Therefore, incest does not necessarily include minors. There are older people (past child bearing years) with legitimate concerns about societal limitations on this.
Yes, there are. There are also people not past childbearing age, but "related" by marriage, with legitimate concerns about restrictions on marriage.
The Massachusetts legislature proposed civil unions similar to the British partnerships. The Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled such arrangements unconstitutional.
I think all consenting adults should be able to enter into a contractual, personal partnership, a mutual commitment. The whole old-fashioned marriage thing needs to be modified and modernized.
Whether the consenting adults in particular choose to call it marriage or partnership or domestic bondage is up to them. The label should be whatever they like - the bottom line is partnership. A mutual commitment contract should fulfill certain legal requirements to be recognized by the law as such, and therefore entitle the licensees to all commensurate rights and privileges in accordance with their commitment status, and in their state of residence.
And why limit it to two partners? Does Webster say a partnership is limited to two? How sad for the characters on Friends that they can't all be together - a married quartet.
I was thinking it might be cool if you could also marry your car, your new DVD burner, or your Rottweiler, but they are not now nor ever able to vote or pay taxes - and it's only a one-way commitment, if you really think about it. And, your Rottie will leave you someday. The first day somebody in the neighborhood's in heat, in fact. Doggies are loyal but not very faithful.
I don't know if this proposal was ruled unconstitutional by the state constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachussetts or not as opposed to the Federal constitution or not, I presume the former to be the case. There may be prefectly valid reasons as to why such a proposal would not be constitutional in the viewpoint of the Mass Supreme Court. But it is for the legislature, having proposed it, to pass any necessary amendment to that constitution. The Supreme Court can only rule upon a document as it stands and they have informed the legislature of the full implications of that ruling. Such a proposal was not considered to be against the State constitution of Vermont when legislation was enacted there.
But the issue is still that others want to make it a Federal issue as hinted at in the SOU address. DOMA has yet to be ruled upon by the Supreme Court in Washington, who are not always noted for their speed in handling cases. DOMA makes a Federal definition of marriage as one man and one woman but it does allow individual states to make other definitions that would be legal in that state and which would not be binding upon any other state. For Mass to make another definition is therefore quite within the scope of DOMA.
Clearly this creates Federal complications and if one or two states "break ranks", and if they are to be persuaded that there should be a purely Federal definition after all - which then invalidates DOMA, then some form of Federal solution has to be found to the perfectly legitimate civil and domestic aspirations of those who cannot meet the definition.
To impose such a change without offering an acceptable alternative would appear only to show gay people that they are not valued and are to be sacrificed to the religious and political demands being made by US citizens.
If religion claims the right to non-interference by the state in how it operates then equally it has no right to interfere in the legitimate civil and secular arrangements regarding the partnerships of gay people. They want it both ways and that is sheer hypocracy.
There are churches already that are happy to "marry" gay couples and no church that does not want to do so is forced to. But without legal protections and rights these ceremonies carry no secular force.
If you truly want "liberty and justice for all" then more than knee jerk reactions are needed.
Don't feel bad Exie, I am too. For the life of me I cannot figure out what the difference is between a civil union and a marriage, beyond terminology. Perhaps this has been explained somewhere in this thread already and I just haven't seen it.
I started reading on the last page and am working my way back.
But given that something like 50+% of all marriages end in divorce anyway, what makes marriage such a sacred thing?
See QQ, you made some statements about modifying or modernizing marriage, and I'm not certain but I think you said it tongue in cheek, but the thing is, I agree. Maybe it is time to take a new look at this contract we call marriage and what it means. Seems to me at this point, the people who benefit the most from marriage contracts are divorce attorneys.
In fact, one of the attorneys I work for is a conservative from the east coast and I asked him what he things about all of this. He laughed and said, "well I guess it means I can expect business to boom." ;)-->
To every man his own truth and his own God within.
The Massachusetts Supreme Court should not forget those other Democrats who might want official legitimacy for a sexual relationship with a sibling, a cousin or that favorite sheep.
BOSTON - The Massachusetts high court ruled Wednesday that only full, equal marriage rights for gay couples -- rather than civil unions -- would be constitutional, erasing any doubts that the nation's first same-sex marriages could take place in the state beginning in mid-May.
The court issued the opinion in response to a request from the state Senate about whether Vermont-style civil unions, which convey the state benefits of marriage -- but not the title -- would meet constitutional muster.
"The history of our nation has demonstrated that separate is seldom, if ever, equal," the four justices who ruled in favor of gay marriage wrote in the advisory opinion. A bill that would allow for civil unions, but falls short of marriage, makes for "unconstitutional, inferior, and discriminatory status for same-sex couples."
The much-anticipated opinion sets the stage for next Wednesday's constitutional convention, where the Legislature will consider an amendment that would legally define marriage as a union between one man and one woman. Without the opinion, Senate President Robert Travaglini had said the vote would be delayed.
The soonest a constitutional amendment could end up on the ballot would be 2006, meaning that until then, the high court's decision will be Massachusetts law no matter what is decided at the constitutional convention.
The Supreme Judicial Court ruled in November that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry, and gave the Legislature six months to change state laws to make it happen.
But almost immediately, the vague wording of the ruling left lawmakers -- and advocates on both side of the issue -- uncertain if Vermont-style civil unions would satisfy the court's decision.
The state Senate asked for more guidance from the court and sought the advisory opinion, which was made public Wednesday morning when it was read into the Senate record.
When it was issued in November, the 4-3 ruling set off a firestorm of protest across the country among politicians, religious leaders and others opposed to providing landmark rights for gay couples to marry.
President Bush immediately denounced the decision and vowed to pursue legislation to protect the traditional definition of marriage. Church leaders in the heavily Roman Catholic state also pressed their parishioners to oppose efforts to allow gays to marry. And legislators were prepared to vote on a proposed amendment to the state constitution that would seek to make the court's ruling moot by defining as marriage as a union between one man and one woman -- thus expressly making same-sex marriages illegal in Massachusetts.
What the case represented, both sides agree, was a significant new milestone in a year that has seen broad new recognitions of gay rights in America, Canada and abroad, including a June U.S. Supreme Court decision striking a Texas ban on gay sex.
Legal experts, however, said that the long-awaited decision, while clearly stating that it is unconstitutional to bar gay couples from marriage, gave ambiguous instructions to the state Legislature.
Lawmakers remained uncertain if civil unions went far enough to live up to the court's ruling — or if actual marriages were required.
When a similar decision was issued in Vermont in 1999, the court told the Legislature that it could allow gay couples to marry or create a parallel institution that conveys all the state rights and benefits of marriage. The Legislature chose the second route, leading to the approval of civil unions in that state.
The Massachusetts decision made no mention of an alternative solution, but instead pointed to a recent decision in Ontario, Canada, that changed the common law definition of marriage to include same-sex couples and led to the issuance of marriage licenses there.
The state "has failed to identify any constitutionally adequate reason for denying civil marriage to same-sex couples," the court wrote. "Barred access to the protections, benefits and obligations of civil marriage, a person who enters into an intimate, exclusive union with another of the same sex is arbitrarily deprived of membership in one of our community's most rewarding and cherished institutions."
The Massachusetts case began in 2001, when seven gay couples went to their city and town halls to obtain marriage licenses. All were denied, leading them to sue the state Department of Public Health, which administers the state's marriage laws.
A Suffolk Superior Court judge threw out the case in 2002, ruling that nothing in state law gives gay couples the right to marry. The couples immediately appealed to the Supreme Judicial Court, which heard arguments in March.
The plaintiffs argued that barring them from marrying a partner of the same sex denied them access to an intrinsic human experience and violated basic constitutional rights. Over the past decade, Massachusetts' high court has expanded the legal parameters of family, ruling that same-sex couples can adopt children and devising child visitation right for a former partner of a lesbian.
Massachusetts has one of the highest concentrations of gay households in the country with at 1.3 percent of the total number of coupled households, according to the 2000 census. In California, 1.4 percent of the coupled households are occupied by same-sex partners. Vermont and New York also registered at 1.3 percent, while in Washington, D.C., the rate is 5.1 percent.
The Massachusetts law when written was intended for a man and a woman because at the time it was written it was inconceivable that a marriage would take place any other way. The Massachusetts Supreme Court absolutely knew this and instead of interpreting the law as it should have been interpreted, became the activist jurist body they were and "re-wrote" it to include their own political beliefs without changing a word of the language.
It once was that I used to just tolerate homosexuals if they kept to themselves and did their own thing. I could have cared less. But now, I am the opposite.
I have had enough.
I am opposed to gay marriage. I am opposed to gay civil unions. I am opposed to any more protection by the law based on sexual preference. I believe now in the right to discriminate against them and to practice it, because it is the right thing to do. I believe it must be now said they are either spiritually "off" or mentally ill. If it is due to a genetic flaw, then it is just like any other genetic flaw, such as cystic fibrosis or Downs syndrome, and the American medical and psychiatric communities must be compelled, and forced if necessary, by law, to find the problem and the cure. I believe in re-enacting and re-establishing every sodomy law on the books dealing with homosexuality. Jailing them won't do any good, but gives great ground to close down and eliminate every gay bar and gay sexual establishment in the country. I believe in breaking up every "gay" community in the country. We should punish any lawmaker or publically elected or appointed official that backs anything even remotely related to homosexual agendas.
I have lost what tolerance I have had, and that wasn't much. My sympathy is gone. Anger has replaced it.
The Massachusetts Supreme Court should not forget those other Democrats who might want official legitimacy for a sexual relationship with a sibling, a cousin or that favorite sheep.
1. The people of a state have, through their elected officials, defined criteria for licensing people to have the priviledge to enter into a legal marriage contract. The court has overruled the people's defined criteria.
2. The contracts entered into by two people in this state will have to be honored by the remainder of the states, regardless of the criteria established in the remainder of those states. Thus, this one STATE court has trumped the voice of 50 state legislatures.
Excuse me, but I have a major issue with this. If the PEOPLE of Mass. or of Miss. want to, through their legislative process, remove the criteria of one man - one woman in their licensing process, so be it. (You didn't hear me complain a bit about Vermont's ruling, nor will you. I personally don't agree with it, but if that's the will of their people, so be it) Frankly, if the people of Utah want to allow more than two people to be licensed to be simultaneously married, so be it. If the people of Alaska want to remove the criteria that both people be of the species homo sapiens, so be it. But I don't want a state court in a state where I neither live nor have a voice to influence fundamentally changing the way marriage licensing is done in my state. This fundamentally defeats the priciple of federalism, which is fundamentally how our system of government works.
There is no right to be married.
[This message was edited by Mark on February 09, 2004 at 21:58.]
Yeah! And while we're at it, since we're being so 'godly' and all ((GAG)) :o-->, why not round them up, tie them up to some fence post during the dead of winter and pistol whip them, just like Matthew Shepard. Or witch hunts, where you re-enact the Salem witch trials, except this time determining who is gay and who isn't; where one sure fire tactic was to throw them in the water with rocks tied to them, and if they float, they are innocent, and if they don't .... ((shrug))
-->
Tell me something dude. Do you belong to that God Hates Fags Church? Cause you sure sound like a sure fire successor to that Fred Phelps guy. Is he grooming you to take over? ..... Kinda like VPW groomed L. Craig Martindale?
(This guy is a classic example of why fundies sometimes make me throw up) :o--> :P-->
Mark,
quote: Excuse me, but I have a major issue with this. If the PEOPLE of Mass. or of Miss. want to, through their legislative process, remove the criteria of one man - one woman in their licensing process, so be it.
Excuse me, but there are some things that 'the PEOPLE' via the legislative process have no business in determining. Private and consenting relationships between adults, and the full legal protection of them, is one of them.
There are a couple of others that 'the PEOPLE' cannot touch through the legislative process. Ohhh, like freedom of religion being one. And the right to own and bear arms for your and your family's protection is another.
As long as they aren't pushing it directly on you and making you participate, you aren't being harmed. Plus I think that there are perhaps more important and relevant issues that we, as a people, need to deal with, perhaps?
My own secret sign-off ====v,
Rational logic cannot have blind faith as one of its foundations.
But the issue is still that others want to make it a Federal issue...
Let's not be naive. It already is a Federal issue. Proponents of gay marriage intend to use Massachusetts law to challenge DOMA. Shortly after the Massachusetts law takes effect, gay couples married in Massachusetts will file suits in Federal Courts to require other States to recognize the marriages, based on Article IV, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution. I'm pretty sure that some U.S. District judges, and one or two Circuit Courts of Appeals would rule it unconstitutional. I think the current U.S. Supreme Court would probably uphold it, , based on the second sentence of Article IV, Section 1, but that's not certain. Also, a future Supreme Court could reverse that ruling.
I think this is going to backfire on gay rights advocates. There will almost certainly be a proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which I think has a good chance to be ratified. I don't like the idea of amending the constitution for such things, but it's becoming the only option left to people of States who want to continue to define marriage as a union of one man and one woman.
quote: Excuse me, but I have a major issue with this. If the PEOPLE of Mass. or of Miss. want to, through their legislative process, remove the criteria of one man - one woman in their licensing process, so be it.
Excuse me, but there are some things that 'the PEOPLE' via the legislative process have no business in determining. _Private_ and consenting relationships between adults, and the full legal protection of them, is one of them.
Good to hear from you buddy. I agree with you fully. The PRIVATE relationships between people who are empowered by the state to have those relationships are between those adults and the state shouldn't interfere. The qualification I make is not the sex of the people having the relationships but the age. In some states, consent can happen, with parental permission, as early as 14 or 15. I do not, nor will I ever, call a 14 or 15 year old an adult. Yet that person can consent (with restrictions). The key word is PRIVATE.
Marriage is not private. Living together is private. Marriage is privilege granted by the state that allows qualifying people to enter into a binding contract. There are public implications of marriage. Taxation rights, property rights, health insurance, availability of public assistance, even the mere idea of public sanction and approval through the issuance of a license and certificate.
As stated in the Wikipedia:
"Marriage is a socially sanctioned union, typically of one man and one woman, in this connection called husband and wife. Typically they form a family, socially, through forming a household, which is often subsequently extended biologically, through children. It is found in all societies, but in widely varying forms. There are many variants on this basic form, many of which are discussed below: see same-sex marriage and polygamy for two controversial variants. "
If the people of a state, through its elected officials, choose to sanction and give official blessing to different forms of marriage, so be it. But that's the way it should be done.
Once again, what people do behind closed doors is their business, provided they are legally competent to consent to that business.
quote:There are a couple of others that 'the PEOPLE' cannot touch through the legislative process. Ohhh, like freedom of religion being one. And the right to own and bear arms for your and your family's protection is another.
"The people" can touch those rights. But, they have to go through the constituional process to do so. Never the less, you are confusing a "right" with a "priviledge." Freedom of religion, speech, etc. are rights. Marriage is not a "right." If it was a "right," you wouldn't need to get a license.
quote:As long as they aren't pushing it directly on you and making you participate, you aren't being harmed. Plus I think that there are perhaps more important and relevant issues that we, as a people, need to deal with, perhaps?
I agree, as long as you are talking about what goes on in the bedroom. My argument here is not about that at all.
This is an argument about rights vs priviledges; this is an argument about the courts overreaching their authority and legislating from the bench.More importantly, this is an argument about the concept of federalism.
Garth, if you or Rocky or Trefor or anybody else that is in favor of what this court is doing can show me where marriage is a constituional RIGHT, please do so. (please provide a hyperlink when you do) Believe it or not, I will change my tune if you can do so.
How could you possibly have been marked and avoided when you or so clearly in agreement with Craigipoos upon this issue?
Fred Phelps would welcome you with open arms as would any group who believes in hatred and discrimination against millions of Americans. Why not form your own version of the Klu Klux Klan in order to enforce heterosexual purity? Why not do the Nazi thing of forced expulsions and concentration camps? Why not turn the USA into the equivalent of the Taleban rule in Afghanistan? Why not have special centres for treatment where you can administer electric shock treatment and other forms of torture?
If you think that you are angry then remember the anger of those of us who have to face discrimination and hatred, ignorance and bigotry every day.
The right to discriminate is not in the US Constitution and it still took nearly two centuries for that to be established.
Don't hold your breath about being able to change it back in your lifetime.
I am glad that posts such as yours will only serve to show people the dangers and implications of what you propose.
I rejoice that it sticks in your craw - you are only having to put up with what gay people have had to endure for centuries.
How could you possibly have been marked and avoided when you are so clearly in agreement with Craigipoos upon this issue?
Fred Phelps would welcome you with open arms as would any group who believes in hatred and discrimination against millions of Americans. Why not form your own version of the Klu Klux Klan in order to enforce heterosexual purity? Why not do the Nazi thing of forced expulsions and concentration camps? Why not turn the USA into the equivalent of the Taleban rule in Afghanistan? Why not have special centres for treatment where you can administer electric shock treatment and other forms of torture?
If you think that you are angry then remember the anger of those of us who have to face discrimination and hatred, ignorance and bigotry every day.
The right to discriminate is not in the US Constitution and it still took nearly two centuries for that to be established.
Don't hold your breath about being able to change it back in your lifetime.
I am glad that posts such as yours will only serve to show people the dangers and implications of what you propose.
I rejoice that it sticks in your craw - you are only having to put up with what gay people have had to endure for centuries.
Okay, here goes, I am going to jump into this thread.
First of all I am so happy to see this subject discussed so maturely in this thread. It made me comfortable enough to be a part of it. Please do not let my post become a thread killer. By now I have heard it all and I can appreciate to some extent all of the different viewpoints. I am very good at seeing all sides of the situation as long as we don't get into namecalling and insults.
I do appreciate the following comment that was made as what I feel was an appropriate resonse to this individual poster.
"M&A,
Yeah! And while we're at it, since we're being so 'godly' and all ((GAG)) , why not round them up, tie them up to some fence post during the dead of winter and pistol whip them, just like Matthew Shepard. Or witch hunts, where you re-enact the Salem witch trials, except this time determining who is gay and who isn't; where one sure fire tactic was to throw them in the water with rocks tied to them, and if they float, they are innocent, and if they don't .... ((shrug))
My 14 year old daughter is a "lesbian". I put it in quotes because I have a problem with labling her that in the first place. To me she is my child, loving, bright, compassionate (maybe more so than others because she does have to put up with discrimination). I am glad that she is compassionate (I find that a rather mature insight for a 14 year old). rather than full of hate as she continues to suffer insults and others' godly tirades against it. On the other hand she has not had alot of problems at school nor has she had others not want to socially interact with her. My god, the phone rings off the wall for her, just as it would for any other 14 year old child. My home is constantly filled with kids her age. As a matter of fact, she has more friends than I ever did at her age. We have to kick them out usually. They are a mixture of both "straight" and "gay" kids.
Also we live in a very small town of about 200 people and she goes to a country school. When she first "came out" I had some real concerns about how she would be treated in a small community. You would be suprised at the number of gay people in this small area. I was. From my perspective it has been the parents of some of the kids that have made the nasty remarks, not the children themselves.
If you have never lived discrimination, then it is difficult at best to make a "etched in stone" type of belief about this subject.
Back to my comment though, I consider her my child and I look at all her good qualities and her faults. Her sexual orientation has nothing to do with her personality, her humor, he love and dislikes for things in this world. I only want what is best for her as any mother would her child.
My daughter knew this very early on. She just a year or so ago came to us and told us. From that point on, our relationship improved dramatically as far as communicating, because she no longer felt she had to keep this big "secret" from her dad and I. It was a tremendous burden for her not to feel that she could be who she was. It was her decision to make it known to friends and family etc. I do not intend to take her to a phyciatrist or anything to help "change" her or convince her she is not who she is. She's a cool kid all the way around.
I guess with all this talk of laws etc, etc. I just wanted to put an element of the "human face" in here, and to let others see who may be against this lifestyle, that it is only one part of her as a whole person. There are those of us who are families of people who are different from what society deems appropriate. She has great goals for the future as to what she hopes to contribute to society. Call my post, the human face of a raging debate in our country.
A side thought - did you ever wonder why there is "no male nor female" in heaven as the bible so eloquently puts that. It seems that there, we will all be one. Just something to ponder for those who with all my respect, still use the bible as their basis for things here on earth. Also, I am not trying to exploit my child in anyway. It does not bother her for others to know, she only hopes that it helps others to understand.
Let's change the words a bit and see how this sounds:
Place: The Vatican
A young man walks into St. Peter's and goes up to a cardinal.
CARDINAL
What can I do for you, my son?
YOUNG MAN
I wish to become a priest.
CARDINAL
Splendid! You have a noble heart. If you just go down the hall, we can start the process.
YOUNG MAN
There's one thing, though.
CARDINAL
What is it, my son?
YOUNG MAN
I'm heterosexual.
CARDINAL
Well, that's irrelevant. In order to become a priest, you must take a vow of celibacy anyway.
YOUNG MAN
No, I'm not about to do that. I am all about the beaver, if you know what I mean.
CARDINAL
Oh. Well, the priesthood isn't for everyone, you know. Sorry.
YOUNG MAN
Hey! I still want to be a priest!
CARDINAL
Why don't you just get married and become active in your local church then? Nothing wrong with that.
YOUNG MAN
No, I want to be a priest, and I want to have sex with women!
CARDINAL
Like I said, if you want to become a priest, you have to be celibate. That's how it's always been. It is a sacred institution between a man and God, and the vow of celibacy is the man's commitment not to put earthly lusts ahead of zeal for the Lord's service.
YOUNG MAN
Fascist! You need to change to let priests get some!
CARDINAL
Why? If you cannot contain, marry.
YOUNG MAN
You oppressive bastard! I should have every right to wear a black cassock, conduct a Mass, and tap some a**, if I want to!
CARDINAL
Have you tried the Lutherans?
YOUNG MAN
No, I don't want to be any "Lutheran", I want you to make me a Catholic priest, and chop chop! I've got a date!
CARDINAL
Forget it. Now Pax Vobiscum the hell out of here!
The Swiss Guards grab Young Man and drag him towards the door
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
61
69
130
71
Popular Days
Feb 6
106
Feb 5
68
Feb 7
68
Feb 16
51
Top Posters In This Topic
mj412 61 posts
LG 69 posts
Trefor Heywood 130 posts
J0nny Ling0 71 posts
Popular Days
Feb 6 2004
106 posts
Feb 5 2004
68 posts
Feb 7 2004
68 posts
Feb 16 2004
51 posts
Popular Posts
Trefor Heywood
Mark: Federalism has met problems before and had to deal with them. The original framers could not cross every i nor dot every t nor foresee how things would develop in the future. It created prob
Zixar
Here's a link to an article by Card on the problem with courts legislating by decision: Cool New Rights Are Fine, But What About Democracy?
J0nny Ling0
Ok. Apparently Massachusetts is poised to move on with same sex marriage. First of all, and it may not surprise some of you, I am opposed to this. Since I don't live in Mass, however, it doesn't real
Trefor Heywood
Long Gone:
The partnership arrangements here are marriages in all but name.
If there were similar proposals being made in the USA then I am sure the needs of most gay people would be satisfied.
As they are not I have every reason to indicate my concern and to support my fellow gays who are US citizens.
Bigotry is bigotry wherever it is. The same for inequality.
Trefor Heywood
"Cymru Am Byth!"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
In terms of the sovereignty of the individual citizen, Trefor, your argument made complete sense.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LG
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LG
Trefor,
The Massachusetts legislature proposed civil unions similar to the British partnerships. The Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled such arrangements unconstitutional.
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
QamiQazi
I think all consenting adults should be able to enter into a contractual, personal partnership, a mutual commitment. The whole old-fashioned marriage thing needs to be modified and modernized.
Whether the consenting adults in particular choose to call it marriage or partnership or domestic bondage is up to them. The label should be whatever they like - the bottom line is partnership. A mutual commitment contract should fulfill certain legal requirements to be recognized by the law as such, and therefore entitle the licensees to all commensurate rights and privileges in accordance with their commitment status, and in their state of residence.
And why limit it to two partners? Does Webster say a partnership is limited to two? How sad for the characters on Friends that they can't all be together - a married quartet.
I was thinking it might be cool if you could also marry your car, your new DVD burner, or your Rottweiler, but they are not now nor ever able to vote or pay taxes - and it's only a one-way commitment, if you really think about it. And, your Rottie will leave you someday. The first day somebody in the neighborhood's in heat, in fact. Doggies are loyal but not very faithful.
Next issue?
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Catcup
Hey, Zix, you asked:
"Society would lose ___________ if everyone were heterosexual, so homosexuality does serve a vital function."
How 'bout Queer Eye For The Sraight Guy
!
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
i must admit i am confused about this
?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Trefor Heywood
Thank you for the clarification Long Gone.
I don't know if this proposal was ruled unconstitutional by the state constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachussetts or not as opposed to the Federal constitution or not, I presume the former to be the case. There may be prefectly valid reasons as to why such a proposal would not be constitutional in the viewpoint of the Mass Supreme Court. But it is for the legislature, having proposed it, to pass any necessary amendment to that constitution. The Supreme Court can only rule upon a document as it stands and they have informed the legislature of the full implications of that ruling. Such a proposal was not considered to be against the State constitution of Vermont when legislation was enacted there.
But the issue is still that others want to make it a Federal issue as hinted at in the SOU address. DOMA has yet to be ruled upon by the Supreme Court in Washington, who are not always noted for their speed in handling cases. DOMA makes a Federal definition of marriage as one man and one woman but it does allow individual states to make other definitions that would be legal in that state and which would not be binding upon any other state. For Mass to make another definition is therefore quite within the scope of DOMA.
Clearly this creates Federal complications and if one or two states "break ranks", and if they are to be persuaded that there should be a purely Federal definition after all - which then invalidates DOMA, then some form of Federal solution has to be found to the perfectly legitimate civil and domestic aspirations of those who cannot meet the definition.
To impose such a change without offering an acceptable alternative would appear only to show gay people that they are not valued and are to be sacrificed to the religious and political demands being made by US citizens.
If religion claims the right to non-interference by the state in how it operates then equally it has no right to interfere in the legitimate civil and secular arrangements regarding the partnerships of gay people. They want it both ways and that is sheer hypocracy.
There are churches already that are happy to "marry" gay couples and no church that does not want to do so is forced to. But without legal protections and rights these ceremonies carry no secular force.
If you truly want "liberty and justice for all" then more than knee jerk reactions are needed.
Trefor Heywood
"Cymru Am Byth!"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
Don't feel bad Exie, I am too. For the life of me I cannot figure out what the difference is between a civil union and a marriage, beyond terminology. Perhaps this has been explained somewhere in this thread already and I just haven't seen it.
I started reading on the last page and am working my way back.
But given that something like 50+% of all marriages end in divorce anyway, what makes marriage such a sacred thing?
See QQ, you made some statements about modifying or modernizing marriage, and I'm not certain but I think you said it tongue in cheek, but the thing is, I agree. Maybe it is time to take a new look at this contract we call marriage and what it means. Seems to me at this point, the people who benefit the most from marriage contracts are divorce attorneys.
In fact, one of the attorneys I work for is a conservative from the east coast and I asked him what he things about all of this. He laughed and said, "well I guess it means I can expect business to boom."
;)-->
To every man his own truth and his own God within.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cynic
The Massachusetts Supreme Court should not forget those other Democrats who might want official legitimacy for a sexual relationship with a sibling, a cousin or that favorite sheep.
http://www.adrianplass.com/articles/chainsaw_fellowship.htm
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Trefor Heywood
Some background that might shine a little light:
Trefor Heywood
"Cymru Am Byth!"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
MarkedAndAvoided
The Massachusetts law when written was intended for a man and a woman because at the time it was written it was inconceivable that a marriage would take place any other way. The Massachusetts Supreme Court absolutely knew this and instead of interpreting the law as it should have been interpreted, became the activist jurist body they were and "re-wrote" it to include their own political beliefs without changing a word of the language.
It once was that I used to just tolerate homosexuals if they kept to themselves and did their own thing. I could have cared less. But now, I am the opposite.
I have had enough.
I am opposed to gay marriage. I am opposed to gay civil unions. I am opposed to any more protection by the law based on sexual preference. I believe now in the right to discriminate against them and to practice it, because it is the right thing to do. I believe it must be now said they are either spiritually "off" or mentally ill. If it is due to a genetic flaw, then it is just like any other genetic flaw, such as cystic fibrosis or Downs syndrome, and the American medical and psychiatric communities must be compelled, and forced if necessary, by law, to find the problem and the cure. I believe in re-enacting and re-establishing every sodomy law on the books dealing with homosexuality. Jailing them won't do any good, but gives great ground to close down and eliminate every gay bar and gay sexual establishment in the country. I believe in breaking up every "gay" community in the country. We should punish any lawmaker or publically elected or appointed official that backs anything even remotely related to homosexual agendas.
I have lost what tolerance I have had, and that wasn't much. My sympathy is gone. Anger has replaced it.
Marked and Avoided
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Oh come on Cynic, don't forget your pals in the Log Cabin Republicans.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
J0nny Ling0
"Log" Cabin Republicans? Just what "was" the reasoning behind the choice of that name for gay Republicans?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Two issues:
1. The people of a state have, through their elected officials, defined criteria for licensing people to have the priviledge to enter into a legal marriage contract. The court has overruled the people's defined criteria.
2. The contracts entered into by two people in this state will have to be honored by the remainder of the states, regardless of the criteria established in the remainder of those states. Thus, this one STATE court has trumped the voice of 50 state legislatures.
Excuse me, but I have a major issue with this. If the PEOPLE of Mass. or of Miss. want to, through their legislative process, remove the criteria of one man - one woman in their licensing process, so be it. (You didn't hear me complain a bit about Vermont's ruling, nor will you. I personally don't agree with it, but if that's the will of their people, so be it) Frankly, if the people of Utah want to allow more than two people to be licensed to be simultaneously married, so be it. If the people of Alaska want to remove the criteria that both people be of the species homo sapiens, so be it. But I don't want a state court in a state where I neither live nor have a voice to influence fundamentally changing the way marriage licensing is done in my state. This fundamentally defeats the priciple of federalism, which is fundamentally how our system of government works.
