Skip to main content

View Diary: Elena Kagan proves that DOMA's original intent was bigotry, not tradition (129 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Sometimes, I think it is exactly "tradition" (29+ / 0-)

    that scares them: were my partner alive and well, we'd be in the home stretch of putting together a large and hyper-traditional wedding with a guest list of over 250 people, professionally printed and very traditional invitations, a ceremony in a Cathedral complete with choir and Holy Communion, a reception catered by our highly culinarily sophisticated church community, and a week in Quebec City to recuperate. That's about as traditional a wedding as one could possibly imagine, and that's what scares them: a wedding like that, in a church even, traditional in every way except that the two people being married are of the same gender.

    The very idea of two gay men having a wedding like that is what disgusts them. I'm convinced of it.

    By the way, since the wedding is obviously not going to happen, we'll never know if our summer neighbor John Roberts would have attended. He and his lovely wife received an invitation, along with many of the other summer residents of The Rock. You read that right: the Chief Justice was invited to our wedding and it wasn't a stunt--it felt rude to leave him out when many of the other neighbors were invited.

    I wonder if he thought of that invitation on the bench, especially since his gay cousin was present for the arguments yesterday.

    What is truth? -- Pontius Pilate

    by commonmass on Wed Mar 27, 2013 at 01:09:02 PM PDT

    •  I convinced (4+ / 0-)

      they are squeamish about teh buttsex. That's it, in a nutshell (so to speak, lol). The mechanics of the thing make them uncomfortable, but since personal uncomfortableness isn't the basis of law they have to base it on something else, "morals" and "religion" and whatever other hogwash they can throw and see what sticks.

      I'm so sorry you and GMB2 didn't get your wedding, it would have been lovely. Go to Quebec City anyway, it's gorgeous.

      "No one has the right to spend their life without being offended." Philip Pullman

      by zaynabou on Wed Mar 27, 2013 at 01:28:48 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  You show perfectly why DOMA is unconstitutional. (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      viral, commonmass, doraphasia, GreenMother

      I went to the wedding of two ladies over ten years ago. It was performed by their Rabbi and it seemed as though half the congregation was there. It was a beautiful ceremony. Why hasn't some church or temple filed against DOMA on the grounds that it violates their religious freedom. They are federally recognized and tax exempt. Why are their marriages not recognized? Is that not a basis under which to challenge DOMA?

      That passed by; this can, too. - Deor

      by stevie avebury on Wed Mar 27, 2013 at 01:39:52 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  YES! THIS! And a truly outstanding point (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        stevie avebury, commonmass

        Please tell me that you remember this Rabbi and perhaps that should be filed in some kind of amicus brief?

        Because that further goes to show religious bigotry being perpetuated by the US Government and government officials who oppose gay marriage on the sole basis of religion.

        Which if memory serves me correctly, violates the first freedoms of other American Citizens who might be of a different faith, or may not be religious at all.

        The government should not be favoring religion over non-religion and it especially shouldn't be favoring one particular religion above all others, either.

      •  How does it violate their religious freedom? (0+ / 0-)

        You just said they preformed the marriage.

        One should no more deplore homosexuality than left-handedness. ~Towards a Quaker View of Sex, 1964 (Proud left-handed queer here!) SSP: wmlawman

        by AUBoy2007 on Wed Mar 27, 2013 at 02:45:38 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  This is an example of the government choosing (0+ / 0-)

          between religions and promoting the policies of one over another. The marriage that this temple performed should have been valid and recognized by the government if the group itself is recognized. The government refuses to recognize the churches right to marry the couple because it will upset some other church. How is that equal protection? How can the government legislate that one religious institution be able to prevent the rites of some other religion from being recognized? That is not freedom of religion. That is the government picking a religion.

          That passed by; this can, too. - Deor

          by stevie avebury on Wed Mar 27, 2013 at 05:21:48 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  It's not the church that grants legality (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            AUBoy2007

            It's the state.

            As you said, their temple had no problem with them being married, and the only reason it wasn't legal is because the STATE wouldn't grant them a license.

            This should have nothing to do with getting married in a church or other house of worship. It has to do with the legality of the marriage.

            And that is an issue for the STATE.

    •  I'm sorry (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      commonmass, doraphasia, GreenMother

      that you didn't get to have that big traditional wedding. You both earned it.

      (Is it time for the pitchforks and torches yet?)

      by PJEvans on Wed Mar 27, 2013 at 01:40:50 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site