Marriage Amendment
 

I sent this to the folks at www.marriagedebate.com. I don't know if it will be published, but I think it brings up a point I have not seen publicly.

Interesting point, Rich. If successful, I wonder if the legal definition of boy/man and girl/woman for the purposes of prosecution, will follow the marriage age?

Bush to promote gay marriage amendment
 

It official, the GOP will now happily mess over gay people to shore up flagging poll numbers.

From here.

People often wonder about how the Holocaust happened. How did people let fear seize them to the point that they would surrender common sense and dignity to anyone who promised to keep order, no matter how brutal or irrational their methods? Well, now we know. I was very young when the Civil Rights Act was passed. Up until now, I have lived in relatively liberal society, one that usually left people alone but occasionally offended conservatives on issues like gun control.

I am now presented with a President and Congress who want to federalize marriage in order to deny the benefit of marriage to gays, not trusting the states to make their own decisions.

I sometimes wonder if the Nazis really hated Jews and gays when they put them in concentration and later death camps, or were they just expedient scapegoats to focus public anger away from the party's many shortcomings. Since WWII, most ethnic and religious groups are on notice about any attempt to marginalize them in society. Even Muslims do not have to fear internment camps like the Japanese did in WWII, because at least society has learned it's lesson about religious and racial intolerance.

So it comes as no suprise that the one group that can still be safely marginalized has nothing to do with religion or race.

MaggieL, I can offer you 30 cents on the dollar now for your house and possessions, or would you rather wait for whatever the resettlement officer offers?:( I know you were very grateful to the Republicans for respecting your second amendmant rights. This was of course not much of a concession on their part since anti-tank weapons and heavy machine guns are still prohibited and that is probably what it would take to even out the odds if they come for you.

This is what happens when people are scared. The party in power sucks up to the radicals who have the discipline to vote as a bloc and wield their power, the great middle fails to meet their obligation to support the Constitution, and some small group gets flattened.

Let me know where I can send the CARE package. I might even be able to slip some wirecutters in a granola bar.

Hysteria isn't becoming on you, rich.

Every two years the gays become a threat to the very foundations of the country.

Well, it's better to say something when the runaway train is just starting to inch backwards than when it is halfway down the hill and picking up speed.

Looking at Saudi Arabia and the Wahhabists or Ireland and the Catholic church, it seems important to me to draw a line here to prevent what happened there, the merging of religious doctrine and government policy.

I take the Constitution very seriously. There have been any number of stupid amendments proposed, but none endorsed the way this one is. So a little bit of alarm is justified. Do I really think that we are headed towards barbed wire and guard towers? Probably, as in %99.9, not. And if the polls drop any lower for the current adminstration and Congress, I will probably have to recalculate.

BTW, I do not believe that I suffer from a disturbed uterus.:right:

Most of the self-delineated "defenders of marriage" look at marriage as a religious institution. Nothing could be less accurate. A heterosexual marriage is the same thing as the "civil union" the far right hates.

You get your marriage license at the local courthouse, not a church. You can get married at a church; you can also get married someplace else. You can have a clergyperson officiate at your wedding, or you can get somebody else to serve the same function without the funny collar.

But if you point that out to the self-proclaimed "defenders of marriage" they'll shout you down angrily. It doesn't change the fact that marriage is a civil union.

As for the amendment ... the last time the moralists tried to clutter up the Constitution with their talking points, it led to Prohibition. That worked out well for all involved, didn't it?

Damn good idea, after all if fags married fags and lesbians married lesbians they would be reproducing little fags and lesbians. :rollanim:

This is backfiring massively on the administration.

Two years ago, they rode back into power on the strength of states' anti-gay amendments (plus or minus a few tens of thousands of rigged votes). Four years before that, they did the same thing. Each time, they promised their frothy right-wing base that they'd do something about us gay people, once and for all.

And they didn't.

What's the quote again? Fool me once, something or other, fool me twice and something else? Well, nobody's being fooled anymore. Only the frothiest and rightest of the right-wingers have recognized pandering this blatant. There's barely a news article out there on this subject that doesn't mention that this has no way of passing and is a way of rallying his base.

It really says something when you have to pander to the one group of people you have left that should be supporting you come hell or high water. It says even more that the only way you have to reach out to them is through hatred and bigotry. And people are picking up on that.

