Trefor Heywood

Trefor Heywood "Cymru Am Byth!"

OK folks I am once again ready for the fray! :D--> Thanks for the kind wishes Mark, I am pleased to report that the specialist does not want to see me for six months now. Thank you God! Jonny: Good this quoting thing isn't it? :D--> Glad I was able to help. I am posing that sometimes it is necessary to get change. It is not so much a question of an “agenda”, both sides to the argument have an agenda, but a long established and time honoured method. I will post separately an article about the SF situation and the legal issues involved. However, consider this -: The United States, of course, was born in revolution, meaning a rising against established authority (his late Majesty King George III). The entire mythology (I'm using that word in a strictly neutral sense) of the United States' beginning as a nation extols the view that resisting authority to the extent of taking up arms for the purposes of higher principles is entirely a good thing. This contrasts with the non-violent methods currently being used. The Founding Fathers had problems immediately with the problems created by armed revolution. They were faced with different rebellions of their own for example a number of people in Massachusetts did not merely object to taxation without representation, but also taxation with representation, and refused to pay state taxes. This was called "Shay's rebellion" and was a bloody, if brief affair, which made the Commonwealth of Massachusetts see some virtues in a more centralized government (or "more perfect Union"). A large number of Pennsylvanians took the view that limiting or taxing their production of whiskey was a basic affront to their rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. President George Washington had to send in the Army to put down the "Whisky Rebellion". Hence certain things had to be worked out, including the Constitution which helped towards working what was individual, what was state and and what was national. The Constitution has the basic premise that individual rights are an absolute good. That is why so many are seeing that the only way they can get their way about negating individual rights is to amend the Constitution. A frequent American response is that the majority decisions are always right, because it's a democratic country where all have rights, and once the majority has decided, well, that's the free choice of THE PEOPLE. You're undemocratic if you don't go along with what the majority want. Unhappily, this collides with the fact that at face value, the Constitution's rights are to individuals. This means that individual rights can be negated and breached by the majority. Long Gone: The idea that "activist judges" are rewriting your laws and circumventing the democratic process is nonsense, soundbyte-ready nonsense, but still nonsense. If in 1860 you had put emancipation to a popular vote, it would have failed. If in 1960 you had but integration to a popular vote it would have failed. For that matter if in 1760 you had but independence to a popular vote it would have failed. When rights are decided by majority or mob rule rather than by a written yardstick you can have all kinds of problems. And as far as these judges being "un-elected" Well,who appointed them? Elected officials did. So the idea that judges striking down discrimination is undemocratic just doesn't wash. Nor does the idea that such an amendment will "defend" marriage. If opponents to gay marriage are serious about defending this "sacred institution", then divorce, a far greater threat to marriage needs to be much harder to get and easier to prevent. Adultery, a far greater threat to marriage needs to punishable by criminal prosecution. Jesus cannot be quoted about gay marriage at all, but he can be quoted about divorce and adultery and yet the majority are still quite determined to maintain their RIGHT to defend marriage by divorcing and committing adultery. Attempts to legally create a second class citizen are not new. We have seen them before, albeit under different names - the Inquisition, Jim Crow, States Rights, Reich Racial Purity Laws, the blacklist etc. It removed the civil right of people to decide whether to drink or not. Just see how far your civil right to drink would have got you if you were found out! Common Law has custom, but not enacted law, behind it. Here in the UK a heterosexual couple who have lived together a certain length of time are deemed to be common law husband and wife. There is no common law divorce however apart from a certain amount of protection of property interests. Interestingly there is no common law divorce. There is nothing sacred or permanent about common law which originally was to do with grazing rights in areas that were deemed to be held in common and not the sole property of an individual landowner. Much as they like to think so, heterosexuals do not own a monopoly on the word marriage nor upon its definitions and clearly there are gaps in laws and definitions which have brought the judges to reach the conclusion that they have. You must remember that there are other laws and arrangements which have to be considered by the judges such as equality and laws against discrimination. A blind bat, let alone a judge, can see that this “common law definition” discriminates. In the absence of specific legislation which permits discrimination you cannot blame the judges. Oh, like the PEOPLE, rather than a few judges should have decided who won the last presidential election? I certainly didn’t hear many people who were happy that things had gone their way complaining then! Littlehawk: I think you might just find that these kids come from your normal, dysfunctional heterosexual families. Let me know when having a heart and soul requires mindless hatred and lack of reason. Trefor Heywood "Cymru Am Byth!"

I'm away for a couple of days at friends and have my cancer checkup Tuesday. Will respond to various points raised shortly after then. Trefor Heywood "Cymru Am Byth!"

Long Gone: I wasn't being slick honest, I used the words interchangeably as they could be over here. Sorry however if this led to any misunderstanding. Trefor Heywood "Cymru Am Byth!"

Jonny: I gather that SF is making the case that proposition 22 actually violates the California State Constitution, apparently a weighty and many paged document. If this is the case then the State Constitution, unless amended, has precedence over any propositions that have been voted upon. If I were you I would check out the State Constitution of Alaska just in case there is a similar possible loophole. I am not saying there is, but if there is it is possible for legal challenges to follow. And you appear to be wanting your definition of marriage to be the only true one in every other state besides Alaska, without debate discussion or agument. Somehow I think that with Yukon to the east and BC to the south (ie Canada) that things even in Alaska are going to be as easy as that from now on. Can you also not see that going for the amend the Constitution route is the same as "we lost the legal argument, but we're gonna do it our way anyway."? I see no hurt to society - I see happy fulfilled gay couples, many of whom have been together for considerably longer than many heterosexual marriages, being given a legal recognition they have been long denied. It may hurt parts of society who have an ingrained dog in the manger attitude towards denying minorities their rights. As Ghandi said, "there are unjust laws and there are unjust men." Sometimes it is such acts of civil disobedience that bring things to public notice and challenges those who have the power to either justify a form of oppression and discrimination or to concede the need for change. Trefor Heywood "Cymru Am Byth!" [This message was edited by Trefor Heywood on February 21, 2004 at 19:39.]

Trefor Heywood "Cymru Am Byth!"

Just some arguements I have come across regarding the issue of marriages and civil unions in the US: Trefor Heywood "Cymru Am Byth!"

Golfie: The Sin of Sodom was pride inhospitality, not homosexuality. Of course if you want to do the Robertson thing and ascribe every natural disaster to it then Iran must be rife with it. Have you never heard of a little thing called the San Andreas fault? There were no major instances of homosexuality in SF in 1906 ro was it just a case that God's timing for his wrath was off? If you site a town or city in areas that are known to be unstable then don't blame God when it goes wrong. This is the same crap that was touted by TWI and that is touted by some modern day TV evangelists. It's illogical, irrational and unscientific. If want to make an argument about what is happening then a dictionary and a King James bible does not really get you very far. Trefor Heywood "Cymru Am Byth!"

If the Constitution is amended in this way it will be only the second time after Prohibition, that it has been done to remove freedoms and civil rights. There are plenty of people who see the dangers in this even if they do not support gay marriage. And Long Gone where you get the idea that US domestic law is being applied in Guantanamo Bay I have no idea. Nobody could be detained for this length of time without charge. It is being done under martial law and it is being criticised by many governments, including ours, who are allies and friends of the United States. They have not even been granted the status of POWs. Strange that a much nastier piece of work, one Saddam Hussein, has been... Trefor Heywood "Cymru Am Byth!"

My friend Bob. Trefor Heywood "Cymru Am Byth!"

Mr Bush might be troubled. I am troubled about US national laws not being applicable in Guantanamo Bay. A lot of people are troubled about the legitimacy of the reasons originally claimed for invading Iraq. When did Mr Bush state that he was troubled by DOMA? And he should be troubled about his statement about being troubled not being sufficient to attract the support of the religious right to his cause in November. Trefor Heywood "Cymru Am Byth!"

I wonder how successful Arnie will be at Terminating the SF arrangements? :D--> Trefor Heywood "Cymru Am Byth!"

I don't see why prayer should not be allowed for those who wish to take part. Enforced prayer is one issue but voluntary prayer is another. Trefor Heywood "Cymru Am Byth!"

This animation doesn't take long to load and I thought it was very funny: http://www.markfiore.com/animation/agenda.html Trefor Heywood "Cymru Am Byth!"

Mark: For some people the Nationalist parties are ones that get the protest vote but as time goes on they tend to lose support once people see the mask of respectibility slipping. Most people see themselves as both citizens of a nation and also as Europeans and whilst accepting that the EU is an imperfect institution also see the benefits that this has brought them. It would be difficult to replicate the economic conditions that Germany experienced when a loaf of bread cost millions of Marks. Countries have a different attitude to each other, the days of the various individual empires have gone.The mechanism is there for a common immigration policy. It is possible that in time a Federal structure will develop. Every institution has its teething problems, there are still some in the US even after 230+ years. Trefor Heywood "Cymru Am Byth!"

hi Adios! Thanks for your message of support! No doubt we can all think about people who should not have been allowed to marry and no doubt everyone is also aware of how much the institution has been abused by some heterosexuals. Yet there is still the attitude that somehow heterosexual marriage is a sacred institution. This may come from religous belief or from custom or from upbringing or because of the attitudes than many individuals have toward homosexuals. Certainly I note that every advance in gay rights has been opposed by some people, belittled, complained of but they really do see equality under the law to marry as the last straw. The Religious Right plan to make this the only issue in the coming Presidential elections no matter how many other important domestic issues should be debated - unemployment or whatever will take second place (if any place at all). outofadog - I did not know that divorce was now possible over the internet! I am sure that Reno Nevada will be upset about losing business! :D--> Trefor Heywood "Cymru Am Byth!"

Mark: Funnily enough the response has been mixed and has the support of some Muslims on the grounds that the scarf is a symbol of oppression by men. Others have taken it as some kind of attack on their religion but not as racist. Muslims after all come from a variety of ethnic groups. But when you think of what some Muslim women are compelled to wear the scarf is a relatively small thing. I have seen Islamic scholars themselves debating the issue on TV and not agreeing. There might indeed be Nationalist groups in Germany but parties are still illegal as far as I am aware. I cannot claim to be a regular reader of Der Spiegel, but British TV does cover stories about Nationalism in Europe and whereas they cover parties in several countries I have not seen anything about a party in Germany. There are some groupings in the UK which are anti-Pakistani but they are also anti quite a few groups. There is no panic regarding Mosques as places of worship, only when they have been used by extremists for other purposes. As to your comment about the Weimar Republic. There is no comparison between that and the EU. It was Germany's first attempt at republican government following unification and monarchic rule. It was in a single country which had to deal with the economic repercussions of the Versailles Treaty. Hitler got in because they thought they could more easily control him by giving him the Chancellorship but there were only 3 other government posts given to the Nazis. They did not expect that Hitler would effectively stage a coup d'etat when Hindenburg died. The EU on the other hand is a federation of nation states from both sides of the conflict of WW2. Naturally being a human and political institution it is far from perfect but its mechanisms are far different from Weimar. We have ten new members due to join in May with other nations having an interest in joining. I hope I have demonstrated that I am not one of those "furriners" who live in ignorance of how the US works. Here in the UK at least the process is well reported. Trefor Heywood "Cymru Am Byth!"

Mark: The law just passed in France was regarding the wearing of relgious symbols in schools. It is not illegal for them to be worn in public. Rightly or wrongly the secularist tradition of France has decided that the wearing of headscarves for Muslim girls whilst in public school is inappropriate. They must remove them upon entering the school and may put them back on when they leave. It is not a racist law as such as no crosses or crucifixes may be displayed either. There are of course some groups who are racist, such as Jean Marie Le Pen's Front Nationale. Nazism is still illegal in Germany, I think you may be confusing them with the Jorge Heidler Nationalist party in Austria. And we have some groups in the UK also but they don't get anywhere in the polls apart from a couple of local councillors. For most people the memories of the horrors of WW2 are still too real and the EU is constructed to attempt to make sure that it never happens again. I am aware that each state, irrespective of population, gets two senators. I was under the impression, however that the House or Representatives is more representative of the population of each state as are the electoral college votes in Presidential elections. Trefor Heywood "Cymru Am Byth!"

mj: You cannot really claim that women are a minority although I will agree with you that there is discrimination in many areas. I do not believe that that discrimination is right however any more than I believe that discrimination is right on the ground of sexual orientation. I love cats too by the way. However a cat is not a citizen, they pay no taxes and cannot make human decisions. You are comparing chalk with cheese. def: Do you think that those who wish to preserve the culture, as you put it, are prepared to make such proposals in a proactive manner? Thanks for seeing the relationship point which is what I believe is the essential element of the debate. zix: It's more what the baggy shorts help to hide compared with what speedos are more likely to reveal... :D--> Mark: You make some intelligent analyses. "Flyover country" is relatively sparsely populated, however compared with the east and west coasts. I wonder how it is that European culture and American culture managed to separate so much upon the issue of sex, especially considering how many Americans descend from people from Europe. I can only think that Americans tend to take religion more seriously than Europe, especially in certain areas of the USA. Things like the Scopes Monkey Trial and handling snakes in services would be harder to find here. There was even a programme on TV here last night how one woman in the US has introduced religion into dieting (and is doing very well out of it financially too thankyou). There will also always be those who resist integration, you still have your white supremicist groups over there, but I believe that it will come to pass in some areas and that this will make a start. Rocky: I seem to remember that Lex Luthor had similar ideas about California in Superman the Movie! Trefor Heywood "Cymru Am Byth!"

mj: I think your aguments about cats getting married is patently ridiculous. And homosexuals don't have the same rights regarding their relationships as heterosexuals do. And discrimination, well what can I say. You appear to think that it is a good thing. Just wait until somebody decides to discriminate against you and then see how it feels. Trefor Heywood "Cymru Am Byth!"

mj: You do not have to keep repeating that homosexuals are a minority. That is not the issue but rather it is how the majority treats its minorities. A majority can be a tyranny or it can be benevolent. Where a majority discriminates against its minorities by denying them rights and aspirations is is not surprising that they will lose respect in the eyes of many both inside and outside the country. We have seen how the majority treated its black citizens, those who were of a different religion, or appeared to have different political beliefs. A benevolent majority recognises differences and allows for it without concluding that this will somehow affect them. Colleen: It's possible. It requires that difficult attitude known as compromise and of course there are elements upon both sides who do not see a compromise as possible for one reason or another. I can only speak personally upon this issue which is as long as the civil arrnagements are akin to marriage that the title does not matter. If a couple are civilly joined and choose to call it a marriage as far as they are concerned but accept that others may not accept that terminology and others accept the civil arrangement but will not call it marriage then it is a case merely of semantics. I cannot speak for others, just as heterosexuals are not of the same mind either. It requires the issues of what one believes (as Jonny talks about) to be balanced with practicalities. You accept Jonny that sex already goes on, but for many people it is not just an issue of sex, but of interpersonal love and relationship. An issue of the state accepting and acknowledging that its citizens wish to make a commitment to each other that is more than people having sex or living together. Here in the UK this is going to be the case. There has been no redefinition of marriage, but there has been the acceptance that in civil terms, and in everything but name, that same sex couple should enjoy the same availability of legal recognition of their relationship. An argument was made that this would discriminate against heterosexual couples living together, but it was pointed out, and with good reason, that they already had an option of marriage which gay couples did not have. Furthermore it allows conscience to those who have religious beliefs not to view it as a marriage. A civil contract makes no judgements about what people do or do not do sexually. The emphasis is upon the relationship and the responsibilities and privileges that go with it. When I meet a husband and wife I do not concentrate upon what they are doing in their bedroom (or as often happens not doing), I simply accept that they have made a commitment to each other and that this gives them a certain public status. I don't care if they have done this for religious reasons or not or whether they married in a church or a registry office. Nor do I expect them to have committed to having children. But then I have no heterophobia. For some homophobia may be the fear of what they don't understand or don't want to understand and its often the actions they undertake or the way that they express themselves that comes to be interpreted as such. There are many things that I don't like, or consider unchristian, but I have to allow people the right to do what they want according to their own consciences. I fear that some other people have problems doing that and think that everyone should live their way. And when they think they have the blessings and support of God for doing so then we have an even greater tyranny than the majority, we have theocracy. Trefor Heywood "Cymru Am Byth!"

mj: This "Family Forum" crowd have an agenda too and are just as happy to use the political process to further that agenda as anybody else. They will seize upon anything they can think of and slant what they write. They have no interest in justice and fairness and do not propse any altenative solution. They do not seek to answer why it is that people would queue overnight in the rain in San Francisco to get a marriage licence, they cannot understand the popularity of such an idea amongst those who are most affected. Why do they not engage their energies in helping to repair and patch up the damage that their own side has done? Them attacking other groups will not repair one marriage or help the children of broken marriages. They also seem to forget that gay people have families too. They fail to see that attacking one thing will not preserve another. You mentioned "college boys and the draft". I did not think that you still had a draft. You did during the Vietnam war but I think you will find it is over. Trefor Heywood "Cymru Am Byth!"

Mark: I agree with you that the USA does have some way to go in this area. Once of my favourite films is A few Good Men regarding Code Red situations and how Top Brass connived in it. But part of progress is the exposure of such situations. Not all Americans are Rednecks living out in the boondocks and rearguard actions have a limited timescale. The different concepts of what America is and should be will no doubt carry on competing for attention. This thread is but one example. Trefor Heywood "Cymru Am Byth!"

Jonny: Of course not. But please take an f out of my name it's Trefor, not Treffor. In Welsh a single f is pronounced as a v, two ffs are pronounced as an f I am against anything that tries to sneak through by default. But the Bush election fiasco does indicate that there can be problems about how people read what is on the docket and how election officials read them afterwards. I don't know what was put on in Alaska, nor if several questions were put on the paper at one go. The clearer and more separately and understanable each question is the better. I also know that way things are phrased can affect how people vote also. This is a general observation rather than a specific one. There was a proposition in California back in the Harvey Milk era that would have effectively caused all gay teachers to be sacked but it wasn't clear from reading it that this would be the effect. The gay community had to come up with oceans of publicity about it in order to make people aware of the implications and as a result the proposition was defeated. So attempts at concealment are not one-sided. If there was a question such as: "Do you believe that marriage should be defined as one man and one woman?" then no doubt many would go for that. But if the question was added: "If so, do you believe that alternative civil arrangements should be made for those who do not fit this definition?" You might get another result. The fact that people may for one thing does not mean that they are against another. Trefor Heywood "Cymru Am Byth!"

mark: erm, maybe it depends upon how baggy their swimshorts are? :D--> Trefor Heywood "Cymru Am Byth!"