Roy Moore: After Gay Marriage, It’s Father-Daughter
The Alabama chief justice who vows to break the law and refuse gay marriages knows what it will lead to.
“Do they stop with one man and one man or one woman and one woman?” he asked. “Or do they go to multiple marriages? Or do they go to marriages between men and their daughters or women and their sons?”
Please “like” us on Facebook [su_csky_ad]
Chinese Democracy February 10th, 2015 at 4:11 pm
fun watching history march over the last bitter remnants of the conservative right.
it stops when all Americans have equality. Its not that hard to understand for the average 2nd grader .. roy lol
Barry Shitpeas February 10th, 2015 at 4:29 pm
I’m sure Republicans get massive boners thinking these things up.
Chinese Democracy February 10th, 2015 at 9:42 pm
Studies show that porn is watched online much more in red states than blue states. They live in a virtual reality.
Larry Schmitt February 10th, 2015 at 4:31 pm
And then men will want to marry their dogs, and their cars, who knows where it will stop? Ya can’t make this sh*t up.
whatthe46 February 10th, 2015 at 4:35 pm
this craziness comes from all the inbreeding in that stupid state. they are in competition with texas and floridia. oh, and mississippi.
Hirightnow February 10th, 2015 at 5:08 pm
In defense of Florida, most of our crazy comes from out of state…
tiredoftea February 10th, 2015 at 6:26 pm
Yeah, yeah, sure it does!
Hirightnow February 10th, 2015 at 7:53 pm
whatthe46 February 10th, 2015 at 7:03 pm
rg9rts February 11th, 2015 at 4:35 am
Larry Schmitt February 11th, 2015 at 7:05 am
Is that like semi-pregnant, or a semi-virgin?
rg9rts February 11th, 2015 at 7:22 am
They are the ones that came up with the license plates not me.
Larry Schmitt February 11th, 2015 at 7:04 am
The official motto of Alabama: Thank God for Mississippi.
burqa February 11th, 2015 at 7:38 am
Not after Mississippi beat Alabama last year……
burqa February 11th, 2015 at 7:58 am
So the answer to bigoted stereotypes is to respond with bigoted stereotypes?
Is that the progressive way forward?
I’m old enough to remember a time when liberals objected to that sort of thing.
Um Cara February 11th, 2015 at 8:27 am
They still do, Burqa. The folks who stereotype in that way are not libs, they are ignorant mean spirited dorks.
burqa February 11th, 2015 at 9:05 am
I agree, but here we are on a board named “Liberaland” and that sort of thing is widely acceptable here. One just has to have the right target.
Above, Robert M. Snyder posted a story about an 18 year-old girl who says she and her biological father are getting married and moving to New Jersey because it’s legal there for related adults to have sex. If that were a blog post here, we would not see the usual suspects posting about how New Jersey is a state that welcomes incest.
Just like every other region, the South has plenty of idiots. It also has a lot of fine people, just like other regions of this country. Indeed, more people have been migrating to the South from other parts of the country than to any other.
Pilotshark February 10th, 2015 at 4:37 pm
was going to say something about the father daughter thing.
But guess the only thing i can say is when will he be held in contempt of court.
Larry Schmitt February 11th, 2015 at 7:07 am
Yes, he should be held in contempt of the Supreme Court. Even the state Supreme Courts are under the US Supreme Court. So why aren’t there US Marshalls arresting him?
Pilotshark February 11th, 2015 at 9:37 am
Guess it is the way he thumps his bible, or something like that.
Bunya February 10th, 2015 at 4:55 pm
That’s right! And when the father-daughter thing happens (fulfilling Roy Moore’s dreams), next you’ll be asking for elephant / ’67 Pontiac Tempest marriages! When will it end?
Suzanne McFly February 10th, 2015 at 5:02 pm
He is from Alabama and has the nerve to act like incest had not been accepted in that state for generations already.
rg9rts February 11th, 2015 at 4:34 am
How can you tell an Alabama virgin??? She can outrun her brothers
FatRat February 10th, 2015 at 5:11 pm
It’s interesting that their thoughs always go towards incestuous relationships. Feels like projecting to me. Here’s a joke for Roy Moore.
A guy goes into a pharmacy in Alabama and walks up to the pharmacist. “I’d like to buy a condom for my 11 year old daughter”
The pharmacist says “my god, is she sexually active!?”
And the guy says “No, she just f***ing lays there like my wife”
Chinese Democracy February 10th, 2015 at 9:40 pm
lol … sad scary yet funny …
Roy has the deliverance soundtrack running in his courtroom or at least his mind
burqa February 11th, 2015 at 8:34 am
He might try something a little more modern:
Chinese Democracy February 11th, 2015 at 1:53 pm
that’s to good for roy
Dwendt44 February 11th, 2015 at 12:28 am
And yet those terrible possibilities are all biblical, except for women marrying sons, that is. Men marrying sisters, polygamy, harems.
KABoink_after_wingnut_hacker February 10th, 2015 at 5:17 pm
These bigoted clowns can rant almost as well as Bill Murray.
Chinese Democracy February 10th, 2015 at 9:42 pm
boom goes the dynamite
JMax February 10th, 2015 at 5:34 pm
Shouldn’t a “judge” have some sort of knowledge about such legal concepts as strict scrutiny and rational basis?
tiredoftea February 10th, 2015 at 6:28 pm
Why after, Roy? It seems like your sibling parents didn’t wait for gay marriage before they had you.
Um Cara February 10th, 2015 at 6:53 pm
iI he has any daughters, I hope their mother has a serious conversation with them to make sure nothing untoward has occurred.
Chinese Democracy February 10th, 2015 at 9:38 pm
please don’t tell me roy has spread his dna around lol
craig7120 February 10th, 2015 at 7:16 pm
Excuse me? This dude needs to hire an aide to tell him how ridiculous he sounds, wait! whats his self worth?
He could be broke by morning.
Obewon February 10th, 2015 at 7:25 pm
7 of 9 justices on USA’s “Conservative majority” Supreme Court proved incest fantasizer Roy Moore is functionally illiterate, not even able to comprehend 1787’s ratified 3 page constitution with Article 6, paragraph 2 the Federal Government “Supremacy Clause!” Mom’s don’t let your kids be molested by Limbaughtomized Roy Moore.
Warman1138 February 10th, 2015 at 11:45 pm
A near perfect example of a mental malfunction.
Dwendt44 February 11th, 2015 at 12:29 am
This nut job was removed from office once before, it’s time to do that again.
Robert M. Snyder February 11th, 2015 at 1:22 am
Alan, I guess you must have missed this story from January 17, 2015:
“An 18-year-old woman from the Great Lakes region told New York magazine she planned to marry her formerly estranged, biological father and move to New Jersey, where she said there is no legal prohibition against adult incest. “We plan to move to New Jersey where we can be safe under the law, since adult incest isn’t illegal there, and once I’m there I’ll tell everyone,” the woman, whose name was not published, told the magazine for its “What’s It Like” column, which explores unusual and taboo topics.
burqa February 11th, 2015 at 3:35 am
You saying a gay marriage equality law made that possible, Mr. Snyder?
Robert M. Snyder February 11th, 2015 at 7:47 am
Suppose that you were a district magistrate and this father-daughter couple showed up at your office and asked you to marry them. On what basis would you refuse? The obvious answer is that if they reproduce, their children are likely to have genetic abnormalities. But what if the man had a vasectomy and the woman had a hysterectomy, so that children were not an issue? Would you perform the marriage? If not, then on what basis would you refuse it?
burqa February 11th, 2015 at 9:30 am
What does a law giving gays equal rights to marry have to do with the hetero couple you describe?
Robert M. Snyder February 11th, 2015 at 12:49 pm
I am searching for the underlying principles. Suppose that two adult women want to marry, and they just happen to be sisters having the same two biological parents. You’re the judge. What will you say to them? What are the underlying principles that guide your decisions?
A judge could be approached by all sorts of couples. In the old days there was a simple rule: one man and one woman. Everything else was forbidden. I am not objecting to same-sex marriages. I am simply asking where does it end? If the rule is “any two adults who love each other can be married”, then what about adult relatives who are incapable of having children?
If you could write the rules for judges to follow in deciding who can and cannot be married, what rules would you write?
burqa February 11th, 2015 at 1:08 pm
The underlying principle is we all have the same rights. We have the same right to free speech. We have the same right to own firearms. We have the same right to a speedy and fair trial.
The Supreme Court has already ruled that marriage has long been a right considered essential for the pursuit of happiness.
So, to take your example, if the state those women were in allowed a brother and sister to marry, then they would have to let two sisters marry. If they did not allow one they would not allow the other.
