The Loving Decision

« Return to Article

Discuss

Member Comments

  • Posted By: pezled @ 11/17/2008 6:39:54 AM

    It's interesting when the voters speak their mind and give a decision, only to be told by a pin-head journalist that they are wrong. The voters have spoken. That is how this country works. Deal with it.

    • Posted By: Doc Howl @ 11/17/2008 9:18:03 AM

      Actually, that isn't how this country works. The constitution trumps the vote.

      Perhaps you have us confused with ancient Athens.

  • Posted By: pezled @ 11/17/2008 8:18:39 AM

    In fact, buy disenfranchising the voters and negating their wishes, you are trying to trample on the people's right to vote......That trumps EVERYTHING.

    • Posted By: Doc Howl @ 11/17/2008 9:17:01 AM

      Rubbish. The people cannot vote away rights, at the state level or otherwise. Try reading amendment IX and article VI sometime.

  • Posted By: sieg6529 @ 11/17/2008 9:08:16 AM

    It is inevitable that gays will be granted the right to marry. Straight couples get divorced more often than not, leaving broken homes and hearts. This doesn't give them a very good claim to marital rights. These silly propositions may stand for a decade or so, but I know that in my lifetime gays will be granted all the same rights as anyone else. As it becomes more socially acceptable to "come out", which nobody can argue it is doing otherwise, more and more people will have somebody gay in there family. Let me tell you from personal experience, that changes your perspective really fast. To look upon a loved one and know that they do not have the same rights and protections as you yourself enjoy, it is heartbreaking. Besides, think of the economic boost we'd get from all those gay couples marrying and, if they're anything like straight couples, divorcing!

  • Posted By: genelieb1 @ 11/17/2008 8:06:02 AM

    voters can be wrong, BUSH. "All men are created equal" overrides the voter.

  • Posted By: shansen99 @ 11/17/2008 8:02:22 AM

    Does Newsweek have *anyone* writing for them who represents the "silent majority" of the population? If this legislation has passed in 40 states, including California, why isn't this represented in the editorials at Newsweek?

  • Posted By: malena @ 11/16/2008 2:37:36 AM

    If one takes quotes out of context and tradition, one can interpret any texts any way he or she wants. An interpretation is valid only if confirmed by the context. Please read the Magna Charta in the Bible, Galatians 3::28: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
    People tend to forget this part.
    And, also, do not forget taht your first teacher was a woman - your mother.

    • Posted By: yeson8forCA @ 11/16/2008 2:44:41 AM

      What does that scripture have to with marriage between a man and a woman?? Uh...because you know that has nothing to do with Marriage-

      • Posted By: Wild Clover @ 11/17/2008 3:00:38 AM

        Galations quote tells you that God doesn't care if you marry a man or a woman-If you are part of the body of Christ, the only thing that matters is the love. The second quote just refers to the arguement earlier where Paul is being quoted by the anti-gay rights side. Paul in one section says that a woman teacher is an abomination, so basically quit taking Paul out of context as a reason to deny gays anything.

  • Posted By: jaredmdobson @ 11/15/2008 10:04:34 PM

    Marriage is the institution of family not just love. So if you love something you can't just marry it.

    • Posted By: Wild Clover @ 11/17/2008 2:19:58 AM

      Right. My wife and I are a family, and we are raising kids. Why do you deny me the right to marry legally?

    • Posted By: Blue in AZ @ 11/15/2008 10:32:02 PM

      What if you can't have a family? Should sterile people be denied the right to marry?

  • Posted By: CheeTar @ 11/15/2008 10:23:59 PM

    I find some of the major parts of this article to be misleading. The author begins by telling a terrible story and connecting it with religion. She then proposes that the Mormons and Knights of Columbus opposed gay marriage in a similar fashion because of religion. The implication is that religious thought is inherently bigoted and cruel, that religious people can't think for themselves, and that there surely aren't any legitimate concerns these people may have about gay marriage. But doesn't that mean the author's position is prejudiced/bigoted also?

    The author also implies that prop 8 passed because these religionists donated tons of money to the cause. But the opponents of prop 8 outspent the supporters, approximately $38 million to $36 million. The author is either uninformed or being intentionally misleading in order to inflame people's emotions.

