Thursday, November 19, 2009

Ah...Wedded Bliss....NOT

Its been a busy week for legislators tackling the tough issues of marriage equality here in the U.S. It would seem that the catastrophic failures of California and Maine have goaded some lawmakers into...*gasp!*...unprovoked action! Here is a roundup of of the current happenings from the positive to the positively hilarious...

First in the line up, reported on Pam's House Blend, Kentucky and Michigan have legislation submitted to repeal the ban on same-sex marriage in their states. Representative Mary Lou Marzian of Kentucky recently submitted the legislation with the hope of eventually enacting civil unions in the state of Kentucky. When I read this my first thought was, "If California and Maine can't do it, how the hell is Kentucky going to manage this?". That's my bad I guess. Good luck to the peoples of Kentucky and Michigan...Here's to hoping you can accomplish what we have not yet achieved.

Next is rather significant news... The Washington Times reports that the Washington D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics, has denied an attempt by "Stand For Marriage, DC Coalition" to submit D.C.'s proposed gay marriage law to a popular vote despite the attempts of Catholic Charities to threaten D.C. with removal of its not-so-charitable services.

Well, I call this a win and at least in our nations capitol, they realize that submitting the civil rights of tax paying citizens to a vote is WRONG. Not only per the U.S. Constitution but also per the District of Columbia's laws. Whether or not this action will become a larger trend is very uncertain. Board members had this to say by way of explaining their decision:

We have considered all of the testimony presented to the board and understand the desire to place this question on the ballot," board Chairman Errol R. Arthur said. "However, the laws of the District of Columbia preclude us from allowing this initiative to move forward.

And of course, the other side, in the personage of Bishop Harry Jackson, had to express indignation:

This undemocratic decision is outrageous and a slap in the face of every resident of the District of Columbia, Mr. Jackson said. To deny the people their fundamental right to vote on such an important issue as the definition of marriage in our society is simply appalling.

Whatever Mr. Jackson...The flaws in that statement are big enough to drive a truck through.

and now!...da..da da DA!!!!...for my favorite news item of the day!...

The state of Texas, in its infinite wisdom and desire to bar gays from getting married, may have accidentally banned everyone...including heterosexuals, from the institution.

....ROFL...What?!...You must be joking?!

This has caused a shite storm of media coverage and finger pointing. The Star Telegram reports:

Barbara Ann Radnofsky, a Houston lawyer and Democratic candidate for attorney general, says that a 22-word clause in a 2005 constitutional amendment designed to ban gay marriages erroneously endangers the legal status of all marriages in the state.

The amendment, approved by the Legislature and overwhelmingly ratified by voters, declares that "marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman." But the trouble making phrase, as Radnofsky sees it, is Subsection B, which declares:

This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize ANY legal status identical or similar to marriage. one "popular vote" for homo hostility, Texans has shot themselves in the foot and actually voted to unmarry themselves...oh,the irony... I'm sure many legislators will be very busy this weekend. The People of Texas are in a panic. Now that straight people can not get married you watch how fast they move to fix that. you think that the people of Texas got a little taste of what they dished out? Did they learn a lesson from waking up NOT married? I can't say..I can only hope they paused too reflect on the results of their actions.


  1. I hope that the wonderful people of Texas can't reinstate their marriages without putting the measure on a ballot, therefore having to wait for two years.

  2. I've read about DC's Human Rights Act that forbids popular votes about civil rights, on Queerty. Sadly, no one except for me commented there, and I think it was a very important issue. Why only DC protects minorities & their rights? And all these years all I heard from Americans on TV that USA is the most democratic and the most fair country to live in! I don't believe you, guys, anymore. And I can't believe that people are so blind (or should I say "bigoted") to see it. Unbelievable!

  3. I have come back to this page three times just to look at that picture of the pug.

  4. Im really very curious about how they are gonna correct this (I too hope its through a vote by the people, that would just be great). They cant just put another amendment because of it. The law does now really say marriage between man and woman is not recognized and you cant just change a law like that, even if it was a mistake lol.
    I too hope some people can realize (although I too have no high hopes about that) how they now feel (panic amongst others,as described) others feel when their marriages get banned (the gays/lesbians). Who knows what this mistake may lead to? Fantastic though that this happened. Summersonset x

  5. I am also very happy the District of Columbia is the first that has laws that wont let minorities rights being voted on by the people. I hope more will follow. Thats great news, too.

  6. O to the W to the N to the E to the D

    I so loled with this post, so awesome.

    you win this one goblin

  7. I can't help but think 'only Texas would be so desperate to ban gay marriage they banned all marriage'. But that's more than a little prejudiced towards a place I've never visited.

    I love the DC ruling. It's about time someone woke up and said 'sorry, we don't put rights up to public vote!'

  8. @always_been
    You know, it's a long-standing joke about Texans being mostly anti-gay, also being mostly pro-execution (and it's true: this state executed almost half of all the people executed in the entire USA — 445 out of 1183). Don't forget that former President Bush, Jr. is from Texas. And, of course, Texas was the last state that kept criminal punishment for homosexuality until 2003! And then this incredible desire to ban same-sex marriage and any other form of unions for same-sex couples ("no benefits for gays! no way! over our dead bodies!") lead to this ridiculous ambiguity, not in some law but in the very Constitution of the State, making Texans (who voted for these provisions of Constitution) look like a bunch of laughing stocks!

  9. George W. Bush was from Newhaven, Connecticut, not Texas. The whole Texan Cowboy thing was a ruse to make him appeal more to the backwards hicks who voted for him.

    You didn't honestly expect Bush to be telling to truth about that when he lied about so much else, did you? ;-)

  10. @Tavdy
    I am originally from Georgia (in Caucasus), but most of my life I've spent in Russia, so I consider myself Russian. Bush moved to Texas when he was 2 years old (if my information is correct), so we can hardly call him Connecticutian. And I was referring to traditional point of views of people living in particular territory, no matter where they are from originally. And, again, it's just a prevalent opinion which cannot be pinpointed on all people living in or coming from Texas.

    This information is not top secret. There is no point for him to lie about it. He was raised in Texas, as a Texan, among other Texans, so I for one consider him Texan, and I think he does a great job blending in.

  11. That's a pretty awesome lol. Poor strait people not being married anymore.