In the weeks before the election, I noticed a growing number of my fellow citizens wearing Obama’s face on their t-shirts, usually in the spirit of socialist realism art. There’s not a politician alive who I admire enough to the point of worshipful adoration that I’d sport his likeness on my clothing or plaster it all over the wordsmobile (I do, however, wear my FA t-shirts with pride and enthusiastically tell people it’s a right-wing website when asked).
The only pro-McCain t-shirt I have seen in person was worn by a lone demonstrator in front of the house where an effigy of Sarah Palin was hung, supposedly in the spirit of Halloween. And even his didn’t sport McCain’s face on it.
I know that even in blue state California, here in the Los Angeles area, there were more than just a handful of McCain-Palin supporters. Yard signs and bumperstickers were more common; just not the t-shirts. And I’m sure a big part of that has to do with the intimidation factor.
There seem to be more loud activists on the left than on the right. Conservatives seem to not want to make a nuisance of themselves; but many liberals have no problem wearing their politics on their sleeves, on their t-shirts, on their cars. It’s apparently an automatic given that the whole world hates Bush; that’s why, in open public and broad daylight, they can say something derogatory about President Bush and feel safe in not getting called on it. Even amongst strangers.
The sad fact is, liberals, through the education system and through media and Hollywood pop culture, have been “allowed” to define and characterize conservatism. The Republican Party has been branded as the party of the rich; warmongers and war profiteers; racists and bigots. If you don’t believe in the alarmism of global warming, you are a “denier” and don’t care about the planet; if you believe in closing the borders, assimilation, and controlling immigration, then you’re against diversity and appreciation for the beauty of other cultures as well as anti-Mexican. And on and on, it goes…
I did not see one- NOT ONE!- “yes” on Prop 8 sign or button or bumpersticker. But I saw the “No” on Prop 8 placards around, perhaps even more than Obama signs. I thought it might pass, given that California voters had already “been there, done that” with Prop 22. What truly makes me livid about the issue, is how liberal activists once again are the ones who get to frame the debate. They’ve painted it as “the next good fight” in the struggle for civil rights and equality; and anyone who stands in the way is a bigot and a hatemonger, with backward religious beliefs and narrow-minded intolerance. Frankly, as someone rather agnostic on the issue, the bigotry and intolerance that I see is all coming from the self-righteous activists who won’t take “yes” for an answer and allow the majority rule to decide.
If you walk around with a “Yes” on Prop 8 sign the stigma is that you are a homophobic bigot and religious nut. You are the radical. Not the other way around. It’s also amusingly not funny to me that these activist bullies targeted the Mormon Church but not black churches when 70% of blacks voted “yes” on Prop 8. Ah, but I digress….
My post is actually about 14 year-old Catherine Vogt and her t-shirt experiment.
As the media keeps gushing on about how America has finally adopted tolerance as the great virtue, and that we’re all united now, let’s consider the Brave Catherine Vogt Experiment.
Catherine Vogt, 14, is an Illinois 8th grader, the daughter of a liberal mom and a conservative dad. She wanted to conduct an experiment in political tolerance and diversity of opinion at her school in the liberal suburb of Oak Park.
She noticed that fellow students at Gwendolyn Brooks Middle School overwhelmingly supported Barack Obama for president. His campaign kept preaching “inclusion,” and she decided to see how included she could be.
So just before the election, Catherine consulted with her history teacher, then bravely wore a unique T-shirt to school and recorded the comments of teachers and students in her journal. The T-shirt bore the simple yet quite subversive words drawn with a red marker:
“McCain Girl.”
“I was just really curious how they’d react to something that different, because a lot of people at my school wore Obama shirts and they are big Obama supporters,” Catherine told us. “I just really wanted to see what their reaction would be.”
Immediately, Catherine learned she was stupid for wearing a shirt with Republican John McCain’s name. Not merely stupid. Very stupid.
“People were upset. But they started saying things, calling me very stupid, telling me my shirt was stupid and I shouldn’t be wearing it,” Catherine said.
Then it got worse.
“One person told me to go die. It was a lot of dying. A lot of comments about how I should be killed,” Catherine said, of the tolerance in Oak Park.
But students weren’t the only ones surprised that she wore a shirt supporting McCain.
