THE DEBATE over same-sex marriage moved out of the margins Thursday. It's no longer a matter of whether "separate but equal" -- civil unions, domestic partners, marriage by any other name -- is the moral and legal equivalent of a state-sanctioned declaration of "husband and wife."
San Francisco finally, officially, cut to the essence of the issue Thursday by issuing marriage licenses at City Hall to same-sex couples.
It may seem premature to some Americans, but for 83-year-old Del Martin and 79-year-old Phyllis Lyon, it was a long time coming. The lesbian couple, together for about a half-century, became the first in the United States to marry with the full recognition of a government body.
Tears flowed during the historic moment at City Hall.
There was no doubt that the euphoria of this revolutionary action will soon give way to a long, potentially tedious legal battle that may ultimately end up in the U.S. Supreme Court. The issue was forced by Mayor Gavin Newsom, who is showing extraordinary mettle in his first weeks of office. Newsom declared that his reading of the California Constitution left "no room for any form of discrimination."
There is no doubt that many Americans remain highly uncomfortable with the idea of same-sex marriage. Some members of Congress, with an assist by President Bush, are pandering to this unease by proposing a constitutional amendment to restrict the rights of gays and lesbians. Democrats are clearly worried about it becoming a wedge issue in the presidential race. Democratic front-runner John Kerry has been taking the typically hedged position of most politicians, supporting an expansion of rights but adhering to a narrow definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman.
San Francisco's bold move will force the core question, whether Americans -- and its elected officials -- are ready or not.
We extend our best wishes to Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon; may they live happily ever after. We extend our kudos to Mayor Newsom, who recognized that confronting discrimination is not about timing or political calculation, but about about principle. We also offer words of caution to Americans who may be tempted to reflexively want to support a constitutional amendment in defense of a tradition they have known and cherished through their lifetimes. Pause to contemplate whether discrimination based on sexual orientation is consistent with the constitutional principles that have defined and defended this country's precious freedoms.
The hour has arrived to decide whether there is any rationale -- in a nation guided by a constitution assuring "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" -- for government to deprive some Americans from the rights and responsibilities of marriage.
San Francisco should be proud to have provoked this showdown.
In a historic act of civil disobedience, San Francisco defied state law and issued marriage licenses to same-sex couples Thursday, a move expected to ignite a constitutional showdown as early as today.
A lesbian couple who have been together five decades were the first to marry, followed by 89 other couples who said their vows in City Hall ceremonies. The cheers and yelps echoed throughout the building all day, as gays and lesbians who had expected to be refused wedding licenses during a planned National Freedom to Marry protest were instead married under the ornate City Hall rotunda. Several couples rushed to get married during their lunch hours after word spread that they could.
"A barrier to true justice has been removed,'' said Mayor Gavin Newsom, who argues that state law defining marriage as between a man and a woman amounts to unconstitutional discrimination against gays and lesbians.
Newsom had announced just three days ago that he wanted the city to explore ways to let same-sex couples marry. City officials rushed the policy into place when they got wind that groups opposed to gays and lesbians marrying were about to file suit to block Newsom's plan.
The Liberty Counsel, a legal-aid group acting on behalf of Campaign for California Families, plans to file suit today in state Superior Court in San Francisco to force the city to stop issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples and to void those already granted. On Thursday, the city issued a total of 118 marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
Newsom "is essentially setting himself up as king," said Mat Staver, president and legal counsel of the Liberty Counsel. "He can't do it. It's like saying he wants San Francisco to secede from California or the United States. What the mayor is doing is only symbolic; the marriages licenses that were issued aren't worth the paper they're written on.''
It appears that the earliest a court could order an injunction to halt the marriages would be Tuesday. As of Thursday night, the city had not received the required 24-hour notice from Liberty Counsel that it would seek an injunction, said Matt Dorsey, a spokesman for the city attorney. State courts will be closed Monday for Presidents Day.
City officials plan to issue more marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples today.
The litigation will hinge on whether California marriage law illegally discriminates against same-sex couples under the state constitution.
Constitutional law experts said the marriage licenses issued Thursday may not stand up in court because marriages are governed by the state, not local, governments.
"In the end, it's much more likely to be symbolic,'' said Erwin Chemerinsky, a constitutional law professor at the University of Southern California. "If the state decides it's not going to recognize these marriage licenses, there's nothing the city can do.''
Joel Paul, a constitutional law expert at the University of California's Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco, said the city's actions conflict with Proposition 22, the 2000 voter-approved initiative that bans the recognition of same-sex marriages in California.
For the moment, he said, the marriage licenses have no legal significance unless the newlyweds try to assert their rights as married people by applying for Social Security benefits or seeking custody of property or children.
State Attorney General Bill Lockyer's office had already started to study the issue of same-sex marriages because of the debate over gay and lesbian unions taking place in Massachusetts, a spokeswoman said. The high court in that state ruled that barring same-sex couples from marrying was unconstitutional.
City Attorney Dennis Herrera said he would defend San Francisco in court with pro bono legal assistance from the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Center for Lesbian Rights and other civil rights groups.
The Liberty Counsel had planned to file for an injunction Thursday, but the state courts were closed in observance of Abraham Lincoln's birthday. That wasn't lost on city officials, who fast-tracked plans to put the same-sex marriage procedures in place before a judge had time to stop the weddings.
Officials alerted only a handful of people that they were ready to act. By early Thursday, employees in the county clerk's office, in consultation with city and civil rights lawyers, had changed marriage license documents to make them gender-neutral, replacing the words "bride'' and "groom'' with "first applicant'' and "second applicant.''
At 11:06 a.m., two icons of the lesbian movement, Del Martin, 83, and Phyllis Lyon, 79, exchanged wedding vows, kissed and embraced. Mabel Teng, the city's assessor-recorder, officiated over the ceremony, inserting the phrase "spouse for life'' in place of "husband'' and "wife.''
Lyon, who will celebrate her 51st anniversary with Martin on Saturday, Valentine's Day, got a call Wednesday from Kate Kendell, executive director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, asking her if she'd be willing to take the plunge.
"I asked Del, and she said OK," Lyon said. "We didn't really think about this before, because we didn't think it was possible. Now, so much has changed ... and everyone's working so hard to get gay marriage. It didn't seem right to say 'no.' "
About 20 people witnessed the ceremony. Many of them were moved to tears as the couple were wed, using borrowed rings.
Reaction to the day's events came quickly.
"The state of California must rebuff the efforts of this rogue mayor," said Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, a conservative group in Washington, D.C. "His actions, and the actions of those who are attempting to redefine marriage in Massachusetts, show that homosexual activists are ready and willing to ignore the people and to ignore the law to further their agenda of normalizing homosexuality.''
Dorothy Erlich, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California, countered: "Just as we told the state in 1974 when they passed a statute limiting marriage to a man and a woman, that kind of discrimination against same-sex couples violates the California Constitution's promise of equality. Discrimination in marriage was wrong then and it's wrong now.''
On the same day that San Francisco entered uncharted territory, Assemblyman Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, introduced the California Marriage License Nondiscrimination Act, which would amend the state Family Code to define a marriage as between "two persons" instead of between a man and a woman.
"Simple enough, but really changes the world for so many millions and millions of people here in California,'' said Leno, who stuck around City Hall for the day to marry couples.
Newsom said the fight was no different from the battles to eradicate laws banning marriage between people of different races and different religions.
"America has struggled since its inception to eradicate discrimination in all forms," said Newsom, who did not officiate over ceremonies Thursday. "California's Constitution leaves no doubts. It leaves no room for any form of discrimination.''
Chronicle staff writer Harriet Chiang contributed to this report.E-mail Rachel Gordon at rgordon@sfchronicle.com.
Pamela rifled through her purse Thursday morning at the counter in Room 168 of San Francisco's City Hall.
"Eighty-two dollars?'' she asked the clerk.
She and her boyfriend, Oscar, had filled out the one-page form for their marriage license. No blood test required. Just picture IDs and $82. The couple asked if there was a slot available next Friday, eight days later, for a ceremony by a City Hall marriage commissioner. The clerk punched some keys on his computer and handed the couple a printed confirmation: Feb. 20 at 10 a.m.
Securing the marriage license and scheduling the ceremony took Pamela and Oscar less than 30 minutes, shorter than a lunch break. No one in the clerk's office asked why 28-year-old Pamela and 29-year-old Oscar, who preferred not to have their last names in the paper, were marrying. No one tried to ascertain if their relationship was worthy of the designation "marriage.''
It all seemed so mundane and DMVish that it was difficult to fathom the fuss when, later in the day, the same process suddenly became a media event, with cameras flashing, press conferences sprouting, lawsuits flying. In a historic move Thursday afternoon, two days before Valentine's Day, Mayor Gavin Newsom issued marriage licenses to same-sex couples, bucking California law and jumping feet-first into a national controversy that has President Bush pushing for a constitutional amendment to keep marriage licenses out of the hands of gays and lesbians.
"The president believes very strongly that marriage is a sacred institution, and that we should do what is needed to protect and defend the sanctity of marriage,'' White House press secretary Scott McClellan said Thursday at a press briefing in Washington.
The whole thing is puzzling to me. How does the government have any standing in a discussion about what is sacred and what isn't? In what other area of life does government define for us what is sacred? A government-issued marriage license is a legal document, not a sacred one. A marriage is sacred not through any powers of the government but through the blessings of a religious institution. Or through the spirituality of the marriage partners themselves.
If preserving the sanctity of marriage was truly the impetus behind Bush's campaign to prohibit gay marriage, he also would be pushing for a constitutional amendment against Elvis wedding chapels and drive-through ceremonies. He'd be calling for a ban on 20-year-olds marrying 85-year-old billionaires, and a ban on Hugh Hefner ever walking down the aisle again.
People who are offended by gay marriage have every right to believe such marriages are shams and refuse to recognize them as "true'' marriages. But I am truly confounded by how legalizing same-sex marriages will undermine the institution itself. Somebody else's sham marriage doesn't diminish the sanctity of my own. My marriage is what my husband and I make it. Do Bush and his supporters believe his citizens' values are so fragile, our commitment to each other so tenuous, that marriages all over America will fall apart because Siegfried and Roy tie the knot?
People against same-sex marriage often ask why gays and lesbians feel a need to marry at all. If two people are committed to each other, what difference does a piece of paper make?
It is a question for anyone who marries. I asked Suzanne Rice and John Harmer, who were waiting Thursday outside the county clerk's office to be summoned for their scheduled ceremony. Rice, 44, had never been married and shuddered at the thought of a fussy wedding. She wore a sleeveless white dress with a soft Pashmina wrap. No flowers, no photographer, no cake, no guests. She and Harmer, with whom she has been living for 18 months, had gotten their marriage license two days earlier.
"People look at your relationship differently when you're married,'' she said, explaining why they wanted the legal designation. "It's not just some flighty little fling. It's sad that people think that, but that's the way society is.''
Mostly, though, they were marrying because, Harmer said, "We love each other very much. This is what we've both been looking for for the better part of our lives. We're tightly committed to each other.''
Outside on the City Hall steps, friends snapped pictures of Jennifer and Burkhard Specht, who have been together for five years. A Hummer limousine waited at the curb to whisk the couple and 15 friends to Napa Valley for champagne tasting.
"I really think if you want to join together in a union and want to make a true commitment to each other, you get married,'' said Jennifer, beaming in her sparkly white dress and strappy white heels. "It's the tradition, and it should be available to everyone.''
Upstairs in the mayor's office, policy director Joyce Newstat, who has been in a committed relationship with another woman for years, was both excited and frustrated with the day's historic events. She knows we'll look back on these days and shake our heads about why all this was such a big deal, just as kids today wonder why integration and civil rights were such a big deal.
"This (issuing of marriage licenses) is about ending discrimination,'' she said. "That's what the whole entire thing is about. People want to get married, and the reasons for getting married are the same whether you're straight or gay.''
All laws are discriminatory!! Bad guy is odd man out. Too bad. :D--> Woops!! Is it politically correct to say such a thing??
I whole-heartedly agree with MJ. Values are being attacked, and anyone who attacks those values, deserves to be "shot back at".
The folks who came here first, "shook off the dust" of your country, so that they could enjoy freedom of religion, and have the right to bear arms (there is the answer to your question MJ). :)-->
Rights were established, and systems set up -- And it was all done under the banner of IN GOD WE TRUST. Let's slap God in the face and "legalize" something He says is WRONGGGGGGG?????? Not me.
Freedom of will is one thing, but to impose it on others and force it down the throats of those who choke at the thought, is tyrrany. That is what we left behind, over in your country. You MUST be familiar with that, since you are a "subject" and not a "citizen".
That's four super long posts in a row! I can't take it any more! Really bro, I know that you want to post whole articles so that you won't seem to be taking something out of context, but I have a hard time wanting to read someting so long that someone else said as opposed to what you have have to...
Really, I am not harassing you, it just makes it hard to want to read your posts... :)-->
he wanted to stop anyone from reading MY post against his ideals .
yes flood with your emotionalism and writings Trefor but bottom Line is homosexuals are a minority in America , and not one that is abused for darn sure. Majority rules iN AMERICA for a reason and Im still waiting for the two guys that feel we should understand how much you love one another to join in the SERVICE of our Country and die with the MEN willing and able to fight for what we cherish as TRUTH in our Country. To protect their families which God himself honors.
oops my bad they better keep their mouth shut about that LOVE huh man hmmm? do not ask do not tell.
I do not hate homosexuals but I sure do love America and the men willing to die for us to live as we see fit, and to liberate other countries and keep ENGLAND safe from their own 9/11 and other terroists. and homosexuals are not ALLOWED in that MAJORITY either!
Thank God .
[This message was edited by mj412 on February 15, 2004 at 17:02.]
I just find it so amazing that you claim its was ok to flee a tyranny just so that another one could be set up.
One version of God and what was OK for another. It is one thing to trust in God and entirely another to force what you believe comes from that trust down the throats of others. What you choose to choke upon does not give you the right to impose that upon others. Majority rule can in itself be a tyranny and it looks like I am doing better as a subject in this regard.
Better kick out all the non-believers according to that logic.
And next time you get a president with a true majority let me know... :D-->
I am sorry jonny if you thought it was too much at once. I was away at the weekend and had to catch up with my emails. It was also an attempt to bring people up to speed upon the latest developments and, yes, they carry information from what both sides of the debate are saying.
mj412:
This allegation is utter nonesense.
Furthermore you insult the memory of all those gay Americans who have fought and died in the service of their country, often in the teeth of opposition and witch hunts.
Other countries such as mine joined America in the liberation of other countries amd we now allow openly gay people in our armed forces and it did not prove the morale and efficiency disaster that many claimed it would be. It might even surprise you to know that I supported this.
There are homosexuals in your armed forces - they are just not allowed to be open about it.
As to 9/11 do you think that homosexuals were jumping up and down and congratulating Al Quada? And are you saying that you cannot love your country is you are not in THE MAJORITY?
my point exactly they are not allowed to be homosexual in the armed forces.
I think everyone wants someone to protect us all from terrists and it is our services that do it in which homosexuals are not welcomed.
If found out punishment is warranted.
for reasons . it is primarily BEHAVIOURS . soldiers do not want to be in battle along side homosexuals .
They can love their country , they can vote as well, as a minority , but no Trefor we do not want them to protect or SERVE our citizens. My son can still be drafted to make sure you have the right to have sex with who ever you please , but an American homosexual does have the honor of dying for its people or yours. Funny how you switch the line from being the loudest VICTIMS to the point you will never be our HEROS. which way is it?
I do not read in history of a time homosexuals had such a power base and johnny may not so off base in alluding to where it may come from , it does not matter , what matters is our constitution and how we vote here Trefor.
What we as a people believe to be right and wrong.
We are the most powerful nation I believe for a reason and that is the people , that believe in the freedom that brought us together united as one under God.
Other countries do allow gays in their army we do not hmmm speaks about America doesnt it? YES it does and as same sex marriage we will indeed speak again LOUD and clear for all the world to watch .
As long gone stated we are involved now and we will decide . And we will stand together as a people who love our country and decide what is best.
The American Spirit will never die unless as individuals allow it, and we will not .
[This message was edited by mj412 on February 15, 2004 at 21:51.]
[This message was edited by mj412 on February 15, 2004 at 21:54.]
What is patently clear is that you have YOUR version about what is America is.
But the intolerance for those who have their own vision is manifest.
You claim not to hate homosexuals, maybe so and maybe not.
But your hatred of homosexuality is so rabid as to defy description.
It is hardly surprising that people interpret that as homophobia and are put off by your vision of America. and your version of God.
In the armed forces what does it matter if a soldier is gay or not if they observe proper behavioural conventions on base?
You heard of Barry Goldwater? He said something like "On the front line I don't care if a soldier is gay or not, I am only concerned that he can shoot straight."
Heroes are individuals, regardless of their sexuality.
Go to the top of the page, and you will see a little window that says "My space". Click on that, and then it will say something like "private topics" click on that, and there you will find my message...
There was, as most will recall, a major scandal in the country when one of the first things done by the Clinton administration was to attempt to repeal the ban on homosexuals in the US Military. This was attempted as a response to campaign promises made to the homosexual community by Clinton. He simply was not able to do it. There was a hew and cry let out by the entire nation, including from within the military community.
These arguments were divided into two basic categories: unit cohesion and practical issues.
Unit cohesion:
They were concerned that openly gay/lesbian people would rip apart unit cohesion. What does this mean? The concern was that military units would no longer be able to effectively operate as a team: living together, fighting together, partying together. The level of trust between unit members would be reduced significantly. This would reduce their combat effectiveness.
Practical issues:
Despite what the perception of the effects on unit cohesion, there would be some serious practical issues that would have to be dealt with. Some issues that are, on the surface, dumb. But issues that would have to be dealt with, never the less.
1. Dormitories/Barracks. Right now, single enlisted servicemembers are housed in barracks, ranging from single rooms sharing a bathroom, to open bay barracks that can house 26 to 52 members per bay. Under no circumstances are male servicemembers housed in the same sleeping space with female members. Why is that? It isn't because of the difference in plumbing requirements, it is to preserve modesty and a sense of propriety (I know that males and females shack up together in barracks all the time, but it is strictly prohibited -- if discovered, both members are in deep trouble). Do the math. How would you house homosexual men, heterosexual men, homosexual women, heterosexual women, while maintaining the same standards? No matter how open minded I am, I would probably feel somewhat uncomfortable with a homosexual roommate (in the same bedroom). Is the answer to house homosexual males in the same barracks room with homosexual males and homosexual females in the same barracks room with homosexual females? No...that would be roughly equivalent to housing heterosexual males in the same barracks room with heterosexual females.? The latter is already deemed inappropriate and against all service regs. For consistency, some similar standard would be needed in the former case.
2. Bathrooms, locker rooms, medical examinations, etc. There are a number of other issues that would be difficult to deal with. The same issues that would have to be dealt with regarding sleeping arrangements would also apply to these situations.
These practical issues seem sort of silly to those who have not had to deal with the issues in a male/female military. But, they are real issues that must be considered, solved, and overcome. The Clinton administration decided, after valiant efforts, that they couldn't be effectively dealt with. That is, in large part, why they reneged on their promise to the gay community to eliminate the "ban" and came up with the "don't ask, don't tell" policy that has been with us since.
My commentary:
There have, as Trefor has accurately pointed out, always been homosexuals in the military. Many have served with distinction. Those who did had to keep their sexual preference to themselves and, if they wanted some "nooky," had to do so with the upmost discretion, so as not to be found out. In a civilian job, there is no place for discrimination based on a person's sexual preference. Everybody, homosexual or heterosexual, has the obligation to keep his or her pants zipped and keep the mind on the job, not on other employees.
The military isn't that way. As a 21-year veteran, I am speaking from experience. Uniformed military people are "members," not employees. People operate in extremely close quarters within military units. They literally live together, eat together, and must have a high degree of trust. Issues that may tend to limit that trust between members are extremely harmful to that level of trust. I'm talking thieves, adulterers, gossips, etc. Concern whether a member is going to make a pass at another member is a potential breach of that trust. This is not a homosexual thing. It also applies to heterosexual relationships. IMHO, unit cohesion has been impacted by the increasing prevalence of females within military units as well. In many cases, particularly in combat support and combat service support units where the percentage of females is higher, people need to be very careful of their language and mannerisms to avoid a potential sexual harrassment allegation. This would, also IMHO, be greatly exaggerated if homosexual members are allowed to "come out of the closet."
The practical issues, also, would have to be dealt with. They are not small issues. Probably, the only solution would be to provide single enlisted people with private rooms, from basic training on. (The only other solution would be to totally eliminate housing segregated by sex) That is not an insignificant cost. Now, that works while people are "in garrison." How about in the field, or at sea? I have NO idea how to deal with that one. The logistics would be a nightmare.
The bottom line is that the military has been used for social engineering for decades. Racial integration was largely forced upon the military...in most cases, that has worked out rather well, after about three decades of problems. But, there are still problems that are below the surface. Male/female integration is still in the process of development. The problems are starting to subside from that little experiment. At some point in time, homosexual integration will occur. I dread to see the problems when that actually happens (I am glad I'm retired and so its somebody else's problem). Society will follow, eventually.
Those who are traditional Christians had simply better recognize that they are going to be relegated to the dung heap of society. The moral standards that they have accepted for their lives have no place in modern society. Eventually, their civil rights will be legally eliminated by the courts because they interfere with the rights of others to pursue the lifestyles they want. They may as well get used to it and either compromise their standards, or be prepared to be marginalized and perhaps hunted down and forcibly excluded. That is the way of the future. Deal with it.
Mark sounds rather gloomy , yet it is written in the scripture that is what will happen , to those who deny the one true God and Father of the Lord Jesus Christ.
In the mean time while still holding a breath I will vote and I will inform those with ears to hear that in ths Country we call America it is the people who have the power to say what we will and will not tolerate .
It is a truth we are willing to send thousands of young men to die for , It is the freedom that allows me to pray to see justice for all. It is my land my country and my responibility as a christianand an American to keep these truths in the foremost mind of evey man and woman for as long as we must.
I do not doubt Gods Power to lead His people to a land without sin , nor do I lose faith in those who worship Him to do what they must to love one another each day as Jesus Christ Commands us to do.
I am not a coward I will stand untill the day of victory, that is indeed a promise for all who Love Him.
[This message was edited by mj412 on February 16, 2004 at 8:56.]
[This message was edited by mj412 on February 16, 2004 at 9:15.]
YOU started this @##@$% thread anytime you want to jump back in !
It made my feathers all up in a tussle . why did you stop posting got to rough for ya? Well now Trefor and who ever eles is calling me a hater as well, oh well I know WHO I love and who loves me .
I don't think you are a hater either. But many times I do not understand you. Like right now. I am mystified as to why you are hacked off at me. When I said "You go girl!" I really meant it in a friendly way. So, if I have a hard time understanding what you are saying, would it be fair to comment on something that I do not understand?
And, amazing as it may seem, I don't always have time to sit here and type away alla the time. Call me "henpecked" if you want, but sometimes it pi$$es off Mrs. Lingo when I am on the comp alla the time. I am a father of four and husband of one ya know...
And furthermore, I have contributed plenty to this thread.
jonny Lingo I was kidding as well . lol I do not get so involved in these threads they make or break my day Jonny Lingo . I do not get angry or sad or so involved family members would suffer . it is the internet all in perspective ya know?
Im not angry at you , why would you think that? your a sensitive guy but try not to assume too much about how I feel about any particular poster clearly I have loud enough fingers to state my feelings as much as any other ok?
No I haven't seen any stats lately.... but then ... have you?????? PLEASE by all means share then with me, us. In 1995 CDC figures showed 90%+ of the cases were homosexuals and IV drug users.... (I think the actual # was 95% but will be conservative )
hmmmmm .... lesssss seeeeee
okay then it's not the "gay disease" and LUNG CANCER IS NOT THE SMOKERS DISEASE EITHER????
although only 50-60% of lung cancer victims were smokers.
Yeah right.....
So... WHO can the states sue NOW??? because this (in the overwhelming number of cases) is a behavior related disease.... like smoking... and the states incur costs of treatment... SURELY somebody can be sued!!!!!
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
61
69
130
71
Popular Days
Feb 6
106
Feb 7
68
Feb 5
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 7 2004
68 posts
Feb 5 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
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
Trefor Heywood
Trefor Heywood
"Cymru Am Byth!"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Truth is, you can't have it both ways. You can't profess equality for all, and then discriminate against some. Amending the
Constitution would be a repudiation of those founding principles that have been the heart of America. It would be the first time in
history that such a designation of second-class citizenship has ever been INSERTED into the Constitution. Should that happen, the
America we true Americans all know and love would cease to exist. It would be a sad day indeed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From "Mark" in the "matthewshepperd" yahoo group.
