July 26, 2007
In case you are one of the three people on earth who hasn't seen this yet, take a look/listen. (It's more or less safe for work unless you are employed by Focus on the Family.)
Radio silence (or at least quiet) will continue here for another week or two, at the end of which time I hope to have an exciting announcement to make.
Posted by Faustus, MD at 08:45 AM
TrackBack Pings (TrackBack URL for this entry: copy me!)
Comments
1) campbell said (on 07/26/07 at 10:17 AM):
I'm one of the 3 and I have to say I loved it!
Mind you, as I will keep saying to any passing American, Ancient Mariner like, why are you so hung up on the word marriage? Back here on the Mother Ship we've got Civil Partnerships and, on the 'If it Walks Like A Duck' principle everyone seems perfectly happy.
You're adopting a Chinese baby???
2) Faustus, M.D. said (on 07/26/07 at 10:33 AM):
campbell: I'm hung up on the word marriage because, though you wouldn't know it from the decisions made by the current Supreme Court, laws based on the concept of "separate but equal" have been considered unconstitutional in this country since 1954. If there are two water fountains and I'm not permitted to drink from one of them, then I don't care how loudly it quacks; it ain't a duck.
Furthermore, though several states here have legalized civil unions, those unions are not considered valid in most other states of the Union, and it's quickly becoming clear that there are ways in which the benefits of marriage are denied to civilly united couples even in states where such unions are legal.
3) David said (on 07/26/07 at 12:27 PM):
I was one of the three people before today. Now there must be two people left.
4) Jeff said (on 07/27/07 at 10:24 AM):
I just want to take issue with one point:
Furthermore, though several states here have legalized civil unions, those unions are not considered valid in most other states of the Union
But that's not because they're called "civil unions." After all, Massachusetts same-sex marriages are not considered valid in most other states either, and calling NJ civil unions "marriages" wouldn't make them more valid in other states - not as long as DOMA is still on the books.
The other points are valid though.
5) Faustus, M.D. said (on 07/27/07 at 10:38 AM):
Jeff: You're absolutely right. UPS, however, which is denying spousal benefits to civilly united same-sex couples in New Jersey, is granting spousal benefits to married same-sex couples in Massachusetts. DOMA aside, the word "marriage" prompts different behaviors from the words "civil union."
Of course any state that doesn't recognize a legal union performed in another state, whether it's marriage or civil union, is nonetheless in violation of the full faith and credit clause of the US Constitution.
6) Jeff said (on 07/27/07 at 11:05 AM):
OK, so we basically agree... I was just referring to your point about state recognition. It's true that some companies are taking advantage of this.
As to the full faith and credit clause, there are actually differing views about that. The Supreme Court has recognized a "public policy exception" to the clause, and some say that this exception applies to same-sex marriage, while others say that it doesn't.
7) christian said (on 07/28/07 at 09:21 AM):
well are u freaking well adopting a chinese baby or not??
Post a comment
Powered by Movable Type 3.2