Trefor Heywood

dmiller: "Cymru am Byth" means "Wales for ever" in the Welsh language. And as it is our national day...(March 1) "Dydd Gwyl Dewi Hapus i Bawb"! "A Happy St David;s day to you all!" *Throws electronic daffodils around* Trefor Heywood "Cymru Am Byth!"

Trefor Heywood "Cymru Am Byth!"

Trefor Heywood "Cymru Am Byth!"

dmiller: From my standpoint those who are gunning for this must think the Constitution deficient in supporting their viewpoint. The Supreme Court can only make judgements upon the Constitution as it stands. There is some interesting stuff regarding this and amendments that I will probably post. Trefor Heywood "Cymru Am Byth!"

Long Gone: I am not suggesting that and indeed it would be difficult to do so. The fact that some people wish to pass a Constitutional amendment about marriage would seem to indicate to me that they are not at all confident that the Constitution does not already make such provision even though other laws do not. chwester: Gay women may like to dress up as brides but I don't think that many gay men do. :D--> Valerie: Do you think that gay people don't pay taxes? People have been seeing this or that as a sign of the times for the past two millenia. And what on earth does a teacher's sexuality have on their ability to teach? MJ: Quoting biblical references regarding heterosexual marriage is not the issue. A book that was canonically closed sixteen centuries ago cannot address all the issue of twenty first century life and experience. Homosexuality as a human condition rather than an act was unknown in those times. Trefor Heywood "Cymru Am Byth!"

I'm away for the weekend so will have to be quick: Long Gone: That's the nub of the argument. Opposite gender only which means that people who wish to marry the same gender are being discriminated against. The fact remains that there are a group of people who do not wish to take up the opportunity offered them for the very reason that their love object is not of the opposite gender. Removing this would enable marriage to gender of choice - your brother might then take this up, you would probably not, but the opportunity is still there then without discrimination. Trefor Heywood "Cymru Am Byth!"

Re Dr Fauntroy: I always find it strange that once one group has gained its civil rights they suddenly think that the process is suddenly unnecessary for somebody else. If he is so happy to uphold past Supreme Court rulings he conveniently forgets previous supreme court rulings that denied rights to him and his people. Does he honestly think that the civil rights movement had no gay supporters? Does he think that all those who seek marriage rights for gays are white? More selective trash from a far right "family" group. Trefor Heywood "Cymru Am Byth!"

Oh - simple as that! Thanks! Trefor Heywood "Cymru Am Byth!"

Mr P-Mosh: I found that one too! :)--> I was just wondering how you uploaded pics, something I don't know yet! Trefor Heywood "Cymru Am Byth!"

This is a resignation letter from a Republican activist in Lakewood Ohio: Trefor Heywood "Cymru Am Byth!"

Guardian GuardianTrefor Heywood "Cymru Am Byth!"

Trefor Heywood "Cymru Am Byth!"

Zixar: More or less. The idea of DOMA was to have a national definition which allowed individual states to allow other arrangements also that were not binding upon other states. However when it was passed most people did not expect any state to make those other arrangements that DOMA allowed and now they are panicking that DOMA may not be as sufficient an arrangement as it was originally thought to be. I expect they expect that DOMA will eventually be ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Dmiller: Guns can kill people as we too often tragically hear about. Whereas the vast bulk of people no doubt keep them and use them responsibly, and they should have every right to continue to do so (bet that surprised ya), there are situations and circumstances where they are not appropriate. For some places to ban them is not from blind unthinking discrimination but out of concerns for security and public safety. You don't get a homosexual couple handing a bank teller a note saying "hand over the money or we start kissing in public". The right to bear arms, has alas been frequently abused. On the other hand the lack of rights for others has been an abuse. You might be interested to know that there is a group called "Pink Pistols", gay men who support the second amendment but also support gay rights. They seem to be a good balance of what should be American rights to me. :D--> Trefor Heywood "Cymru Am Byth!"

Thanks zix! :D--> The real life bit is a very good question! ;)--> At least it helps keep me out of mischief! Mark - timescales for what you envisage could take some time. From my reading of The Brethren by Bob Woodward and Scott Armstrong the justices grant cert to only about 200 out of five thousand cases that are filed each year. Normally cases have been through the lower courts first also. As even DOMA has not yet come up for a ruling it could be some time before anything else along these lines does either? Trefor Heywood "Cymru Am Byth!"

