Update On This Struggle And A Capsule Of The Various Positions On The Issue.
Commentary
IN CALIFORNIA VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 8- THE GAY MARRIAGE BAN AMENDMENT-WITH BOTH HANDS!!!
Earlier this year the California Supreme Court held by a 4-3 vote that the prohibition against same sex marriage violated the California constitution. Needless to say, as has occurred in other locales like Massachusetts, the "social conservatives" there have attempted to overturn that decision by placing a proposition (Proposition 8) banning same sex marriages on the ballot for the November 4, 2008 elections.
Just as adamantly we oppose this measure. Vote NO with both hands on this one. Anyone even vaguely familiar with the politics of this space knows this is a "no-brainer" position that needs no further motivation as a simple measure in defense of democratic rights. Moreover, unless there is some supportable socialist candidate that I have not heard about on the California ballot (no, NOT Cynthia McKinney of the Green Party and certainly not the moribund Peace and Freedom Party) then this may be the only reason to go to the polls on that day. Do so.
Commentary
IN CALIFORNIA VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 8- THE GAY MARRIAGE BAN AMENDMENT-WITH BOTH HANDS!!!
Earlier this year the California Supreme Court held by a 4-3 vote that the prohibition against same sex marriage violated the California constitution. Needless to say, as has occurred in other locales like Massachusetts, the "social conservatives" there have attempted to overturn that decision by placing a proposition (Proposition 8) banning same sex marriages on the ballot for the November 4, 2008 elections.
Just as adamantly we oppose this measure. Vote NO with both hands on this one. Anyone even vaguely familiar with the politics of this space knows this is a "no-brainer" position that needs no further motivation as a simple measure in defense of democratic rights. Moreover, unless there is some supportable socialist candidate that I have not heard about on the California ballot (no, NOT Cynthia McKinney of the Green Party and certainly not the moribund Peace and Freedom Party) then this may be the only reason to go to the polls on that day. Do so.
Friday, October 10, 2008
*Another Small Victory For Same-Sex Marriage
Click On Title To Link To July 2, 2009 "New York Review Of Books" Article Entitled "The Same-Sex Future" By David Cole That Gives An Update On This Struggle And A Capsule Of The Various Positions On The Issue.
Commentary
With all the appalling economic news this week it is nice to have at least one small victory. That comes today with the Connecticut Supreme Court's decision declaring same-sex marriage constitutional in that state. This decision, while not as important as the first one in Massachusetts or as decisive as in California is still welcome. As always watch out for blow back on this issue.
Boston Globe news item- October 10, 2008
Connecticut became the third state to legalize same-sex marriage today in a 4-3 decision by the state Supreme Court.
In an 85-page decision issued at 11:30 a.m., the court struck down a law barring same-sex marriage, ruling that the state had "failed to establish adequate reason to justify the statutory ban."
The justices noted in the majority opinion that they recognized "as the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court did in Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health … that 'our decision marks a change in the history of our marriage law.' "
The case, Kerrigan v. the state Commissioner of Public Health, was brought by eight same-sex couples who were denied marriage licenses by the Madison town clerk. They argued that the state's civil union law was discriminatory and unconstitutional because it established a separate and therefore inherently unequal institution for a minority group. Citing equal protection under the law, the state Supreme Court agreed.
Commentary
With all the appalling economic news this week it is nice to have at least one small victory. That comes today with the Connecticut Supreme Court's decision declaring same-sex marriage constitutional in that state. This decision, while not as important as the first one in Massachusetts or as decisive as in California is still welcome. As always watch out for blow back on this issue.
Boston Globe news item- October 10, 2008
Connecticut became the third state to legalize same-sex marriage today in a 4-3 decision by the state Supreme Court.
In an 85-page decision issued at 11:30 a.m., the court struck down a law barring same-sex marriage, ruling that the state had "failed to establish adequate reason to justify the statutory ban."
The justices noted in the majority opinion that they recognized "as the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court did in Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health … that 'our decision marks a change in the history of our marriage law.' "
The case, Kerrigan v. the state Commissioner of Public Health, was brought by eight same-sex couples who were denied marriage licenses by the Madison town clerk. They argued that the state's civil union law was discriminatory and unconstitutional because it established a separate and therefore inherently unequal institution for a minority group. Citing equal protection under the law, the state Supreme Court agreed.
Thursday, July 31, 2008
Political Thoughts in the Summer Doldrums
Of This and That
Commentary
Just a couple of observations to while away the summer doldrums.