“In one class, I had one teacher say she will not judge me for my choice, but that she was surprised that I supported McCain,” Catherine said.
If Catherine was shocked by such passive-aggressive threats from instructors, just wait until she goes to college.
“Later, that teacher found out about the experiment and said she was embarrassed because she knew I was writing down what she said,” Catherine said.
How often do you suppose this happens in the classroom? Often, I believe. I work with a lot of kids and it sounds like liberal indoctrination is all too common. Outing oneself as belonging to a conservative Republican family, and the child is subjected to ridicule from the herd mentality of children who have been told Democrats are “the good guys” and Republicans are basically “evil and selfish”.
Scott’s own daughter experienced abuse by Obama bullies.
One student suggested that she be put up on a cross for her political beliefs.
“He said, ‘You should be crucifixed.’ It was kind of funny because, I was like, don’t you mean ‘crucified?’ ” Catherine said.
Other entries in her notebook involved suggestions by classmates that she be “burned with her shirt on” for “being a filthy-rich Republican.”
Some said that because she supported McCain, by extension she supported a plan by deranged skinheads to kill Obama before the election.
I’ve heard some deranged liberals accuse McCain of being a racist. Absolutely laughable, given one of the most under-reported items regarding Senator McCain is that he and Cindy have a Bangladesh daughter, Bridget, adopted from Mother Teresa’s orphanage. McCain did not politicize the touching story of how this daughter came into their lives, nor make an issue of his two sons currently serving.
And I thought such politicized logic was confined to American newsrooms. Yet Catherine refused to argue with her peers. She didn’t want to jeopardize her experiment.
“I couldn’t show people really what it was for. I really kind of wanted to laugh because they had no idea what I was doing,” she said.
Only a few times did anyone say anything remotely positive about her McCain shirt. One girl pulled her aside in a corner, out of earshot of other students, and whispered, “I really like your shirt.”
Whispered “out of earshot”…..
It’s time for conservatives to be more “activist” and to start fighting back more vocally and vociferously against the misperceptions and decades of slander against the Republican Party and conservative ideology. More importantly, we need to stem the tide of liberal indoctrination in our schools, when we turn on the tv, when we open up the newspaper, when we go out to see movies. If we don’t we will lose the culture war and we will lose the half of America that we believe represents the best part of America.
Hat tip: American Power for the story of Catherine Vogt.
Here’s the follow-up story.
REUTERS/Keith Bedford
A former fetus, the “wordsmith from nantucket” was born in Phoenix, Arizona in 1968. Adopted at birth, wordsmith grew up a military brat. He achieved his B.A. in English from the University of California, Los Angeles (graduating in the top 97% of his class), where he also competed rings for the UCLA mens gymnastics team. The events of 9/11 woke him from his political slumber and malaise. Currently a personal trainer and gymnastics coach.
The wordsmith has never been to Nantucket.
What Prop 8 did, in my estimation- is to escalate the decision -making process to a state level ( as purported by Catholics and Mormon activists, who by their actions opened up a can of IRS worms) rather than allow churches/temples the leeway to say yes/no to marriages. The church of LDS needs to cough up some back taxes, imho for doing just that. Regardless of how the Constitution was framed, there still is a separation of church/state to weed out these theocratic gerrymandering maneuvers.
Personally, I think glbt’s should have the right to be as miserable as the rest of us married folk. if people cite the “rules” of marriage as laid out in a dust y archment some 2000+years ago, they also need to call into account ALL the reference arcane and obscure around that school of thought. Yeah, get me some of that goat sacrifice and maid-servents pdq! cherry picking ad-hoc, confirmationally-biased arguments fail. It’s really not my business who they shack up with as it is equally not theirs for me. Busybodies only get their own noses cut off in the end. MYOB.
OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin
As you wish, I will. I am more than tolerant when it comes to homosexuality.
I have two nephews who have gay Godparents and we get along great. I do not get in their faces, shouting slurs or chastising them for what they are while pounding on a Bible for emphasis. You will note that I made no blanket statements that all gays are to blame for this issue. I know from personal experience they indeed are not. In fact, of the hundreds I have known, as I pointed out, I have only found one single individual who was a proponent for gay marriage and that person was viscious, mean and nasty to anyone who didn’t see things her way, regardless of their sexual persuasion.
