The Cult of Melinda

The gAyTM is closed! No gay rights, no gay $$$!

Saturday, June 13, 2009

The "Fuck You" Heard Round the World

To add insult to injury, Obama's administration timed the filing of his virulently homophobic defense of DOMA to the anniversary of the Supreme Court's decision in Loving v. Virginia, the interracial marriage case which established marriage as a fundamental civil right. On June 12, 2007, Mildred Loving issued a rare public statement in defense of same sex marriage, calling upon her own experience of being denied full marriage rights. I cannot find the words to describe how disgusting it is that a man born of interracial marriage would use this anniversary to deny marriage rights to tens of millions of American citizens and to abuse the spirit and memory of Loving v. Virginia to do so.


Blogger Canardius said...

I thought Loving v. Virginia had to do with interracial, not sexual orientation. An interracial marriage can still result in children, where a sam-sex marriage does not [genealogically speaking]. Would that distinction matter to the Court in examining gay marriages?

I'm asking as a question of law, not morals... morally I'd say it's not for the Federal goverment or for me to say who anybody can and can not marry, but the legal issues can go to the states. Morally, I think everyone against it, as I've said, says so because they feel God says marriage is between a man and a woman for the express purpose of progeny. And they find other Biblical prohibitions [Onan died for one of those].

Curious in LA

8:21 AM  
Blogger Melinda Barton said...

Yes, Loving v. Virginia had to do with interracial marriage, but it set Supreme Court precedent defining civil marriage as a fundamental civil right. It is this definition that same-sex marriage are citing. If marriage is a right, the government must have some overwhelming justification for restricting it, such as one or both parties are not capable of entering into the marriage contract for some reason (like age, mental infirmity, existing marriage, temporary mental incapacity due to drunkenness, etc.). The government cannot restrict this right solely based on animus against a class of people.

Gay marriage advocates believe that the only justification for restricting gay marriage has been animus towards same-sex couples, since gay couples can enter into the contract and fulfill all of the obligations of civil marriage.

Since children are not produced in a whole host of legally recognized marriages and are produced (albeit by artificial means) in many gay marriages, that distinction should not matter to the courts. Whatever "tradition" may say, civil marriage as defined by law does not contain any reproduction requirement or even the ability to reproduce.

Not everyone opposed to gay marriage does so on religious grounds and many in support do so on religious grounds. However, under the firt amendment, religion cannot be used as a basis for expanding or restricting civil rights. All laws must have a definite secular justification.

10:09 AM  
Blogger Melinda Barton said...

Ignore the spelling errors. My fingers aren't working today.

10:10 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home