Trefor Heywood
"Cymru Am Byth!"
Trefor --- B (as in B***) and S (as in S***)
All laws are discriminatory!! Bad guy is odd man out. Too bad.
:D--> Woops!! Is it politically correct to say such a thing?? 
I whole-heartedly agree with MJ. Values are being attacked, and anyone who attacks those values, deserves to be "shot back at".
The folks who came here first, "shook off the dust" of your country, so that they could enjoy freedom of religion, and have the right to bear arms (there is the answer to your question MJ).
:)-->
Rights were established, and systems set up -- And it was all done under the banner of IN GOD WE TRUST. Let's slap God in the face and "legalize" something He says is WRONGGGGGGG?????? Not me.
Freedom of will is one thing, but to impose it on others and force it down the throats of those who choke at the thought, is tyrrany. That is what we left behind, over in your country. You MUST be familiar with that, since you are a "subject" and not a "citizen".
Shoot low. They are riding Shetlands.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
J0nny Ling0
Trefor!! Aaaaggghhh!!
:)-->
That's four super long posts in a row! I can't take it any more! Really bro, I know that you want to post whole articles so that you won't seem to be taking something out of context, but I have a hard time wanting to read someting so long that someone else said as opposed to what you have have to...
Really, I am not harassing you, it just makes it hard to want to read your posts...
:)-->
Peace...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mj412
jonny Lingo
he wanted to stop anyone from reading MY post against his ideals .
yes flood with your emotionalism and writings Trefor but bottom Line is homosexuals are a minority in America , and not one that is abused for darn sure. Majority rules iN AMERICA for a reason and Im still waiting for the two guys that feel we should understand how much you love one another to join in the SERVICE of our Country and die with the MEN willing and able to fight for what we cherish as TRUTH in our Country. To protect their families which God himself honors.
oops my bad they better keep their mouth shut about that LOVE huh man hmmm? do not ask do not tell.
I do not hate homosexuals but I sure do love America and the men willing to die for us to live as we see fit, and to liberate other countries and keep ENGLAND safe from their own 9/11 and other terroists. and homosexuals are not ALLOWED in that MAJORITY either!
Thank God .
[This message was edited by mj412 on February 15, 2004 at 17:02.]
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Trefor Heywood
dmiller:
I just find it so amazing that you claim its was ok to flee a tyranny just so that another one could be set up.
One version of God and what was OK for another. It is one thing to trust in God and entirely another to force what you believe comes from that trust down the throats of others. What you choose to choke upon does not give you the right to impose that upon others. Majority rule can in itself be a tyranny and it looks like I am doing better as a subject in this regard.
Better kick out all the non-believers according to that logic.
And next time you get a president with a true majority let me know...
:D-->
I am sorry jonny if you thought it was too much at once. I was away at the weekend and had to catch up with my emails. It was also an attempt to bring people up to speed upon the latest developments and, yes, they carry information from what both sides of the debate are saying.
mj412:
This allegation is utter nonesense.
Furthermore you insult the memory of all those gay Americans who have fought and died in the service of their country, often in the teeth of opposition and witch hunts.
Other countries such as mine joined America in the liberation of other countries amd we now allow openly gay people in our armed forces and it did not prove the morale and efficiency disaster that many claimed it would be. It might even surprise you to know that I supported this.
There are homosexuals in your armed forces - they are just not allowed to be open about it.
As to 9/11 do you think that homosexuals were jumping up and down and congratulating Al Quada? And are you saying that you cannot love your country is you are not in THE MAJORITY?
Sheesh - me emotional?
Look in a mirror...
Trefor Heywood
"Cymru Am Byth!"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mj412
my point exactly they are not allowed to be homosexual in the armed forces.
I think everyone wants someone to protect us all from terrists and it is our services that do it in which homosexuals are not welcomed.
If found out punishment is warranted.
for reasons . it is primarily BEHAVIOURS . soldiers do not want to be in battle along side homosexuals .
They can love their country , they can vote as well, as a minority , but no Trefor we do not want them to protect or SERVE our citizens. My son can still be drafted to make sure you have the right to have sex with who ever you please , but an American homosexual does have the honor of dying for its people or yours. Funny how you switch the line from being the loudest VICTIMS to the point you will never be our HEROS. which way is it?
I do not read in history of a time homosexuals had such a power base and johnny may not so off base in alluding to where it may come from , it does not matter , what matters is our constitution and how we vote here Trefor.
What we as a people believe to be right and wrong.
We are the most powerful nation I believe for a reason and that is the people , that believe in the freedom that brought us together united as one under God.
Other countries do allow gays in their army we do not hmmm speaks about America doesnt it? YES it does and as same sex marriage we will indeed speak again LOUD and clear for all the world to watch .
