Constitutional ammendment to ban gay weddings

[saber11]

Bush just had a press conference and is calling for an ammendment to sanctify marriage between a man and a woman. This will bring this issue to a head.

[Sierra Mike]

Was that a pun? ;)

I'm not surprised. Dubya's not exactly a progressive sort.

SM

[btdude]

I am literally in tears. Give me awhile to think about how to reply.

[Coot]

I wouldn't be too concerned, this thing won't have legs and doesn't stand much of a chance. It's political posturing to appease the 700 clubbers.

[saber11]

I'm not going to take sides on this.

If such a thing get's rolling, it will be hard to stop.

But remember it takes A LONG time to get an ammendment passed.

[Necore]

Good move Mr. President! It's about time someone stood up and said, "Enough is enough!" And I can't wait to hear how Kerry's gonna react to this. He's gonna have to actually agree that President Bush had a good idea! LOLOLOL!
I wouldn't be too concerned, this thing won't have legs and doesn't stand much of a chance. It's political posturing to appease the 700 clubbers.700 clubbers?

Oh!!! You mean Christians! That's right! I had almost forgotten how politically correct it is to mock, scorn, ridicule and make fun of Christians and their beliefs! LOLOLOLOL!! Too funny!

Now mock, scorn, ridicule or make fun of a Muslim on the other hand.... :vmad:

[btdude]

NECORE HAYWIRE
I would expect no less from you. So good job on that. The hate, the pride in such arrogance fits well with you. What is it that you are all so scared of? I don't really care how you answer. I just need you to know that you are a breeder and follower of hate. You justify your hate and arrogance through the teachings and misinformation you get from others. I would challenge you to walk in my shoes for a day. I would challenge you to spark some ideas of humanity and compassion for other human beings within yourself. It is easy to get on a bandwagon. It is not so easy to sterr the horses carrying the load. Can you do that? Can you honestly be proud that you are in support of such hurtful actions?

[Sierra Mike]

I had almost forgotten how politically correct it is to mock, scorn, ridicule and make fun of Christians and their beliefs! LOLOLOLOL!! Too funny!

Now mock, scorn, ridicule or make fun of a Muslim on the other hand.... :vmad:
I do it daily, and so far, am all the better for it.

SM

[Violet1966]

NECORE HAYWIRE
I would expect no less from you. So good job on that. The hate, the pride in such arrogance fits well with you. What is it that you are all so scared of?

Make no mistake about it, not all Christians are against gay marriages. I have to repeat, the Christian way is understanding and compassion, and even when thought to be a "sin", understanding and more compassion. Not "all" people are scared of two people of the same sex, sharing a legal life together. This stance that the pres is taking, is based on wording in the legal term of marriage. In NH here, the same has been mentioned and same sex marriages weren't going to be honored here, because back when, marriage was written as male and female only. Government is hiding behind that, and the fact that extremists will shoot them or not re-elect them, if they don't go along with them. It's a sad reality. I'm sure if you did some research, you'd find a lot of athiests who don't believe in same sex marriage also. Sad but true.

I'm sorry for those who love, and can't feel whole if all they want to do is be peaceful and share love. :cry:

[Coot]

Good move Mr. President! It's about time someone stood up and said, "Enough is enough!" And I can't wait to hear how Kerry's gonna react to this. He's gonna have to actually agree that President Bush had a good idea! LOLOLOL!
700 clubbers?

Oh!!! You mean Christians! That's right! I had almost forgotten how politically correct it is to mock, scorn, ridicule and make fun of Christians and their beliefs! LOLOLOLOL!! Too funny!

Now mock, scorn, ridicule or make fun of a Muslim on the other hand.... :vmad:
Mocking? I simply separate the fantics of the Christian religion from their more moderate and sensible brethren. Nevermind the fact that such a Constitutional Amendment would likely be found at odds with the 14th Amendment and thus itself Unconstitutional. You might want to familiarize yourself (http://www.law.cornell.edu/topics/equal_protection.html) with it.

[Stiofán]

I'd have to say Bush was pretty much pushed into doing this. For the last week I've been hearing a lot of critisizm about his lukewarm announcement that he was "troubled" by what was happening in SF and Mass. Rove and crew have run up the barometer and concluded they had to throw a bone to the faithful or risk more loss of support from the consevative base of his party. He's getting so much flack about the immigration mess and the deficit, he needs to shore up support at home. Just my take on this. Nothing is done at this stage that isn't viewed in relation to the election later this year.

[RRedline]

Good move Mr. President! It's about time someone stood up and said, "Enough is enough!" And I can't wait to hear how Kerry's gonna react to this. He's gonna have to actually agree that President Bush had a good idea! LOLOLOL!
700 clubbers?

Oh!!! You mean Christians! That's right! I had almost forgotten how politically correct it is to mock, scorn, ridicule and make fun of Christians and their beliefs! LOLOLOLOL!! Too funny!

Now mock, scorn, ridicule or make fun of a Muslim on the other hand.... :vmad:I just hope Mr. Bush does the right thing and reverses the 1st and 14th Amendments. That way, nothing can stand in the way of white, Christian, heterosexual, male dominance in this nation. After all, this country was founded on white, Christian, heterosexual, male principles.

[Necore]

That way, nothing can stand in the way of white, Christian, heterosexual, male dominance in this nation. After all, this country was founded on white, Christian, heterosexual, male principles.
And sadly, relatively little groups of people are trying their hardest to make that an evil thing.

[ShinyTop]

And sadly, relatively little groups of people are trying their hardest to make that an evil thing.

Only when that group tries to suppress all others, a point you have never understood. Wait. That may be too harsh. Maybe your father taught you like you are teaching your son and you never had a chance to learn compassion and letting the other guy live his life.