I'll be surprised if Bush's popularity in the next few weeks goes much higher than 27%

It's a desperate move from a despised administration. An easily recognized, pointless gesture, that does more to highlight the inadequacies of the current regime than it does to condemn us as a nation. The very fact that this is already less than a joke, I think, says a lot for Americans. We should be proud that the only ones left that think this is a real issue are the nuttiest of wingnuts.

I just hope it doesn't go much lower than %20, or he might decide to throw a few of us Jews into the fire as well. After all, he's probably already pissed at Abramoff. Jews account for less than %3 of the population, and anti-Semites at least %10, so going by the numbers it's a %7 bounce.

And a lot of the people in his base would love it.

That's a good idea too, send all those damn Jews back to China. :lol:

Political desperation certainly is entertaining. It is a shame, though. it's not Bush that's in trouble. He won't be impeached, though he should be, so he'll retire to the ranch..... set for life.

That sounds pretty good coming from the left-side FUD factory, who have been trying to scare people for six years now and getting oh so frustrated when it doesn't work as well as they think it should.

Coming out for an amendment against gay marriage is a craven atempt to repair the damage done by embracing immigration amnesty. It won't work. And the bill won't pass either. It might be more of a political issue if there was anybody on the other side of the aisle supporting the right of gays to marry. Small choice among rotten apples...and attempts to whip up hysteria about it such as you just posted are just as craven.

The mistake here is allowing the government any say over marriage at all. Marriage licencing laws share their racist roots (happy now? I said "racist") with gun licencing laws; both were invented to keep blacks "under control" during Reconstruction.

What are you talking about? The concept of the marriage license has existed since the Middle Ages, at least.

You mean back in the Middle Ages when the Church used to perform midnight same sex marriages?
Yup, it's true.

Marriage licenses are civil, they have nothing to do with the church.:headshake

If no politician is willing to support it they must believe the majority of their constituents are against it...... at least the majority of active voters.:smack:

There are many examples of that not being true. Tax hikes, freedoms stolen, many immoral things "voted upon".
On the other side of that, the reason we "were" a Constitutional Republic is so our representatives could, sometimes, do what is right when the populous did not fully understand yet.

Well wait, I thought the idea of civil unions for gays was shouted down as a 'seperate but equal' attempt. Now the concensus is that ALL marriages are by definition civil unions??? What gives?

&*%$&^%$ I just wrote a 20 minute response that got clobbered.

To summarize.

Marriage is a social institution, and like a lot of other ones, it has religious and civil components, since in early cultures the two were usually linked.

Any religious figure can marry anyone. It is recognition by the state and community that is the issue. Marriage confers benefits for hospital visitation, child custody, adoption, inheritance, which are usually greater than those even granted blood relatives.

The arguments made against gay marriage are similar to those made against interracial marriage and for segregation, which usually boils down to it makes certain groups of people more comfortable. Conservatives hate this comparision because without the support of minority religious conservatives, these measures would enjoy even less support than they do now.

Since most arguments against gay marriage are of the 'I have the right to mind my neighbors business' type, this is the most anti-Libertarian initiative yet conceived by the 'conservatives' in the GOP.

Like with illegal immigration, President Bush has no real clue as to what he is stirring up here and will be surprised when he loses control of the situation. The big difference is that opposition to illegal immigration, contrary to what pro-immgration supporters say, can be made by unbiased individuals on logical grounds. Anti-gay marriage taps much more into fear and hatred. The arguments are nowhere near as rational and the emotions are ten times worse.

Because they want to create a difference by using a different word. Black and White water fountains wouldn't have been OK even if they had been functionally identical, as I'm sure they often were.

But why should the guy down the street get all the tax breaks and benefits of marriage witout having to put up with a wife? ;)

Actually, he would have wife, except in this case the wife wouldn't mind going bowling.

Funny enough, that's just what it's like. My boyfriend is my life partner, my husband, my best friend, and my lover. We play computer games together, go on photo safaris, get together with friends and play board games...

I think this is why the zealots feel threatened by gay people. We just have so much fun.

It's all about being a busybody. If a church or notary wants to marry a couple, regardless of their sex, and you are worried about it... you are pathetic. What kind of hang-up does it take to worry about who sleeps with whom and who is in love?
Redundant question, science has shown that homophobia is firmly seated in the closet.
I have married two couples and will now marry anyone of consensual age who wants to do so that I feel are sane, regardless of their age.

As a hermaphrodite...
 

...I am lucky to be able to marry a man OR a woman, or another hermaphrodite! No "lifestyle" problem here since I have both a penis and a vagina (Gonadal dysgenesis). This condition gives me a great advantage over homosexuals because I can "prove" in a very basic way my condition. Gays have the burden of people insisting that they choose to be gay, while I just whip out my small-but-functioning penis and my rather weirdly shaped vagina (when asked) and silence those people.

I'm like 0.000001% percent of the human population. Boy am I lucky!!

...

...

...

That's AWESOME!

As far as I know, neither of my daughters is lesbian. I'm pretty sure one of them is at least bi, since she's getting married. I doubt she'd do that just to protect her closet.

Only because you don't have to find and pay for a reliable baby sitter. Straight couples have fun too. Really.

Current statistics show that gay parents and couples raise a lower average % of gay children.

Edit~ They also tend to be more outgoing (joining clubs, getting involved in extra-curricular activities etc...) and well adjusted, per-capita.

Attack On Traditional Marriage
 

Many conservatives are pushing this Anti-Gay Marriage Amendment because they say that "traditional marriage is under attack." What on earth do they mean? Just who/whom is "attacking" traditional marriage?

I suppose their "logic" is that if Gays are allowed to marry, lots of young Americans will begin to think that they could choose such an alternative lifestyle, and then there would be a dramatic increase in the number of same-sex couples, leading to a dramatic decrease in births. The other fear is that if gays are allowed to get married, they could then legally adopt children, and in turn "make" the latter gay through their example. I guess this could be called "The Fear of A Gay Planet" theory.

The above scenarios are so flawed in so many ways, but lets consider a few:

Both gay & heterosexual couples have been living unmarried together for centuries, so would any net increase of gays occur just because they allowed gays to marry? Like I said before, it's not about "protecting" anything; it's about punishing homosexuals.

There is plenty of quantitative and qualitative data that shows that having gay parents does not make one gay. It's just that simple.

I wish some Democrat somewhere (other than Barney Frank, please) would step up and confront these idiots. Or what about the Cheneys? I suppose when you're a lesbian daughter of a filthy rich Vice President, you don't really have to have personal integrity. We knew her father didn't, but she's really a disappointment (coward?).

http://www.jossip.com/gossip/2005_03_mary_cheney.jpg

If you can whip out your vagina, it is wierdly shaped indeed.

It's a little teeny-weeny one on the end of the penis.

Marriage is not properly a Constitutional matter. This would be an even worse social time bomb than the ERA Amendment.

Refrain, always, from Constitutional Amendments that lend themselves to being bludgeons.

OMG:eek:, I actually completely agree with him.

I cannot believe that more people were not as upset as I that there was going to be an AMENDMENT removing civil rights from a group of people.
Dubya and company have the jack-boots fully on and are jack-stepping down main street and no one cares.

The reason being that it has not a snowball's chance of passing, and nothing would suit the homophobes better than a hysterical reaction from the left to it all.

It's pure whoring to the Christian fundies, and it's embarassing everybody else on Bush's side of the aisle.

On the other side, they're delighted to have a distraction from Howard Dean's peformance on The 700 Club...

Congratulations on your first rational post outside the food thread. :stickpoke

OK, I'm kidding. But you making a post I agree with...well...well...I don't know...Uh oh....tomorrow is 6-6-06....oh shit...

Well, that didn't take long.

Think maybe they cut the much-ballyhooed debate short once they realized that it was causing an enormous backlash?

It's this kind of thing that makes me think there may yet be hope for this country.

No, Boehner plans to bring it up for debate in the House next month, even though it has already failed in the Senate. They still think it's a winning issue.

There was never any threat that it would pass. It is completely an election year issue.

I don't think that anything at this point is going to restore my faith in our country.

Well, they had some Republican congressman on NPR who swore it had a very legitimate purpose. You could tell he was a good politician because he didn't crack up laughing once.

All upside for Bushco. Anyone who likes the prez, but is currently pouting/fuming/prosletyzing may be placated/pandered/purchased by this gesture. Anyone who dislikes the prez just writes it off as more of the same. Both of these situations are net non losers for him, *regardless* of the outcome of the putative "debate".

Hehe; I didn't read this until the eighth. Here, have this nice big three-liter bottle of carbonated Booga-Booga. :p :)

Honest, it's tastier than canned Whoop-Ass.

