Jump to content

Women share first kiss at US Navy ship's return


PurpleHaze
 Share

Recommended Posts

Another positive step for equality, but I wonder what the reaction would be if a.) the girls were not attractive, and b.) if it had been a male couple.

 

(AP)

VIRGINIA BEACH, Virginia - A Navy tradition caught up with the repeal of the U.S. military's "don't ask, don't tell" rule on Wednesday when two women sailors became the first to share the coveted "first kiss" on the pier after one of them returned from 80 days at sea.

Petty Officer 2nd Class Marissa Gaeta of Placerville, California, descended from the USS Oak Hill amphibious landing ship and shared a quick kiss in the rain with her partner, Petty Officer 3rd Class Citlalic Snell of Los Angeles.

 

Gaeta, 23, wore her Navy dress uniform while Snell, 22, wore a black leather jacket, scarf and blue jeans. The crowd screamed and waved flags around them.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Jimmy,

 

I don't know why I should bother, but...

 

Marriage is not a Federal issue.

 

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

 

Liberals can't help but use the battering ram of the state on things like this. Just get the government out of "marriage" altogether and use the courts system to enforce contracts between individuals.

 

Otherwise, just let the states decide..

 

I do not think it is just liberals who do this, at least with regards to certain issues like gay marriage, abortion, and drug laws. Conservatives are happy to use the power of the federal government on these issues as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Government and politics aside, my question is: How do you all think these sailors would have been received if they were ugly, or if they were men? The reaction to this story in particular seemed positive (at least on the Internet), but at the same time, these sailors are good-looking women. I feel like the tone would have been a lot nastier had they been less attractive and maybe even worse if they were men.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Government and politics aside, my question is: How do you all think these sailors would have been received if they were ugly, or if they were men? The reaction to this story in particular seemed positive (at least on the Internet), but at the same time, these sailors are good-looking women. I feel like the tone would have been a lot nastier had they been less attractive and maybe even worse if they were men.

 

 

I wouldn't have watched the video, but I also wouldn't have been offended in any rational manner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jimmy,

 

I don't know why I should bother, but...

 

Marriage is not a Federal issue.

 

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

 

Liberals can't help but use the battering ram of the state on things like this. Just get the government out of "marriage" altogether and use the courts system to enforce contracts between individuals.

 

Otherwise, just let the states decide..

 

I do not think it is just liberals who do this, at least with regards to certain issues like gay marriage, abortion, and drug laws. Conservatives are happy to use the power of the federal government on these issues as well.

You are missing my point. Absolutely conservatives want to use the state in an authoritarian way; the difference in the case of marriage is that they want to impose restrictions.

 

I'm singling out liberals in the above post because in this instance they profess to be bringing about marriage equality for gays, but they want to use the authoritarian power of the state to do so.

 

In other words, I'm speaking toward very specific circumstances. There are many people like Jimmy (and I actually suspect that most liberals share his view on this) that believe that the federal government should issue some sort of unilateral definition of marriage. It's paradoxical to me.

No, I get that.

 

But when the status quo in our nation is that the federal government is the arbiter of marriage laws, then the way to correct it is to either get the government out of it altogether or use the state's power to legislate equality.

 

The end result would be marriage equality across the board, but when the status quo fails to protect a group of citizens, then it is understandable to want to government to fix that, I think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Government and politics aside, my question is: How do you all think these sailors would have been received if they were ugly, or if they were men? The reaction to this story in particular seemed positive (at least on the Internet), but at the same time, these sailors are good-looking women. I feel like the tone would have been a lot nastier had they been less attractive and maybe even worse if they were men.

 

If they were men I don't think it would have been received nastily. If they were ugly women though...yeah I wouldn't have watched as many times as I did. Probably wouldn't have watched at all. Definitely wouldn't have pulled it. Although if they were men I would have watched but definitely not pulled it. Yet I still would have got a chubby. I don't know. Too hard to say.

 

Bravo squall for keeping that response classy. Especially liked the usage of "chubby". :D

 

My view is our country has way more important things to worry about and yet we are wasting time arguing this topc. I don't have a side one way or the other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a state's issue. We just need to get all 50 states to come around, but there's more of a chance of all the states legalizing medical marijuana than same-sex marriage.