This is where it ends. Gays have the same rights to matrry as straights. If a straight can have multiple spouses then so can a gay.
Adult relatives who are incapable of having children should have the same right to marry as adults who are unrelated who are incapable of having children.
We all get the same right.
A gay man can marry under the same circumstances as a straight man, and same with women. If the state says you have to be 30 to get a marriage license then that applies to gays and straights. If the state says you have to get a blood test before getting a marriage license that means both gays and straights have to get a blood test.
Robert M. Snyder February 11th, 2015 at 5:03 pm
I appreciate your thoughtful response. I am a software developer, so my approach to problem solving is to make a list of all the special cases I can think of and then look for similarities, with the goal of finding the simplest set of rules the cover all of the cases.
If the goal is to provide judges with a set of rules to cover all of the special cases that they might encounter, I think we are getting closer, but there are still some gaps. The guidelines you have outlines above would not allow a judge to determine whether to permit the marriage of two adult relatives. For example, you said ” if the state those women were in allowed a brother and sister to marry, then they would have to let two sisters marry”. But you never specified whether adult brothers and sisters should be permitted to marry. You have made it clear that you would not treat same-sex unions differently than opposite-sex unions. But you have not answered the question of whether same-family unions of any type should be permitted. If you were a sitting judge and two adult relatives asked you to marry them, what would you say?
I am looking for a simple set of rules that would allow any judge to handle any situation, including the following combinations of adults:
half-sister and half-brother
two people already married wishing to add a third partner
three people already married wishing to divorce one partner
We could make a separate rule for every conceivable situation. But it would be far better to have a very small set of rules that cover all of these cases. I agree with your assertion that the rules need to be applied fairly. But your guidelines do not provide a yes/no answer to all of the above situations. Specifically, you have not stated whether polygamy and/or marriages of related individuals should be permitted. Some of the most common arguments used to support gay marriage could also be used to support polygamy and/or marriages of related individuals.
If you were asked to provide a clear set of rules for the judge mentioned in this article to follow when presented with any of the situations listed above, what rules would you advocate?
burqa February 11th, 2015 at 8:02 pm
Answered with my posts above, containing the true story of Betty and Veronica, Parts 1 & 2.
They just want to have what everyone else has.
I’ve done my best. I don’t expect you to see it right away but I just took a couple hours out of my life just for you, Mr. Snyder and I hope you give what I said the consideration it deserves. It’s all there.
When you finally get it you’ll remember posts like the above and wish you’d seen it before.
This is about real people and who they love and their lives. It’s not stupid internet vain imaginings about hypotheticals that perpetuate something horribly wrong..
burqa February 11th, 2015 at 9:53 pm
What judges allow straights now, allow gays to have.
I’m not talking about same-family unions because straights are not allowed same-family unions.
Everyone gets the same, period.
burqa February 11th, 2015 at 9:51 pm
It is illegal in Virginia for a father to marry his daughter. Gays want the same, not something different. They don’t want what’s illegal, they want to have what everyone else has a right to.
And if gays want something different, then they should be denied. They have equal rights and deserve for the state to secure and protect that right rather than refusing to allow them to enjoy the rights straights have.
You keep resorting to imaginary fantasy because you can’t deal with reality.
The rights straights have right now, gays are entitled to.
This is equality.
Stop trying to deny gays what straights have.
Let gays have what everyone else has, and deal with real life, what your neighbors and family members who are married have.
When you figure this simple thing out you’re gonna cave in your forehead with the palm of your hand.
Larry Schmitt February 11th, 2015 at 7:13 am
What does incest have to do with gay marriage? The gay people who want to get married aren’t related to each other.
Robert M. Snyder February 11th, 2015 at 8:11 am
If two infertile adult relatives want to legally marry, do you think that their request should be honored? If not, then on what basis would you deny it? Isn’t the taboo against incest a little like the taboo against same-sex relationships? If the couple is infertile, what’s the problem?
Um Cara February 11th, 2015 at 8:25 am
Good luck with your campaign to legalize incest, it seems many social conservatives are for it, though very few others support it.
Do you have children? Is your wife aware of your interests in this area?
Robert M. Snyder February 11th, 2015 at 5:24 pm
You seem to be implying that marriages between related individuals is sick or perverted. That’s exactly what most people said about same-sex marriages in past generations.
Assuming that two adult relatives are not capable of conceiving a child, on what basis would you prohibit them from marrying? How would their marriage adversely affect anyone else’s marriage or the institution of marriage?
If a judge opposes same-sex marriage, he is called a bigot. But if the same judge opposes the marriage of closely related individuals, even when they are sterile, he is NOT called a bigot. This seems like a double standard.
Why should any judge prohibit polygamous marriages or the marriage of two related adults who are infertile?
Um Cara February 11th, 2015 at 7:30 pm
“You seem to be implying that marriages between related individuals is sick or perverted.”
Actually, what I pointed out is that very few people share your opinion that a man should be able to marry his daughter. I realize you are attempting to conflate same sex marriage and incest, but that makes no more logical sense than to say because we allow opposite sex 18 year olds to marry we must allow opposite sex infants to marry each other.
If you really want to convince people that it is okay for you to marry your daughter, you are going to have to develop a more coherent argument.
Robert M. Snyder February 11th, 2015 at 7:48 pm
This article was about a judge who refused to marry same-sex couples. I am simply asking the question “What rules should a judge be expected to follow?”. I admit that incestuous and polygamous marriage requests are currently pretty rare, but you will have to admit that they do occur. And when they do, what is a judge supposed to say?
My wife and I recently attended a wedding reception where we were seated at a table with three lesbians who share an apartment. If two of them went to a judge seeking marriage, you would expect the judge to comply with their request. But what if all three approached the judge asking for a polygamous, same-sex marriage? A responsible judge does not wait until something happens and then make up an answer on the spot. He or she needs to consider these things in advance and have a well-considered response.
While currently very rare, polygamous and incestuous marriage requests do occur. If two women can be married, why not three? What’s so special about the number two? And if two related adults are infertile, what’s the harm of letting them marry?
burqa February 11th, 2015 at 10:13 pm
The judge should follow the rules we have now and apply them to gays and straights instead of just straights.
We’re not creating new forms of matrimony like 3 women or 2 women and a goat or 2 men, a horse and one of them’s grandmother.
Gays get what straights have.
Nothing more, nothing less.
Here, when you have time to yourself, try this: this should apply to the testing you do: Try making my argument.
Come up with your own way of saying the same thing. Just let that notion flow – gays get what straights have.
Nothing more, nothing less.
Robert M. Snyder February 11th, 2015 at 10:45 pm
Your point is crystal clear. Perhaps mine is not.
You are focused on eliminating legal differences between gays and straights. I support that. But you seem to be assuming that polygamists don’t exist, or that they don’t matter. Do you not care about those people? It is not difficult to find people in Utah who seriously believe that they have the right to a polygamous marriage. They do not feel as though they have marriage equality. Let’s forget about incest because I feel certain it is a very tiny group. But you can’t say that about polygamists. The practice was once legal in Utah, and many people still believe that it should be legal. If three consenting adults want to make a commitment, why shouldn’t they have the same legal rights as everyone else?
You claim to be all about equality, but you seem to only want equality for gays and straights. You seem to be completely ignoring people who do not fit into those two categories. Why?
burqa February 14th, 2015 at 6:55 pm
Thanks for the clarification. It’s good news that you, too, support marriage equality. I had the impression you did not.
As far as I am concerned, polygamy is a separate issue and a red herring often used by those who wish to deny marriage equality to gays.
If polygamy is made legal, then it should be available to gays, too. That is a hypothetical situation and I am concerned about laws on the books and the inequality gays have by being shut out.
This is the part of my point I think you’re still missing – gays should have the same rights as everyone else.
Giving gays the same rights others have today has nothing to do with polygamy.
Robert M. Snyder February 14th, 2015 at 9:36 pm
I think we have different perspectives, and that’s okay. I worked as a database developer for many years. My job was to meet and work with representatives of various departments within our organization to develop a corporate database so that multiple departments could more easily share data. Inevitably, each department wanted to sub-optimize the system for the benefit of their department. My job was to help people to see the big, system-wide view. In order for a company to thrive, the people need to look beyond their own departmental self-interest. As a database developer, my job was to design a single system that worked well for everybody. As a result, I would frequently get questions like “Why do you need me to enter that piece of information? We don’t use it in our department. It’s a waste of my time.”. I think politicians find themselves in a similar situation. It’s really hard to convince people to contribute to something that doesn’t benefit them directly in the short term. It’s hard to get people to think about the system as a whole instead of their particular piece of the system. System-level thinking applies to many issues: willingness to pay one’s fair share of taxes, willingness to obey sensible laws, willingness to participate in one’s community, etc. System-level thinking also means not seeing every issue in isolation, but recognizing that the fabric of society is interwoven. I realize that many people have raised the issue of polygamy in order to oppose same-sex marriage. Like it or not, they have a valid point. You can’t build a wall around same-sex marriage and pretend that it is completely unrelated to polygamy. Traditional marriage, same-sex marriage, and polygamy are just three special cases of the same thing, namely marriage. Like you, I am comfortable with gay marriage, but uncomfortable with polygamy. But I am having a hard time justifying why one is okay while the other is not. It seems to me that we either have to accept both or none. Consider the case of three 50-year old lesbians who have shared an apartment for 20 years and love one another very deeply. How can you, in good conscience, permit any two of them to marry, but not all three?
burqa February 14th, 2015 at 10:14 pm
Yes, we do.
I am comfortable with making arguments in favor of giving gays the same rights heteros have and you are not.
Robert M. Snyder February 14th, 2015 at 10:18 pm
I am thinking about the need for lawmakers to create a system of mutually-consistent laws. You are focused on sub-optimizing for one particular case, and willfully ignoring other cases. You lack political maturity.
burqa February 14th, 2015 at 10:35 pm
Giving gays the same rights to marriage that straights have is consistent.
I consider it a personal achievement to have finally gotten you to acknowledge this.
That’s all I was after and consider my mission accomplished.
I look forward to you, in the future, taking a stand for marriage equality for gays and speaking in favor of them having the same rights heteros have.
Shall I close with a personal insult to match yours?
Nahhh, may as well continue to occupy the high ground you choose to concede….
Robert M. Snyder February 14th, 2015 at 10:54 pm
Somewhere in this country of 300+ million people, there is a household in which Betty, Veronica, and Shirley are concerned about the legal status of the children they are jointly raising. Have you no empathy for them?
Um Cara February 11th, 2015 at 10:50 pm
You do realize your exact same argument can be used to say if we offer opposite sex marriage there is nothing to stop a man from marrying his daughter, after all they are the opposite sex so there is no way to allow one without the other. Yes that is a ridiculous argument, as ridiculous as whatever point you think you are making.
Larry Schmitt February 11th, 2015 at 8:25 am
Why are you trying to find reasons to deny people the right to get married? Is it that old canard that it somehow invalidates everyone else’s marriages?
Robert M. Snyder February 11th, 2015 at 5:16 pm
I am simply trying to discover the underlying principles that should govern these types of decisions. I grew up thinking that same-sex marriages were just plain wrong. In recent years my thinking has changed. I still feel uncomfortable with polygamy and marriages of related adults. Is that rational? What gives society the right to prohibit any type of marriage? I understand the concern about related individuals having children. But what about related individuals who are sterile, and what about polygamy? Do you think that those types of marriage should be permitted? If not, then why not?
Larry Schmitt February 11th, 2015 at 5:28 pm
And at one time people were brought up to think inter racial marriages were “just plain wrong” too. Some people still think that way. Things change. If two sterile relatives want to marry each other, we’ll deal with it then. Reasonable people don’t suggest polygamy should be legal. You’re engaging in the same kind of what ifs the judge is using. No one can come up with a reason to not allow same sex marriages, except that they don’t like it.
Robert M. Snyder February 11th, 2015 at 5:36 pm
“Reasonable people don’t suggest polygamy should be legal.”
Really? Polygamy has been an accepted practice in various societies at various points in history. It’s in the Old Testament. There is now a TV show featuring polygamous families. I think that a sitting judge would need to consider the possibility that he or she might be asked to perform a polygamous marriage. You seem to be suggesting that they should deny all such requests. If you were the judge, how would you justify your refusal? Would you simply say “Reasonable people don’t suggest polygamy should be legal.”. Don’t you think the applicants deserve a more thoughtful response than “Your request is not reasonable.”?
Larry Schmitt February 11th, 2015 at 5:53 pm
And slavery is in the bible too. Are you suggesting we should run the world according to what’s in the bible? Or according to reality shows? The world is already effed up. I repeat, reasonable people don’t suggest polygamy should be legal.
Robert M. Snyder February 11th, 2015 at 6:04 pm
“reasonable people don’t suggest polygamy should be legal”
That’s exactly what people said about gay marriage when I was a kid.
burqa February 11th, 2015 at 6:31 pm
The best place to start is the birth of the nation, founded on the underlying principle that all are created equal (rights, not abilities), and that we have set sail on a course in which we perfect our union. That is what we have been doing. Abolition,, women’s suffrage, child labor, civil rights, integration of our society. We’ve come a long way, it hasn’t been easy and change for the better always seemed to take too long. But we’ve done good till now.
