Comic Relief

The horrors of gay marriage in Massachusetts are examined in a recent segment by Ed Helms from The Daily Show.

Note: The anti-gay marriage activist featured in the clip is Brian Camenker of the Article 8 Alliance.

Aaron Toleos, Director

Comments

[Deanna]

In 2004, when our daughter married, Herb and I went to spend time with the children when the final push at the state Capitol occurred.

We saw this "gentleman" call the SSM "legalized perversion".

Comic relief is good for the soul

[Cherie Johnson]

The entire arguement against SSM is absurd.

[Deanna]

Cherie dear, "absurd" and "deceptive" patriarchalism.

[Ghengis Cohen]

LoL! I've never seen John Stewart before, but now I understand what all the raving is about. What a card. :D

[John Hosty]

It does seem a little ridiculous when put in the light doesn't it? I laughed my but off.

[Ghengis Cohen - (click here for "life of Brian" comedy)]

I don't feel particularly ridiculous, just amused. John Stewart raises the straw man to an art form, but a straw man is still a straw man.

While we're talking comic relief, here's my own Reductio Ad Absurdum take on the matter:

Since homosexuals have the right to be incarcerated with persons of the same sex, shouldn't heterosexuals have the right to be incarcerated with persons of the opposite sex?

It does seem a little ridiculous when put in the light doesn't it?

[Ghengis Cohen - (click here for "life of Brian" comedy)]

A little more fun at the expense of Chief Justice Marshall:

Every election season, Republicans complain endlessly about the graveyard vote. The prevailing Republican assumption seems to be that the dead vote Democratic, and that this is a bad thing. It is time to put this necrophobic assumption to rest.

The 14th Amendment only allows states to deny "the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof" to persons who are either:

* non-citizens of the USA
* non-Residents of the state
* Participants in a rebellion
* Under 21 years of age (subsequently reduced to 18 years of age)
* (Gender is no longer an allowable criterion for voting)

There is absolutely nothing in the constitution that allows states to disfranchize the dead. Necrophobic restrictions of voting rights to the living clearly violates equal protection.

If we deny the dead the right to vote, soon we will be denying the comatose, and then the bedridden, and then it will get down to disfranchizing people with mere cases of the sniffles.

Republicans have exploited the 14th amendment "criminal" loophole to disfranchize felons, but there is no constitutional basis for denying dead persons the right to vote.

These necrophobes cannot muster the supermajority to amend the constitution to to limit voting rights to people with a pulse, so they use back-door approaches to disfranchize the dead. For example, some necrophobic states require that voters to physically vote in person. The pretense here is that voting in person is a "neutral" requirement that supposedly does not specifically target the dead. Obviously, this is de facto disenfranchizement, since the requirement makes it impossible for the dead to actually vote.

Another, even more sinister necrophobic argument, is that dead people cannot, by definition, vote. This argument is circular, a shameful argument to avoid equal protection analysis, because the necrophobic definition of voting is precisely what is in question here. The traditional definition of voting is obsolete and unnecessary, since the Florida Supreme Court held in Bush v. Gore that in absence of a ballot marked personally by the voter, an appointed election committee should be able to determine the "clear intent of the voter." Given this progressive consciousness-neutral definition of voting, there is no reason why voting rights should be restricted to the living.

[Cherie Johnson]

Ghengis in my opinion just likes to hear himself/herself type....what the abnormal fear of death and dying has to do with the topic of spoofing the ssm issue is beyond me. Whatever....Ghengis obviously has alot of time to kill pecking away at his/her computer blowing off patriarchal steam.

[Ghengis Cohen]

Mizz Johnson read my "Dead Man Voting" spoof, and thought it was about "fear of death?" :D I served that spoof straight-faced to constitutional law professor at a local law school (a firm supporter of ssm), and she laughed out loud. Maybe the joke's too buried in the legalese, or maybe some folks have an easier time laughing at themselves than others.

[Cherie Johnson]

blah...blah....keep pecking away at your keyboard.Necrophobia's defination is the abnormal fear of death and dying is it not?
It is apparent that you just like to hear yourself speak. Your post was not humorous,and it was not lost in translation either. Not everyone is as ignorant as you want to believe. Oh...and one more thing Ghengis....it's MRS.Johnson to you.I am married to my SAME SEX PARTNER.

[Ghengis Cohen]

Mizz=Ms.=/=Miss

You are comic relief indeed, Mizz Johnson.

[Cherie Johnson]

chew and spew....you are the expert in shit spewing Ghengissssss.I'll give you that. You actually "seem" to be more intelligent than the others that came before you and you actually sling your shit with style...not like Paul...Henry...Dennis etc.... Brava keep pecking as you are most amusing.

[Ghengis Cohen]

Haha! I knew you'd concede I was funny.

OK. This one I didn't make up, and you may have heard it:

What does a lesbian bring to her second date?

[Cherie Johnson]

gee must be a u-haul?

[Ghengis Cohen]

:D

See? You too can be funny. OK; while we're at it, here's a racist joke.

A man comes in to work, and all his co-workers gather around, and ask him why he looks so depressed. After some coaxing, he tells them, "my wife was so sick this morning, that I had to carry her downstairs to make me breakfast.

Now for 10 points, tell me why that's a racist joke. ;)

[John B]

From Loving vs Virgina, SCOTUS:

"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."

and try as I might, I cannot find any references to the sex of the litigants. The ruling states "individual" when speaking of citizens.

Amendment XIV:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

again, I am unable to find any reference to the sex of person.

perhaps the "professor" can enlighten us as to why members of the GLBT community are not individuals...

[Ghengis Cohen]

A few corrections here.

First, it's Ghengis, not "Professor." My ex-profession was outed by clever Josh, but I prefer to go by my name or pseudonym.

Second, this is supposed to be the humor section, so perhaps we should take this heavy discussion to another page of this blog?

Third, members of the GLBT community certainly are individuals, and I never said otherwise. So are "heterosexuals," and yet my prison hypo is still absurd because it distorts the equal protection concept.

Fourt, the 14th Amendment doesn't say "individual;" it says person. Obviously members of the GLBT community are "persons;" so are "heterosexuals," and yet my prison hypo is still absurd because it distorts the equal protection concept.

Your confusion stems from your redefinition of the word "marriage." In Loving v. Virginia, the word "marriage" refers to the state-solemnized union between man and woman. You are using it in a different sense entirely. You can't just change the meaning of terms and thereby change the meaning of older documents.

This sort of equivocation game is popular PC fare. Some Wiccans point to the Salem "Witch" trials as evidence of persecution of "Wicca," when any educated person knows that the victims of the Salem Witch trials were universally Christian men and women who were framed by imaginary testimony of some bored slut (Abigail Williams, wasn't it?), and hanged by an overcredulous judiciary.

By that logic, I could found a new group called the "snipes," and then cite Boy Scout "snipe hunts" as evidence of "how my people have been persecuted through the ages." :D

[John B]

Christian,

There is no humor section when one group is trying to take away another groups rights.
:(

I will not indulge your fantasy regarding a nom de plume or nom de guerre. :>|

[Ghengis Cohen]

Like I said, my name is as good as my pseudonym. And Ghengis is not my fantasy. He's my incredibly affectionate black terrier puppy. My wife named him -- she always wanted to name a tiny dog "Ghengis."

There is no humor section

Tell that to Tom, who started this thread, or Stewart, who inspired it. :D

Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."

and try as I might, I cannot find any references to the sex of the litigants. The ruling states "individual" when speaking of citizens.

That is right. Loving v. Virginia doesn't talk about anyone's sex; the case is about the freedom to marry or not marry a person of another race. Not about to redefine what "marriage" means. First, Loving court observed that racial distinctions are in the MOST suspect class:

At the very least, the Equal Protection Clause demands that racial classifications, especially suspect in criminal statutes, be subjected to the "most rigid scrutiny," Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214, 216 (1944), and, if they are ever to be upheld, they must be shown to be necessary to the accomplishment of some permissible state objective, independent of the racial discrimination which it was the object of the Fourteenth Amendment to eliminate. Indeed, two members of this Court have already stated that they "cannot conceive of a valid legislative purpose . . . which makes the color of a person's skin the test of whether his conduct is a criminal offense."

And the Court found that Virginia's only supposedly "legitimate" justifications for the law were invidious racial discrimination" intended to "maintain White Supremacy."

There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification. The fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their own justification, as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy.* We have consistently denied the constitutionality of measures which restrict the rights of citizens on account of race. There can be no doubt that restricting the freedom to marry solely because of racial classifications violates the central meaning of the Equal Protection Clause.

*[footnote] Appellants point out that the State's concern in these statutes, as expressed in the words of the 1924 Act's title, "An Act to Preserve Racial Integrity," extends only to the integrity of the white race. While Virginia prohibits whites from marrying any nonwhite (subject to the exception for the descendants of Pocahontas), Negroes, Orientals, and any other racial class may intermarry without statutory interference. Appellants contend that this distinction renders Virginia's miscegenation statutes arbitrary and unreasonable even assuming the constitutional validity of an official purpose to preserve "racial integrity." We need not reach this contention because we find the racial classifications in these statutes repugnant to the Fourteenth Amendment, even assuming an even-handed state purpose to protect the "integrity" of all races.

In other words, the government has no legitimate interest in trying to "purebreed" humans as if they were dogs. Surely you aren't silly enough to suggest that society defined marriage as between man and woman in order to prevent gays from interbreeding with persons of the same sex. Otherwise, to borrow a line from Life of Brian, your struggle against oppression is a struggle against reality.

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.

Obviously they aren't talking about ssm. How could ssm be "fundamental to our very existence and survival?" Civilizations have existed and thrived for thousands of years without ssm. Even homophillic civilizations like the ancient Greeks, many of whom found same-sex relationships to be more meaningful than marriage, never as a culture treated those same-sex relationships as marriage.

Thanks for another delightful snipe-hunt through Loving v. Virginia, but as usual, we come home with empty pillowcases.

[Richard Gregoire]

GHENGIS;
Well said....after that entry, take the night off!!!
Rich Gregoire

[Tom Lang]

For once I agree with you Richard. Ghengis, take the night off.

And when you dream, dream that you are in Scandinavia in the middle of Winter.

[Ghengis Cohen]

Hi, Richard!

Loving v. Virginia was a UNANIMOUS Supreme Court judgment. (Justice Stewart concurred in the results.) If anyone had asked the justices what they thought of "same-sex marriage," they might have thought that the questioner meant something like this:

A married couple that has sex on the same weeknight, at the same time, in the same position, with the lights out, week after month after year, until death do them mercifully part. :F

[Ghengis Cohen]

No prob, Tom. Good night!

[Ghengis Cohen]

But Scandinavia in winter's a stretch for me, Tom. Out my window I can see the moon rising between three palm trees and a church steeple.

[Phil]

My God, Ghengis... Less is more - you're babbling more than my toddler on these threads and that's saying a lot. Good debate can elevate a topic and keep it alive and interesting, but when I hit the 'page down' button once or twice and I'm STILL on one post from you, it's too much. No one can have that much to say and truly stay on the subject. I'm not advocating meaningless talk-show-like sound bites to get points across, but a little brevity can go a long way in not only keeping people engaged, but actually helping them to understand your point of view.