MICHAEL O. ALLEN

Tag

Same-sex marriage

I don’t hate Prince, just his views

By HomepageNo Comments

Sometime in the late to mid 1970s, Prince announced himself not only as a musical genius, but as a social revolutionary.

By highlighting different lifestyles and playing with (in his music as wells as personal style) sexuality and androgyny, for instance, Prince opened all of our eyes to the way people live. That earlier Prince seemed to say that it’s okay to be who you are and for me to be who I am. That gave power to his fans and deepened his music.

The music. I love Prince’s music and I own practically as much of the music as anyone could. I’ve listened to all of his output. And it has colored my view of the world.

But, in an interview with the New Yorker magazine recently, a different Prince seemed to emerge, a less tolerant and, perhaps, bigoted one.

Speaking seemingly about Prop 8, which overturned the state’s Supreme Court ruling and outlawed marriage by same-sex couples, Prince said:

“So here’s how it is: you’ve got the Republicans, and basically they want to live according to this.” He pointed to a Bible. “But there’s the problem of interpretation, and you’ve got some churches, some people, basically doing things and saying it comes from here, but it doesn’t. And then on the opposite end of the spectrum you’ve got blue, you’ve got the Democrats, and they’re, like, ‘You can do whatever you want.’ Gay marriage, whatever. But neither of them is right.”

When asked about his perspective on social issues—gay marriage, abortion—Prince tapped his Bible and said, “God came to earth and saw people sticking it wherever and doing it with whatever, and he just cleared it all out. He was, like, ‘Enough.’ ”

I don’t know what scripture Prince is referring to but he is just plain wrong.

And it saddens me that this man, who gave so much hope and entertained people and enriched lives, would now be spouting inane but hurtful bigotry.

The Civil-Rights Issue of Our Time

By HomepageNo Comments

While much of the country is rightly focused on the presidential election, there’s no contest more important to me this year than an initiative on the ballot in California. If it passes with a simple majority, Proposition 8 will take away the fundamental right to marry for same-sex couples in that state. The measure has the heavy financial backing of the Mormon church, and recent polls suggest that the outcome could be very close.

I strongly oppose Proposition 8 because it’s unfair and wrong. Please join me in donating here. There’s still time to have an impact, and no amount is too small. And if you vote in California, please vote No on Prop 8.

You might wonder why I care at all about Prop 8. I live in Georgia. I’m straight. And I’m already married. What’s in it for me?

Well, you see, this issue is personal for me. My wife and I are an interracial couple. She’s black. I’m white. We’re both mindful that, not so long ago, interracial marriage was illegal in our home state. We believe very strongly that loving couples should have the right to marry without fear of discrimination. Our own marriage was only possible because the United States Supreme Court struck down Virginia’s ban on interracial marriage, and I shudder to think what my life would be like today if the right to marry someone of a different race or color had been put to a majority vote.

Yet that’s precisely what thousands of same-sex couples in California face right now. A referendum on human dignity and equality.

We can’t let Prop 8 pass. This is too important. This is the civil rights issue of our time, and we must rise to the challenge. Do something — please.

Go to www.noonprop8.com to help, or make a donation here.

Cross-posted from Facebook.

California Ruling Reignites Same-Sex Marriage Debate

By HomepageNo Comments

By NATHAN KOPPEL and T.W. FARNAM , May 16, 2008; Page A1

The California Supreme Court opened the door to same-sex marriages in the nation’s largest state, reigniting a hot-button social issue amid a presidential election campaign so far dominated by economic issues and the war in Iraq.

The ruling makes California the second state, after Massachusetts, to give gay and lesbian couples the right to marry. But lawyers said the state’s national influence and size — representing 12% of the country’s population and one-fifth of the electoral vote need to win the White House — make the decision the most important legal victory to date for proponents of same-sex marriage. The decision, coming six months before the presidential election, also could galvanize voters on a topic that in this campaign cycle has largely been on the sidelines.

“The California Supreme Court is a famous and respected court, and [same-sex couples] have lost more legal challenges than they have won, so this is big news,” said attorney Jeffrey Trachtman, who lost a 2006 case that attempted to overturn New York’s ban on same-sex marriages.

A handful of states, including California, Vermont and New Jersey, allow same-sex couples to enter civil unions or domestic partnerships that afford many of the rights of marriage. But the California court, which was considering whether state law prohibiting gay marriage violates California’s constitution, voted 4-3 that such protections didn’t go far enough.

“[R]etaining the designation of marriage exclusively for opposite-sex couples and providing only a separate and distinct designation for same-sex couples may well have the effect of perpetuating a more general premise — now emphatically rejected by this state — that gay individuals and same-sex couples are in some respects ‘second-class citizens,'” wrote the court.

Barr on gay marriage: California decision is how it’s supposed to work

By HomepageNo Comments

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Friday, May 16, 2008

Libertarian presidential candidate Bob Barr says that when it comes to gay marriage, what happens in California is California’s own business. He’s a states’ rights man.

Here’s the statement Barr’s issued, which — one week before the Libertarian national convention in Denver — is likely to generate some talk:

barrgay.jpg

“Regardless of whether one supports or opposes same sex marriage, the decision to recognize such unions or not ought to be a power each state exercises on its own, rather than imposition of a one-size-fits-all mandate by the federal government (as would be required by a Federal Marriage Amendment which has been previously proposed and considered by the Congress).

The decision today by the Supreme Court of California properly reflects this fundamental principle of federalism on which our nation was founded.

Read More