Marriage Neutering: State-Level Battles and Biased Media Language Continue

Battles continue in several states over whether or not state licenses will be neutered so that state can pretend that relationships that aren't marriage are marriage.

This Associated Press article by Dadi Crary was headlined "Gay Marriage Returns to the Political Spotlight". I could say my marriage is a gay one. This terminology by the AP and other media is a diliberate manipulation for their bias. They are referring to granting marriage licenses to same-sex couples. A homosexual orientation is not required, nor is homosexual behavior.

In Maryland, New Jersey and Washington, bills to [neuter state] marriage [licensing] have high-powered support and good chances of passage in the legislature.

So much for the "powerless minority" status.

[People who understand marriage unites the sexes] in Maryland and Washington would likely react by seeking referendums in November to overturn those laws, while New Jersey's Republican governor, Chris Christie, says he'll veto the bill if it reaches him and prefers that lawmakers OK a referendum so voters can decide.

In all three states, polls suggest voters are closely divided on whether gays should have the right to marry, so there's a chance one could emerge as the first state to support [neutering] marriage in a statewide vote.

Gay people already have the "right to marry". Nobody, gay or straight, should be able to get a marriage license with a union that excludes one of the sexes.

Maine voters also may have an opportunity to vote for same-sex marriage in November; an announcement by [marriage neutering] activists about a ballot-measure campaign is set for Thursday. Proposed amendments for constitutional bans on gay marriage will be on the ballots in North Carolina on May 8 and in Minnesota on Nov. 6.

It's... not... a... ban... on... "gay"... marriage.

In New Hampshire, Republicans who now control the legislature are mulling whether to repeal the 2009 law [neutering] marriage. Their state is one of six with such laws, along with Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New York and Vermont, as well as the District of Columbia.

Marriage neutering advocates would have people believe that means it is sweeping the nation, and only old fuddy-duddy squares are not hip to it. They use more current language sometimes, more often hateful language, but you get the idea.

Added together, the state-level showdowns will likely raise the prominence of the marriage issue in the presidential campaign, even though it's not a topic that the leading candidates tend to broach proactively.

Right. Snotty college students who plan to live off of their parents and/or taxpayers for the next seven years, rude activist plants, and biased news personalities bring it up, and then the Republican candidates who respond are presented as obsessed.

Three of the remaining Republican presidential contenders, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum, have signed a National Organization for Marriage pledge opposing [neutering] marriage and endorsing a federal constitutional amendment to ban it.

There's the "ban" language again. The pledge is more comprehensive than that. Go read about it for yourself.

NEW JERSEY: Thanks to a change of heart by Senate President Stephen Sweeney, a [neutering] marriage bill is now seen as having a strong chance of passage in the Democratic-controlled legislature. Christie, a Roman Catholic who has long opposed [neutering] marriage, says he'd veto the bill if it reaches him, but on Tuesday he urged lawmakers to put the issue before voters in a statewide ballot measure.

Good idea.

Sweeney rejected the suggestion, saying, "Civil rights is not to be placed on the ballot."

Hmmmm, a civil right, eh? How come the Reverend Marting Luther King, Jr. never mentioned this? Was he some sort of bigot? Civil rights have been voted on in this country ever since the Constitution was adopted. The Bill of Rights was voted on. The civil rights legislation of the 1960s was voted on. Judges essentially vote when they issue their decisions. One way or another, this is subjected to a vote. Don't want that? Don't press for it.

MARYLAND: In contrast to Christie, Maryland's Catholic governor — Democrat Martin O'Malley — supports [neutering] marriage. Unlike last year, when a marriage bill stalled in the House of Delegates, O'Malley is now making the issue one of his top legislative priorities...Public opinion could be crucial, because [defenders of] marriage are expected to seek a referendum in November to overturn a [counterfeiting] bill if one passes in the legislature.

The people need to stand up.

