Mass. Supreme Court says "No" to Civil Unions.

[chu_bakka]

Seperate but equal does not cut it.

The State government asked if the State Constitution allows for a "Civil Union" law that would give same sex couples apparently the same rights as a Civil Marriage...

The state government couldn't come up with any reasons for a seperate law. Or why a Civil Marriage would not apply to same sex couples.

Basically the Court says "if they have the same inherent rights why would they need a seperate law that applies only to them?"

A rose by any other name would not smell as sweet.

So of course they're going to be ridiculed as an ACTIVIST court by the President and conservatives. Even though the court was responding to a request from the state government on the legality of a civil union's law. Doing their job to preserve the sancitity of the constitution and bill of rights.


http://news.findlaw.com/nytimes/docs/conlaw/maglmarriage20304.html#fn5

"Does Senate, No. 2175, which prohibits same-sex couples from entering into marriage but allows them to form civil unions with all 'benefits, protections, rights and responsibilities' of marriage, comply with the equal protection and due process requirements of the Constitution of the Commonwealth and articles 1, 6, 7, 10, 12 and 16 of the Declaration of Rights?"

4. Conclusion. We are of the opinion that Senate No. 2175 violates the equal protection and due process requirements of the Constitution of the Commonwealth and the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights. Further, the particular provisions that render the pending bill unconstitutional, ¤ 2 and 3 of proposed G.L. c.207A, are not severable from the remainder. The bill maintains an unconstitutional, inferior, and discriminatory status for same-sex couples, and the bill's remaining provisions are too entwined with this purpose to stand independently. See Murphy v. Commissioner of the Dep't of Indus. Accs., 418 Mass. 165, 169 (1994).

The answer to the question is "No."

[groverat]

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

[ipodandimac]

aside from all religious debate, you cant deny that male/female relationships are the way either nature or God (whichever you believe) intended. now i believe in equal treatment, but i also believe that the govt has the right to step in and make moral decisions b/c the government both represents "the people" and is made up of citizens. any way you put it (bad choice of words), males are supposed to be with females. being gay is just a mental thing that people do to themselves because they want attention (oops... did i say that out loud?).

so, with all that said, the government both has a right to and needs to step in and stop this allowance of gay marriage/civil union.

fire away.

[chu_bakka]

So if you are genetically predisposed to be attracted to the same sex... how are you going against nature?

Maybe homosexuality has been hardwired into the human genome for natural reasons... Prehaps it serves a purpose that natural selection fulfilled.

Homosexuality crosses all cultures and societies... in every corner of the world... I don't see how that is going against nature... or god's will...

When you come down to it... there's two people who are making a commitment to each other... why is that commitment less than that of two people who's sexual organs happen to fit? And why does that commitment have anything to do with a heterosexual couple's commitment?

[groverat]

Why, then, did god make people gay?

[chu_bakka]

Exactly.

Gay people are positively contributing to the society; why should they be treated as 2nd class citizens?

And no one ever comes up with a better argument than... well IT'S NOT NATURAL! or IT'S NOT MORAL!

tell that to Britney. hehe.

[trumptman]

Originally posted by chu_bakka
So if you are genetically predisposed to be attracted to the same sex... how are you going against nature?

Maybe homosexuality has been hardwired into the human genome for natural reasons... Prehaps it serves a purpose that natural selection fulfilled.

Homosexuality crosses all cultures and societies... in every corner of the world... I don't see how that is going against nature... or god's will...

When you come down to it... there's two people who are making a commitment to each other... why is that commitment less than that of two people who's sexual organs happen to fit? And why does that commitment have anything to do with a heterosexual couple's commitment?

The genetic predisposition argument is some seriously shoddy science.

Maybe homosexuality..blah....blah....

Last time I checked, I wasn't inclined to grant something off maybe.

Two people and commitment. Why two? If it has nothing to do with sex organs, then it has even less to do with a number. The age argument, or polygamy have even less basis than homosexuality and yet we uphold them. (for now)

Nick

[Smircle]

Originally posted by ipodandimac
aside from all religious debate, you cant deny that male/female relationships are the way either nature or God (whichever you believe) intended.

Oh, one can deny this idea for a couple of reasons. Firstly, if you (as I do) reject the idea of a "god", it doesn't cut it just to substitute nature for it but leave the interpretation. Nature does not "intent", things, species, behavior just are as they are.

It always puzzles me why moralists of all ages try to bend nature to be their crown-witnes for any kind of more or less intelligent of prejudices. In our times, where we have left the constraints of nature behind on many areas ("if nature intended us to fly..."), it even makes less sense. Everyone of us who has suffered a serious illness would not be among us if we allowed "nature to have its way" - are we going to abolish modern medicine thus?

Homosexuals tend to have less children than hets, but if you look at the pill, this can hardly be a reason for discrimination unless you ban birth control (fundamentalism, here we come!).

State should not interfere with personal liberties, choices and freedom unless they are violating another person's - which is clearly not the case with gays and lesbians. Denying them full rights is in no way better than denying full rights to blacks or any other racial minority.

[shetline]

Originally posted by ipodandimac
but i also believe that the govt has the right to step in and make moral decisions b/c the government both represents "the people" and is made up of citizens.
The government is also supposed to represent minorities of citizens, and to protect them from what is referred to as "the tyranny of the majority."

The US Constitution isn't always clear on where the line should be drawn between individual rights and majority rule, but one principle often applied by judges is the notion of compelling interest. (That's not exactly the right terminology, but the correct phrase is eluding me right now.)

So, you don't like men being married to men, or women to women. But what actual harm comes to you from people of the same gender marrying? Is your being offended by this in-and-of-itself enough to make majority rule trump individual freedom? Does a man marrying a man stop you from marrying the gender you'd prefer to marry? If you're worried about your children thinking that gay marriage is okay (horrors!) just because it's legal, does it make sense that others be denied something they want just to force them into being a better example of your beliefs, contrary to their own beliefs?

Beyond this, the Massachusetts State Constitution is also involved. I don't know that constitution well enough to comment on it, but it, and a history of judicial precedent based upon it, may grant broader rights than the US Constitution, rights which are the duty of Massachusetts judges to upheld without regard to popular opinion.
being gay is just a mental thing that people do to themselves because they want attention (oops... did i say that out loud?).
That's one of the dumbest things I've heard in a long time. If you know my posting style, it's very rare that I'll be so blunt as to flat-out call something someone else said dumb.
so, with all that said, the government both has a right to and needs to step in and stop this allowance of gay marriage/civil union.
Again, the above comment shows no appreciation for what Constitutional government should and shouldn't do.

[Anders]

Originally posted by ipodandimac
aside from all religious debate, you cant deny that male/female relationships are the way either nature or God (whichever you believe) intended.

Nature didn´t intent anything.

[chu_bakka]

Well civil marriage is a contract bewtween two adults.

10 people can live in a commune and enjoy all the free love and lasagna they want... doesn't make it a marriage.

Don't most states have their own age requirements? There isn't a national standard... minors can marry in some states with parental consent. Not sure how young... 14?

People used to get married at very young ages... as society has become the modern one that it is, the need for marrying off the girls to lessen the burden on the family has gone away.

[ipodandimac]

Originally posted by Anders
Nature didn´t intent anything.

so the fact that reproduction requires a male and a female is purely chance? either you believe in the nature theory or you believe in God. if there is no god and nature didnt intend anything, then why cant two members of the same sex reproduce?

and let me clarify my stance on things. in all honestly, i dont mind that people are gay. i cant change it, so i might as well accept it. wont i dont like are the fundamental values of our society being ripped apart because some people feel mistreated by the law. surely there must be some reason that there isnt already gay marriage. did the late 90's cause more people to be gay or something????? thats why i say that being gay is a mental thing. if there was this much debate from the beginning, this issue would have been solved before the civil war.

[chu_bakka]

Why can some species reporduce without the presence of a male or female?

So who we love is purely determined by what is or isn't hanging between our legs... is that it?

[Anders]

Originally posted by ipodandimac
if there is no god and nature didnt intend anything, then why cant two members of the same sex reproduce?

I can honestly say I don´t understand that question.

If the earth isn´t mad at us why does it create earthquakes?

[ipodandimac]

Originally posted by chu_bakka
Why can some species reporduce without the presence of a male or female?

So who we love is purely determined by what is or isn't hanging between our legs... is that it?

so gay people arent of the same species as heterosexuals?



Originally posted by Anders
I can honestly say I don´t understand that question.

If the earth isn´t mad at us why does it create earthquakes?

the laws of physics cause earthquakes in the same way that the laws of biology cause males and females to have their respective "parts."


refer my 2nd post which is couple replies above this one for more of my case.

[Kirkland]

I know for a fact that homosexuality is neither a mental thing nor a choice. It's also a condition present in many, many other forms of animals aside from humans, including, IIRC, virtually all mammals.

There are many reasons why evolution might produce a species with a small minority which is homosexual. Perhaps the genetic content of human DNA which allows for the possible predisposition towards homosexuality has some other affect which is evolutionarily valuable. Perhaps the presence of homosexuality once served as a sort of population growth cap — by removing certain persons from the reproductive pool, it inherently limits, to a greater or lesser degree depending on technology and culture, the rate at which a population might grow, perhaps preventing dangerous explosive growth of an organism.

There is no logical, valid reason to oppose homosexual equality or gay marriage, and those who try to clothe such opposition in religious proclamations or appeals to natural law are merely seeking shelter for their own vicious bigotry.

[Smircle]

Originally posted by ipodandimac
if there is no god and nature didnt intend anything, then why cant two members of the same sex reproduce?

And what has the ability to reproduce to do with whom you love and wish to share your live with? Gays can reproduce if they choose so - the same way subfertile hets can. Should infertile hets be excluded from marriage?

surely there must be some reason that there isnt already gay marriage. did the late 90's cause more people to be gay or something

Being gay was considered either a crime or a mental disorder throughout much of our christian history. Only now that the influcence of christianity on society is waning is there a chance for them to demand equal rights.

[Kirkland]

Originally posted by ipodandimac
so the fact that reproduction requires a male and a female is purely chance?

Everything is purely chance. Welcome to evolution. By the way, most forms of life on the earth do not have separate genders, and seem to reproduce just fine.

[Jubelum]

Originally posted by ipodandimac


so, with all that said, the government both has a right to and needs to step in and stop this allowance of gay marriage/civil union.

fire away.

I'll join you in that trench... this gay marraige thing is absurd.

[Anders]

I do believe that homosexuality is at least partly a social thing. The number of homosexuals hasn´t reached a "natural" level since that doesn´t exist. There is no essence. But that doesn´t change the fact that homosexuality isn´t more or less normal than heterosexuality.

[chu_bakka]

And still no one has given me a reason why two adults getting married affects me in any way.

A breakdown is society??? They're getting MARRIED not divorced. They're creating a bond they hope will last "as long as they both shall live".

[ipodandimac]

Originally posted by Kirkland


Everything is purely chance. Welcome to evolution. By the way, most forms of life on the earth do not have separate genders, and seem to reproduce just fine. [/B]

"chance" was the wrong word to use. i understand that evolution is chance. what i meant was that evolution brought about a male and a female to reproduce, and that's the way it is, so live by it.

[Smircle]

Originally posted by chu_bakka
And still no one has given me a reason why two adults getting married affects me in any way.

I guess hyperactive conservative minds cannot avoid the thought that they could be the one who is penetrated one day ;)

[Smircle]

Originally posted by ipodandimac
"chance" was the wrong word to use. i understand that evolution is chance. what i meant was that evolution brought about a male and a female to reproduce, and that's the way it is, so live by it.

And you still have not answered the question what this has to do with the right to marry? (see my reference to infertile hets).

[Anders]

Originally posted by ipodandimac
"chance" was the wrong word to use. i understand that evolution is chance. what i meant was that evolution brought about a male and a female to reproduce, and that's the way it is, so live by it.

Obey evolution, your god?

Evolution have created a lot of infants that can be adopted by gay couples. Evolution have created insemination techniques that can make gay couples parents. Maybe gay couples are evolutions answer to declining fertility and third worlds coutries missing ability to support its children? Evolution moves in mysterious ways.

[Kirkland]

Originally posted by ipodandimac
"chance" was the wrong word to use. i understand that evolution is chance. what i meant was that evolution brought about a male and a female to reproduce, and that's the way it is, so live by it.

1) Don't tell me what to do.

2) I would never be happy with a female. I am not attracted to females. I never have been. I am only sexually attracted to males. Why should I marry a female I can't even have a satisfying sexual relationship with?

3) If I were to marry a male, and be happy, pay my taxes, harm no one and so on and so forth, who, precisely, is being harmed? Where's the negative?

I have more to say, but it'll have to wait until after church.

[chu_bakka]

Did nature create monogomy?

In fact some argue that nature requires the male to copulate often and with many different females in order to propulgate the male's genetic material. Males are supposedy predisposed to promiscuity... perhaps monogomy and therefor marriage is un-natural.

But then again the desire to form a family unit is for the protection of the offspring... and that genetic material.

Maybe that's why men dump their wives when they get past child bearing age for younger women... so they can have more kids.

Did nature create the bill of rights?

We are more than the sum of our parts.

[Jubelum]

Originally posted by Anders
Obey evolution, your god?

Evolution have created a lot of infants that can be adopted by gay couples. Evolution have created insemination techniques that can make gay couples parents. Maybe gay couples are evolutions answer to declining fertility and third worlds coutries missing ability to support its children? Evolution moves in mysterious ways.

Commandment #45: Thou shalt not confuse meddling science with evolution. :err:

[BR]

Originally posted by trumptman
The genetic predisposition argument is some seriously shoddy science.

Maybe homosexuality..blah....blah....

Last time I checked, I wasn't inclined to grant something off maybe.

Two people and commitment. Why two? If it has nothing to do with sex organs, then it has even less to do with a number. The age argument, or polygamy have even less basis than homosexuality and yet we uphold them. (for now)

Nick
Polygamy should be legal.

[running with scissors]

Originally posted by ipodandimac
"chance" was the wrong word to use. i understand that evolution is chance. what i meant was that evolution brought about a male and a female to reproduce, and that's the way it is, so live by it.

what does reproduction have to do with it. i don't recall anywhere on my marriage certificate that says "...now go out make babies". many people that are married choose never to have children, just like many people that have children are not married. who gives a shit? just because you feel that homosexual existence isn't "natural", doesn't diminish the fact that it's quite "natural" to those that are homosexual.

[chu_bakka]

Why? (jeb)

Those who go to great lengths to become parents might be better at it than those who end up there by mistake.

[Anders]

Originally posted by Jubelum
Commandment #45: Thou shalt not confuse meddling science with evolution. :err:

Just playing his game. He attached normative attributes to evolution. I tried to show that I could just as easily attach opposite attributes making his (and my adopted) claims false.

For clairification: I don´t belong in the "God" or "evolution" category. I belong to the combined society/social construction/whatever you want category

[ipodandimac]

hey you know what. i'm the only person in here taking this side, so rather than waste my efforts, i'll leave you all to talk amongst yourselves. no i'm not just leaving cause i have nothing more to say... it's just that i'm not gonna convince you all of anything just as you wont convince me anything. even though i dont agree with any of you, i respect your right to believe what you want to believe. so, with that, good-bi.

[chu_bakka]

another one bites the dust... hey hey

Sing it Freddy!

[bunge]

Originally posted by ipodandimac
good-bi.

Exactly why we like same-sex marriage.

[709]

Originally posted by ipodandimac
being gay is just a mental thing that people do to themselves because they want attention (oops... did i say that out loud?). Wow. Just....wow. That has to be the most unbelievably naive and idiotic statement I've ever seen here. Period. It also borders on the most offensive.

Myself, I applaud the decision. Of course it will be overturned in '05, but hey, baby steps my friends, baby steps.

[BuonRotto]

Well, at least give the guy credit for not going in circles. We need more people who agree to disagree. Then again, most of our AO threads wouldn't get past the first page if that were true. :p

[709]

Originally posted by ipodandimac
even though i dont agree with any of you, i respect your right to believe what you want to believe. Yeah, yeah. I'm getting so sick of seeing that cut-n'-paste line in all of you WASP idiot's posts. Grow a friggin cerebelum for chrizzakes. Oh, wait, you can't. That would imply evolution.

*screams into pillow*

[Anders]

Originally posted by BuonRotto
Well, at least give the guy credit for not going in circles.

I´ll give him that.

Originally posted by BuonRotto
We need more people who agree to disagree.

I disagree:p

We need more discussions like this one. DIscussions where we hit the arguments hard on.

Lets try stir up more debate. Why are people straight or gay? The "right" thing to say is that thats the way people are and nothing can change that or that the genes deside that. I disagree. I believe its a social thing with a lot of factors with the genes playing a minor role. When newly born christians ex-gay people say that they suddenly realised that they weren´t gay afterall and had been living a lie that is probably true for them. Nobody is hardwired into being anything.

[BuonRotto]

Originally posted by Anders
We need more discussions like this one. DIscussions where we hit the arguments hard on.

Oh yeah, you mean like this:

…you WASP idiot's posts. Grow a friggin cerebelum for chrizzakes. Oh, wait, you can't. That would imply evolution.

or this:

…being gay is just a mental thing that people do to themselves because they want attention…

:p :devil: :p

[709]

Originally posted by Anders
Nobody is hardwired into being anything. I respectfully disagree. :p

I've a lot of gay friends, both male and female, and I can tell you truthfully that these people were gay since birth. Of course, given the society we live in, there was a bit more confusion than most adolescents usually are required to deal with, but they luckily found their way.

I have to wonder how many of my friends growing up never found their way. I grew up in a very strict and religious household, and even I was bi for a portion of my life. But I was eventually led by my *wiring* to prefer women over men.

However, I think I'm the exception to the rule. Most of my gay friends never thought about experimenting with the opposite sex, and most of my straight friends only thought about the opposite sex. I think 95% of people (gay/straight) just *know*, and the rest have to just figure it out.

Regardless, I do indeed think we are born...or 'hardwired' as you say...with our base sexuality. Straying from that is generally just experimentation in my book.

[709]

Originally posted by BuonRotto
Oh yeah, you mean like this: :embarrass Sorry BuonRotto, my blood just boiled and it got the best of me. My apologies.

[Anders]

Originally posted by BuonRotto
Oh yeah, you mean like this:

......

or this:

.......

:p :devil: :p

Okay. With "arguments" I meant "sitting ducks" and "hitting hard on" i meant "saying the obvious". But thats just me being biased.

[BuonRotto]

I try to believe in free will, so while we might have inherent "hardwired" tendencies, being human is all about overcoming those limitations IMO. Being a slave to genetics and our precious bodily fluids ;) qualifies humans as being alive, not being human. I think homosexuality is grossly oversimplified by both the genetic "switch" argument and the or the attention-seeker rationale.

Anyway, I suppose I should actually address the original point in the thread and say I too think this is a very good decision. Actually, I think the argument for the decision is excellent. :) It's why I was never a fan of the ERA and other derivatives of Jim Crow Laws, no matter how good the intentions.

[Anders]

Originally posted by ShawnJ
Social thing? Sure. I'm willing to bet that more people deny being gay or bisexual than those who mistakenly believe they are gay or bisexual. Yeah, it's a social thing.

What is that? Oh yeah I seem to remember someting from the 70s called "false consiousness".

People are what they believe they are. Anything else is patronising.

[Anders]

Originally posted by 709
I respectfully disagree. :p

I've a lot of gay friends, both male and female, and I can tell you truthfully that these people were gay since birth. Of course, given the society we live in, there was a bit more confusion than most adolescents usually are required to deal with, but they luckily found their way.

