photo
commentary
Quote UnQuote
Published Thursday, 16-Apr-2009 in issue 1112
“We are firmly convinced the exclusion of gay and lesbian people from the institution of civil marriage does not substantially further any important governmental objective. The legislature has excluded a historically disfavored class of persons from a supremely important civil institution without a constitutionally sufficient justification. There is no material fact, genuinely in dispute, that can affect this determination.”
The Iowa Supreme Court in an April 3 ruling legalizing same-sex marriage. The weddings begin April 24.
“We have a constitutional duty to ensure equal protection of the law. ... If gay and lesbian people must submit to different treatment without an exceedingly persuasive justification, they are deprived of the benefits of the principle of equal protection upon which the rule of law is founded. (T)he language in Iowa Code section 595.2 limiting civil marriage to a man and a woman must be stricken from the statute.”
The Iowa Supreme Court in an April 3 ruling legalizing same-sex marriage.
“Ironic that Same Sex Couples Can Marry in Cedar Rapids but Not in San Francisco - The heartland is now ahead of ‘the People’s Republic’ of California”
Headlines on an alternet.org story, April 4.
“If the (California Supreme) Court, and if this Chief Justice, vote to uphold Prop 8’s damaging blow to American constitutional principles, it will be a terrible mistake, failing their obligation under and to the California Constitution. If in so doing, they compound that mistake by selling short, or sidling away from, the truths set forth so powerfully in Chief Justice George’s 2008 ruling – the fundamental nature of the freedom to marry, the way in which exclusion from marriage itself denies equality and imposes the stigma of second-class citizenship – they will do a powerful disservice to the people, to the Constitution, and to history, which for the moment still ranks them alongside the judges who struck down race discrimination and the subordination of women in marriage in the face of the passions of the moment, and were vindicated. Failure of judgment and duty now will tarnish their own legacy, wreak real harm on gay people and their loved ones, and shatter the faith of millions in the courts and their legitimate and crucial role in our constitutional system.”
Freedom to Marry Executive Director Evan Wolfson writing at The Huffington Post, March 30.
“Old queens grew up with very little gay visibility in the media and a heightened sense of gayness being something taboo and even (in society’s eyes) sinful and downright sick. They came of age feeling that gay was something to hide or to ‘get over,’ and often felt more attracted to anonymous, shame-based sex than to open, long-term connections. Those hoary attitudes still pop up, but mainly the younger gays have grown up with queer iconography everywhere they turn and with gay marriage seeming to become an eventual reality as society progresses. They have healthier views about sex and seem unencumbered by the urgency to hide and slink around in dark alleys. In fact, they generally want long-term relationships more than their predecessors did (though they’ll gladly spice up those relationships with shameless online hookups, albeit often with their partner’s permission – or even inclusion. Compulsive anonymous sex is far from gone, it’s just a little more upfront.) In sum – if you’re still listening – the younger queers may have far less sense of history about them, but probably a far greater chance for happiness, due to mere luck of the draw. Of course these are all gross generalizations, but as an older queen, let me tell you, they are totally true!”
Village Voice columnist Michael Musto on his blog, La Daily Musto, March 30.
E-mail

Send the story “Quote UnQuote”

Recipient's e-mail: 
Your e-mail: 
Additional note: 
(optional) 
E-mail Story     Print Print Story     Share Bookmark & Share Story
Classifieds Place a Classified Ad Business Directory Real Estate
Contact Advertise About GLT