Gays don’t belong at the back of the bus

But that’s where we keep putting them:

Frederic Deloizy says his life began the day he met Mark Himes by chance at a birthday party in April 1990.

Himes had recently started a job with Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education, and Deloizy was studying at a nearby college. The strangers arrived at the party at the same time, and Deloizy held the door open for Himes, catching his eye.

“It was love at first sight. We felt we belonged together,” Deloizy said.

What followed was a whirlwind romance lived out across two continents, through overseas phone calls and hand-written love letters.

Deloizy, a French national, spent the past two decades in and out of the United States leapfrogging from one visa to another, in hopes of creating a life together with Himes, who was born and raised outside of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.

But 21 years and four adopted children later, the couple — who were married in California in 2008 — is fighting to stay together since Deloizy’s final visa expired in September.

And, of course, DOMA is forcing this couple to the back of the bus. Hell, it’s kicking one of them out of the vehicle all together. How anyone can’t see that this is wrong is beyond me.

I would love to hear some conservative bigot try to justify this. Oh, marriage is for the protection and well-being of children? Then how about we make the lives of the four children involved here a whole lot better? I realize that the emotional and financial well-being of human beings who are different isn’t important to most conservatives, especially those conservatives of the religious variety, but it is nothing short of hypocrisy to want to deny this small litter of kids their parents. It can only be a good thing to facilitate a loving home. That fact is nothing but improved under the presence of children.

18 Responses

  1. The only thing I care about is who is going to cost me money. Unless this frenchy is going to be receiving an entitlement I’ve paid for I don’t care who gets in to the country.

    And I still don’t understand how the federal government has any role in determining the definition of marriage, that is that states business, and they shouldn’t really be involved either.

  2. 1) I know you don’t care about liberty except insofar as it applies to you, but some of us have principles.

    2) To borrow from you, *yawn*

  3. I have a principle. If it doesn’t affect me, I don’t care. Let the frenchy stay.

  4. People are gay, fine by me.
    People want to come to America, fine by me.
    In other words, people want to do things that don’t have anything to do with me, positive or negative, fine by me.

    Federal government mucking about where it scarcely has a right to be, not fine by me.

    I’m just not sure what your problem with any of those things is, but have fun.

  5. Immigration laws have a reason. Preventing this man from staying in the US with his husband does not.

  6. What is your point? Who cares if he stays? Like I said, and you snarled at, if I’m not being asked to pay for him, what difference does it or should it make to me?

    If he was going to be here on welfare, I’d want him dropped in the ocean with cement shoes just past the continental shelf.

    Frankly, they should both go to France where you can retire at 13 years old.

  7. And I never understood the back of the bus thing. Who enjoys sitting at the front? Frankly I think Rosa Parks wasn’t thinking clearly.

  8. You would rather marriage laws discriminate against some people than have them be equal. And yes, yes, you would rather the perfectly constitutional will of the people be defied all together, but that doesn’t mean you don’t also hold the morally indefensible position of being pro-discrimination right now.

  9. It doesn’t strike me as a discrimination issue. All married couples could have no benefits at all, for instance. Technically that would be non-discriminatory, but it would just lead to this situation happening even more often unless alternate legal arrangements were made.

    This is about a man who is at risk of being separated from his husband and children. Basic human decency says that this should not happen. Unfortunately, America has a federal law which denies human dignity and dresses it up as a ‘defense’ of marriage.

    Canada’s approach is much more sensible.

    Regarding Nate’s position, I don’t see whyt you two are arguing. Plainly this does not tug at Nate’s heartstrings, but since he supports letting the family stay together, what exactly are you two arguing about? I assume you have had this conversation before, so I can’t help but think I’m missing something.

  10. I’m not sure what we are arguing about either. I think he just wants to do so. Very little tugs at my heart strings, but really, I think the important thing in most cases, and a generally conservative position, that if a thing has no effects, positive, negative or otherwise than it in no way should be interfered with by anyone else.

    They are gay. Who cares? I don’t support letting this couple stay together anymore than I support letting any other couple stay together. Given the lack of effects on anyone other than the couple or couples involved it should always be their sole concern.

    Michaels response must always involve something about the bigotry of conservatives or they will take his bleeding heart liberal card away.

  11. Hortensio – Of course it’s a discriminatory issue. One group is given rights actively denied to another. Yes, if there was no marriage at all, there would be no discrimination. But since the vast majority of Americans do want it, they have to apply its availability equally under the law.

    I think I summed up Nate’s position pretty neatly. He would rather see discrimination against one group if the alternative is giving people more options from the EVIL GOVERNMENT.

  12. I think you must have missed, or mixed up, your meds. I don’t think, and never have thought, that the federal government should have anything to do with marriage. The states are to decide, and the feds should accept whatever those decisions are. In this case, the two are married.

    Given the complete lack of me saying anything at all even remotely close to what you just claimed my position was, I still have no idea why you are off on this tangent.

    The fact that I don’t see any level government as having a legitimate role in messing with peoples relationships, is not relevant. The question here is what the federal government has done, and in my view, if a government has to be involved, it shouldn’t be the feds.

    You have simply invented an issue here Michael, but that good, Michael Moore won’t be sent to your home to devour you now that you have done a good days work for the party.

  13. You voted against gay marriage in Maine in 2009 because you do not want to extend “government involvement” into people’s lives (because libertarianism is all about you making decisions for people, I guess). The federal/state distinction is irrelevant to the fact that you support bigotry.

  14. Michael, yes, the law should be applied equally. My point was not to imply that in America today it is applied equally with regards to marriage – plainly it is not – but to point out that I would rather gay couples have access to some benefits of marriage than to have it be equal at nothing for anyone. In that sense, it is as much addressing Nate as it is addressing you.

    In any event, now that you’ve finally revealed why you two are arguing, I think I shall sit back and enjoy the fireworks.

  15. Civil unions or something equivalent is better than nothing, but it’s still wrong.

  16. Being against the governments forceful intrusion, something people can not chose to avoid if seeking the other benefits of marriage, is not the same as making choices for other people.

    At least not in reality, where I live. Maybe on where you live, but not here.

  17. Go to any state and declare you’re married. Go ahead. I bet you’ll be fine.

    Your position is inane. First, it isn’t even factually correct. Second, you would rather see discrimination than equality. Third, you think it is up to you to tell people they shouldn’t allow the government into their lives in the form of contracts.

  18. I support peoples right to enter into contracts placing the government in their lives. I do not support the government insisting that it be so.

    The federal government in particular has no business defining marriage, as the Constitution is silent on marriage, (except for one mention), the right of definition or codification lies with the states, or the people.

    I don’t think the states should be messing with it either, but certainly if any government body has the right to do so, it is the sub-federal governments.

Leave a comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: