Democrats & Liberals Archives

Why Do You Care?

In this Land of the Free, we have abolished both institutionalized racism and institutionalized religious discrimination, two of the most insidious evils mankind has ever conceived of. Between them they have been responsible for millions of deaths in the last hundred years alone. So why have we renounced them as a society? Because they are wrong, and because doing so has made us a better country.

My question, to anyone who opposes basic human rights for gay people, is therefore: why?

Forget gay marriage for now. I want to look at a more basic scenario. It seems that 36,000 gay people in this country have partners who reside abroad, because they are not allowed to sponsor immigration for their loved ones.

Just for a moment stop to imagine that. The love of your life has to live thousands of miles away because your government tells you that your relationship is invalid and illegal.

I appreciate that there are certain obstacles - perhaps the couple want to live in a state that does not permit gay marriage, and since the law dictates that only spouses can sponsor their partners, the framework of the law makes it impossible to allow these partners to enter the country.

I expect to see this argument trotted out in the comments, which is why I pre-empt it here. The law says something. The law is wrong. Change the law. It happens every day. My fiancee changed Colorado law yesterday.

What I don't accept is that this is an institutionalized discrimination, the like of which we have freed ourselves from over the last fifty years - so that from being amazed at a Catholic President, we have managed to fill the Supreme Court with Catholics, and so that from being incredulous at a black baseball player, we have become the United Nations of Baseball.

Why would we do this to our citizens? Why would we deny them the right to live in peace (and often, in faith) with their partners? Why, in 2009, are we still tolerating this intolerance?

Is it fear of a vengeful Old Testament God? Is it terror that living amongst homosexuals will tarnish our children and - heaven forbid! - turn them gay? Is it that we just plain 'ole hate queers?

I want to know. I want to know WHY we care who someone else loves. Why is it ok to discriminate, legally and personally, against this small minority of people who just want to enjoy the basic human rights that the rest of us enjoy?

Please, enlighten me.

P.S. - I am trying not to turn this post into a debate on gay marriage - I'll do that some other time. I would like comments to address the premise that gay people are forced to live in separate countries due to our laws, and to answer why (or why not) this is acceptable in a decent society.

Posted by Jon Rice at June 6, 2009 12:00 PM
Comment #282520

Lack of education, lack of empathy, the need to feel better than someone or to look down on someone, fear, I could go on.

Posted by: womanmarine at June 6, 2009 1:38 PM
Comment #282521

And yes, dare I say it, religion.

Posted by: womanmarine at June 6, 2009 1:39 PM
Comment #282523

I support gay marriage. Married people - statistically at least - make better citizens. They are healthier, wealthier and probably wiser than similarly situated unmarried people. Marriage helps stabilize society. It should be encouraged for gays and others.

I doubt, however, that many gays will actually get and stay married. After an intial flurry of activity, the number of gays getting married in Mass, for example, has plumeted.

My family had to pay a “marriage penalty” of several thousand dollars in taxes last year. Many gay couples are two-income earners. They will also get stuck with this tax. My guess is, despite all the constructed outrage, most gays will opt for civil unions. If not for my kids and my love of tradition, I would go that route and save those thousands in taxes.

Posted by: Christine at June 6, 2009 2:08 PM
Comment #282524

i dare say i totally agree with womanmarine the country as a whole needs to gain a better education…..with the education system the way it is.. is it no wonder why the education of the law makers is so low…but this is not my post so i will not turn this into something else…good post jon

Posted by: cowboyellison at June 6, 2009 2:31 PM
Comment #282527

as jon commented “land of the free” we are free to state our mind but not free to live the way of our preferences? makes no sense. the brave men and woman of this country have fought and died for this freedom but the countries top men and women deny some of our basic freedoms… the freedom to live our life our way… who is it in us that should tell someone… what ever their background… how to choose to live… you can vote, speak your mind ( as long as it is what the congress deems respectfull) and you can even carry weapons..but marrying just anyone is forbidden? i just don’t understand where the congress gets their understanding the the term “free” only freedom i see is living the congress way…. do as we say and you will be “free”?
i don’t mean to disagree with my country’s men and woman…. lord knows there is no better place to live.. but (dont take this the wrong way) the country still has a lot of education and living needed to fully understand what they are talking about in the famous song…”AMERICA, THE BEAUTIFUL”

Posted by: cowboyellison at June 6, 2009 2:59 PM
Comment #282529

Why Do You Care?
I don’t. I got enough problems already with the lousy economy, rising prices, trying to feed my family and keep working and keep a roof over my head to worry about some guy wanting to marry some other guy, which to me is pretty disgusting. But hey, whatever floats your boat……………..

Posted by: capnmike at June 6, 2009 3:46 PM
Comment #282530

Christine, I think I feel offended being single and not a very good citizen and oh yeah I’m not very healthy (news to me), well you got me on the wealthy thing (although I don’t have much money, I feel blessed anyway to have a job, home,pets, and good friends), oh and I almost forgot I’m more stupid than married people. Who would have thunk it. Well you did say statistically-so I guess statistically I’m not in the norm for single people.

Not sure what all that has to do with being gay.
I certainly don’t understand denying gay people the same rights as the rest of us. I’ll leave it to the people who feel that gays shouldn’t have the same rights to respond.

I just couldn’t resist a little humor and poking fun at your post (christine).

Posted by: Carolina at June 6, 2009 5:35 PM
Comment #282531

Womanmarine has it right,when i was working down in Orange county for 12 years some of the best patients were the gay couples, You’d be surprised Christine many were stay at home while the other worked and they come from all walks of life and colors, Doctors and lawyers and engineers and teachers and fireman and women some from the movie industry, I found great enjoyment and personal satisfaction talking about all subjects and many were incredibly intelligent and just a real pleasure to work with and engaging into the business aspect and their devotion as loyal patients and friends.

Posted by: Rodney Brown at June 6, 2009 5:44 PM
Comment #282536

BTW - in my comment awaiting your approval, i forgot the thing that connected the post to your question. Since so few gay couples actually get married anyway (according the the Mass stats above) why do we care? There is no real reason.

Posted by: Christine at June 6, 2009 7:32 PM
Comment #282538


This is odd. My longer comment to Carolina and Rodney gets stuck in some kind of line. Others make it through.

Posted by: Christine at June 6, 2009 7:36 PM
Comment #282543

This is why I oppose it.

Good read here on why gay marriage will lead to the downfall of society…

Posted by: Bryan at June 6, 2009 9:54 PM
Comment #282545

I am for many rights for gays and lesbian couples. It seems like the decent thing to do. I struggle with the slippery slope argument. For instance, if gays can marry then why don’t we allow polygamy? It seems that other alternate lifestyles should be included. What about a brother and sister who live together as adults in a non romantic relationship, (like on a family ranch). Shouldn’t their relationship be honored?

Because of that and other reasons I support civil unions because I think we can create law that is practical to the individual needs of relationships.

I understand why gays should be allowed to adopt. It’s not about adult’s rights but about what is best for children. What is best for children is a mother and a father. The problem is that there aren’t enough homes like this available. It’s about practicality. It is better for children to be in a loving home outside of foster care. This one is not about gay rights, but about what is best for children. Adults rights IMHO and secondary to the needs of children in adoption.

Most times, I really don’t care. The gays that I know and care about it’s simply a non issue. It’s not something we talk about. There is more to life than sexuality. But in specific instances with specific bills I am happy to support many rights for gays. It’s just not a big deal. It’s practical.

Posted by: Craig Holmes at June 6, 2009 10:27 PM
Comment #282547

I found some data from 2007 that says there are about 4 million people waiting to immigrate to the United States. So I guess my question is that if there are 30,000 gay partners out of 4 million is that a terrible burden?

It looks like the only way to fix this issue would be to allow gay marriage. But I would actually be confused by that on a legal basis. It would seem to me that they would have to already be married which would mean they would need to get married overseas and then have America accept that marriage as valid. Help me here because I really don’t know, I’m just assuming how the process would work.

In other words, Gay marriage in our country might only help those who were already married to immigrate. Am I right?

Posted by: Craig Holmes at June 6, 2009 11:15 PM
Comment #282548


“if gays can marry then why don’t we allow polygamy?”

