Are gay rights, including gay marriage, evolving?

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 28-300mm f3.5-5.6G ED VR

01/05/2010 12:05:50 AM · #3726

Time for another personal anecdote!

My husband Eric and I recently, as all couples tend to do, hit a rough patch. In hindsight I was correct in my impressions of an ongoing and rather bad situation, and quite legitimately felt rebuked when I tried to address it. I was, in fact, righteously indignant in the face of my husband's careless dismissal, non-attention, and downright avoidance, particularly when that's exactly what led to these problems in the first place. Even worse, I was seeing things through the lens of history, as this was not the first time something similar has happened, and I was feeling like the capital I'd built up after being shown to be, well... the 'right' one in previous disagreements (and sometimes it sucks to be right)... I saw how useless it all was when someone isn't even trying to understand you. And the truth is, Eric wasn't in a place where he could, for his own reasons.

I hit the end of my rope. I lost it. My feelings of powerlessness in the face of things I couldn't control... my resentment for not being given the credit I felt I was due (for my undeniably better understanding of what was going on with our relationship in the past, just ask our therapist if you think I'm tooting my own horn)... my depression that each of my attempts to fix things was being rejected and added to the list of Annoying Things that were My Problem... and that I'd already been through this process repeatedly...

I seriously questioned the nature of my 15 year relationship. A part of me wanted to just walk away and start over. A big part of me. I don't do irony well... and this situation was laden with irony. Had been. Will be.

I protected myself the only way I knew how, and that turned out to be a spectacularly bad exercise. My coping mechanisms were not up to the task. I was in a bad place. I had a meltdown. Literally. I simply could not function. It must have been the lowest I've ever felt, for a full week. I felt everything I'd worked for, invested myself in... slipping away.

I was then I realized that I had something to protect apart from myself. My marriage. My family. My mother and sister-in-law's in-lawness. My commitments and my vows, for better or for worse. The way I see myself as a person, relative to the choices I make and the weight I put on them.

There is no question that being married helped keep our relationship together. We worked through it. We're going to counseling. We both have something to protect. Us. The idea of Us. There are those that would take this away from us, to make themselves feel better. To remove what little advantage I can reap by participating in our culture.

So! Everyone back you your ranting about free will, Christianity, and moral authority. I'll go back to being half of a couple living a real life with real problems, consequences, and love.

Verily, my marriage is evolving.

NikonJeb

Nikon D850

01/05/2010 05:54:11 AM · #3727

Gee, Mousie, why don't you be dramatic? It's just normal marital stuff.

When you've been together as long as Lisa and I have, you'll laugh about this!

Take care!......8>)

David Ey

Nikon D80

Nikon AF Micro-Nikkor 60mm f2.8D

01/05/2010 10:04:21 AM · #3728

Good luck Mousie

rossbilly

Nikon D200

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D

01/05/2010 12:42:57 PM · #3729

Excuse the interruption, but I think its time for some GOOD news in here:

Photographer Loses Bid to Refuse Same-Sex Wedding Jobs

I'd been reading about gay-hate in the local news, when I found this link. Definitely put a smile on my face!

01/05/2010 01:10:12 PM · #3730

Originally posted by rossbilly:

I am actually torn on this one. If the photographer wants to cite that this is wrong for her to do in the eyes of her religion, shouldn't the state recognize that as well? Given, I wholeheartedly disagree with her rationale, but being forced to do something that your god says is wrong seems a pretty harsh thing to ask of someone. She should have definitely offered more of an explanation, but the baiting by the other partner seems in poor taste, perhaps even unethical to me. After all, the homosexual population are simply seeking that we all recognize and respect their individual rights and views. Should we not also recognize the individual rights of the religious zealots whether we see it as ignorance or not? Also, what precedent is this setting up for the refusal of future jobs for the rest of us. Imagine the extremes that this one may set up for all of us down the road. Anyway...

01/05/2010 01:18:01 PM · #3731

And I also agree with this...

The court also noted that Elane Photography wasn't being forced to represent the government's position or alter its message. Her message, the court explained, "is not and has never been about same sex marriages. Rather, its message is fine photography of special moments...[Elane photography] is conveying its client's message of a day well spent."

See. I'm a total schizo on this one. Damn you Billy Ross for making me think on a hangover.

Melethia

Canon EOS-80D

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

01/05/2010 01:21:10 PM · #3732

Yeah, she didn't offer the correct argument if she wanted to win her case. If she's offering a service (which she is) then to choose not to offer that service based on sexual preference, race, religion, height, type of chocolate preferred, etc, is not only a poor sign of doing business, but generally considered discrimination.

