Burnt Orange Report


News, Politics, and Fun From Deep in the Heart of Texas







Support the TDP!





February 25, 2004

Maybe It Is Time

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

Byron's post earlier today got me thinking about the issue of gay rights in this country. And as a gay American, I of course do have many thoughts on what has been happening in our country of late.

I never thought that we would have gotten to where we are today as fast as we have.

Canada going forth with gay marriage (which hasn't led to the destuction of our neighbors to the north), the falling of the sodomy laws, a presidential candidate who signed into law the highest form of recognition for same-sex couples and ran on it and almost became the nominee, the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruling and then reaffirming that the denial of same-sex marriage was unconstituional, a San Francisco Mayor who went forth to issue the first same sex marriages leading to another state challenge of constitutionality, a New Mexico clerk who tried the same before being told no, a Chicago Mayor who may be open to following the lead of San Francisco...

Something is happening folks, I mean, something more than just events. It feels like the beginnings of a movement, a crisis.

Maybe it is time.

Maybe it is time to stop playing the waiting game of hoping that American public opinion will shift as time wears on.

Maybe it is time to stop the wait and see approach.

Maybe it is time to realize that now is the oppertunity was have been waiting for to open up this issue to the national dialogue.

It's not going to just go away and be an election year issue only for 2004. And I think that Bush and Co. realize that too and that's why he came down on the side of pushing the Marriage Amendment. Because one way or another gay marriages are going to happen in states in this country. And those legal couples in Massachusetts are going to move to other states in the nation and are going to challenge the state DOMA laws and they will start to fall. And as they start to fall, they will challenge the national DOMA and if that falls, what else is left to deny gay marriages from being realized as the new norm?

Maybe it is time, because I believe it's going to happen and it's going to happen within the next 5 years.

But right now?

I will fight the Federal Marriage Amendment because it's morally wrong to support discrimination in our founding document. If we want to call ourselves first world leaders, we can't let this happen.

I will not vote for any candidate that supports the FMA or similar action to amend any state constitution. While I can stomach for now candidates that are not 'pro-gay marriage,' I will not vote for them if they go for the FMA. That includes you John Kerry if you decide to flip-flop your coifed up little self one more time. I live in Texas so I can vote Green and not give a damn in the general presidential election.

I believe that this family is not a threat to our national stability. I believe that this sight makes me think about the underlying frustration in the gay community. I believe these people are scary homophobes. I belive that this man doesn't deserve four more years of policy making. I believe that this governor had a bad face day. And I think that San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom is showing courage not often found in politicians by saying that he will risk his political career for this fight.

I also believe that this couple is still not a threat to your marriage.

Have any of you married couples felt the bonds of your love unraveling this past week? Any parents suddenly filing for divorce because of those shock waves being sent out from the East and West Coasts?

I thought not.

Maybe it is time.

Posted by Karl-Thomas Musselman at February 25, 2004 07:40 PM | TrackBack

Comments

It is time to debate gay marriage in America, and I'm proud that both Kerry and Edwards oppose the FMA. Sure, neither supports gay marriage, but neither did Howard Dean. As long as Kerry and Edwards don't back down on their opposition to the FMA (Hate Amendment), we'll be fine. If our Democratic nominee can't hold 34 of his collegues in line in the US Senate, then he's not doing his job. The FMA is simply election year rhetoric to the GOP base. To moderates and liberals its a hateful and extreme measure to alter our Constitution to write in discrimination.

Posted by: Byron L at February 25, 2004 09:54 PM

Or, in the words of Victor Hugo:

"There is nothing so powerful, not all the armies in the world, as an idea whose time has come."

Posted by: WhoMe? at February 25, 2004 11:54 PM

As a married "breeder"...oh, OK. A married "liberal breeder," I just can't see how the institution of marriage is going to be harmed by granting rights to same sex couples, and if some social conservative could explain it to me in really small words, I'd appreciate their efforts.

But, on the other hand, I listened to "Crazy Train" the other day, and felt like biting the head off a bat.

So go figure.

Posted by: John Lyon at February 26, 2004 08:52 AM

It's time. What's going on in San Francisco is the way to do it. Enough is enough, bigotry is bigotry whether it's agains Blacks, Whites, Jews, or homosexuals. So everybody better get used to it. I'm straight, by the way.

Posted by: Les Stevens at February 26, 2004 08:58 AM

It is time for a movement because if people with our mindset don't do it, no one will.

Same goes for REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS!

Posted by: AustinGirl172 at February 26, 2004 10:12 AM

When I married my husband nine years ago, the main reason was to taunt homosexuals.

Yes, I stole that from Jon Stewart, but it's so applicable to the absurdity surrounding the idea that allowing gay people to marry somehow undermines everyone else's straight marriages.

I've thought and thought and thought about this, and while usually I can put myself (albeit unwillingly and never for more than 60 seconds) in right-wing shoes, on this one I JUST CAN'T.

Somebody 'splain it to me.

Posted by: Deanocrat at February 26, 2004 12:27 PM

I really wish someone-hopefully a Republican-who hides behind the civil union buffer would explain in detail why Social Security and other federal benefits only go to the folks in the "sacred institution" column. I'd love to see someone-preferably a Republican have to explain to either Phyllis or Del why even after 51 dedicated years she won't be seeing a red dime of her beloved's Federal Sacrament.

I'd really really like to see that, as well an explanation of how that isn't discrimination. I'm tired of all the carefully controlled parroted catch-phrases both Democrats and Republicans are using. Hence, I appreciate the title the Hate Amendment.

Posted by: jeebus at February 26, 2004 01:27 PM

I suggest we have "marriage" and "gay marriage". Gays can get a "gay marriage license" and have a "gay wedding" and a "gay wedding announcement" in the American Statesman.

Of course, none of these "gay" benefits would be available to a couple unless they were of the same sex. Man and woman walk into the Travis County Clerk's office and ask for a "gay marriage license application" and they are refused.

There would be no legal differences between the 2 types of marriages.

That way the straights keep the instituion of "marriage" sacrosanct, but the gays have "gay marriage" instead of "civil unions".

Posted by: Redman at February 27, 2004 03:08 PM
Post a comment









Remember personal info?








June 2005
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30    


About Us
About/Contact
Advertising Policies

Donate

Tip Jar!



Archives
Recent Entries
Categories
BOR Edu.
BOR News
BOR Politics
Linked to BOR!
Polling
Texas Stuff
A Little Pollyana
Austin Bloggers
DFW Bogs
DMN Blog
In the Pink Texas
Inside the Texas Capitol
The Lasso
Pol State TX Archives
Quorum Report Daily Buzz
George Strong Political Analysis
Texas Law Blog
Texas Monthly
Texas Observer
TX Dem Blogs
TX GOP Blogs
Daily Reads
College Blogs
GLBT Blogs
More Reads
BOR Webrings
Election Returns
Texas Media
World News



Powered by
Movable Type 3.15