Ever hear of Fumarase deficiency.

I think this would be a good reason why we don’t.

“Fumarase deficiency is extremely rare, with only thirteen diagnosed and identified cases worldwide until roughly 1990. Since then an additional twenty cases have been documented in the Arizona/Utah border towns of Colorado City, Arizona( formerly known as Short Creek (or the Short Creek Community), and Hildale, Utah, settled in the 1930s by the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints a church that gradually split from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints beginning in 1890. The condition has since been dubbed “Polygamist’s Down’s.”“

Polygamists tend to group together and intermarry. This is a recipe for disaster.


Posted by: Rocky Marks at June 6, 2009 11:18 PM
Comment #282550


No worries. I am just pointing out some practical reasons why we should support gay marriage.

As you point out, statistics apply to populations, not individuals. But here we are talking about populations.

A very good argument for gay marriage is the social-economic one. The statistics are clear that marriage is beneficial for society as a whole. IMO liberals are loath to use these good arguments because they don’t want to acknowledge the benefits of marriage, since that tends to annoy some of their other core constituencies.

Posted by: Christine at June 6, 2009 11:32 PM
Comment #282558


When I write more than a few lines, I keep on getting the page that tells me that you are holding my comments because it is the first time I posted. It is not.

Posted by: Christine at June 6, 2009 11:47 PM
Comment #282573

FYI, some words will cause the spam filter to catch them and flag them for being held for approval. One certain word, in fact, is most likely causing your posts to get flagged, it starts with an s and ends with an x, if you remove that word (change to gender) perhaps it will go through?

Posted by: Rhinehold at June 7, 2009 2:19 AM
Comment #282579

Polygamy? No there is no reason beyond politics that the government should interfere at all. Historically the thrust of anti-polygamy was as a stab at the Mormans. The Mormans had set up a mini-theocracy in a large region of of what is now a part of the United States and some reason to fight it was needed to bring them into tow. At this point in history there is no particular reason to pursue a policy of anti-polygamy. In breeding and insest, yes.Who cares and why is it the business of the government?The property settlements might get interesting but in the age of computers a little more paperwork shouldn’t be that big a deal. Also the idea of female polygamy might get old Brigham tossing in his grave.

Posted by: bills at June 7, 2009 8:58 AM
Comment #282583

I see lots of things up here to bills in upstate NY it’s beautiful country :)

Posted by: Rodney Brown at June 7, 2009 11:01 AM
Comment #282597

Bryan: “Gay marriage will lead to the downfall of society” (and thanks for the article you cited that definitively proved… well, absolutely nothing, it was just a rather nasty rant).

If society is so delicate that allowing a tiny minority of couples who are not currently allowed to marry to get married, then is it really worth preserving?

I would have thought that higher on the list of things that might cause society’s downfall might be:

* Corporate greed leading to loss of pensions

* Nuclear bombs in unfriendly countries (I think we need a tougher stance in N.Korea, unlike the one both Bush and Obama have followed)

* 60% of all bankruptcies due to healthcare costs

* Endless pork barrel spending by both Republican and Democrat controlled Congress

* Illegal immigration and resulting slave labor

* Aliens from the Planet Zog

* The unchecked rise of the parrot population

* Rush Limbaugh & Bill O’ Reilly secretly working on Red Matter to create a black hole (or as they prefer to call it, a white hole) at the center of the galaxy…

Look, there are so many things that are SO much more important than who marries whom, that I find it astonishing that people can see the end of civilization in gay marriage, yet happily vote for warmongering and profiteering in Iraq.

I mean, come on. Oh, and one more thing that I found hilarious in your citation: gay marriage leads to men marrying German Shepherds? I think you’re barking up the wrong tree, mate.

Posted by: Jon Rice at June 7, 2009 2:59 PM
Comment #282604

BTW - In rereading your original post I noticed that you forgot to mention deadliest pathology we excluded from our country - institutional communism. That ideology killed upwards of 60 million people (that is the low estimate) during the last century. I add this in the interests of being complete. We just cannot ignore the biggest killer of all.