There is no right to be married.
[This message was edited by Mark on February 09, 2004 at 21:58.]
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
M&A,
Yeah! And while we're at it, since we're being so 'godly' and all ((GAG))
:o-->, why not round them up, tie them up to some fence post during the dead of winter and pistol whip them, just like Matthew Shepard. Or witch hunts, where you re-enact the Salem witch trials, except this time determining who is gay and who isn't; where one sure fire tactic was to throw them in the water with rocks tied to them, and if they float, they are innocent, and if they don't .... ((shrug))
Tell me something dude. Do you belong to that God Hates Fags Church? Cause you sure sound like a sure fire successor to that Fred Phelps guy. Is he grooming you to take over? ..... Kinda like VPW groomed L. Craig Martindale?
(This guy is a classic example of why fundies sometimes make me throw up)
:o--> 
:P-->
Mark,
Excuse me, but there are some things that 'the PEOPLE' via the legislative process have no business in determining. Private and consenting relationships between adults, and the full legal protection of them, is one of them.
There are a couple of others that 'the PEOPLE' cannot touch through the legislative process. Ohhh, like freedom of religion being one. And the right to own and bear arms for your and your family's protection is another.
As long as they aren't pushing it directly on you and making you participate, you aren't being harmed. Plus I think that there are perhaps more important and relevant issues that we, as a people, need to deal with, perhaps?
My own secret sign-off ====v,
Rational logic cannot have blind faith as one of its foundations.
Prophet Emeritus of THE,
and Wandering CyberUU Hippie,
Garth P.
www.gapstudioweb.com
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
I have no idea... I've not been invited to their meetings. I'm neither gay nor republican.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LG
I think this is going to backfire on gay rights advocates. There will almost certainly be a proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which I think has a good chance to be ratified. I don't like the idea of amending the constitution for such things, but it's becoming the only option left to people of States who want to continue to define marriage as a union of one man and one woman.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Good to hear from you buddy. I agree with you fully. The PRIVATE relationships between people who are empowered by the state to have those relationships are between those adults and the state shouldn't interfere. The qualification I make is not the sex of the people having the relationships but the age. In some states, consent can happen, with parental permission, as early as 14 or 15. I do not, nor will I ever, call a 14 or 15 year old an adult. Yet that person can consent (with restrictions). The key word is PRIVATE.
Marriage is not private. Living together is private. Marriage is privilege granted by the state that allows qualifying people to enter into a binding contract. There are public implications of marriage. Taxation rights, property rights, health insurance, availability of public assistance, even the mere idea of public sanction and approval through the issuance of a license and certificate.
As stated in the Wikipedia:
"Marriage is a socially sanctioned union, typically of one man and one woman, in this connection called husband and wife. Typically they form a family, socially, through forming a household, which is often subsequently extended biologically, through children. It is found in all societies, but in widely varying forms. There are many variants on this basic form, many of which are discussed below: see same-sex marriage and polygamy for two controversial variants. "
If the people of a state, through its elected officials, choose to sanction and give official blessing to different forms of marriage, so be it. But that's the way it should be done.
Once again, what people do behind closed doors is their business, provided they are legally competent to consent to that business.
"The people" can touch those rights. But, they have to go through the constituional process to do so. Never the less, you are confusing a "right" with a "priviledge." Freedom of religion, speech, etc. are rights. Marriage is not a "right." If it was a "right," you wouldn't need to get a license.
I agree, as long as you are talking about what goes on in the bedroom. My argument here is not about that at all.
This is an argument about rights vs priviledges; this is an argument about the courts overreaching their authority and legislating from the bench.More importantly, this is an argument about the concept of federalism.
Garth, if you or Rocky or Trefor or anybody else that is in favor of what this court is doing can show me where marriage is a constituional RIGHT, please do so. (please provide a hyperlink when you do) Believe it or not, I will change my tune if you can do so.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Trefor Heywood
M&A
How could you possibly have been marked and avoided when you or so clearly in agreement with Craigipoos upon this issue?
Fred Phelps would welcome you with open arms as would any group who believes in hatred and discrimination against millions of Americans. Why not form your own version of the Klu Klux Klan in order to enforce heterosexual purity? Why not do the Nazi thing of forced expulsions and concentration camps? Why not turn the USA into the equivalent of the Taleban rule in Afghanistan? Why not have special centres for treatment where you can administer electric shock treatment and other forms of torture?
If you think that you are angry then remember the anger of those of us who have to face discrimination and hatred, ignorance and bigotry every day.
The right to discriminate is not in the US Constitution and it still took nearly two centuries for that to be established.
Don't hold your breath about being able to change it back in your lifetime.
I am glad that posts such as yours will only serve to show people the dangers and implications of what you propose.
I rejoice that it sticks in your craw - you are only having to put up with what gay people have had to endure for centuries.
Trefor Heywood
"Cymru Am Byth!"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Trefor Heywood
Trefor Heywood
"Cymru Am Byth!"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
outofdafog
Okay, here goes, I am going to jump into this thread.
