I can't believe no one else has brought this up yet, so...
What of the gay marriage thing going on in San Francisco?
By now you all have heard, I'm sure. If not, check the front page of any regional newspaper or google it.
I have been asked my opinion on this more than once. And since it seems hell has frozen over because Rush and I disagree on this point completely, I thought I'd post my opinions here for all to see and ridicule.
Simply put, I don't see a big problem here. The world will not end, the ability for me to wed Dagney hasn't changed a whit. MY rights are not being infringed. No one else's rights or freedoms are being infringed. It's not costing the taxpayers anything (I think the "marriage penalty" is a crock) and no one is being personally harmed. Yes, a few homophobes personal emotional security is being called into question, but they'll get over it.
This is a tempest in a teapot. Using the gays' own numbers, they are only about ten percent of the population. And of these, a large percentage are NOT interested in marriage. They are more known for having multiple partners and one-night stands or at best, serial monogamy. Therefore, the gay couples wanting to get married are a small percentage of the overall population. This number will not make any radical changes by themselves. The very fabric of our social tapestry (heard from a religious whacko) will not be torn asunder.
Aside, does anyone really use "asunder" anymore???
I say, let 'em go for it. The major arguments come from religious quarters anyway. If they have such a problem with it, let them refuse to recognize the marriages as valid. That should make them feel secure that none of "those types" are getting into their pond and polluting the "good and decent folk" with their unGodly ways. And for the State, they should not recognise the Church marriages as valid either. Fair is fair.
I have no personal objection to anyone getting married legally to another person not of their own kin and within species boundaries. (I put that in because Rush took things to an extreme and asked what if we next wanted to marry within the family or our pets?)
Simply put, live and let live. You can't have separation of Church and State one way, folks. Stay out of my life and I'll stay out of yours.
Brian
The San Fran stuff probably didn't come up because the Massachusetts thing was discussed so much. But I say good for the mayor of San Francisco. The issue is now somewhat different. Some people may be willing to prevent people from being married, but not willing to let the state force anullments on people.
I say it's about time the queers have the pleasure of divorce.
Originally posted by BrianR
Aside, does anyone really use "asunder" anymore???
Of course. I mean, not regularly... no more often than I use, say, prehensile.
Simply put, live and let live. You can't have separation of Church and State one way, folks.
Ahh, that's the problem.. the people making these arguments don't want separation of church & state at all! :cool:
Originally posted by SteveDallas
Ahh, that's the problem.. the people making these arguments don't want separation of church & state at all! :cool:
Ain't that the truth? Don't you guys know that every "immoral" act is an abomination to (insert your monotheistic, patriarchal deity here), and that his/her/its followers must do everything possible to prevent it and bring you/them/us to eternal salvation by being washed in the blood/urine/semen of (insert your prophet/saviour/saint here)?
I find it humorous that the holy side of all this is always going on about family stability, and now, all of the sudden, something that will clearly lead to greater stabilization of family arrangements is bad. If marriage is good for a man and woman, how can it be bad for a man and another man, or a woman and another woman?
It is never too late to become a Pagan, people...
Oddly enough, I read something about this today
here. Read the whole article (it's interesting), but my favorite quotation is this:
But I might have part of an answer. From what I can glean from some of my hate mail and the general conservative outcry, here is what the homophobes fear about same-sex marriage: bestiality.
I think Morford's not quite right. I think the bestiality thing is what they fall back on when pressed to give a reason that isn't based on religion or personal distaste. Same with incest, polygamy, and pedophilia. They are trying to get people to associate homosexuality with other things that have more universal disapproval.
And all this talk of bestiality, etc., just pisses me off when I see
something like this. It's just so sad that these marriages will all be legally sundered when the legal process is over.
What SF is doing is great, IMO...civil disobedience at its finest.
I am always completely puzzled when people seem to feel that they simply can't mind their own fucking business. It isn't as though raging bands of now-married homosexuals are going to start copulating in people's Christian homes at random. Married gays are not more likely to sodomize people's children than are married straights.
I just seriously don't get it. Who the hell cares who fucks whom, as long as both parties are amenable? It just isn't anyone else's damn business, plain and simple.
Religion has nothing to do with rationality any more. Originally, religion was a way to bond people in small and large groups. Now it's just an anachronistic social tool. A deeply rooted anachronistic social tool.
Legalizing such social unions is not about religion. Its about forming a legal structure so that the partners can support each other. For example, a gay man was banned from the hospital room of his dying partner by a righteous nurse because he was not legally married. If one partner gets sick and cannot work, then the health insurance of his partner cannot be used. A man and wife cannot make deathbed and funeral arrangements for each other. Relationship of gay couples where one must make decisions for her lover can be legally overriden by any other meddling family member. In short, gay marriages in San Francisco and Massachusetts is about legal rights of sworn partners. Religion has no stake in these legal relationships and no business expressing an opinion.
I've never read the bible, but I passed the midterm in my Islam course, so I'm going to pretend I'm an authority on religion.
Parts of the Qur'an say things to the effect of "do good and prohibit evil". Other parts of the Qur'an list prohibited sexual acts. Fornication and homosexuality are up there, as I understand it (two minutes of checking the indexes of my Qur'an and textbook didn't turn up anything, but I'm pretty sure) and there are lengthy passages about who you can marry. It's easy to say "Islam says putting your wee-wee in some other guy's bum is bad", and not much harder to continue with "so I'm not going to let you". I gather the same goes for Christianity, what with how much noise some people are making. It seems like most of the trouble comes from nobody being willing to say "my religion forbids homosexuality" right out. What would happen, I wonder, if they did?