California Gay and Lesbian Marriage Vote
Earlier this year the California Supreme Court held that, as a matter of state law, legislation on the books that discriminated against gays and lesbians on the question of the democratic right to marriage was unconstitutional. As in Massachusetts, there was furious backlash by various right-wing elements, some organized religions notably the Catholic Church, other usual suspects on this issue and the usual quota of married (or, as is usually the case, re-married) heterosexual types who can’t breath right if marriage is not defined in law, society and the eyes of god as the bonding of one male and one female human being.
Needless to say, such groups have some resources and have enough wherewithal to have this issue placed on the ballot this November. As the presidential race in California is likely to be a walkover for Obama this fight may get more than its share of attention. At this point I am not sure how this initiative petition question will appear on the ballot so I do not know how to call the vote (any help here?). In any case, we want to vote against the overriding of the court’s action down with both hands. Defend, extend the democratic right of gays and lesbians to marry (Markin adds -and good luck to them, they will need it. We are already starting to see gay and lesbian divorces in Massachusetts, just like heterosexuals).
**Integration of the American military
Within the past couple of weeks there has been a ceremony in Washington, D.C. honoring the 60th Anniversary of President Harry S. Truman’s signing of an executive order integrating the armed forces of American imperialism. While militant leftists have a very definite position in opposition to American governmental foreign and military policy we nevertheless, until working people take power, have a very definite interest in fighting for equal access and rights for all in almost any bourgeois institution. We do not encourage people to join the military but if they do then the full range of rights and opportunity should be open to them. That premise also underlines our position on the question of gays in the military (the current ‘see no evil’ policy is not an example of equal access but a bandage) and permitting women soldiers to become combat troops.
In one article about this commemoration that I read an interesting point was made that while blacks (who the original order was directed toward integrating) make up a proportionally larger (at least until recently due to the Iraqi quagmire) part of the various branches of the services than in the population as a whole they are underrepresented in the higher echelons of the military (senior NCOs and General Staff officers). Despite, the occasional Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice and Barack Obama story this remains a deeply race-divided society with blacks STILL disproportionately at the bottom of the pile. Our job is to rectify that when the above-mentioned working people take power. And pronto.
I would also be remiss here in a comment about the American military machine if in the summer of 2008 after more than five years of constant war I did not put a reminder that our task is still- Immediate, Unconditional Withdrawal From Iraq And Afghanistan of All American/Allied Troops And Their Mercenaries! Make that pronto, as well.
*** The Youth Vote
Although I have, in general, sworn off observations on the American presidential campaigns, such as they are, I have recently come across some statistical information that only verifies what I have been trying to point out about future political possibilities for extra-parliamentary militant leftists. Polls have shown that Barack Obama has significant leads among the young over Republican John McCain in several key states in the upcoming elections. Moreover that trend applies to the national picture, as well.
Ho hum you say. Well, in part, you would be right just on the basis of the age difference between McCain and Obama. To speak nothing of some of their policy differences and personal technological capacities (Obama can work an iPOd. McCain, apparently, is still using a transistor radio). However, I would point out that one Richard M. Nixon in 1972, a time beyond the high water mark of the 1960’s yet still within memory of those days, split the then just passed 26th Amendment –enhanced youth vote with George McGovern. And George McGovern was far, far to the left of anything that Obama has been saying (or, as of late, not saying).
In short, youth as a segment of society is not always left, not always progressive or for that matter not always even political. What the above-mentioned statistics tell me though is that something more like the swirl around John Kennedy in 1960 is forming and not the resignation and acceptance of defeat represented by Nixon’s reelection in 1972 by a significant segment of the young. As I pointed out in a recent small commentary on Obama’s rush to the right in order to gain ‘victory’ we will get our share of the political spoils once the disillusionment with Obama sets in (as a look at his social networking site will already confirm) with all the weighty social problems confronting this society still in need of solution.
Commentary
Just a couple of observations to while away the summer doldrums.
California Gay and Lesbian Marriage Vote
Earlier this year the California Supreme Court held that, as a matter of state law, legislation on the books that discriminated against gays and lesbians on the question of the democratic right to marriage was unconstitutional. As in Massachusetts, there was furious backlash by various right-wing elements, some organized religions notably the Catholic Church, other usual suspects on this issue and the usual quota of married (or, as is usually the case, re-married) heterosexual types who can’t breath right if marriage is not defined in law, society and the eyes of god as the bonding of one male and one female human being.
Needless to say, such groups have some resources and have enough wherewithal to have this issue placed on the ballot this November. As the presidential race in California is likely to be a walkover for Obama this fight may get more than its share of attention. At this point I am not sure how this initiative petition question will appear on the ballot so I do not know how to call the vote (any help here?). In any case, we want to vote against the overriding of the court’s action down with both hands. Defend, extend the democratic right of gays and lesbians to marry (Markin adds -and good luck to them, they will need it. We are already starting to see gay and lesbian divorces in Massachusetts, just like heterosexuals).