And I know some who went the other way who I for sure can say was gay when they were and now isn´t. There is no essence.

[Kirkland]

I could no more choose to be straight, no matter how much I might want it (not that I do), than I could will my hair to start growing blond. Now, I could cover my black hair with blond dye and effectively, to all appearances, outwardly appear and seem to be a blond, but I would still have black hair, no matter how much I pretended to be blond.

[Frank777]

Somebody did say to fire away.

Threads on gay marriage always tend to highlight the "Creation vs Evolution" argument or the "Can people be born gay" question.

I see the issue differently.

I think gay marriage is a dumb idea. I also think it's the clearest sign yet that those who've embraced the "alternate lifestyle" choices have run out of ideas.

For the last twenty or thirty years, gay rights advocates kept harping on how different they were from the heterosexual community. After decades of being "out" and failing to create any real social instituions of their own, we're now told that the legal definition of Marriage must be "expanded" to encompass gay relationships.

This from the same people who said in the 80's that the government had no business meddling in their lives. The same people who said they only wanted to the right to live their lives, and would never "force people who disagreed with their lifestyle to approve.'

The concept of Marriage doesn't seem to fit. The idea of two homosexuals getting married, moving to the 'burbs, spending 40 years in marriage and then retiring together is as much alien to that community as fundamentalist Christianity.

It's a weird caricature of society's idea of what heterosexuality is supposed to be like. It looks to me more like a pathetic cry for help. If homosexuality is really genetic and natural as its advocates say, surely their time is better spent building their own social institutions, rather than trying to lamely mirror what life is like for the other side.

Perhaps AIDS has altered the thinking here, but if the gay community is pinning their hopes on gay marriage to lower infection rates, I think they will be sorely disappointed.

[chu_bakka]

So your reasoning is that even if gay people WANT to get married... they should not be allowed to... because that's not what gay people do?

Your position is that if gay people want to become part of "moral" or "upstanding" society...they can't because they're gay and chose to be outsiders.

So they should just stay in the closet just to get along with the rest of us?

[chu_bakka]

Oh... and heterosexual people do a good job of mocking the institution of marriage all on their own.

How many times has Limbaugh been married?

[shetline]

Originally posted by Frank777
I think gay marriage is a dumb idea.
If you think it's dumb, don't marry a man, Frank.

I think some of the posts made here are pretty dumb too, but I'm not looking to pass laws or amend constitutions to prevent dumb posts from getting through.

[progmac]

i am seriously looking for a solid, logic-based argument opposing gay marriage. judging by this thread, such an argument does not exist, and as a person driven by logic, i support gay marriage.

and, uh, yeah. i'm still not sure if ipodandimac is serious or just trolling

[Frank777]

Originally posted by chu_bakka
So your reasoning is that even if gay people WANT to get married... they should not be allowed to... because that's not what gay people do?

Your position is that if gay people want to become part of "moral" or "upstanding" society...they can't because they're gay and chose to be outsiders.

So they should just stay in the closet just to get along with the rest of us?

So you're saying you can't be "moral" or "upstanding" without being married?

That's insane. :err:

[chu_bakka]

Trumpt's argument is all hell will break loose and people will start marrying moose or 8 year olds...

and the others just don't see the point because

either a. they can't have kids (forgetting adoption, insemination.. or surrogate parents)

or b. they're gay and why would gay people want what heteros want

did I miss something?

[chu_bakka]

not at all...

but here you have people wanting to participate in one of societies traditions... one that some see as proof of morality or being upstanding... and SOME want to not let that happen.

Should they not be aloud to sing in the church choir too?

There's plenty of amoral sonsabitches out there that are married.

[Frank777]

And, mind you, my post did not say they should be legally barred from being married.

I do think, however, the cry for it shows a desperation to conform to a kind of life that was specifically built to maintain values of monogamy and heterosexuality.

[BR]

I frankly don't see a value in monogamy.

[chu_bakka]

who says heteros have the market cornered on monogamy?

If you love someone and want to spend your life with them, most see the obvious thing to do is get married.

[chu_bakka]

hey BR... it keeps your gilfriend from hacking off your d!ck with a machete!

[progmac]

Originally posted by Frank777
And, mind you, my post did not say they should be legally barred from being married.

I do think, however, the cry for it shows a desperation to conform to a kind of life that was specifically built to maintain values of monogamy and heterosexuality.
there are two great reasons to get married:
1) testify to everyone, including yourself and your partner, that you are dedicated to and in love with one persor
2) you may not feel the need for a social recognition of your love, but you do want benefits of marriage, particularly access to your partner's insurance and of course the tax benefits.

1 OR 2 warrants justification for marriage and people falling in either should be able to marry if they would like to

[Frank777]

Originally posted by chu_bakka
If you love someone and want to spend your life with them, most see the obvious thing to do is get married.

That's funny.

If this was a thread on Christians wanting more people to stop 'living in sin' and get married, I could see chu, BR and Shawn arguing about how that 'piece of paper' didn't really matter. :D

[trick fall]

I think the cry for it has more to do with too many stories of people shut out of their partners death beds because they weren't family. I could prolly think of more examples, but remember this. Marriage as Howard Stern would say is a legal contract. A contract that gives its signers legal rights and obligations and in my opinion there is just no good reason to deny these rights to homosexual couples.

[Frank777]

Originally posted by progmac
there are two great reasons to get married:
1) testify to everyone, including yourself and your partner, that you are dedicated to and in love with one persor
2) you may not feel the need for a social recognition of your love, but you do want benefits of marriage, particularly access to your partner's insurance and of course the tax benefits.

1 OR 2 warrants justification for marriage and people falling in either should be able to marry if they would like to

I think we can safely dispense with No. 2, all those benefits would be available under present law or the civil union proposal.

At least be honest enough to admit that is about getting society's blanket approval of same-sex relationships.

[chu_bakka]

Geeze... this is about RIGHTS... not morality.

BUT there are those who argue that being gay is ammoral but here you have gay people wanting to get married... it turns THEIR world upsidedown... not mine.

[BR]

Originally posted by Frank777
That's funny.

If this was a thread on Christians wanting more people to stop 'living in sin' and get married, I could see chu, BR and Shawn arguing about how that 'piece of paper' didn't really matter. :D
The two arguments are mutually exclusive. It is my opinion that a piece of paper doesn't matter, however, it is not within my rights to forbid any group of two or more consenting adults who disagree with my opinion to get that little official paper.

[BR]

Originally posted by Frank777
I think we can safely dispense with No. 2, all those benefits would be available under present law or the civil union proposal.

At least be honest enough to admit that is about getting society's blanket approval of same-sex relationships.
It's not about getting society's approval. It's about creating a society that promotes the live and let live concept.

[chu_bakka]

There is no reason for seperate but equal.

I haven't heard one yet.

[Kirkland]

Monogamy is not a uniquely heterosexual concept. Virtually every gay person I know, all in their 20s, are either in a monogamous relationship, or prefer to be. Which is not to say there aren't promiscuous gay people, there are tons of them. There are also tons of promiscuous straight people.

Frank's problem is that he's trying to lump all gays into one group. But that's a load of BS. Gays are as diverse a group as any other subset of society. It just so happens that a large number of gays are now both out of the closet, and very mainstream in their political, social and ethical views (whereas before, due to the societal situation, being out and thus a public activist for gay rights was mostly a phenomenon of the leftmost fringe of the gay community).

Frank talks about gays moving to the suburbs. Sorry, dear, but we're already there. We're also in the churches, teaching at schools, practicing medicine, you name it. Gay life is as varied and broad as straight life.

And it is these mainstream gays, these gays like me who you would never think were gay unless you saw the little yellow-equal-sign-on-a-blue-background sticker on the back of their car, who want marriage. Because we are already part of the culture of mainstream America, and part of that culture is marriage. So we want full access to all the aspects of the culture we are part of — the culture we help fund and support and create with our tax dollars, efforts, work, sweat and tears, just like all the straight people who are also part of mainstream American life.

The gay people that Frank wants to lump all gays in with — the ones for whom mainstreaming would be considered a "betrayal" —_are but a small subset of modern homosexual culture. They paved the way for the rest of us to come out, but we don't live, act or think like them. So don't treat us as if we're all of one mind.

Nowadays, there are a lot more Ted Scmidts in gay America than there are Brian Kinneys.

[Fellowship]

Originally posted by BR
It's not about getting society's approval. It's about creating a society that promotes the live and let live concept.

Pluralism ;)

Fellows

[Frank777]

Originally posted by BR
It's not about getting society's approval. It's about creating a society that promotes the live and let live concept.

So, regarding that concept, should the argument be made (as we all know it will) would you agree with re-defining marriage to include other kinds of relationships, polygamy, between family members etc.

After all, those would be among consenting adults as well.

[BR]

Originally posted by Fellowship
Pluralism ;)

Fellows
Indeed.

[BR]

Originally posted by Frank777
So, regarding that concept, should the argument be made (as we all know it will) would you agree with re-defining marriage to include other kinds of relationships, polygamy, between family members etc.

After all, those would be among consenting adults as well.
I am in favor of polygamy. I actually believe that such an arrangement is superior to traditional marriage. As far as family members getting it on, the possibility of having a genetically messed up kid must be weighed against the individual freedoms of consenting adults. I don't have enough information to make a judgment regarding incest.

[Frank777]

Originally posted by BR
The two arguments are mutually exclusive. It is my opinion that a piece of paper doesn't matter, however, it is not within my rights to forbid any group of two or more consenting adults who disagree with my opinion to get that little official paper.

You will notice that all my posts have referenced my belief that gay marriage a terribly bad idea. My opinion.

I have not called for anyone to be barred from city hall.

[talksense101]

... Laws were made by our predecessors who apparently had a stronger belief in religion than we do.

I don't agree with people putting the blame on nature or God for their sexual preferences. As humans, we are supposed to have control over our emotions and actions. As social beings, we do adhere to a common code which is acceptable by many living in our society. There is no such thing as true freedom. If I was into screwing animals, can I ask for civil rights after marrying an animal? Why am I not entitled to my preferences in that case?

We need to come up with genetic engineering to weed out all sexual urge in human beings and get it over with. Reproduction should be a yearly thing like in the case of other mammals. We could be using our brains for something useful in that case instead of wasting our prime trying to get laid.

[chu_bakka]

talkingnonsense.

who says it's blame... why should anyone have to justify loving someone of the same sex at all?

beastiality and pedophilia are completly undrelated issues.

[Frank777]

Originally posted by chu_bakka
talkingnonsense.

who says it's blame... why should anyone have to justify loving someone of the same sex at all?

beastiality and pedophilia are completly undrelated issues.

But polygamy isn't. It's the next logical step. So why not say if you think you think it should be included in the definition of marriage as well?

[badtz]

Originally posted by Anders
]For clairification: I don´t belong in the "God" or "evolution" category. I belong to the combined society/social construction/whatever you want category

I'm with you on that one!

[talksense101]

I have nothing against loving anyone, if we keep love and sexual urges seperate. That is not the case. Read the earlier posts about being 'wired into being gay' and 'god made gay people'. Isn't that blame?

My definition of love is

# A deep, tender, ineffable feeling of affection and solicitude toward a person, such as that arising from kinship, recognition of attractive qualities, or a sense of underlying oneness.

Your defintion of love is

# A feeling of intense desire and attraction toward a person with whom one is disposed to make a pair; the emotion of sex and romance.
# 1. Sexual passion.
2. Sexual intercourse.
3. A love affair.


Both of our definitions are listed in the dictionary. You are entitled to your opinions, I am to mine. So let's not get down to personal arguments. Try and educate me into agreeing to your views because I am not 'wired' like you are. I did not grow up with gay friends, so I fail to see your viewpoint.

On a note: I have no problems with the mentioned court ruling or with gay marraiges as they really don't hurt anyone. I do think the whole concept is messed up though and that is the opinion which is shared here.

[shetline]

Originally posted by Frank777
So, regarding that concept, should the argument be made (as we all know it will) would you agree with re-defining marriage to include other kinds of relationships, polygamy, between family members etc.

After all, those would be among consenting adults as well.
Sexual relations between close family members carries a high risk of producing genetically damaged offspring. Society certainly has a compelling interest in preventing such births. An incestuous couple could legally foreswear procreation, and reproduction is not something the law requires from marriage, but having a form of marriage in which reproduction was specifically forbidden would require a new and strange legal construct.

If two closely related adults decide to have a sexual relationship, however, and make sure they don't have children, I personally don't have a problem with that. I don't expect the legal system to go out of its way to accommodate such an unusual kind of relationship either.

Allowing gay marriages carries doesn't require much at all in terms of legal changes. For most marriage-related legal matters, a couple is a couple and gender doesn't really change much. All you'd be doing is permitting same-sex couples access to existing legal structures.

Some people are so scandalized or scared or affronted by gay marriage, however, that they're willing to go as far as amending constitutions to prevent it from happening -- they're willing to place a higher demand on society to block gay marriage than gays are asking for to have gay marriage accommodated.

The dynamics of polygamous relationships would introduce whole new legal issues regarding division of property, inheritance, parental authority and child custody, medical authority in case of emergency (Spouse A is in a coma. Spouse B says try the risky operation to save A. Spouse C says don't. Who wins?), etc. Polygamists would require access to new legal structures, not merely equal access to existing structures, which is all gays are asking for.

[chu_bakka]

Whatever the motivations are... there's no reason to prevent TWO people from getting married.

Some societies don't care how many wives you have... it just so happens that this isn't one of them.

And are you really trying to define what my definiton of love is... for me?

Also... I'm sure there's plenty of people who marry for reasons other than love.


oh... are you SURE you didn't grow up knowing a gay person? how do you know?

[InactionMan]

Originally posted by Frank777
So, regarding that concept, should the argument be made (as we all know it will) would you agree with re-defining marriage to include other kinds of relationships, polygamy, between family members etc.

After all, those would be among consenting adults as well.

Sure. There isn't a reason for family members not to get married. Genetically, you're risking some weird ass looking kids by swimming in your own gene pool. But you shouldn't ban something because of genetic risk. Otherwise, all women would have to be sterilized once they hit the age when the risk of Down's baby increases. You'd also have to sterilize all people with any sort of genetic disorder lest they pass it on. But society doesn't do this.

As far polygamy goes, why not? What consenting adults do is really of no concern of mine. If someone wants three husbands (on is brother) and four wives (including his sister) so what? Does it at all impede my personal freedom?

[Fellowship]

Originally posted by talksense101
I have nothing against loving anyone, if we keep love and sexual urges seperate. That is not the case. Read the earlier posts about being 'wired into being gay' and 'god made gay people'. Isn't that blame?

My definition of love is

# A deep, tender, ineffable feeling of affection and solicitude toward a person, such as that arising from kinship, recognition of attractive qualities, or a sense of underlying oneness.

Your defintion of love is

# A feeling of intense desire and attraction toward a person with whom one is disposed to make a pair; the emotion of sex and romance.
# 1. Sexual passion.
2. Sexual intercourse.
3. A love affair.


Both of our definitions are listed in the dictionary. You are entitled to your opinions, I am to mine. So let's not get down to personal arguments. Try and educate me into agreeing to your views because I am not 'wired' like you are. I did not grow up with gay friends, so I fail to see your viewpoint.

On a note: I have no problems with the mentioned court ruling or with gay marraiges as they really don't hurt anyone. I do think the whole concept is messed up though and that is the opinion which is shared here.

I actually think you make good points here with your two posts talksense101.

When I see people argue about sex of any stripe I sort of have to laugh as I have never had the priviledge to such an experience. I think society is so confused over sex that people on all sides make fools of themselves. There are the prudes on the one hand who say how dirty and sinful sex is. There are those who would have sex with any and all on the other hand. I am not saying either extreme is "wrong" but it is telling how misguided so many people are over it.

We need to treat others as people and learn to live and let live.

Fellows

[chu_bakka]

I wanna knowhow you sucker a woman in to marrying you AFTER you've told them you're already married.

I think polygamy is illegal because the real problem is men or women marrying someone without telling them they're already married.

Unless you're from Utah. hehe

[bunge]

I'm curious. What is it about the word marriage that some oppose? I often hear people argue for a 'civil union' but think marriage would be wrong. What's the difference from that point of view? I'm genuinely curious and slightly confused by the subject.

[Frank777]

Originally posted by chu_bakka
Some societies don't care how many wives you have... it just so happens that this isn't one of them.

So you're saying it's alright for society to dictate how many people are in a marriage, but not dictate which genders. Your rules seem quite arbitrary to me.

[BR]

Originally posted by chu_bakka
I wanna knowhow you sucker a woman in to marrying you AFTER you've told them you're already married.

I think polygamy is illegal because the real problem is men or women marrying someone without telling them they're already married.

Unless you're from Utah. hehe
That isn't consent.

[chu_bakka]

Yup.

They used to ban different races from marrying too.

Maybe mutliple wives were common and states saw the need to ban them for whatever reason. I dunno. Could be an interesting research topic. It's probably based on various religious sects... some ok with it some not...

[BR]

Originally posted by Frank777
So you're saying it's alright for society to dictate how many people are in a marriage, but not dictate which genders. Your rules seem quite arbitrary to me.
Look, polygamy is an interesting discussion but attacking gay marriage through an attack on polygamy just isn't the way to go about proving any point. It's just a way of dodging the issue at hand and you know it. Admit it.

[Fellowship]

I would also add that people need to live their lives based on what matters to them and what matters to others should really be immaterial. If people live as a gay couple so what? If it is the "children" that people are worried about teach your children what you wish to about what is important to you but in the end it is their life to live.

We need to learn to respect our differences and live a happy life not worrying about how others live their lives.

Fellows

[Frank777]

Originally posted by chu_bakka
I wanna knowhow you sucker a woman in to marrying you AFTER you've told them you're already married.

I think polygamy is illegal because the real problem is men or women marrying someone without telling them they're already married.

That's nonsense. History and even the present, offer plenty of examples that people will willingly enter such arrangements.

Originally posted by bunge
I'm curious. What is it about the word marriage that some oppose? I often hear people argue for a 'civil union' but think marriage would be wrong. What's the difference from that point of view? I'm genuinely curious and slightly confused by the subject.

Marriage is a socio-religious institution, which is co-opted by the state in identifying various groups that qualify for assistance, tax breaks etc.

But its history as an enduring institution and its religious nature mean that people are relunctant to "re-define" something so close to their identity and upbringing simply to suit the social whims of the day.

I'm arguing that given its extensive history and place in our culture, shoehorning gay unions into something that was built to sustain and encourage heterosexual unions is misguided.

Come to think of it, society as a whole might be better off if the government referred to every union as a civil union and left marriage the exclusive domain of religious institutions.

[chu_bakka]

found this... it mght shed a little light.

Nevertheless many of Mormonism's policies subordinate women. Females are not given the priesthood, as are all "worthy males" over the age of twelve. Women therefore have never wielded much power within the church. Another now-defunct LDS policy that many see as discriminatory was polygamy. Research suggests that up to two-thirds of Mormon wives living in the Utah Territory before 1880 were in polygamous marriages. In 1894, after the U.S. Congress legislated against polygamy (thus barring Utah from statehood), prophet Wilford Woodruff announced a divine revelation that resulted in rescinding the practice.

http://college.hmco.com/history/readerscomp/women/html/wh_023700_mormons.htm

[badtz]

Originally posted by Frank777
Come to think of it, society as a whole might be better off if the government referred to every union as a civil union and left marriage the exclusive domain of religious institutions.

i'm not speaking on anyones behalf, but that would be FINE by me! As long as homosexual people have access to the same rights/privleges as their counterparts.

[chu_bakka]

they would have to pass a federal law banning the states from using the term marriage...

doesn't that seem a little strange? and silly?

Some people can't deal with gay people getting married... so now the only people that are "married" will have to have done so in a church... I bet some would love that.

[Frank777]

Originally posted by BR
Look, polygamy is an interesting discussion but attacking gay marriage through an attack on polygamy just isn't the way to go about proving any point. It's just a way of dodging the issue at hand and you know it. Admit it.

I'm not dodging, just having a bit of fun with the hypocrisy of the idea.
Look BR, I know you're big on "get the gov't out of my face" and you've been consistent on that in threads whether the issue tilts right wing or left.

But many of the people who openly ridicule the idea of keeping the existing definition of marriage themselves do a double take when embracing polygamy is mentioned.

I find that hypocritical. If marriage can be re-defined for one group, then everybody gets to play. Otherwise, leave it as it is and create a new category for other types of relationships that don't have the history, not to mention the social standing of marriage.

Toying with the social underpinnings of our culture is not to be done lightly even in the best of times.

[bunge]

Originally posted by Frank777
Come to think of it, society as a whole might be better off if the government referred to every union as a civil union and left marriage the exclusive domain of religious institutions.

Now I've suggested this before, but it's been met with some disdain. I don't want to cross the religious line in either direction. I don't want to dilute what a church does, but I don't think it's right (or constitutional) to limit gays in the way that we currently do.

[chu_bakka]

Well for some polygamy was ok... but the government apparently and alot of women had a problem with it.

[Frank777]

Originally posted by chu_bakka
found this... it mght shed a little light.

Nevertheless many of Mormonism's policies subordinate women. Females are not given the priesthood, as are all "worthy males" over the age of twelve. Women therefore have never wielded much power within the church. Another now-defunct LDS policy that many see as discriminatory was polygamy. Research suggests that up to two-thirds of Mormon wives living in the Utah Territory before 1880 were in polygamous marriages. In 1894, after the U.S. Congress legislated against polygamy (thus barring Utah from statehood), prophet Wilford Woodruff announced a divine revelation that resulted in rescinding the practice.

Be serious, Mormons aren't the only people who practice polygamy. Far from it. The Judeo-Christian value system dismisses it, and that's why it's currently against the law. If marriage can be re-defined to accomodate same-sex relationships, no amount of Mormon-bashing will save the idea we can ban polygamy.

Originally posted by chu_bakka
they would have to pass a federal law banning the states from using the term marriage...

Congress dictates that all state laws make reference to Civil Unions. What's the problem?


Originally posted by chu_bakka
Well for some polygamy was ok... but the government apparently and alot of women had a problem with it.

A lot of people, including the Executive Branch, have problems with marrying gays, so I guess we should outlaw that too. End of Thread ;)

[chu_bakka]

oy.

I was referring to history.

Bush doesn't have a reason.

Hey if you wanna legalize polygamy... go for it.

But it's not the same issue.

[Naderfan]

I think, and I could be completely wrong, that part of the reason why pologamy is illegal is due to the fact that with many wives usually came many children and they weren't being well cared for, since money was a bit scarce. But that might have been later justifications for keeping it illegal. I don't doubt it was originally banned due to keeping the Mormons out. But in theory, Judeo-Christian history suggest that pologamy isn't horrible: Many instances in the Bible (especially OT) of religious men (including the patriarchs) having multiple wives.

About gay marriage: I think it's fine. They're not saying we all have to enter into homosexual marriages, so I don't see what the big deal is. And I agree that we as a nation need to learn to seperate marriage as a state institution from marriage as a religious institution. It's a long shot, but who knows.

[chu_bakka]

here's an article from business week on that very same issue.

http://www.beliefnet.com/frameset_offsite.asp?pageLoc=http://www.businessweek.com/2000/00_37/b3698209.htm&query=&script=/story/66/story_6689_1.html

While many people view polygamy as a crime without victims, Tapestry's members say the practice is fundamentally degrading and rife with rape, incest, and abuse. With Salt Lake City hosting the 2002 Winter Olympics, Utah is eager to show that it no longer tolerates the second of the twin evils, as 19th century reformers called slavery and polygamy. ''They practice all kinds of things we try to clean up in Third World countries,'' says Democratic State Senator Ronald Allen. ''Early polygamy attracted feverishly religious people. Now, it's pedophiles and abusers.''

[BR]

Originally posted by chu_bakka
here's an article from business week on that very same issue.

http://www.beliefnet.com/frameset_offsite.asp?pageLoc=http://www.businessweek.com/2000/00_37/b3698209.htm&query=&script=/story/66/story_6689_1.html

While many people view polygamy as a crime without victims, Tapestry's members say the practice is fundamentally degrading and rife with rape, incest, and abuse. With Salt Lake City hosting the 2002 Winter Olympics, Utah is eager to show that it no longer tolerates the second of the twin evils, as 19th century reformers called slavery and polygamy. ''They practice all kinds of things we try to clean up in Third World countries,'' says Democratic State Senator Ronald Allen. ''Early polygamy attracted feverishly religious people. Now, it's pedophiles and abusers.''
Rape, incest, and abuse are already legal no matter what the context. Banning polygamy because some people who practice it break other laws is the same kind of logic behind prohibition and we all know what a massive failure that was.

Plenty of married people beat their wives. Let's ban marriage to stop the beatings.

[chu_bakka]

Well maybe the people who are interested in it should be happy with "civil multi-person union"... hehe

Apparently these abuses are a big problem... and common in these plural marriages in Utah.

http://www.polygamy.org/

who would want more than one wife at a time anyway? one is plenty.

[trumptman]

Originally posted by shetline
Sexual relations between close family members carries a high risk of producing genetically damaged offspring. Society certainly has a compelling interest in preventing such births. An incestuous couple could legally foreswear procreation, and reproduction is not something the law requires from marriage, but having a form of marriage in which reproduction was specifically forbidden would require a new and strange legal construct.

If two closely related adults decide to have a sexual relationship, however, and make sure they don't have children, I personally don't have a problem with that. I don't expect the legal system to go out of its way to accommodate such an unusual kind of relationship either.


Actually the risk isn't that high and screening can lower it even more. But in this age where two lesbians can use a sperm bank, two homosexual men can adopt or use a surrogate and abortion is available on demand, why couldn't they simply marry, use a sperm bank, or get pregnant and simply abort if the child is deformed and thus unwanted.

Strange how we are supposed to be so "modern" in our thinking toward homosexual marriage, yet not afford every other type of relatinship the same accomodations. For some reason they are treated like antiques.

The accomodation require nothing special. Abortion is available on demand. Sperm banks, surrogates and adoption would require no more effort than for homosexual couples.

The dynamics of polygamous relationships would introduce whole new legal issues regarding division of property, inheritance, parental authority and child custody, medical authority in case of emergency (Spouse A is in a coma. Spouse B says try the risky operation to save A. Spouse C says don't. Who wins?), etc. Polygamists would require access to new legal structures, not merely equal access to existing structures, which is all gays are asking for.

How is this any different than the serial polygamy endorsed via divorce today? I've posted articles here where one husband was sued to provide part of his pension to the husband of his deceased ex-wife. All of these issues are already addressed in this age of multiple marriages and divorces. It requires no legal structures. If anything it would be easier to deal with since all parties would still be on the same level instead of some parties being current and others being ex, step, etc.

Nick

[trumptman]

Originally posted by chu_bakka
Well maybe the people who are interested in it should be happy with "civil multi-person union"... hehe

Apparently these abuses are a big problem... and common in these plural marriages in Utah.

http://www.polygamy.org/

who would want more than one wife at a time anyway? one is plenty.

Yes and before homosexuality came into vogue, it use to be considered a mental disease. The fact that some people abuse does not invalidate marriage or polygamy. It is an associative fallacy.

Nick

[BRussell]

I haven't been following this thread but I just wanted to add some presidential politics so this. I think this ruling is good for Kerry and bad for Bush. I believe Bush has said he would support a constitutional amendment if this happened. I don't think most people approve of an amendment, and I think it would make him look bad. Kerry also opposes gay marriage, but opposes the amendment and supports civil unions. That seems to me to be the more moderate position.

[trumptman]

Originally posted by BRussell
I haven't been following this thread but I just wanted to add some presidential politics so this. I think this ruling is good for Kerry and bad for Bush. I believe Bush has said he would support a constitutional amendment if this happened. I don't think most people approve of an amendment, and I think it would make him look bad. Kerry also opposes gay marriage, but opposes the amendment and supports civil unions. That seems to me to be the more moderate position.

How does it help someone to support what the court in that state has just ruled is not legal?

Nick

[Kirkland]

Because Kerry is now in a position to traingulate, positioning himself between the court's too-liberal-for-now decision and Bush's hateful, reactionary position. Triangulation is the key to forging a successful wedge issue.

[trumptman]

Originally posted by Kirkland
Because Kerry is now in a position to traingulate, positioning himself between the court's too-liberal-for-now decision and Bush's hateful, reactionary position. Triangulation is the key to forging a successful wedge issue.

Glad to know that Democrats consider homosexual marriage a "wedge" issue meant to pit people against each other.

The text from the Bush speech.

A strong America must also value the institution of marriage. I believe we should respect individuals as we take a principled stand for one of the most fundamental, enduring institutions of our civilization. Congress has already taken a stand on this issue by passing the Defense of Marriage Act, signed in 1996 by President Clinton. That statute protects marriage under Federal law as the union of a man and a woman, and declares that one state may not redefine marriage for other states. Activist judges, however, have begun redefining marriage by court order, without regard for the will of the people and their elected representatives. On an issue of such great consequence, the people's voice must be heard. If judges insist on forcing their arbitrary will upon the people, the only alternative left to the people would be the constitutional process. Our Nation must defend the sanctity of marriage.

The outcome of this debate is important -- and so is the way we conduct it. The same moral tradition that defines marriage also teaches that each individual has dignity and value in God's sight.

Doesn't that sound mean and hateful?!? Showing how Clinton signed legislation is being undermined and overturned by judicial fiat that which the general populace opposes, which had laws against it at the state and federal level.

As for the amendment, what is left when you have 4-3 decisions reading rights into documents and constitutions that don't exist. Not only that but the also render a judgement that prewrites the legislation as to how to remedy it by declaring that it cannot be addressed via civil unions.

You make the Bush language sound hateful when in fact it is the only course of action left thanks to the Mass court. When it overturns legislation enacted even by Democratic presidents, there is no way that it can be portrayed as mainstream and the Bush position as extreme.

Finally you talk about triangulation as if no one would ever ask Kerry how he would address this since it is obvious that civil unions wouldn't work. Do you really think he could say he was going to defend marriage via illegal civil unions and get away with that sort of answer? He would either have to go on record supporting homosexual marriage or supporting the amendment.

Nick

[BRussell]

All I'm saying is that Kerry's position is probably closer to most people's views than Bush's.

[Kirkland]

Originally posted by trumptman
Glad to know that Democrats consider homosexual marriage a "wedge" issue meant to pit people against each other.

Every major issue is a wedge issue. The war is a wedge issue. Medicare is a wedge issue. Taxes are a wedge issue. Hell, the stupid pledge of allegiance is a wedge issue.

The text from the Bush speech.

I saw Bush's speech live, thank you. I was so hurt and upset that I vomited.

Doesn't that sound mean and hateful?!?

Bush supports a "We Hate Gays" Amendment to the Constitution. That's mean and hateful, no matter how he says it.

Showing how Clinton signed legislation is being undermined and overturned by judicial fiat that which the general populace opposes, which had laws against it at the state and federal level.

How? The Supreme Court of Massachusetts is doing it's job — interpreting its state Constitution and overtuning laws that do not meet that muster. The Federal DOMA is not mixed into this situation at all.

I know you're a right wing fanatic who hates gays (and women), but be real. This ruling will not lead to national gay marriage. And gay marriage is not a threat to the social fabric or character of this country.

As for the amendment, what is left when you have 4-3 decisions reading rights into documents and constitutions that don't exist.

That's your opinion. I disagree.

And what do you have left? How about federalism and states rights. Let each state define for itself what marriage is or is not. If the good people of Massachusetts want to allow gay marriage, they should be allowed to do so. If the evil people of Texas don't, they should not be required to.

Not only that but the also render a judgement that prewrites the legislation as to how to remedy it by declaring that it cannot be addressed via civil unions.

I would prefer a civil unions route, since it would cause less backlash. As would John Kerry. But the Court is the authority here, and they say that wouldn't pass constitutional muster, so it's sadly not an option. I would hope that they would reconsider, though that's unlikely.

You make the Bush language sound hateful when in fact it is the only course of action left thanks to the Mass court.

The only course of action left is to let each state decide on their own, through their own processes, what to do about this. Marriage has never been a federal issue, and the FFC clause has never been applied to marriage before, so there's no reason to warp the Constitution with right wing hate speech to prevent something that won't happen from happening.

When it overturns legislation enacted even by Democratic presidents, there is no way that it can be portrayed as mainstream and the Bush position as extreme.

What Federal law has the Massachusetts Supreme Court overtuned? The Federal DOMA does not apply to this situation.

Finally you talk about triangulation as if no one would ever ask Kerry how he would address this since it is obvious that civil unions wouldn't work. Do you really think he could say he was going to defend marriage via illegal civil unions and get away with that sort of answer? He would either have to go on record supporting homosexual marriage or supporting the amendment.

Or he could say that he disagrees with the court's decision regarding the merits of civil unions, and believes that such a course is still the best path to follow, and that the court should reconsider.

[chu_bakka]

I want to know how gay people have suddenly become in vogue?

Maybe acceptance and tolerance have come in vogue...

naaahh that's crazy talk!

Perhaps younger generations are finding that it's not such a big deal. Get over it old man.

[trumptman]

Originally posted by Kirkland
Every major issue is a wedge issue. The war is a wedge issue. Medicare is a wedge issue. Taxes are a wedge issue. Hell, the stupid pledge of allegiance is a wedge issue.
[/B]

Ah...I see definition so broad as to be useless. Got it.

I saw Bush's speech live, thank you. I was so hurt and upset that I vomited.

I see, so instead of actually addressing what he said, you prefer to rail on about your anecdotal reaction to the speech.

What percentage of people do you think got physically ill from those words? .0001% perhaps? Doesn't sounds like a large voting block to me.

Bush supports a "We Hate Gays" Amendment to the Constitution. That's mean and hateful, no matter how he says it.

Oh I forgot. You are one of those... "disagreement = hate" type of guys.

How? The Supreme Court of Massachusetts is doing it's job — interpreting its state Constitution and overtuning laws that do not meet that muster. The Federal DOMA is not mixed into this situation at all.

I know you're a right wing fanatic who hates gays (and women), but be real. This ruling will not lead to national gay marriage. And gay marriage is not a threat to the social fabric or character of this country.


So the job of the Supreme Court of Massachusetts is to write legislation? Because that is what they have just done by declaring that civil unions cannot address their decision.

They are so bright they can take what is not written in the Mass Constitution (homosexual marriage) and use it to declare what should not be written into law. (civil unions)

As for your characterization of me. It is just as wrong as me calling you a flaming, cross dressing, lisping, limp wristed...etc. In other words wrong. You claim I "hate" people because I disagree with them. In this instance then you must be practicing a lot of hate yourself.

I've not declared I find homosexual marriage wrong. Rather I don't like rulings that are so broad as to render the law itself useless. The privacy right this ruling is based on basically makes it almost impossible to legislate any type of marriage as being wrong. Others here, likely yourself included, don't want to admit that because you want to squeeze through the one issue important to yourself. We are supposed to be a nation of laws. If the law becomes useless and meaningless, the alternatives are much worse. No one here has explained how homosexual marriage could be found legal under the privacy right while finding incestual, polygamous, and other marriage forms illegal. You can't do so and be legally or logically consistant. Either marriage is a social construct of which the majority can decide what that construct is, or it isn't and it is a free for all.

That's your opinion. I disagree.

And what do you have left? How about federalism and states rights. Let each state define for itself what marriage is or is not. If the good people of Massachusetts want to allow gay marriage, they should be allowed to do so. If the evil people of Texas don't, they should not be required to.


Oh remember disagreement = hate. So I know that you now are a left wing fanatic who hates me.:lol:

States rights don't work for civil rights issues. Look at abortion. Look at minority rights. They all eventually become federalized. I'll be very happy to look into any instances of civil rights that you believe have not become federal issues, but as far as I know, they all have.

I would prefer a civil unions route, since it would cause less backlash. As would John Kerry. But the Court is the authority here, and they say that wouldn't pass constitutional muster, so it's sadly not an option. I would hope that they would reconsider, though that's unlikely.

Well obviously these are judges have decided that the law is worthless. What I find humorous though is that you claim to support a means of addressing this that keeps homosexual seperate but equal as does Kerry. Cheney has said he would support civil unions as well. Bush has said that if painted into a corner he would support the amendment since the court would have left that as the only option available. Other then that he has only said that he would only do what is legally necessary.

Funny how you are Kerry are tolerant and kind while I'm sure Cheney and Bush are mean and hateful.:lol:

The only course of action left is to let each state decide on their own, through their own processes, what to do about this. Marriage has never been a federal issue, and the FFC clause has never been applied to marriage before, so there's no reason to warp the Constitution with right wing hate speech to prevent something that won't happen from happening.

Actually it will easily become a federal issue since it will affect intra-state relationships. Should a custody dispute turn out differently in California than in Nevada? In one state the two are legal partners and in the other, not.

What if you are vacationing and get into an auto accident. Does your partner suddenly lose the right to consent to medical care for you if you are in a different state?

Suppose your partner takes some of your assets earned together in Massachusetts and buys a house in their own name in Texas and moves there. How can you divorce him and claim the money from that house?

Sure... this won't become federalized.... please...:rolleyes:

What Federal law has the Massachusetts Supreme Court overtuned? The Federal DOMA does not apply to this situation. It will overturn it in its application. As I have mentioned it will federalize this issue because all homosexual couples who marry in Massachusetts will not stay nor live in that state forever. When you attempt to divorce and get your half of the assets, custody, etc. in another state, you will be asking that state to recogize your marriage in opposition to the DOMA. When the state refuses to do so. You sue.

You can see the process, even if it hasn't gone through it yet.

Or he could say that he disagrees with the court's decision regarding the merits of civil unions, and believes that such a course is still the best path to follow, and that the court should reconsider.

There is this thing, it's called a follow-up question...

and Mr. Kerry, since the court will not reconsider, what would be your course of action?

Nick

[trumptman]

Originally posted by chu_bakka
I want to know how gay people have suddenly become in vogue?

Maybe acceptance and tolerance have come in vogue...

naaahh that's crazy talk!

Perhaps younger generations are finding that it's not such a big deal. Get over it old man.

You are a funny, funny man. Sad, but funny.

Nick

[trumptman]

Originally posted by BRussell
All I'm saying is that Kerry's position is probably closer to most people's views than Bush's.

Bush has only said that he would do what is legally necessary. If other options are left available, I'm sure he would prefer them. It doesn't appear this court cares to give anyone an option of how to deal with this. They've not not only ruled on the rights, but what legislation could be written to address those rights. They have clearly radically overstepped their role.

Nick

[chu_bakka]

They are interpreting their states constitution... they are not trying to write new laws or force anything down anyones throat.

Gay couples were coming forward to get married to test the laws and constitution of the state... they ruled on that... the State government wrote a bill trying to stop it... the court said the constitution didn't support it... and now the State Senate is ASKING them if they think the Civil Union law would fly... and they say they don't think the constitution allows for seperate but equal... and that there's no credible reason for it.

The Court is saying... you either have to amend the constitution or let gay people marry.

