Another layer for anti-gay measure {Tennessee}

Memphis Commercial Appeal ^ | 10/26/6 | Wendi C. Thomas

[SmithL]

The way the state keeps rehashing the issue of marriage for gay couples, you'd think we were caught in the movie "Groundhog Day." It just keeps coming up over and over.

In early 1996, the Tennessee legislature declared that the Volunteer State would not recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere. The law also said that marriage was a union between a man and a woman.

Think of the state law as a belt to keep Tennesseans safe from loving gay couples who sought the protections that civil marriages provide.

You'd think that the belt would calm any homophobe's fears, but you'd be wrong.

Just months later that same year, President Bill Clinton, a Democrat, signed the Defense of Marriage Act that mirrored existing state law -- a legal version of suspenders to go along with the belt.

You'd think that a state and federal law would be enough to convince conservative Christians (who abandon their marriages through divorce at rates equal to the general heathen population) that their sacred institution was safe.

But again, you'd be wrong. Tennessee legislators were still worried that the anti-gay measures on the books might be struck down by activist judges, no matter that most have been appointed by Republicans.

So on the fall ballot, Tennessee voters will consider a constitutional amendment that does exactly what the state and federal laws already do.

Think of the amendment as an ugly, too-tight girdle to be worn on top of the pants, restricting all blood flow to the brain. It's so hideous that no rational person would wear it in public.

Still, the radical religious right and many Republicans whine that if gay men and lesbians are allowed to marry today, then tomorrow I might demand the right to marry my dog. And my first cousin. And three or four other people, a couple of whom might be small children.

Of course, that hysteria is silly and foolish and irrational.

But this isn't about being sensible or smart or sane.

The girdle of Amendment 1 is redundancy two times over, but all's fair in politics that pander to the minority of Americans, according to polls, who oppose offering some sort of protections to gay and lesbian couples.

Case in point: The state's highest profile Democrat, Congressman Harold Ford Jr., is telling anyone who will listen that he's against gay marriage, a message tailored to win him votes east of his home base.

Thankfully the Shelby County Democratic Party's executive committee has shown more wisdom than Junior.

In a vote taken earlier this month, the party's executive committee approved a resolution that said in part: "All Tennessee voters are hereby urged to oppose the attempt to write discrimination into the Tennessee Constitution through proposed Amendment 1 by voting "NO" against the adoption of Amendment 1."

The party, said county chairman Matt Kuhn, could have ducked the issue; after all, the resolution was introduced so close to the Nov. 7 election that the committee had no time to follow its pattern of having such matters debated in a committee first.

But the party voted to suspend its rules and let the resolution go forward. "I feel like it was a very proud moment for the local Democratic Party," Kuhn said.

What makes the resolution's passage all the more impressive is that the committee's vote was unanimous and included the votes of dozens of black people, a constituency often said to oppose marriage for gay people.

The resolution proves, said Jim Maynard, president of the Memphis Stonewall Democrats, that people are capable of distinguishing between their personal and religious beliefs about marriage and the civil aspects of marriage, which should be extended to all, regardless of sexual orientation.

The arguments used today to keep gay men and lesbians from marriage are frighteningly similar to the ones used not that long ago by white people to ban interracial marriage.

But today, no sane person would deem it against God's plan for a white person to marry someone black.

The time of marital equality for all is coming. Hasten its arrival by voting no on Amendment 1.

[SmithL]

Contact Wendi C. Thomas by e-mail, or call (901) 529-5896.

About Thomas Wendi C.

A proud product of the Memphis City Schools, Wendi C. Thomas graduated from White Station in 1989 and went from there to Butler University in Indiana, where she graduated with a degree in journalism. She's been a reporter or an editor at The Indianapolis Star, the Tennessean in Nashville and at the Charlotte Observer in North Carolina.

In August of 2003, Wendi returned in Memphis after a 14-year absence to be the metro columnist for her hometown paper. Her column appears twice a week on Sundays and Thursdays.

[dfwgator]

You'd think that a state and federal law would be enough to convince conservative Christians (who abandon their marriages through divorce at rates equal to the general heathen population)

And because of that, we should just allow beastiality, polygamy and any other deviant behavior, eh Miss Thomas?

[NativeNewYorker]

http://tinyurl.com/ymjjs7

She is famous in journalism circles for leaving a new job right after starting it.

[longtermmemmory]

She must have a lot of homosexual friends.

The "divorce" talking point is pure homosexual agenda.

The bottom line is that homosexuality is only about recreational sex. It contributes NOTHING to society in any manner. It is the same as any other sex fetish such as animal sex people or wife swappers.

She also displays her radical leftism by ASSUMING all opposition to homosexuals is based on religion. Opposition to homosexuals' efforts to normalize their sexual behavior has more than enough NONreligious reasons in opposition.

[Vn_survivor_67-68]

"A proud product of the Memphis City Schools,"

That and her pic explain it....she's probably on Ofrah's list, too.

[longtermmemmory]

Like most of the Oprahfied ignorant, this writer has no clue between a constitutional amendment vs the limited power of a law.

IOW once part of the constitution, Marriage as established in the society can not be declared unconstitutional.

[Sybeck1]

Man, I wish she'd kept her looney self in Baltimore.

[HeadOn]

Meeeee tooooo. As soon as she came back, I was thinking they probably booted her.

Funny thing, I didn't look before I read the article. I was thinking while I read, "Who IS this loser?"

I should have known.

[WOSG]

She is an equal-opportunity basher ...
on the one side "loving gay couples"
on the other "homophobe's" isnt that special...

"So on the fall ballot, Tennessee voters will consider a constitutional amendment that does exactly what the state and federal laws already do."

Because Judge's override mere laws on a whim (see New Jersey ruling) the *only* way to protect marriage permenently is to make constitutional amendments.

Bad analogies all around.

Think of the state law as a wooden fence.
Think of the judges as termites that will eat that fence.
Think of the constitutional amendment as an improved concrete and metal fence that the termites cant destroyed.

It's only needed if you give a d8mn about traditional marriage. If you want gay marriage, you'll obfuscate around the issue and pretend this is 'not needed' even when plain facts like the latest NJ ruling prove otherwise.

[WOSG]

"In a vote taken earlier this month, the party's executive committee approved a resolution that said in part: "All Tennessee voters are hereby urged to oppose the attempt to write discrimination into the Tennessee Constitution through proposed Amendment 1 by voting "NO" against the adoption of Amendment 1."

Democrats are on record in calling traditional marriage "discrimination"

[CheyennePress]

Having lived in Memphis for well over a year now, I'm proud to say that I've never touched a Commercial Appeal. After this, nor will I ever.

Talk about an absolutely clueless columnist. She is completely oblivious to the judicial fiat imposing values of the elite upon the people over and over again, or she takes her readers for ignorant fools.

And just like every myopic lib on the planet (it seems), she ignores the effect that redefining marriage will have even on heterosexual couples. What she is arguing is that marriage should have nothing to do with birthing and raising children. That it should solely be based on some abstract concept of romantic love. On self-fulfillment and companionship.

Any dinkus who believes that this will have no effect on child-rearing throughout an entire society has moved beyond dinkus-hood and is now officially a blockhead of the grandest proportion. and our portly columnist here seems to have clearly given up her dinkus.

[SmithL]

The Commercial Appeal is getting extra attention now, because it's the hometown paper of the Ford family. Once the election is over, no one will notice it anymore.