The Right’s Conundrum…

“In order to argue that Connecticut’s civil union law did not discriminate against gays and lesbians, lawyers for the defendants were forced to contend that civil unions are basically the same as marriage… Marriage, they end up arguing, is nothing so special that it can’t be replicated by a parallel institution–in this case, civil unions. Yet the entire point of creating civil unions is to preserve what is allegedly special about the institution of marriage. There is a pretty blatant contradiction here. Either there is something special about the label ‘marriage’ or there isn’t.”[TNR]

Get Queerty Daily

Subscribe to Queerty for a daily dose of #politics #civilunions #connecticut stories and more


  • crazylove

    Your argument assumes you have an opponent with something other than the “ends justifying the means” in mind. There is no contradiction if one’s goal is to save your soul rather than worry about logic. Basically, these are things that trip up folks like you, not folks that are going to bring up the cases.

  • JJ

    Thank you for drawing our attention to the New Republic article.

    If the U.S. Supreme Court gets a hold of this, I worry. Undoubtedly, the Mormons and other hateful religious are trying to take it there. Remember the U.S. Supreme Court is ok with the Boy Scouts discriminating against gays.

    Another reason to vote Obama/Biden so we don’t have another Clarence Thomas or someone Sarah Palin would recommend sitting on the Supreme Court.

  • JJ

    BTW, has been regularly soliciting donations for the “No on 8” in California cause on his blog.

    Money from across the nation, however little an individual contributes, could beat back the Mormon drive here in California.

    The Mormons have lawn signs (Yes on 8) and bumper stickers in my area. I’ve only seen one No on 8 lawn sign.

    People say that if he had enough money for the televsion advertising, etc., McCain could win Delaware.

    I think with enough money, the Mormons can get 8 passed here in Cali, so please consider contributing to hold them off.

  • fredo777

    That’s fantastic.

    Btw, CrazyLove, what the hell are you talking about? I’ve got a pretty good idea, but I’m hoping I misconstrued your message.

  • John

    As an institution, the Supreme Court usually gets more credit for being “groundbreaking” than it deserves. In fact, the court has a long history of being cautious and slow.

    When Brown v Board of Education was decided in 1954, segregation was already becoming unpopular. In 1948, President Truman issued an EO desegregating the military. Not long after, the California Supreme Court overturned the ban on interracial marriage. Even conservative Eishenhower wasn’t a big fan of Jim Crow.

    Same with Lawrence v Texas (sodomy laws). By the time that was decided in 2003, only 13 states still criminalized homosexuality. And most of those didn’t even bother to enforce it. Texas being the exception rather than the rule. Scalia’s invective notwithstanding, it wasn’t a particularly radical idea to allow gay people to have sex in their own homes.

    So, I don’t think the Supreme Court wants to deal with same-sex marriage right now. It is too controversial. And they simply don’t know how it’ll all play out at the state level. High courts in Massachusetts, California, and Connecticut have ruled in favor of same-sex marriage. But courts in New York and Washington have come to the opposite conclusion. And Hawaii, Vermont, and New Jersey came down somewhere in between (equal benefits, but no marriage).

    It is a legal mine field. And the Supreme Court won’t act until they see some sort of clear movement one way or another.

Comments are closed.