[Sierra Mike]

And sadly, relatively little groups of people are trying their hardest to make that an evil thing.
:eek:

[expletive deleted]

SM

[RRedline]

And sadly, relatively little groups of people are trying their hardest to make that an evil thing.Evil, no. Unamerican, yes.

[Necore]

Only when that group tries to suppress all others, a point you have never understood. Wait. That may be too harsh. Maybe your father taught you like you are teaching your son and you never had a chance to learn compassion and letting the other guy live his life.Nobody's trying to supress homosexuals here. That's just plain liberal ignorance of the what the real picture is all about here. We just aren't going to let homosexuals and their "supporters" change, defame or belittle the institution of marriage that was put there for a specific purpose.

Majority rules remember? It's called "democracy". ;)

[Neo]

I've made it clear in other threads that I do not think this is an appropriate issue to be addressed by a Constitutional Amendment.

But as I also predicted or at least implied, the stupid and irresponsible acts by Mayor Newsom practically pushed this into a reality. A very stupid move on his part! And no matter what the final outcome of the Amendment--if there is one, this is going to cause a gay backlash in the big picture. If not legally, then at least socially! Sad.

And separate from the underlying issue itself, it is going to cause a lot of divisiveness and hard feelings. Hard feelings that will last for many years!

[Techie2000]

Anyone else think that calling it "protecting marriage" is a politically correct term?

Normally I am open to other people's positions, however the idea of protecting marriage by not allowing it is the most irrational thing I have ever heard. The truth of the matter is that Bush has taken a hard line against marriage because he read it in an old book, the same book that many of his voters read, and so he's doing this to appease them.

You know, I don't care about whether or not it is unnatural for two guys to copulate, nor do I care about whether it occurs in nature, or is natural, or that horses and teenage girls might be doing it like they enjoy chronicaling in various pieces of spam I recieve in my inbox every once in a while. What I do care about, is the fact that marriage, although originally based in religion, is also a legal status, one granted to those who have a bond with another. People who care for each other. This legal bond grants certain privlages that go along with the trust created by such a bond. Marriage with the state, and marriage with the church are in fact two seperate events, with seperate consequences. I cite the fact that many in the country get divorced, even though divorce is not recognized by the Roman Catholic church to show that our mainstream culture today has in fact accepted that they are two seperate things. If you want a "divorce" in the Roman Catholic Church you can't get one, although they do offer annullments, but these are seperate from legal divorces and are not recognized by the church. We have seperation of church & state, and that is what makes our country strong. It protects both the state and religion. Now I ask this, who is the government to deny that two people of the same sex have a strong bond and deep love for each other? Why should we allow our government to interfere with people's personal lives in this matter? Interracial marriages used to be illegal in America, but we have recognized today that the government has no right to tell people who they love and who they don't based on race. I refuse to call those who support this initative conservative, as demanding the government get involved in preventing people from doing things in their personal lives is not the view of someone who thinks that there should be less government. Quite frankly if I were a conservative, which I sometimes am, I would be offended that those who want to litter my constitution with this gospel of hatred are tarnishing the reputation of those who believe the government shouldn't interfere in people's lives.

[ShinyTop]

Excellent post, techie, might leave you a hair or two after that.

[Coot]

Here's the proposed amendment:

FEDERAL MARRIAGE AMENDMENT (H.J.Res. 56)
Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this constitution or the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.


I don't think this thing stands a chance of getting out of Congress. David Dreier (http://dreier.house.gov/cdd_bio.htm) is the Chairman of the House Rules Committee which would have to let this get to the floor for a vote. While Dreier is a Republican and opposed to gay marriage, he's even more stridently opposed to mucking around with the Constitution, and a strong opponent of the Federal Government excercising authority over what is a State's issue.

Aside from not passing muster with the SCOTUS if it ever did get that far, this whole thing is just a fart in a whirlwind. Bush is throwing a bone to Christofites on the far right and nothing more.

[Necore]

But as I also predicted or at least implied, the stupid and irresponsible acts by Mayor Newsom practically pushed this into a reality. A very stupid move on his part!Kinda like... "Mess with the bull and you get the horns"?And no matter what the final outcome of the Amendment--if there is one, this is going to cause a gay backlash in the big picture. If not legally, then at least socially! Sad.Backlash is right. Because like all liberals, homosexuals cannot accept the fact that they live in a country where the majority rules and once a decision has been made they cannot live with it in any way what-so-ever unless it benefits them. They will scream and whine and protest and hold even more flamboyant "gay pride parades" and throw names like bigot and hater and closed-minded and redneck (AS IF THAT'S A BAD THING).

So WTF's new?
And separate from the underlying issue itself, it is going to cause a lot of divisiveness and hard feelings. Hard feelings that will last for many years!No. Homosexuals and liberals will cause the divisiveness and hard feelings that you speak of as they have always done because they cannot accept defeat on any given issue.

Nooooooooo... Instead, radical judges and mayors will attempt to rewrite law and make up laws instead of going through the constitutional processes that are there for just that purpose. But it backfired on them this time and they forced our Commander in Chief's hand.

Whether it gets passed or not, you get two thumbs up from me, Mr. President! :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[Stiofán]

Just one point of clarification, Cootster. I don't believe SCOTUS has any say about an amendment. If it is ratified, they don't get to weigh in on the matter. It's a done deal.

[Neo]

I don't believe SCOTUS has any say about an amendment. If it is ratified, they don't get to weigh in on the matter. It's a done deal.

Yep. A done deal.

And the odds are IMO about 5-1 in favor that an amendment will be drafted and start its journey to be ratified or "rejected."

[FrankF]

Make no mistake about it, not all Christians are against gay marriages. I have to repeat, the Christian way is understanding and compassion, and even when thought to be a "sin", understanding and more compassion.

I suspect it may have a great deal to do with what Christian Church you belong to (if any) , where, and when. I remember when my older sister came out as being a lesbian. She was banned from the Christian church that our family attended. So she joined a Lutheran church, and was banned from that one too as soon as they found out she is a lesbian. I remember a kid a went to school with who died from a heroin overdose... what remained of his family was banned from our church. And a woman divorced her husband and soon after began attending church with a black man. The church membership voted against the man becoming a new member of the church because they didn't allow black people. And a neighbor down the street from me who died from sniffing glue (police found a bag over his head filled with glue)... his parents were booted from the church for being bad parents. Our pastor was addicted to uppers to keep him awake while he needed to see to all of the member's problems and take care of church business too, and sedatives to help him sleep at night after all of the above... and was kicked out after members heard "he was on drugs". That was all from one church in a 3-4 year period. Yeah ,tell me more about the the Christian way of understanding and compassion.

[Stiofán]

I suspect it may have a great deal to do with what Christian Church you belong to (if any) , where, and when. I remember when my older sister came out as being a lesbian. She was banned from the Christian church that our family attended. So she joined a Lutheran church, and was banned from that one too as soon as they found out she is a lesbian. I remember a kid a went to school with who died from a heroin overdose... what remained of his family was banned from our church. And a woman divorced her husband and soon after began attending church with a black man. The church membership voted against the man becoming a new member of the church because they didn't allow black people. And a neighbor down the street from me who died from sniffing glue (police found a bag over his head filled with glue)... his parents were booted from the church for being bad parents. Our pastor was addicted to uppers to keep him awake while he needed to see to all of the member's problems and take care of church business too, and sedatives to help him sleep at night after all of the above... and was kicked out after members heard "he was on drugs". That was all from one church in a 3-4 year period. Yeah ,tell me more about the the Christian way of understanding and compassion.
After the first such episode, you decided to stay for what reason???

[ShinyTop]

If an amendment conflicts with an earlier amendment do they not have to repeal the earlier amendment? Is the latest considered automatically correct? A gay marriage amendment would conflict with equal protection, would it not?

[Coot]

Nope, at least not according to Judge Andrew Nopalitano. I was listening to him being interviewed earlier today and the SCOTUS most certainly can enter the fray if the ratified amendment is either in conflict with the core of the Constitution or any existing amendments. This one will most certainly be in conflict with the 14th amendment. If this condition arose without intervention, you would have judges and courts picking out the one they wanted to enforce at the expense of the other.

[Necore]

Yeah ,tell me more about the the Christian way of understanding and compassion.This has nothing to do with the Christian Church or the Christian Way. It has nothing to do with compassion, civil rights, human rights or even gay rights for that matter.

This is about one relatively small group of people coming forward and saying, "This law doesn't appease me. Therefore I am going to ignore it's existence and ignore the the will of the people and do what I want to and scream, whine, moan and groan until I get my way just because my opponents are tired of hearing my incessant complaints."

This isn't even about gays wanting the benefits being afforded to married couples. This is all about gays wanting their lifestyle and their way of life to be accepted as normal... acceptable... as beneficial to society as any normal relationship... as "not different".

And that will never happen.

I know... I know... "Not so long as evil, hateful, bigoted, racist, sexist, closed minded, closet fags like you exist, Necore/HaYwIrE!"

What EVER. :rolleyes:

[ShinyTop]

Thank God, and I am not religious, that your brand of hatred is not normal. Just wish we could make it illegal but then we would be as bad as you. Perish that thought.

[FrankF]

After the first such episode, you decided to stay for what reason???

My father was an "Elder" in the church (an elected position) so I was made privy to church "business matters" which included the gory details of what I posted (and more). I dealt with it until I was 15-16 because I had too at the time. It probably has something to do with why I haven't been inclined to go to church in 30 years.

[Neo]

If an amendment conflicts with an earlier amendment do they not have to repeal the earlier amendment? Is the latest considered automatically correct? A gay marriage amendment would conflict with equal protection, would it not?

1. It is impossible legally to conflict.
2. See number one.
3. See number one.
4. No.

Separately, keep in mind "equal protection" is a purely subjective standard. And in a related finding a gay-marriage ban Amendment or whatever it would be called would remove the subjective standard or issue of equal protection for that particular circumstance.

All of the above is my legal perspective, not a social or moral one.

[Coot]

1. It is impossible legally to conflict.
2. See number one.
3. See number one.
4. No.

Separately, keep in mind "equal protection" is a purely subjective standard. And in a related finding a gay-marriage ban Amendment or whatever it would be called would remove the subjective standard or issue of equal protection for that particular circumstance.

All of the above is my legal perspective, not a social or moral one.It is not impossible to legally conflict, and as to whether this would conflict with the 14th amendment, I think you will find yourself in a select minority of jurists with that perspective...even some of the most conservative aren't buying it.

Edit: see this post (http://www.globalaffairs.org/forum/showthread.php?postid=188560#poststop)

[Necore]

Thank God, and I am not religious, that your brand of hatred is not normal.It's not hatred. Consider it "straight pride" or maybe even "white, hetero, anglo-saxton, protestant, male pride". And it may not be normal in your world, but in the United States that's the majority's opinion. ;)

[Neo]

It is not impossible to legally conflict, and as to whether this would conflict with the 14th amendment, I think you will find yourself in a select minority of jurists with that perspective...even some of the most conservative aren't buying it.

Edit: see this post (http://www.globalaffairs.org/forum/showthread.php?postid=188560#poststop)

OK, I am willing to bend here. "Impossible" is too narrow, stringent, and exclusive. Almost impossible is more accurate.

On the rest we disagree.

Shiny, take your pick.

