Bornstein: Second-class citizenship

vladislav, considering your comment is probably longer than this article, I think it's a little unfair to be demanding so much clearification.

Second, I think you are perhaps confused. This is a newspaper article therefor I believe the author knows her audience: KU students and staff. Thus the article is focusing on our awareness of the topic and attempting to enlighten the general population, not members of government. A letter to representatives would have accomplished that a bit more effectively.

I totally disagree with your statement " If Ms. Bornstein and others want a federal law to enable hospital visitation rights or to have inheritance rights redefined...then go to it. I doubt there would even be much opposition or attention paid." There have been many cases of this and there is still no changing it. Just as we have proved 'Don't ask, Don't Tell' to be a terrible and prohibitive act that has done wonders to damage the US military, this hospital visitation rights, too, has destroyed many people's lives.

Finally, in regards to your absolutely ridiculous comment about abortion: abortion must be kept legal if for nothing else the health of the mother. If you make abortion illegal, it will still happen, but the only thing that will change is that thousands of women will die each year. Look at Nicaragua, it's illegal there and it's causing havoc http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/07/28/nicaragua.abortion.ban/index.html

• Upvote 0
• Posted by iritabook on November 11, 2009 at 10:27 a.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Bornstein: Second-class citizenship

To the various religions marriage is considered a religious act, however this religious act allows straight couples numerous breaks and rights that is not given to unmarried or homosexual couples by the state and federal governments. Despite calling it religious the act of marriage has become a federal and state recognized contract between two consenting adults who love each other very much. There are heterosexuals who never step foot in a house of a god to get hitched, but instead go to the courthouse and get the piece of paper that says they are married...and the church does not protest that. In this day and age where marriage is a legal event that can happen without a religion's consent then it is only the morally correct move to allow gays and lesbians to marry their partners and to give them the same rights.

Marriage is a government institute now, and the idea of a religious marriage is a second thought only to those couples who greatly respect and want their religious leader/church to be involved in their love lives. As long as I don't marry my girlfriend in your church you shouldn't tell me I can't marry her in the courthouse...it's simple and fair without any church screaming that their rights are being oppressed, and without LGBT U.S. citizens being treated sub-human.

The main point of the gay marriage repeal is the popular vote. The adds in both Maine and California used fear to rile up those who oppose such acts by telling them that if gay marriages happen than young children will be forced to learn about homosexuality in school, and that churches would be forced to accept LGBT people into their churches, and be forced to silence any opinion they may have against this minority group. This is not true, but once that fear was shoved down the people's throat it was clear that the U.S. is still a country gripped by hate for people who are different from the majority. It's a sad day when the words, "liberty and justice for all" turn into "liberty and justice for only the majority".

I hope ten years down the road I can marry the woman I love. I hope that ten years down the road I don't feel like I have to move out of the country just to get the fair and equal treatment that America said had well before I was born. What I wish for most though, is that I won't have to wait ten years for all of this to happen.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by LadyThorn on November 11, 2009 at 11:27 a.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Bornstein: Second-class citizenship

Vladislav, A civil rights issue like gay marriage being decided by the entire voting population of a state is an example of what Madison was worried about when he warned of the danger of factions. Opponents of gay marriage constitute a majority faction, and their stripping of a civil right already granted to a group, either by a court decision or a law passed by a legislative body, is a "tyranny of the majority." So I suppose, it would be alright then if we stripped marriage rights from other religious groups, or non-theists, as long as the majority of voters in a state want it?

• Upvote 0
• Posted by dlowell on November 12, 2009 at 7:08 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Bornstein: Second-class citizenship

Considering how many people quoted the Bible to justify slavery and anti-miscegenation laws, it doesn't surprise me that opponents are, once again, using the words of their respective religions to justify discrimination. When courts upheld marriage equality, opponents complained about "activist judges" and said the decision should only be made by the legislature. Then legislatures voted for marriage equality. So now opponents want to "take it to the people". What will they do when "the people" support marriage equality? But don't expect that to happen overnight. It's been a long struggle just to get HERE. The "tyranny of the majority" (thank you dlowell) still stands in the way just as it did when this nation was founded (slavery and the Three-Fifths Compromise), during the fight for Women's Suffrage, during waves of immigration (Chinese Exclusion Act) and in the segregated South.

There will be a tipping point when more states support marriage equality or, at the very least, recognize marriages performed elsewhere. Then there will be a US Supreme Court decision to complete the process under the full faith and credit clause. Doesn't anyone study history? Remember "separate but equal"? Are opponents saying we, as Americans, should support "equal" (to marriage) but "separate" (but don't call it marriage)?

• Upvote 0
• Posted by Romany_Reunited on November 13, 2009 at 6:14 a.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Bornstein: Second-class citizenship

Since when are basic civil rights something we have become presumptuous enough to grant or revoke based on a majority vote?

• Upvote 0
• Posted by Denver on November 14, 2009 at 12:43 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal