Considering the equal rights reasoning for CSS’s first decision…
the one that held that gay people had the same right to marry their loved ones that red-heads did, I hereby propose that we lay a new lawsuit on them;
If gay marriage is no longer acceptable, hetero marriage should no longer be acceptable either. Since there are 18,000 legal gay marriages in this state, and since the gay population is, supposedly, "one in ten", I propose that the state annuls all except for 180,000 het marriages. That’s right, less than two hundred thou.
They can hold a lottery to see who gets the short straws.
And I say this as a queer ciswoman in a het marriage.
Actually, I think they should make it mandatory for everyone with the legal right to marry or be penalised with heavy fines. If a legal privilege is that fucking important, then let’s see it being enforced on those claiming the privilege.
Not everyone who is married is against gay marriage. You’d be punishing a lot of allies.
How is it penalising someone who’s married to insist that they’re married?
Reread your post. My bad. You want to penalize single people. You’d still be punishing a lot of allies.
Your gay friends are being punished. It becomes a matter of who’s convenience trumps.
Since I don’t argue on the internet, we must agree to disagree on this one.
In my opinion, while it may be an understandable knee-jerk response to galling inequality, you don’t fight oppression by turning around and oppressing other people over a right they happen to possess but never asked for- particularly if the slush factor of your proposal includes people who are equally passionate and empathetic to your cause.
Well, my idea will never happen in this or the next century.
All I *can* do with it is announce it.
Tough noogies to be me.
Good point. Silly to debate hypotheticals anyway, and I apologize.
I think what’s most important for people to remember is that today’s ruling is not a further hit to the movement- this is the expected, unavoidable rule-of-law culmination of Prop 8 being passed. This hammer fell months ago.
This is not our fight- we’re past this, we’re over it. Our real fight is in doing the same thing those fucking hatemorons did- drafting a proactive legislative measure to get a pro- gay marriage amendment passed so that everyone finally has the same constitutional protection.
The fact that they allowed 18,000 legally married gay couples to remain so bespeaks the true intentions of the Supreme Court of California, whose hands were tied by upholding the letter of the law- they are in favor of legalizing gay marriage- and once we have an amendment in its favor, I fully believe they will do the right thing.
Here’s one group gearing up for the next step
And here’s another
I would volunteer for it.
I honestly don’t feel comfortable calling Allan my husband now. It’s too smug and ugly to hold up a privilege I have that other people have been denied by a constitutionalized discrimination.
I think we should annul ‘em all. Mine included. They want to get ridiculous, let’s take this ridiculous shit to its logical conclusion.
Seriously. My husband and I actually regret that we weren’t thinking after ten years together and got married without waiting for everyone to have marriage equality.
If we had it to do again, we would make a statement.
I’ve read arguments that the next logical step would be the lawsuit to annul all marriages and drop everybody down to the status of partnerships. Given the real and legal and taxable differences, I suspect that’d cause som screaming…
Found the most recent link this person has posted on it; the original ideas were back a couple months ago.
You may find ‘s analysis and links interesting on this one.
http://jimkeller.livejournal.com/373107.html
And more yet from Daily Kos that’s really interesting, gakked from a comment by :
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/5/26/735571/-Read-page-36.-They-just-cut-Prop-8-to-the-bone.
Actually, I think they should make it mandatory for everyone with the legal right to marry or be penalised with heavy fines. If a legal privilege is that fucking important, then let’s see it being enforced on those claiming the privilege.
Not everyone who is married is against gay marriage. You’d be punishing a lot of allies.
How is it penalising someone who’s married to insist that they’re married?
Reread your post. My bad. You want to penalize single people. You’d still be punishing a lot of allies.
Your gay friends are being punished. It becomes a matter of who’s convenience trumps.
Since I don’t argue on the internet, we must agree to disagree on this one.
In my opinion, while it may be an understandable knee-jerk response to galling inequality, you don’t fight oppression by turning around and oppressing other people over a right they happen to possess but never asked for- particularly if the slush factor of your proposal includes people who are equally passionate and empathetic to your cause.
Well, my idea will never happen in this or the next century.
All I *can* do with it is announce it.
Tough noogies to be me.
Good point. Silly to debate hypotheticals anyway, and I apologize.
I think what’s most important for people to remember is that today’s ruling is not a further hit to the movement- this is the expected, unavoidable rule-of-law culmination of Prop 8 being passed. This hammer fell months ago.
