MS. LISA S. GREENE AND A SAME SEX MARRIAGE BAN IN DC IN 2008

[Psycho]

MS. LISA S. GREENE AND A SAME SEX MARRIAGE BAN IN DC IN 2008

 

Ms. Lisa S. Greene, an anti- same sex marriage activist in DC has been, and will move forward with a ballot initiative to define marriage in the District of Columbia as being between a man and a woman as a device to prevent our city council or what she feels are activist judges from allowing such to take place against the will of the majority of voters.

 

GLBT activists are alarmed over Ms. Greene's activities in light of the fact that she is being backed by some 40 churches in 5 wards.

 

The Gay & Lesbian Activist Alliance feels it would be wrong to allow the majority of Washington residents, who probably oppose same sex marriage to prevail, and to deny the civil rights of a minority.

Ms. Greene argues that homosexuals are not a minority because minority status has been reserved for persons born of a certain way they had no control over, and have historically been subjected to discrimination because of it; whereas homosexuality is not something you are born with, but choose to be such.

 

Some see the battle about same sex marriage as being one falling along racial lines with African Americans and Hispanics making up 70% of those oppose to such and Caucasians in support. Others see the opposition coming mainly from African Americans, Hispanics, Catholics and conservative Jews, and not so much along racial lines.

 

If a same sex marriage ban would pass in 2008, what impact will that have on the GLBT community?

 

In other jurisdictions where bans have happened, there has been an exodus of GLBT people out of those states ranging from 5% to 35%.

 

GLBT people are already leaving Virginia in what many see as an inevitable constitutional ban.

 

Read > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...6080600797.html

 

Some predict that anywhere from 25% to 35% of the DC GLBT people will leave if a same sex marriage ban passes.

 

Why so high a rate?

 

DC has for years, been seen by the GLBT people as being the best place for same sex marriage to take place, many have given up all in life to come to DC in anticipation of it happening, but if it is banned in DC, these people will go elsewhere and cut their losses.

 

A same sex marriage ban vote in DC is inevitable.

 

Ms. Greene opposes same sex marriage on religious grounds, and others oppose it on grounds that it is not the natural order.

Furthermore, the medical community around the world is not in agreement that people are born homosexual, and the psychiatric community around the world is not in agreement that it is, or it is not a psychiatric disorder and/or a learned behavior.

 

There are just too many people who have lived a life as a heterosexual, and after having dabbled in some homosexual activities, chose to switch their orientation.

 

Likewise, there are many who lived a homosexual life-style, realized it was not right for them, and went on to live a heterosexual life-style such as the recent case of those two women fighting between Vermont and Virginia over their daughter.

 

The existence of what is called a bi-sexual lends itself to the belief held around the world by many experts in both the medical and psychiatric communities that our sexual orientation is something we choose, and not something we are born with.

 

There is no common ground as both sides of the argument are so vehement in their beliefs, have dug their heels in, and it has only been the result of a series of voter initiatives around the country that these disputes have been settled by.

 

The movie "White Man's Burden" was about life where Caucasians were slaves to African Americans.

 

In DC, many feel that the GLBT community has turned things to the point where everybody has to accept homosexuality as the norm, and damn you, if you do not support them or you will face their wrath.

 

My hat off to Ms. Lisa Greene for what she is doing, as she is seizing what has made America great; namely, one person/one vote and majority rule by not wanting to let well funded special interest groups make a mockery of our votes by trumping over them via our legislators or activist judges who rarely are in touch with the will of those who voted them in.

 

My support of Ms. Greene is not one of taking a stance on the issue at hand but a support of her belief that the issue should be resolved by the voters as our legislatures and courts have for the past decade and more usurped the will of the people.

 

Insofar as the District of Columbia recognizing same sex marriages and civil unions of say Massachusetts, I believe The Full Faith and Credit Clause has been noted for its application involving orders of protection, for which the clause was expounded upon by the Violence Against Women Act, child support, for which the enforcement of the clause was spelled out in the Federal Full Faith and Credit for Child Support Orders Act (28 U.S.C. § 1738B), and its possible application to same-sex marriage, civil union and domestic partnership laws and cases, as well as the controversial Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). The clause has been the chief constitutional basis for the repeated attacks on the DOMA. Regardless of whether DOMA is constitutional, most legal scholars recognize that it is more probably superfluous given the public policy exception. For even if DOMA is deemed unconstitutional, the long precedence of the public policy exception weighs in against the recognition of same-sex marriage, civil unions and domestic partnerships in states whose public policy prohibits it.

 

As of early 2004, 39 states have passed their own laws nearly all of which specifically reject same-sex marriages recognized in other jurisdictions. Many of these laws have been passed in the last few years. By taking a legal stance on the issue these states have helped inform the Supreme Court what the public policy of the various states are before the Court takes up the issue and it is left to review the constitutionality of those policies.