    Equating the fight for gay marriage to black civil rights is also unconvincing. The reason gay marriage is promoted as a civil rights issue is because it then becomes uncontestable, since (most) people don't want to be bigots. Gays have all the rights everyone else does, but in this case the gay marriage advocates are demanding that the government make new changes to promote the gay lifestyle. They have every right to do this, of course, but the government/people also have a right to say no. Time will tell.

    • Posted By: Brow @ 11/16/2008 12:18:16 PM

      Cheetar, that was well said. Does anyone really think that interracial marriages and same-gender marriages are the same?

      • Posted By: Wild Clover @ 11/17/2008 2:17:39 AM

        Well, actually in both cases a marginalized minority was being told they had no right to marry the person whom they loved and wished to commit their life to. Both blacks and gays have been murdered and abused for what they are (remember Mathew Shepard? There are dozens more- one even here in the backwoods of nowhere where I'm at), beaten up for no reason than what they are, denied jobs, denied housing... Yeah, it is a lot easier for most gays to "pass", but it still boils down to giving a mass murderer in prison the right to marry the person of their choice and denying the same right to someone who is gay. As that same right was denied to interracial couples as little as 41 years ago. Does Black=Gay experiaentially or historically? No, and no one on the gay side is trying to say that. But there are similarities, and many blacks agree that gay marriage IS a civil rights issue. Blacks like Loretta King-Martin Luther King's wife. I would think her support and opinion means something.

  • Posted By: C. MacLean @ 11/16/2008 9:47:28 PM

    t_roark - Ms. Qunidlen isn't making an argument that equates gay rights with African-American struggles - she is talking about a time when marriage between the races was illegal, and comparing it to the present time when marriage for same-sex couples is illegal. She is making a comparison about marriage. Period.

    The Loving case wasn't just about depriving a black person of their rights, it deprived a white person of their rights, as well.

    But ultimately, the struggle for equal rights and justice for African-Americans and equal rights and justice for homosexuals is exactly the same, and you were right to call it addressing questions of civil rights - one group is discriminated against based on the color of their skin, another group is discriminated against because of who they love.

    It is still discrimination, and it still stinks. But trying to play 'can you top this' by insisting that one group suffered more, so therefore only that group has a legitimate claim to suffering, is both unnecessary and counter-productive.

    Bigotry is still bigotry, any way you slice it.

  • Posted By: Superlegoboy @ 11/16/2008 5:59:23 AM

    Same-sex marriage is very different than inter-racial marriage and trying to conflate the two only serves to trivialize what many minorities, but especially blacks, have endured over the long history of our nation.

    • Posted By: ejackson21st @ 11/16/2008 9:10:01 PM

      Sorry Superlegoboy, I am Black man who lived in the segregated south and I had to struggle to go to an integrated school and to eat in downtown public restaurants. Me marrying outside of my race was either illegal or suicidal. I knew I could be killed for even trying to date a white female.

      Seeing the bigotry of California's Prop 8 brings back all the anger and sadness I personally experienced in the 1960's movement. There is nothing trivial about having laws written to make you a second class citizen, it wouldn't seem trivial to you if you were the one being made a constitutional outcast now would it.

      I didn't struggle for my legal rights as a Black man but for my legal and HUMAN rights as a man of this country. I want to know that the prejudice and suffering that I did in fact endure is not going to be reconstituted and inflicted on some other arbitrary group of American citizens. Can't you see that? If some biased group wanted to change the state constitution to say that fat people can only marry other fat people it would be just as stupid and wrong and I would fight against it. Who knows, I may be fat one day. You too!

  • Posted By: Lee Holmes @ 11/16/2008 4:41:55 PM

    Quindlen engages in cowardice in order to make her claim. For nowhere in her screed does it ever mention that even the powerful support of the LDS Church would have been nullified had it not been for the over 70% of blacks and latinos who voted for the passage of Prop 8.
    California,in 2000,became a ''majority minority''state. This is,that latinos,asians,and blacks outnumbered whites as the states representative voting citizens. It never occurred to Quindlen that these minorities have held conservative ideals as regards homosexuality long before there was even a Prop 8 to even consider,let alone ''Mormons''. And that these minorities,while voting for an Obama,a Democrat,or other liberal policies,would yet rise to strike down gay marriage.
    Blacks and latinos represent only a fraction of the LDS membership. Yet they voted in numbers larger against gay marriage while engaging in their record turnout for Obama,than even whites did.[70-72% minority vs. 52-54% white].
    What is truly ''mean-spirited'' Anna,is engaging in mob justice in order to defray what was a democratic means of arriving at the prohibition of same-sex marriage. Acting no differant than a White Citizens Council in Alabama during the 60s,gays and their allies have produced outrages on several fronts. Mailing envelopes of ''white powder''checked by the FBI in Salt Lake City last week that were sent to the LDS HQ. Burning bibles thrown at church doorsteps in Michigan,a patent hate crime. Individuals regardless of age or infirmity being terrorized ,bullied and assaulted. This is America. Not the Soviet Union. Even King and his SCLC supporters never used such violent expedients to get their points across. All gays are doing right now is alienating the moderates,and further hardening the distrust of the antis.

    This are not logical actions Anna,let alone, ''Loving''.

  • Posted By: Bobandbubs @ 11/16/2008 2:48:33 PM

    I hate to bother trying to reach the closed minds of the bigots who oppose gay marriages but I am happy to annoy them by repeating the obvious. You are going to lose this argument. You are going to have to live with it. I suggest you go to church every chance you get and pray that God changes the mindset of the same sex folks so that they can be "just like you." Better still drag out that old religious practice of asking God to punish them. Now that is the Christian thing to do.

  • Posted By: Bobandbubs @ 11/16/2008 2:42:51 PM

    I hate to bother trying to reach the closed minds of the bigots who oppose gay marriages but I am happy to annoy them by repeating the obvious. You are going to lose this argument. You are going to have to live with it. I suggest you go to church every chance you get and pray that God changes the mindset of the same sex folks so that they can be "just like you." Better still drag out that old religious practice of asking God to punish them. Now that is the Christian thing to do.

  • Posted By: Jimmy5804 @ 11/16/2008 3:01:18 AM

    I wish somone would do (or point me to) a more intelligent case for gay marriage than this and other cookie-cutter pieces presents. If this issue was so obviously a civil rights issue, I suspect that blacks wouldn't have voted for Prop 8 by more than 2 to 1.

    Inter-racial marriage doesn't change the fundemental meaning of the societal family unit. Gay marriage does in at least some way since gay couples can't have biological children together. Maybe this isn't a big deal because of adoption or other considerations, but please at least discuss it instead of making the stupid apples-to-oranges interracial comparison.

    Also, exactly what right is being denied in California except the right to use the word "marriage"? Does marriage convey some right that civil unions don't? And if the right to use the word marriage is so important (presumably because another apples/oranges separate-but-equal argument), has any writer thoughtfully addressed why the fight over a word is so important to both sides? (even mormons supposedly support civil unions)

    Maybe b/c I'm a scientist or something, I get really, really tired of the spin. I just wish someone would do a thoughtful, respectful consideration of the issues for both sides instead of knee-jerk (cool) "civil-rights" vs. (uncool) "bigotry"/"intolerant"/etc. piece.

    • Posted By: C. MacLean @ 11/16/2008 1:38:31 PM

      "Does marriage convey some right that civil unions don't?"

      jimmy5804, Are you living in a time warp, or do you just not read the newspaper?

      Yes!!!! Marriage conveys dozens of rights that civil unions don't - try reading the 'married exemption' on your federal and state income tax form for starters, then take a look at the spousal rights involved in Social Security for widows and widowers.

      Take a gander at inheritance laws, property laws, parental laws. Take a look at VA benefits for surviving spouses.

      This is a helluva lot more than just semantics. It isn't just the word 'marriage' - its what it means in this country legally. And yes, persons who are legally married have many more rights than people in a civil union.

      Hope that thoughtfully addressed why the fight over a word is so important.









  • Posted By: C. MacLean @ 11/16/2008 1:25:18 PM

    Since the divorce rate is at 50%, I would venture to say that heterosexuals have done a good job of destroying the institution of marriage all by themselves, without any help from homosexuals.

    Perhaps we need to prevent heterosexuals from marrying, since they are clearly the ones destroying the institution of marriage, influencing our children for the worse, and giving birth to all these homosexuals in the first place,

  • Posted By: Gobama2008 @ 11/16/2008 8:27:14 AM

    I'm white ,straight, middle class citizen in a small midwestern town. I could care less about the choices other people make in their personal lives. As long as the choices are between two consenting adults, and no child is harmed, it isn't anyone else's business. And that applies to people of any sexual persuasion. But then, I'm not a narrow minded, intolerant, bible banging, tongue talking "christian". Gays and lesbians are human too, right? They deserve the same social benefits as the rest of us. Let's put all this energy and worry into issues that matter, like the environment, hunger, homelessness, the financial mess........

    • Posted By: jpr1019 @ 11/16/2008 11:02:42 AM

      Great, great point. Really, don't we have bigger fish to fry?

  • Posted By: washchadblip @ 11/16/2008 10:43:27 AM

    @ Bob Parr

    You ask, "Where do we stop?"

    We stop at divorce. All divorced people return to their original spouses. And all married people must chat and be friendly to each other in public places. They vowed to love their one and only. Let's keep them to their vow. Anyone who's slept with more than one person must be subjected to public punishment and must admit to their fornicating in public.

    Happy?

    No????

    Oh, you just want other groups to be more moral!

    I see.

    Well, then, here's how you spell Bob Parr: h-y-p-o-c-r-i-t-e

  • Posted By: washchadblip @ 11/16/2008 10:36:00 AM

    Imagine if the Mormons and the Catholics had taken their tens of millions and fed families that struggle to put enough food on the table or if they'd begun some businesses to employ some parents who might otherwise divorce due to financial stress.

    You know how white skinheads like to shout "White Power!" and thrust their fists into the air. Those who voted Yes on Prop 8 should have celebrated by donning military boots and marching down streets, yelling, "Het Power!"

  • Posted By: volapuk49 @ 11/16/2008 9:44:17 AM

    History is on our side. It is not a matter 'if' but 'when' this issue shall be moot. Gays and lesbians will receive every civil and other right of any other American. Then this same thing will, in time, be true for the rest of the world.

    In the mean time, those who oppose us, who contribute in any way to our devaluation as humans will pay the price for their actions. I marched in the rain yesterday in Washington, DC. My shoes, clothing were soaked. I walked longer than I have in many years. I am no spring chicken! I did it because I decided, We must fight, no matter what the odds.

    Those who oppose us are losers. Little by little, all of the hateful things they say are coming back to haunt them.

  • Posted By: bellweather @ 11/16/2008 3:59:28 AM

    Wow. Comments below on both sides tell me we need to require passage of a test on the constitution, particularly the equal protection clause, before we give people high school or college degrees. We also probably need a refresher on hate speech, hate crimes and voter intimidation. If the ballot measure was going to be unconstitutional and everyone just knew it, why didn't the no on prop 8 folks get an injunction against it being on the ballot in the first place?

    • Posted By: proud2bgay @ 11/16/2008 4:10:37 AM

      Most things get passed by a ballot measure. However, they need to stand the test of judiciary scrutiny before they are actually implemented. Justices have been placed in our society to protect the minorities. It may take a few years to finally get the rights we are afforded by the constitution, but it will come.

      • Posted By: Timshel79 @ 11/16/2008 8:10:45 AM

        A ballot measure is a state issue. The 14th Amendment gives the Supreme Court the authority as a federal court to overturn laws implemented by any state, by ballot measure or any other means, that limit the basic rights of individuals. Loving set a precident for the court considering marriage to be a basic right. So, if you are gay, you have the right to marry and by a state's limiting who you are able to marry it could be interpreted that your right itself is being limited. It was the prejudices of society at the time that allowed laws banning interracial marriage to be on the books in 16 states even though those bans were unconstitutional. If Cali had tried to put a ban on interracial marriage, then opponents could have gotten an injunction on that, but you cannot get an injunction on a ballot measure that has not yet been ruled unconstitutional. Once court challenges to these bans in the states reach the Supreme Court, there is a good chance that limiting the rights of gays to marry will be ruled unconstitutional (with Loving as a precident), if they aren't voted out before then by the next generation (a vast majority of those under 35 voted against the proposition, and though 52% overall voted for it, that's down from 84% the last time - so this legislation's years are numbered).

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse