Joy Division

Bad news. Vernita Gray died on Tuesday March 18, 2014 in her home in Chicago after succumbing to cancer. Ms. Gray made national headlines late last November when she married Pat Ewert becoming the first couple to get gay married in Illinois, even though marriage equality was to be promulgated on June 1, 2014.

In an article by Carla K. Johnson for ABC News, the circumstances are explained:

Gray's failing health and her wish to marry persuaded a federal judge to order that an expedited marriage license be granted to the couple ahead of the June 1 effective date of the state's gay marriage law. A subsequent judge's ruling then paved the way for more same-sex couples to marry early in some Illinois counties.

Gray worked for gay rights for decades, advocating for same-sex marriage long before many other activists saw it as a possibility, Bennett said. To win over conservatives, she made the case that her Social Security survivor benefits should go to her partner, and her knack for working with people across the political spectrum "made everyone feel that they had a unique contribution to move us forward," Bennett said.

A former restaurant owner, Gray worked for the Cook County state's attorney's office for 18 years, assisting crime victims and witnesses. 

Please, please read the rest of the article.

An important piece to the marriage debate that never seems to be answered is "What is marriage?" A few miles north of Chicago, the State of Wisconsin defines it through Wis. Stat. § 765.01.:

Marriage, so far as its validity at law is concerned, is a civil contract, to which the consent of the parties capable in law of contracting is essential, and which creates the legal status of husband and wife.

Marriage is a contract.

Like all contracts, the purpose of marriage is to end disputes. When two people cannot agree about anything else (the sky is blue; NO it’s azure!) they must agree to predetermined terms and conditions as prescribed by state statute.

When life is going well, there is no real need for marriage. It doesn’t take the state to determine who takes the trash out on Tuesday or who cooks dinner on Wednesday. It’s not a document that means forever and ever puppy dog love. If you want one of those, go buy a box of crayons and doodle on a piece of printer paper, then send it off to your preferred spiritual leader to blow smoke up your ass, since that’s not marriage.

Marriage is a contract. A contract to settle disputes over property and responsibilities.

Anyone dumb enough to say the state should be removed from the marriage business should wrap their dick in tinfoil and stick it in an electric outlet. The government is the arbiter of contracts; therefore it is necessarily needed to be involved in contracts. And as polygamy is not legal in the United States (nor is there a structural basis for it), it is necessary to have marriage license to verify the marriage as being valid.

Marriage is what happens to the house when one spouse dies. Wis. Stat. § 766.605.:

A homestead acquired after the determination date which, when acquired, is held exclusively between spouses with no 3rd party is survivorship marital property if no intent to the contrary is expressed on the instrument of transfer or in a marital property agreement. A homestead may be reclassified under s. 766.31 (10).

Marriage is what happens when the husband kidnaps the children and flees across state lines. Wis. Stat. § 767.105(3)(a).:

Except as provided in par. (b), a party who violates any provision of sub. (1) may be proceeded against under ch. 785 for contempt of court.

Marriage is what happens when a wife’s sole proprietorship collapses into debt. Wis. Stat. § 766.55.:

(1)   An obligation incurred by a spouse during marriage, including one attributable to an act or omission during marriage, is presumed to be incurred in the interest of the marriage or the family. A statement separately signed by the obligated or incurring spouse at or before the time the obligation is incurred stating that the obligation is or will be incurred in the interest of the marriage or the family is conclusive evidence that the obligation to which the statement refers is an obligation in the interest of the marriage or family, except that the existence of that statement does not affect any interspousal right or remedy.

(2)(a) An obligation incurred by a spouse in the interest of the marriage or the family may be satisfied only from all marital property and all other property of the incurring spouse.

Taking the state out of marriage removes widows out of deceased spouses’ homes. It makes dividing property in divorce even more unbearable. It takes away a creditors ability to collect on debts.

Gays will get sick. I myself will die one day. Being a misanthrope I don’t give a shit what happens to my possessions, but I respect others to make up their minds. Gays go bankrupt. Gays get divorced and need to divide shared property.