But to be honest, if I were the couple getting married, after getting pissed off about her initial response, I'd certainly seek out someone else to give my business to! (Which I'm sure they did, but only had the partner set the photog up to make a point.)

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

01/05/2010 01:34:05 PM · #3733

Elaine shoulda' just said "I'm not comfortable shooting your ceremony, I'm a homophobe, you should find someone else..." I wonder how THAT would have fared in the courts? Or is it now illegal to be a homophobe? Just askin'...

R.

Melethia

Canon EOS-80D

01/05/2010 01:45:47 PM · #3734

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Hmm... try "I'm not comfortable shooting your ceremony, I'm a racist and you're black (or green or purple), you should find someone else..."

01/05/2010 01:54:34 PM · #3735

Originally posted by ericwoo:

Should we not also recognize the individual rights of the religious zealots whether we see it as ignorance or not?

No.

01/05/2010 01:54:45 PM · #3736

Originally posted by Melethia:

The problem here is that Elane Photography is not just offering a service, it is also creating expressive works. The freedom of speech (or expressive works) is protected under the first amendment. In ruling against Elane Photography, the judicial system has essentially given the government power to force creators of expressive works to produce whatever the government says. If the government is allowed to force a photographer to create photographic art against the will of the photographer, what is going to stop the government from forcing journalists to create written art against the will of the journalist. This is basically going down the path of government controlled media. Ever seen the movie V for Vendetta?

Here's an article that explain this issue further.

Compelling Speech by Commercial Photographers, Freelance Writers, Musicians, and So On

01/05/2010 02:01:03 PM · #3737

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

In ruling against Elane Photography, the judicial system has essentially given the government power to force creators of expressive works to produce whatever the government says. If the government is allowed to force a photographer to create photographic art against the will of the photographer, what is going to stop the government from forcing journalists to create written art against the will of the journalist. This is basically going down the path of government controlled media.

Come on. A photographer running a business says, without qualification, "I don't photograph same sex ceremonies." The court judges that the photographer has thus contravened the state's Human Rights Act, which proscribes, in part, discrimination by a public accommodation -- a business -- on the grounds of sexual orientation. This will lead to that state's government directing what the media can and cannot publish? That's hyperbole.

01/05/2010 02:05:19 PM · #3738

Originally posted by Louis:

So, if a newspaper says, "I don't write stories that support the Democratic Party", and the court rules that's discrimination against political affiliation, then the government can force the newspaper to run articles that support only the Democratic Party. The newspaper is a public accommodation and a business. It's the same thing.

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

01/05/2010 02:16:40 PM · #3739

Dear Elane,
I would like you to come photograph our Skinhead Rally. We are willing to pay promptly and will include travel expenses. Don't say no!
Sincerely,
Adolf

BTW, just for clarity. The "sexual orientation" part of the discrimination law is specific to the state of New Mexico (and perhaps other states) and does not exist in Federal anti-discrimination laws.

Message edited by author 2010-01-05 14:16:57.

yanko

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

01/05/2010 02:17:26 PM · #3740

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
In ruling against Elane Photography, the judicial system has essentially given the government power to force creators of expressive works to produce whatever the government says. If the government is allowed to force a photographer to create photographic art against the will of the photographer, what is going to stop the government from forcing journalists to create written art against the will of the journalist. This is basically going down the path of government controlled media.

Come on. A photographer running a business says, without qualification, "I don't photograph same sex ceremonies." The court judges that the photographer has thus contravened the state's Human Rights Act, which proscribes, in part, discrimination by a public accommodation -- a business -- on the grounds of sexual orientation. This will lead to that state's government directing what the media can and cannot publish? That's hyperbole.

Right. Had she won, it would mean you COULD discriminate based on sexual orientation and we may start needing these types of signs again.

scarbrd

Leica M10

Leica 35mm f/1.4 Summilux M Aspherical MF - Black

01/05/2010 02:18:24 PM · #3741

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

Originally posted by Louis:

Come on. A photographer running a business says, without qualification, "I don't photograph same sex ceremonies." The court judges that the photographer has thus contravened the state's Human Rights Act, which proscribes, in part, discrimination by a public accommodation -- a business -- on the grounds of sexual orientation. This will lead to that state's government directing what the media can and cannot publish? That's hyperbole.