The Defense of marriage act was a law stating that one state didn't have to recognize another states gay marriage/civil unions laws...

Banning same sex marriage is a completely different thing.

One is about states rights and the other is individual rights.

And I still haven't heard a reason for banning gay marriage.

[HOM]

Perhaps some historical editing is needed.

Original:A strong America must also value the institution of marriage. I believe we should respect individuals as we take a principled stand for one of the most fundamental, enduring institutions of our civilization. Congress has already taken a stand on this issue by passing the Defense of Marriage Act, signed in 1996 by President Clinton. That statute protects marriage under Federal law as the union of a man and a woman, and declares that one state may not redefine marriage for other states. Activist judges, however, have begun redefining marriage by court order, without regard for the will of the people and their elected representatives. On an issue of such great consequence, the people's voice must be heard. If judges insist on forcing their arbitrary will upon the people, the only alternative left to the people would be the constitutional process. Our Nation must defend the sanctity of marriage.

The outcome of this debate is important -- and so is the way we conduct it. The same moral tradition that defines marriage also teaches that each individual has dignity and value in God's sight

Edited:A strong America must also value the institution of segregation. I believe we should respect individuals as we take a principled stand for one of the most fundamental, enduring institutions of our civilization. Congress has already taken a stand on this issue by passing the Defense of a Separate America, signed in 1956 by President Eisenhower. That statute protects segregation under Federal law as the separation of Negroes and whites, and declares that one state may not redefine segregation for other states. Activist judges, however, have begun redefining segregation by court order, without regard for the will of the people and their elected representatives. On an issue of such great consequence, the people's voice must be heard. If judges insist on forcing their arbitrary will upon the people, the only alternative left to the people would be the constitutional process. Our Nation must defend the sanctity of segregation.

The outcome of this debate is important -- and so is the way we conduct it. The same moral tradition that defines segregation also teaches that each individual has dignity and value in God's sight

Hmmm

[trumptman]

Originally posted by HOM
Perhaps some historical editing is needed.

Original:

Edited:

Hmmm

You are so convincing when you argue against made up nonsense.

Nick

[BRussell]

Originally posted by trumptman
Bush has only said that he would do what is legally necessary. If other options are left available, I'm sure he would prefer them. It doesn't appear this court cares to give anyone an option of how to deal with this. They've not not only ruled on the rights, but what legislation could be written to address those rights. They have clearly radically overstepped their role.

Nick Bush wants to do "what is legally necessary..." for what? You have a clause missing from that sentence. "... to prevent states from interpreting their own Constitutions?" So much for the supposedly conservative belief in freedom and States' rights.

The Mass. court overstepped their role? Let's see, they struck down a statute that violated their state Constitution, and provided guidance on what types of laws would be constitutional. What in the world is the role of the Mass. court if not that? Or do you just disagree with their conclusion, not their "role."

[chu_bakka]

I think his point is valid.

[tmp]

[deleting crud]

[trumptman]

Originally posted by BRussell
Bush wants to do "what is legally necessary..." for what? You have a clause missing from that sentence. "... to prevent states from interpreting their own Constitutions?" So much for the supposedly conservative belief in freedom and States' rights.

The Mass. court overstepped their role? Let's see, they struck down a statute that violated their state Constitution, and provided guidance on what types of laws would be constitutional. What in the world is the role of the Mass. court if not that? Or do you just disagree with their conclusion, not their "role."

....to protect the sanctity of marriage. I don't think he hid that at all.

As for states rights, obviously the federal government does serve some purpose, does it not? To claim that this ruling would have no fall out in other states is just nonsense. If states rule on issues that end up affecting many other legal provisions in other states, the federal government does hav to resolve those. That is one of the Constitutional roles assigned the federal government.

I suppose if the Massachussetts Supreme Court ruled it was okay to create a toxic waste dump that just happened to leak into the surrounding water tables of other states, that would be a state issue with no federal intervention?!?

:rolleyes:
Nick

[trumptman]

Originally posted by tmp
Right back atcha buddy.

Me and my pet pig are picking out a china pattern as I speak.

:grumble:

I wanted to throw rice after the wedding, but your invitation said something about the bride stopping and eating it.

Nick

[tmp]

[deleting crud]

[trumptman]

Here's the nice language from the actual Mass ruling relating to why they made their decision as they did.

We construe civil marriage to mean the voluntary union of two persons as spouses, to the exclusion of all others. This reformulation redresses the plaintiffs' constitutional injury and furthers the aim of marriage to promote stable, exclusive relationships. It advances the two legitimate State interests the department has identified: providing a stable setting for child rearing and conserving State resources. It leaves intact the Legislature's broad discretion to regulate marriage. See Commonwealth v. Stowell, 389 Mass. 171, 175 (1983).

Can anyone think of a "rational" basis for leaving it at two persons, excluding family members, etc. that allows for homosexual marriage?

If one person is less stable and conserving than two people. Then aren't 3,4 or 5 marriage partners even more stable and conserving?

(Should we even get into suing to stop no fault divorce based off the fact that it appears to add to the state obligation?)

With incest, heck they are blood so that is pretty stable with regard to insuring family continuity. Is there a rational basis to believe that two cousins being married are any less stable or conserving than two homosexuals marrying?

The court considers marriage a licensing issue and that the state should have great leeway to decide who should be allowed to be married. They then give a great big BUT, and say homosexual marriage should be allowed unless the legislature can give what the court will accept as a rational reason to exclude it.

The two reasons cited above allow the licensing of many different family forms in my opinion. I cannot see how it would allow homosexual marriage, but exclude others from being licensed.

Nick

[trumptman]

Originally posted by tmp
You must have been invited by the brides family.

Maybe by the bride.

She did mention that what you don't know won't hurt you.

Her snout is so cute and what an energetic tongue as well.

She has quite an appetite.

Nick

[tmp]

[deleting crud]

[trumptman]

Originally posted by tmp
Yes, she has does have an unfortunate taste for swill...

Well I know that... look at the groom.

But she does have an occasional sweet tooth.

Nick

[tmp]

[deleting crud]

[chu_bakka]

But what is the Sanctity of Marriage? I don't get it... how does it protect it?

The most important thing about a marriage is that it only occurs between a man and a woman?

50% of marriages end in divorce. Why aren't we banning that? Maybe there should be a 30 day waiting period before you can marry... you know... to protect the sanctity.

[kneelbeforezod]

Originally posted by Anders
Lets try stir up more debate. Why are people straight or gay? The "right" thing to say is that thats the way people are and nothing can change that or that the genes deside that. I disagree. I believe its a social thing with a lot of factors with the genes playing a minor role.

I think its a combination of things...I believe that the majority of people definitely have a 'hardwired' predisposition to be physically attracted to people of the opposite sex / the same sex / both. However, I don't believe that these predispositions are necessarily 100% one way or the other...nor do I believe that they will necessarily remain constant over time. Some people may tend to be attracted to the opposite sex, but still also feel attraction to the same sex (and vice-versa). I know gay men who say they have never found themselves physically attracted to women and I know gay men who one day realized (sometimes after years of dating women) that they preferred men. I know hetro women who 'experimented in college' but have only dated men since and I know gay women who have only ever been interested in dating women. I also know one or two people who genuinely can't seem to decide what they prefer.

To the extent that societal factors come into play, it is when the (internal) cost to an individual of suppressing or denying his or her physical attraction to the same sex is weighed against the (social) cost of acting on this attraction. I imagine that it is generally a lot easier for someone born and raised in Manhattan to come out than it is for someone born and raised in a small town in Alabama. If the person born and raised in Manhattan has deeply homophobic parents and the person born and raised in small town Alabama has parents who place their child’s happiness above all else the opposite would probably be true.

....

I'm still interested in knowing how allowing same-sex marriages will cause damage to the institution of marriage though (specious 'gateway drug to people marrying multiple underage pigs' argument aside).

[trumptman]

Originally posted by tmp
Well, then I should just step aside and leave you two love birds to take advantage of that loophole that you are so desperately trying to find.

Naw, it was only an occasional thing. Plus you two were picking out china already.

I'm going to go after Ann Coulter. She's better than a pig. She's a boozy blond tramp.

Nick

[Anders]

Sigh. I´ll close this even if I think its a good topic and people have posted relevant posts up untill now. But even the best beer is ruined if people piss in it.

Why oh why do people feel the urge to go down to the level of others when the personal attacks start?

EDIT: As explained here (http://forums.appleinsider.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=37882):

Even if it was just goofing around it makes it very difficult to read. And "friendly insults" have a tendency to turn unfriendly rather quickly here.

We are trying to get a "cleaner" AO where you don´t have to wade thorugh a lot of irrelevant stuff to get to the interesting stuff. If you read a heading you are to expect that the posts inside at least some minimal way relate to it.

In short we are trying to keep the noise/signal ration as low as possible.

I´ll reopen the thread now since everybody seems commited to get it on track again.

[BRussell]

Maybe the crud could be deleted.

Originally posted by trumptman
....to protect the sanctity of marriage. I don't think he hid that at all.

As for states rights, obviously the federal government does serve some purpose, does it not? To claim that this ruling would have no fall out in other states is just nonsense. If states rule on issues that end up affecting many other legal provisions in other states, the federal government does hav to resolve those. That is one of the Constitutional roles assigned the federal government.

I suppose if the Massachussetts Supreme Court ruled it was okay to create a toxic waste dump that just happened to leak into the surrounding water tables of other states, that would be a state issue with no federal intervention?!?

:rolleyes:
Nick "To protect the sanctity of marriage," sure. But I think we'd both agree that that's vague rhetoric. I'm simply trying to understand, specifically, what Bush wants to do, and I think what it comes down to is that he wants to prevent states from interpreting their own constitutions in a way that makes gay marriage legal. The issue of states recognizing other states' gay marriages was already dealt with by the Defense of Marriage Act. And of course he can choose to veto any federal law that wanted to make gay marriage legal. So we're left with what states, on their own, are allowed to do.

The amendment (or at least the only one I found, there may be others) states:
Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this constitution or the constitution of any state, no state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups. It also appears to outlaw civil unions. But apparently it doesn't outlaw bad grammar.

Nice analogy with toxic waste. But again, states already are not required to recognize other states' gay marriages, so the analogy doesn't apply.

Yet another nail in the coffin for Bush among the libertarian-leaning conservatives. George W. Bush: Social conservative fiscal liberal anti-states' rights international interventionist.

[tmp]

My posts are now crud free.

:D

P.S.

It isn't up to government to protect the "sanctity" of anything.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000.

sanctity

SYLLABICATION: sanc·ti·ty
PRONUNCIATION: sngkt-t
NOUN: Inflected forms: pl. sanc·ti·ties
1. Holiness of life or disposition; saintliness. 2. The quality or condition of being considered sacred; inviolability. 3. Something considered sacred.
ETYMOLOGY: Middle English saunctite, from Old French sainctite, from Latin snctits, from snctus, sacred. See sanctify.


Government is concerned with the validity or legality. Sanctity is for the church.

[chu_bakka]

State recognized marriage provides privileges to those who participate.

Barring people from the ability to marry excludes them from those privleges.

State recognized marriage is not a religious act.
It is a state requirement to receive certain privileges.

Therefor barring someone from participating is denying them equal protection under the law.

It is not the states responsibilty to protect the sanctity of anything... their job is to protect its citizen's rights.

[trumptman]

Originally posted by BRussell
Maybe the crud could be deleted.

"To protect the sanctity of marriage," sure. But I think we'd both agree that that's vague rhetoric. I'm simply trying to understand, specifically, what Bush wants to do, and I think what it comes down to is that he wants to prevent states from interpreting their own constitutions in a way that makes gay marriage legal. The issue of states recognizing other states' gay marriages was already dealt with by the Defense of Marriage Act. And of course he can choose to veto any federal law that wanted to make gay marriage legal. So we're left with what states, on their own, are allowed to do.

The amendment (or at least the only one I found, there may be others) states:
It also appears to outlaw civil unions. But apparently it doesn't outlaw bad grammar.

Nice analogy with toxic waste. But again, states already are not required to recognize other states' gay marriages, so the analogy doesn't apply.

Yet another nail in the coffin for Bush among the libertarian-leaning conservatives. George W. Bush: Social conservative fiscal liberal anti-states' rights international interventionist.

I think what Bush and many others want is two-fold. First he nor do many others want a legal system where a few judges at the state level can change the laws and legal dealings for the rest of the country. If the Supreme Court takes up the issue and decides it, that is something we all have to live with, but state courts deciding how the whole country must live is more unnerving.

The second issue simply has to do with traditional definitions of words and how far will people go to win an argument. Marriage has always been understood to be between a man and a woman in this society. Many tolerant people, myself included, have said that civil unions would be just fine in addressing the legal issues associated with homosexual pairing while avoiding the historical and religious baggage. However that isn't enough. People want everyone's understanding and definitions to change basically against their beliefs or will.

Suppose I wanted to argue that judges should read viability or what born means in a manner different from historical understanding in order to advance an abortion argument. I don't think that would fly too well.

This isn't about rights because pretty much everyone, be they right or left have been willing to cough up the legal rights. This is about rights going past the end of my nose. This is about telling me what words had better mean to me.

Word switching has been used very well in the past to alter attitudes and opinions about a subject. Someone discussing immigration might use "undocumented worker" instead of "illegal immigrant." However at least they don't tell you that the constitution of your state has an entirely different understanding of what illegal and immigrant mean from the commonly understood definitions.

Laws and language are important things with regard to maintaining society. When they become meaningless, people have to resort to much less enjoyable means of hashing out their arguments. (Like say wars and violence)

I prefer to not let definitions and laws be twisted past the breaking point just to win a forced understanding of a word, not even the rights because those have been offered up, but to dictate what words mean to people.

Nick

[trumptman]

Originally posted by chu_bakka
State recognized marriage provides privileges to those who participate.

Barring people from the ability to marry excludes them from those privleges.

State recognized marriage is not a religious act.
It is a state requirement to receive certain privileges.

Therefor barring someone from participating is denying them equal protection under the law.

It is not the states responsibilty to protect the sanctity of anything... their job is to protect its citizen's rights.

State recognized drivers licenses provides privileges to those who participate.

Barring people from the ability to drive excludes them from those privleges.

State recognized drivers licenses is not a religious act.
It is a state requirement to receive certain privileges.

Therefor barring someone from participating is denying them equal protection under the law.

It is not the states responsibilty to protect the sanctity of anything... their job is to protect its citizen's rights.

The state denies the right to drive for any number of reasons. Much like they deny the ability to marry for any number of reasons.

No one would ever suggest that being denied a drivers license is a civil rights violation.

Nick

[chu_bakka]

You can't be barred from getting a drivers license for being gay.

nice try.

It's not like gay people have been beating on the doors trying to get married for hundreds of years either.

traditions change.

Marriage used to be only for people of the same race too.

[trumptman]

Originally posted by chu_bakka
You can't be barred from getting a drivers license for being gay.

nice try.

It's not like gay people have been beating on the doors trying to get married for hundreds of years either.

traditions change.

Marriage used to be only for people of the same race too.

Gays haven't been beating on doors for years? What next, suggesting it is in vogue?:lol:

You can't be denied from getting a license for being gay. But you can for any number of other reasons including some that are completely arbitrary. Additionally they can withhold your license from you for something as mundane as a parking ticket.

So the government can deny you the right to drive to work and earn a living for a parking ticket, but we have to somehow believe they don't have the right to decide if marriage is between a man and a woman.

Hysterical....

Nick

[tmp]

Originally posted by trumptman
State recognized drivers licenses provides privileges to those who participate.

Barring people from the ability to drive excludes them from those privleges.

The state denies these rights based upon either abuse of the privilege or inability to safely operate a motor vehicle. If the government wants to codify marriage in the same way, fine.

Miss Gabor, your license to marry has been revoked.


It is not the states responsibilty to protect the sanctity of anything... their job is to protect its citizen's rights.

Nick

Which is exactly what the Commonwealth of Massachusetts is doing.

:p

[chu_bakka]

No longer living in fear and being out is different than being in vogue.

[Chinney]

As I have posted most persuasively (ha!) before, marriage is a state of mind. Whether or not the government or anyone else recognizes it, people get married. There have been gay marriages forever.

Relax. Get used to it.

And since most everybody does not object to at least recognizing the civil aspects, clearly, I think that there is a good argument that homosexuals should get the civil benefits as well.

I am a typical liberal government interventionist on many issues, but I feel that the state should get out of the marriage business. Anyone should be able to get married before their Church (as their Church deem fit) or otherwise , privately (as they deem fit). All, whether married in a Church or not, could then register a civil union as an entirely separate matter.

I think that marriage is extremly important. It is the central aspect of my own life. But it is a private matter. Why is everyone wasting so much time and mental energy on this issue? (Me included, I guess ;))

[Chinney]

Double post. Sorry

[bunge]

Nick, trumptman,

You've eluded to the fact that this ruling will directly effect other states. How is that possible?

It's the basis for one of your main points, but I think it's faulty. This ruling is for Massachusetts, but doesn't effect any other state. Why do you think it does?

[dmz]

Originally posted by bunge
You've eluded to the fact that this ruling will directly effect other states. How is that possible?



Terri on Fresh Air laid it out pretty clearly today. You get a license in one state (even gays from Canada are coming to MA.) and then you go sue in another state---or federal court, I forget....anyway you get the point.

This is activism, by the numbers. 2-5% of the populace shoving their lifestyle down the the majorities' throat. Oh joy.

[dmz]

Originally posted by Chinney
.....marriage is a state of mind...................Relax. Get used to it.




The only reason you can make that kind statement is because you operate in the intellectual vacuum of existentialism. You live in terms of what you see on TV and understand little of history and the importance of cultures whose underpinnings answer the demands of reality and the centuries that go with them.

Janet's breast.....who cares.......gays want marriage..........who cares...........sportfuc.k across town.........who cares.


You are a dead intellect---as dead and diseased as the "culture" that promotes your ideals. Simplistic base desires destroy cultures; pandering to sexual deviants will do the same. Get used to it.

[bunge]

Originally posted by dmz
Terri on Fresh Air laid it out pretty clearly today. You get a license in one state (even gays from Canada are coming to MA.) and then you go sue in another state---or federal court, I forget....anyway you get the point.

This is activism, by the numbers. 2-5% of the populace shoving their lifestyle down the the majorities' throat. Oh joy.

Bush, trumptman and now you have all used the word 'activism' without supporting your claim. I have only heard arguments as to why it's not activism. Please explain your accusation. I think the problem is that conservatives consider any liberal judgement to be activism. In this case though, the court was specifically asked to make a ruling, and they kept within the confines of the question that was asked.

As for the idea that someone will move and sue, that's not a concern of a court. What you're asking is that the the Massachusettes Court go against their own Constitution because the Constitutions of neighboring states are potentially in conflict. That doesn't make sense.

IF the MA Constitution says gays can marry, then the court HAS to uphold that law until the Feds say no. MA doesn't give a crap what Oregon thinks.

[dmz]

Originally posted by chu_bakka
No longer living in fear and being out is different than being in vogue.



Again, a dizzingly narrow understanding of the foundations of social order.


Cultures are traditionally dominated by active minorities. A comment such as "no longer living in fear" is almost too stupid to be commented on---unless it was a disingenuous, partisan ploy to cloud the conversation (which I could actually respect).

This is about a small minority with DEEP judicial pockets using sophistry to gain what they themselves decry. Out of one side there mouth they cry "Equal Rights" out the other they orchestrate rulings in the judiciary that place the ethics they are fighting beyond cultural expectance.

You people are throwing rocks and clubs at each other and are calling it a discussion.

