Don’t Stop Believing

by twit

This weekend I was insisting that we’d see gay marriage legalized, and sooner rather than later.  After all, it is no longer illegal to be gay in America.  And then I saw this video, which only makes me more sure that equality is on its way.

Even if the military manages to get this video taken down.  This is a postcard from the internets letting us know that our culture is undergoing some kind of a shift.

and they really look like they’re having fun, too.  GO ARMY!

update:  From the New York Times on February 8, 2009:

Last year the principal architects of “don’t ask, don’t tell,” former Gen. Colin Powell and former Senator Sam Nunn, said it was time to “review” the policy.

That’s a polite way of saying they’ve changed their minds.

Advertisements

2 Responses to Don’t Stop Believing

  1. lestro says:

    Why is there a question: If an amendment to the Constitution is needed to ban gay marriage, then it already IS legal in America.

    Think of it this way: Alcohol was legal until an amendment was passed to ban it, right?
    So if you have to change the constitution to make gay marriage illegal, then logic dictates it must already be a right retained by the people, right?

  2. There’s logic, and then there’s DOMA:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act

    Segregation wasn’t logical. Denying a woman the right to decide whether or not to bear a child wasn’t logical. But I’ll let my favorite (and dearly missed) law school professor take it from here:

    Disagreeing with prominent scholars such as William Eskridge (2001), Mello contends that the civil union solution amounts to “marriage-lite,” and this is morally, politically, and legally insufficient. Eskridge and others have argued that civil unions will create a political and legal environment that is, over time, friendlier toward full equality for gays and lesbians.

    Mello counters: “As we all should have learned from the sad history of separate-but-equal in the context of race, legally mandated ‘separate’ is inherently ‘unequal’ when the law marks the segregated class with a badge of inferiority. Vermont’s new legal system of Jim Crow marriage for same-sex couples does just that” (p.143).

    Just as PLESSY v. FERGUSON would not be characterized as forwarding racial equality, paving the way for the ruling in BROWN v. BOARD some sixty years later, Mello contends that civil unions will not be understood by later generations as progress toward legalizing gay marriage.

    http://www.bsos.umd.edu/gvpt/lpbr/subpages/reviews/mello1204.htm

    an online preview of Michael Mello’s book can be seen here:

    http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/1592130798/ref=sib_dp_pt#reader-link

    and a clip of his description of Scalia’s dissenting opinion in Lawrence v. Texas, joined by Rehnquist and Thomas (p.4):

    In a remarkably nasty dissenting opinion, the hang-hard bloc of the Court urged us to recognize that the majority opinion can lay the groundwork for legal recognition of same-sex civil marriage.

    Even the “hang hard bloc” can’t ignore the logic…

    Even if they want to get “remarkably nasty” with the majority ruling in Lawrence v. Texas:

    The Texas statute making it a crime for two persons of the same sex to engage in certain intimate sexual conduct violates the Due Process Clause.

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-102.ZS.html

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: