Skip to main content

View Diary: Terminally ill man and his husband fight to force Ohio to recognize their marriage, and judge agrees (81 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  When I was in Denver at the beginning of this (16+ / 0-)

    month my husband, my sister and I were sitting around a picnic table on my parents patio arguing marriage equality.

    My sister and my (for the most part) liberal father had said something stupid about gays getting special and extra rights.  I expected this from my sister who's gone to the dark side, but not my dad.  And my liberal Mom joined him.

    Okay they both 80, and this concept is has to break through layers of years of social and religious dogma.  I get that but still I tried.

    I challenged them to name what special rights gays had been given that straights do not have.

    I asked them if the only purpose for marriage is procreation, why they are they still married since they hadn't had a child in 47 years.

    I told them of cases where long time gay and lesbian partners being denied access to their partners in hospitals where they lay dying.  And the legal recognition that straight couples take for granted.

    I told them that my husband and I both support gay marriage.  And in actuality we support "civil unions" for everyone (gay and straight) as authorized by the state - and marriage ceremonies for the religious part of this (since different religions define marriage differently).

    And then I told them about commonmass and GMB02 - and finally there was a crack - where they could see the importance of "gay" marriage when one partner is dying.

    It was small, but I took the victory.

    It's amazing to see a couple spend their last weeks demanding recognition.

    Bumper sticker seen on I-95; "Stop Socialism" my response: "Don't like socialism? GET OFF the Interstate highway!"

    by Clytemnestra on Tue Jul 23, 2013 at 08:15:16 AM PDT

    •  Good on you. (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Avilyn, Clytemnestra, HappyinNM, brillig, Jay C

      Small victory or not, even the attempt was praiseworthy.

    •  Well done (9+ / 0-)

      LOL at this one

      I asked them if the only purpose for marriage is procreation, why they are they still married since they hadn't had a child in 47 years.
      And we could generalize that. If marriage is for procreation, then why don't marriage contracts expire once all the children are grown up and out of the house?

      The clear answer is that their would be huge financial costs imposed to separate communal assets. And then there are all those spousal privileges...

      "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

      by LilithGardener on Tue Jul 23, 2013 at 09:05:05 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  If the sole purpose of marriage (5+ / 0-)

        was to bear children, then what is to become of those where a married couple has no children, either by choice or because they cannot conceive?  Are those marriages to be annulled?  And we aren't talking about a few here and there.

        And then there's the pesky matter of people procreatin' all over the place without getting married first.

        The argument is "facially flawed".  And "fatally flawed" also, too.

        I'll believe corporations are people when one comes home from Afghanistan in a body bag.

        by mojo11 on Tue Jul 23, 2013 at 09:41:19 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  "Special" rights is always what it's called (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Clytemnestra, Jay C, sfbob, Forest Deva

      when someone you don't approve of wants the same rights as yourself.

      "The extinction of the human race will come from its inability to EMOTIONALLY comprehend the exponential function." -- Edward Teller

      by lgmcp on Tue Jul 23, 2013 at 09:40:11 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  <we support "civil unions" for everyone> (0+ / 0-)

      The state does marriage; religions do holy matrimony.    No need for "civil unions" at all.

      •  That distinction has always perplexed me. (0+ / 0-)

        I know someone who's both liberal and religious. Their religious side made them against SSM but their political bent made them favor an exactly equivalent "civil union" concept -- just as long as the state didn't call it "marriage". Very strange.

        Personally, I think the state should recognize marriage of ANY two people (including siblings and parent/adult offspring) as it's just a convenient set of contractual obligations and rights that society and government recognizes. This has always been the one thing that I've objected to about the SSM movement -- it seemed to me to be somewhat discriminatory and selfish, "I want mine - damn others who are even more of a minority".

        For example, I see no reason that two elderly sisters should not be able pool their assets, estates, responsibilities, and decision making in their declining years by getting married. They likely would be much more committed to each other and trust each other in end of life decisions and want to make sure the other is provided for should one outlive the other than two 18 year old "kids" getting married. Yes, it would screw up Social Security, pension, and annuity actuarial assumptions a bit so something might need to be done there - what, I don't know.

        Actually, I think the state should recognize polygamous marriages. However, I recognize that doing so would raise a lot of technical difficulties given our existing statutory and case law. For example if three people are married and one is on life support and the other two can't agree on "pulling the plug", what should the hospital do? So, until I better understand these impacts, I don't push on this one very hard -- but the public should be having these discussions.

        (Before some troll says "So, can someone marry their six dogs?" -- NO, a dog doesn't have the ability to consent or agree to marriage any more than a dog [not a trust created for the benefit of the dog] can own a piece of property.)

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (149)
  • Community (71)
  • Baltimore (68)
  • Bernie Sanders (49)
  • Freddie Gray (38)
  • Civil Rights (38)
  • Elections (27)
  • Hillary Clinton (27)
  • Culture (24)
  • Racism (23)
  • Education (20)
  • Labor (20)
  • Media (19)
  • Law (19)
  • Economy (19)
  • Rescued (18)
  • Science (16)
  • 2016 (15)
  • Politics (15)
  • Riots (14)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site