[bunge]

Originally posted by dmz
You are a dead intellect---as dead and diseased as the "culture" that promotes your ideals. Simplistic base desires destroy cultures; pandering to sexual deviants will do the same. Get used to it.

This statement looks to be deserving of a banning.

Hunger destroys cultures? No. Fascism destroys cultures, just like it did the Roman Empire. Just as it will Catholicism. Just as it will many others.

The ruling isn't pandering. If the constitution supports the ruling, then you need to change the constitution.

[bunge]

Originally posted by dmz
You people are throwing rocks and clubs at each other and are calling it a discussion.

Your feverish irrational claims are becoming more and more difficult to follow. I'm all for an open discussion on this topic. I really want to understand the mind of those opposed to gay marriage. But I think your anger is clouding your ability to discuss.

[dmz]

Originally posted by bunge
IF the MA Constitution says gays can marry, then the court HAS to uphold that law until the Feds say no. MA doesn't give a crap what Oregon thinks.


....this is exactly how the game is to be played---If it gets into court in Oregon and starts getting coverage....it is EXACTLY what is needed. You don't get to where the gays have in the last 10-15 years except by the shrewd use of the media, legislature, and courts.


Don't any of you guys have acitivist backgrounds?

[dmz]

Originally posted by bunge

No. Fascism destroys cultures


Tell that to the Chinese. (and King Fahd).

[bunge]

Originally posted by dmz
....this is exactly how the game is to be played---If it gets into court in Oregon and starts getting coverage....it is EXACTLY what is needed. You don't get to where the gays have in the last 10-15 years except by the shrewd use of the media, legislature, and courts.


Don't any of you guys have acitivist backgrounds?

But it doesn't matter if it's legal. You want the courts to bend against what the Constitution supports. THAT'S a problem. If other courts follow this decision, that doesn't mean the decision is activisim. It could be activism even if no other court followed suit. It's not activism just because all 49 other states do follow suit.

The court was asked to make a judgement. They did. They didn't overreach their authority.

[bunge]

Originally posted by dmz
Tell that to the Chinese. (and King Fahd).

Are you insinuating that the historical culture of the Chinese hasn't been lost and/or destroyed?

[tmp]

Originally posted by dmz

This is about a small minority with DEEP judicial pockets using sophistry to gain what they themselves decry.

Ah yes, it's that durned hommasexshulls with there durned agenda agin. They're in cahoots with the Jews to destroy all that's decent. David Geffen, Elton John and Rosie O'Dennell are taking names- I hope you dialed in from a safe house.
:rolleyes:

Try substituting "pork barrel politics" for "Equal Rights"

Simplistic base desires destroy cultures; pandering to sexual deviants will do the same. Get used to it.

"Pandering to sexual devaints"? :mad:

Are you really such a stupid bigot or do you just play one on the internet?

Mods- I know I said I'd be nice, but I find this personally offensive.

[chu_bakka]

Women acquired the right to vote through activism.

African Americans acquired the same through activism.

And now gays are trying to achieve the same rights as everyone else...

through activism.


If they don't test the Constitution they can't gain access to the rights everyone else enjoys. You can't test it if you don't bother to fill out the forms.

[bunge]

Originally posted by tmp
Mods- I know I said I'd be nice, but I find this personally offensive.

You should probably just report the post with a decent explanation.

[chu_bakka]

What does marriage have to do with base desires?

I thought marriage was about monogamy.

Death till you part kinda trumps base desires.

[trumptman]

Originally posted by bunge
Nick, trumptman,

You've eluded to the fact that this ruling will directly effect other states. How is that possible?

It's the basis for one of your main points, but I think it's faulty. This ruling is for Massachusetts, but doesn't effect any other state. Why do you think it does?

I didn't just elude to it. I addressed it quite clearly.

Quote from....me.:p

Actually it will easily become a federal issue since it will affect intra-state relationships. Should a custody dispute turn out differently in California than in Nevada? In one state the two are legal partners and in the other, not.

What if you are vacationing and get into an auto accident. Does your partner suddenly lose the right to consent to medical care for you if you are in a different state?

Suppose your partner takes some of your assets earned together in Massachusetts and buys a house in their own name in Texas and moves there. How can you divorce him and claim the money from that house?

Sure... this won't become federalized.... please...

quote:What Federal law has the Massachusetts Supreme Court overtuned? The Federal DOMA does not apply to this situation.

It will overturn it in its application. As I have mentioned it will federalize this issue because all homosexual couples who marry in Massachusetts will not stay nor live in that state forever. When you attempt to divorce and get your half of the assets, custody, etc. in another state, you will be asking that state to recogize your marriage in opposition to the DOMA. When the state refuses to do so. You sue.

You can see the process, even if it hasn't gone through it yet.

It is pretty easy to see how this would occur.

Nick

[trumptman]

Originally posted by bunge
Bush, trumptman and now you have all used the word 'activism' without supporting your claim. I have only heard arguments as to why it's not activism. Please explain your accusation. I think the problem is that conservatives consider any liberal judgement to be activism. In this case though, the court was specifically asked to make a ruling, and they kept within the confines of the question that was asked.

As for the idea that someone will move and sue, that's not a concern of a court. What you're asking is that the the Massachusettes Court go against their own Constitution because the Constitutions of neighboring states are potentially in conflict. That doesn't make sense.

IF the MA Constitution says gays can marry, then the court HAS to uphold that law until the Feds say no. MA doesn't give a crap what Oregon thinks.

I consider activist to be anything that has to "read" into the law that which cannot be plainly understood and applied by all those who previously read and understood that law.

I apply it to both liberal and conservative courts depending upon the issue.

As for the MA court, you are correct that they can rule as they wish, but the federal government does have right to govern inter-state relationships. You are correct that they could just assert their right to do as they wish much like Wallace stood in the doorway denying education to a young lady. But it doesn't bode well for the long view.

Nick

[kneelbeforezod]

Originally posted by dmz
This is activism, by the numbers. 2-5% of the populace shoving their lifestyle down the the majorities' throat. Oh joy. Can you provide a source for that 2-5% figure? Also, could you clarify whether it is supposed to represent the gay population of the US, the 'activist' gay population of the US, or everyone in the US who believes that same-sex marriages should be legal and available?


Originally posted by dmz
This is about a small minority with DEEP judicial pockets using sophistry to gain what they themselves decry. Out of one side there mouth they cry "Equal Rights" out the other they orchestrate rulings in the judiciary that place the ethics they are fighting beyond cultural expectance.I fail to see how individuals stating that they want equal treatment under the law constitutes sophistry. Are you implying that no gay person really wants to get married to the one they love? While some may indeed decry marriage, so do many hetrosexual people. Your statement suggests that you believe 'gays' (as a uniform, cohesive group) are only actually doing this in order to destroy marriage.


Originally posted by trumptman
I consider activist to be anything that has to "read" into the law that which cannot be plainly understood and applied by all those who previously read and understood that law. But this is what courts are supposed to do when asked to interpret a point of law. When Bush refers to 'activist' courts the implication is that they are choosing to interpret the law in the way that they do due to some ulterior motive.

[Frank777]

Originally posted by kneelbeforezod
But this is what courts are supposed to do when asked to interpret a point of law. When Bush refers to 'activist' courts the implication is that they are choosing to interpret the law in the way that they do due to some ulterior motive.

I see 'activist' judges as those who are reading into the law what is plainly not there. In Canada, our Charter of Rights and Freedoms outlawed discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, colour, religion, sex, age and physical disability.

A few years ago, the courts decided that "sexual orientation" should be "read into" the Charter. Homosexuals did not just appear suddenly on the planet after the mid-80's, when the Charter was adopted. If Parliament had wished to add that phrase, it would have.

That is a clear case of judicial activism. The Left, of course, is happy to have courts side with them when they can't push an agenda through the proper way, through the legislature.

But there are very good reasons why the branches of government are separated. Legislatures make law, the Judiciary enforces it.

Judges are now dictating important things like social policy. While conservatives scream about this, the North American Left is willing to go along with it because their ideals seem to be compatible.

And because they've never seen how badly this can go wrong.

[addabox]

At heart, a lot of the anti-gay stuff seems to come from this (to me) really odd notion that homosexuality is a deliberate afront to "morality". In other words, a certain class of person, not unlike drug users and bohemians and draft-dodgers, choose this distasteful "lifestyle" as a calculated slap to the face of the god fearing and upright citizenry.

Moreover, the thinking seems to go that Americans are so easily misled from the path of rightousness that unless the fags are kept at least nominally at bay the society as a whole will quickly degenerate into a kind of Mardi Gras from Hell, with perverse bacchanalia erupting on every street corner and bestiality written into the pledge of allegiance.

So on the one hand gays are cynical agents of Satan who use "civil rights" as a smoke screen for their strenuous efforts to debase the country; and on the other, there is something so appealing about the generalized licentiousness that gays are purported to embody that allowing them full citizenship will open the flood gates of dog sex and necrophilia that we apparently are barely suppressing our yearning for.

Because at the end of the day homosexuality, as othereness, is about sex, and sex is America's bete noir, a shadow that stretches from our puritan founders and their hatred of the body right through to our hyper commodified present, with its frantic marketing of bodies as a cure for mortality. I think that in the popular imagination "gay people" are at the intersection of these, sin and pleasure, obedience to god and unfettered deisre. I think that when people argue against full equality for gays there is a way that they are saying: "If I am going to live a joyless life then I'll be damned if some flamer is going to just go around just doing whatever he wants.

[Argento]

Maybe it is becaus eI started late but I have yet to see a good defense about making marriage a secure institutions.

First I'd like to see the facts of when the church decided to care about marriage. I thought I had heard at some point that the church didn't really regard Marriage as anything special religiously until some time in the early past when it became worth the church's time to care. Now I'm not sure so if anybody knows anything feel free to pull a link up for me : )

Second, has anybody seen the divorce rates for marriages now a days!? It's amazing! It's in the nieghborhood of 30-40 percent I think. Now how the hell is that maintaing the "sanctity of marriage?" If people are so concerned with that why aren't their limitations in place to not allow divorce?? And honest to God what can gays possibly do to marriage that is going to hurt you?? Are you that afraid to be committed to marriage now that gays can too???? Is that frightening? This is not where the government should be sticking it's hand in for simple reason. When people get married they recieve tax breaks and other things(Or so I thought). So by not allowing gays to marry they would be discriminating against them wouldn't they??

[Kirkland]

Originally posted by Frank777
A few years ago, the courts decided that "sexual orientation" should be "read into" the Charter. Homosexuals did not appear on the planet after the mid-80's, when the Charter was adopted. If Parliament had wished to add that phrase, it would have.

I'm a homosexual, and have been since the day I was born, in 1977. So clearly your statement that gays didn't "appear on the planet until after the mid-80s" (notice the lack of an apostrophe) is clearly bigotted nonsense.

But there are very good reasons why the branches of government are separated. Legislatures make law, the Judiciary enforces it.

Legislatures make law. The EXECUTIVE BRANCH enforces law. The Judicial branch interprets the law. Civics 101.

Kirk

[Frank777]

Originally posted by addabox
At heart, a lot of the anti-gay stuff seems to come from this (to me) really odd notion that homosexuality is a deliberate afront to "morality". In other words, a certain class of person, not unlike drug users and bohemians and draft-dodgers, choose this distasteful "lifestyle" as a calculated slap to the face of the god fearing and upright citizenry.

Moreover, the thinking seems to go that Americans are so easily misled from the path of rightousness that unless the fags are kept at least nominally at bay the society as a whole will quickly degenerate into a kind of Mardi Gras from Hell, with perverse bacchanalia erupting on every street corner and bestiality written into the pledge of allegiance.

So on the one hand gays are cynical agents of Satan who use "civil rights" as a smoke screen for their strenuous efforts to debase the country; and on the other, there is something so appealing about the generalized licentiousness that gays are purported to embody that allowing them full citizenship will open the flood gates of dog sex and necrophilia that we apparently are barely suppressing our yearning for.

Because at the end of the day homosexuality, as othereness, is about sex, and sex is America's bete noir, a shadow that stretches from our puritan founders and their hatred of the body right through to our hyper commodified present, with its frantic marketing of bodies as a cure for mortality. I think that in the popular imagination "gay people" are at the intersection of these, sin and pleasure, obedience to god and unfettered deisre. I think that when people argue against full equality for gays there is a way that they are saying: "If I am going to live a joyless life then I'll be damned if some flamer is going to just go around just doing whatever he wants.

Wow.

When I respond to some of your points, please understand that I am not positioning myself as any sort of authority on Christianity. My views are my own, based on my trying to live a life based on teachings of Jesus, and early and often failing to do so.

Allegation #1 - Gays are Christian Mission One.
I've attended church pretty much all my life, and pretty much all the churches I've attended would be considered pretty Evangelical by those on this board.

In all that time, the number of sermons I've heard that centred directly on the "evils" of homosexuality could be counted on one hand. On the other hand, when discussing faith and ethics with non-believers, whether in person or on messageboards, the topic is never far from the mind. (Case in point: I'm pretty sure a "Born Again" Christian did not start this thread. :D )

Christians have a worldview that differs markedly from the secular mindset. But I have noticed that when discussing a specific social issue, a lot of non-Christians generally imply that Christians spend way more time concentrating on issue X because of some nefarious agenda to control the population.

It's natural that non-Christians only think of the work of the Church when it collides with their worldview, but it's important to remember that churches in North America do more in society than issue press releases on court judgements.

Churches work to alleviate suffering, share food and clothing, offer counsel marriages in trouble, advocate for third world AIDS and debt relief, reach out to troubled kids and more AS A MATTER OF COURSE. In the more "Christian" phases of American history that you allude to, the nation saw the birth of organizations like the Red Cross, YMCA, Salvation Army and many others.

From your post, it sounds like you equate the Christian life with televangelist crusades. Don't believe everything you see on tv :)

Christians take their cues on social policy and from their understand of scripture and a legacy of faith built up over the last two thousand years. Contrary to chu's previous post, Christians do believe they have seen the type of societal breakdown happening in America before, and have always challenged it. Christians weren't thrown to the Lions in the Coliseum because the Romans didn't like our sense of fashion.

Allegation #2 - The Christian Life is "joyless."
I've heard this before and it just doesn't hold water. Many Christians get involved with at least one Ministry, and while everybody has hard days, the rewards for helping out society don't mesh with an always angry disposition. If all you do is read papers about how this denomination X is opposed to proposed policy Y, I think you have a mistaken impression of how most Christians spend their time.

The best anecdote I can think of is a few years ago when I was at a rally called a March for Jesus. Churches from all sorts of denominations came together in Toronto (and other NA cities) simply to express their faith.

All the major newspapers covered it, and I talked to a Toronto newspaper reporter who was covering it and she just kept commenting over and over about how happy everyone was. She had the same disposition toward Christians as you do (all fear & hate, no fun...) and expected to see placards denouncing all kinds of social policies. She ended up doing one of the nicest pieces of news on the Church I have ever seen in print.

In short, it's one thing to disagree with people's opinions. It's another to demean their lives because they disagree with you.

[Frank777]

Originally posted by Kirkland

I'm a homosexual, and have been since the day I was born, in 1977. So clearly your statement that gays didn't "appear on the planet until after the mid-80s" (notice the lack of an apostrophe) is clearly bigotted nonsense. [/B]

My phrasing was bad so I think you missed my point. It happens on messageboards. ;)

I meant to say that homosexuals did NOT just appear out of nowhere after the Charter was introduced.

Parliament obviously knew that gays existed and deliberately chose not to include the category. Thus a judge "reading" the category in between the lines is making up laws, and properly labelled as "activist."

[Smircle]

Originally posted by Frank777
Parliament obviously knew that gays existed and deliberately chose not to include the category.

It should be noted that homosexuality was back in the early 80s still classified as a personality disorder both in the US diagnostics and statistics manual (DSM-III) and the international code for diseases (ICD-9). A lot of research has since shown that it is rather a different expression of love and sexual attraction.

Therefore, parliament should be required to rethink equal rights issues concerning gays in light of newer scientific results instead of dragging its feet.

Besides, Apartheid (and "equal but separate") racist politicians obviously knew that blacks are as human as whites - this did not hinder them to pass inhuman laws that were rightly knocked down by the supreme court.

[bunge]

Originally posted by trumptman
It is pretty easy to see how this would occur.

What state laws wouldn't fall under this description though? What you're asking for is impossible, that all states agree on all laws. That's silly. You're saying Massachusetts doesn't have the right to make their own laws.

How does this ruling directly effect the ability of other states to outlaw, codify in law, or ignore same sex marriages?

[bunge]

Originally posted by trumptman
I consider activist to be anything that has to "read" into the law that which cannot be plainly understood and applied by all those who previously read and understood that law.

I apply it to both liberal and conservative courts depending upon the issue.

But this is the job of the courts, to interpret the law, correct? Congress writes laws that are so overreaching sometimes the courts HAVE to make a decision. Often times it's done on purpose so something, anything, can get passed even if it's ultimately meaningless because it's so ill defined that the courts will ultimately strike it down.

The state asked the courts to figure out what the law meant because it wasn't clear.

Your definition is impossible though. Let's look at the bill of rights as an example. Pursuit of happiness. What does that entail? The courts HAVE to decide because the law makers weren't explicit, and they're not explicit for a reason. They do it so future generations can apply new ideas to old laws.

You have the right to free speech. But, does that include the internet? I mean, obviously the founding fathers didn't know about the internet so they couldn't include the idea that you have the right to free speech on the internet but the courts have to read that into the law.

That's not activism.

[bunge]

Originally posted by Frank777
I see 'activist' judges as those who are reading into the law what is plainly not there. In Canada, our Charter of Rights and Freedoms outlawed discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, colour, religion, sex, age and physical disability.

A few years ago, the courts decided that "sexual orientation" should be "read into" the Charter. Homosexuals did not just appear suddenly on the planet after the mid-80's, when the Charter was adopted. If Parliament had wished to add that phrase, it would have.

Well, that's a tough call. When Parliament wrote the Charter, was their intent actually to exclude anything not included on the list? Or were they trying to list everything they could think of to be all inclusive?

What's the intent of the Charter? Is the intent of the Charter really to allow us to discriminate based on someone's tattoos?

[bunge]

Originally posted by Frank777
In short, it's one thing to disagree with people's opinions. It's another to demean their lives because they disagree with you.

Thanks for the detailed post.

One question I have is, should religious folk push their agenda through law? I mean, from a personal standpoint, forcing someone to follow the ideals of Christianity doesn't make them a Christian anyway. So why would you support going that route of 'mass marketing' instead of on a more individual level? If you could, would you really want the bible to rule America instead of the Constitution?

Secondly, should the secular world disregard the separation of church and state, or do we all just kind of have to ignore it sometimes? If the most valid arguments against this really are religious, don't you agree that the separation of church and state takes precedence?

[trumptman]

Originally posted by bunge
What state laws wouldn't fall under this description though? What you're asking for is impossible, that all states agree on all laws. That's silly. You're saying Massachusetts doesn't have the right to make their own laws.

How does this ruling directly effect the ability of other states to outlaw, codify in law, or ignore same sex marriages?

Obviously all state laws don't have to agree. However there are laws that do have to agree. Massachussetts could not start printing their own money again as they did once upon a time when they were a colony.

Finally there are many state laws that wouldn't fall under this catagory. Many forms of taxation wouldn't affect surrounding states. If Massachussetts wanted to mandate certain foods not be sold or be prepared a certain way within the state borders, that wouldn't affect other states.

I would say that a much easier criteria would be, any law where you have previous agreements with the other 50 states to reciprically recognize and enforce that law should probably give you a bit of pause before you go changing it.