The job isn’t done. We still have work to do.
With gays, they don’t have equality, even though they were created with equal rights. Those rights have not been secured for them yet, that’s all.
Marriage is something society has judged is good for the social order. It provides a way for people to achieve a sort of happiness and raise a family if they want and so the state sanctions it.
I’m going to give you a real-life story in about 10 minutes. This is about how people live, and how this inequality hurts our fellow citizens.
People who are sterile need companionship, too. Otherwise we’d require divorce when they are unable to have kids or ban them from being with the one they love. I don’t know if you’re married, but imagine being wrenched from the one you wanted to dedicate the rest of your life to being with. Really? That’s what we’re going to do to people?
Arguments like polygamy and the list of combinations you listed are red herrings because they are not done by straights. Gays don’t want something like that, of for sister-sister-goat marriages. They just want what everyone else has, but they are denied because people who don’t care about the life they lead are worried about donut bumping.
No one is trying to open up all these wacky alternatives that are not being practiced by straights. Just focus on that – let a gay couple have their equal rights finally recognized and secured by the government so they. too, are equally protected under the law just like everyone else..
That’s the operative phrase – just like everyone else..
burqa February 11th, 2015 at 6:42 pm
Ok, here’s the story, promised, above. It is as true as I can tell it, only I am going to change the names of the women to Betty and Veronica.
Betty and Veronica, Part 1.
These two women fell in love here in Virginia nd bought a house after knowing they wanted to spend their lives together and have a family. They had 3 children, 2 by adoption and one by artificial insemenation (Betty). Things went as things do, but they didn’t get the tax deductions their neighbors got. And, as so often happens, after 5 or 6 years they hit a rough patch and Betty moved out.
Betty took the kids. Mind you that Veronica had bonded as a parent, these were her children, too.
When Veronica went to see a lawyer she found out she had no grounds for custody or visitation of her children. She had no say in terms of school decisions, vaccinations or anything else and Betty could see to it Veronica never saw her children again. We have no law covering this. She was told that her case would be breaking new ground in terms of the law and would have to go to an appeals court. Oh, and this was after she finally found an attorney – no one wanted to touch the case. This was about 10 years ago and she was told it would cost her at least 20, and probably 30,000 dollars or more and they had no idea if she had a chance.
You can see the problems they had that straights don’t, and they had all th difficulties straight families have on top of these things.
burqa February 11th, 2015 at 7:43 pm
Good grief. I got Part 2 typed out and when I submitted it, Discus died and then wouldn’t reload and it’s taken an hour to redo and resubmit it.
Betty and Veronica Part 2.
It was tough, they had trouble deciding how to divide their property and the children were really having a bad time.
But then, as these things sometimes go, Betty and Veronica got back together. Even that was not easy. It took a lot of love, a lot of forgiveness and a lot of mercy, but they pulled it. The family was back together and in time settled in as a family with only the normal pressures and difficulties families have. It was wonderful to see for those of us who were close to them.
Then, as happens in real life, Betty was diagnosed with stage 4 breast cancer. Still young, it raced through her body and there was no saving her. When it came to inheritance rights, Veronica did not have those a spouse of a straight couple does. Hospital visitation, end of life decisions, Veronica had no legal standing the way straight spouses do. Betty was incredible and hung on for about a year. This at least gave Veronica time to adopt the child Betty had by artificial insemination, otherwise that kid would have been ripped out of his family, his support structure, just as he was burying his mommy. He was about 7 years old. Good thing Betty didn’t get killed suddenly or it would have been foster care for him.
As her life ebbed away, Betty did all she could to make sure they hung together and she recognized that the love of her life would need someone else.
About 2 years later, Veronica met someone, fell in love and yes, it looks like a great match. I’ll call the new parent Ginger. Ginger did not know Betty, but she understood and honors her place in everyone else’s hearts. But she could take of with those kids, too. She has no rights nor does Veronica, the way straights do. All they really have in the end is each other and whatever abilities they have to weather the storms life tosses at us. None of us can really predict the future, but we know that if tragedy strikes again the way it commonly does, those children and their parents do not have the resources or protections that straights have because we got a bunch of God-damned politicians, pundits, interest groups all posturing, declaiming and playing Parcheesi with their lives.