 

shenanigans

 

 

plus, there are federal laws prohibiting marijuana. the legal dispensaries in California, Colorado, etc. are illegal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a state's issue. We just need to get all 50 states to come around, but there's more of a chance of all the states legalizing medical marijuana than same-sex marriage.

 

shenanigans

 

 

plus, there are federal laws prohibiting marijuana. the legal dispensaries in California, Colorado, etc. are illegal.

 

I could have just said, "There's more of a chance of me breaking 5 feet," but then I would have had to explain that I'm a 4'10" adult who stopped growing in the late '90s.

 

Side note, my sister in LA has a license to purchase medical marijuana. I went for a visit on my birthday last year and she got me a cookie and a brownie from her dispensary. GOOD SH*T!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

This is a complete mischaracterization of what people on the left want RE: gay marriage. We want DOMA dead, and the government to use its power to protect LGBTQ people just the same as straight people. It's really not more complicated than that.

 

Is it really any different than when the Supreme Court had to step in and overturn state laws banning interracial marriage in 1967? I don't get this argument about 'abuse of power' relating to merely allowing people who are the same sex to get married like a straight couple can.

 

This is why libertarian argument fall flat on their face: they're all for states' rights and a weak central government, until people correctly point out that we tried that with the Articles of Confederation and it was a disaster. Now I'm not saying that the federal government hasn't completely gone crazy on certain issues (particularly the supression of civil rights with things like TSA search laws, 'anti-terrorism' bills that hurt Americans more than they prevent terrorism, illegal wiretapping, legalized torture, etc.). But to complain about the federal government going out of bounds over something like this, while turning a blind eye to the other things mentioned above, is just ridiculous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is why libertarian argument fall flat on their face: they're all for states' rights and a weak central government, until people correctly point out that we tried that with the Articles of Confederation and it was a disaster.

 

That is not the Libertarian position at all. We have a Constitution, if we follow it, we will be fine.

 

As for same-sex marriage being the same as interracial marriage, it is not. Homosexuals have the exact same right of heterosexuals to marry any person of the opposite sex that they want to - assuming that the person is also willing. Although the government should not use its power to deny homosexual couples the same property and inheritance rights as heterosexual couples does not mean that is cannot use its power in such a way. On can make an argument - one that has yet to have been carried in jurisprudence though the highest appeal - that the equal protection clause should be construed to permit same-sex marriage. I do not hold to that position because: 1) it is a distinct activity in style and 2) the issue will resolve itself democratically in society within a generation.

 

Almost all the "civil rights" complaints are solved by old people dying off and taking their outdated prejudices with them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for same-sex marriage being the same as interracial marriage, it is not. Homosexuals have the exact same right of heterosexuals to marry any person of the opposite sex that they want to - assuming that the person is also willing.

 

 

I don't think this holds up to scrutiny.

 

Couldn't one also then have just said 50 years ago "Black people have the exact same right of white people to marry any person of the same race that they want to - assuming that person is also willing."

 

 

If you can justify a distinction based on gender, why can the same distinction not be made based on race? It seems arbitrary to me, and any justification based on history or culture currently being made by opponents of gay marriage could have been made 50 years ago by opponents of interracial marriage.

 

I don't see the difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see the difference.

 

 

 

One may learn that race appears in my amendments, but "sexual orientation" does not.

 

 

I can accept, and even agree with, a morale equivalence, but the legal equivalence is not present. I happen to think that it is not the Federal Government's role to dictate to the states what constitutes marriage, and that beyond property and parental rights/responsibilities the states should not even get involved in marriage. Also, the idea that DOMA is remotely constitutional is laughable. Marriages should carry over from state to state, changing residence should not automatically dispel responsibilities under the law.

 

At most, for interstate interaction at least one of the participants in the marriage contract (agreement relating to rights of property, inheritance, and child custody) needs to be a resident of the state in which the contract is enacted. This is not unlike other contracts where the applicable state is one of the signing parties' state of record.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share



×
×
  • Create New...