Sign in to wowOwow

Enter the username or e-mail address that you used when registering at wowOwow.
The password field is case sensitive. Click here if you have forgotten your password.

Please register for wowOwow

By registering, you indicate that you have read and agree
with our privacy policy and terms of service.

Conversation | 05/28/2008 10:58 am

Liz Smith: Gays Don't Have the Same Rights as People on Death Row

© Shutterstock


Editor’s Note: Featuring Kathleen Jamieson, director of the Annenberg Public Policy Center, a professor of communications and the former dean of the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Pennsylvania.

LESLEY: This month, the California Supreme Court struck down a ban against homosexual marriage. They say things happen in California first and then spread across the country.

LIZ: But isn’t it likely, Lesley, that this California ruling does not mean very much? That it could be rescinded before we even get used to the idea?

LESLEY: Do you think that if they do put this to a vote that the public will overturn it? Go the other way? Ban homosexual marriages?

LIZ: I don’t know.

LESLEY: Candice, you …

CANDICE: Well, it happened already.

LESLEY: Yeah, that’s right. They voted against it. So we think this could easily be overturned?

LIZ: I think the marriage struggle for gays is going to be a long time coming. But eventually it’ll happen because just as with movements in women’s liberation, a lot of positive things have already taken place. Let’s consider this: A gay woman named Ellen DeGeneres has the most popular talk show in America. She even outstrips Oprah Winfrey. Doesn’t this say something? I think people are really kind of conflicted. Sometimes they’re sneaky and fuzzy when it comes to homosexuality. They go crazy over one demonstration of it, and then they’ll ignore another. And TV and entertainment – now you see they use gays as come-ons, lively examples, for emphasis. They use gay characters the way the movies sort of used the black comic Stepin Fetchit. The networks get a lot of bang for their gay buck.

LESLEY: This is definitely an issue that is generational. No question about it. People under a certain age are ho-hum on this issue. They don’t understand the controversy, and if they come out in large numbers to vote in California, I think that could have a huge effect on how it goes, if it’s put up to a vote this time.

CANDICE: If that’s true, it could also have a huge effect on McCain.

LESLEY: That’s right. What are you picking up on this, Kathleen? Anything?

KATHLEEN: It puts the position that candidates have taken on the Defense of Marriage Act into play in the presidential election. And I think that’s the way we’re going to see it play out. We’re going to see the discussion happen indirectly in relationship to that previous vote, or that previous position.

LESLEY: Are they different?

KATHLEEN: Yeah. The question is, do states have to recognize a marriage from another state or not? That’s one of the issues. And I do believe McCain and Obama are different.

LIZ: Do you remember that a lot of people felt that the Republicans brought up the gay marriage issue and that it helped defeat Al Gore, even though he won the popular vote? So I’m wondering if this was brought up this time to make it an issue again. Or did it just happen?

LESLEY: Well, the Supreme Court of California made the ruling, so it would be hard to see how it was done deliberately to affect the campaign.

LIZ: I had a gay kid say to me the other day, "Men and women on death row can marry people on the outside. They’re allowed to get married. And gays want the same rights as people on death row." I thought that was pretty good thinking.

LESLEY: I didn’t know that. Is that true?

LIZ: Well, women and men on death row are allowed to get married. Sure.

LESLEY: Oh, I see. They’re allowed to get married … not to each other.

226 Reader Comments (so far…) Sign In or Register to comment

JamestheGame
It is true: the next two elections are vitally important, because you’re voting not just for the next president, but for the sway of power in the U.S. Supreme Court for, potentially, decades to come. And I feel the Supreme Court will be wielding much, much more influence on the direction of this country in the years to come. Whether it’s abortion, the state/regional battle pending over diversion of Great Lakes water via pipeline to the increasingly parched Southwest states, and all the economic fights that will emerge between the needs of the increasingly populated states down South and the long-term economic crises of the Midwest manufacturing/automotive/steel states that are losing jobs and money at an astonishing rate.
By JamestheGame on 05/28/2008 11:34 am
LizaD08beta
Here! Here! James you hit the nail of the head in regards to the direction of our great nation. The Q remains how do we feel about Gay marriage. I am 43 years old. I grew up in a bigoted home. My family did everything they could to convince me that one race was better than another and that gay and lesbians were wrong and going to hell. I knew in my heart that this is was wrong and it seemed to a bigger sin to be a hate monger. And it is! Gay and Lesbian rights should no longer be an issue in our courts. I do not look at my sisters and brothers that happen to be gay as a separate group of individuals. We should be able to marry who we please without the interference of government. Gay and Lesbian rights are most important on account they/we/I are just as much of a human being than the next guy. I am here to tell you that every man and woman deserves the same rights under this flag we fly. And under Old Glory stands one and two every kind. I personally can’t wait until the dead weight of the right wing moral majority with guns in one hand the bible in the other GETS OFF MY BACK!
By LizaD08beta on 05/28/2008 3:01 pm
bobmirabile
James ,Ihave a few ideas, all gay people must be allowed to marry becasue as ‘mort sahl’ says they should be as miserable as the rest of us…… Desalination plants on the west coast .i.e Aruba will solve the area thirst but who in your area will give up coastline and finally most scientist and hydroelectric enginers knows that simple tidal power plants would eliminate the need to burn any fossill fuels and be as GREEN as it comes but who will give up coastline to save themselves .its not the body politic, its the people who refuse to help themselves to simple solutions
By bobmirabile on 05/28/2008 7:01 pm
bobmirabile
sorry had to add .five desalinzation plants and three tidal hydro electric plants would solve the west coasts issues , give water to the thirsty, light the darkness, feed the poor and stabilize the population . we do not require new Oil refineries, and would supplant billions of oil dollars ,and wars for oil with the opportunity for ‘all’ the people ..
By bobmirabile on 05/28/2008 7:11 pm
CareTALK
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/29/nyregion/29marriage.html?hp New York to Back Same-Sex Unions From Elsewhere By JEREMY W. PETERS Published: May 29, 2008 ALBANY — Gov. David A. Paterson has directed all state agencies to begin to revise their policies and regulations to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions, like Massachusetts, California and Canada.
By CareTALK on 05/28/2008 10:44 pm
RebeccaNHG
I agree, the weight of the Supreme Court’s influence is crucial. Liz Smith mentioned rights of Death Row inmates. I personally would like to see an end to the death penalty. Right now there is an inmate on death row from Savannah, Ga - Troy Anthony Davis - that is very possibly innocent. He is awaiting a decision about his fate - his life. His family - especially his sister Martina Correia - has worked tirelessly to help him. I could only hope to have someone working as hard for me. A decision could be made soon. Please go to amnestyusa.org/deathpenalty/TroyAnthonyDavis for more information. Thank you.
By RebeccaNHG on 06/03/2008 3:10 pm
LindaMyers
From my point of view, which usually goes out of left field of religous thoughts - spirit holds no gender, only the physical. But our world continues to base spirit on the phsycial, and in turn damns or embraces choices of people accordingly. There really is no division of church and state. What is religous becomes rules of government. The bigotry of gays is directly related to the thoughts of fundamentist religions. Were here to live our desires, that is the bigger plan, but yet only allowed in many cases according to doctrine of the church. I am not bashing religous order, but somewhere in the limited acceptance of thought processes, this has become the majority judgement in our country, and many parts of the world. In a male/female union of marriage it is seen as an act of love, in a gay relationship it is seen as legalizing sexual acts between two people with the same rights as the heterosexual community. Serve this one up to Boston Legal and James Spader, and let it rock and roll. I have a piece on my site, which I can put the link rather than rewrite it all, but in many ways, what was intended became the interpetation ofman, rather than the interpetation of spirit. Blessings and have an outstanding day! Linda http://www.myspiritualwindows.info/tencommandmentsortencommendments.html
By LindaMyers on 05/28/2008 11:45 am
EstimadaC
Linda Meyers, Not allowed “according to doctrine of the church.” No, try the Bible. I am not gay bashing either. I believe in hating the sin, but loving the sinner. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Obviously, no one should even consider hurling a missile, because we are all guilty of sin. However, Leviticus 20:13 clearly states that homosexuality is an abomination to God. There are other references as well. There’s no way to distort that clear meaning - unless you choose not to read the Bible.
By EstimadaC on 05/28/2008 12:04 pm
LorraineBates
I could argue that Leviticus 20:13 also sanctions the death penalty - so why does the Catholic church reject one half of the passage and not the other?
By LorraineBates on 05/28/2008 1:00 pm
ElizabethBennett
A friend of mine once described Leviticus as rules for getting across the desert. That might explain why it seems to ban gay men from having sex, but not gay women. There are lots of odd rules in Leviticus, from no tattoos to not wearing clothing made of two different types of material. I don’t think it makes sense to take one passage literally but not another. You pretty much have to take it in the context of what was going on at the time of the people in the story. Also, there are many things that are “sins” that are not outlawed. We do have freedom of religion, and separation of church and state. I actually think you can’t have freedom of religion without separation of church and state.
By ElizabethBennett on 05/28/2008 2:18 pm
Frank Peterson
Rules for getting across the desert.’ Whoa, Elizabeth, your friend is so right! It’s tribal mentality and has little place in my mind in the world today—unless it’s understanding the tribal mentality of Shiites and Sunni’s.
By Frank Peterson on 05/28/2008 9:10 pm
FrannieEm
Frank and Elizabeth When my son was in Afghanistan he was exposed to many young men in homosexual relationships, some with men and some with other young men. It is a practice that is pretty widespread because they cannot have relationships with girls or women until they are married. I was told that they have done it that way for centuries, that may be why Leviticus has named it as such.
By FrannieEm on 05/28/2008 11:36 pm
bobmirabile
the bible has many references to prohibitions on procreation .. how else could it get more members if it bans all other forms of sex.. I am with Lilith on this
By bobmirabile on 05/28/2008 7:20 pm
marylous
if the sin is heterosexual, do you still love the sinner? what if lust is the sin? is one lust more favorable than another? personally, i gave up the bible a long time ago. a group of old men got together to lionize other old men. it seems sexist to me.
By marylous on 05/28/2008 8:27 pm
MugsyPeabody
By the way, Arlene, the United States Constitution was designed to protect the rights of the minority against the ignorance and uninformed bigotry of an uneducated majority. If you read the Federalist Papers, you will find ample evidence that the founding fathers were very very concerned about this issue; the Bible, however you feel about it, is not fact, and is not science. If you want to use it to set your moral compass, that’s your affair, but it is not my choice, and I don’t have to live my life according to your choices.
By MugsyPeabody on 06/01/2008 4:06 pm