WASHINGTON: Like O'Malley, Democratic Gov. Chris Gregoire has strongly endorsed a pending [marriage neutering] bill, which received its first legislative hearing this week. Based on public commitments from lawmakers, the bill has enough votes to win passage. However, as in Maryland, opponents are poised to petition for a referendum challenging the law.

Again, the people need to stand up.

NEW HAMPSHIRE: A bill pending in a House committee would repeal the state's [counterfeit] marriage law and replace it with civil unions for any unmarried adults. It would not invalidate the [marriage licenses issued to brideless and groomless couples] since 2009. The fate of the bill is uncertain, facing possible revisions before a vote and a promised veto by Democratic Gov. John Lynch if it does pass. If it gets that far, and lawmakers override a veto, the New Hampshire Civil Liberties Union has indicated it would challenge the new law in court.

Why haven't the libertarians in that state removed government from marriage entirely? Hmmmm.

MAINE: [Marriage neutering advocates] in Maine have spent several months assessing whether they would seek a referendum in November to [neuter] marriage...Its lawmakers approved a [marriage neutering] law in 2009, but it was overturned months later by a statewide referendum.

Good for the people of Maine.

NORTH CAROLINA and MINNESOTA:

Voters in 30 states have approved constitutional amendments aimed at [protecting] marriage; Minnesota and North Carolina could join those ranks if measures placed on the ballot by Republican-controlled legislatures win approval later this year.

Every state needs to clearly answer the question. Despite all of human history, activists want to replace marriage with a counterfeit. Is that acceptable? About 80% of the states have specifically, recently, answered "no!" Of the handful of states where the answer has been "yes", the answer has mostly come from judges rather than a vote of the people or legislature.

As always, the Los Angeles Times has been all over this urgent, outside-of-California issue.

Amy Hubbard reported...

The Washington state Legislature appears to have all the votes it needs to approve a gay marriage bill.

Again with the sloppy choice of words.

After the first public hearing on the contentious issue, held Monday in Olympia, Democratic state Sen. Mary Margaret Haugen announced that she would support the measure, becoming the 25th necessary vote to ensure passage of the same-sex marriage bill.

Keep that in mind, people of Washington.

Haugen's statement stressed her "very strong" Christian beliefs. "I have always believed in traditional marriage between a man and a woman. That is what I believe, to this day.

“But this issue isn’t about just what I believe. It’s about respecting others, including people who may believe differently than I. It’s about whether everyone has the same opportunities for love and companionship and family and security that I have enjoyed."

What about respecting marriage? What about respecting all of the people who are against neutering marriage? Neutering marriage does NOT provide anyone with more opportunity for love, companionship, family, and security. Security comes from a personal commitment, and perhaps a pre-nup.

No surprise, Karin Klein offered an opinion about this. She posits that perhaps 2008 was just "bad timing" in California (you know, there was that huge conservative sweep of California in 2008, after all). She, of course, used the "ban" language.

The more the movement spreads in the nation, the more opinion will shift toward recognition that it is discriminatory to withhold the joys and privileges of married life -- though sometimes that life can seem a little short on the privileges -- from gay and lesbian couples.

The thing is, since no state issued marriage licenses to brideless or groomless couples ten years ago, a single state doing so means it is "spreading". Most states have recently affirmed the bride+groom requirement, but somehow the she doesn't portray that as spreading like wildfire. The biggest reason stated issue marriage licenses, which do carry certain legalities (most of them responding the license, rather than directly attached), is something that is not present in brideless or groomless couples, who are already free to share their lives.

Ricardo Lopez had coverage of the New Jersey developments.

“This issue that our state is exploring -- whether or not to redefine hundreds of years of societal and religious traditions -- should not be decided by 121 people in the Statehouse in Trenton,” Christie told an audience in Bridgewater, N.J., on Tuesday. “Let’s let the people of New Jersey decide what is right for the state.”

Amen. Say, where's last list of all of the states that have removed their bride+groom requirements throug a direct vote of the people?