It's sort of funny to study a distinctly nonsecular religion, where the guidelines set forth in the Qur'an and the prophet's sunna (sayings/actions/way of living) are applied to every aspect of life. I read about guidelines for marriage, then turn around and see people trying similar things in my own culture. The terrorism scare aside, it seems like some people would be happier as a Muslim.
I actually agree with tw.
He's right, marriage is all about legal rights, care and survivorship.
I won't even get into the whole "love, honor and cherish" thing.
I also have personally witnessed scenes such as he described and wished things were different so that the partner wouldn't get screwed at such a stressful time. I've even heard of one man being forcibly excluded from the funeral of his longtime lover.
To me, this is wrong. :mad:
Brian
The family would still have hated him if they were married.
That won't change.
Indeed, but they couldn't have kicked him out of his spouse's funeral.
They sure as shit could have, if they were bigger and/or more plentiful.
Perhaps in a legal vacuum. Which exist in places.
But I expect what really would have happened is that the spouse would have organized the funeral, and it would have taken place in a location where the cops would not turn a blind eye.
TW is correct...marriage *is* a legal construct. Unfortunately, the current trend is trying to force a religious morality requirement upon those seeking to enter that legal construct.
That's wrong.
Originally posted by Skunks
Big snip- The terrorism scare aside, it seems like some people would be happier as a Muslim.
Maybe in the USA but I doubt they'd be happy in the middle east.:eek:
Originally posted by Elspode
TW is correct...marriage *is* a legal construct. Unfortunately, the current trend is trying to force a religious morality requirement upon those seeking to enter that legal construct.
That's wrong.
Yeah, he's right on the money but don't tell him I said so.;)
Originally posted by Happy Monkey
But I expect what really would have happened is that the spouse would have organized the funeral...
If spouse is gay, then spouse can plan a funeral only if all other family members permit it. Cops must ban the gay spouse from a funeral if any one family member requests it - because the laws currently and intentionally discriminate against gays.
Religion is only between you and your god. Once your religion affects others - makes the laws - then that religion is satanic. What has the Pope ordered American Catholic politicans to do? Change all laws to conform with church doctrine. No Pope ever before demanded that of any American law maker. But then religion has a sad history of advocating hate - latest hate is against gays and against victims of child molesters. Exactly why religion is a bad reason for making laws and results in bad laws.
When a religious leader advocates the advancement of mankind, then we often have a major leader who is actually in conflict with his peers. Yes, even priests who rescued Jews from Nazi Germany were doing so against the will of Pope Pius.
That's what was implied by "would have happened". That's what "would have happened" if he had been permitted to be married. But he wasn't, and so the family was able to bar the one person from the funeral who would have been most wanted by the subject of the funeral.
From
MSNBC:
Entering a national debate over gay marriage, Chicago Mayor Richard Daley said he would have "no problem" with Cook County issuing marriage licenses to gay couples in Chicago, the nation’s third-largest city. Daley's views came as President Bush said he was "troubled" by San Francisco’s same-sex wedding spree.
Daley urged sympathy for same-sex couples because "they love each other just as much as anyone else."
Chicago mayor Daley also dismissed a suggestion that marriage between gay couples would undermine the institution. "Marriage has been undermined by divorce, so don’t tell me about marriage," he said. "Don’t blame the gay and lesbian, transgender and transsexual community."Is Daley up for election this year. Syc?
No...he won re-election last year with 79% of the vote.
No matter how strong his convictions, an old political war horse like Daley, never does anything without considering the political ramifications. So he's doing this from a position of strength rather than as a political ploy. Cool.:)
Originally posted by tw
Yes, even priests who rescued Jews from Nazi Germany were doing so against the will of Pope Pius.
I usually ignore the various anti-Catholic diatribes here but this one is getting old.
What cannot be questioned is the integrity, the charity, and the deep commitment to humanity of Pius XII. It is idel to speculate about what more he could have done, for unlike most of the leaders of his day, he did very much.
-Joseph Lichten, International Affairs Dept. for the Anti-Defamation of B'nai B'rith.
We share in the grief of humanity at the passing away of his Holiness Pope Pius XII. IN a generation afflicted by wars and discords, he upheld the highest ideals of peace and compassion. When fearful martyrdom came to our people in the decade of the Nazi terror, the voice of the Pope was raised for the victims. The life of our times was enriched by a voice speaking out on the great moral truths above the tumult of daily conflict. We mourn a great servant of peace.
- Golda Meir
Only the Catholic Church protested against the Hitlerian onslaught on liberty. Up till then I had not been interested in the Church, but today I felt a great admiration for the Church, which alone has had the courage to struggle for spiritual truth and moral liberty
-Albert Einstein
I think it's fair to say Pius XII could not have done more to stop the "Final Solution". By that time he had capitulated with the Nazi's to try to save to Catholic Church from being destroyed.
By agreeing not to oppose the Nazi rise to power the parish priests were allowed to take care of their parishes day to day needs. And the Vatican was allowed to remain a free state.
That said, his doings before becoming Pope in the Writing of cannon law and increasing the power of the Pope, so that power was removed from the priests and centered in Rome, were a blow to RCs everywhere. I'm of the opinion he did more harm to RCs than to Jews.
First San Francisco, now
Sandoval County, NM.
Originally posted by sycamore
From MSNBC:
Entering a national debate over gay marriage, Chicago Mayor Richard Daley said he would have "no problem" with Cook County issuing marriage licenses to gay couples in Chicago, the nation’s third-largest city. Daley's views came as President Bush said he was "troubled" by San Francisco’s same-sex wedding spree.
Daley urged sympathy for same-sex couples because "they love each other just as much as anyone else."
Chicago mayor Daley also dismissed a suggestion that marriage between gay couples would undermine the institution. "Marriage has been undermined by divorce, so don’t tell me about marriage," he said. "Don’t blame the gay and lesbian, transgender and transsexual community."
Hear, Hear!
Could the Republican effort to make this a campaign issue bite them on the ass? I really hope so. I want to have faith in the decency of our country.
I heard a proposal I really liked recently. We should make all state "marriages" into civil unions.
Here comes the
Terminator...
But I think Judge Ronald Evans Quidachay got it right yesterday (from the above link):
Conservatives have filed lawsuits in a bid to stop the same-sex wedding spree in San Francisco, but on Friday, Judge Ronald Evans Quidachay denied the Campaign for California Families' request for a temporary restraining order, saying conservative groups failed to prove same-sex weddings would cause irreparable harm.
The conservative group argued that the weddings harmed all the Californians who voted in 2000 for Proposition 22, which defined marriage as between a man and a woman.
The judge suggested that the rights of the gay and lesbian couples appeared to be more substantial.
"If the court has to weigh rights here, on the one hand you are talking about voting rights, and on the other you are talking about equal rights," Quidachay said.
Gay marriage is coming nationwide, IMO...you can either try and keep putting up roadblocks, or just get the bitching out of your system, let it go and move on.
Originally posted by Griff
I heard a proposal I really liked recently. We should make all state "marriages" into civil unions.
I don't follow? You mean instead of a paper saying "marriage certificate" or "marriage license" they will say "civil union license"?
I'm sure there's a lot of people in marriages that would prefer to have a [COLOR=red]civil[/COLOR] union.:haha:
Originally posted by sycamore
.....Gay marriage is coming nationwide, IMO..
If the supporters of GM would use the incremental approach it might be more beneficial to the cause. If they could hold their ground and be temporarily content with civil unions this whole issue could be much less heated.
From my research, it is primarily the older voters (60+) that make up the majority of the opposition. While the Reps do indeed hold more voters opposed to GM, there is also a substancial number within the Dem party that are opposed. The younger crowd (30 and under ) generally has the most support. So, how long would it take to increase the numbers in the young group to overpower the older group? Maybe 10 years? Maybe less.
This strategy seems much more logical to me, and I am totally against GM. The current political makeup shows that the majority of Americans are
against GM too. Why do the supporters of GM want to force this issue now.....when they do not own the majority.....when they could very easily win through attrition in the near future? It seems to me that they are effectively saying "FUCK YOU", we dont care if the majority are opposed or why.
It might be logically argued that it doesnt matter what the current supporting or opposing sides makeup as a voting total, that this is an issue of constitutional law. But at the same time, if this is the case, then why not let the legal system step gradually toward a solution that fits into all the tangent issues of GM. Why make this such a devisive issue that may very well lead to another constitutional ammendment when the battle could be won by
not battling?
[opinion]Because the supporters are forcing this issue in response to their dislike of the religious aspect of the opposition, without looking at the tangent unintended consequences that have absolutely nothing to do with religion and everything to do with re-establishing precedence and policy throughout the states that deal with divorce, child custody, and illegal discrimination. Without looking at the train wreck of lawsuits and fusterclucks and confusion that would be instantly created by legalizing something that stretches into every nook and cranny of the society. [/opinion]
Originally posted by slang
If the supporters of GM would use the incremental approach it might be more beneficial to the cause. If they could hold their ground and be temporarily content with civil unions this whole issue could be much less heated.
There may be something to that. However, the wording of the current constitutional amendment being flacked also bans awarding the "legal incidents [of marital status]" on "unmarried" couples. That pretty much kills the "civil union" concept, doesn't it.
Depends on how "civil union" is defined. But it would kill the notion of "common law" marriages.
That slow acceptance is why they really want to amend the Constitution. A ruling can be changed, a law can be changed, an amendment is much much more serious. This is an attempt to "lock in" their view of the culture war before it's too late.
Which is, in turn, a really terrible abuse of the Constitution.
Slang, the rush may be because many of the partners are dying and don't have time to wait. Maybe?:confused:
Originally posted by SteveDallas
..... also bans awarding the "legal incidents [of marital status]" on "unmarried" couples. That pretty much kills the "civil union" concept, doesn't it.
As I understand the situation, the ammendment is only gaining momentum because of spectacles like that in SF.
So what you are saying is that the ban would affect the current gay and hetero civil unions? Thats not a real issue with the heteros, they
could just get married. Problem solved. As for the gays, why would they press the issue that drives the amendment that would ban their civil unions.
I must have missed your point SD.
Originally posted by wolf
Depends on how "civil union" is defined. But it would kill the notion of "common law" marriages.
I thought that "common law" marriages were waning in legal authority and occurance. Was that just in Pa? I know I heard something about how they were no longer valid.
Originally posted by Undertoad
That slow acceptance is why they really want to amend the Constitution. A ruling can be changed, a law can be changed, an amendment is much much more serious. This is an attempt to "lock in" their view of the culture war before it's too late.
Which is, in turn, a really terrible abuse of the Constitution.
So what you are saying is that the slow acceptance would be counteracted by an amendment that would not have widespread support without Newscom making the spectacle of defying the system in Ca? Why would he issue the licenses then? To defeat his own cause?