Posted by: Christine at June 7, 2009 6:26 PM
Comment #282605

The polygamy argument is a red herring, as are Rick “man on dog” Santorum’s arguments about bestiality. I know that it is hard for some to digest but we live in a secular society based on laws. Most of these laws are about property rights. As far as I am aware most if not all laws concerning marriage are about property rights and what happens to this property if the marriage ends. This essentially makes marriage, to a secular state, a 50-50 business partnership. Not very romantic, I know. There are no laws saying that you have to have or be able to have children, there are no laws saying that you have to love the person you marry. We are free to marry for money if we choose, we are free to marry if we are unable to have children. A 50-50 business partnership makes polygamy impossible as you can’t make a 50-50-50 deal for your property. A minor cannot also enter into a legal contract, neither can your dog, cat, goat, whatever. These arguments for the “slippery slope don’t hold water. Also, in 1967 the SCOTUS in Loving v. Virginia ruled that marriage is a fundamental right of all US citizens. If it offends your sensibilities, sorry, get over it.

Posted by: tcsned at June 7, 2009 7:29 PM
Comment #282609

Actually, I don’t find any important moral arguments against poligamy. You can divide property in any way. It addresses gender imbalances. For example, many older women cannot find mates. A poligamous relationship might provide a whole set of relationships.

Poligamy works in various places around the world and has worked in our history.

Posted by: Christine at June 7, 2009 8:11 PM
Comment #282610

Incidentally, I notice as I read more and more of these (predominantly) right-wing fear jobs on gay relationships, that they focus almost exclusively on gay males. Almost all of their language is couched in those terms; there is virtually nothing regarding their outrage over female gay relationships. Should I be inferring something here?

Posted by: Jon Rice at June 7, 2009 8:57 PM
Comment #282619

Jon Rice
That’s because its all about homophobia.The wingnuts have a rough time dealing their own latent homosexual tendencies.Women are too smart for that.

Posted by: bills at June 7, 2009 10:34 PM
Comment #282628

Polygamy has worked in this country’s history? For whom? When? Polygamy is a way for men to dominate the women of a society. It is only the most backward looking people that engage in such a practice and to be successful they take advantage of young girls before they can find their own sense of who they are. You tell me how you divide the property if one of these women who finds herself in a multiple marriage and wants out? If she has property does she forfeit half of it? Does the husband only forfeit a percentage of his? Polygamy is a bad idea whose time has thankfully passed in this country except for a few religious fundamentalists who work their way around the law through isolation. Also, tell me how many societies have engaged in multiple marriage where the woman had a harem of husbands?

Posted by: tcsned at June 8, 2009 7:51 AM
Comment #282631

bills - there is a grain of truth in what you say - Larry Craig is the most obvious example. As William Shakespeare wisely wrote in Hamlet, “methinks thou dost protest too much.” There was a study done at the University of Georgia comparing relative homophobia to arousal while watching homosexual pornography. The group rated with the highest degree of arousal was the group that tested highest for homophobia.


Posted by: tcsned at June 8, 2009 10:12 AM
Comment #282658

Yeah, polygamy might work for the rare few, but I doubt it’ll become the rage anytime soon. One on one relationships are complicated enough.

Posted by: gergle at June 8, 2009 9:13 PM
Comment #282673

I was reading, the other day, that marriage of gays is likely not the greatest legal problem: assuming that a couple weds in Iowa, then moves to Georgia for a better job or a job transfer. The couple decides to divorce for any legitimate reason. Now, how does a court in a state that does not recognize the legality of the marriage handle the disposition of the property, the alimony, or the custody rights of the two parents? If the Georgia court grants a divorce, it has recognized the marriage…If it grants alimony, it has recognized the marriage…If it assists in granting and supervising custody, it has recognized the marriage…if it drops the whole thing as an illegal union, it cannot adjudicate the alimony or the custody…where would that leave the party’s of the divorce or the children? Who knew a possible divorce might be the one thing that might break the back of the nay-sayers on gay marriage.

Jon, I know I have strayed from your question, but this might be a good point to bring up at this time.

Posted by: Marysdude at June 8, 2009 11:53 PM
Comment #282678

In real practical terms do you think the 4 million who are waiting in line will want to be held up by the 30,000 gay partners waiting in line?