**Integration of the American military
Within the past couple of weeks there has been a ceremony in Washington, D.C. honoring the 60th Anniversary of President Harry S. Truman’s signing of an executive order integrating the armed forces of American imperialism. While militant leftists have a very definite position in opposition to American governmental foreign and military policy we nevertheless, until working people take power, have a very definite interest in fighting for equal access and rights for all in almost any bourgeois institution. We do not encourage people to join the military but if they do then the full range of rights and opportunity should be open to them. That premise also underlines our position on the question of gays in the military (the current ‘see no evil’ policy is not an example of equal access but a bandage) and permitting women soldiers to become combat troops.
In one article about this commemoration that I read an interesting point was made that while blacks (who the original order was directed toward integrating) make up a proportionally larger (at least until recently due to the Iraqi quagmire) part of the various branches of the services than in the population as a whole they are underrepresented in the higher echelons of the military (senior NCOs and General Staff officers). Despite, the occasional Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice and Barack Obama story this remains a deeply race-divided society with blacks STILL disproportionately at the bottom of the pile. Our job is to rectify that when the above-mentioned working people take power. And pronto.
I would also be remiss here in a comment about the American military machine if in the summer of 2008 after more than five years of constant war I did not put a reminder that our task is still- Immediate, Unconditional Withdrawal From Iraq And Afghanistan of All American/Allied Troops And Their Mercenaries! Make that pronto, as well.
*** The Youth Vote
Although I have, in general, sworn off observations on the American presidential campaigns, such as they are, I have recently come across some statistical information that only verifies what I have been trying to point out about future political possibilities for extra-parliamentary militant leftists. Polls have shown that Barack Obama has significant leads among the young over Republican John McCain in several key states in the upcoming elections. Moreover that trend applies to the national picture, as well.
Ho hum you say. Well, in part, you would be right just on the basis of the age difference between McCain and Obama. To speak nothing of some of their policy differences and personal technological capacities (Obama can work an iPOd. McCain, apparently, is still using a transistor radio). However, I would point out that one Richard M. Nixon in 1972, a time beyond the high water mark of the 1960’s yet still within memory of those days, split the then just passed 26th Amendment –enhanced youth vote with George McGovern. And George McGovern was far, far to the left of anything that Obama has been saying (or, as of late, not saying).
In short, youth as a segment of society is not always left, not always progressive or for that matter not always even political. What the above-mentioned statistics tell me though is that something more like the swirl around John Kennedy in 1960 is forming and not the resignation and acceptance of defeat represented by Nixon’s reelection in 1972 by a significant segment of the young. As I pointed out in a recent small commentary on Obama’s rush to the right in order to gain ‘victory’ we will get our share of the political spoils once the disillusionment with Obama sets in (as a look at his social networking site will already confirm) with all the weighty social problems confronting this society still in need of solution.
Friday, May 16, 2008
A Legal Victory for Same Sex Marriage in California
Commentary
Sometimes democratic rights victories come from the streets. Sometimes they come from the picket line. And sometimes, although rarely, they come from .... the courts. Well, these days we cannot be choosy, as we will take our victories, large and small, any way we can get them. That is the import of the 4-3 decision by the California Supreme Court on May 15, 2008 that declares discrimination against same-sex marriage as unconstitutional as a matter of state law. We should cheer, at least for the moment, as an important state court (one that others look to) joins Massachusetts on the East Coast in affirming this elementary democratic right. Of course the blow back has already started, as it appears that an anti-same sex constitutional amendment will be on the state ballot in November trying to deny that right. That is where those above-mentioned streets come into play again. More later.
Sometimes democratic rights victories come from the streets. Sometimes they come from the picket line. And sometimes, although rarely, they come from .... the courts. Well, these days we cannot be choosy, as we will take our victories, large and small, any way we can get them. That is the import of the 4-3 decision by the California Supreme Court on May 15, 2008 that declares discrimination against same-sex marriage as unconstitutional as a matter of state law. We should cheer, at least for the moment, as an important state court (one that others look to) joins Massachusetts on the East Coast in affirming this elementary democratic right. Of course the blow back has already started, as it appears that an anti-same sex constitutional amendment will be on the state ballot in November trying to deny that right. That is where those above-mentioned streets come into play again. More later.