It would also only be a real abuse of the Constitution if the amedment was illegally passed ( like maybe......the 16th ). But then again, I can see your point with this particular example because even though it's been shown to be faulty, so much of our gov't was built upon it, it doesnt really matter whether it is legal or not. It's here to stay.
Originally posted by xoxoxoBruce
Slang, the rush may be because many of the partners are dying and don't have time to wait. Maybe?:confused:
I personally think the Gays feel they have the support for GM they need, after a long series of battles in public opinion and the courts, to overturn a stigma they have been under for so long.I dont buy the whole "marriage benefits" aspect. They are understandably pissed to have been slighted for so long and they are making a statement.
I also like the idea of a civil union replacing government-sanctioned marriage. I mean, the present legal situation causes gay couples to have to hold "commitment ceremonies", handfastings and the like if they want some sort of religious/public/spiritual aspect to their unions (my wife has performed many of these ceremonies as a High Preistess). Why shouldn't Christians and others share this experience? Then, all couples would be equal under the law of the land, and they could be sanctified according to whatever religious point of view they choose.
More separation of Church and State is a good thing, IMHO.
Originally posted by slang
So what you are saying is that the slow acceptance would be counteracted by an amendment that would not have widespread support without Newscom making the spectacle of defying the system in Ca? Why would he issue the licenses then? To defeat his own cause?
His particular cause is that of being a popular politician echoing the sentiments of his constituencies. He is ensuring his own popularity. Just like Moore did in Alabama with the ten commandments. Neither one of them will lose any election in the near future. Both are aware of the legal underpinnings but will use the situation to advance their own cause. Both actions are spun by their supporters as important civil disobedience.
It would take a really sophisticated movement to understand the nuances of which way to play this one. The parties can define their actions a little bit, but movements can't.
It would also only be a real abuse of the Constitution if the amedment was illegally passed ( like maybe......the 16th ). But then again, I can see your point with this particular example because even though it's been shown to be faulty, so much of our gov't was built upon it, it doesnt really matter whether it is legal or not. It's here to stay.
I think it's an abuse of the Constitution because amendments should not be used to remove rights, only to affirm them. Aside from the 16th, I think the only other amendment that attempted to remove rights was prohibition.
The deepest possible danger is that the US no longer be seen internationally as the protector of rights, no longer seen as a positive place for free minded individuals to choose to live, and therefore lose its ability to attract the best and brightest of other cultures.
The deepest possible danger is that the US no longer be seen internationally as the protector of rights, no longer seen as a positive place for free minded individuals to choose to live, and therefore lose its ability to attract the best and brightest of other cultures.
It's sure hard to attract the best and brightest when the jobs are going to where we're trying to attract them from.:(
I heard some funny conservative comentator, I forget who, just flummuxed by these gay marriages- the damage, the worst damage he could muster "we'll turn into Denmark!" "Do you want to live in Denmark?!"
Well, I'd certainly visit...now Amsterdam, I could live there...at least a while.
Its exciting to me this disobedience, this civil rights movement. People are tired of waiting to enjoy their rights. It will be interesting to see how it plays out.
Originally posted by wolf
Depends on how "civil union" is defined. But it would kill the notion of "common law" marriages.
Not every state has common law marriage to begin with, though.
Gay marriage will continue to be illegal in any state where first cousins can marry.
That should defuse most of the opposition.:D
But seriously, look at the differences in this
Table of Marriage Laws in the 50 States
First of all, the minimum age of consent in Alabama is 14. No surprise there. What did surprise me is that the minimum age is 12 in Kansas and Massachusetts.
So people would not have a problem with a 30-year-old man checking in with his 12-year-old bride, but two 26-year-old lesbians would be too shocking.
Originally posted by Shattered Soul
Not every state has common law marriage to begin with, though.
I'm glad I did the research before posting, because I was going to willy-nilly indicate that Calif. was a common law marriage state, an assumption I made because of the well-publicized "palimony" suit of Michelle Triola Marvin vs. Lee Marvin ...
This is from
It's Legal
Eleven states and the District of Columbia currently recognize common-law marriages. Each of these jurisdictions has unique requirements for common-law marriage.
* Alabama
The requirements for a common-law marriage are: (1) capacity; (2) an agreement to be husband and wife; and (3) consummation of the marital relationship.
* Colorado
A common-law marriage may be established by proving cohabitation and a reputation of being married.
* District of Columbia
The requirements for a common-law marriage are: (1) an express, present intent to be married and (2) cohabitation.
* Iowa
The requirements for a common-law marriage are: (1) intent and agreement to be married; (2) continuous cohabitation; and (3) public declarations that the parties are husband and wife.
* Kansas
For a man and woman to form a common-law marriage, they must: (1) have the mental capacity to marry; (2) agree to be married at the present time; and (3) represent to the public that they are married.
* Montana
The requirements for a common-law marriage are: (1) capacity to consent to the marriage; (2) an agreement to be married; (3) cohabitation; and (4) a reputation of being married.
* Oklahoma
To establish a common-law marriage, a man and woman must (1) be competent; (2) agree to enter into a marriage relationship; and (3) cohabit.
* Pennsylvania
A common-law marriage may be established if a man and woman exchange words that indicate that they intend to be married at the present time.
* Rhode Island
The requirements for a common-law marriage are: (1) serious intent to be married and (2) conduct that leads to a reasonable belief in the community that the man and woman are married.
* South Carolina
A common-law marriage is established if a man and woman intend for others to believe they are married.
* Texas
A man and woman who want to establish a common-law marriage must sign a form provided by the county clerk. In addition, they must (1) agree to be married, (2) cohabit, and (3) represent to others that they are married.