I don’t mean to talk about right or wrong necessarily, but cold politics. It would seem to me that the 4 million and the interest groups they represent would not let this happen.

Posted by: Craig Holmes at June 9, 2009 12:38 AM
Comment #282679

I like the above thought. The things which are mentioned are wonderful and doesn’t require any further addition.
Carrol spncr

Posted by: carrol at June 9, 2009 12:43 AM
Comment #282680

Craig Holmes,

Is it the Amendments to the Constitution you are against? Why would numbers play into this matter? Freedom of religion should only be for Catholics or just for Baptists?

Posted by: Marysdude at June 9, 2009 1:00 AM
Comment #282685

Great point Marysdude (as usual) - I hadn’t thought about all the other ramifications you pointed out of one state allowing a marriage and others not. Unfortunately for gay marriage opponents, that floodgate is now open and it is going to be impossible to close. California is going to have similar problems with that ridiculous Prop 8 law and all the legal gay marriages already in place. I’ll wager that by the end of the first Obama administration, gay marriage will be nationwide. Sadly, my Commonwealth of Virginia will be among the last to do so. This country should never have fist class and second class citizens and those barriers are breaking down for another group who has been second class for way too long.

I also would give a big two thumbs down to the Obama administration for arguing for DADT in the recent case before the SCOTUS. Especially after campaigning for removing that ridiculous policy. How many more good patriotic soldiers have to be let go at a time when they are needed the most? Polls show most soldiers don’t care and the ones that do, if they are good soldiers will act professionally and not let it interfere with doing their duty. I know he has a lot on his plate but that decision was awful.

Posted by: tcsned at June 9, 2009 8:27 AM
Comment #282709


Is it the Amendments to the Constitution you are against? Why would numbers play into this matter? Freedom of religion should only be for Catholics or just for Baptists?

I am not against any amendments. Freedom of religion is for everyone atheist included.

My point was a practical one. Do you think 4 million will allow 30,000 to slow immigration reform or will the interest groups for the 4 million dominate the legisation?

Being right and having votes are two different issues.

Posted by: Craig Holmes at June 9, 2009 4:25 PM
Comment #282733

Craig Holmes,

Just checking…it seemed as if you were advocating???

Posted by: Marysdude at June 9, 2009 11:19 PM
Comment #282756

A image on the Retina temporary the last image is for marysdude. Optical Illusions

Posted by: Rodney Brown at June 10, 2009 9:51 PM
Comment #282765

Rodney Brown,


Posted by: Marysdude at June 11, 2009 4:03 AM
Comment #282766


Uh, I should have said, thanks :)

Posted by: Marysdude at June 11, 2009 4:06 AM
Comment #282773


this is really cool.

Posted by: dbs at June 11, 2009 11:37 AM
Comment #282775

Thank you dbs, If I had that extra dough I’d for sure buy that beautiful Vette and a set of better tires that other car is ok but it’s tweaked to about it’s limit .I think the new Camaro is a beauty to.

Posted by: Rodney Brown at June 11, 2009 1:07 PM
Comment #282776

Anytime MD!

Posted by: Rodney Brown at June 11, 2009 1:13 PM
Comment #282778

In fact dbs, the new Camaro with some better gripping tires V8 manual 6 speed 426-430 horsepower $30,000 -$32,000? would give that Import a run for it’s money and save you 40 plus grand! The Vette is in a leauge of it’s own.

Posted by: Rodney Brown at June 11, 2009 2:05 PM
Comment #282782

“League” mind on cars ;)

Posted by: Rodney Brown at June 11, 2009 2:40 PM
Comment #282805


i actually have one of these. it doesn’t compare to the new ZR1, or Z06, but it’s still a lot of fun to drive. with the borla exhaust, and K&N filter charger it makes just over 400 hp. its got 15k original miles.

Posted by: dbs at June 11, 2009 8:23 PM
Comment #282807


Posted by: dbs at June 11, 2009 8:50 PM
Comment #282810

Cool hang on to it dbs, DOHC heads very rare car there and underrated factory horsepower they made 30-35 HP more than the factory rated them beautiful car.

Posted by: Rodney Brown at June 11, 2009 9:07 PM
Post a comment