Sunday, September 03, 2006
MARRIAGE IS APPARENTLY NOT FOR THE FAINT-HEARTED
COMMENTARY
NOTES ON THE RECENT NEW YORK AND WASHINGTON STATE SAME-SEX MARRIAGE DECISIONS
FORGET DONKEYS, ELEPHANTS AND GREENS- BUILD A WORKERS PARTY!
UPDATED: NOVEMBER 24, 2006
As noted in the commentary below the thrust of the fight on the issue of same-sex marriage has returned to the states with a vengeance. Since the original blog the midterm 2006 elections have produces seven more states that have passed resolutions or state constitutional amendments defining marriage in the old fashion way-one man, one woman. Arizona is the only state that bucked the trend. Also since the summer the New Jersey Supreme Court has held that same-sex marriage does not violate the state constitution. However, unlike Massachusetts the justices left it up to the state legislative to run with the issue. The struggle continues but remember- Government out of the bedrooms!
Originally posted: August 2006
Earlier this year, when the United States Senate was discussing and voting on a proposal to make the prohibition against same-sex marriage a constitutional amendment this writer pointed out that with the defeat of that measure in the United States Senate the battle ground would again shift to the states and particularly to the judiciary. (see blog, dated June 7, 2006). The states have been the battleground for quite some time. Numerous states have overwhelmingly approved various state constitutional amendments, statutes, etc. banning same-sex marriage. This summer the highest courts of New York and Washington states have rendered decisions along that same line. What is striking is the legal reasoning used to justify the majority decisions in these cases. One would think these cases were about prohibitions against indentured servitude rather than marriage. Here’s why.
One would have thought that in this day in age the act of marriage, at its core, represents nothing more than the act of registering the fact two people decided to legally fortify their relationship. Apparently this writer is way off base in that assumption. According to the legal reasoning put forward by the majorities in the aforementioned states procreation is a fundamental state interest. Fair enough. However, to those majorities the point of marriage, the fundamental point, is to ensure that procreation is protected within that act. Odd, odd indeed. While it would be easy to punch a hole (or rather about 10,000 holes) in that reasoning I will let it go. Let me say this- by the courts’ reasoning whole categories, way beyond the targeted same-sex couples, would be affected if their reasoning is followed through to the end. A rule of thumb in judicial- decision making is to tailor the decision as narrowly as possible while addressing the facts of the case. It takes an active act of judicial malice to take a swipe at most of society in order to get to your sacrificial lambs. Nice going Washington and New York Supremes.
THIS IS PART OF A SERIES OF ARTICLES ON THE 2006-2008 ELECTION CYCLE UNDER THE HEADLINE- FORGET THE DONKEYS, ELEPHANTS, GREENS-BUILD A WORKERS PARTY!
NOTES ON THE RECENT NEW YORK AND WASHINGTON STATE SAME-SEX MARRIAGE DECISIONS
FORGET DONKEYS, ELEPHANTS AND GREENS- BUILD A WORKERS PARTY!
UPDATED: NOVEMBER 24, 2006
As noted in the commentary below the thrust of the fight on the issue of same-sex marriage has returned to the states with a vengeance. Since the original blog the midterm 2006 elections have produces seven more states that have passed resolutions or state constitutional amendments defining marriage in the old fashion way-one man, one woman. Arizona is the only state that bucked the trend. Also since the summer the New Jersey Supreme Court has held that same-sex marriage does not violate the state constitution. However, unlike Massachusetts the justices left it up to the state legislative to run with the issue. The struggle continues but remember- Government out of the bedrooms!
Originally posted: August 2006
Earlier this year, when the United States Senate was discussing and voting on a proposal to make the prohibition against same-sex marriage a constitutional amendment this writer pointed out that with the defeat of that measure in the United States Senate the battle ground would again shift to the states and particularly to the judiciary. (see blog, dated June 7, 2006). The states have been the battleground for quite some time. Numerous states have overwhelmingly approved various state constitutional amendments, statutes, etc. banning same-sex marriage. This summer the highest courts of New York and Washington states have rendered decisions along that same line. What is striking is the legal reasoning used to justify the majority decisions in these cases. One would think these cases were about prohibitions against indentured servitude rather than marriage. Here’s why.
One would have thought that in this day in age the act of marriage, at its core, represents nothing more than the act of registering the fact two people decided to legally fortify their relationship. Apparently this writer is way off base in that assumption. According to the legal reasoning put forward by the majorities in the aforementioned states procreation is a fundamental state interest. Fair enough. However, to those majorities the point of marriage, the fundamental point, is to ensure that procreation is protected within that act. Odd, odd indeed. While it would be easy to punch a hole (or rather about 10,000 holes) in that reasoning I will let it go. Let me say this- by the courts’ reasoning whole categories, way beyond the targeted same-sex couples, would be affected if their reasoning is followed through to the end. A rule of thumb in judicial- decision making is to tailor the decision as narrowly as possible while addressing the facts of the case. It takes an active act of judicial malice to take a swipe at most of society in order to get to your sacrificial lambs. Nice going Washington and New York Supremes.
THIS IS PART OF A SERIES OF ARTICLES ON THE 2006-2008 ELECTION CYCLE UNDER THE HEADLINE- FORGET THE DONKEYS, ELEPHANTS, GREENS-BUILD A WORKERS PARTY!
Wednesday, June 07, 2006
DEFEAT THE ANTI-SAME-SEX MARRIAGE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT
NO TO THE HETEROSEXUAL ONE MAN, ONE WOMAN MARRIAGE UNTIL DEATH (OR DIVORCE, OR ABANDONMENT, OR TIREDNESS, ETC.) CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
COMMENTARY
Damn it! Every time you think some progress has been made in the world to take us out of the dark ages of human experience the yahoos come up with something else. This time it is an effort, not for the first time, to ban gay and lesbian same-sex marriages by no less than a constitutional amendment. Hell, if we are going to discuss the subject of marriage rationally and constitutionally then let us ban marriage altogether by such an amendment.
Markin, stop it now you know you do not mean that. Well no I don’t, despite my unsuccessful experiences with marriage. Although I am personally no fan of the institution, if two people (or for that matter more) want to tie the knot that is their business. The point of my sarcastic remark however is valid. Why, other than the bookkeeping fact of registering a marriage for statistical purposes, should the state get involved in such a subject that is very specific to the individuals involved? KEEP THE GOVERNMENT OUT OF THE BEDROOM!
CONTACT YOUR SENATORS URGING A NO VOTE ON THIS AMENDMENT. BEAT BACK THE YAHOOS ON THIS ONE. AND LET US KEEP THEM ON THE RUN.
POSTSCRIPT- JUNE 10, 2006
As you may know in order to keep the federal constitutional amendment process going a 2/3 majority vote by the United States Senate is necessary. A vote on the anti-same sex marriage amendment has been taken and defeated on this basis. The supporters of democratic rights for all have won a reprieve. A couple of points. How the hell, in the year 2006, can 49 supposedly worldly Senators vote to support such a reactionary measure. Well, I suppose anything is possible in politics- I suppose next they'll try to resurrect prohibition of alcohol-all that got them was a big laugh and shame-faced reversal later. Also, please note, the major sponser of this bill, Senator Allard of Colorado, has been quoted as saying he will continue to bring this bill to a vote each year as long as he draws breath. Be ready. Meanwhile, the battle ground appears to be in the state legislatures. Be ready to fight the battles there.
COMMENTARY
Damn it! Every time you think some progress has been made in the world to take us out of the dark ages of human experience the yahoos come up with something else. This time it is an effort, not for the first time, to ban gay and lesbian same-sex marriages by no less than a constitutional amendment. Hell, if we are going to discuss the subject of marriage rationally and constitutionally then let us ban marriage altogether by such an amendment.
Markin, stop it now you know you do not mean that. Well no I don’t, despite my unsuccessful experiences with marriage. Although I am personally no fan of the institution, if two people (or for that matter more) want to tie the knot that is their business. The point of my sarcastic remark however is valid. Why, other than the bookkeeping fact of registering a marriage for statistical purposes, should the state get involved in such a subject that is very specific to the individuals involved? KEEP THE GOVERNMENT OUT OF THE BEDROOM!
CONTACT YOUR SENATORS URGING A NO VOTE ON THIS AMENDMENT. BEAT BACK THE YAHOOS ON THIS ONE. AND LET US KEEP THEM ON THE RUN.
POSTSCRIPT- JUNE 10, 2006
As you may know in order to keep the federal constitutional amendment process going a 2/3 majority vote by the United States Senate is necessary. A vote on the anti-same sex marriage amendment has been taken and defeated on this basis. The supporters of democratic rights for all have won a reprieve. A couple of points. How the hell, in the year 2006, can 49 supposedly worldly Senators vote to support such a reactionary measure. Well, I suppose anything is possible in politics- I suppose next they'll try to resurrect prohibition of alcohol-all that got them was a big laugh and shame-faced reversal later. Also, please note, the major sponser of this bill, Senator Allard of Colorado, has been quoted as saying he will continue to bring this bill to a vote each year as long as he draws breath. Be ready. Meanwhile, the battle ground appears to be in the state legislatures. Be ready to fight the battles there.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)