So, if a newspaper says, "I don't write stories that support the Democratic Party", and the court rules that's discrimination against political affiliation, then the government can force the newspaper to run articles that support only the Democratic Party. The newspaper is a public accommodation and a business. It's the same thing.

Actually there are rules around this issue for newspapers and television netowrks.

01/05/2010 02:28:05 PM · #3742

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by ericwoo:
Should we not also recognize the individual rights of the religious zealots whether we see it as ignorance or not?

No.

So, we should only support the freedoms with which we personally agree? Seems like a slippery slop to me.Even with their ridiculous intolerance, how is it right to deny tolerance towards them...no matter how idiotic it may seem to our personal beliefs.

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D

01/05/2010 02:30:30 PM · #3743

Originally posted by ericwoo:

Seems like a slippery slop to me.

:-)

rossbilly

Nikon D200

01/05/2010 02:30:31 PM · #3744

Originally posted by ericwoo:

And I also agree with this...

The court also noted that Elane Photography wasn't being forced to represent the government's position or alter its message. Her message, the court explained, "is not and has never been about same sex marriages. Rather, its message is fine photography of special moments...[Elane photography] is conveying its client's message of a day well spent."

See. I'm a total schizo on this one. Damn you Billy Ross for making me think on a hangover.

hehe - you're welcome! Glenda & I hope to visit you guys sometime this Spring... your dear wife mentioned a great place to visit ;)

(sorry for the thread jacking...) back to your slippery slops!

Message edited by author 2010-01-05 14:33:03.

01/05/2010 02:32:33 PM · #3745

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by ericwoo:
Seems like a slippery slop to me.

:-)

Damn fat singers...

01/05/2010 02:33:27 PM · #3746

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

Um, no. And in your fantasy scenario here, you say the government can force the paper to print articles only supporting the Democrats. So they aren't allowed to publish anything supporting any other party. So they are in violation of not publishing articles about the other parties. So the government forces them to publish only articles supporting the Republicans. So they aren't allowed.....

Sheesh.

01/05/2010 02:33:30 PM · #3747

Originally posted by rossbilly:

Originally posted by ericwoo:
And I also agree with this...

The court also noted that Elane Photography wasn't being forced to represent the government's position or alter its message. Her message, the court explained, "is not and has never been about same sex marriages. Rather, its message is fine photography of special moments...[Elane photography] is conveying its client's message of a day well spent."

See. I'm a total schizo on this one. Damn you Billy Ross for making me think on a hangover.

hehe - you're welcome! Glenda & I hope to visit you guys sometime this Spring... your dear wife mentioned a great place to visit ;)

Always a good time down this way, and you guys are always welcome! Just let us know when.

01/05/2010 02:36:26 PM · #3748

Originally posted by yanko:

Right. Had she won, it would mean you COULD discriminate based on sexual orientation and we may start needing these types of signs again.

I'm not saying that the court's decision was right, or wrong. I'm just saying it's not as clear-cut as some people think it is. It's human rights vs. freedom of speech. There's some gray area in a case like this and it's up to the courts to decided which is more important. If the court rules in favor of human rights then that decision can be used by other courts later on to justify further limitations on freedom of speech. If the court rules in favor of freedom of speech then that decision can be used by other courts later on to justify further limitations on human rights. It's a crap shoot whichever way it goes. I'm in favor of human rights, but I'm also in favor of freedom of speech.

01/05/2010 02:41:23 PM · #3749

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Dear Elane,
I would like you to come photograph our Skinhead Rally. We are willing to pay promptly and will include travel expenses. Don't say no!
Sincerely,
Adolf

I'm surprised and dismayed that you are able to invent this analogy. I honestly don't know if the two scenarios are legally comparable in the US. But it seems to me morally reprehensible to draw a comparison between them.

In Canada, we have hate speech laws, where promulgation of hate speech is proscribed. Photographing and publishing such an event for purposes of endorsement of its message would probably be illegal. I kind of like it that way. In Canada, we have recognized that one may not discriminate against others based on their genetics, their sexuality, their age, and other innate factors that have nothing to do with their social behaviour, or their ability to discern right from wrong. We protect people from those who would harm them, physically and otherwise, based on these arbitrary traits. We have proscribed discrimination against people in the form of preferred definitions of words such as "marriage". I like it that way.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

BTW, just for clarity. The "sexual orientation" part of the discrimination law is specific to the state of New Mexico (and perhaps other states) and does not exist in Federal anti-discrimination laws.

In my reply, I was careful only to mention the state's laws.