Quick factoid on the same-sex marriage issue here in CA
“California’s domestic partnership law, as well as statutory bans on discrimination based on marital status and sexual orientation, already requires businesses to provide virtually the same state-regulated benefits to gay couples on their payrolls as they do to employees who are in opposite-sex unions.” (LA Times, 3/18/0 
This is why I suggested in an earlier comment that I believe that there is more afoot here that “acceptance” by the public. In another LA Times article, Chief Justice Ronald M. George makes the connection (or should I say the LA Times reporter) with this case to that of the plight of Blacks who also sought for acceptance in this country.
But as he read the legal arguments, the 68-year-old moderate Republican was drawn by memory to a long ago trip he made with his European immigrant parents through the American South. There, the signs warning “No Negro” or “No colored” left “quite an indelible impression on me,” he recalled in a wide-ranging interview Friday. (source)
While I do agree that all people should be created the same as defined in the 14th amendment…
“Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
…equating the treatment of gays in this country today to that of Blacks who lived in the Jim Crow South is beyond a stretching of the truth–it is an outright lie.
Here is another example from the LA Times–
The subtitle of this particular article says the following:
“For Jim Smith and Frank Reifsnyder, the ban on gay marriage was another example of gays and lesbians being treated ‘as less than human.’”
Now check out the living conditions of these individuals who feel that society treats them “less than human”
He and his partner, Frank Reifsnyder, have been a couple for 10 years. They have graduate degrees and lucrative careers and a beautiful Spanish colonial home in Toluca Lake, with fountains and tiled terraces and vaulted ceilings with hand-hewn beams. They have 14-month-old twins, Milo and Kaylee, whom they adore. (source)
Should I now post the living conditions of my parents who lived in the Jim Crow south? Nevermind (my parents were the ones that would clean places like this while taking care of Milo and Kaylee)!
IMO, this has less to do with public acceptance (because those that are pushing for this policy already know that polling data has consistently been against them), but more to do with redefining marriage itself.
I’ll have much more to say on this issue in the days ahead.
Not all gay people are wealthy, white, and male.
Comment by colonel | May 19, 2008
Of course not.
But the ones that the media continues to hold up as “modern-day victims of Jim Crow II” who whine about being treated as ‘less than human’ just because they are unable to get married tend to fall in this category.
Comment by Duane | May 20, 2008
Yet homosexuals, as a class, are denied the protections of law as stated in the 14th Amendment just as Blacks were. Any way you’d care to spin it, both are examples of groups subjected to de jure discrimination — the only difference is the degree of disenfranchisement.
Arguing over the degrees of relative harm is a full-blown waste of time and a distraction from the central issue.
Comment by MIB | May 20, 2008
Yet homosexuals, as a class, are denied the protections of law as stated in the 14th Amendment just as Blacks were.
Such as?
And make sure you include how they are treated ‘less than human’ similar to that with Blacks during the Jim Crow South as it relates to marriage.
Arguing over the degrees of relative harm is a full-blown waste of time and a distraction from the central issue.
I think not.
Comment by Duane | May 20, 2008
“Such as?”
Same-sex marriage bans are in effect in many states. In fact, most states don’t even allow for civil unions or recognize domestic partnerships.
Homosexual couples are frequently prosecuted under sodomy statutes in many states.
Acknowledged homosexuals aren’t permitted to serve in the U.S. military.
Again… you’re positing a straw man here.
Comment by MIB | May 20, 2008
In fact, most states don’t even allow for civil unions or recognize domestic partnerships.
Does this stop people from doing what they want to do—and that is to have sex and live with whomever they wish? No.
Homosexual couples are frequently prosecuted under sodomy statutes in many states.
And how did the Supreme court decide in the issue of Sodomy laws? And let’s not forget that those sodomy laws as of late have targeted adults who have sex with minors, not gays.
Acknowledged homosexuals aren’t permitted to serve in the U.S. military.
It’s called “Don’t ask, Don’t tell”. Since government should stay out of our bedrooms, why would someone want to solicit that information if it has nothing to do with the job? It’s none of the government’s business, right?
Notice how you are the one avoiding the central issue here, and that is same-sex marriage and how this one issue keeps homosexuals from enjoying the same freedoms heterosexuals enjoy in this country while comparing them to Blacks in the Jim Crow South.
Again… you’re positing a straw man here.
Aww come on man! Anything you cannot argue directly you call it a straw man. Stay on point regarding same-sex marriage.
Comment by Duane | May 20, 2008
Who is the this mysterious person or group who is trying to destroy marriage by redefining it?? AND WHY?? My marriage will NOT suffer one iota if gay people start getting married.. Neither will my daughters weddings in the future.
That fact that you have to quantify your statement with “virtually the same…” answers your own question. Either do away with the rights given to married people by the government or give them everyone… I don’t see why this is so hard to understand. It has nothing to do with what group suffered the most or whatever… Is “less than human” an overstatement?.. Probably, but that is easy for me or you to say when we are not the ones being discriminated against in this case. Black people do not own the the term “civil rights”.
Does this stop people from doing what they want to do—??
YES…. It stops them from getting married.. WHICH IS OBVIOUSLY SOMETHING THEY WANT TO DO…
Comment by Wizz | May 20, 2008
That fact that you have to quantify your statement with “virtually the same…” answers your own question.
Not my statement.
Probably, but that is easy for me or you to say when we are not the ones being discriminated against in this case.
The only “discrimination” they are subjected to in this case has to do with the financial benefits that can received by being legally married. Beyond that, from an economic, educational and social perspective they have a well-established record of excelling in these areas in this country–unlike folks who do not have the ability to change or cover up the characteristic(s) that set them apart from the majority.
Black people do not own the the term “civil rights”.
True indeed. Yet many of their surrogates in the media as well as the organizations that are pushing for this policy have no problem comparing their plight to that of Blacks years ago.
Comment by Duane | May 20, 2008