For almost 3 decades I’ve been very involved with community theater/entertainment activities. I was once asked to calculate it up and found I put in an average of 16 hours every week,annually engaged in support of the theater arts. This even with the demands on my time my military career required. I helped organize, did lighting/sound techwork, and performed for numerous fund-raising benefits. Including Aid For Aids Of Nevada; which featured Kenny Kerr and several other cast members from Boylesque, as well as, many local area performers and comedians from the Las Vegas gay community.
Despite my hetero preferences, my choice of ‘extra-curricular activities’, placed me in a position to work very closely with gays of both genders. So I daresay I have a bit more insight into this area than the average ‘Conservative’ and feel that it’s wrong for anyone to stereotype others based on their own political opinions, which they use to profess their own immunity from any such criticism. That my dear, is why I took umbridge of your comment.
That would be the radical LBGT activist extremist element and in this scenario I was refering specificly to that fraction of gays who are militants, in comparison to our entire population. Based on a fair polling sample. These individuals, certainly do not speak for the vast majority of the gay community. From what I’ve garnered talking to the homosexuals I’ve come to know, the majority of the gay community does not like being caught up in the middle of this and would rather not be embroiled in such a heated issue. Particularly when they already have an inherent mistrust of Judeau-Christian fundamentalist and evangelical elements. They fear it unnecessarily breeds further contempt for them and might result in mindless reactive violence upon them from equally radical ultra-far right ‘skinheads’ or similar factions. They are perfectly fine with the civil union alternative, just want to be left alone, and would prefer the radicals would just drop it. They don’t want ignorant bleeding heart would-be crusaders fighting this particular cause for them. Their votes on proposition 8 and the previous legislation was a clear message. Yet, the radicals still refuse to listen to those they presume to help and insist on pushing this issue ‘on their behalf’.
Neither am I a Johnny-come-lately, new-feminist male who has risen to Palin’s aid because I want to get “in her pants”. We examined and discussed the N.W.P. E.R.A. proposals way back when I was in high-school during a government class which was taught by a female. Going in I was for it, living as I was in a single-parent home at the time, on the heals of our mother’s divorce from our abusive father. Yet, I was surprised with every single female in our class, when after reading and considering it, they agreed en’ mass they neither liked the proposed amendment, nor would they support it. Why? Because it removed many of the protections women enjoyed:
1) They would’ve been eligible for the draft and could be forced to serve in front-line combat missions,
2) It would’ve eliminated laws designed to specifically protect women on a basis of constitutionality.
3) As written it was not abortion neutral,
4) It would’ve have removed advantages in child custody battles and alimony negotiations.
5) It would’ve have eliminated same sex athletic teams; requiring women to compete physically with men to earn their places on teams.
6) Women’s only organizations could be considered unconstitutional
7) (And one of the lamest suggestions that came up during the discussions, but got a big laugh from all and a frown from the teacher) It would do away with “Ladies’ Nights” at restaurants and taverns.
This was THE benchmark being endorsed by national feminist movements since 1923. Yet just like the gays I’ve talked with; women across the country respond to radical activists, “Thanks, but no thanks. We don’t want THAT kind of help.”
I know Dems love to cite the fringe element Dixiecrats to distance themselves from their own party’s roots while shifting the blame to Republicans. But it is simply not true they are the heart of conservatism. Nor does it gel with the basic ideological differences the two parties are founded on. Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton were both Dixiecrat supported candidates and they drew those votes in their wins. Yet, your implication doesn’t wash when the vast majority of Conservative Republicans (48%-1976, 38%-1992, 41%-1996 of the popular vote) either remained true to their ideological base or shifted to Independent (1992-19% & 1996-9% Reform party vote). I usually now vote Independent, yet my family were staunch Republicans going back at least several generations and Lincoln was one of my distant relatives.
As for your suggestion that Real America Movement or Pro-Americans, are also one in the same as Dixiecrats, the Southern Strategy, & Silent Majority I submit:
http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/editorials/162
http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2008/10/29/real-vs-unreal-americans/
What is being labeled as Real/Pro-America is nothing more than what was formerly referred to as the America-First/Buy American movements. It has nothing to do with Southern Dixiecrats, and more to do with job markets/economy and degrading moral standards.
