Leave a Comment Johan
Same Sex Sunday podcast with Derence and me
March 20, 2011
By Adam Bink
If you haven’t yet heard a behind-the-scenes interview with Ed and Derence, here’s one. This week’s Same Sex Sunday podcast (on iTunes and elsewhere) featured Derence from Palm Springs, discussing his life with his partner, Ed, who now has Alzheimer’s and would like to get married. The 9th Circuit is still considering a motion to lift the stay, and Derence and Ed penned an open letter to the court here. If you haven’t seen their video (now up to 80,000 views), it’s below:
I was also on a politics roundtable discussing the beginning of our campaign to repeal DOMA, how it came about, and marriage bills in various states.
It’s a nice listen. You can listen on the page here at The Bilerico Project by clicking the play button the widget at the bottom. We also discussed a transgender rights bill in Nevada and other topics. Phil and Joe, the co-hosts, always do an extremely professional and knowledgable job. The Facebook page for the podcast is here.
Filed under: 9th Circuit Court of Appeals,Prop 8 trial
Having technical problems? E-mail prop8trial AT couragecampaign DOT org for assistance!
15 Comments Leave a Comment
1.
Michelle Evans | March 20, 2011 at 5:16 am
If only their video would be deemed worthy enough to make the network nightly news. Then things might start to change.
2.
Rhie | March 20, 2011 at 5:40 am
Watching
3.
Sagesse | March 20, 2011 at 6:06 am
Scribin'.
4.
Kathleen | March 20, 2011 at 6:21 am
√
5.
Sagesse | March 20, 2011 at 8:19 am
I assume this story is true, and the message certainly needs to be heard.
Because Nobody Listened, a Gay-Bashing Victim Takes His Story to YouTube
http://tv.gawker.com/#!5783598/because-nobody-lis…
6.
JonT | March 20, 2011 at 9:12 am
☮
7.
Richard A. Jernigan | March 20, 2011 at 9:31 am
Thanks for the notification. Will listen shortly.
8.
BostonianForEquality | March 20, 2011 at 1:49 pm
Alright, I don't know if this is the right forum for this, but I would love it if my question could be answered or if someone would direct me where it could. I'm all for same-sex marriage, and in my head, I can understand why marriage should be a union of only two people. But legally, regardless of whether this battle is for civil rights or in the name of libertarianism, I don't understand why it is not reasonable to conclude the legalization of plural marriage under our Constitution, given that plural marriage has a longer history than same-sex marriage. I am by all means not for plural marriage, and I can in my head rationalize why marriage should only be a union of two adults, but it seems to me, that to legalize gay marriage, and prevent plural marriage from being legalized under the same logic, we need a constitutional amendment declaring marriage as a union of two adults/people. So, why can’t plural marriages be proved constitutional if gay marriages are? In other words, how is marriage constitutionally restricted to two people? Compelling government interest?
9.
Rhie | March 20, 2011 at 4:24 pm
Legally recognizing plural marriage would require a complete rewriting of every statute including the word marriage from the local county to the federal government. We'd have to write a whole new tax code because we'd need designations for more than one spouse as well as dependents of one spouse but not another. Custody of children would be a legal nightmare. And so on.
Marriage equality doesn't rewrite any laws, at all, except for laws like DOMA and Prop 8 which are written for the express purpose of denying same gender marriage recognition. All other laws are simply left the way they are and extended to protect and recognize commitments between same gender couples.
10.
Sharpblond | March 20, 2011 at 5:22 pm
In additional to the legal issues with plural marriages, there are at least two compelling goverment interests in preventing them.
First, plural marriages sometimes lead to exploitive behaviors towards women, in instances of polygamy
Two, plural marriages frequently lead to a bigger demand for social services. In areas, like rural Utah and Arizona, for example, many of the "second" wives are on welfare and food stamps as one "husband" has difficulty providing for multiple wives and their children.
Certainly, not all plural marriages will exhibit these issues, but there is a potential problem there that simply does not manifest when discussing marriage equality for gays and lesbians.
11.
Nicole | March 20, 2011 at 8:58 pm
Finally, polygamy isn't a sexual orientation. It is just a variation of existing sexual preferences.
12.
Leo | March 20, 2011 at 11:40 pm
Ask yourself if what you understand in your head about marriage being a union of only two people can be translated into objective arguments. If there is a sound secular justification based on objective facts (not gut feelings) why banning polygamy is good for society, then it can also be used by a court that considers the constitutionality of such a ban.
13.
Ronnie | March 21, 2011 at 12:41 am
=………<3…Ronnie
14.
BostonianForEquality | March 21, 2011 at 5:01 am
Thanks you so much! I feel as if that more people knew about the logic you just articulated, then we could more easily rebut any argument by the other side. Thanks for educating me.
15.
Rhie | March 21, 2011 at 6:11 am
I'm going to play Devil's Advocate on the first point. The statistics for wife beating and assault are pretty alarming. Just to start with, there's a 60% divorce rate in the US among heterosexual couples. One of the top reasons is abuse. If the state was allowing marriage based on the likelihood of assault, they'd never allow heterosexual marriage.
A better way to handle that crisis are better laws regarding sexual assault, stalking, etc in a way that protects ALL people in ALL circumstances.
Leave a Comment
XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
TrackBack URL | RSS feed for comments on this post.