This is not our fight- we’re past this, we’re over it. Our real fight is in doing the same thing those fucking hatemorons did- drafting a proactive legislative measure to get a pro- gay marriage amendment passed so that everyone finally has the same constitutional protection.
The fact that they allowed 18,000 legally married gay couples to remain so bespeaks the true intentions of the Supreme Court of California, whose hands were tied by upholding the letter of the law- they are in favor of legalizing gay marriage- and once we have an amendment in its favor, I fully believe they will do the right thing.
Here’s one group gearing up for the next step
And here’s another
Actually, I think they should make it mandatory for everyone with the legal right to marry or be penalised with heavy fines. If a legal privilege is that fucking important, then let’s see it being enforced on those claiming the privilege.
Not everyone who is married is against gay marriage. You’d be punishing a lot of allies.
How is it penalising someone who’s married to insist that they’re married?
Reread your post. My bad. You want to penalize single people. You’d still be punishing a lot of allies.
Your gay friends are being punished. It becomes a matter of who’s convenience trumps.
Since I don’t argue on the internet, we must agree to disagree on this one.
In my opinion, while it may be an understandable knee-jerk response to galling inequality, you don’t fight oppression by turning around and oppressing other people over a right they happen to possess but never asked for- particularly if the slush factor of your proposal includes people who are equally passionate and empathetic to your cause.
Well, my idea will never happen in this or the next century.
All I *can* do with it is announce it.
Tough noogies to be me.
Good point. Silly to debate hypotheticals anyway, and I apologize.
I think what’s most important for people to remember is that today’s ruling is not a further hit to the movement- this is the expected, unavoidable rule-of-law culmination of Prop 8 being passed. This hammer fell months ago.
This is not our fight- we’re past this, we’re over it. Our real fight is in doing the same thing those fucking hatemorons did- drafting a proactive legislative measure to get a pro- gay marriage amendment passed so that everyone finally has the same constitutional protection.
The fact that they allowed 18,000 legally married gay couples to remain so bespeaks the true intentions of the Supreme Court of California, whose hands were tied by upholding the letter of the law- they are in favor of legalizing gay marriage- and once we have an amendment in its favor, I fully believe they will do the right thing.
Here’s one group gearing up for the next step
And here’s another
I would volunteer for it.
I honestly don’t feel comfortable calling Allan my husband now. It’s too smug and ugly to hold up a privilege I have that other people have been denied by a constitutionalized discrimination.
I would volunteer for it.
I honestly don’t feel comfortable calling Allan my husband now. It’s too smug and ugly to hold up a privilege I have that other people have been denied by a constitutionalized discrimination.
I think we should annul ‘em all. Mine included. They want to get ridiculous, let’s take this ridiculous shit to its logical conclusion.
Seriously. My husband and I actually regret that we weren’t thinking after ten years together and got married without waiting for everyone to have marriage equality.
If we had it to do again, we would make a statement.
I think we should annul ‘em all. Mine included. They want to get ridiculous, let’s take this ridiculous shit to its logical conclusion.
Seriously. My husband and I actually regret that we weren’t thinking after ten years together and got married without waiting for everyone to have marriage equality.
If we had it to do again, we would make a statement.
I’ve read arguments that the next logical step would be the lawsuit to annul all marriages and drop everybody down to the status of partnerships. Given the real and legal and taxable differences, I suspect that’d cause som screaming…
Found the most recent link this person has posted on it; the original ideas were back a couple months ago.
You may find ‘s analysis and links interesting on this one.
http://jimkeller.livejournal.com/373107.html
And more yet from Daily Kos that’s really interesting, gakked from a comment by :
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/5/26/735571/-Read-page-36.-They-just-cut-Prop-8-to-the-bone.
I’ve read arguments that the next logical step would be the lawsuit to annul all marriages and drop everybody down to the status of partnerships. Given the real and legal and taxable differences, I suspect that’d cause som screaming…
Found the most recent link this person has posted on it; the original ideas were back a couple months ago.
You may find ‘s analysis and links interesting on this one.
http://jimkeller.livejournal.com/373107.html
And more yet from Daily Kos that’s really interesting, gakked from a comment by :
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/5/26/735571/-Read-page-36.-They-just-cut-Prop-8-to-the-bone.