<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.3.3" -->
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Loving is Dead, yet Love Endures</title>
	<link>http://www.deafdc.com/blog/josh-mendelsohn/2008-05-06/loving-is-dead-yet-love-endures/</link>
	<description></description>
	<pubDate>Tue, 07 Oct 2008 20:28:10 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.3</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Josh Mendelsohn</title>
		<link>http://www.deafdc.com/blog/josh-mendelsohn/2008-05-06/loving-is-dead-yet-love-endures/#comment-98650</link>
		<dc:creator>Josh Mendelsohn</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 May 2008 13:41:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.deafdc.com/blog/josh-mendelsohn/2008-05-06/loving-is-dead-yet-love-endures/#comment-98650</guid>
		<description>Hilary - your father's right - this is probably the worst timing for this opinion to come out.  The Republicans need a rallying issue to get voters to come out to the polls in droves.  I'm hoping that saturation will help defuse this issue, though.  In Mass., the legislature had the opportunity to revoke the law authorizing gay marriage, and Republican legislators tried to do so once a year for the past three years.  However, each time they tried, the attempt garnered less and less votes (even from Republican legislators themselves) as they saw that society in Mass. didn't implode, that couples and families of every gender, color, and creed were happy, that churches remained standing, and that no comets (or hurricanes!) walloped Mass. in punishment.  

I'm hoping the same will happen here.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hilary - your father&#8217;s right - this is probably the worst timing for this opinion to come out.  The Republicans need a rallying issue to get voters to come out to the polls in droves.  I&#8217;m hoping that saturation will help defuse this issue, though.  In Mass., the legislature had the opportunity to revoke the law authorizing gay marriage, and Republican legislators tried to do so once a year for the past three years.  However, each time they tried, the attempt garnered less and less votes (even from Republican legislators themselves) as they saw that society in Mass. didn&#8217;t implode, that couples and families of every gender, color, and creed were happy, that churches remained standing, and that no comets (or hurricanes!) walloped Mass. in punishment.  </p>
<p>I&#8217;m hoping the same will happen here.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Hilary</title>
		<link>http://www.deafdc.com/blog/josh-mendelsohn/2008-05-06/loving-is-dead-yet-love-endures/#comment-98649</link>
		<dc:creator>Hilary</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 May 2008 13:27:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.deafdc.com/blog/josh-mendelsohn/2008-05-06/loving-is-dead-yet-love-endures/#comment-98649</guid>
		<description>You know the appeals will be a mess. The ruling was 4-3... sigh. I wish it had been 5-2 or even 6-1. Granted, 6 of the 7 judges were appointed by Republicans, so that says a lot. 

However, this IS California. It's not Oklahoma. So I can see the possibility of this decision having far-reaching effects:

1) Borderline states (moderate states that can go either republican or democrat) may swing to the republican side in the general election and create a potential win for McCain

2) Religious right/ultra conservative states will start passing laws or initiatives to ban gay marriage, with voter referenda, to show that gay marriage "goes against the 'will' of the people." 

Of course, half the country is thrilled about what happened in California, and the other half is crying out that the judges are legislating from the bench. 

I chatted with my father about this -- he grew up in a segregated town in Texas and is now an attorney. (And yes, he's a democrat.)

He thinks this is the worst timing in the world for this kind of ruling, because this means the gay marriage issue will become a major one during the rest of this election cycle. And that voters will be thinking about this when they select their candidate for President, and not issues like the Iraq crisis, economic/housing market, etc... 

In short, he doesn't think the time is right for this to happen. Obviously, it needs to happen, but during a Presidential election year? 

I'm hoping that the voters have common sense and will stick to the country's economic and international political issues. And that more people realize that the judges' ruling is correct. 

Legalizing same-sex marriage IS the right way to adhere to the constitutional rights we all have. Just as blacks and whites fought for interracial marriage 40 years ago, so are we all fighting for same-sex marriage.

But the difference between the two is pretty significant:

Unlike with interracial marriage, same-sex marriages comes with the connotation/idea that the "act" of intercourse between the two partners is "morally wrong" (anal sex, etc.), as well as the long-held beliefs that being gay is a choice, that it is immoral, etc., blah blah. It's a different level of inferiority than was placed upon blacks. 

Once same-sex marriages are legalized in the midwestern/flyover/conservative/red states, then I'll believe we're really on track for achieving civil rights for GLBT folks. In the meantime, it's going to be a battle in each state. 

At least until it goes to the Supreme Court.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You know the appeals will be a mess. The ruling was 4-3&#8230; sigh. I wish it had been 5-2 or even 6-1. Granted, 6 of the 7 judges were appointed by Republicans, so that says a lot. </p>
<p>However, this IS California. It&#8217;s not Oklahoma. So I can see the possibility of this decision having far-reaching effects:</p>
<p>1) Borderline states (moderate states that can go either republican or democrat) may swing to the republican side in the general election and create a potential win for McCain</p>
<p>2) Religious right/ultra conservative states will start passing laws or initiatives to ban gay marriage, with voter referenda, to show that gay marriage &#8220;goes against the &#8216;will&#8217; of the people.&#8221; </p>
<p>Of course, half the country is thrilled about what happened in California, and the other half is crying out that the judges are legislating from the bench. </p>
<p>I chatted with my father about this &#8212; he grew up in a segregated town in Texas and is now an attorney. (And yes, he&#8217;s a democrat.)</p>
<p>He thinks this is the worst timing in the world for this kind of ruling, because this means the gay marriage issue will become a major one during the rest of this election cycle. And that voters will be thinking about this when they select their candidate for President, and not issues like the Iraq crisis, economic/housing market, etc&#8230; </p>
<p>In short, he doesn&#8217;t think the time is right for this to happen. Obviously, it needs to happen, but during a Presidential election year? </p>
<p>I&#8217;m hoping that the voters have common sense and will stick to the country&#8217;s economic and international political issues. And that more people realize that the judges&#8217; ruling is correct. </p>
<p>Legalizing same-sex marriage IS the right way to adhere to the constitutional rights we all have. Just as blacks and whites fought for interracial marriage 40 years ago, so are we all fighting for same-sex marriage.</p>
<p>But the difference between the two is pretty significant:</p>
<p>Unlike with interracial marriage, same-sex marriages comes with the connotation/idea that the &#8220;act&#8221; of intercourse between the two partners is &#8220;morally wrong&#8221; (anal sex, etc.), as well as the long-held beliefs that being gay is a choice, that it is immoral, etc., blah blah. It&#8217;s a different level of inferiority than was placed upon blacks. </p>
<p>Once same-sex marriages are legalized in the midwestern/flyover/conservative/red states, then I&#8217;ll believe we&#8217;re really on track for achieving civil rights for GLBT folks. In the meantime, it&#8217;s going to be a battle in each state. </p>
<p>At least until it goes to the Supreme Court.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Josh Mendelsohn</title>
		<link>http://www.deafdc.com/blog/josh-mendelsohn/2008-05-06/loving-is-dead-yet-love-endures/#comment-98610</link>
		<dc:creator>Josh Mendelsohn</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 15 May 2008 17:59:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.deafdc.com/blog/josh-mendelsohn/2008-05-06/loving-is-dead-yet-love-endures/#comment-98610</guid>
		<description>LOL!  I just finally read / skimmed through the entire 120-page decision by the California Supreme Court.  This is no mere "step" -- that court declared that California shall allow gay marriages, period.  No requiring legislature to pass a law recognizing gay marriage (like what happened in Mass.) -- the court simply says to allow gay marriages, period.  I think this will become effective in 30 days, and that means same-sex couples would be able to marry after 30 days from today.  Wow!!!!  What's even more incredible is that the justices on this California Supreme Court is mostly conservative, and yet a majority decisively found in favor of gay couples.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>LOL!  I just finally read / skimmed through the entire 120-page decision by the California Supreme Court.  This is no mere &#8220;step&#8221; &#8212; that court declared that California shall allow gay marriages, period.  No requiring legislature to pass a law recognizing gay marriage (like what happened in Mass.) &#8212; the court simply says to allow gay marriages, period.  I think this will become effective in 30 days, and that means same-sex couples would be able to marry after 30 days from today.  Wow!!!!  What&#8217;s even more incredible is that the justices on this California Supreme Court is mostly conservative, and yet a majority decisively found in favor of gay couples.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: JS</title>
		<link>http://www.deafdc.com/blog/josh-mendelsohn/2008-05-06/loving-is-dead-yet-love-endures/#comment-98609</link>
		<dc:creator>JS</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 15 May 2008 17:56:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.deafdc.com/blog/josh-mendelsohn/2008-05-06/loving-is-dead-yet-love-endures/#comment-98609</guid>
		<description>Well, at least one more state has taken a step in the right direction, in light of the news from California today.

Josh: Your blog entry evidently has prompted California to join Massachusetts.  Do you think you could keep writing blog entries on this issue and successively knock some sense into each of the remaining 48 states?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Well, at least one more state has taken a step in the right direction, in light of the news from California today.</p>
<p>Josh: Your blog entry evidently has prompted California to join Massachusetts.  Do you think you could keep writing blog entries on this issue and successively knock some sense into each of the remaining 48 states?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Josh Mendelsohn</title>
		<link>http://www.deafdc.com/blog/josh-mendelsohn/2008-05-06/loving-is-dead-yet-love-endures/#comment-98472</link>
		<dc:creator>Josh Mendelsohn</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 11 May 2008 01:27:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.deafdc.com/blog/josh-mendelsohn/2008-05-06/loving-is-dead-yet-love-endures/#comment-98472</guid>
		<description>Hi Marylander -- problem is, in states like Oklahoma, by state law any contracts or even court decisions involving gays and lesbians are automatically null and void inside that state.  And so, my adoption of my children would be void there as long as I'm in the state.  Really scary.  Virginia has something similar, but not as drastic.  

And health insurance -- perhaps you're thinking of health insurance coverage for people who work for the State government?  As far as I know, the state of Maryland doesn't offer domestic partnership benefits, If you work for Montgomery County or even the District of Columbia, then health care would also cover domestic partners.  I work for the Federal government, however, and the Fed gov't absolutely won't cover my partner.  So, I gotta pay for separate health insurance (and everything else) for my partner ...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Marylander &#8212; problem is, in states like Oklahoma, by state law any contracts or even court decisions involving gays and lesbians are automatically null and void inside that state.  And so, my adoption of my children would be void there as long as I&#8217;m in the state.  Really scary.  Virginia has something similar, but not as drastic.  </p>
<p>And health insurance &#8212; perhaps you&#8217;re thinking of health insurance coverage for people who work for the State government?  As far as I know, the state of Maryland doesn&#8217;t offer domestic partnership benefits, If you work for Montgomery County or even the District of Columbia, then health care would also cover domestic partners.  I work for the Federal government, however, and the Fed gov&#8217;t absolutely won&#8217;t cover my partner.  So, I gotta pay for separate health insurance (and everything else) for my partner &#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Marylander</title>
		<link>http://www.deafdc.com/blog/josh-mendelsohn/2008-05-06/loving-is-dead-yet-love-endures/#comment-98471</link>
		<dc:creator>Marylander</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 11 May 2008 01:20:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.deafdc.com/blog/josh-mendelsohn/2008-05-06/loving-is-dead-yet-love-endures/#comment-98471</guid>
		<description>To Happily Married, when my then-girlfriend went to the ER I asked to go along with her. She is my wife now and I always go in the ER rooms later.

and Josh, your daughters have your name and you can rpove you the parent. May single parents go through the same thing in case the cops stopped. I thought a lot of gays people moved from VA to MD because MD has a better health insurance coverage for gays people?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>To Happily Married, when my then-girlfriend went to the ER I asked to go along with her. She is my wife now and I always go in the ER rooms later.</p>
<p>and Josh, your daughters have your name and you can rpove you the parent. May single parents go through the same thing in case the cops stopped. I thought a lot of gays people moved from VA to MD because MD has a better health insurance coverage for gays people?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Steerpike</title>
		<link>http://www.deafdc.com/blog/josh-mendelsohn/2008-05-06/loving-is-dead-yet-love-endures/#comment-98350</link>
		<dc:creator>Steerpike</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 May 2008 19:45:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.deafdc.com/blog/josh-mendelsohn/2008-05-06/loving-is-dead-yet-love-endures/#comment-98350</guid>
		<description>I am a conservative, but, I just don't see the state's interest in the bedroom or in religious ceremonies. However, it is the state's interest to encourage "family" units even if it does not fit the traditional concept. 

If you want to get married and have the legal protections that come with it, you have my blessings. I am quite certain that you will be a better parent with your partner of your children than a lot of heterosexual couples out there.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I am a conservative, but, I just don&#8217;t see the state&#8217;s interest in the bedroom or in religious ceremonies. However, it is the state&#8217;s interest to encourage &#8220;family&#8221; units even if it does not fit the traditional concept. </p>
<p>If you want to get married and have the legal protections that come with it, you have my blessings. I am quite certain that you will be a better parent with your partner of your children than a lot of heterosexual couples out there.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: kim</title>
		<link>http://www.deafdc.com/blog/josh-mendelsohn/2008-05-06/loving-is-dead-yet-love-endures/#comment-98314</link>
		<dc:creator>kim</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 May 2008 05:01:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.deafdc.com/blog/josh-mendelsohn/2008-05-06/loving-is-dead-yet-love-endures/#comment-98314</guid>
		<description>Josh-- There's so much hate in the world I can't, for the life of me, figure out why anyone wastes their energy trying to keep people who love each other apart.  Good luck and blessings to you and your partner.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Josh&#8211; There&#8217;s so much hate in the world I can&#8217;t, for the life of me, figure out why anyone wastes their energy trying to keep people who love each other apart.  Good luck and blessings to you and your partner.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Virginia L. Beach</title>
		<link>http://www.deafdc.com/blog/josh-mendelsohn/2008-05-06/loving-is-dead-yet-love-endures/#comment-98294</link>
		<dc:creator>Virginia L. Beach</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 06 May 2008 22:45:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.deafdc.com/blog/josh-mendelsohn/2008-05-06/loving-is-dead-yet-love-endures/#comment-98294</guid>
		<description>As an ordained minister, I have had the pleasure of officiating over weddings and commitment ceremonies for both heterosexual and same-sex couples. 

There is no ritual that gives me as much joy as the one which unites two lives, two souls, and two hearts together.

I was once asked (by a fundamentalist preacher, naturally) why I would engage in marrying same-sex couples, when such acts are clearly "an abomination to God."

My response was simply to shrug my shoulders and say "because they love one another." 

Thanks for sharing this piece with us, Josh. It is indeed a very "loving" post... in more ways than one.

I do hope that some day you and your partner will be able to engage in that legal ceremony.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>As an ordained minister, I have had the pleasure of officiating over weddings and commitment ceremonies for both heterosexual and same-sex couples. </p>
<p>There is no ritual that gives me as much joy as the one which unites two lives, two souls, and two hearts together.</p>
<p>I was once asked (by a fundamentalist preacher, naturally) why I would engage in marrying same-sex couples, when such acts are clearly &#8220;an abomination to God.&#8221;</p>
<p>My response was simply to shrug my shoulders and say &#8220;because they love one another.&#8221; </p>
<p>Thanks for sharing this piece with us, Josh. It is indeed a very &#8220;loving&#8221; post&#8230; in more ways than one.</p>
<p>I do hope that some day you and your partner will be able to engage in that legal ceremony.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Josh Mendelsohn</title>
		<link>http://www.deafdc.com/blog/josh-mendelsohn/2008-05-06/loving-is-dead-yet-love-endures/#comment-98277</link>
		<dc:creator>Josh Mendelsohn</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 06 May 2008 18:55:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.deafdc.com/blog/josh-mendelsohn/2008-05-06/loving-is-dead-yet-love-endures/#comment-98277</guid>
		<description>Wow, that's a beautiful example, Happily.  Thanks for sharing that example with us.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Wow, that&#8217;s a beautiful example, Happily.  Thanks for sharing that example with us.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