* Utah
For a common-law marriage, a man and woman must (1) be capable of giving consent and getting married; (2) cohabit; and (3) have a reputation of being husband and wife.
Good thing I wasn't making sweeping generalizations then, wasn't it? I was referring to my own state. According to the law code in Louisiana, "common-law" marriage does not exist. Or at least it was not acknowledged a few years ago when I took criminal law.
An idea that is floating around, and I think might rest better in another thread, is de-legalizing marriage. Has anyone else pondered this?
I've been saying this all along ... ban marriage entirely as a civil legal process, and return it to the religions for those who wish to be bonded by a god of their choosing.
How heartless... I mean, think of all the wedding mills in Las Vegas that will go out of business!!!
I am a heartless bitch.
And the church of elvis can still marry people. They just won't have to get a civil divorce to undo it.
Religious separation rites tend to be a lot more expensive and difficult than a civil divorce though. Catholic annulments and Jewish gets are CO$TLY.
Handfasting for a year and a day with an option for renewal sounds better and better, doesn't it folks?
Vegas wouldn't care. It would just reduce the paperwork if they could just say "hey, now you're married!".
That's pretty much how they handle it already, isn't it?
And you get a video, and a coupon for a discount buffet.
No, now they say "Hey, now you're married!", and fill out a form.
And pay the man. Don't forget, pay the man.:)
Are there 13 states which won't support this? I'm somewhat hopeful that the Senate won't.
Honestly, I'm afraid when in the country which is told being the "free'est" country in the world wants to ban gay marriage by the constitution. Over here you must first get married by the civilian power (in your village or town by the mayor) and this since Napoleon Bonaparte, and only after this you will get married by religious power, if you want to.
Divorce must pass by a judge in every case especially if the couple has children. (Divorce in catholic church isn't possible. But the church can annul a marriage but only under very specific conditions.)
Now since a few years you have in France and in Belgium (and some other countries, mostly scandinavian an Netherlands) some gay marriage, sort of civilian union to give same sex couples the possibility to profite of most of the married advantages. But not all e.g. adopting children. So a woman who lives with her mother can get this civilian union to save taxes...
Found elsewhere:
"And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery." Mark 10:11-12.
Anyone who opposes gay marriage on the advice of Paul, but won't support a federal amendment banning divorce, the clear intent and word of God, will burn in Hell.
Ploy, appease the right by promising to support a movement that couldn't possibly come to fruition during his administration.
At this point your swing voter has swung, and at this point I'm an anti-Bush voter. I'm no Radar, but fuck with the Constitution and you earn my contempt. Fuck with the Constitution in abhorable ways to promote your culture war or your political position, and you've gained an enemy for life in me.
This amendment won't go anywhere, and I have to suspect that it was a big mistake by the administration. They looked at support for ending gay marriage, not at support for a constitutional amendment. The country is two-thirds against gay marriage, but split about the constitution.
We will know more by the end of the week if the Pres' approval numbers change.
Because I am the Official Cellar Conspiracy Theorist ...
From what is our attention being distracted by the furor over the suggestion that there be a consitutional amendment to define marriage?
Consider also that this is all a ploy ...
Many of the online polls (I'm talking ABC, Philly Inquirer here, not newsmax.com) at least last night were running 60% against gay marriage ... so, sentiment in the country appears to be on the president's side ... making those individuals more likely to vote for him. The likelihood that such an amendment would pass, given the intricacies of the constitutional amendement process ... probably low.
Net result: Nothing obvious happens, Bush gets votes.
***
On the upside, the Senate passed the bill against nuissance lawsuits against gun manufacturers ... this, however, is likely to piss off the dems to the point they fight very hard to renew the assault weapons ban.
You want to hear what is truly funny about all this? Rush Limbaugh is on the radio right now talking about the war on "our traditional values" by the Liberals.
Who the fuck sold this idiot all the traditions? Who are all these other people who have different traditional values, then? Are they not Americans? Is it not *their* constitution as well?
The worst thing about this is that no one, fucking NO ONE, can come up with any demonstration of actual harm being caused by two people of the same sex being married.
It is prejudice and hate, pure and simple. There's nothing moral about any of it, because no one is trying to force anything on anyone else on the so-called 'Liberal' side of this issue. No one is trying to pass an amendment requiring other people to have gay sex or take a same-sex partner.
Gay marriage deprives no one of anything, except perhaps the Right's precious sense of being the only class of people who have anything to say about everything.
I believe that this issue has just cost GW the election.
Originally posted by Elspode
Who are all these other people who have different traditional values, then? Are they not Americans? Is it not *their* constitution as well?
No, they're not.
No, it's not.
I believe that this issue has just cost GW the election.
Wishful thinking.. a lot of shit will go down between now and November. It's true GWB is on a downward trend at the moment, but there's plenty of time for him to turn it around and/or the Dems to screw up.
I dunno...I think this is *just* the sort of issue to shake a lot of us fat, lazy freedom lovers out of our sense of complacency and get out and vote our consciences.
You're right about the Dems, though...they'll hose something up but good between now and then. All politicians, by definition, suck.
Originally posted by Elspode
I dunno...I think this is *just* the sort of issue to shake a lot of us fat, lazy freedom lovers out of our sense of complacency and get out and vote our consciences.
Where were these people when we passed the Patriotic Act. Then there are what we now all but acknowledge are totally innocent people held for years in Guantanamo. Even 13 year old boys and an 80 year old man are a threat so great as to be caged in locations too small for even Bronx Zoo animals. But no one noticed?
