Liberty and Justice for All!

Since we passed a gay marriage ban that does not recognize the legal relationship created by legal gay marriages in other states, the American Political Science Association is considering a ban on holding events in New Orleans and cancelling an already scheduled event here planned for 2012.  

One of the arguments made is that if one of the associations gay members fell ill, his/her partner would be unable to make medical decisions for him/her because the law would not recognize the legal authority for him/her to do so. Others in the article disagree and believe they are taking the argument too far. However, if I was in a situation where I had doubts as to whether the law would allow my spouse to make medical decisions for me, would I really want to risk travelling to that state?

Mark Vail, an assistant professor at Tulane, called Pinello’s argument about health care “at best, overblown.” Vail said there is little risk of a circumstance arising that would jeopardize the members’ civil rights. He added that the law leading to the amendment did not originate in New Orleans and passed here by a small margin.

Notice the “little risk” and not “no risk”. And why does the fact that this bill only passed by a small margin make any difference? So what, we are supposed to be happy that just over half of the people who voted here support the law? People should be happy that New Orleans, while less intolerant than the rest of Louisiana, is still intolerant when it comes to civil rights for gay people? Mr. Vail’s argument is flawed and I am shocked that Tulane would have someone teaching political science who would make such a flawed political argument. That doesn’t say much for the department.

“We feel that the fears expressed by Mr. Pinello really, fundamentally misunderstand what New Orleans is about,” Vail said. “We think that its incredibly unfair to punish New Orleans.”

Mr. Pinello is not making a statement about what New Orleans is about. He is making a statement about the legal climate in Louisiana for homosexuals. Perhaps Mr. Vail should work on changing the law that is unfair to people who are GLBT instead of complaining that one convention is refusing to come here because a super-majority of the people who voted feel that gay people are second class citizens.

Mary Beth Romig, a spokeswoman for the New Orleans Metropolitan Convention and Visitors Bureau, said her organization has been in touch with the political science association to assure its members that New Orleans would be welcoming to gay members of the group.

I’m sure that New Orleans would welcome in any group that brings money in. This is not the concern here. Perhaps Mary Beth could get on the phone to the A.G. and determine whether the concerns raised are valid and if a partner in a homosexual relationship would be unable to give consent to a medical procedure for his/her partner based on current Louisiana law.

“I hear time and again that New Orleans is gay-friendly,” Pinello said. “I simply don’t understand what the basis of that is. To say that a street fair makes the city gay friendly is turning to the worst stereotypes of gays and lesbians. I think that’s offensive.”

I couldn’t agree more. If half the city voted against gay marriages, that doesn’t speak to highly of the city and its willingness to accept gay people as equal.

The California Supreme Court just struck down the gay marriage ban! Now there are two states where gay people are not treated as second class citizens.

Domestic partnerships are not a good enough substitute for marriage, the justices ruled 4-3 in striking down the ban.

Absolutely right. Of course, the California GHEL plan on striking back.

A coalition of religious and social conservative groups is attempting to put a measure on the November ballot that would enshrine laws banning gay marriage in the state constitution.

I hope they fail. The tyranny of the majority should not get to treat people like second class citizens. PERIOD. If you don’t like gay marriage, don’t have one. It is really just that simple.

California Deputy Attorney General Christopher Krueger wrote in a court brief:

A day may come when the people decide to legalize same-sex marriage. But such a social change should appropriately come from the people rather than the judiciary so long as constitutional rights are protected

Hmmm, if we waited on important social change to come from the people instead of the judiciary, I wonder if we would still have separate schools. I guess this legal scholar forgets the necessity of that little ruling called “Brown v. Board of Education“. Does he feel that the Brown ruling was inappropriate? I wonder how long interracial marriages would have been outlawed had it been left to the people instead of being decided by “Loving v. Virginia“? I feel sorry for the people of California if this is the kind of legal representation they have in their DA office.

Anti-gay marriage activists also feel that:

 limiting marriage to members of the opposite sex is reasonable — not only to uphold tradition but because California voters approved a ballot initiative eight years ago bolstering the gay-marriage ban that was in place at the time. To overturn that law, they say, would abrogate the rights of all Californians.

So let me get this straight, allowing gay people to marry abrogates the rights of all Californians? That is absurd! If they don’t feel that gay people have the Constitutionally protected right to get marriage, how on Earth do they figure that Californians have a Constitutionally protected right to live in a state where gay people are discriminated against?

How about this. Maybe, just maybe, if people spent more time worrying about their own marriages instead of worrying about other people getting married, we wouldn’t have such an abysmal divorce rate! Just my humble opinion.