Article written by :: (RSS)

tigtog (aka Viv) is the founder of this blog. She lives in Sydney, Australia: husband, 2 kids, cat, house, garden, just enough wine-racks and (sigh) far too few bookshelves.

This author has written 3445 posts for Hoyden About Town. Read more about tigtog »

3 responses to “Femmostroppo Reader – June 13, 2009”

  1. caitlinate

    Re the DOMA thing.

    They cited cases in legal history where certain States had opted to not recognise marriages performed in other States – as precedent for some States not doing so with gay marriage. The cases cited were in relation to the marriage of second cousins and between two parties where one was under 16. I’m not saying that what the Obama administration has done in terms of filing this brief is a good thing but I’m not sure I’m down with the accusation they ‘compared’ gay marriage to incest.

    Plus the original post by John Aravosis makes me a little uncomfortable in the way it keeps referencing Loving and reiterating the fact that people of colour can get married but queers can’t. I don’t really know how to explain my reaction more clearly or coherently though.

    I don’t know. I think people should be able to get married if they want to and that there shouldn’t be restrictions to doing so based on sexuality or gender but I’m starting to feel really weary about this heteronormative addiction to marriage as the #1 QUEER ISSUE.

  2. orlando

    But the nature of the current administration’s defence of DOMA is crying out to be challenged with the utmost vigour, because of the way they have supported discrimination with arguments that the authors must be aware defy logic. Did you read this passage?

    “Section 3 of DOMA does not distinguish among persons of different sexual orientations, but rather it limits federal benefits to those who have entered into the traditional form of marriage.”

    You might want to read it again, to check that they just said all that in the one breath, and that it isn’t a passage from Alice Through the Looking Glass.

  3. caitlinate

    Sorry, I should have made more clear that I don’ support the filing of this brief nor it’s content or what appears to be it’s aim. I’m not against using vigour, I just don’t agree that it compares gay marriage to incest (or child abuse) and I think it’s a bit disingenuous to push that idea – particularly when there are so many other claims, as you’ve pointed out, that are so ludicrous.

The commenting period has expired for this post. If you wish to re-open the discussion, please do so in the latest Open Thread.