First of all I am so happy to see this subject discussed so maturely in this thread. It made me comfortable enough to be a part of it. Please do not let my post become a thread killer. By now I have heard it all and I can appreciate to some extent all of the different viewpoints. I am very good at seeing all sides of the situation as long as we don't get into namecalling and insults.
I do appreciate the following comment that was made as what I feel was an appropriate resonse to this individual poster.
"M&A,
Yeah! And while we're at it, since we're being so 'godly' and all ((GAG)) , why not round them up, tie them up to some fence post during the dead of winter and pistol whip them, just like Matthew Shepard. Or witch hunts, where you re-enact the Salem witch trials, except this time determining who is gay and who isn't; where one sure fire tactic was to throw them in the water with rocks tied to them, and if they float, they are innocent, and if they don't .... ((shrug))
My 14 year old daughter is a "lesbian". I put it in quotes because I have a problem with labling her that in the first place. To me she is my child, loving, bright, compassionate (maybe more so than others because she does have to put up with discrimination). I am glad that she is compassionate (I find that a rather mature insight for a 14 year old). rather than full of hate as she continues to suffer insults and others' godly tirades against it. On the other hand she has not had alot of problems at school nor has she had others not want to socially interact with her. My god, the phone rings off the wall for her, just as it would for any other 14 year old child. My home is constantly filled with kids her age. As a matter of fact, she has more friends than I ever did at her age. We have to kick them out usually. They are a mixture of both "straight" and "gay" kids.
Also we live in a very small town of about 200 people and she goes to a country school. When she first "came out" I had some real concerns about how she would be treated in a small community. You would be suprised at the number of gay people in this small area. I was. From my perspective it has been the parents of some of the kids that have made the nasty remarks, not the children themselves.
If you have never lived discrimination, then it is difficult at best to make a "etched in stone" type of belief about this subject.
Back to my comment though, I consider her my child and I look at all her good qualities and her faults. Her sexual orientation has nothing to do with her personality, her humor, he love and dislikes for things in this world. I only want what is best for her as any mother would her child.
My daughter knew this very early on. She just a year or so ago came to us and told us. From that point on, our relationship improved dramatically as far as communicating, because she no longer felt she had to keep this big "secret" from her dad and I. It was a tremendous burden for her not to feel that she could be who she was. It was her decision to make it known to friends and family etc. I do not intend to take her to a phyciatrist or anything to help "change" her or convince her she is not who she is. She's a cool kid all the way around.
I guess with all this talk of laws etc, etc. I just wanted to put an element of the "human face" in here, and to let others see who may be against this lifestyle, that it is only one part of her as a whole person. There are those of us who are families of people who are different from what society deems appropriate. She has great goals for the future as to what she hopes to contribute to society. Call my post, the human face of a raging debate in our country.
A side thought - did you ever wonder why there is "no male nor female" in heaven as the bible so eloquently puts that. It seems that there, we will all be one. Just something to ponder for those who with all my respect, still use the bible as their basis for things here on earth. Also, I am not trying to exploit my child in anyway. It does not bother her for others to know, she only hopes that it helps others to understand.
outofdafog
Link to comment
Share on other sites
karmicdebt
Outie,
Awesome...your family sounds wonderful...
I always try to remind my kids...you are as sick as your secrets...there isn't anything we can't talk about!
Well done! Excellent post!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
Let's change the words a bit and see how this sounds:
Place: The Vatican
A young man walks into St. Peter's and goes up to a cardinal.
CARDINAL
What can I do for you, my son?
YOUNG MAN
I wish to become a priest.
CARDINAL
Splendid! You have a noble heart. If you just go down the hall, we can start the process.
YOUNG MAN
There's one thing, though.
CARDINAL
What is it, my son?
YOUNG MAN
I'm heterosexual.
CARDINAL
Well, that's irrelevant. In order to become a priest, you must take a vow of celibacy anyway.
YOUNG MAN
No, I'm not about to do that. I am all about the beaver, if you know what I mean.
CARDINAL
Oh. Well, the priesthood isn't for everyone, you know. Sorry.
YOUNG MAN
Hey! I still want to be a priest!
CARDINAL
Why don't you just get married and become active in your local church then? Nothing wrong with that.
YOUNG MAN
No, I want to be a priest, and I want to have sex with women!
CARDINAL
Like I said, if you want to become a priest, you have to be celibate. That's how it's always been. It is a sacred institution between a man and God, and the vow of celibacy is the man's commitment not to put earthly lusts ahead of zeal for the Lord's service.
YOUNG MAN
Fascist! You need to change to let priests get some!
CARDINAL
Why? If you cannot contain, marry.
YOUNG MAN
You oppressive bastard! I should have every right to wear a black cassock, conduct a Mass, and tap some a**, if I want to!
CARDINAL
Have you tried the Lutherans?
YOUNG MAN
No, I don't want to be any "Lutheran", I want you to make me a Catholic priest, and chop chop! I've got a date!
CARDINAL
Forget it. Now Pax Vobiscum the hell out of here!
The Swiss Guards grab Young Man and drag him towards the door
YOUNG MAN
You'll be hearing from my lawyer! Heterophobe!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.