Canned whoop-ass is stale, 'specially from you, ole UG.

Kennedy Speaks
 

OK, he is red-faced and a bit bloated, and there was that "accident" in a river, but Ted Kennedy is still one of the better orators we have. His statement on the Gay Marriage Amendment last Tuesday was rational and succinct:


The General Accounting Office has identified 1,138 protections and benefits provided by the federal government on the basis of marital status. Many of these are laws relating to family and medical leave, social security benefits, and tax benefits. Gay and lesbian couples deserve the same rights as married couples, including the right to be treated fairly by the tax laws, to share insurance coverage, to visit loved ones in the hospital, and to have health benefits, family leave benefits, and the many other benefits that automatically flow from marriage.

Supporters of the Federal Marriage Amendment claim the need to stop activist judges. Our colleagues should recall the words of another activist court:

"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the most vital personal property rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness."

The activist judges stating this fundamental belief were part of the Supreme Court's 1967 decision in the landmark case Loving v. Virginia, which held that marriage is a basic civil right, and that freedom to marry a person of another race may not be restricted by racial discrimination.

You can read the whole statement here:
http://kennedy.senate.gov/newsroom/statement.cfm?id=f2efaa1f-d819-400d-9164-0afb4fced8f4[/url]

I still say that the relative genders of who is boinking whom and how they wish to sanctify said boinking is utterly irrelevant to the legal status of a union. If Marriage is a contract in the legal sense, then telling people of the same sex that they cannot enter into a binding legal contract together is discrimination, period. If Marriage is a sacred union, then government has absolutely no business making any laws which govern it.

So there.

Pair a Docs
 

http://images.google.com/images?q=tb...tate_small.jpg
Remember Razzles? They were both a candy AND a gum. Marriage is kinda like razzles; it's both a legal AND a sacred institution. I don't think the government should have ever intruded into the institution (or the the other way around). But as Kennedy said, once they started providing protections and benefits to married coulples, they started a system of discrimination.

And that discrimination can be immediately eliminated by offering the same benefits to *anyone* who is married, regardless of sex. Instead, the opposite is being attempted.

One of the biggest bullshit issues in this country today, IMHO. A complete no-brainer. Why aren't these worthless fucks trying to feed the hungry, house the homeless, and insure the uninsured? Wankers, all of 'em.

Well said!

5980 Posts!
 

Holy shit Esplode!

5980 posts! That's impossible. Or maybe not. You must have been in this cellar a long time. I'm impressed, if a bit concerned. I've not even reached 100.

Anyhow, I think the reason why those "worthless fucks" are not doing what you think they should do is answered by your own words: Because they are worthless fucks. They will only do what they want to do. I am so ashamed of my country right now. It's really hard to be a news junky like I am because knowing what's going on creates a pall over my poor brain. Thank goodness there are some decent people like yourself out there (I will make that leap of faith). I swear, if W. or any of his cronies were near me, I would....

I'm sorry. It's "Elspode" not Esplode. Although Esplode is a good one. OK. I will not make that mistake again. Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode Elspode

Ok, on principle I'm going to have to take you up on that. I don't particularly like anyones 'holier than thou' attitude but it comes from more than just religious folk, trust me. Saying, "why aren't these people taking care of the stuff I think is important and keeping their mouths shut when I disagree with them" is completely ridiculous. The above quote is just you getting pissed off.

But REALLY, Elspode is right, why can't they do someting about an issue that isn't complete bullshit? No politician (at least, no politician with an ounce of gray matter, which leaves out a few) believes that marriage is an honest threat to the very fabric of america. They just want votes.

Because all the latter cost money and the former raises money. :yelgreedy

How to really bring religious values into government - ethics, respect for the environment, and social justice.

How to pretend to bring religious values into government without having to do anything that would dry up the big river of money from wealthy donors and corporations - beat up on gays and protect symbols like the flag.

Right on richlevy. If standing on a soapbox and shouting that it is every American's God-given right to jerk off mules would fill the campaign coffers, you can bet that mule jerking would be the next Constitutional Amendment to be proposed.

May 28, 2005: According to the AP, representatives of the nation's top psychiatric group approved a statement urging legal recognition of gay marriage. If approved by the association's directors in July, the measure would make the American Psychiatric Association the first major medical group to take such a stance. (If they do, they'll be playing catch-up to the American Psychological Association, which issued a statement of support for same sex civil marriage in July 2004).

