Bloody hell...
Sep. 18th, 2007 08:04 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
salienneWhy I really dislike this country from time to time...
So apparently bans on gay marriage are constitutional in MD...
Choice bits:
The 4-3 ruling essentially sends the issue of same-sex marriage back to the state legislature and ruled that a ban on gay marriage does not discriminate on the basis of gender and does not deny any fundamental rights.
Just like banning interracial marriages does not discriminate based on race! :D
"In declaring that the State's legitimate interests in fostering procreation and encouraging the traditional family structure, our opinion should by no means be read to imply that the General Assembly may not grant and recognize for homosexual persons civil unions or the right to marry a person of the same sex," Judge Glenn T. Harrell Jr. wrote
.....But the Justice System is there to uphold civil rights, not protect the State's supposed interest in a "traditional family structure". That's the legislature's job, and as we've seen oh so many times, legislatures discriminate. And they do so under the guise of what's right for the citizens. That's what's happening here.
And even going the 'traditional family structure=good' route, single parents should then have their children taken away, as should divorced and then remarried parents. Hell, take the adopted kids too--it's not like they're with their natural, "traditional" family.
In rejecting the argument that the state's Equal Rights Amendment protected the rights of same-sex couples to marry, the court scoured the legislative and media record of the debate during the 1970s and concluded it does not apply.
The measure, which was passed by the General Assembly and ratified by voters, was not intended to address sexual orientation, the majority decided.
...Just like the Constitution wasn't meant to address the rights of slaves, foreigners, or women.
Oh, let me count the BS. -_-
There's a protest. I didn't hear about it early enough to go, but I really wish I had...
So apparently bans on gay marriage are constitutional in MD...
Choice bits:
The 4-3 ruling essentially sends the issue of same-sex marriage back to the state legislature and ruled that a ban on gay marriage does not discriminate on the basis of gender and does not deny any fundamental rights.
Just like banning interracial marriages does not discriminate based on race! :D
"In declaring that the State's legitimate interests in fostering procreation and encouraging the traditional family structure, our opinion should by no means be read to imply that the General Assembly may not grant and recognize for homosexual persons civil unions or the right to marry a person of the same sex," Judge Glenn T. Harrell Jr. wrote
.....But the Justice System is there to uphold civil rights, not protect the State's supposed interest in a "traditional family structure". That's the legislature's job, and as we've seen oh so many times, legislatures discriminate. And they do so under the guise of what's right for the citizens. That's what's happening here.
And even going the 'traditional family structure=good' route, single parents should then have their children taken away, as should divorced and then remarried parents. Hell, take the adopted kids too--it's not like they're with their natural, "traditional" family.
In rejecting the argument that the state's Equal Rights Amendment protected the rights of same-sex couples to marry, the court scoured the legislative and media record of the debate during the 1970s and concluded it does not apply.
The measure, which was passed by the General Assembly and ratified by voters, was not intended to address sexual orientation, the majority decided.
...Just like the Constitution wasn't meant to address the rights of slaves, foreigners, or women.
Oh, let me count the BS. -_-
There's a protest. I didn't hear about it early enough to go, but I really wish I had...
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2007-09-19 12:37 am (UTC)The stupidity of it left me in tears.
http://www.lovegodsway.org/
I think one of my favorite parts is the "Gay Bands" and "Safe Bands" pages.
Note how Evanescence is one of the few on the safe list.
And how Marilyn Manson is a "dark gay". And how Frank Sinatra is even on that list.
Then of course, after watching the video on there, I couldn't stop laughing.
"Angry gay midget runs up to me, headbutts me in the crotch. His little partner pops on top of him, punches me right in the eye!"
*laughs*
(no subject)
Date: 2007-09-19 07:56 am (UTC)Plus they're idiots. The Dresden Dolls are on their Safe list? The Dolls' second album is primarily about sex, including a song called "First Orgasm" and "Sex Changes." Amanda the pianist/singer/songwriter likes the run around naked and Brian the drummer has cross-dressing tendancies. LOL! I bet someone reccomended them as a joke and the people who made the site are so clueless that they put them on the list, hahaha...
(no subject)
Date: 2007-09-20 09:02 pm (UTC)Demographics
Date: 2007-09-19 02:35 am (UTC)I figured once the baby boomers took over, the country would become more tolerant of homosexuality.
Did all the hippies die from overdoses, and leave the squares in charge?
Re: Demographics
Date: 2007-09-20 08:56 pm (UTC)