As long gone stated we are involved now and we will decide . And we will stand together as a people who love our country and decide what is best.
The American Spirit will never die unless as individuals allow it, and we will not .
[This message was edited by mj412 on February 15, 2004 at 21:51.]
[This message was edited by mj412 on February 15, 2004 at 21:54.]
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
as soon as I can find a really long article to post I'll be back!
:D-->
Tref, I hope you just cut and pasted those, otherwise I would assume your fingers are soaking in a bowl of ice...!
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
oh... and I agree in total with LindaZ...
...what she said!
I'm on the outside, looking inside, what do I see? Much confusion, disillusion, all around me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Trefor Heywood
Tom Strange:
Of course I cut and pasted - what do you think I am? A masochist?
:D-->
Trefor Heywood
"Cymru Am Byth!"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Trefor Heywood
mj412:
What is patently clear is that you have YOUR version about what is America is.
But the intolerance for those who have their own vision is manifest.
You claim not to hate homosexuals, maybe so and maybe not.
But your hatred of homosexuality is so rabid as to defy description.
It is hardly surprising that people interpret that as homophobia and are put off by your vision of America. and your version of God.
In the armed forces what does it matter if a soldier is gay or not if they observe proper behavioural conventions on base?
You heard of Barry Goldwater? He said something like "On the front line I don't care if a soldier is gay or not, I am only concerned that he can shoot straight."
Heroes are individuals, regardless of their sexuality.
Trefor Heywood
"Cymru Am Byth!"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
J0nny Ling0
Trefor, Private Topics please...
JL
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Trefor Heywood
Jonny:
What private topics? I am an ignoramus in that area...
Trefor Heywood
"Cymru Am Byth!"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mj412
do not ask do not tell is policy .
the Commander in Chief ( our president)of our Services listens to his people .
that is what matters and that is the difference.
maybe you do not believe it maybe many Americans do not believe it Yet many still do believe in America for the people and of the people.
I do not hate homosexuals I just do not pity them .
Link to comment
Share on other sites
J0nny Ling0
Treffor,
Go to the top of the page, and you will see a little window that says "My space". Click on that, and then it will say something like "private topics" click on that, and there you will find my message...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
There was, as most will recall, a major scandal in the country when one of the first things done by the Clinton administration was to attempt to repeal the ban on homosexuals in the US Military. This was attempted as a response to campaign promises made to the homosexual community by Clinton. He simply was not able to do it. There was a hew and cry let out by the entire nation, including from within the military community.
These arguments were divided into two basic categories: unit cohesion and practical issues.
Unit cohesion:
They were concerned that openly gay/lesbian people would rip apart unit cohesion. What does this mean? The concern was that military units would no longer be able to effectively operate as a team: living together, fighting together, partying together. The level of trust between unit members would be reduced significantly. This would reduce their combat effectiveness.
Practical issues:
Despite what the perception of the effects on unit cohesion, there would be some serious practical issues that would have to be dealt with. Some issues that are, on the surface, dumb. But issues that would have to be dealt with, never the less.
1. Dormitories/Barracks. Right now, single enlisted servicemembers are housed in barracks, ranging from single rooms sharing a bathroom, to open bay barracks that can house 26 to 52 members per bay. Under no circumstances are male servicemembers housed in the same sleeping space with female members. Why is that? It isn't because of the difference in plumbing requirements, it is to preserve modesty and a sense of propriety (I know that males and females shack up together in barracks all the time, but it is strictly prohibited -- if discovered, both members are in deep trouble). Do the math. How would you house homosexual men, heterosexual men, homosexual women, heterosexual women, while maintaining the same standards? No matter how open minded I am, I would probably feel somewhat uncomfortable with a homosexual roommate (in the same bedroom). Is the answer to house homosexual males in the same barracks room with homosexual males and homosexual females in the same barracks room with homosexual females? No...that would be roughly equivalent to housing heterosexual males in the same barracks room with heterosexual females.? The latter is already deemed inappropriate and against all service regs. For consistency, some similar standard would be needed in the former case.
2. Bathrooms, locker rooms, medical examinations, etc. There are a number of other issues that would be difficult to deal with. The same issues that would have to be dealt with regarding sleeping arrangements would also apply to these situations.
These practical issues seem sort of silly to those who have not had to deal with the issues in a male/female military. But, they are real issues that must be considered, solved, and overcome. The Clinton administration decided, after valiant efforts, that they couldn't be effectively dealt with. That is, in large part, why they reneged on their promise to the gay community to eliminate the "ban" and came up with the "don't ask, don't tell" policy that has been with us since.
My commentary:
There have, as Trefor has accurately pointed out, always been homosexuals in the military. Many have served with distinction. Those who did had to keep their sexual preference to themselves and, if they wanted some "nooky," had to do so with the upmost discretion, so as not to be found out. In a civilian job, there is no place for discrimination based on a person's sexual preference. Everybody, homosexual or heterosexual, has the obligation to keep his or her pants zipped and keep the mind on the job, not on other employees.