APA SUPPORTS LEGALIZATION OF SAME-SEX CIVIL MARRIAGES AND OPPOSES DISCRIMINATION AGAINST LESBIAN AND GAY PARENTS
Denying Same-Sex Couples Legal Access to Civil Marriage is Discriminatory and Can Adversely Affect the Psychological, Physical, Social and Economic Well-Being of Gay and Lesbian Individuals


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

HONOLULU – Prohibiting civil marriage for same-sex couples is discriminatory and unfairly denies such couples, their children and other members of their families the legal, financial and social advantages of civil marriage says the American Psychological Association’s (APA) Council of Representatives in a resolution adopted today. The APA also opposed discrimination against lesbian or gay parents adoption, child custody and visitation, foster care and reproductive health services.

Both policy positions were adopted at the recommendation of an APA Working Group on Same-Sex Families and Relationships. The Working Group, appointed by the APA Council of Representatives in February 2004, was charged with developing policy recommendations for APA that would guide psychologists in the current public debate over civil marriage for same-sex couples. The Working Group was directed further to base its policy recommendations on the research on same-sex relationships and families.

This seven-member team of psychologists with a combination of both scientific expertise in family and couple relations and professional expertise with lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations summarized the research that discrimination and prejudice based on sexual orientation detrimentally affects the psychological, physical, social and economic well-being of lesbian, gay and bisexual individuals, that same-sex couples are remarkably similar to heterosexual couples, and that parenting effectiveness and the adjustment, development and psychological well-being of children is unrelated to parental sexual orientation.

"The APA recognizes the importance of the institution of civil marriage which confers a social status with important legal benefits, rights and privileges," said psychologist Armand R. Cerbone, who is a private practitioner in Chicago and chair of the working group. "Discrimination of all kinds takes a toll on people's health and psychological well being. In the context of the huge social and political debate that is currently going on, APA and psychologists had to grapple with the issue of what psychology believes is in the public interest in this controversy.”

Given what research tells us about the impact of discrimination and given that the research further provides no justification for discriminating against same-sex couples in marriage or in parenting, the Working Group strongly recommended that APA support states in providing civil marriage to same-sex couples and fully recognizing the parental rights of lesbians and gay men. As a benefit for human welfare, it is important to point out that permitting same-sex couples to marriage may especially benefit people who also experience discrimination based on age, race, ethnicity, disability, gender and gender identity, religion and socioeconomic status, said Cerbone.

According to the United States Accounting Office (2004), over 1,000 federal statutory provisions exist in which marital status is a factor in determining a person’s eligibility to receive various benefits, rights and privileges.


APA Working Group on Same-Sex Families and Relationships: Armand Cerbone, Ph.D., Chicago, Illinois; Beverly Greene, Ph.D., St. John’s University; Kristin Hancock, Ph.D., Graduate School of Professional Psychology at John F. Kennedy University; Lawrence A. Kurdek, Ph.D., Wright State University; Candace A. McCullough, Ph.D., Bethesda, Maryland; Letitia Anne Peplau, Ph.D., University of California, Los Angeles

Full text of the resolutions is available at http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/policy/marriage.pdf (Resolution on Sexual Orientation and Marriage) and
http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/policy/parentschildren.pdf (Resolution on Sexual Orientation, Parents, and Children).

Reporters: Armand Cerbone, PhD can be by phone at (773) 755-0833 or by Email, and Anne Peplau, PhD be reached by phone at 818-990-2688 or by Email


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The American Psychological Association (APA), in Washington, DC, is the largest scientific and professional organization representing psychology in the United States and is the world’s largest association of psychologists. APA’s membership includes more than 150,000 researchers, educators, clinicians, consultants and students. Through its divisions in 53 subfields of psychology and affiliations with 60 state, territorial and Canadian provincial associations, APA works to advance psychology as a science, as a profession and as a means of promoting health, education and human welfare.

This would be the same APA that released a statement in 1999 or so saying that Child Sexual Abuse was not harmful to it's victims?

American Psychiatric Association or American Psychological Association?:confused:

Psychological. The American Psychiatric Association puts on a good party every year, so the shrinks tell me, but they don't issue dumbass statements.

I belonged to the APA for one year in graduate school, but only because I needed the cheap professional liability coverage for my practicum.