The ammendment President Bush states that it does not matter what the states decide the federal govt. will make them all across the board illegal.
the folks maried now do not have legit marriages in the states that issued them licenses.
the concern is that if someone will get married in Mass. or California they can come into NY or any other state and say they want it to be considered legal there. And in fact we have had two` same sex couple go into Mass this week and get married and they will come back and try to force the state to recognize the marriage here.
This is why it needs to be an ammendment on a federal level.
Every single culture in the entire world defines marriage as between a man and a woman.
every single culture. Also if allowed to marry this will allow marrriages with several spouses to become legal once again there is a bill in the house once again for marriages to mutiple partners. Can a marriage be a group fo five? come on people think think for once just where this could go.
someone way back in the pages here brought up the point "your rights end where they infringe upon my rights" (or words to that effect)...
I'm just so puzzled about the reactions... how does allowing folks to have a recognized civil union infringe upon your rights?
let's have a beer Jonboy...
People are going to be gay or not gay whether this thing passes or not. Their lifestyle, their behavior, THEY are going to be there to infringe upon your rights or not...
whether they gain this recognition of civil union or not...
IF they infringe upon your rights, then they have overstepped theirs... and there are many who do this already BOTH hetero and homo...
IF you detest the lifestyle that much, that's your deal... but I don't really see how the recognition of someone's civil union really would effect anyone that much... you're going to detest no matter what...
some of you seem to want to keep "them" from having this benefit of society when, in reality, it wouldn't effect your life one way or another...
they're going to be who they are regardless of the outcome of the whole thing... and so are you...
I'm on the outside, looking inside, what do I see? Much confusion, disillusion, all around me.
I consider myself "very liberal". The other day I was asked if I would perform a wedding for a gay couple as I am legally certified to perform marriges in my state. (Notary=JP) I said NO. If it becomes legal I will still say no. I am a hippocrit but I can addmit it. I am not against it, I just don't want to be involved in it.
The reason so many Americans, particularly Christians want others to conform to their beliefs is because they actually _believe_ that the thing (in this case "that homosexuality is wrong and that it invites the Devil to destroy our society-don't get derailed by the parenthetical clause) that they are against, will hurt_all of us_ even including you as an American Citizen.
Thanks for taking a non-angry approach. I'll do the same.
I can understand the belief and how strong it is. However, it sounds almost like Christianity may not be compatible with Democracy, at least on issues like this.
The problem at heart is not just the belief about homosexuality, but the evangelical nature of certain sects of Christianity that require the adherents to shape society to fit their version of Christianity, without considering the rights of others. I think that this is the inherent problem plus the source of all of the conflict.
quote:Originally posted by Jonny Lingo:
I guess we gotta respect each others beliefs, whether they be gay beliefs, liberal beliefs, Muslim beliefs, or Christian beliefs, or atheist beliefs, or a miriad of "whatever beliefs" and try not to be too caustic when we "rumble" in debate, and when we go to the polls, vote for that or whoever best represents our _beliefs_.
I agree with you there. I'm of the opinion that your right to extend your hand ends where my face begins (that's an overgeneralization, because if someone put their hand even two inches from my face I will knock it away.) I do respect Christianity and it's adherents except in cases like this when Christians try to force other individuals to conform to their beliefs. One of the great things about our form of government is the concept of individual freedom is sacred, and people are mostly allowed to do what they want as long as it poses no threat to others. That way Christians can live how they wish, gay people can live how they wish, etc. I think that Christians see gay marriage as homosexuals forcing everyone else to approve of their lifestyle, while gay people view the Christians as trying to force their religion on everyone else. From my standpoint, it's best to go towards the side of freedom rather than restriction, and I don't see how there is any real concrete evidence, legal or ancedotal, that would prove that homosexual marriage would have an effect on straight marriages or Christianity.
It may just be from the TWI teachings, but it seems to me like Christians either can go with a Fred Phelps (his church protested at the funeral of Matthew Shepard, telling his mom that her son was burning in Hell, etc) and do everything you can to rid the nation of homosexuality, or you can take a more tolerant "love the sinner but hate the sin" approach where you let them do what they want as long as it doesn't affect you, but you don't have to approve of it. I think we agree that Christianity is against homosexuality as the bible clearly states, but I don't see how it can allow people to oppose gay marriage so strongly but not want to kill all the gay people at the same time. That could just be the TWI teachings, as I said before.
After hearing George Bush spout off on marriage, I feel like I should apologize for my country. AND I will be emailing the White House to let them know that they lost my vote. I am a registered Republican. I think it is bad policy (and it will never make it as a Constitutional amendment), and bad politics.
Now, for those of you that just CAN'T let gay people get legally married in a civil ceremony: what gives? Did you step forward to protest and enact laws when men and women got married for money? Did you care when they got married and had no plans to have children? Did you look for legal means to stop any other couple from having a marriage that wasn't as Christian as you think marriage should be? Then why are you singling out gay marriage?
How many of you men are circumcised? What if the Jews decided that they would rise up and enact laws that would make non-Jewish circumcision illegal? After all, most Jewish people consider circumcision a very sacred practice in their faith. We Gentiles muddy up that sanctity by wanting to do it also. If the US government wants to hold up your right to define marriage according to your Christian beliefs, then it had better be equally ready to allow Jews the exclusive right to circumcision. (Better start thinking about where that skin graft is gonna come from! ;)--> )
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:
quote:So. Civil disobedience (breaking the Law) is "ok", as long as it challenges the cause that is against your agenda...
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:
quote:What a crock! Nobody "lost the legal argument" concerning what marriage is (its definition). Even the Massachusetts Supreme Court acknowledged that, but then they presumed to redefine it. If the Supreme Constitutional Power (the PEOPLE) choose to prevent other judges from doing the same sort of thing, it is their RIGHT to do so.
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.
quote: You may be repeating something you've read, but this is another crock. The 18th Amendment didn't remove ANY civil rights, and neither would this one. It would simply codify, in a way that a judge couldn't touch, a definition that has been recognized for centuries by the common law, the laws of every State, and the laws of the USA. The reason would be to prevent judges from redefining a basic legal institution. It would be the FIRST time that such a thing was done, because this is the first time that a court has presumed to "refine" a centuries-old common-law definition.
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.
quote: If such an amendment passes, only THE PEOPLE, rather than a few judges, can change the definition of marriage. That is as it should be, though I would prefer that presumptuous judges would not force the matter.
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.
quote: S.F. Wedding Planners Are Pursuing a Legal Strategy
By Maura Dolan and Lee Romney,
Times Staff Writers
Los Angeles Times
February 22, 2004
SAN FRANCISCO — The strategy was methodical. For more than a dozen years, lawyers for gay and lesbian causes had carefully selected their battlefields, identifying key states for constitutional challenges aimed at broadening their rights.
California was not to be one of them — at least not any time soon — and marriage was not supposed to be the central legal issue, at least not yet.
But over the last two weeks, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom dramatically accelerated the legal strategy.
Gay marriage had been debated in the abstract, allowing opponents to depict it as dangerous, he argued. What the legal strategy needed was real couples to place before the courts. The plan should be to marry first and then fight the legal battle.
More than 3,000 same-sex marriages later, that decision has opened the door to what could be a crucial legal test.
"In a way it feels like the dam broke," said Jon W. Davidson, senior counsel at Lambda Legal, the nation's largest lesbian and gay legal advocacy group.
San Francisco's actions were deliberately planned with the courts in mind, according to lawyers who were involved in the discussions.
Five couples — whose stories would present the gay rights argument in the most sympathetic manner — would be chosen as test cases. Leading national gay rights lawyers would be recruited to assist the city. The first marriages would be performed on a day when courts were closed, to ensure that opponents would not be able to block the move before the weddings were solemnized.
To win, gay rights advocates must still persuade the California Supreme Court to invalidate the state's family law, which limits marriage to "a man and a woman." That remains a high hurdle, legal experts believe.
On Friday, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger delivered a stern letter to state Atty. Gen. Bill Lockyer, directing him to take "immediate action" to stop same-sex marriages in San Francisco. Hallye Jordan, Lockyer's spokeswoman, said the attorney general planned to seek a judgment in the court case.
Largely, the gay-marriage proponents' legal strategy has been carried out without a hitch. Foes have gone to court four times in the last nine days seeking to block San Francisco's actions. Each time they have lost, and the long line of couples seeking to wed has continued to move forward.
Photos of young male married couples with babies strapped to their chests and elderly women who have been together for 50 years will help diminish any threat the public may feel regarding marriages between gay people, advocates hope.
"I think the parade of couples on TV and in the newspapers and magazines is what is going to change the public attitude about marriage of same-sex couples," Davidson said. "That is what it is going to take. Before, this was an abstract issue."
The planning began over the weekend before the first gay marriages took place, as Newsom plotted strategy with top aides, several of whom are gay.
On Feb. 9, city officials called lawyers for the American Civil Liberties Union, Lambda Legal and the National Center for Lesbian Rights. Those groups are now defending the city's actions, along with San Francisco's chief deputy city attorney, Therese M. Stewart, a lesbian who has long been active in equal-rights causes.
Starting some days with 6 a.m. conference calls, the lawyers worked round the clock to ready their plans.
On Thursday, Feb. 12, a day the courts were closed for the commemoration of President Lincoln's birthday, four of the five test couples were quietly ushered into City Hall to marry. Then, Newsom threw open the doors to the public.
Opponents of gay marriage have tried to keep the legal debate to a simple argument: State law does not allow same-sex weddings, and San Francisco has no right to bypass that law. They want an immediate court order blocking more marriages, but judges have put off a hearing on the issue until March 29.
"Here is my frustration," said Benjamin W. Bull, chief counsel of the Alliance Defense Fund, which defends traditional religious rights. "Clearly the city's strategy is to have tens of thousands of these same-gender licenses issued so, by the time a court rules on this, it may be more of a nightmare to revoke the licenses than it will be to validate them…. Wittingly or unwittingly, the Superior Court is playing into the city's hands."
Bull said his side planned to take depositions of psychologists, sociologists and family counselors "saying that children are better off in opposite-sex relationships."
Gay rights advocates hope to get judges to focus on a different issue — whether laws, including Proposition 22, forbidding same-sex marriages violate the California Constitution's ban on discrimination. Each of the five test couples was chosen to illuminate a different aspect of that argument.
Early in the week leading up to the weddings, Kate Kendell, executive director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, called Del Martin, 83, and Phyllis Lyon, 79. The two were poised to celebrate the 51st anniversary of their relationship on Valentine's Day. They would become the first couple to marry, offering an example of a long-established lesbian relationship.
Alexandra D'Amario, 38, and Margot McShane, 34, were next. McShane was at work in San Francisco when an ACLU lawyer called to see if the pair wanted to participate. D'Amario, pregnant with twins, was on her way to work as a therapist in Concord, across the bay. She didn't hesitate.
"I whipped the car in the other direction," said D'Amario, 38, who shares a home with McShane in Napa.
She thought about her mother, who died unexpectedly in September and always taught D'Amario to stand up for what was right. She also thought about the twins, four months along, and the rights and protections she wanted for them.
"I just feel that anything that's discriminatory is wrong," she said. "I just think it's important in this time in America to get active…. I can't wait to have children so we can bring them into court."
Jeffrey Wayne Chandler, 43, and David Scott Chandler, 40, country music and dance lovers who have been together 11 years, spoke in their court declaration of the problems they faced when a child they had through a surrogate parent was born prematurely and died. The San Francisco couple had to delay burying the dead child to complete legal paperwork that a married couple would not have been troubled with, they said.
Another couple, Sarah Kristen Conner, 35, and Gillian Zartha Smith, 34, of Oakland, suffered through two difficult years when one was homebound with a disability.
"Being married provides us with important protections that we know will be critical to us when future hardships arise in our lives," they said in their court papers.
A fifth couple, Cristal Rivera-Mitchel and Theresa Michelle Petry, both 43 and San Francisco residents, remain unmarried but hope to wed in the future. They are in the case to represent the harm that would be caused if a court ordered the marriages to halt.
Until recently, leading gay rights groups had shied away from test cases over same-sex marriage. Their initial focus was on court challenges to anti-sodomy laws across the country. That litigation achieved final victory last year when the U.S. Supreme Court declared criminal sodomy laws unconstitutional.
As the sodomy cases moved through the courts, gay rights lawyers also worked on custody rights for lesbian mothers. During the last decade, the battle has shifted to domestic partner rights.
Those efforts provided useful lessons.
"What we saw was that many states would interpret their state constitutions as being more protective of rights of equality and liberty than under the federal Constitution," Davidson said.
Even as the major groups hesitated to test laws on marriage, individual couples brought cases in Hawaii and Alaska. In both states, the gay couples won court fights, but then saw their victories overturned by referendums that amended their states' constitutions to ban marriage by same-sex couples.
Legislators in more than a dozen states are now debating making similar changes to their constitutions. Although most states have laws defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman, gay rights lawyers could challenge them as discriminatory under the states' constitutions.
There is also a growing movement to amend the U.S. Constitution to prevent gays from marrying throughout the country. But such amendments are extremely rare.
Gay rights groups, impressed by the earlier legal victories in Hawaii and Alaska, finally decided to prepare a legal challenge themselves
In Vermont, gay "lawyers and community groups went downtown to Kiwanis clubs, PTA meetings, church picnics, you name it," said Kendell of the National Center for Lesbian Rights. "Wherever five or more people were gathered, there were average Vermonters who just happened to be gay to talk about the issue."
Vermont's high court eventually ruled that the state had to provide gay couples whatever state benefits were given to married couples. The Legislature passed a civil union law in response.
The movement next targeted Massachusetts, selecting that state because it already had many laws protecting gay people. In the biggest court victory for the same-sex marriage movement so far, Massachusetts' high court ruled in November that gays must be permitted to wed.
Massachusetts legislators deadlocked earlier this month on an effort to amend the state Constitution to limit marriage to male-female couples, and are scheduled to resume a constitutional convention March 11. Even if the legislators can agree on how such an amendment should be written, it could not take effect for two years. Marriage licenses have been ordered to be issued by May 17.
By contrast, "the approach in California has been more incremental, trying to get people the best legal protection available," said Tamara Lange, an ACLU lawyer involved in the San Francisco litigation. "The strategy has been more legislative here."
The battle for gay marriage stems in part from the legal efforts of lesbians to retain custody of their children during the 1970s. At the time, gay men were more interested in issues of sexual freedom, Stewart said.
"I remember going around and trying to raise money, and the men would be, 'Why do we care about families? Families are used against us,' " Stewart said. "And then AIDS came along, and it changed everything."
Gay men found themselves barred from their partners' hospital rooms. When partners died, families swept in and took everything they had owned, leaving their lifetime lovers with nothing. Partners who left work to care for sick lovers were not entitled to government benefits.
"The guys woke up," Stewart said.
The younger generation of gay men also helped turn the focus to domestic issues. Unlike many in the previous generation, they wanted families and saw no reason why they should not have them. Gay male couples began adopting children.
Now that the marriage issue is before state courts, lawyers are looking to the state's highest courts for clues on how it might rule.
Experts who follow the California Supreme Court have said it would be less likely than its Massachusetts counterpart to approve gay marriages.
But gay rights lawyers hope that the justices, who are based in San Francisco, are sympathetic because they have a lot of personal exposure to gays and lesbians in the city and probably on their staffs.
The justices can look from their chambers in San Francisco across the street to City Hall, where couples of different ages and races have been lined up around the block to marry, many with children and parents in tow.
The jurists may even have heard from their offices the San Francisco Gay Men's Choir serenade the brides and grooms: "Going to the chapel, and we're going to get married," and the blaring of horns in support as couples emerge from City Hall waving marriage certificates and tossing bouquets to the crowd.
For all those reasons, gay rights lawyers believe that California may prove to be an ideal test case for their movement.
"I believe [that] with the benefits of five years' hindsight, we will view this as a watershed moment in lesbian and gay couples achieving full equality," Kendell said.
I'm posting on my lunch hour so only have a few minutes. I'm thrilled by the good news of your check-up!! Yay, God!
To anyone who's e-mailed me and not rec'd an answer:
The monitor on my home computer went belly up last weekend, and I don't do personal e-mail from work, so please don't anyone think I'm ignoring you. I need a whole new computer, really, and I haven't had time to shop around yet. I'll be back!
How about, I wouldn't have had the fifty year old queer who tried to seduce me in his mobile home down in Louisiana when I was sixteen, and I had to commit assault to get away from him. If there were no homosexuals, that wouldn't have happened...
So the answer would be:
Society would lose "homosexual assaults on young boys if there were no homosexuals.
Jonny, generally I love your posts, however, most women could say the same thing about men. If there were no men, we wouldn't have had the boss, college professor, soccer coach, whoever is male and older, try to seduce us wherever we were when we were sixteen.
quote:Have we thought about the consequences of legalizing gay marriages?
Divorce?
Custody?
Cheating?
Battery?
This stuff is a mess the way things are right now, what's going to happen if we legalize things.
No matter their arguments, gay couples are not equal to straight couples. The dynamic is different and the consequences are just as different.
Def, this whole thing is absurd... we're talking humans in both cases here, plain and simple, humans...
to the first point, they can't be anymore f'd up than they are now... humans in both cases...
to the second point, the dynamic? the dynamic is different in every relationship because you've got different humans in each relationship...
Isn't it time we stopped this thread?
Neither side isn't going to convince the other to change their position... this thread is in danger of taking over the length of one of Mike's threads or (God Forbid!) the 9th corps thread...
I'm on the outside, looking inside, what do I see? Much confusion, disillusion, all around me.
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
J0nny Ling0
Ok Excath, the beliefs of many narrow minded Christians are sacred to them. Sorry for not clarilfying that. F**k it. I tried...
See ya.....Jonny Lingo
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
mj412
The ammendment President Bush states that it does not matter what the states decide the federal govt. will make them all across the board illegal.
the folks maried now do not have legit marriages in the states that issued them licenses.
the concern is that if someone will get married in Mass. or California they can come into NY or any other state and say they want it to be considered legal there. And in fact we have had two` same sex couple go into Mass this week and get married and they will come back and try to force the state to recognize the marriage here.
This is why it needs to be an ammendment on a federal level.
Every single culture in the entire world defines marriage as between a man and a woman.
every single culture. Also if allowed to marry this will allow marrriages with several spouses to become legal once again there is a bill in the house once again for marriages to mutiple partners. Can a marriage be a group fo five? come on people think think for once just where this could go.
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
does canada (and wherever else there are legal same sex marriages) allow multiple partner marriages ?
((((johnnylingo))))
?
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
mj412
Ex
Canada has a different govt.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
i guess what i was asking is, in other countries where same sex marriage is legal, has it lead to multiple partner marriages ?
?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mj412
Marriage is between a man and a woman in every other culture Ex.
Poligomy is granted in other Govts key words other Govt.
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
def59
Like all change, these things take time.
As for multiple marriages, the Muslim world allows for polygamy as do some tribal-based systems.
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
someone way back in the pages here brought up the point "your rights end where they infringe upon my rights" (or words to that effect)...
I'm just so puzzled about the reactions... how does allowing folks to have a recognized civil union infringe upon your rights?
let's have a beer Jonboy...
People are going to be gay or not gay whether this thing passes or not. Their lifestyle, their behavior, THEY are going to be there to infringe upon your rights or not...
whether they gain this recognition of civil union or not...
IF they infringe upon your rights, then they have overstepped theirs... and there are many who do this already BOTH hetero and homo...
IF you detest the lifestyle that much, that's your deal... but I don't really see how the recognition of someone's civil union really would effect anyone that much... you're going to detest no matter what...
some of you seem to want to keep "them" from having this benefit of society when, in reality, it wouldn't effect your life one way or another...
they're going to be who they are regardless of the outcome of the whole thing... and so are you...
I'm on the outside, looking inside, what do I see? Much confusion, disillusion, all around me.
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
OnionEater
I consider myself "very liberal". The other day I was asked if I would perform a wedding for a gay couple as I am legally certified to perform marriges in my state. (Notary=JP) I said NO. If it becomes legal I will still say no. I am a hippocrit but I can addmit it. I am not against it, I just don't want to be involved in it.
JMHO
Thus Sayeth "The OnionEater"
Ayuh
Link to comment
Share on other sites
J0nny Ling0
What does
(((( )))) mean?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mister P-Mosh
Thanks for taking a non-angry approach. I'll do the same.
I can understand the belief and how strong it is. However, it sounds almost like Christianity may not be compatible with Democracy, at least on issues like this.
The problem at heart is not just the belief about homosexuality, but the evangelical nature of certain sects of Christianity that require the adherents to shape society to fit their version of Christianity, without considering the rights of others. I think that this is the inherent problem plus the source of all of the conflict.
I agree with you there. I'm of the opinion that your right to extend your hand ends where my face begins (that's an overgeneralization, because if someone put their hand even two inches from my face I will knock it away.) I do respect Christianity and it's adherents except in cases like this when Christians try to force other individuals to conform to their beliefs. One of the great things about our form of government is the concept of individual freedom is sacred, and people are mostly allowed to do what they want as long as it poses no threat to others. That way Christians can live how they wish, gay people can live how they wish, etc. I think that Christians see gay marriage as homosexuals forcing everyone else to approve of their lifestyle, while gay people view the Christians as trying to force their religion on everyone else. From my standpoint, it's best to go towards the side of freedom rather than restriction, and I don't see how there is any real concrete evidence, legal or ancedotal, that would prove that homosexual marriage would have an effect on straight marriages or Christianity.
It may just be from the TWI teachings, but it seems to me like Christians either can go with a Fred Phelps (his church protested at the funeral of Matthew Shepard, telling his mom that her son was burning in Hell, etc) and do everything you can to rid the nation of homosexuality, or you can take a more tolerant "love the sinner but hate the sin" approach where you let them do what they want as long as it doesn't affect you, but you don't have to approve of it. I think we agree that Christianity is against homosexuality as the bible clearly states, but I don't see how it can allow people to oppose gay marriage so strongly but not want to kill all the gay people at the same time. That could just be the TWI teachings, as I said before.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
shazdancer
Dear Trefor,
After hearing George Bush spout off on marriage, I feel like I should apologize for my country. AND I will be emailing the White House to let them know that they lost my vote. I am a registered Republican. I think it is bad policy (and it will never make it as a Constitutional amendment), and bad politics.
Now, for those of you that just CAN'T let gay people get legally married in a civil ceremony: what gives? Did you step forward to protest and enact laws when men and women got married for money? Did you care when they got married and had no plans to have children? Did you look for legal means to stop any other couple from having a marriage that wasn't as Christian as you think marriage should be? Then why are you singling out gay marriage?
How many of you men are circumcised? What if the Jews decided that they would rise up and enact laws that would make non-Jewish circumcision illegal? After all, most Jewish people consider circumcision a very sacred practice in their faith. We Gentiles muddy up that sanctity by wanting to do it also. If the US government wants to hold up your right to define marriage according to your Christian beliefs, then it had better be equally ready to allow Jews the exclusive right to circumcision. (Better start thinking about where that skin graft is gonna come from!
;)--> )
Shaking my head,
Shaz
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Trefor Heywood
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!"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Trefor Heywood
Trefor Heywood
"Cymru Am Byth!"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Linda Z
To Trefor:
I'm posting on my lunch hour so only have a few minutes. I'm thrilled by the good news of your check-up!! Yay, God!
To anyone who's e-mailed me and not rec'd an answer:
The monitor on my home computer went belly up last weekend, and I don't do personal e-mail from work, so please don't anyone think I'm ignoring you. I need a whole new computer, really, and I haven't had time to shop around yet. I'll be back!
Linda Z
Link to comment
Share on other sites
outofdafog
(((((means hugs))))))
Ex was giving you a hug.
Thats my story and I am sticking to it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Trefor Heywood
HI Linda Z!
Sorry to hear about your domestic computer problems and hope they are sorted soon!
Trefor Heywood
"Cymru Am Byth!"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
J0nny Ling0
Thanks Ex
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
(((Jonny Lingo)))
that doesn't make us gay does it?
I'm on the outside, looking inside, what do I see? Much confusion, disillusion, all around me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
Sorry, couldn't resist!!!
Beers all around!
I'm on the outside, looking inside, what do I see? Much confusion, disillusion, all around me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
J0nny Ling0
Hey there big fella
Link to comment
Share on other sites
def59
Have we thought about the consequences of legalizing gay marriages?
Divorce?
Custody?
Cheating?
Battery?
This stuff is a mess the way things are right now, what's going to happen if we legalize things.
No matter their arguments, gay couples are not equal to straight couples. The dynamic is different and the consequences are just as different.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
nolongerlurking
Jonny, generally I love your posts, however, most women could say the same thing about men. If there were no men, we wouldn't have had the boss, college professor, soccer coach, whoever is male and older, try to seduce us wherever we were when we were sixteen.
nolongerworking
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
Def:
Def, this whole thing is absurd... we're talking humans in both cases here, plain and simple, humans...to the first point, they can't be anymore f'd up than they are now... humans in both cases...
to the second point, the dynamic? the dynamic is different in every relationship because you've got different humans in each relationship...
Isn't it time we stopped this thread?
Neither side isn't going to convince the other to change their position... this thread is in danger of taking over the length of one of Mike's threads or (God Forbid!) the 9th corps thread...
I'm on the outside, looking inside, what do I see? Much confusion, disillusion, all around me.
Edited by GuestLink 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.