It isn't so much that Massachussetts doesn't have the right to rule as they want, but rather they are putting all their previous agreements about other states being willing to recognize their marriages at risk.

How does this ruling directly effect the ability of other states to outlaw, codify in law, or ignore same sex marriages?

Well I addressed this before, but I will again. The legal dealings of these married homosexuals will not just end the second they leave Massachussetts. Additionally, while we might want to believe that they would just remain married forever, that simply isn't always the case.

The easiest example is simply the filing of divorce. How can states grant a divorce for a marriage they don't recognize?

There are dozens of issues like this. If I earned a million dollars while married, the income and possessions bought with it would be considered to be held jointly. If I were a homosexual married couple outside of Massachussetts, would this be so? The partner in that union could be in for a rude awakening. Of course it is possible to write a legal agreement outside of marriage to hold all income and property in joint fashion. However if were assumed because they were married in Massachussetts, it would be a false assumption because in other states there would be no agreement or marriage.

Nick

[Kirkland]

Originally posted by trumptman
Obviously all state laws don't have to agree. However there are laws that do have to agree. Massachussetts could not start printing their own money again as they did once upon a time when they were a colony.

Non-sequitor. Massachussets is constitutionally barred from printing their own currency. They are not, and should not be, Constitutionally barred from writing their own marriage laws.

Well I addressed this before, but I will again. The legal dealings of these married homosexuals will not just end the second they leave Massachussetts. Additionally, while we might want to believe that they would just remain married forever, that simply isn't always the case.

The easiest example is simply the filing of divorce. How can states grant a divorce for a marriage they don't recognize?

You act like this doesn't happen now, with civil unions from Vermont. The states can just continue to do with Massachusetts gay marriages as they do with Vermont civil unions: legally ignore them. The DOMA gives them the right to do this, and I don't see this or any near future Supreme Court overturning that law.

If I earned a million dollars while married, the income and possessions bought with it would be considered to be held jointly. If I were a homosexual married couple outside of Massachussetts, would this be so?

Perhaps, since you would likely have to go to Massachussetts in order to dissolve your marriage (or perhaps Vermont or California, if they choose to recognize Massachusetts gay marriages as valid under the legal constructs of their own domestic partnership/civil union laws).

Your concerns have played out already regarding civil unions, and the system has held up. Your concerns are absurd and invalid.

In truth, it's all just rooted in your well-documented mysoginy and hatred of gays. You're just trying to gussy it up with flaccid legal "reasoning."

Kirk

[trumptman]

Originally posted by Kirkland
Non-sequitor. Massachussets is constitutionally barred from printing their own currency. They are not, and should not be, Constitutionally barred from writing their own marriage laws.


Obviously the feds enforce their standards in a lot of different manners. I'm sure if Massachussetts decided to recognize marriages between 13 year olds, no one would declare the federal government wouldn't have a role. Additionally the fed also has a Constitutionally defined role of governing legal matters between states. Marriages cross state boundries and so do their legal obligations.

I've posted examples already where this is coming up. I posted a specific example where a homosexual woman, who had adopted a child. She then engaged in a very long term homosexual relationship. She then had some sort of religious conversion and became straight and seperated from her significant other. The partner sued for custody over a girl she had no legal claim to and because of the odd-ball judge was not only awarded partial custody, but the judge ordered the mother not to discuss her religious beliefs with her daughter. We all know that infringing on private religious beliefs in the domain of your home is about is against the first amendment as you can get, but again when words and laws mean nothing, that is what starts happening.

Likewise, just because you can't "see" it happening doesn't mean it won't or isn't now.

A few links for those with blinders on....

Conn. couple seeks to dissolve union (http://rutlandherald.com/Archive/Articles/Article/50475)

Another (http://www.timeswrsw.com/N1217036.HTM)

ACLU FAQ (http://www.aclu.org/LesbianGayRights/LesbianGayRights.cfm?ID=14455&c=101)

Note the following...

If we get married in Massachusetts, should we sue to force the state to recognize our marriage?

Before you begin any kind of case about your marriage, you should contact the ACLU or one of the other LGBT legal organizations. You may have a good claim that should be brought, but it’s also possible to do serious harm by suing. In 1997, an Alaskan couple sued the state for the right to marry. After they won a preliminary hearing, the state, with a 71% majority, passed a constitutional amendment, banning same-sex marriage. That ended the case. It also prevents any state court or the state legislature from ever allowing same-sex marriage until the people vote to change the state constitution again. The state has even used the constitutional amendment as an excuse not to recognize domestic partnerships.

If you think you would like to be involved in a case to have your marriage recognized in your home state, contact us by phone at (212) 549-2627 or by e-mail at getequal@aclu.org.

I don't know about you, but when I see it in the frequently asked questions along with an e-mail, phone number and a solicitation, then I "see" it happening.

Perhaps, since you would likely have to go to Massachussetts in order to dissolve your marriage (or perhaps Vermont or California, if they choose to recognize Massachusetts gay marriages as valid under the legal constructs of their own domestic partnership/civil union laws).

Your concerns have played out already regarding civil unions, and the system has held up. Your concerns are absurd and invalid.

Perhaps you don't consider the fact that both Massachussetts and Vermont have one year residency requirements and they will not begin to grant you a divorce until you are a resident. That means one of the two married partners has to go live in the state for a year or two in order to get a divorce.

Again the system won't hold up to this, and hasn't held up to this. Very few people want to spend one to two years getting a divorce and have to move to do so.

Here's a few more instances where the "system" isn't holding up.

Mountain Pride (http://www.mountainpridemedia.org/oitm/issues/2003/05may2003/news02_texas.htm)

Washington Times (http://washingtontimes.com/national/20031231-094719-8287r.htm)

In truth, it's all just rooted in your well-documented mysoginy and hatred of gays. You're just trying to gussy it up with flaccid legal "reasoning."

You can let name calling and personal attacks substitute for reality since you don't wish to truly look into the matter. However I have posted incidences from many different sources and many different parts of the country to show that the legal issues and suing to resolve them is indeed taking place.

Nick

[Chinney]

Originally posted by Frank777
My phrasing was bad so I think you missed my point. It happens on messageboards. ;)

I meant to say that homosexuals did NOT just appear out of nowhere after the Charter was introduced.

Parliament obviously knew that gays existed and deliberately chose not to include the category. Thus a judge "reading" the category in between the lines is making up laws, and properly labelled as "activist."

I am sorry Frank, but this is just wrong. The wording of s. 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is as follows:

15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

Section 15 sets out a general right against discrimination, and then particularizes certain grounds. Reading the very general opening words of the section, the courts very quickly and quite reasonably found that the list was not intended to be exhaustive.

Further, this was not an ad hoc decision based on a narrow gay rights agenda, but is in accordance with constitutional intepretation principles that have developed for years, including the "living tree" doctrine and the principle that human rights are not to be construed narrowly.

These principles have been used to find any number of rights that most people would hold near and dear. Why, then, do some people have such problem with gay rights. How do such rights diminish, in any way, their own life?

As I have posted recently in another thread, Jesus did not spend His time denouncing sex or particlar sexual practices. Why do some Christian churches continue to do this? As a Christian, I find this troubling. I believe that this is not part of the Christian faith, but is a prudish overlay based an entirely secularly-based discomfort with sex.

[Kirkland]

Originally posted by trumptman
I'm sure if Massachussetts decided to recognize marriages between 13 year olds, no one would declare the federal government wouldn't have a role.

I would. The Federal government has no role, no role whatsoever, in marriage.

Additionally the fed also has a Constitutionally defined role of governing legal matters between states. Marriages cross state boundries and so do their legal obligations.

Again, sky not falling, civil unions many years old.

I posted a specific example where a homosexual woman, who had adopted a child. She then engaged in a very long term homosexual relationship. She then had some sort of religious conversion and became straight and seperated from her significant other.

Not possible. No one ever "becomes straight." They can be brainwashed by hate cults into going back into the closet, but sexuality never changes, not in any cases. They are just self-loathing gays. Pathetic, really.

The partner sued for custody over a girl she had no legal claim to and because of the odd-ball judge was not only awarded partial custody, but the judge ordered the mother not to discuss her religious beliefs with her daughter.

The partner in question had been a mother to the daughter in question for years, had helped financially, spiritually and emotionally to raise her. What would be "justice" for you, to have all of that connection ripped away, to the harm of both the woman and the child?

We all know that infringing on private religious beliefs in the domain of your home is about is against the first amendment as you can get, but again when words and laws mean nothing, that is what starts happening.

So if a married het couple have kids, and divorce, and the mother then joins a religion that teaches that all men are vomitous, evil filth, you would have no problem with her teaching her daughter that daddy is scum?

A few links for those with blinders on....

Yes, I'm well aware of these cases. However, notice that these cases are not forcing any of these states to recognize these relationships. There is no reason to think that Massachusetts gay marriages will be handled any differently.

Let the shortsighted idiots who get married, then move back to a Gay-Hating state try to sue for divorce. They'll get nowhere with it.

Note the following...

Those cases will go nowhere.

Perhaps you don't consider the fact that both Massachussetts and Vermont have one year residency requirements and they will not begin to grant you a divorce until you are a resident. That means one of the two married partners has to go live in the state for a year or two in order to get a divorce.

Yup. So don't be shortsighted when you get your gay marriage done. If you're willing to make the commitment, you had better be willing to move if you decide you can't handle it any longer.

It's inconvenient, but that's part and parcel of getting married in a good, progressive state and then moving back to whatever backwards, gay-hating hellhole you're originally from.

Again the system won't hold up to this, and hasn't held up to this. Very few people want to spend one to two years getting a divorce and have to move to do so.

And yet, in four years, no other state has been forced to recognize civil unions from Vermont.

Here's a few more instances where the "system" isn't holding up.

Yes, this has been tricky for the gay-hating states, but it's not causing them to be required to recognize the marriages/unions. And there's no reason to think it will.

After awhile, gays who want to get married will stop returning to their backwards states and stay in the progressive ones, I believe.

You can let name calling and personal attacks substitute for reality since you don't wish to truly look into the matter.

This is by far the most important political issue of my life. I have read scores of books on the subject and followed every news article I can on the topic. You could never come up with any fact about gay marriage that I have not already been exposed to, considered and integrated into my position.

However I have posted incidences from many different sources and many different parts of the country to show that the legal issues and suing to resolve them is indeed taking place.

People sue about everything. But what is not happening, and what there is no danger of having happen, is a lawsuit that goes to the SCOTUS and creates a national gay marriage system. There is zero chance of that. It will not happen.

Kirk

[kneelbeforezod]

Originally posted by trumptman
...the judge ordered the mother not to discuss her religious beliefs with her daughter. We all know that infringing on private religious beliefs in the domain of your home is about is against the first amendment as you can get, but again when words and laws mean nothing, that is what starts happening.As was pointed out in the original thread on this case, the Judge actually ordered the mother to:

make sure that there is nothing in the religious upbringing or teaching that the minor child is exposed to that can be considered homophobic.

Not quite the same as not discussing her religious beliefs...just those aspects of her beliefs that would teach the child that her other guardian was sinful and immoral.

[trumptman]

Originally posted by kneelbeforezod
As was pointed out in the original thread on this case, the Judge actually ordered the mother to:

Not quite the same as not discussing her religious beliefs...just those aspects of her beliefs that would teach the child that her other guardian was sinful and immoral.

Yes but if you recall the order was so broad the mother could have been held in contempt and sent to jail for anything considered "homophobic." The ruling was so broad that it basically considere being a Christian to equal homophobic which meant sharing none of the religion.

Take your own example, Christianity teaches that all people are sinful and immoral. Thus teaching that the partner is as well is "homophobic."

Nick

[addabox]

Originally posted by Frank777
Wow.

When I respond to some of your points, please understand that I am not positioning myself as any sort of authority on Christianity. My views are my own, based on my trying to live a life based on teachings of Jesus, and early and often failing to do so.

Allegation #1 - Gays are Christian Mission One.
I've attended church pretty much all my life, and pretty much all the churches I've attended would be considered pretty Evangelical by those on this board.

In all that time, the number of sermons I've heard that centred directly on the "evils" of homosexuality could be counted on one hand. On the other hand, when discussing faith and ethics with non-believers, whether in person or on messageboards, the topic is never far from the mind. (Case in point: I'm pretty sure a "Born Again" Christian did not start this thread. :D )

Christians have a worldview that differs markedly from the secular mindset. But I have noticed that when discussing a specific social issue, a lot of non-Christians generally imply that Christians spend way more time concentrating on issue X because of some nefarious agenda to control the population.

It's natural that non-Christians only think of the work of the Church when it collides with their worldview, but it's important to remember that churches in North America do more in society than issue press releases on court judgements.

Churches work to alleviate suffering, share food and clothing, offer counsel marriages in trouble, advocate for third world AIDS and debt relief, reach out to troubled kids and more AS A MATTER OF COURSE. In the more "Christian" phases of American history that you allude to, the nation saw the birth of organizations like the Red Cross, YMCA, Salvation Army and many others.

From your post, it sounds like you equate the Christian life with televangelist crusades. Don't believe everything you see on tv :)

Christians take their cues on social policy and from their understand of scripture and a legacy of faith built up over the last two thousand years. Contrary to chu's previous post, Christians do believe they have seen the type of societal breakdown happening in America before, and have always challenged it. Christians weren't thrown to the Lions in the Coliseum because the Romans didn't like our sense of fashion.

Allegation #2 - The Christian Life is "joyless."
I've heard this before and it just doesn't hold water. Many Christians get involved with at least one Ministry, and while everybody has hard days, the rewards for helping out society don't mesh with an always angry disposition. If all you do is read papers about how this denomination X is opposed to proposed policy Y, I think you have a mistaken impression of how most Christians spend their time.

The best anecdote I can think of is a few years ago when I was at a rally called a March for Jesus. Churches from all sorts of denominations came together in Toronto (and other NA cities) simply to express their faith.

All the major newspapers covered it, and I talked to a Toronto newspaper reporter who was covering it and she just kept commenting over and over about how happy everyone was. She had the same disposition toward Christians as you do (all fear & hate, no fun...) and expected to see placards denouncing all kinds of social policies. She ended up doing one of the nicest pieces of news on the Church I have ever seen in print.

In short, it's one thing to disagree with people's opinions. It's another to demean their lives because they disagree with you.

Please understand: I am not trying to characterize "christians" per se. I grew up in a christian household and know that many people of faith are mostly focused on a right relationship with God that includes love and service as a vital expression of same.

What I was trying to convey ( and I realize my thoughts may seem somewhat amorphous in a thread on the legal ramifications of a court decision) is what, in my opinion, underlies the ongoing efforts to keep gays from full participation in the normative life in America. After all, if there wasn't some kind of prejudice this thread wouldn't be necessary.

That is, by focusing narrowly on matters of state vs. federal rights, et al, it starts to obscure the real visceral passions that fuel the notion that homosexuality is an illness, or a sin, or a license to flout all decency, or a conspiracy to bring down the republic.

So when I say that our puritanical forbears continue to loom large in our national psyche I mean the larger debate is surely shaped, in part, but a powerful if unacknowledged streak of rage at the idea that any group of people should be allowed to have sex outside of "God's plan", since the whole arena of sex in America is so fraught.

Think for a moment about the firestorm around a glimpse of Janet Jackson's breast if you doubt that.

[kneelbeforezod]

Originally posted by trumptman
Take your own example, Christianity teaches that all people are sinful and immoral. Thus teaching that the partner is as well is "homophobic."Not quite. The issue here was not 'teaching that all people are sinful and immoral.' It was specifically teaching that the other guardian's homosexuality is sinful and immoral. Nor did the ruling equate all Christian belief with homophobia. The problem was with the teachings of certain Christian groups (Promise Keepers, Focus on the Family) embraced by the mother's church.

[trumptman]

Originally posted by Kirkland
I would. The Federal government has no role, no role whatsoever, in marriage.[/B]

Well the fourteenth amendment, and history disagree with you.

Not possible. No one ever "becomes straight." They can be brainwashed by hate cults into going back into the closet, but sexuality never changes, not in any cases. They are just self-loathing gays. Pathetic, really.

I see. Diversity = she better believe that gay is what you say or no way. Nice ridicule there. Is it hate speech since she is a woman, formerly gay, and you are an oppressive white male?

The partner in question had been a mother to the daughter in question for years, had helped financially, spiritually and emotionally to raise her. What would be "justice" for you, to have all of that connection ripped away, to the harm of both the woman and the child?

I assure you if this partner were a man, even one she had been married to for years, the law would do this and call it "justice."

Move aways, lack of visitation rights, and a lack of regard for prior parenting are well known in family courts if you happen to be a man. I would love to see homosexual rights groups come out for father's rights. If you think it is sad to have this happen to a non-spousal, non-legal guardian, just imagine how much worse it is when it is your own child from birth and you supposedly had legal rights.

So if a married het couple have kids, and divorce, and the mother then joins a religion that teaches that all men are vomitous, evil filth, you would have no problem with her teaching her daughter that daddy is scum?

This already does happen. They join a civil religion called "use the family courts to screw over and lie about men."

Those courts do think of men as only vomitous, evil filth. File a domestic abuse claim and it is treated as guilty even if proven innocent and has a mandatory arrest clause. Watch men get tossed in jail without a criminal trial for not earning enough money as they act as indentured servients to arbitrary court orders that assume the woman a child and the man a criminal.

Yes, I'm well aware of these cases. However, notice that these cases are not forcing any of these states to recognize these relationships. There is no reason to think that Massachusetts gay marriages will be handled any differently.

Let the shortsighted idiots who get married, then move back to a Gay-Hating state try to sue for divorce. They'll get nowhere with it.

They are getting somewhere with it. You are shortsighted to say it is getting no where just because it is still working through the court systems of various states.

Yup. So don't be shortsighted when you get your gay marriage done. If you're willing to make the commitment, you had better be willing to move if you decide you can't handle it any longer.

It's inconvenient, but that's part and parcel of getting married in a good, progressive state and then moving back to whatever backwards, gay-hating hellhole you're originally from.

Yes, well something tells me that not all homosexual people, just like all other people don't think it right that a state not yield to their every wish and whim. I'm sure there are a number of homosexuals who would disagree with you and declare that not being allowed to divorce where they desire is an infringement on their rights.

And yet, in four years, no other state has been forced to recognize civil unions from Vermont.

Actually two of the examples I mentioned did grant divorces that were then overturned and are now making their way up through the courts. I don't call that going no where.

Yes, this has been tricky for the gay-hating states, but it's not causing them to be required to recognize the marriages/unions. And there's no reason to think it will.

After awhile, gays who want to get married will stop returning to their backwards states and stay in the progressive ones, I believe.

Well we will have to disagree on that issue. I consider cases working their way through the courts, even if it takes a number of years, to be putting on a path to require they recognize homosexual unions.

As for gays and backwards states vs. progressive ones. I'll assume you are leaving Texas soon for California. Let me know when and I'll hold one of my apartments for you while you get settled.:p

You do have good credit right?

This is by far the most important political issue of my life. I have read scores of books on the subject and followed every news article I can on the topic. You could never come up with any fact about gay marriage that I have not already been exposed to, considered and integrated into my position.

Well reading and applying are two entirely different things. I could read a hundred books on basketball and still apply it very poorly. You seem to often resort to caricatures in many instances and flat out insults in others when people disagree with your conclusions. It is a very common fallacy to say that if someone knows what you know, they will do what you do or even conclude what you conclude.

People sue about everything. But what is not happening, and what there is no danger of having happen, is a lawsuit that goes to the SCOTUS and creates a national gay marriage system. There is zero chance of that. It will not happen.

