Get Them to the Church on Time!

Man, I’m getting a little misty looking at all of the pictures celebrating gay marriage in New York. What a beautiful thing, for people who love each other to have marriage open to them.

I’ve been trying to guess which southern states will be the first to fall (unless we get some kind of federal mandate). My money’s on Virginia, followed by North Carolina (who will complain the whole way, I’m sure).

But imagine if we’d passed “Don’t Say Gay.” Middle school social studies teachers would be forbidden from discussing the biggest civil rights event of the summer. Even if you think it’s reasonable to lie to kids about the range of human sexuality, do you really think it’s okay to lie to kids about what’s going on in their own country?

But anyway, who wants to focus on farts when there are weddings to plan?

Edited to add: But while we’re focusing on farts, I hope Democrats take note that Republicans helped pass this. When you have a majority and you squander it and then you come back and ask for votes because the other people will be so much worse? They’re not always going to be so much worse.

9 thoughts on “Get Them to the Church on Time!

  1. I live in Missouri, and I can’t imagine gay marriage ever being a reality here unless there were a federal mandate.

  2. It was touch-and-go in “liberal” New York until the last day or so. We’re really not that liberal and western NY/the Appalachian counties are politically almost identical to Tennessee — the urban populations mostly balance that out so the state overall falls pretty much center-right. NOM dumped a ton of money, push-polled, etc. and they believed until the end that they could win it. The Republican Senate chair (Dean Skelos) was getting huge pressure from our Conservative Party (a strange bedfellow collection of libertarians, fundamentalists, term limit/electoral reform, Tea Partiers, birthers) to not even allow the vote to come to the floor — they promised to primary any GOP Senator that voted for it and Skelos for allowing it to come to a vote. In some districts, that will be the difference between staying in office and not. Got to hand it to a couple of the GOPers (Alesci, McDonald, Saland, and particularly Grisanti who will almost certainly lose his office next November) for bucking that pressure. Cynically, I could say they were going to reap contributions aplenty from Bloomberg — the NYGOP’s single biggest donor — but it still takes some guts for a self-professed conservative Catholic lawyer to stand up in the Senate and say “I can’t come up with a legal reason to oppose this.”

    However, I would also caution everyone to hold some optimism in reserve. I’ve heard (have not read the bill) that there’s a poison pill provision in the religious exemptions language — if any of it is challenged and found unconstitutional, it wipes out the entire bill.

  3. (Note: Not that I’m not thrilled about the New York vote but) I’m a little worried that this New Threat to Our etc. is going to push Southern legislatures (somehow even further) in the other direction. At least through the next election cycle.

  4. Yes, but won’t it be kind of a relief to have them railing on about something that is actually happening, as opposed to them pretending they passed a bunch of jobs bills when they didn’t?

    It’s going to suck, sure, but I support Republicans becoming reacquainted with the reality the rest of us live in.

  5. Virginia does have NOVA and Richmond, so you might be right, but we also elected an Attorney General who attempted to tell virginia’s public universities that it was illegal for them NOT to discriminate against gay people in hiring, so there’s that.

  6. Now can we move on to allow plural marriage? I mean if two men or two women can marry, why can’t religious sects that have allowed plural marriage for centuries be allowed to legally follow their beliefs and have the state recognize their relationships?

  7. Anonymous, is this why you’re so grouchy when you comment here? You’ve long wanted to marry two people but the state stands in your way?

  8. Because the American sect that allowed plural marriage in the past (I assume you’re talking about the LDS) disavowed the practice as contrary to the teachings of their faith in 1890? (Try Official Declaration 1 in the LDS Doctrines and Covenants.) That’s why Utah feels no big urgency to redo their marriage laws, but if you want to move out there and do the organizational work, more power to you.

    The states’ rights mop flops both ways. I assure you, it’s as irritating to me to watch Alabama and Arizona constrict human rights as it is for you to watch New York expand them, but that’s the system we’re in.

Comments are closed.