[FrankF]

This has nothing to do with the Christian Church or the Christian Way. It has nothing to do with compassion, civil rights, human rights or even gay rights for that matter.

From reading your posts, I think that your position has everthing to do with the above. You think that homosexual marriage is dirty, filthy, perverse, disgusting, un-natural, and immoral. That is what the Christian church and most other religions teach. So, if you do not object to same sex marriages on religious or moral grounds, why do you object? (Not intended as a personal attack... I am just asking a question).

I will agree though that same sex marriage is illegal in California. California law plainly states that marriage is only between a man and a woman; but California law also states that it recognizes marriages that are legal in other jurisdictions. Go figure! ... contradiction there.

[Necore]

From reading your posts, I think that your position has everthing to do with the above. You think that homosexual marriage is dirty, filthy, perverse, disgusting, un-natural, and immoral. That is what the Christian church and most other religions teach. So, if you do not object to same sex marriages on religious or moral grounds, why do you object?In the interest of tradition and evolution.

The majority of heterosexual people do not and will not accept homosexuals as some sort of "equal counterpart". Anyone's reasons behind their unacceptance is irrelevant.

Marriage and matrimony have always been reserved, if only by some unspoken law, for Adam and Eve... not Adam and Steve. That is how the majority of society wants it.

Homosexuals and their followers have no right to create law or make legal decisions just because they know they'd never get it passed if gone through the proper channels because they'll always be in the minority on this issue.

Now, they need to accept defeat and go get a Civil Union. They do not meet the criteria necessary to get married!
...California law plainly states that marriage is only between a man and a woman; but California law also states that it recognizes marriages that are legal in other jurisdictions. Go figure! ... contradiction there.Not much to figure. With all of the gays, Liberals and, of course, the Hollywood Elite out there, contradiction is a way of life for those people. ;)

[btdude]

I just need to say this. I an not interested in sympathy, empathy or anything else. You know I am not necessarily in favor of gay marriages, given that we as a society cannot even successfully hold a heterosexual marriage togther. I am very much about equality and receiving the same benefits freedoms and rights that other Americans do. It is simplistic sounding. It is simple to write off a segment of the population that differs from the majority. I was walking to the train yesterday, after I heard this news a few hours earlier. Somehow, things had changed in a way that numbed me to the core. I felt as if every person I looked at, or who looked at me was somehow against me for who and what I am. It hurt. Even in the days before I came out, I never felt that. It may have been the fact that I work in DC, and my walk takes me directly in front of the Capital. Maybe. 2 flags raised at full staff, signifying that both houses of Congress are in session, creating rules, debating on behalf of their constituents. Sadly, where are the people argueing for me?

I listen to the radio news on the way home. I hear nothing about how Spring is almost here, and how the flowers are starting to pop. I hear nothing about the usual beltway traffic. I hear Tucker and Peter discussing why Bush had to do this. WHAT? Bush had to propose writing discrimination and hate into our Constituion? It is truly sad. I hear such things, and I hope I am wrong, but soon we will see acts of hate toward homosexuals again. Because now, there is a blessed OK to do so. Peter replied to Tucker and said yep, let's just stone and crucify all of them. That would be the best way to rid ourselves of anyone or any group who is different than we are. That is, afterall how they did it in the Bible. And, since Bush et all seem to be following the Biblical teachings, we might as well just go ahead and kill all the slime we can.

CNN was airing Falwell and Elizabeth Birch. Falwell was quick to point out that we oughta just make it legal for beastiality and paligamy to take place. How extreme is that? It's silly. Why do we not just ammend the Constitution to outlaw divorce? Why do we not outlaw adultery, and stealing, and murder? Oh, we DO that already. In fact, those are in the Ten Commandments from God. Those are violated every day by our friends on the extreme right. What is not in the Top Ten list is what the zealots keep preaching to be in the Bible about man with man. Yeah, it is in the Bible. It was a roadside Inn people, get over it. We cannot allow legislation to dictate who we love, nor rationalize or moralize why we do what we do, and why we have to go to such extremes to protect what is "sacred". I'd LOVE to be able to protect what is considered to be so dear, and it does not mean it has to be called marriage. But, I can't do that. I don'thave the right to do that. And all I want is the same right every other American has, to BE able to protect that.

A side note to VI: I know not ALL folks are afraid, and I was venting in anger when I wrote that piece. I feel in my heart that most of you on this sight are compassionate people, as (traditonally) Republican as you may be. That's not a bad thing. The old school grand old party would truly not approve of any of this.

[Violet1966]

I suspect it may have a great deal to do with what Christian Church you belong to (if any) , where, and when. I remember when my older sister came out as being a lesbian. She was banned from the Christian church that our family attended. So she joined a Lutheran church, and was banned from that one too as soon as they found out she is a lesbian. I remember a kid a went to school with who died from a heroin overdose... what remained of his family was banned from our church. And a woman divorced her husband and soon after began attending church with a black man. The church membership voted against the man becoming a new member of the church because they didn't allow black people. And a neighbor down the street from me who died from sniffing glue (police found a bag over his head filled with glue)... his parents were booted from the church for being bad parents. Our pastor was addicted to uppers to keep him awake while he needed to see to all of the member's problems and take care of church business too, and sedatives to help him sleep at night after all of the above... and was kicked out after members heard "he was on drugs". That was all from one church in a 3-4 year period. Yeah ,tell me more about the the Christian way of understanding and compassion.