My 500th post! Some way to catch up with Ex tho! :D--> Trefor Heywood "Cymru Am Byth!"

Trefor Heywood "Cymru Am Byth!"

Trefor Heywood "Cymru Am Byth!"

Def: Your posting is only a rehash of the right wing religious propoganda that has as much relevance to reality as I know it or true biblical understanding as I know it as a leaflet about contraception has to the Pope. It is so full of lies and half truths and selective statistics and has nothing at all to do with the issue in hand. Jonny: I am not wrong in what I said and if you read the new thread you will see that you cannot find this Christian "under God" thing at the time of the American Revolution. In fact Masonic influences appear to have had more of an influence upon the founding fathers. When the foundation stone of the Capitol was laid they are wearing Masonic aprons and the eye in the pyramid on your currency is a Masonic symbol too. Clearly quite a few things had changed between the arrival of the Pilgrim Fathers and the Revolution. Popular understanding of history or even of the Constitution may not always be the same as the actuality. Trefor Heywood "Cymru Am Byth!"

Jonny: The Mayflower Compact was the colonies period and the signers still saw themselves as subjects of the British Crown. You need to find references around 1776 regarding the nation being "under God" as a self-governing republic. Long Gone: Sorry didn't realise you were specifically asking Mark the question. --> Trefor Heywood "Cymru Am Byth!"

Long Gone: It's what flows from the amendment rather than the amendment itself. You would probably be hard pressed to find any definition of marriage, per se, in the Constitution. If there was there would be no movement for an amendment in the first place. Whereas "two people" and "person" may not be synonymous, the fact remains that one kind of person may enter into marriage with another person, whereas another kind of person may not. The amendment does not make reference to Master and Slave nor Black and White nor Men and Women either, yet the personhood and rights of the latter in each group have been abrogated in the past by the former. Sometimes when laws are framed they are not watertight regarding how they stand with other legislation or with the Constitution. They may have been enacted many years before an emerging social revolution may lead to a challenge and landmark cases produce change. No change will be popular with everybody, especially at the beginning, but later on there will be people who wonder how it could once have been different. Trefor Heywood "Cymru Am Byth!"

Mark: Thanks for posting the 14th Amendment and for seeing how this effects matters. As I posted earlier, the Constitution covers individual rights and liberties in ways that the majority in a democracy does not and it is in these areas that judges are required to rule where there are seeming areas of conflict. I fully accept that what may be legal may not be seen as moral in some people's eyes and that comes into the area of ethics and religion rather than civics. I have long argued that persuasion and enforcement are two different things. MJ: Your numbers bear no relationship to other polls I have seen unless you are talking about a poll of members of Congress possibly. Congress is only the start of the procedure and it will most certainly not be done and dusted before the November elections. Despite what the religious right might think, there are other more pressing issue affecting all Americans that will come into the equation regarding elections - the Iraq war and the economy and Bush's record in office will not be sidelined. Americans who are out of work will be more interested in jobs than issues like this. Tony Blair is pretty gay friendly but I will not vote for him next time because of other issues. Long Gone: I suspect we have reached an impasse upon the reproduction issue for the moment. If you cannot grasp the concept that the inequality lies in that any two people, as long as one is male and one is female may marry (within the exceptions that you have cited) and that any two people of the same sex may not marry under any circumstances, I cannot see how I can elaborate it further. The evaluation process of either marriage or civil union does require the conditions to exist for it to happen. For many diehards (I do not count as you as one), there is a "not an inch" mentality that does not permit the consideration even of civil unions. Now if all these "family" groups in the USA and the politicians were to agree that Vermont style unions should be allowed there could be a proper evaluation process and your arguments regarding reproduction would have more force as the arguments for justice for couples would then have been acknowleged and addressed to some extent. It would also give sociologists a good grounding for their research and help society in general to understand that some of the stereotypes they have long held are not universal. Trefor Heywood "Cymru Am Byth!"

This "delivery up" stuff sounds remarkably like the Fatwahs issued by Muslim clerics. But they can only do that to Muslims who they think have betrayed the faith. For example the case of Salman Rushdie. John Lennon was never in the "household" of TWI in the first place. Just shows how some TWI leaders wanted to rule the world. Trefor Heywood "Cymru Am Byth!"