Gays need marriage. Now.

Liam ‘14

Our Inheritance

I have inherited a shared history that does not come from my mother or my father. It is a rich culture with a devastating history of genocide, discrimination, and an undying animus aimed against it.  If evolution is descent with modification, gay history is more similar to Prokaryotic Horizontal Gene Transfer. It is not a history taught by parents to gaylings but one that is acquired later through life, either by discussion or literacy or life experience.

It is an understanding that gay men of certain age have lost nearly all of their friends to a virus. It’s realizing that governments have and will continue to round up people like myself and executing them in cruel and humiliating ways. It’s understanding the struggle just simply to avoid being arrested by the police for simply existing. It’s knowing that simply existing is a political statement.

It’s sitting down and devouring Christopher and His Kind. It’s pretending you’re dating Frank O’Hara every time you crack open Meditation’s in an Emergency. It’s empathy for men similar to yourself and the desire to learn about them. It’s wondering why same-sex marriage is still not permit in many states.

It’s in this vein of anaphora that I found the cases germane to Perry v. Hollingsworth and United States v. Windsor.

Perhaps one of the most famous legal cases in LGBT history is Baker v. Nelson. Claire Bowes with the BBC wrote a wonderful piece describing the background of the case. Here is a brief background into the case:

Going public about your sexual orientation could cost you your home, your job and your family.

Baker and McConnell didn't fit the stereotype. Both in their late 20s - clean cut and with short, neat hair - Baker was a law student and McConnell a librarian. They'd been together for four years when they first applied for a marriage licence in 1970.

This was rejected - on the grounds that they were both men. But the couple decided to fight. They appealed, and kept on appealing until the case reached the US Supreme Court. It was the first time the court had been asked to rule on gay marriage - but it refused to hear the case "for want of a substantial federal question".

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-23159390

Read the rest of the article. Here is how the background is described by J. Peterson writing for the Minnesota State Supreme Court in Baker v. Nelson, 191 N.W.2d 185 (Minn. 1971):

Petitioners, Richard John Baker and James Michael McConnell, both adult male persons, made application to respondent, Gerald R. Nelson, clerk of Hennepin County District Court, for a marriage license, pursuant to Minn.St. 517.08. Respondent declined to issue the license on the sole ground that petitioners were of the same sex, it being undisputed that there were otherwise no statutory impediments to a heterosexual marriage by either petitioner.

The trial court, quashing an alternative writ of mandamus, ruled that respondent was not required to issue a marriage license to petitioners and specifically directed that a marriage license not be issued to them. This appeal is from those orders. We affirm.

While the Baker case is an interesting read, I feel like it has been discussed and analyzed and dissected so many times that I cannot add much to it.  I have posted a copy of the Minnesota SupremeCourt decision on my website. It is actually a short document that is fairly easy to understand without much legal reasoning. Most of the decision is quite familiar. To me it is frustrating but not overly offensive in tone.

If I ever write on Baker again, it will probably be more about how the US Supreme Court denied certiorari, and how the right wing lost the legal battle by campaigning for anti-gay state amendments.    

What I am more interested is in the companion case.

McConnell v.Anderson, 451 F.2d 193, 196 (8th Cir. 1971)

Jack Baker’s husband, Michael McConnell, was scheduled to become a librarian for the University of Minnesota. Then he had the audacity to get married… to a man… I mean can you imagine what temerity and political grandstandingness it takes to be an outspoken radical by getting married to a consenting human being… I mean seriously, the balls it takes, and did Mr. McConnell just think the University would sit there and allow one of its soon to be employees to get married. I mean for fuck sake who gets married besides communist radicals? So they shit-canned his ass just like what any Good Christian Institute would do, right. Because there’s nothing that’ll butch up a limped wristed Nancy quite like taking away any means of feeding themselves.

All this joking around has inadvertently made me physically angry about this case and the severe injustice of it all. I know that it happened 40 years ago and everything worked out for Mr. McConnell and Mr. Baker but still.  I’m going to go drink a beer and come back when I don’t want to anger-puke anymore over the background of the case. I mean for fuck sake, getting fired over getting married uggh what the verdammtes Arschloch… du  Arschbackengesicht… idoitische… blöder Scheißkerl.. kannst mich im Goethe lecken.

Ok. back. sorry.

The U.S. 8^th Circuit Court of Appeals decide McConnell v. Anderson on October 18, 1971 and is penned by Judge Stephenson.

In addition to the allegations above, his complaint asserted that he was a homosexual and that the Board's resolution not to approve his employment application was premised on the fact of his homosexuality and upon his desire, as exemplified by the marriage license incident, specifically to publicly profess his "earnest" belief that homosexuals are entitled to privileges equal to those afforded heterosexuals.

Umm.. aren't we though. Entitlement to privileges isn't a bad thing; it’s kinda what America is centered around; that is freedom. I don’t know why there has to be a use of scare quotes here with his earnest belief. And furthermore, if you are trying to say UMN acted properly and in accordance to the law, shouldn't the Court be saying McConnell wrongly believes that homosexuals are entitled to fewer privileges. Because the way it is stated, it seems that the Court is suggesting that gays are entitled to fewer privileges and so what. It’s not like we have a 14^th amendment or an Article IV or anything. 

It suffices merely to stress, by way of summary, that McConnell apparently is well-educated and otherwise able, possessing both an academic degree and a master's degree;

Well this is a hot way to start off. Mr. McConnell is well-educated. That is a fact. It is not subjective. It is demonstrated by his master’s degree.The use of apparently is just a teenesy bit offensive in this circumstance.

McConnell and a friend referred to in the record as "Jack Baker" encountered Dr. Hopp and informed him of their intention to obtain a license to marry; that during this conversation Dr. Hopp expressed concern that such an occurrence might well jeopardize favorable consideration of McConnell's employment application; that about three hours later on the same day, McConnell and Jack Baker appeared at the Hennepin County Clerk's office and made formal application for the license;

Well, I for one am glad that you cleared up how Mr. Baker and Mr. McConnell are associated. There is nothing condescending or douchey about calling a person’s husband just a “Friend.” Secondly, McConnell was a librarian, not a stripper at some Podunk nudy-bar. Getting married is his prerogative. Well according to Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967): “The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. Marriage is one of the `basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival.” It would appear under this logic that denial of employment from a State Actor would be arbitrary and capricious. But what did the Warren Court know about the Constitution.

It is McConnell's position that the Board's decision not to approve his employment application reflects "a clear example of the unreasoning prejudice and revulsion some people feel when confronted by a homosexual." That being so, he argues that the Board's action was arbitrary and capricious and thus violative of his constitutional rights. We do not agree.

Thanks asshole. Would you care to elaborate on how the Board of Asshats Regents’ decision wasn't based on discrimination:

It is, instead, a case in which something more than remunerative employment is sought; a case in which the applicant seeks employment on his own terms; a case in which the prospective employee demands, as shown both by the allegations of the complaint and by the marriage license incident as well, the right to pursue an activist role in implementing his unconventional ideas concerning the societal status to be accorded homosexuals and, thereby, to foist tacit approval of this socially repugnant concept upon his employer, who is, in this instance, an institution of higher learning.

Once again fired for getting married. Apparently getting married is socially repugnant… who knew. Also how was Mr. McConnell seeking employment on his own terms? What a fucking asshole, what happened did Judge Stephenson forget to up his Klan membership or something so he had to compensate. I have poured through many cases, but few have dripped so deeply with contempt and bigotry.

We know of no constitutional fiat or binding principle of decisional law which requires an employer to accede to such extravagant demands.[8] We are therefore unable fairly to categorize the Board's action here as arbitrary, unreasonable or capricious.

Once again man gets married. Man gets fired for getting married. How is that an extravagant demand? After reading this case, I think I may have been transported to an alternate dimension. I think it’s call the Planet of the Douchebags. It’s an upside down world where Douchebags rule men.

Anyway, I want to say congratulations to Mr. Baker and Mr. McConnell. It only took them 40 years to become the first legally married gay couple in America.

Liam '14

What about My Freedom of Religion

I grew up Methodist. I thought for a while that the Church would allow gay-marriages or blessed unions depending on the legality of the state. My parents' pastor is very into gay rights and even holds a support group in a small town in America (scary).  If there were a god I would hope it is his. He is a man of peace, concerned for the poor, and a supporter of a more loving world.

It is a commonly held belief that gay-marriage is an infringement on religious liberty, which is a ridiculous statement that does not even hold up on first glance. Freedom of Association will allow individual churches the right to perform marriage and exclude gays if it is counter to their core beliefs. Many churches and religions outside of Christianity hold that having sex outside of marriage to be a sin while no longer holding homosexuality to be an inherent sin. By barring gay-marriage, Conservatives are pushing gays to choose either a life of abstinence or a life sin in the eye of their religion. The possibly for Christianity to accept homosexuality, and gay-marriage as a consequence, is quite likely.  While the Old Testament has a prohibition on homosexuality, the Gospel does not. In fact, the New Testament mentions the word 'Love' 179 times, while it mentions 'Hate' only 16 times, and 'Homosexuality' 0 times. In fact some Christian sects such the ELCA, individual UCC congregations, Anglican Church, not to mention the Reform Movement in Judaism, and various sects of Buddhism and Hinduism all accept Homosexuality. Many other Christian sects are divided on the issue.

If gay-marriage were actually accepted by the Methodist Church would it be an infringement of my religion to prohibit gay-marriage? Legally, based on past precedence as shown in  Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1878), gay-marriage wouldn't be protected on the grounds of freedom of religion; however, under the logic of Loving, gay-marriage should be protected under the Equal Protection Clause. As a logical argument, preventing gay-marriage would be an infringement of my religion as it prevents me from completing a religious sacrament. Furthermore allowing gay-marriage in no way interferes with anyone-else's rights.

The other common argument I hear against gay-marriage is that it will alter 3,000 years of marriage tradition. This is not a straw-man argument, Mitt Romney actually said that. What is traditional marriage?

According to this Princeton Article  and this Independent Article 1/6 of societies practice legal monogamy currently. Legal monogamy was a rarity during antiquity and even more so in prior eras. Most Christians should understand this, because Judaism of course was historically polygamous. And the Greco-Roman tradition of man on man rumpus wasn't lost to the ages. It wasn't until the merger of Christianity and the Roman Empire that lead to an ascetic marriage tradition. I do have to say though that I'm disappointing with history, and the fact that we didn't end up with a system of polygamous gay-marriage. I think we were kind of close to that possibility.

And once this system of marriage was created, it looked very different from the nuclear family of today.  Forced marriages were common place until the 19th Century. I really don't think anyone wants to go back to that tradition.

So if it isn't tradition or religious liberty, what else is there? Many people have a problem with the gay identity, and how the gayness is the only aspect of gay people's lives.  The way I see it, gay people do not want to be identified as being gay. They are simply people who happen to be attracted to men. Why is that evil? Where is the logic behind the morality?  With the boom in human population, mass starvation (yes people really are starving), and other population related issues, perhaps we should encourage gay people to live as gay (as opposed to living a miserable closeted life and having a family that will one day suffer the consequences.)

Believe it or not, logically gay people have more to gain than the heterosexual community has to lose by granting gay rights. In marriage, gays would gain a whole host of financial, mutual-property, and other legal rights that straight couples enjoy. More marriage is not about having children (which, unfortunately for a certain writer, many gay couples wish to have) but more is a contract for living together and preparing to be divorced. Seriously a lot of the marriage laws are about merger of property, division of property, inheritance, and other depressing aspects of life.

If it weren't for the history of bigotry and hatred there wouldn't really even be a gay culture. If it weren't for being forced into gay neighborhoods, if it weren't for lynchings and murders, if it weren't for the fear of losing one’s job due to outing, if it weren't for the bigotry, gay people wouldn't have formed a separate culture, and they would simply be people. 