FrankF, the organized church is not Christianly. I have said this before...I despise the church and the pope crap. My dad was married to a women in the fifties who took him to the cleaners. No kids...he was born Catholic. His dad was the one who secured and maintained the church. They grew up across the street from it. My father in turn, wound up as any 1920's born Italian American was back then. Devoted to the church and the pope....and an alter boy. Well when my dad's ex wife divorced him, he was broken. There was nothing he could do to save the marriage as she refused to particpate. So he moved on. Then in the 60's he met my mom. She was raised Catholic too. Devout as far as she met the criteria. They went to arrange for their marriage and the divorce came up. They were refused marriage in the church. They then decided that they would marry in a Lutheran church, and that's why I was baptized Lutheran. We didn't go to church. My parents let me go to sunday school and tried their best to give me what they had in faith, but they lost faith kinda because of what happened to them. They didn't force me to go, and still showed their love for God and Jesus at home in little ways....put out a bible if we wanted to read it. So church was in my own home in whomever wanted to beleive. It wasn't a necessity at all. I grew up that way. I stopped going to sunday school after a year or so, because I didn't like the whole church side of it. So be it. But that didn't stop me from being a Christian. I still love God...I still love Jesus Christ and went on one day in my early twenties, to read the Bible on my own, and found my love was real. I wouldn't particpate when I was forced to baptize my first son a Catholic, and had some nun harrassing me to go to "Christian" homes to fullfill the repentence of my sinful past though "Bible meetings". I actually had to blow her off, when she wouldn't stop calling me. The harrassing mail from the Newark Diocese made me sick...telling me over and over how many times a year, to give 20% or more of my pay to the church. Catholicism scares me more then anything....and it shouldn't be that way. The organized church scares me....because there are rules set forth based on some guy who isn't living in my world, but still is dictating how I should live.

Do not confuse the organized church and the madness and judgemental ways of a man in power, with the good in ones heart because they believe in something that turned out to be called "Christianity". I call myself a Christian because it's something that most people who believed in Jesus do....but that doesn't mean I'm a church going anyone who lets mortals dictate what I do with my own life. I will be the only one to have to face my sins....they need to keep their noses out of it and stop telling me how I should live. :vmad:

[tke711]

Call me stupid, but I just don't understand what the big frigging deal is with this issue. If two people want to enter the legal agreement called marriage, I don't care if they are man and man, woman and woman, or man and woman. It should be there choice to enter or not enter into marriage.

As for this "sanctity of marriage" crap, it's just that....crap!!! Us hetero's have already fucked that up with our great 55% divorce rate and quickie marriages by celebrities.

What are these homophobes scared of? I got it. They are scared that the gay/lesbian community will actually have a better percentage of marriages stay together! :) That's got to be it, since a marriage between 2 men they've never met would have zero impact on their lives.

[Violet1966]

Call me stupid, but I just don't understand what the big frigging deal is with this issue. If two people want to enter the legal agreement called marriage, I don't care if they are man and man, woman and woman, or man and woman. It should be there choice to enter or not enter into marriage.

As for this "sanctity of marriage" crap, it's just that....crap!!! Us hetero's have already fucked that up with our great 55% divorce rate and quickie marriages by celebrities.

What are these homophobes scared of? I got it. They are scared that the gay/lesbian community will actually have a better percentage of marriages stay together! :) That's got to be it, since a marriage between 2 men they've never met would have zero impact on their lives.

That's it!!! It's a supremicy issue. You hit the nail on the head. "They're" gonna make "us" look bad thing. Sad isn't it? I am not threatened by gay marriage in one bit. How is it going to threaten my marriage? The only ones that are going to feel threatened, are either conforming, or going along with the same supremist attitude, that not all "men" are created equally. That negros should be slaves and women shouldn't be in the work force at all. This at one time was all based on constitutional wording too!!! Scared individuals who feel superior and need that entitlement, in the form of laws. Those same people, got all po'd when "coloreds" started to use the same toilet as themselves. Get real and keep it to yourself I say. We have enough hate in the world. It's our children that God forbid might die because of our hate. We need to understand and not pick at the little things, if it affects us none. We are not all the same but we are all humans :)

[jfcjrus]

I just want to comment on why I'm confused about this issue.

In 1620 the Pilgrims landed in Plymouth, MA.
In establishing their new <i>commonwealth</i> they instituted the Dutch custom of <i>civil marriage</i> (mostly because they spent so much time in the Netherlands before coming here).

The FIRST marriage in the <i>New England</i> was performed in 1621 by the Governor, by authority of his office as magistrate.
The first 'clergy' didn't arrive until 1629! (8 years later)
EVEN THEN marriage was still a CIVIL affair!
It wasn't until 1692, (72 years later!), that the <i>clergy</i> was authorized to perform marriages that would be recognized by the LAW of the Commonwealth!
(Chapter 207 of the General Laws of Massachusetts)

So, I think this issue is about CIVIL UNIONS, not "MARRIAGE".
During the course of this country's history, the two somehow became different, where, in the beginning, the clergy were simply (after 70 years!) authorized to perform these 'civil unions', recognized by the law of the land (along with the magistrates).

I recognize that <i>today</i>, those in a 'civil union' do not have many of the same rights as those in a 'marriage'.
I admit that I DO NOT KNOW when that happened, or WHY that happened, but, to me, THAT'S the issue!

Bringing the word 'marriage' into the debate just antagonized those that view this from a religious standpoint, rather than from a equal rights standpoint.
A mistake, in my opinion.

What SHOULD be the issue is to restore to CIVIL UNIONS all the legal rights they ONCE posessed, as the LAW of the land, before religion or concept of morality entered the picture.

Just my confused thoughts.
Regards,

[Necore]

I just need to say this. I an not interested in sympathy, empathy or anything else. You know I am not necessarily in favor of gay marriages, given that we as a society cannot even successfully hold a heterosexual marriage togther.And that sad fact can easily be traced to and rightfully blamed on Liberal laws. But that's a whole 'nother subject.
I am very much about equality and receiving the same benefits freedoms and rights that other Americans do. It is simplistic sounding. It is simple to write off a segment of the population that differs from the majority.The majority of gay people want to be seen as normal... as equal to heterosexuals. While it is a given that many gays are equal in many ways (AND MANY WAYS I'M SURE EVEN "BETTER") to any other human being on Earth, homosexuality is NOT normal. Surely you cannot argue that point, and don't give me that "What's normal?" bullshit either.