Yes people are mentioning Constitutional amendments because it has a zero chance of happeneing.:rolleyes:

Nick

[trumptman]

Originally posted by kneelbeforezod
Not quite. The issue here was not 'teaching that all people are sinful and immoral.' It was specifically teaching that the other guardian's homosexuality is sinful and immoral. Nor did the ruling equate all Christian belief with homophobia. The problem was with the teachings of certain Christian groups (Promise Keepers, Focus on the Family) embraced by the mother's church.

We can go back to that thread and address it if you like. Lets not derail this thread. I addressed this freedom of speech issue quite well in that thread.

Nick

[kneelbeforezod]

Originally posted by trumptman
Lets not derail this thread.Agreed...

[Kirkland]

Originally posted by trumptman
Well the fourteenth amendment, and history disagree with you.

Jurisprudential history has established repeatedly that marriage is the domain of the several states, not the Federal government. If you are married in State A, which allows married people to do X, and then you move to State B, which does not, your freedom to do X does not follow with you. You can apply that logic broadly to the question of homosexual marriage, where the X in question is the legal recognition of the marriage.

I see. Diversity = she better believe that gay is what you say or no way.

What the hell does diversity have to do with anything?

Sexual orientation does not change.

I assure you if this partner were a man, even one she had been married to for years, the law would do this and call it "justice."

And here we go again, right into the heart of "victimized straight male" syndrome.

Move aways, lack of visitation rights, and a lack of regard for prior parenting are well known in family courts if you happen to be a man. I would love to see homosexual rights groups come out for father's rights.

Sure, count me in. I don't particularly like kids, but I don't think any father should be denied access to his children. However, the primary guardian, likewise, should not be barred from moving for reasons of employment, etc.

If you think it is sad to have this happen to a non-spousal, non-legal guardian, just imagine how much worse it is when it is your own child from birth and you supposedly had legal rights.

One would think this would make you more sympathetic to the plight of gays. One would obviously think wrong.

They are getting somewhere with it.

No, they're not. All the cases have been overturned by higher state courts, if they get that far, and no state supreme court has even come close to deciding in favor of the gays.

There is no threat of judicially nationalized gay marriage at this time, or in the near future, in the United States.

When these things happen, you can see them coming from miles away (like Lawrence). The Court is careful to not get too far out ahead of the bulk of the American population. Jurisprudence was my least favorite of my political science courses, but I was very good at it, and we discussed this issue at length.

I'm sure there are a number of homosexuals who would disagree with you and declare that not being allowed to divorce where they desire is an infringement on their rights.

No doubt. Won't change anything, though.

Actually two of the examples I mentioned did grant divorces that were then overturned and are now making their way up through the courts. I don't call that going no where.

Those supreme courts, if it gets to that level, will not find in favor of the gay plaintiffs.

As for gays and backwards states vs. progressive ones. I'll assume you are leaving Texas soon for California.

As soon as I can. Hopefully summer 2005. Though I prefer cold weather, and may go to Massachusetts.

Let me know when and I'll hold one of my apartments for you while you get settled.:p

You do have good credit right?

I... think so? Money makes my head hurt, I can't understand that stuff.

You seem to often resort to caricatures in many instances and flat out insults in others when people disagree with your conclusions.

And you don't?

And I don't care about people disagreeing with me. It's when they think I'm either an abomination/sinner or don't deserve equal rights to marriage/protection that I rightfully recognize them as bigots.

It is a very common fallacy to say that if someone knows what you know, they will do what you do or even conclude what you conclude.

In this case it is not a fallacy. There is only one enlightened, intelligent, respectable position that a person can take on these issues. All other positions are rank bigotry and absolute evil.

Yes people are mentioning Constitutional amendments because it has a zero chance of happeneing.:rolleyes:

Bush and his clan are mentioning an amendment because they are bigotted, hateful pustules who think that beating up on gays will get them votes in November.

The amendment will never pass, anyway.

Kirk

[shetline]

Originally posted by addabox
At heart, a lot of the anti-gay stuff seems to come from this (to me) really odd notion that homosexuality is a deliberate afront to "morality". In other words, a certain class of person, not unlike drug users and bohemians and draft-dodgers, choose this distasteful "lifestyle" as a calculated slap to the face of the god fearing and upright citizenry.
For all of the arguing that goes on about being born gay or not, genetic predisposition, upbringing, deliberate choice, etc... I don't even see why it matters.

So what if someone decided, for whatever reason, to have gay sex once, twice, or make a lifestyle out it? What overriding public interest is there in controlling gay sex that trumps individual freedom and privacy?
Moreover, the thinking seems to go that Americans are so easily misled from the path of rightousness that unless the fags are kept at least nominally at bay the society as a whole will quickly degenerate into a kind of Mardi Gras from Hell, with perverse bacchanalia erupting on every street corner...
The problem with this being...? :D (We get to have perverse hetero bacchanalia too, right?)
...and bestiality written into the pledge of allegiance.
One nation, under Rover? :???: :\ :lol:

[BuonRotto]

tmp, dmz and anyone else who can read: If you're all so offended, take it out in a chat or somewhere else. NO more personal attacks, I don't care what your position is, and how important it is to you.

Now kiss and make up. :p

[trumptman]

Originally posted by Kirkland
Jurisprudential history has established repeatedly that marriage is the domain of the several states, not the Federal government. If you are married in State A, which allows married people to do X, and then you move to State B, which does not, your freedom to do X does not follow with you. You can apply that logic broadly to the question of homosexual marriage, where the X in question is the legal recognition of the marriage.

I suggest you do a little reading on the case history on interracial marriage.

What the hell does diversity have to do with anything?

Sexual orientation does not change.


According to you, one homosexual. However there are other current and former homosexuals who disagree. One voice is not a chorus or even a consensus.

And here we go again, right into the heart of "victimized straight male" syndrome.

You assumed the victimization was occuring because she was gay. All I did is show a non-gay group that it occurs to as well.

Sure, count me in. I don't particularly like kids, but I don't think any father should be denied access to his children. However, the primary guardian, likewise, should not be barred from moving for reasons of employment, etc.

Except for if she want to move to one of those backwards non-progressive states where the courts won't recognize the marriage with her former spouse or the custodial rights she might have... right?

Oh wait.. :lol: ... that would never come up and if it did, the former spouse just better take it right?

One would think this would make you more sympathetic to the plight of gays. One would obviously think wrong.

One would think I live in a state that represents my views. California offers a full array of domestic partnership rights but doesn't call it marriage. I've advocated civil unions for both homosexual and heterosexual couples who wish to avoid the religious and paternal baggage some associate with the word marriage.

No, they're not. All the cases have been overturned by higher state courts, if they get that far, and no state supreme court has even come close to deciding in favor of the gays.

There is no threat of judicially nationalized gay marriage at this time, or in the near future, in the United States.

When these things happen, you can see them coming from miles away (like Lawrence). The Court is careful to not get too far out ahead of the bulk of the American population. Jurisprudence was my least favorite of my political science courses, but I was very good at it, and we discussed this issue at length.


Well, I'm sure that your view was echoed before Massachussetts decided as they did as well. As I recall, they decided in "favor of the gays" as you put it.

No doubt. Won't change anything, though.

Seems like it did in Vermont, California and Massachussetts.

Those supreme courts, if it gets to that level, will not find in favor of the gay plaintiffs.

Which is why they will then attack it at the federal level using the equal protection clause.

As soon as I can. Hopefully summer 2005. Though I prefer cold weather, and may go to Massachusetts.

San Francisco has some balmy weather, and I don't just say that stereotypically. It is really a very enchanting city that I have visited several times. The cost of living is insane there though.

As for preferring cold weather..are you insane man?

I... think so? Money makes my head hurt, I can't understand that stuff.

You can request free credit checks from all reporting agencies. Believe it or not the most common things I see ruining credit scores are... joining health clubs and you stop paying, Blockbuster late fees, bouncing a check, and leaving bills for unpaid utilities. If you have paid on time, avoided those and have never had some huge medical bill charged off, you should be in the 625-675 range.

And you don't?

Nope.

And I don't care about people disagreeing with me. It's when they think I'm either an abomination/sinner or don't deserve equal rights to marriage/protection that I rightfully recognize them as bigots.

Might need to check that definition..

One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

So far you seem to be intolerant of those who support civil unions, those who claim they were homosexuals and changed, and pretty much all the Democratic presidential candidates since even Dean signed the civil union bill as he was uncomfortable calling it marriage.

Seems your so partial to your own homosexual politics that you act bigoted toward even the large majority of people who agree with you 90% of the time like myself.

In this case it is not a fallacy. There is only one enlightened, intelligent, respectable position that a person can take on these issues. All other positions are rank bigotry and absolute evil.

I see and of course you possess this one "truth." Likewise, how can something be "evil" without a religious connotation? From an evolution perspective we are all just worm food. How can worm food be good or evil?

Bush and his clan are mentioning an amendment because they are bigotted, hateful pustules who think that beating up on gays will get them votes in November.

The amendment will never pass, anyway.

And since Clinton signed DOMA does that mean he is part of Bush's evil clan? What about the two-thirds of Democrats in both the house and Senate who voted for it?

I think your views are limiting your perceptions a bit.

Nick

[pfflam]

Originally posted by trumptman
I consider activist to be anything that has to "read" into the law that which cannot be plainly understood and applied by all those who previously read and understood that law. "plainly undertandin" is a kind of 'reading into' . . . there is no such thing as an un-interpreted fact

[Kirkland]

Originally posted by trumptman
I suggest you do a little reading on the case history on interracial marriage.

Loving v. Virginia didn't occur until the vast majority of all states had adopted interracial marriage as a legal right, and the public had come around. It was not a ruling forced upon 47 states by way of legal interracial marriages in 3 of them.

When we reach the point when 40 or so states have, on their own, adopted legalized gay marriage, then the chances of a SCOTUS ruling nationalizing things will be within the realm of possibility. We are decades off from that. It may not even happen in my lifetime.

According to you, one homosexual.

No, according to the American Psychological Association, the Americal Psychaitric Association, the American Medical Assocation and, oh yeah, ever gay person who hasn't been brainwashed by one of those gay-hating Jesus cults.

Except for if she want to move to one of those backwards non-progressive states where the courts won't recognize the marriage with her former spouse or the custodial rights she might have... right?

Then you have a quagmire, and there would be little that the wronged partner could do. That would be sad, but eventually gay marriage will find itself even into the fundamentalist-encrusted corners of this nation. Not anytime soon, perhaps not in the next 50 years.

However, I stand by my statement: the states in question will not be driven by their state courts to legalize gay marriage because of gay couples who are married from other states. And the SCOTUS will not climb decades out ahead of the country on this issue, either.

One would think I live in a state that represents my views. California offers a full array of domestic partnership rights but doesn't call it marriage. I've advocated civil unions for both homosexual and heterosexual couples who wish to avoid the religious and paternal baggage some associate with the word marriage.

Yet, here you are in this thread, arguing against gay equality.

Well, I'm sure that your view was echoed before Massachussetts decided as they did as well. As I recall, they decided in "favor of the gays" as you put it.

Jesus! This isn't even the same issue. We're discussing whether gay married folks from one state will force another state to recognize their marriage. The situation in Massachusetts was totally different — and completely proper, if lamentably dogmatic.

Seems like it did in Vermont, California and Massachussetts.

In Vermont and Massachusetts the state supreme courts found that their Constitutions did not allow heterosexuals to have access to a marital institution and for gays to not have that same access. That's the proper role of a court. California's gay benefits system has been, to my knowledge, entirely legislature-driven.

That's not what we're discussing here, and I'd thank you not to conflate the issues. The issue we're discussing is whether gay married folks moving between states will force all states to accept gay marriages. That's a wholly different situation, and not one I think is any sort of a real "risk."

Which is why they will then attack it at the federal level using the equal protection clause.

And fail, because there is no national consensus on the issue and the Court will not walk that far ahead of the general population. It never has.

San Francisco has some balmy weather, and I don't just say that stereotypically.

I would never live in San Francisco. Yuck.

As for preferring cold weather..are you insane man?

No. But as you can see from my picture (http://www.kirkmcpike.com/me.html), I am very ugly, and therefore do better the more of me I can keep covered. :-)

You can request free credit checks from all reporting agencies.

Yeah, I've done that. I had some problems with a checking account when I was in college in Kansas, which I believe I've gotten all cleared up (never let your parents talk you into leaving your bank in Dallas when you move to Kansas).

Nope.

So all your ranting about a great conspiracy against fathers and men should be taken as being entirely serious?!?!

Might need to check that definition..

I was using the colloquial definition of bigot as one who is prejudiced in a negative way to people who are not like him/her due to unchangable demographic traits (race, age, gender, sexual orientation).

So far you seem to be intolerant of those who support civil unions,

I would prefer civil unions to gay marriage in the Massachusetts situation, as I have in this thread.

those who claim they were homosexuals and changed,

Because they are dangerous, brainwashed liars who support anti-gay hate cults.

I see and of course you possess this one "truth."

I do, as does anyone who supports equality. Equality is always an inherent good.

Likewise, how can something be "evil" without a religious connotation?

Anything that harms other people is evil. You don't have to believe in God (though I do) in order to recognize the difference between good and evil, and that both exist.

And since Clinton signed DOMA does that mean he is part of Bush's evil clan? What about the two-thirds of Democrats in both the house and Senate who voted for it?

Clinton was a slimy political creature who should have been thrown out of office for perjury. I have no real respect for him. And very little for the Democrats who voted for the DOMA —_but the DOMA is and was a rather toothless law, and won't prevent the natural spread of gay marriage on a state by state basis.

The Constitutional Amendment that has been proposed, on the other hand, is one of the most evil laws ever proposed, and I hope very much that every child of every person in this country who supports it grows up to be either sterile, or gay.

Kirk

[Anders]

Originally posted by Kirkland

No, according to the American Psychological Association, the Americal Psychaitric Association, the American Medical Assocation and, oh yeah, ever gay person who hasn't been brainwashed by one of those gay-hating Jesus cults.

What kind of crap is that to say? I believe that social factor play immensly huge role in peoples self image including their sexuality. Are you saying I am "gay hating" or anything like that?

You play yourself into a corner if you say that if someone believes that sexual orientation isn´t something you are born with then they must be "gay-haters". To say that sexuality is social is NOT the same as to say that people should change their sexuality since they can. They are two completly different things. One is science and one is morals. You can´t deduct moral from science.

I have too often seen the "I was born with my sexuality so you can´t force me to change". That argument is fighting the wrong battle. Noone should change what isn´t hurting anyone else, no matter if they are able to change that or not. We could all change religion but should anyone force anyone else to do it just becuase its possible? And what would you do if it was actually shown that sexuality is social? Then you just lost your main argument!

Even more. By saying that sexuality is something you was born with suddenly disqualify people who are uncertain about theirs, those who actually believe they changed over time and wasn´t suffering from "false consiousness". Way to go. But then again, they are just "brainwashed by one of those gay-hating Jesus cults." What a deepfelt acceptance of your fellow human beings...

I want to write a lot more on the subject but I found this that explains my feeling towards this subject very well. Please read

http://vered.rose.utoronto.ca/people/spike/dv/qbc/

[shetline]

Originally posted by Anders
I have too often seen the "I was born with my sexuality so you can´t force me to change". That argument is fighting the wrong battle. Noone should change what isn´t hurting anyone else, no matter if they are able to change that or not.
Thank you! That's what I was going for earlier, but you put it very nicely and succinctly here.

[Kirkland]

Originally posted by Anders
I believe that social factor play immensly huge role in peoples self image including their sexuality. Are you saying I am "gay hating" or anything like that?

Sexuality is not a choice. To claim that it is is a lie, and a hateful, evil lie that causes immeasurable harm to millions of innocent gay people every day.

And what would you do if it was actually shown that sexuality is social?

I know that sexuality is not social, because I could never change my sexuality, even back when I wanted to. Nor could any of the gay people I know. Every gay person, with few exceptions, fights their orientation at first. If sexuality could be changed, there would be almost no gay people.

By saying that sexuality is something you was born with suddenly disqualify people who are uncertain about theirs, those who actually believe they changed over time and wasn´t suffering from "false consiousness". Way to go. But then again, they are just "brainwashed by one of those gay-hating Jesus cults." What a deepfelt acceptance of your fellow human beings...

The lesbian — and she is still a lesbian — the original comment was about WAS PULLED INTO ONE OF THOSE SAVE-THE-GAYS JESUS CULTS. She was brainwashed. They do that to millions of people, forcing them back into the closet. What those cults do should be hate crimes.

There are people who can choose between loving men or women, they are called bisexuals. They are a small minority of non-heterosexuals. For everyone else, sexuality is hardwired. So say the AMA, the APA, the other APA and the consensus testimony of gays everywhere.

I've read the "Queer By Choice" stuff before. They're probably bisexuals. Lucky them. Doesn't mean that I could ever be straight, or that my friends could ever be straight, even if we tried, even if we wanted to be.

Because we've all tried, it cannot be done.

Kirk

[Anders]

Kirkland: Do you know the difference between something being of choice and being social? I could never choose to eat a dog. NEVER. but its still social.

Why are you trying to put everyone into small little square boxes? Either you are homo or hetero or bi because all you know has it that way. Along comes someone who isn´t feeling their sexuality is that way and somehow they are brainwashed or doesn´t know what they are. Thats totalitarian thinking. "You are something no matter if you realise it or not and if you don´t realise that I are gonne come and point it out for you" :rolleyes:

What about this: You believe you are hardwired the way you are and others believe they are not hardwired but have changed sexuality (NOT by choice). Why DO you have to insist that what they feel are wrong?

Whats the difference in you saying that what people believe about themselves are wrong and someone saying you are wrong in believing you are gay?

[Kirkland]

Originally posted by Anders
Kirkland: Do you know the difference between something being of choice and being social? I could never choose to eat a dog. NEVER. but its still social.

That's nonsense. You could eat a dog. If you were starving, you could eat a dog. You would, in the end. And you would be choosing to do so. I could never find a woman sexually attractive. Never. Not for a microsecond. No matter how hard I wanted to.

Why are you trying to put everyone into small little square boxes?

It's not a set of boxes, it's a spectrum. People vary from totally homosexual to mostly homosexual to bisexual to mostly heterosexual to totally heterosexual, with incalculable shades of variance between each of those goalposts. But they do not move along that spectrum. Just like the color spectrum, light at a blue wavelength can never be red.

You believe you are hardwired the way you are and others believe they are not hardwired but have changed sexuality (NOT by choice). Why DO you have to insist that what they feel are wrong?

Because if sexuality were changeable, then it'd only be a matter of time before the gay-hating straight supremecists try to find ways to chemically or psychologically force everyone to be straight, just like their Demon God demands.

Whats the difference in you saying that what people believe about themselves are wrong and someone saying you are wrong in believing you are gay?

Because I am gay. They only claim to not be gay because that's what some monster in a pulpit told them they had to be in order for God to love them, and because they have no sense of self-worth they go along with it, back into the closet — Hell on Earth to escape the 'real' thing later on. Or they were bisexual all along, and were thus never gay in the first place.

But given the hatred and rage most of these "ex-Gays" have towards gays who continue to be honest, I'd say the former is far more likely than the latter.

Kirk

[Anders]

Originally posted by Kirkland
That's nonsense. You could eat a dog. If you were starving, you could eat a dog. You would, in the end. And you would be choosing to do so. I could never find a woman sexually attractive. Never. Not for a microsecond. No matter how hard I wanted to.

I could never eat a dog I say you. And anyone who could eat one if they starved liked to eat dogs and just didn´t know it.