“Real Americans” are rural and small town non-urbanites, who believe work ethic, moral values, and a common sense approach is what built America and is lacking in today’s politics. They were against NAFTA as they knew it would be just another way to eliminate badly needed jobs and close factories. They are the honest, hard workers, who make by with what they have, and do not want handouts or charity they didn’t earn. They are the heart and soul of what used to be America. They have a live and let live philosophy and are not the racists Dems love to paint them as. If you move into their neighborhood, they don’t treat you differently due to your skin color or ask about your heritage. But they might offer to lend you a hand moving in or show up with some items from their gardens. They want our borders secure against would-be terrorists and illegal aliens (the latter not due to prejudice as Dems would like people to believe, but because hiring illegals deflates their job market, since they’ll work for far less than minimum wage and under the table. It may be different in California, yet those jobs would have gone to their teenagers and the poor in their communities. The notion that illegals only take jobs nobody else wants not true in the rural sector.)
Rocky,
Your comment is well written, thought out and objective. It also defies the common stereotype of a Conservative, so kudos to you. My only contention is that the common sentiment of the gay community which surrounds you is very different from that which surrounds me. I would not consider these people radicals either, simply humans beings who wish to be treated equally in every respect, including in language (whatever the particular choice of words may be) and wish to be accepted as such. From everything I gather about you, I’m sure you understand that.
Your previous point about marriage being a religious rite supports my contention that Civil Unions should be what is issued by the government across the board, for heterosexual couples, as well as homosexual. Your comparison of Catholic hospitals being forced into medical procedures ignores the Hippocratic Oath taken by individual doctors. A fairer comparison is that churches are not forced to perform other religious rites, such as communion and baptism, therefore a similar assumption can be made for marriage.
(on a side note, I have a cousin who is actively involved in the theatre in Vegas, the likelihood that you know each other and that you and I would be just a couple “degrees” apart is extremely interesting. I may even be planning a trip in the near future.)
Your previous point about marriage being a religious rite supports my contention that Civil Unions should be what are issued by the government across the board, for heterosexual couples as well as homosexual. Your comparison of Catholic hospitals being forced into medical procedures which are against the institutions beliefs ignores the Hippocratic Oath taken by individual doctors, although I agree that they should have choice as well. A fairer comparison is that churches are not forced to perform other religious rites, such as communion and baptism, therefore a similar assumption can be made for marriage.
OhCrapIHaveACrush said: BTW, those Southern Dixiecrats are called “Republicans” now.
Really? Someone may want to alert Robert Byrd that he’s now in the GOP….
Cary, I’m repetative? Read my comments: #21, 26, 32, 36, 38, 42, 45. No clue what you’re talking about, unless you are reading my comments on the other thread and mixing up the two conversations. And I am tapping into FA from afar… vacationing/family visit. So while I was absolutely not repetative in this thread, I may be so in the future for not fully catching up…
Now, can we say the same for you? (i.e. comments 53 and 54)…. jus’ a joke son, just a joke.
In one way, what you suggest is actually not a bad deal… but still leaves the same quandary. You say leave marriages and ceremonies for the religious rites, and just have the government issue “couples” (I assume…) some “we actually be two” card for all the govt bennies and tax filings.
Okay. But then, how is that “we be two” determined? Can it just be two people who decided to be permanent roommates, and perhaps purchased real estate together as tenants in common? Could it be business partners that want to share IRS and other govt bennies? How about your live in adult kids? Your animals?
Question is, with your idea of just issuing a blanket “civil union” to everyone to denote some “relationship”, what is the criteria of that “civil union”? And does that include a finite number?
And still slim to no one seems to care to address why the LGBT community will not accept anything but the moniker of “marriage”. Not a curious bone in anyone’s body? My my…
Mata, I mean repetitive by the fact that you bring up arguments that I have already responded to and all you need do is scroll up to find them. Given that you find this all important enough to let it take away from what I’m sure is a hard earned vacation, and the fact that this discussion seems to be divided between two threads, I can certainly understand how you’d miss a few things. Still, I just don’t want to type my same point over and over.
As far as how to determine who gets a Civil Union – well, aren’t you arguing that it’s the same thing as Marriage, only without the religious aspect? If that’s the case, I suppose you’d determine it the same way. I mean, how exactly do you determine that a man and a woman aren’t entering into marriage simply for a tax credit or citizenship rights? And, if we’re already offering to extend Civil Unions to homosexuals, don’t you think your questions would come up anyway?