So, they try to force society to accept them as normal... calling them horrible names on a daily basis... spewing hatred and vulgar filth from their mouths... and then cry a river when people fight back against it... spewing even more hateful names and labels.

And they wanna be accepted????

Heteros are not the ones trying to fit in here. We're already "in". We're not the ones treading on thin ice here. Gays are. And that's the first thing you, as a gay man, need to accept.

The intelligent thing to do would be to just live your lives. Leave your sexual persuasion out of it. People are not stupid and will accept you for who you are when gays shut up and stop trying to force their lifestyle on the rest of mainstream society and calling them names until they give in.

Every time I'm called a homophobe, bigot, hater or whatEVER, my anger just builds and builds and builds. So blame it on your gay leaders and so-called "Human Rights Activists". Go cry them a river and get them to stop trying to make ME feel bad because THEY are gay.
Sadly, where are the people argueing for me?

All over the state of California... even presiding on benches.
Hollywood's elite.
Liberal and gay politicians
Every person in (AND ALL THOSE ATTENDING) gay pride parades
Lambda Lambda Lambda
All of the people in this forum
Liberal media
The list goes on and on! Cry me a freakin' river! :rolleyes:
I listen to the radio news on the way home. I hear nothing about how Spring is almost here, and how the flowers are starting to pop. I hear nothing about the usual beltway traffic. I hear Tucker and Peter discussing why Bush had to do this. WHAT? Bush had to propose writing discrimination and hate into our Constituion? It is truly sad. I hear such things, and I hope I am wrong, but soon we will see acts of hate toward homosexuals again. Because now, there is a blessed OK to do so. Peter replied to Tucker and said yep, let's just stone and crucify all of them. That would be the best way to rid ourselves of anyone or any group who is different than we are. That is, afterall how they did it in the Bible. And, since Bush et all seem to be following the Biblical teachings, we might as well just go ahead and kill all the slime we can.Oh cry me another freakin' river! Pulleeeaaase! This has nothing to do with discrimination or crucifictions. It is simply saying that if you want the same benefits as heteros, get a "Civil Union" because MARRIAGE HAS ALWAYS BEEN AND WILL ALWAYS BE RESERVED FOR MEN AND WOMEN WHO WANT TO JOIN IN MATRIMONY.

Why can the gay community not accept that?

Because it's not enough. They will continue to spew their own brand of hatred and labels because they cannot accept the fact that homosexuality is not normal and "mainstream" and wish to rid the world of those who do not chose to see it as such. Period.

But it ain't gonna happen. Not the way you people are going about it. Once you recognize that, you'll be better off for it.

Accept the Civil Unions offered to you. Leave religion and marriage to us old hateful, evil, bigoted, racist, sexist, Christians. Stop trying to infiltrate and force yourself and lifestyle into everything that opposes you and your homosexuality. Throw away the hateful labels you place on those who do not agree with your lifestyle. Stop trying to teach my children that gay sex is perfectly normal and acceptable when you yourself know damned well that it is not.

Only then will I BEGIN to see you as "normal".

[RRedline]

Necore (or whatever the hell your name is this month), you are arguing tradition into law? So if something is a tradition, it should not be changed? Would you support getting rid of Congress and freezing all laws as they stand now? They way, we can maintain tradition.

Your secular reasons for supporting this amendment amounts to nothing more than, "Everything's fine and nothing ever needs to change." What kind of superconservative crap is that?

As for your comments about majority rule, here's something to ponder. Back in 1958, polls showed that 94% of Americans were opposed to legalizing interracial marriages. Were we wrong to go against the wishes of the majority? In this case, it is a larger majority than the current opposition to gay marriages. I think it is very indicative of the vast amount of social PROGRESS (I know you would call it something else) we have made in the past fifty years. I have no doubt that no matter how big a stumbling block Bush's actions will pose for gay rights, it is inevitable that we will have EQUAL rights someday. He may even win a battle or two, but he and his supporting are fighting a losing <strike>Crusade</strike>war.

Just think of all the former "traditions" and apply your reasoning to them. Why do women need to vote anyway? :friggin: liberals!

[joseftu]

I think dinosaurs, if they could have foreseen their extinction, would have ranted in a very similar way.

[yazdzik]

Majority rules remember? It's called "democracy". ;)

The US constitution supercedes majority mandated legislation. Marbury vs Madison remember?

The majority can never establish a state religion, curtail freedom of speech, establish that the cops are always right, and so forth.

We live in a "government of limited powers." Even the majority is limited in its power.

The call for an amendment is Bush's tacit admission that the fourteenth amdendment prohibits any discrimination.

Nine and only nine men decide the ultimate legality of an act of a legislature.

Apparently, many if not most Americans would like to live in a democracy, like Nazi Germany, or Fascist Italy.
The majority's power was wisely limited by those who desigened a government of reason, else, this would be a christian country where we all know that the cops would never arrest anyone who wasn't doing anything wrong, and, while we tolerate those jews and niggers, and god knows, Susy has to go to her job at walmart, the real americans know that the man is the head of the family, and only those people who don't love the good ol' US would rever those atheist intellectuals like Jefferson and Marshall.

Thank god for the christian right, who will abolish the us consitution and put a real religious government in its place, just like Iran and Afghanistan, those virtuous god-fearing lands of real moral integrity.

Can't wait to live there.

In fact, we almost already do......


Anyone reading Sports Illustrated in a public school ought to know that......