The military isn't that way. As a 21-year veteran, I am speaking from experience. Uniformed military people are "members," not employees. People operate in extremely close quarters within military units. They literally live together, eat together, and must have a high degree of trust. Issues that may tend to limit that trust between members are extremely harmful to that level of trust. I'm talking thieves, adulterers, gossips, etc. Concern whether a member is going to make a pass at another member is a potential breach of that trust. This is not a homosexual thing. It also applies to heterosexual relationships. IMHO, unit cohesion has been impacted by the increasing prevalence of females within military units as well. In many cases, particularly in combat support and combat service support units where the percentage of females is higher, people need to be very careful of their language and mannerisms to avoid a potential sexual harrassment allegation. This would, also IMHO, be greatly exaggerated if homosexual members are allowed to "come out of the closet."
The practical issues, also, would have to be dealt with. They are not small issues. Probably, the only solution would be to provide single enlisted people with private rooms, from basic training on. (The only other solution would be to totally eliminate housing segregated by sex) That is not an insignificant cost. Now, that works while people are "in garrison." How about in the field, or at sea? I have NO idea how to deal with that one. The logistics would be a nightmare.
The bottom line is that the military has been used for social engineering for decades. Racial integration was largely forced upon the military...in most cases, that has worked out rather well, after about three decades of problems. But, there are still problems that are below the surface. Male/female integration is still in the process of development. The problems are starting to subside from that little experiment. At some point in time, homosexual integration will occur. I dread to see the problems when that actually happens (I am glad I'm retired and so its somebody else's problem). Society will follow, eventually.
Those who are traditional Christians had simply better recognize that they are going to be relegated to the dung heap of society. The moral standards that they have accepted for their lives have no place in modern society. Eventually, their civil rights will be legally eliminated by the courts because they interfere with the rights of others to pursue the lifestyles they want. They may as well get used to it and either compromise their standards, or be prepared to be marginalized and perhaps hunted down and forcibly excluded. That is the way of the future. Deal with it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mj412
Mark sounds rather gloomy , yet it is written in the scripture that is what will happen , to those who deny the one true God and Father of the Lord Jesus Christ.
In the mean time while still holding a breath I will vote and I will inform those with ears to hear that in ths Country we call America it is the people who have the power to say what we will and will not tolerate .
It is a truth we are willing to send thousands of young men to die for , It is the freedom that allows me to pray to see justice for all. It is my land my country and my responibility as a christianand an American to keep these truths in the foremost mind of evey man and woman for as long as we must.
I do not doubt Gods Power to lead His people to a land without sin , nor do I lose faith in those who worship Him to do what they must to love one another each day as Jesus Christ Commands us to do.
I am not a coward I will stand untill the day of victory, that is indeed a promise for all who Love Him.
[This message was edited by mj412 on February 16, 2004 at 8:56.]
[This message was edited by mj412 on February 16, 2004 at 9:15.]
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
J0nny Ling0
MJ
You go girl!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mj412
you know johnny Lingo
YOU started this @##@$% thread anytime you want to jump back in !
It made my feathers all up in a tussle . why did you stop posting got to rough for ya? Well now Trefor and who ever eles is calling me a hater as well, oh well I know WHO I love and who loves me .
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
J0nny Ling0
You really crack me up MJ!
I don't think you are a hater either. But many times I do not understand you. Like right now. I am mystified as to why you are hacked off at me. When I said "You go girl!" I really meant it in a friendly way. So, if I have a hard time understanding what you are saying, would it be fair to comment on something that I do not understand?
And, amazing as it may seem, I don't always have time to sit here and type away alla the time. Call me "henpecked" if you want, but sometimes it pi$$es off Mrs. Lingo when I am on the comp alla the time. I am a father of four and husband of one ya know...
And furthermore, I have contributed plenty to this thread.
And, I too love you MJ
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mj412
jonny Lingo I was kidding as well . lol I do not get so involved in these threads they make or break my day Jonny Lingo . I do not get angry or sad or so involved family members would suffer . it is the internet all in perspective ya know?
Im not angry at you , why would you think that? your a sensitive guy but try not to assume too much about how I feel about any particular poster clearly I have loud enough fingers to state my feelings as much as any other ok?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
JL... I thought you were a father of one and a husband of 4? ...or was it 7?
I'm on the outside, looking inside, what do I see? Much confusion, disillusion, all around me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Al Poole
Jesusfreaky.........
"AIDS isn't the gay disease anymore"
No I haven't seen any stats lately.... but then ... have you?????? PLEASE by all means share then with me, us. In 1995 CDC figures showed 90%+ of the cases were homosexuals and IV drug users.... (I think the actual # was 95% but will be conservative )
hmmmmm .... lesssss seeeeee
okay then it's not the "gay disease" and LUNG CANCER IS NOT THE SMOKERS DISEASE EITHER????
although only 50-60% of lung cancer victims were smokers.
Yeah right.....
So... WHO can the states sue NOW??? because this (in the overwhelming number of cases) is a behavior related disease.... like smoking... and the states incur costs of treatment... SURELY somebody can be sued!!!!!
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.