Anti-marriage activist tells gays to "get married"

Hypocritical idiot of the day award goes to Kerry Messer of the Missouri Family Network, who told same-sex couples in Missouri to "get married or live with the status quo." Did he somehow forget the fact that Missouri has a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage? And that his organization helped PASS IT?!?

The context of the quote is a heartbreaking story about Dennis Engelhard, a gay Missouri State Highway Patrolman who was struck by a car and killed in the line of duty on Christmas day, leaving behind his parnter of fifteen years, Kelly Glossip. since then, the state has denied Kelly's request for Dennis's survivor pension benefits, which would be readily given to any opposite-sex spouse. To add insult to injury, the BackStoppers Police and Firefighters Fund — an organization that raises money to help the families of officers killed in the line of duty — has refused to give Kelly any support even though they are USING DENNIS'S DEATH TO RAISE MONEY!!!

The whole situation is disgusting and illustrates just how desperately same-sex couples need laws that will include them in the protections that married opposite-sex couples take for granted. But in terms of sheer hypocrisy, disingenuousness and cold-hearted cruelty, this quote from Mr. Messer — which appeared in an AP story on Dennis and Kelly — just takes the cake.

Kerry Messer, founder and president of conservative Missouri Family Network, said that even in the case of unmarried heterosexual couples, rights defer to blood relatives first.

"Common law marriage doesn't exist in Missouri for a very good reason," he said. "It throws other laws into a tailspin and muddies every other policy. The state says 'get married or live with the status quo.' That's true for gays and heterosexuals."

Hear that, Kelly? If you wanted to be protected in case your partner died while serving the state, you and Dennis should have gotten married. Except you couldn't. Kerry Messer and the voters of Missouri — who Dennis spent his career protecting — made sure of that.

Choice Quotes from Iowa Marriage Ruling

Just finished reading the ruling in Varnum v. Brien, the Iowa Supreme Court case that, today, resulted in the Court striking down Iowa's same-sex marriage ban. The opinion is really quite awesome. The justices do a great job refuting a lot of common arguments against gay marriage and the courts' role in promoting equality.

Here are my favorite excerpts:

It's Simple: How is Banning Marriage Fair?

"The same-sex-marriage debate waged in this case is part of a strong national dialogue centered on a fundamental, deep-seated, traditional institution that has excluded, by state action, a particular class of Iowans. This class of people asks a simple and direct question: How can a state premised on the constitutional principle of equal protection justify exclusion of a class of Iowans from civil marriage?"

Activist Judges? This is our JOB, Bitches.

"Our responsibility, however, is to protect constitutional rights of individuals from legislative enactments that have denied those rights, even when the rights have not yet been broadly accepted, were at one time unimagined, or challenge a deeply ingrained practice or law viewed to be impervious to the passage of time. The framers of the Iowa Constitution knew, as did the drafters of the United States Constitution, that 'times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress,' and as our constitution 'endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom' and equality."

Society BENEFITS from Same-Sex Marriage

"Therefore, with respect to the subject and purposes of Iowa’s marriage laws, we find that the plaintiffs are similarly situated compared to heterosexual persons. Plaintiffs are in committed and loving relationships, many raising families, just like heterosexual couples. Moreover, official recognition of their status provides an institutional basis for defining their fundamental relational rights and responsibilities, just as it does for heterosexual couples. Society benefits, for example, from providing same-sex couples a stable framework within which to raise their children and the power to make health care and end-of-life decisions for loved ones, just as it does when that framework is provided for opposite-sex couples."

Same-Sex Marriage Bans ARE SO Discriminatory
(I love this bit, because it answers the fundies who claim this isn't discrimination because a gay or lesbian person is as free to marry an opposite-sex spouse as anyone else.)

"It is true the marriage statute does not expressly prohibit gay and lesbian persons from marrying; it does, however, require that if they marry, it must be to someone of the opposite sex. Viewed in the complete context of marriage, including intimacy, civil marriage with a person of the opposite sex is as unappealing to a gay or lesbian person as civil marriage with a person of the same sex is to a heterosexual. Thus, the right of a gay or lesbian person under the marriage statute to enter into a civil marriage only with a person of the opposite sex is no right at all."

If Tradition = Discrimination, then Tradition Gots to Go!

"This precise situation is presented by the County’s claim that the statute in this case exists to preserve the traditional understanding of marriage. The governmental objective identified by the County—to maintain the traditional understanding of marriage—is simply another way of saying the governmental objective is to limit civil marriage to opposite-sex couples... Moreover, it can allow discrimination to become acceptable as tradition and helps to explain how discrimination can exist for such a long time. If a simple showing that discrimination is traditional satisfies equal protection, previous successful equal protection challenges of invidious racial and gender classifications would have failed."

You're Wrong About Gay Parents. You Mean Well, but Still, Wrong.

"Plaintiffs presented an abundance of evidence and research, confirmed by our independent research, supporting the proposition that the interests of children are served equally by same-sex parents and opposite-sex parents. On the other hand, we acknowledge the existence of reasoned opinions that
dual-gender parenting is the optimal environment for children. These opinions, while thoughtful and sincere, were largely unsupported by reliable scientific studies."

The court then calls out the haters, saying, basically, that if "protecting marriage" were really about giving kids the "optimal" environment, all these fundies would be moving to ban "child abusers, sexual predators, parents neglecting to provide child support, and violent felons" from getting married, not gay people. They continue, saying:

"If the statute was truly about the best interest of children, some benefit to children derived from the ban on same-sex civil marriages would be observable. Yet, the germane analysis does not show how the best interests of children of gay and lesbian parents, who are denied an environment supported by the benefits of marriage under the statute, are served by the ban. Likewise, the exclusion of gays and lesbians from marriage does not benefit the interests of those children of heterosexual parents, who are able to enjoy the environment supported by marriage with or without the inclusion of same-sex couples."

There are two longer passages, one on the bullshit "promotion of procreation" argument in support of banning same-sex marriage (which the New York Supreme Court bought) and another on the unspoken religious argument, but they are good enough to warrant their own posts. More to come...