-MY

[Violet1966]

All hail the constitution! Those guys were genius' :)

Good post Martin! :thumbsup:

This should be interesing to see how it affects the presidents run in the next election, not taking both sides of the fence. His opponent is kinda getting an edge on him in this major issue we're facing. http://www.boston.com/news/specials/gay_marriage/articles/2004/02/12/gay_media_outlets_rap_kerrys_silence_in_marriage_debate/

""In Massachusetts, he has been clear that he supports civil unions, not gay marriage, and that we need legal analysis to determine what impact any amendment would have on equal protection and civil unions," Wade said."

So what needs to be done now, would be for the word "marriage" to be ruled out, but civil unions made legal across the board, or George is gonna be sitting on the ranch maybe a bit too soon? Should be interesting.

You can't just be one sided when trying to ammend the constitution right? There has to be something that promotes equality then ammended in the bill of rights to allow legal same sex civil unions? It wouldn't really seem fair not to handle it that way unless we are allowing church and state to be combined and respected for the moral value of the arguement? It should be all about civil rights and laws and not religion. As much as I may agree with or disagree with legal same sex civil unions on a religious level, as an American, I have to respect this as a civil rights issue and not a church issue.

[Robert Harris]

Nine and only nine men decide the ultimate legality of an act of a legislature.


Last I heard they let a couple of women join that group. It may have been a mistake, but there they are...

[joseftu]

Martin! It's so good to see you back!

[Stiofán]

I suspect none of this will get very far until the national DOMA Clinton signed in is tested by SCOTUS. It will likely fall, then this little bugger will take off. We could be years away from that though. I agree with Lee's post that this is a election year move to shore up support at home for Bush, and not much more.

[yazdzik]

Last I heard they let a couple of women join that group. It may have been a mistake, but there they are...
Dear RH and friends,

I believe, the last time I spoke English, men refers to the species homo sapiens, as in, "all men are created equal."
Has Harris become a Falwell fundamentalist? ;)

Seriously, it is precisely because of this type of imprecision that the founders did not want the representatives alone making laws, rather those who represent could only pass laws if those elders, to wit the senators, who thought for themselves, representing no one, agreed, then, a executive, sworn, in spite of politics, to uphold the consitution, not the majority will, signed it.
Then, if there be still a conflict, the supreme law of the land is the consitution, and the nine men, of whatever genitalia, decide whether a statute be consonant with the law or not.
Majority rule exists in many countries, thankfully, not here; the majority may elect representatives to create statute, but that statute must be firmly controlled by the constitution.
That most Americans would repudiate the constitution as dissonant with the modern world saddens me, though not as much as the fact that some judges, unworthy to bear the name of lawyer would do so as well.
It is a sad day for our land when people want the world's most secular country to revert to a theocracy; we are Iran, with Jesus instead of Muhammed.
Interesting that every now and then a lunatic comes to power, who sees his power resides in pandering to mass hysteria.
America has a puritanical heritage, and most Americans are emotionally attached to the "old time religion." Bush refers to tradition not law in grounding his reasoning. Like the evil men who killed in the name of christ in New England, he wants to replace the tolerant and compassionate world of Monticello with the rabid and ferocious withc trials of Salem. The irony of this culture never ceases to astonish me. Pepole came here to escape persecution and create the most oppressive governments the world had ever seen - stocks for adultery, torturing children, mandatory church, the list is unending. It took three hundred years until a psychopathic Austrian could match the cruelty of the colonial christians, and he did so, like they, with the support of the full majority of his landsmen. Funny how a few decades after the war, there were no Nazis, just good folk(goody proctor comes to mind....) who followed orders.
Jefferson, Marshall, Franklin, and the well-educated Princeton humanists, and, remember well, Princeton was a christian school run by a scots kirkman, who sincerely believed in god, decided that religion whould bear no role in government, irrespective of its role in society. No stocks, law not "right and wrong" determined our social order.
Every religious awakening here has created a savage attack upon the rights of man, and we escape ever more narrowly as the general education level of the populace declines, while at the same time the popular support of politicians becomes more and more influential upon decisions of men whose politics can never rise to statesmanship.

Bush has said, in effect, "Damn our laws, let us pray; America is her beer, her walmarts, her cheap petrol, and religious heritage." He has shat upon the constitution he has sworn to uphold. He should be the first, as an avowed christian, to inform the right, that as deeply as he believes, no religion should enter the law. But, since he is the most evil man ever to inhabit a home occupied by more than one felon, he will sell our land to his god, destroying america, and handing her bound to jesus, just as Usama would hand her bleeding to allah.
I wonder which commandment the satanic minister of hate broke when he swore to uphold the constitution, and instead serves jesus.
Or I guess, if we hate fags enough, it is okay to lie and murder in jesus' name.
After all, we all know that just a few years ago, these same goodies believed that jesus hated niggers, human garbage with the mark of Cain.
The three georges, the third who tortured colonists, the wallace who stood on the steps of the schools of Alabama, and now the W, who will stand on the steps of the Capitol of the country, crying "Christian America now,Christian America forever." Unlike Wallace, there will be no National Guard sent by those loyal to the law and the courts to insist upon the law being uphelp.
He whose position it is so to do has defiled the law he represents.
A government of limited powers may be ineffectual in a world of international terrorism, but an ineffectual government we are then, by design.
If we do not have the courage to remain a strong land with a weak government we shall cease to be the US, and become a country like any other.
A dear friend of mine once told me that the US system of government was so weak it would never survive the turn of the millenium, in a world of a fortress Europe and mideast nuclear proliferation. Make no mistake, is is a matter of time before the WMDs are found somewhere there. Of course, mine friend was german.