Perhaps what you’re really saying that that what should be “good enough for them” isn’t good enough for you. I hope you’re not, because that would belie your stance on equality, which is what I propose the LGBT community are more than willing to accept. I’ll close by referring you to comment #23.
Oh, and sorry about 53 and 54 – I went back and edited the first, and thought it didn’t go through, so I typed it in as a separate comment – they both ended up in spam, I guess. Haha!
From Cary:
First of all, do not presume what I am “really” saying. Frankly, you’re new here, and you don’t know me well enough to slam some bigot tag via assumptions on me. So let me make this really simple for you.
You don’t support “separate but equal and/or equivalent”. I do. Because the relationships *are* separate but equal and/or equivalent. Men and women are, in legal theory, separate but equal/equivalent. Shall we just get rid of man/woman and call everyone a non-gender name?
This is what you are arguing for, so to speak… a “non gender” status. Since the LGBT community will settle for no less than “*not* separate and equal”, your answer, like theirs, is to strip the other side of identity in order to grant them what they want.
And that is what I have *repeatedly* been telling you is the real agenda. A re’education of culture to make marriage – a religious rite of tradition – “non-gender”… muddying the waters between parental authority, church influence, and school interference in the home.
It’s as simple as this. I oppose that re’education. You don’t. Done. Period. History. As far as I’m concerned, end of this discussion with you. So you can rest easy on “repetitive” stuff coming your way now… apparently the gist of the argument, and your flawed “cure” still doesn’t sink in.
Cary;
No, I know what you mean. ‘Radical’ is subjective, sort of in the eye of the beholder. For the last couple of decades, the only real taste of ‘radical protests’ LV has known was with the Culinary Union (As I’m sure your cousin can confirm). Even with the “Sin City” moniker, long-term Nevada resident sentiments run more towards a ‘laid-back’ Conservatism than that found in California. So it’s not surprising for that to be reflected in general public opinion. I should note, for the last twenty years there has been quite a lot of influx of people relocating there from the Oakland/LA areas including, unfortunately, a large contingent of gangstas’. The former ‘standards’ are being diluted/transformed which has resulted in it’s recent shift towards becoming a ‘Blue State’. It’s a much different environment there than it was in the early 1980’s when I first arrived. The city has doubled or tripled in size.
Actually I wasn’t intentionally ignoring the Hippocratic Oath, yet after reviewing and rendering due consideration, I find that abortion, which was one of the concerns of other posters, is counter to the Hippocratic Oath, I refer you to line five of either translation (Source Follows). And as mentioned in the preface, not all physicians are required to adhere to it’s tenets (Precedes line five translations) and they may refer patients to other ‘specialists’ for procedures not covered by the oath or that they are uncomfortable with performing (See; Modern Relevance section). Therefore a parochial doctor is protected by the oath in electing not to perform procedures counter to his/her beliefs and moralities:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocratic_Oath
It appears that we are in agreement that the only reasonable solution to the marriage/civil union quandary is to make marriage ‘a church only function’, taking it out of the government’s hands as falling under separations of church and state, and civil unions the government version of such bonds. While offering both the same protections, benefits, and age of consent prohibitions to both under the laws of the state.
I haven’t been able to do much in the Las Vegas local community theater for the last few years as family crises following my retirement required my presence cross-country. Yet if your cousin has been active there for some time, I’m sure it’s highly likely we may have been run in similar circles or have mutual acquaintances. It seems everybody there either knows somebody, or knows somebody that knows them, I’m sure you know what I mean. My twin is still out there ‘holding down the fort’ (taking care of my other house) and involved with many of the same organizations. He has lowered his involvement recently to take classes and now does most of his work with LVLT.
As Mata points out; what next need be resolved, would be for the state to further define the one or more levels/stages of civil unions. I think it would behoove the state to have separate versions of civil unions for protected sexual relations (such as same sex marriages) and protective family/fraternal/parental mutually supportive bonds (non-sexual relationships). These would be designed to protect rights such as access to the individuals, property, and in making decisions in the event the other party is incapacitated, a form of advanced term P.O.A.. Yet in the later case would disallow, read as ‘not sanction’, incestuous or pedophilia to protect common moralities.