One of the greatest threats to freedom is when religion is used as a reason to attack or prosecute another. It is, for example, why religion creates so many wars and not promotes hate. Religion is a relationship only between you and your god. At any time, if religion imposes restrictions on another, then the religion is satanic. Only a satanic religion would promote hate against other people - ie gays. Even the Pope has ordered all Catholic lawmakers to impose Church doctrine into United States laws. Does not matter what religion you believe. This Pope says his doctrine should be imposed on you. That is when religion becomes the enemy of all mankind.
One of the greatest threats to freedom lovers is any religion that would impose their doctrine on all others. A religion that forgot its only purpose is a relationship between one man and his god - nothing more. Many religions are home to extremists who would even impose their religious doctrine upon you.
Yes they are, and yes it is.
I'm not as certain as Elspode, but I have to believe that there are a large number of people who oppose reckless ammendments to the Constitution, regardless of their opinion on the subject matter. I'm not sure how the ammendment could help him, since most of its supporters would probably vote for Bush anyway. Additionally, I now doubt the ammendment would pass Congress, and a defeat would further tarnish his credibility.
Where were these people when we passed the Patriotic Act. Then there are what we now all but acknowledge are totally innocent people held for years in Guantanamo. Even 13 year old boys and an 80 year old man are a threat so great as to be caged in locations too small for even Bronx Zoo animals. But no one noticed?
I remember a lot of people arguing against the Patriot Act. I remember even more yelling at those that raised the questions, telling them they were unpatriotic. A lot of people were lost in little plastic flags, bumper stickers, and their promise to "never forget". I'm not going to suggest that it was their intention to do so, but I can't help but shake the feeling that a lot of higher-ups took advantage of the emotions of our country following 9-11.
I do have to say this much: I think GWB is the most damaging president we've had in this country in the last thirty or more years. We're taking some large steps backwards thanks to this man and his decisions to "assist" this country, its values, and its security. To see a president supporting the mangling of one of the documents that serves as the foundation to this country is disgusting. To understand that the proposed change to that document is being made specifically to isolate a group of people under the banner of "pro-American values" is even more sickening.
But, again, the country is whipped up in a frenzy over the emotions attached to the issue. There is a group of people out there who intend to damage your family and your children. It is obvious we must amend the Constitution of the United States to prevent it.
God bless America.
*I* sold our "traditional values" to Rush Limbaugh. I sold them for five bucks and a handful of magic beans.
I think I got the better end of the deal. ;)
Originally posted by tw
Even the Pope has ordered all Catholic lawmakers to impose Church doctrine into United States laws. Does not matter what religion you believe. This Pope says his doctrine should be imposed on you.
Oh, great...GWB is pushing for an anti-gay amendment, and the Pope is trying to get it written into our laws that molesting young boys is acceptable. That *is* part of Church doctrine, isn't it? I mean, they've pretty much accepted it for decades. I think it only really started upsetting them when it started costing them big bucks, didn't it?
Hmm...wonder how GWB plans on lining *his* pockets over this No Gay Marriage deal...? Anyone? Buehler?? Anyone?
Hmm...wonder how GWB plans on lining *his* pockets over this No Gay Marriage deal...?
More of that $600,000 at day will come from the moral majority (which is neither), from now on.:(
Originally posted by Elspode
You want to hear what is truly funny about all this? Rush Limbaugh is on the radio right now talking about the war on "our traditional values" by the Liberals.
Who the fuck sold this idiot all the traditions? Who are all these other people who have different traditional values, then? Are they not Americans? Is it not *their* constitution as well?
The worst thing about this is that no one, fucking NO ONE, can come up with any demonstration of actual harm being caused by two people of the same sex being married.
It is prejudice and hate, pure and simple. There's nothing moral about any of it, because no one is trying to force anything on anyone else on the so-called 'Liberal' side of this issue. No one is trying to pass an amendment requiring other people to have gay sex or take a same-sex partner.
Gay marriage deprives no one of anything, except perhaps the Right's precious sense of being the only class of people who have anything to say about everything.
I believe that this issue has just cost GW the election.
Nail, hit, head.
But wait: it gets much worse:
Jerry Falwell Forms Anti-Gay Marriage Coalition
And this:
Homosexual Marriage Constitutional Amendment: U.S. Department of Faith Proposal to Amend United States Constitution to Conform to Biblical Principles Regarding Marriage
*shakes head* :angry:
I found this 2003 article on interracial marriages. I find the parallels between that and gay marriage very simlilar. I wonder what would have been the reaction in 1967 if the President of the United States had proposed a constitutional amendment banning interracial marriage?
Color-Blind LoveOriginally posted by richlevy
I found this 2003 article on interracial marriages. I find the parallels between that and gay marriage very simlilar. I wonder what would have been the reaction in 1967 if the President of the United States had proposed a constitutional amendment banning interracial marriage?
Color-Blind Love
Thanks for that link. Sheesh, I guess Syc and I would be spitouttaluck if interracial marriage were banned.
I personally don't see how allowing gays and lesbians to be married will be hurting anyone. :confused:
This is my first visit to The Cellar, and I love it. I've only read this one thread, but it seems like a lot of people 'preaching to the choir', as they say - don't the (in this case) anti-gay marriage types ever check in here with their opinions, worthless and hackneyed though they might be?
I have difficulty believing that any person of even moderate intelligence and at least minimal education could possibly, honestly believe that recognition of same-sex marriages will somehow adversely affect their own marital relationship, or 'encourage' people to 'be gay.' The Religious Right are simply asserting what they believe to be their prerogative to control every aspect of 'their' society - putting their scent on everything, like a dog marking territory.
There is no rationally defensible reason that two law-abiding, unrelated adult citizens should not have access to the exact same legal status - marriage, in this case - regardless of their sex.
Aside from advancing and codifying a relatively obscure religious prohibition, in a realm - our government - into which religious doctrine and prejudice are, IN THEORY, not supposed to intrude, there is no logical reason to be against the State's recognition of gay marriage relationships.
Here are a couple of great quotes from 'Created Equal: Why Gay Rights Matter to America', by Michael Nava & Robert Dawidoff:
"America tells us that citizens of this country possess the inalienable right of freedom, and that government exists for no higher purpose than to protect the exercise of that freedom. America promises that the law shall be applied equally to all of us, regardless of our differences and especially if those differences incite prejudice in others. America tells us that the Constitution is a living thing, a framework that bends to accommodate and protect the freedom of every group of Americans that seek its protections, whether or not the founders could have envisioned their specific claim. America guarantees that we shall be free to worship God in the manner of our choosing, but that no other person's God will dictate how we are to live our own lives."
"It all comes down to this: Are people equal in this society by virtue of their citizenship, or not? If the answer is no, then we will be saying that equality does not exist in America anymore but has been replaced with tiers of citizenship, and that what tier you occupy depends on whether people like you or not. And if we accept this, then we will have repudiated the constitutional principles of liberty and equality upon which America was founded and which have been its historic challenge to the world."
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0312117647/inktomi-bkasin-20/ref%3Dnosim/002-1844439-5612816
America is a country of many traditions and national impulses; between many of them there exists a state of tension that sometimes breaks out into conflict or crisis. We're a people that extols the virtues of nonconformity, yet we're constantly trying to pressure our neighbors to be more like us in every conceivable way. We're justifiably proud of our Constitution, our court system, and the rule of law that they support, promote and defend - yet we balk and equivocate and rebel when these institutions, the envy of billions of people throughout the world, work as they should and protect the rights - to privacy, to equal treatment - of an entire class of Americans.
godwulf
America promises that the law shall be applied equally to all of us, regardless of our differences and especially if those differences incite prejudice in others.
I find it amusing that this is the promise of a country that has kept various classes and races of people in ordered social catagories for hundreds of years. Even now, I think the majority of the population is aware of some group of people they would like to restrict the freedoms of or remove rights from.
An Editorial Comment:
"The moral decline of America started with one atheist, when the liberal judges, placed in power by the Democrats, allowed equal rights for that one person."
Yes, folks, rights in this country are granted to you, not given away freely just for being here.
Damn, I'm being a horrible pessimist today.
Kitsune wrote:
>Yes, folks, rights in this country are granted to you, not given away freely just for being here.<
I think that situation exists only if we're lazy and selfish enough to permit it.
The massive Federal bureaucracy has a vested interest - to say the least - in fomenting divisiveness and hostility among Americans along lines of class, race, sexuality, gender, religion, and whatever other artificial qualifiers they can dream up.
It is to their benefit to lessen our empathy for other groups, and use the supposed danger posed by 'them' to enact laws that will eventually lessen or do away with the freedoms enjoyed by all.
To that end, they also foster the illusion that all rights spring not from our citizenship, but from the largesse of the government.
Do you know what first popped into my mind when I heard about the civil disobedience, re: gay marriages, happening in places like San Francisco, New York state, and Oregon? (No, it wasn't the urge to leave my wife of 14 years and go marry another guy.) It was the way the Soviet satellite countries like East Germany, Lithuania, Hungary, et al, simply began ignoring the directives of the Soviet government in 1989 and doing the right thing by the people.
Originally posted by wolf
That's pretty much how they handle it already, isn't it?
HP could answer this for us.
This has been making the rounds on the right-wing humor lists.
********~********
A scene at City Hall in San Francisco )
"Next." Good morning. We want to apply for a marriage license."
"Names?"
"Tim and Jim Jones."
"Jones? Are you related? I see a resemblance."
"Yes, we're brothers."
"Brothers? You can't get married."
"Why not? Aren't you giving marriage licenses to same gender couples?"
"Yes, thousands. But we haven't had any siblings. That's incest!"
"Incest?" No, we are not gay."
"Not gay? Then why do you want to get married?"
"For the financial benefits, of course. And we do love each other. Besides, we don't have any other prospects."
"But we're issuing marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples who've been denied equal protection under the law. If you are not gay, you can get married to a woman."
"Wait a minute. A gay man has the same right to marry a woman as I have. But just because I'm straight doesn't mean I want to marry a woman. I want to marry Jim."
"And I want to marry Tim, Are you going to discriminate against us just because we are not gay?"
"All right, all right. I'll give you your license. Next."
"Hi. We are here to get married."
"Names?"
"John Smith, Jane James, Robert Green, and June Johnson."
"Who wants to marry whom?"
"We all want to marry each other."
"But there are four of you!"
"That's right. You see, we're all bisexual. I love Jane and Robert, Jane loves me and June, June loves Robert and Jane, and Robert loves June and me. All of us getting married together is the only way that we can express our sexual preferences in a marital relationship."
"But we've only been granting licenses to gay and lesbian couples."
"So you're discriminating against bisexuals!"
"No, it's just that, well, the traditional idea of marriage is that it's just for couples."
"Since when are you standing on tradition?"
"Well, I mean, you have to draw the line somewhere."