Long Gone: Thank you for your well laid out thoughts in your last post, it has helped to clear out a lot of confusion as to where I thought you were coming from in earlier ones. As I read it, you are basing your argument around reproduction or the possibility of it as being the sole social justification for civil marriage. Followed a close second by the raising and nurturing of the children of that marriage. But I am not aware that this is considered to be the main argument of most people who wish to see marriage restricted. Your argument would also invalidate any marriage where it was clear that children would never ever result, for example people beyond child bearing age whose only desire is then for marrying for companionship. My own mother for example at nearly 74, widowed for nearly two years is thinking of marrying a widower of nearly 80, widowered for a smilar length of time. Barring some Abraham and Sarah type miracle, I am unlikely to see any brothers or sisters resulting from this marriage. There is no potential social benefit for them marrying. In a civil marriage ceremony there is no requirement made by the state regarding the production or raising of children and the couple make vows or promises to each other, they are man and wife from the moment this is validated by the state. President Bush and those others supporting a Constitutional amendment have not made the arguments from the same standpoint as yourself. They have talked about "defending traditional marriage" by it being defined as "one man and one woman." They have offered no alternatives that might seek to redress what is still a considerable imbalance in how relationships are viewed and the value and respect and the protection that are given to them. Many homosexuals have raised children well and many heterosexuals have raised children badly, a point, I believe that you are happy to concede. But no matter how well homosexuals do this and how badly heterosexuals do this the state recognises committed relationships only when the partners are each of opposite sex. I can only make arguments that gay marriage benefits society in a different way and on a different level to your main argument. You already concede that children may be involved in the equation, even where the raising (as opposed to biological) parents are not of different sexes, but even here you would be reluctant to accept marriage whilst not judging or looking down on them because I presume you would still se this as an imbalance. You will no doubt have seen pictures of couples at City Hall in SF who have children. Society, however, does give value to romance and commitment and fidelity when a man and a woman is involved, even where there are no children or no possibility of children. It sees a value which goes beyond children in the couple themselves as striving for happiness and mutual support. It considers that there is a stability there that should be supported and honoured and makes no judgements regarding sex (or not) or reproduction. It may well believe that this provides an ideal background where children do appear but would be blinkered indeed if it did not accept that the reality is sometimes somewhat different. Sometimes such benefits as you seek to see can only be demonstrated or evaluated in the doing. Research makes observations against certain existing conditions. The effects of gay mariage can only be fully evaluated in social terms when it is available in the first place. It is only very recently that has become at least possible for same sex couples to live together as same sex couples rather than with furtiveness or pretence that they were housemates etc. This in turn leads to considerations that were not considered necessary before. There is a fine balance between reaction and revolution perhaps that can resolve most problems. The difficulty, as with most things is finding it. Trefor Heywood "Cymru Am Byth!"

Def: If you think that things are in a mess now with heterosexual marriages how is this situation improved by denying gay marriage? In what way is heterosexual marriage defended in these areas that you cite? They are only not equal dynamics or situations because they have been denied such an arrangement. I don't doubt that homosexual divorces will occur or that cheating will happen but maybe not on the scale that you think. Custody issues will not be on the same scale nor battery ones. But if you look at those who have been queuing with enthusiasm in the pouring rain you will find many couples who have been together for several and indeed even many years. They have had the time to go through these kind of issues and have resolved them and despite the relatively easy means they have had to seperate from each other if they wanted, they still want to go through with it. Just maybe they value the ideals of marriage much more than many heterosexuals. What hit me about them was how ordinary they looked, how respectable, not at all conforming to the popular image that some people have made great play on. Tom Strange: The length of this thread is no argument that I can see for ending it. Discussions might well have grown outside the original area of Massachussetts but the whole subject is likely to be topical for some time and whereas there may be little convincing upon either side it is also a way of keeping abreast of developments as they occur. Only a very few in America or elsewhere will know of PFAL and VPW, whereas this is of national and also international interest. Trefor Heywood "Cymru Am Byth!"

HI Linda Z! Sorry to hear about your domestic computer problems and hope they are sorted soon! Trefor Heywood "Cymru Am Byth!"