I don’t see that a third form of civil union between humans and other species should exist. No matter how smart an animal is, it remains an animal, and unable to understand nor commit to a human relationship beyond that of a faithful companion. The state should not be seen as possibly condoning bestiality.
Mata;
I think I already mentioned that IMO the only reason for California LGBT’ers to insist on marriage as opposed to the acceptance of civil unions is to anger and frustrate those who view marriage as a religious institution. IMO that is the sole driving force. To use the government to transform what others view as sacred. There is no doubt in my mind that some of these amongst those same individuals who demand the ten commandments be removed from courthouses, “under God” be removed from the Pledge of Allegiance, refuse to cite the pledge, refuse to pay proper respect to the flag, etceteras. Those who “Real Americans” see the “Anti-American” faction.
Well Mata, you’re getting rather riled up, aren’t you? If you actually read my wording, I’m careful not to assume anything for sure, but suggested there might be a double standard in your view, but that I hoped not – having already stated that I don’t think your position doesn’t go as far as bigotry.
I am not arguing a “non-gender” status, I am arguing against discrimination because of gender.
Let me clarify that I never accused anyone here of being intolerant. I take everyone at their word here, while I’m sure we all acknowledge and denounce that bigotry is a factor with this issue. Now, what I’m reading is that, in spite of their own tolerance, there are those who struggle with how to teach it to their kids. I do not trivialize that struggle at all, I know it must be quite difficult. I simply offered up an example as to how someone close to me, who has kids, dealt with the issue effectively. OF COURSE it is up for individual parents to decide as to how they impart anything to their kids. This doesn’t mean the law should tiptoe around people’s human rights. As voter very astutely pointed out, our culture has continuously been “re-educated” on many issues – usually for the better.
So you are correct, I completely disagree with you on a “separate but equal” clause. History has shown that it hasn’t worked in other cases, for reasons I have already cited.
As for the “real agenda” – well, look how angry you got when I suggested what yours might be. So yeah, I don’t know you, but what I’m reading is a double standard. I’m sure that’s not reflective of you as a person, just this particular view.
But if you really look at what we’re both saying, there’s a lot more that we do agree on than what we don’t. So although, at least for now, neither of us is willing to bend on what we don’t agree on, I’m still rather encouraged. So again, I thank you and am glad we’re finally done with this debate.
@Wordsmith:
From Mirriam-Webster:
Main Entry:
mar·riage
Pronunciation:
\ˈmer-ij, ˈma-rij\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry
Date:
14th century
1 a (1): the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2): the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage b: the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock c: the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2: an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected ; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3: an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry — J. T. Shawcross
those are only three- there is also the use of the word “marry” to co-join parts together as a whole, non specific of gender.
to be “married” to an idea..
@Rocky_B: I won’t get too much into the abortion topic, as it is another issue altogether, only to say that as someone who holds “pro-choice” position politically (which does not reflect on the personal advice I’d give if a woman saw fit to ask me for it), I agree that the choice should also be extended to physicians.
I think your solution to the Civil Union question is sound. Why shouldn’t individuals sharing a long term financial responsibility also reap the benefits? Of course, it would need to separate heath proxy, next of kin, and other “spousal” rights. I will say again – incest is almost always indicative of abuse or control, while bestiality and pedophilia are, by definition, absolutely always indicative of abuse. None of these should be considered as viable paths.
And finally, I do agree that there are a certain faction of gays who use their sexuality as a weapon toward those they feel have oppressed them. However, I do not feel that they reflect the majority who are simply looking for what everyone else has.
Who would want to where a shirt that represented the socialist illuminati? They may only get to wear it momentarily before someone takes it off, and let’s another person where it, because they have to share according to the liberals.
No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is reversed.
It is so ordered.
—From Justice Anthony Kennedy’s majority opinion
The debate is finally over. You lose. And I think you’ll be fine.
@Cary: Thank you for posting Justice Kennedy’s moving majority opinion
Congratulations!! You and others fought hard for this day. Are you still in N.Y.C.?
@rich wheeler:
Thank you! I am, indeed. A very happy time here. You can feel it everywhere… like never before. Gay and straight folk alike all celebrating.