This is life, my friend and these are real people being jerked around and being treated like they are of a lower caste because of who they love. And that’s all they wanted to do – love each other and have a family like everyone else, that’s all. Right now I’m having a tough time seeing the keyboard, but this is real and these are people I care about and it just ain’t right.
No one wants to have a harem or marry a horse. They are more concerned with getting the children’s homework done, mowing the lawn, and making that next house payment.
This ain’t right, man, and I hope I’ve helped you somehow to see it.
burqa February 11th, 2015 at 10:15 pm
CALLING ALL LIBERALANDERS! Please take a look at the above story, Betty and Veronica Parts 1 & 2 and tell me what you think.
Robert M. Snyder February 11th, 2015 at 6:51 pm
Lots of touchy-feely stuff that I certainly agree with, but when it comes to a clear, concise, logical set of rules for a judge to follow, all you’ve given me is “treat gays and straights equally”. Polygamy is not an imaginary issue. Some people take it very seriously.
I attended a wedding a few months ago where my wife and I were seated at the same table as three lesbians who share an apartment. If three women love each other very much, why should they be denied the opportunity to marry?
Suppose you are the judge and they are standing before you. What are you going to say when they ask “What’s so special about the number two?”?
burqa February 11th, 2015 at 8:13 pm
Declaration of Independence and U.S. Constitution that my ancestors fought for and lost their fortunes for while under sentence of death when doing it is “touchy-feely”?
All being created equal is “touchy feely” to you?
That’s the best you’ve got? That’s the depth you’re capable of?
We don’t have polygamy.
Gays aren’t asking to have polygamy while straights don’t. Or do.
I’ve just burned up over 2 hours of my life with the true story below of Betty and Veronica, Part 1 & 2 below. I’m exhausted and you’re playing woird games and being as superficial and artificial and thin as a sheet of mylar when we’re talking about some pretty deep issues in the life of human beings who just want what everyone else has and not this stuff you’re throwing up to avoid addressing the issues of life that occur when two people love each other.
I’m not playing these silly games any more. I’ve treated you respectfully and have tried my best.
Robert M. Snyder February 11th, 2015 at 9:26 pm
I read your entire story. Thanks for taking the time to post (and re-post).
I think you’re conflating two issues, namely parenting and marriage. A good friend of mine lost both of her parents while she was in high school. She had four younger siblings. Thankfully, both of her dad’s sisters were unmarried and willing to take all of the kids into their home and act as their legal guardians. These women were just two sisters sharing a house, but they suddenly took on the full duties of parents. So the issues you raised with regard to legal rights of adoption, guardianship, or inheritance are not just issues for people who are romantically involved. They would also apply any time two people are sharing the responsibilities of parenting. If marriage is the only way to obtain those legal rights and protections, then the two aunts are legally un-equal. of course, marriage is not the only way to obtain those legal rights and protections, but it is certainly the easiest and cheapest way.
To make matters worse, my friend’s third child was born with a genetic defect that caused severe mental retardation. He is now 33 years old. He cannot walk, stand, or even sit up without restraints. He cannot feed himself. He has never spoken a word. My friend, who is an RN, has spent most of the past 33 years caring for her son. This has resulted in a very significant loss of income for the family. Yet when her son turned 21, she and her husband had to spend over $3,000 in legal fees in order to retain the legal right to make medical decisions for their son. So I am very sympathetic to the plight of someone who technical has a legal right, but needs significant money in order to exercise that right. Conventional marriage and conventional parenthood of healthy children offer automatic legal status that can be very difficult to obtain in unconventional situations. I fully agree that our legal system needs to consider the needs of unconventional families.
I am a software developer who was raised in an engineering household. Perhaps your background is different. Maybe I am OCD, but I always want to break things down to the bare essentials and understand the underlying rules or principles. I do not like to treat every situation as a special case. That is why I have engaged in this discussion. I am truly willing to consider the possibility that polygamy should be legalized. I am not advocating it, and I don’t think that many others are, either. But I feel a sense of responsibility to look at the larger picture in order to formulate a consistent set of beliefs. You may think that is just word games, but I do not. When somebody asks “What’s your position on X”, I want to provide a well-considered response. When they ask “Why?”, I want to provide a well-considered justification. When I am pressing you for answers, it is because I myself am unsure. My gut feeling is that polygamy and incest have no place in our society, but thirty years ago I felt the same way about same-sex marriage. That is why I am searching for the underlying principles. If polygamy is wrong, I want a clear, rational explanation for why it is wrong.