I look back to a post I made at DSLR well before 9/11, about Bush's then upcoming trip to Germany. I predicted he would see the folk democracy, understand it, and wish for the power of a german chancellor. Little did I know that, through the grace of a few religious fanatics like himself, he would finally receive that power, at the hands of a grateful public.

We all cry in panic to the deaf gods in whom we all believe, "Save us, anyone, save us."

Woe betide the man who believes that a saviour exists; he is already a slave.

Yazdzik

[Violet1966]

Martin thank you. You have made my night. I thoroughly enjoy reading your posts whether I believe them to be accurate or not, as they are music to my ears. You so eloquently put things. It's always a pleasure :) :thumbsup:

You are so right, and I say this as a Christian or better put, Jesus believer. We do not need our government ruling our country based on a religion or morals. One day it might come to pass, that the man or woman we call President, is a Muslim, a Jew, a Buddhist, or an Ant Worshiper, and those religious Fundamentalists who loved the perks of their kind in office, might just get the hint of how bad it really can be on the other side ;)

[ShinyTop]

Welcome back friend, all the more for the accuracy and elequence of your posts.

[yazdzik]

or an Ant Worshiper,

Kerry is unlikely to be elected.....

[btdude]

Used with permission. A humorous piece.

Christian View on Gay Marriage

On February 12, in brazen defiance of the Christian Coalition, God, and the Governator, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom permitted gays and lesbians to obtain marriage licenses, Two elderly lesbians, who had lived together for 51 years, became the first same-sex couple to get married.

Surely, I thought, God would not permit such an abomination to occur, especially on the day just before Friday the 13th. Was this all part of some sort of secret Satanic plot?

I waited with bated breath.

I expected. San Francisco to get swept away by a 600 foot tidal wave or leveled by point-10 earthquake. Or maybe a plague of locusts, flies, frogs - or even pigeons. Worse, I expected all heterosexuals in California to abandon their wives, families, lovers, girl friends and the NBA Superstar Basketball Jam - and - led by the NBA all-stars themselves - stampede to West Hollywood to participate in a Bacchanalian free-for-all as all. This was, after all, exactly what all the tele-evangelists prophesied.

Certainly if God wished to take a stand on gay marriage, He had the perfect media event After all, the NBA was in town for the entire three-day weekend. I anticipated the moment - just at the most exciting second of the NBA All Star game - the announcer’s voice... “We interrupt this broadcast for a special news bulletin – SAN FRANCISCO WIPED OUT BY HAIL of FIRE and BRIMSTONE!!!.”

I am still waiting. But nothing has happened - except for a week of rainy weather, hardly unusual for this time of year. God did not turn Mayor Newsom into a pillar of salt, nor did heteros abandon the NBA basketball game in a frenzied pursuit of any one homo - much to the relief of every gay in LA, especially basketball fans.

Puzzled, I pulled out my Bible. I skipped all the fulminations in the Old Testament, which sound like something Taliban would dream up and which Christ himself frequently denounced. I also skipped the writings of Christ’s apostles which are frequently either misguided or mistranslated. In stead, I concentrated on the words of Jesus Christ himself, as faithfully recorded in the Four Gospels

.Strangely enough, Jesus doesn’t say anything about homosexuals - not even once. Perhaps I can understand. He seemed awfully busy performing miracles: walking on water, feeding the multitudes, and curing legions of sick people - without once asking them about their HMO’s.

However, in spite of these preoccupations, Jesus nevertheless found time to castigate the wealthy. In fact he told the rich that their chances of getting into Heaven were about as slim as a camel passing through a needle’s eye. He similarly attacked the Pharisees and the Sadducees - a sort of Biblical equivalent of the Moral Majority and the 700 Club- with equally damning fury.. But never once does Jesus condemn gay marriage.. Could this “sin of omission” really indicate God’s true priorities?

The results of my research leave me strangely nonplused.. Perhaps God is more concerned about the plight of the billions of people condemned to lives of misery, poverty and despair than he is about two men who want to marry each other. Perhaps, too, God is more disturbed by the way so-called Christians condone economic policies which seem engineered to make the rich richer and the poor poorer. Some how, too, the concluding words of a short story by Leo Tolstoy constantly come to my mind as if planted there by some divinely-inspired vision: , “Where love is, God is.” Perhaps God, whose wisdom, love, and understanding surpass our ability to comprehend, is far more concerned about the love two people share with each other than with their sexual orientation.

In any rate, lacking any sort of theological training, I will leave it up to the righteous crusaders on the Christian Broadcasting Network to explain. And in the immortal words of the gay dramatist Oscar Wilde, “Pray, make your explanation improbable.”

[Coot]

Here ya' go BT, this one's for you.

[btdude]

LOL Thank you, Coot!. I have heard and seen others, but your's is the more civil of them. ;) ;)

[IamZed]

This is a family issue with me. I know how much getting married legally would mean to my sister. She is about 50 years old now but I can still hear in her voice that this means a lot to her. So when the subject comes up I defer to her needs in my thinking. Good thing she’s not a serial killer, huh?

[Robert Harris]

[QUOTE=yazdzik]
Has Harris become a Falwell fundamentalist? ;)
[QUOTE]

No, just paying a little respect to my feminist friends who were so happy to see women finally elevated to the SC. and would rather se it referred to as "9 men and women". :)

[Robert Harris]

Good Bob Herbert column on the issue, built around a visit to a lesbian couple planning their wedding. A couple of general points he makes:

In a world beset by ignorance and poverty and suffering, a world wracked with wars and terror attacks and ethnic strife of every kind, it seems crazy to be twisting ourselves into knots over the desire of good men and women to transcend the prison of themselves and affirm their love for another by marrying.


...those of you who are already married, tell the truth: the marriage of Deborah Reichman and Shelley Curnow (planned for May 22) won't make your marriage any weaker, will it?


More: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/27/opinion/27HERB.html