"Who says? There's no logical reason to limit marriage to couples. The more the better. Besides, we demand our rights! The mayor says the constitution guarantees equal protection under the law. Give us a marriage license!"
"All right, all right. Next."
"Hello, I'd like a marriage license."
"In what names?"
"David Deets."
"And the other man?"
"That's all. I want to marry myself."
"Marry yourself? What do you mean?"
"Well, my psychiatrist says I have a dual personality, so I want to marry the two together. Maybe I can file a joint income-tax return."
"That does it! I quit!! You people are making a mockery of marriage!!"
At least it didn't try to bring in bestiality.
They must have forgotten to do so.
Marriage is a legal contract, i.e. an agreement between two legal parties.
Thus, just like every other legal contract: no children; no animals; no more or less than two people.
Please let the right-wing lists know this, as I am dead tired of hearing this straw man argument.
Not to cause anyone to doubt which side I'm on here or anything, but...
The children and animals thing is just silly, true, and the familial relation (incest) prohibition, when it comes to marriage, is pretty well grounded in science at least as much as tradition, but when it comes to plural marriage, well...
The appeal to "what's gonna happen next?" or "next we'll have to..." that's being invoked by the right-wingnuts is, I think, more of a 'slippery slope' argument than a 'straw man', by the way.
I'm just not sure but that eventually, somewhere down the road, the state will HAVE to recognize plural marriage relationships...and, since you brought up legal contracts, they're not always just between two people, if you think about it.
Let me make it crystal clear that I'm NOT in any way suggesting that the current prohibitions against same-sex marriages should therefore be continued or even strengthened because letting same-sex couples obtain that status MIGHT hasten the day when plural marriages become legally inevitable. I'm not suggesting that the 'slippery slope' argument that "Next we'll have to permit three or four people the right to get married" is a valid argument against same-sex marriages - only that it might, in fact, happen that way.
Right now, in Arizona, we have one or two 'fundamentalist Mormon' communities that everybody here thinks of when the topic of plural marriage comes up, and to say that they give the plural marriage concept a black eye is a vast understatement. Thirteen-year-old girls being forced to become the fifth or eighth or twelfth wife of some fifthy-something guy who's also her uncle, amid a human cesspool of welfare fraud, inbreeding, and sexual and physical abuse as a way of life - that's what any mention of plural marriage is going to bring to most people's minds in this part of the country these days, and that's a shame.
I work in the child custody field, and I'm aware of how ill-prepared the court system currently is for any new twists or innovations - like plural marriages - but the day may come when the system is going to have to adapt and grow to meet the changing needs of society. Same-sex marriage is inevitable, despite the bigots, and it may well be the case that legal acceptance of plural marriages is, too.
Indeed. From what I can tell, the primary cause of moral revulsion to plural marriages is the traditional association with pedophilia, incest, and abuse. If those are removed, I can't manage to drum up any opposition.
They say it's a slippery slope, I say if it's not legally possible it's not a slope at all never mind slippery, and the point is that we're still arguing over things *other than* gay marriage... a straw man.
Not to quibble, Undertoad, but...yeah, okay, maybe I am quibbling, but...I think a classic 'straw man' argument would be if one of those folk said, "The people who are in favor of gay marriage say it's okay for anybody to marry anybody else, even relatives, children and animals."
Maybe you've heard somebody say that - in which case you're absolutely right, that IS a 'straw man' argument. I'm just saying that the way I normally hear it phrased, it's definitely more into the 'slippery slope' variety of logical fallacy.
Hey, check this out.
http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/index.htmSFGateBut instead of a landmark debate, Republicans found themselves filibustering their own amendment to stop it from coming to the floor on Wednesday for a straight up-or-down vote -- out of fear that it might fail to get even 51 votes, much less the 67, or two-thirds majority, required to amend the Constitution.
I knew it wasn't long before this started ...
At least one set of newlyweds is hoping that their Marriage is declared invalid presumably because it will be cheaper than a real divorce ...
The dumbest quote in the article:
"It's not surprising that these unnatural arrangements don't last," said Randy Thomasson, executive director of the Campaign for California Families, the group that sued San Francisco to block the licenses. "Despite popular belief, the real goal of homosexual relationships isn't commitment, it's self-gratification and sexual pleasure."
The gays will have a long way to go to match the het divorce rate.
Plenty of opposing statements to gay marriage have been made talking about how if gay people are allowed to legally marry, it would undermine and/or destroy society as we know it, but not once have I heard any support to that claim. You might as well say legal gay marriage will cause another stock market crash and another Great Depression. Has anyone/Can anyone clarify exactly HOW we'll crumble into a state of anarchy and disorder if gay people are allowed marriage licenses?
Because, given legal approval, homosexuality will reach endemic proportions and soon EVERYONE will be gay, not have children, and ultimately lead to the downfall of the human race. Durh.
I'm convinced that the people of Pennsylvania could replace Rick Santorum in the Senate with a bottle of Tabasco sauce and come out ahead on the exchange.
Has anyone/Can anyone clarify exactly HOW we'll crumble into a state of anarchy and disorder if gay people are allowed marriage licenses?
No/no.
No/no.
I'd settle for an anti-gay-marriage argument that doesn't resolve down to one of two things:
1) Jeebus says it's wrong.
2) But it's ALWAYS been this way.
Rick Santorum is one of the dumbest motherfuckers on the planet.
"I would argue that the future of our country hangs in the balance because the future of marriage hangs in the balance," said Sen. Rick Santorum, a leader in the fight to approve the measure. "Isn't that the ultimate homeland security, standing up and defending marriage?"
Bill fails, 48Y - 50N