I cannot tell you exactly how this discussion has affected me, but I have also spent a couple of hours thinking about these issues and considering your thoughtful responses, for which I am grateful.
burqa February 11th, 2015 at 10:02 pm
I’m not confusing different issues. Legal marriage has features denied to gays when it comes to raising their children.
Give gays the rights straights have.
In truth, gays already have these rights. The government is failing to secure and protect those rights.
Give gays what straights have.
Imagine, in the story I gave of Betty and Veronica, that were were to go to Veronica and explain to her how right it is that she can have her children taken from her and have no visitation, or receive no support payments, or have none of the other rights straight separated or divorced parents have.
Go ahead and tell that mother that she can’t have the same rights as the mother next door because the mother next door is straight.
Just imagine you have the two mothers standing right in front of you with their little kids clinging to the hem of their dresses.
You then tell the gay woman, “It is just for you to not have the same rights as your next-door-neighbor because ____”
You’re struggling to find ways to maintain inequality.
Gays should have what straights have, period.
Robert M. Snyder February 11th, 2015 at 10:54 pm
“Legal marriage has features denied to gays when it comes to raising their children.”
Legal marriage also has features denied to a pair of sisters who are raising their brother’s orphaned children.
The solution is not to give those rights ONLY to gays. Not everybody is engaging in sex or romance. If we’re talking about the rights of parents and guardians, a pair of sisters raising a family should have the same rights and privileges as a pair of gay parents, a pair or lesbian parents, or a pair of straight parents. Giving equality to gays is fine, but it doesn’t solve the problem for sisters raising orphans. You are indeed conflating the two issues. Parenting rights should be based upon parenting roles and responsibilities. Two sisters raising a family of orphans should not have less rights than a lesbian couple raising a family. So a marriage should not be required to secure those rights.
Obewon February 11th, 2015 at 8:26 pm
Roy Moore ‘can’t recall’ Conservative SCOTUS in 2013 ruled ‘equal marriage throughout the entire USA upheld the 10th & 14th amendments’ in granting 2000+ federal benefits only available via equal marriage.
Not many but the Robert M. Snyder minority say SCOTUS should grant incest marriage, in lieu of Alabama’s Roy Moore’s suit asking to legalize his proposition and marriage to the child molesters biological daughter!
tomlinsonuo February 11th, 2015 at 1:34 am
There’s a good chance you’ll still be wearing your winter coat on the first official day of spring (we hate you, polar vortex!), but you can break out a new spring handbag no matter what the temperature is outside. From party clutches to work satchels, there are so many fresh and delightful spring trends to choose from. Browse these must-have styles to find your perfect bag.=>> Luxury-Brand- Bags-Clearance
burqa February 11th, 2015 at 3:32 am
If I was eating a banana while walking down the street in front of Roy Moore, I’d drop the peel in front of him, hoping he’d step on it….
rg9rts February 11th, 2015 at 4:32 am
Is he admitting to having the hots for his daughter???
Larry Schmitt February 11th, 2015 at 7:14 am
That seems to be the case in a lot of these situations. The cons come up with outlandish what ifs, and this-will-lead-to-that, and in reality, it’s what they fantasize about.
rg9rts February 11th, 2015 at 7:24 am
It is similar to the “Yeah Buts”.. after which comes the BS….a teens favorite argument.
Larry Schmitt February 11th, 2015 at 7:33 am
But teens have an excuse. They don’t know any better.
rg9rts February 11th, 2015 at 7:50 am
They mimic their parents or the gopee….how many time times have you heard that subject changing ploy used by the gopee. How about…..
Larry Schmitt February 11th, 2015 at 8:26 am
Prime example is Mr. Snyder, above.
rg9rts February 11th, 2015 at 8:33 am
In notifications now…but I know the fool you refer to well.
William February 11th, 2015 at 7:56 am
Hey c’mon it’s Alabama. The State that only teaches sex education on Tuesdays because the rest of the week they are using the pick up truck for drivers ed.
liberalMD February 12th, 2015 at 1:57 am
Why would people in Alabama elect a person the chief justice of the state supreme court who advocates men marrying their daughters? And why is he not jailed? Surely, as backwards as Alabama is, they have a sodomy law still on the books that should land him in prison for a long time.