Liam '12

Freedom Just For Me

Nature is not so Natural

UPDATE: I found the full video, and to be fair the section of youtube was taken out of context. I'm not going to take down this post because I have heard many of the same arguments made by other people.   So I guess just pretend that Mr. Barber didn't say these things.
 
I stumbled upon this video, and it quickly became apparent that I need to comment on this idiocy. The video was uploaded to Youtube via Right Wing Watch. I found the transcript on Right Wing Watch's site.Not like this isn't a daily occurrence, we get to see Matt Barber make an ass of himself, Liberty Counsel, and thus ""Liberty" "University""(oh wait it actually is ABA accredited).

 

This tyranny of rights, this tyranny of the minority, and we’re not talking about racial minorities, neutral minorities, we’re talking about people who define their identity based upon sexually deviant behaviors and proclivities.This is a tyranny of sexually deviant rights and it’s by design to replace the enumerated Constitutional rights given by our Creator based upon the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God, these so-called rights violate the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God, and yes violate the expressed guarantees that we have to religious liberty, freedom of speech, freedom of association granted to us by the United States Constitution. The LGBT agenda and Constitutional rights cannot exist in harmony. At Liberty Counsel, we defend the Constitution.

Let's deconstruct his argument chunk by chunk.

This tyranny of rights, this tyranny of the minority, and we’re not talking about racial minorities, neutral minorities, we’re talking about people who define their identity based upon sexually deviant behaviors and proclivities.

A tyranny of right, that sounds like a tyranny of freedom, which makes perfect sense. I have to give him credit, if you say something that is dumb enough it's like brain Novocaine, that way you won't notice the hate so much.Then he moves to how the act of gay sex is the only thing that identifies us.  It's never the love two people share, the emotional connections, the friendship, the stories, or the day-in-day-out same as strait people lives, it is always about the sloppy butt sex.  Yep for me it is.  I couldn't go to work because I was getting ass-fucked.  I couldn't get the mail because I was getting ass-fucked. Guess why I couldn't walk the dog. I digress.

This is a tyranny of sexually deviant rights and it’s by design to replace the enumerated Constitutional rights given by our Creator based upon the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God, these so-called rights violate the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God, and yes violate the expressed guarantees that we have to religious liberty, freedom of speech, freedom of association granted to us by the United States Constitution. 

Once again a tyranny of rights.. Is this fucker trying to piss me off, or is does he seriously confuse liberty and oppression. I could live with one of those. Then he says it will replace the enumerated rights, what enumerated right will disappear? Well, tell me jackass. Which one goes bye-bye? That's what I thought.Next he says god wrote our original constitution. Great job on that slavery things asshole. And if you're omnipotent and omniscient why did you allow for amendments..

Ooh here he say's the constitution is predicated upon Laws of Nature and of Nature's God.  Yes because there are no such things a gay animals. Nope no such things as gay penguins.  I means seriously has he never been to the monkey section of the zoo. Chimpanzees are always "playing" with each other. Bonobo constantly giving out gay hand-jobs (well technically they are bi hand-jobs.) And just a side note when I end up in hell, I hope it's penguin hell.  He then says being gay violates these Law's of nature and thus the constitution res ipsa loquitur.

Let's look at the constitutional rights he list again:

Religious Liberty: Yes and which God hates the gays. If my God happens to think we all should be gay. Or more likely what if I am Buddhist, Hindu, Reform Jewish, or a Congregationalist.


Freedom of speech: Meh off the top of my head I have nothing clever for this one.

Freedom of association: Dear lord he's an idiot. First off, freedom of association is not a word for word constitutional right.  It is known as a penumbra. A good definition of penumbra come from Lawyers.com, "a body of rights held to be guaranteed by implication from other rights explicitly enumerated in the U.S. Constitution."  Similar to privacy which was granted Griswold v. Connecticut. if the courts start eating away at the penumbras so goes free association.

Second what can be more of a freedom of association issue than choosing who you want to hang out with, date, love, have sex with,  live with, and eventually marry. Those are what the Gay Rights are all about.

The LGBT agenda and Constitutional rights cannot exist in harmony. At Liberty Counsel, we defend the Constitution.

Yes of course rights of the people cannot exist with the Constitution. And didn't Jesus say to be a Fish of Men.

Liam '12

Freedom Just For Me

The Gayest President

Happy Pride Month.

Georg Büchner once wrote: "Aber  da, da, was liegt hinter dem? Geh, wir haben grobe Sinne. Einander kennen? Wir muessten uns die Schaedeldecken aufbrechen und die Gedanken einander aus den Hirnfasern zerren."  How do we know what another person is thinking.  We would have to crack open their skull and pull out their brain.

Obviously I cannot know what is going through another person's mind, especially if that person's  the President.  But this is what I believe is the background to the President's change of heart on gay-marriage.

I believe that President Obama has lied to the American People. It's en vogue  to call the President a liar.  It's fashionable to call any president a liar actually, but that's a different subject for a different day. Despite his policy positions, he has to be a Socialist-Marxist-Kenyan-Muslim-Secularist-Atheist-Christhating-SOB, because he is lying.

The basic history of Obama goes like this. He has been in the closet for the last eight years.He experimented with supporting Gay Rights in college like so many do, but then was scared back in when he realized  people might be judge him for it. Finally his conscience caught up with him and after he outed himself, he looks like the weight of the world has been taken off his chest.

However I think President Obama was actually lying to the American Public in 2004 when he stated that marriage should be between a man and a woman religious-blah.  His comments were in contradiction to his 8 year old (law professor) statements that he supported ultra-gay marriage. And once again he said it was his personal religious convictions that made him no longer support gay-marriage.

I allude to this position as the law professor position due to the Fourteenth Amendment and how states have historically taken a Cleveland Steamer on it, whenever possible. Selective Inclusion (also known as the Supreme Court releasing a decision every other week from 1868 to Malloy v. Hogan saying the Bill of Rights are applicable to the States) shows that every right on a state level has to be fought for even if the courts have already granted that right or one similar.

In 1967 the Supreme Court issued its decision in Loving v. Virginia, and soon it will grant gay-marriage rights on essentially the same grounds as Loving with Perry v. Brown. Freedom, Penumbras, and Privacy O My.  Privacy is prerequisite for liberty and was etched by uberfascist liberal courts with decisions like Hogan, Loving, Griswold, Eisenstadt, and Lawrence. So as a law professor it would seem obvious that short of a new constitutional amendment gay-marriage is inevitable. Why weren't the freedom loving Conservatives in favor of free loving (or privacy for that matter)? I can think of no greater freedom than choosing who you want to marry, love, and live with.

In 2004 Obama upgraded to Obama 2.0 and became a real politician. Like any real politician his position crapped on the 14th Amendment. His official stance was the issue was separate but equal (because we all know how that worked out the first time).  I can only conclude that this was a position taken because at the time Guns, God, and Gays.  Even at this time he supported Civil Unions thus supporting the freedom to love and live with whoever you want. The moral of the story is apparently politics are stupid and make good rational men make terrible decisions for no real reasons.

Then in 2012 crazy eyes Uncle Biden blurted out in front of the whole family on thanksgiving that President Obama is gay for gay-marriage. Interestingly his policy shift happened 2 months after the Ninth Circuit issued their decision on Perry v. Brown and after it was announced it would be heading for the Supreme Court in the not too distant near.

On a completely random ass ending, I would like to say: let's end the Gay Debate once and for all for every culture in the world.  As far as I know all objections to gay-marriage come from religious institutes.What kind of God is more obsessed with what we shove up our asses than with the 5.5 million children that die each year due to starvation. 83 Million Dollars were spent by backers of Prop 8. I cannot bring myself to write the sentence linking those two thoughts. Grow up.

Liam '12

Freedom Just For Me