Originally posted by Kirkland
It's not a set of boxes, it's a spectrum. People vary from totally homosexual to mostly homosexual to bisexual to mostly heterosexual to totally heterosexual, with incalculable shades of variance between each of those goalposts. But they do not move along that spectrum. Just like the color spectrum, light at a blue wavelength can never be red.

How. Do. You. Know? And please tell me what you say to the people who actually feel that excatly what they did. "Well you just don´t know what you feel my dear. Oh yes by the way. Your really not straight. Thats just something you think you are"

Originally posted by Kirkland
Because if sexuality were changeable, then it'd only be a matter of time before the gay-hating straight supremecists try to find ways to chemically or psychologically force everyone to be straight, just like their Demon God demands.

Again you confuse moral with science. Do I believe some people are smarter than others? Yes. Should they only be able to vote according to their IQ, get access to education according to their IQ, their voice be heard according to their IQ? No of course not!



Originally posted by Kirkland
Because I am gay. They only claim to not be gay because that's what some monster in a pulpit told them they had to be in order for God to love them, and because they have no sense of self-worth they go along with it, back into the closet — Hell on Earth to escape the 'real' thing later on. Or they were bisexual all along, and were thus never gay in the first place.

So what is true for you are true for anyone else? I thought that was the mentality you were fighting.

You have used yourself as example. I could give you dozens of other that point in the opposite direction. One being one of my closest friends who was lesbian but found a boyfriend no church involved. She didn´t "think" she was lesbian and she doesn´t "think" she is straight. She was and is! Just like a lot of gay people she had a hard childhood in a very small town with a very small amount of acceptence and suffered from that. She found a very concious group here, rather hardcore on their beliefs and just as she got into a milieu that accepted her as homosexual she fell in love with a male! Thats your counter example. She is still very active in that borderline militant milieu and still fight, like a lot of us, for the rights of the non mainstreams. Please tell me she is wrong on her feelings because you and your friends feel something else:rolleyes:

[billybobsky]

i guess i am jumping in midstream, but nothing is really hardwired. You can make someone sexually attracted to members of the same sex. You can also make someone sexually attracted to dogs.

Not that it is known how to do it, but given all of our experiences this idea shouldnt be a surprise.

What the question should be is if there is a predisposition for a particular sexuality at birth. I really cant answer that either because my experiences dictate the way i percieve the world, and what in that world i desire. In this case, I dont consider men or dogs sexually attractive (but sheep on the otherhand ;) ). I do believe that it is possible that there are genes correspond to behavioral aspects of sexuality and hence possibly both "gay" and "straight" genes. But what that means in actual social terms is up for debate and very much a part of society as opposed to biology.

[Kirkland]

Originally posted by Anders
You have used yourself as example. I could give you dozens of other that point in the opposite direction. One being one of my closest friends who was lesbian but found a boyfriend no church involved. She didn´t "think" she was lesbian and she doesn´t "think" she is straight. She was and is! Just like a lot of gay people she had a hard childhood in a very small town with a very small amount of acceptence and suffered from that. She found a very concious group here, rather hardcore on their beliefs and just as she got into a milieu that accepted her as homosexual she fell in love with a male! Thats your counter example. She is still very active in that borderline militant milieu and still fight, like a lot of us, for the rights of the non mainstreams. Please tell me she is wrong on her feelings because you and your friends feel something else:rolleyes:

Congratulations, you have a bisexual friend.

Anyone who can be attracted sexually to members of both genders is bisexual. Bisexuals are not gay. Nor are they straight.

Most people are probably bisexual to some degree, though I am certain that I am not.

Kirk

[Anders]

Originally posted by ShawnJ
So if a homosexual had sex with someone from the opposite sex, then that person likes to do so and just didn't know it.

:rolleyes: <-- You can't roll your eyes at people with logic like that.

I didn´t mean that sentence. I´ll use more emoticons in the future if that helps my message getting through.

[Anders]

Originally posted by Kirkland
Congratulations, you have a bisexual friend.

Anyone who can be attracted sexually to members of both genders is bisexual. Bisexuals are not gay. Nor are they straight.

Most people are probably bisexual to some degree, though I am certain that I am not.

Kirk

She is not bi. She wasn´t attracted to men before and she is not attracted to women now. And now you are gonna come and say "Well she were and is to some degre afterall." No she isn´t/wasn´t

[Anders]

Let me turn this around: Why is it so hard for you to accept that other people can change sexuality?

[midwinter]

I'll never forget the day I decided to be straight. It was a Tuesday. I think. I'm still waiting on my laminated straight card to come in the mail, though.

Cheers
Scott

[Anders]

Originally posted by midwinter
I'll never forget the day I decided to be straight. It was a Tuesday. I think. I'm still waiting on my laminated straight card to come in the mail, though.


Originally posted by Anders
Do you know the difference between something being of choice and being social?

[shetline]

I jus' wanna know when those damn God-hatin' homersexuals started eatin' dogs! :mad: :D

[bunge]

Originally posted by trumptman
Obviously all state laws don't have to agree. However there are laws that do have to agree.

So your money example was wrong. What laws have to agree and why? And how does gay marriage fit in? It's already been established that contracts like this don't follow you from state to state.

What's the problem then?

[midwinter]

Originally posted by Anders


Anders, I'm not even sure I understand the question.

[Kirkland]

Originally posted by Anders
Let me turn this around: Why is it so hard for you to accept that other people can change sexuality?

Because I have direct experience with the issue, and I know it can't be done.

[Anders]

Originally posted by Kirkland
Because I have direct experience with the issue, and I know it can't be done.

Well I have experienced it can be done. And if a thing both can´t be done and can be done, then it can be done.

If I can hit a hole in one one time but can´t hit a hole in one a thousand times then its doable.

[Anders]

Originally posted by midwinter
Anders, I'm not even sure I understand the question.

People often confuse something that is social to be something they can choose. Thats not the case. Social facts are often as hard hitting as physical laws.

Another way of explaining the same is to divide the world in the objective subjective and intersubjective dimensions. Often the subjective (what I think) and intersubjective (what is given socially) is seen as the same and thats not the case,

[Kirkland]

Originally posted by Anders
Well I have experienced it can be done.

I don't believe that.

If gay people could change into straight people, we all would have long ago, because we all try to "fix ourselves" at some point. Logically, your friend must be bisexual, whether she acknowledges that fact before or now or not.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by Anders
People often confuse something that is social to be something they can choose. Thats not the case. Social facts are often as hard hitting as physical laws.

Another way of explaining the same is to divide the world in the objective subjective and intersubjective dimensions. Often the subjective (what I think) and intersubjective (what is given socially) is seen as the same and thats not the case,

OK. I think I understand what you're getting at.

The problem is that social conventions are completely arbitrary and change over time.

[Anders]

Originally posted by Kirkland
I don't believe that.

Again someone other than you is suffering from false consciousness a la Marx when they feel what they feel.

Originally posted by Kirkland
If gay people could change into straight people, we all would have long ago, because we all try to "fix ourselves" at some point. Logically, your friend must be bisexual, whether she acknowledges that fact before or now or not.

Again you speak on behalf of every homosexual. The world is not like that. Different people have different experiences with homosexuality. Accept that. The arrogance in your argument is not different than that in the claim that homosexuals are just confused and if only they really knew who they were they would fall back into the true nature of their sex

[Anders]

Originally posted by midwinter
OK. I think I understand what you're getting at.

The problem is that social conventions are completely arbitrary and change over time.

Abitrary yes. Chancing over time only very slowly but just as important forms the bagground from which we create our view of the world.

[Kirkland]

Anders,

This is going nowhere. This is the fifth circular exchange in a row. You're not going to change my mind, nor vice versa. I have no personal animosity against you and don't care to develop any, which will happen, since what you're claiming impugns the most basic and core facet of my being.

I'll drop it if you will.

Kirk

[midwinter]

Originally posted by Anders
Abitrary yes. Chancing over time only very slowly but just as important forms the bagground from which we create our view of the world.

Actually, sometimes they change very quickly. This moral indignation over homosexuality pops up from time to time. Late c18 in England. Mid-c19 in England. c19 in America. Just go peruse the the proceedings of the Old Bailey (http://www.oldbaileyonline.org/) and look for buggery or sodomy. And yet for most of those two centuries such things went on with no one really caring all that much. They only became issues during the various religious revivals.

My point is that, for many cultures throughout the history of the world, homosexuality has been a non-issue. And our current fascination with it will fade away once the Christian churches in the West don't feel threatened by dwindling numbers anymore.

I *think* (and I may be misunderstanding you) that you're trying to suggest that homosexuality is a social behavior. The moment you say that, you must allow for the possibility that heterosexuality is equally social, and that, in effect, both are learned. And if they are both learned, then they cannot be innate, and thus are ultimately arbitrary.

Even your objection to them, I would argue, is arbitrary. Indeed, everything about notions of sex and sexuality are socially determined. Ages of consent change over time. What constitutes "legitimate" sexuality (oral? anal? masturbation?) changes.

For much of the West, "homosexuality" has become little more than another iteration of demonic influence from the old days.

Cheers
Scott

[trumptman]

Originally posted by bunge
So your money example was wrong. What laws have to agree and why? And how does gay marriage fit in? It's already been established that contracts like this don't follow you from state to state.

What's the problem then?

bunge, I've addressed through at least half a dozen posts with Kirkland. I'm going to have to ask you to read those.

No hard feelings,
Nick

[trumptman]

Originally posted by midwinter
Actually, sometimes they change very quickly. This moral indignation over homosexuality pops up from time to time. Late c18 in England. Mid-c19 in England. c19 in America. Just go peruse the the proceedings of the Old Bailey (http://www.oldbaileyonline.org/) and look for buggery or sodomy. And yet for most of those two centuries such things went on with no one really caring all that much. They only became issues during the various religious revivals.

My point is that, for many cultures throughout the history of the world, homosexuality has been a non-issue. And our current fascination with it will fade away once the Christian churches in the West don't feel threatened by dwindling numbers anymore.

I *think* (and I may be misunderstanding you) that you're trying to suggest that homosexuality is a social behavior. The moment you say that, you must allow for the possibility that heterosexuality is equally social, and that, in effect, both are learned. And if they are both learned, then they cannot be innate, and thus are ultimately arbitrary.

Even your objection to them, I would argue, is arbitrary. Indeed, everything about notions of sex and sexuality are socially determined. Ages of consent change over time. What constitutes "legitimate" sexuality (oral? anal? masturbation?) changes.

For much of the West, "homosexuality" has become little more than another iteration of demonic influence from the old days.

Cheers
Scott

Holy crap! We're back on page one talking about what is legitimate sex and legitimate marriage?

:lol:
;)
Nick

[dmz]

Strange.


Most on this thread want to pretend that they exclusively hold the keys to ideas of "freedom" and "equality" while implicitly denying others the same right---at the very least intellectually dishonest, and at the very worst, intellectually challenged.

A lot of talk about hatred and bigotry here. Quite frankly, the only hatred I've seen starts with the "pagans" (and I use that term loosly) on these forums---pontificating on the meaning of the universe while sneering at Christians, Muslims and others who subscribe to an established religion.

(Of course, the "pagans" have no "religion" so that makes them superior---especially since they have a lock on the origin and meaning of terms such as "freedom" and "equality".)


When I come up here and tell you that you are intellectually deranged, think of it as tough love---the anger you are "sensing" is of your own generation. I am simply diagnosing a problem that will, in the end, claim your eternal soul.

Homosexuals are violating the "law of nature and nature's God."


This has nothing to do with some redneck, yee-haa sentiment. It comes from the same sentiment that a person has for an alcoholic friend who needs his keys taken away from him in front of the bar at 1AM.

Anger you feel is your own.

[Fellowship]

dmz I am sure you mean no harm.

This is your official warning. Do not patronize any group on this board.

Thanks.


Fellows

[midwinter]

Pagans believe in unsanctioned gods. Atheists believe in no god. Agnostics aren't sure either way.

[shetline]

Originally posted by dmz
Most on this thread want to pretend that they exclusively hold the keys to ideas of "freedom" and "equality" while implicitly denying others the same right---at the very least intellectually dishonest, and at the very worst, intellectually challenged.

A lot of talk about hatred and bigotry here. Quite frankly, the only hatred I've seen starts with the "pagans" (and I use that term loosly) on these forums---pontificating on the meaning of the universe while sneering at Christians, Muslims and others who subscribe to an established religion.
Forgive me if this sounds like I'm putting myself on a pedestal about understanding "freedom" better than someone else, but here it goes...

You seem to be confusing hatred (your word, not mine) with denial of freedom. It's quite possible to hate a person yet do nothing to deny that person's freedom.

There aren't too many people here that I've noticed demanding laws, for example, to ban hetero marriages and make gay marriages mandatory. Some people might indeed hate those who wish to deny marriage to gays, some may merely have strong distaste for an attitude they consider narrow minded or discriminatory. In any event, there is no associated desire to deny their opponents any particular freedom.

Unless, of course, you consider limiting someone else's freedom, by making them conform to religious standards they themselves to not ascribe to, an important freedom of your own that you don't want to give up.

My view of what a free society is about (and yes, I think it's a darn good view) is pretty much summed up by the idea of allowing each person the maximum amount of freedom that permits everyone the same degree of freedom. To get the idea where that degree of freedom ends, there's an old saying that goes "Your freedom to swing your fist stops at the end of my nose".
This has nothing to do with some redneck, yee-haa sentiment. It comes from the same sentiment that a person has for an alcoholic friend who needs his keys taken away from him in front of the bar at 1AM.
So, for instance, some of the old laws (still on books in some places, although not enforced, or now invalidated by those darned uppity "activist" judges) that would throw someone in jail for a few years for gay sex were just "tough love"? Sincere, concerned citizens attempting to use the laws of a land where Church and State are supposed to be separate to "save" these poor misguided homosexual "souls" from "eternal damnation"?

[bunge]

Originally posted by trumptman
bunge, I've addressed through at least half a dozen posts with Kirkland. I'm going to have to ask you to read those.

No hard feelings,
Nick

Don't worry, I've read them. They just haven't lived up to your claims.

You single out this law for no good reason. If you're against ALL laws from spreading like you're afraid this law will spread, then make that argument. If you're simply against THIS law spreading, but don't care if other laws spread, then you're bigoted.

If I'm misreading, please clarify.

[trumptman]

Originally posted by bunge
Don't worry, I've read them. They just haven't lived up to your claims.

You single out this law for no good reason. If you're against ALL laws from spreading like you're afraid this law will spread, then make that argument. If you're simply against THIS law spreading, but don't care if other laws spread, then you're bigoted.

If I'm misreading, please clarify.

I said any law where a state must recognize it reciprically should be evaluated before it is changed. The examples I mentioned were money and licenses.

You said the money example was "wrong" but gave no reason why it was wrong. I said that Massachussetts use to have its own currency but gave it over to the federal system. Drivers licenses are another example of how you need to consider other states if you want their recognition returned.

I also mentioned how even though states can pass different laws with regard to pollution standards, if that pollution some how crosses the state borders, you had better believe that it would become a federal issue quickly, regardless of their "rights."

Hell you can't even buy beef without the feds approving, yet people will suggest that a legal licensing issue that effects estates, medical benefits, custody, division of possessions when a split occurs, etc. somehow wouldn't get appealed to the Supreme Court to be tested.

Nonsense, and on top of that, I'm tired.

Nick

[chu_bakka]

And I still haven't heard a reason why Gays shouldn't be allowed to marry.

Lots of arguments about sexuality... and choice... and state's rights...

But nothing about the reasoning behind BANNING gay marriage.

If civil union is the same thing and alot are ok with it...

what's the fricking difference? It's marriage. All the core traditions are linked to it. You don't want gay people to have the same thing you have??? You're offended? what???

Let them get married and see what happens.

I'm sure you'll be surprised by how little things would change.

[bunge]

Originally posted by trumptman
I also mentioned how even though states can pass different laws with regard to pollution standards, if that pollution some how crosses the state borders, you had better believe that it would become a federal issue quickly, regardless of their "rights."

The pollution of a gay marriage doesn't cross borders with gay people. I thought that was established. Just as 18 being the legal drinking age in some places doesn't mean an 18 year old from that state can drink everywhere. Fishing licenses don't cross borders.

We established that not all contracts cross borders and that's OK.

So, if this law doesn't require other states to do anything, what's the big deal? How would this differ from a neighboring state like Ohio outlawing gay marriage? Should Ohio have to check with Vermont before they can do that?

[trumptman]

Originally posted by bunge
The pollution of a gay marriage doesn't cross borders with gay people. I thought that was established. Just as 18 being the legal drinking age in some places doesn't mean an 18 year old from that state can drink everywhere. Fishing licenses don't cross borders.

We established that not all contracts cross borders and that's OK.

So, if this law doesn't require other states to do anything, what's the big deal? How would this differ from a neighboring state like Ohio outlawing gay marriage? Should Ohio have to check with Vermont before they can do that?

Good morning!;)

The issue, which I discussed with Kirk is that the legal issues associated with this law do cross state lines. The page from the ACLU made several mentions of items the states wouldn't recognize and then basically said the solution is to sue and had a means of solicitating those lawsuits.

Now when they sue, it isn't for the right to get married. They already are married. The lawsuit will be about whether the state has the right not to reciprically recognize the marriage. Those lawsuits have always come down to being federal lawsuits tried under equal protection clauses.

So in the end it will require the states to do something. All the other examples you keep bringing up don't have reciprication agreements. So being 18 and drinking does lead to lawsuits because the states don't have drinking reciprication laws in place. The reciprication is key. It acts like a domino effect.

Nick

[BRussell]

The Defense of Marriage Act says that no state can be required to recognize a gay marriage from another state.

[trumptman]

Originally posted by BRussell
The Defense of Marriage Act says that no state can be required to recognize a gay marriage from another state.

The Constitutional test would be whether the Defense of Marriage Act goes against the equal protection clause of the Constitution.

Nick

[trumptman]

Here, I took it a step further. BTW, some big kudo's to Kirk for actually knowing which case I was referring to. Even if we don't agree (and in many ways I think we do agree about the final outcome, just disagree about the word definitions and path of getting there) he is well read in his background. Just goes a bit extreme on the rhetoric.

This site mentions the case decision I have been referring to with regard to federalizing homosexual marriage. It is Loving vs. Virginia.


Loving vs. Virginia (http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/loving.html)

I'll do the find and replace for the last paragraph. You tell me if it sounds outlandish or reasonable to believe.

All I did was replace race with sexual orientation.

These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the sexual orientation classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious sexual orientation discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another orientation resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

These convictions must be reversed.


Now it could possible be argued that race is a societal construct vs. a scientific construct and thus tossing it away with regard to miscegenation is proper because there is no blood mixing crime as the state had contended. The decision even goes on to mention if the state has a rational basis for treating interracial marriages different from same race marriages. (Is this starting to sound familiar?)

I dont know if Love was cited in Massachussetts, but the arguments are familiar even if the case wasn't cited.

There may be some "rational" basis for treating homosexual marriage differently from heterosexual marriage because obviously there are gender differences which science can prove, while race is total nonsense. I would guess that is what the Massachussetts legislature is searching for right now. But to suggest that this law couldn't follow Love vs. Virginia at the federal level is, in my opinion, a bit naive.

Nick

[BRussell]

OK trumptman, so you're saying that barring gays from marriage may be federally unconstitutional. It may be. And then you would support a Constitutional Amendment banning gays from getting married?

To be honest, and with all due respect to Kirkland and you and others who have strong feelings about the issue, I find it hard to get worked up about it too much. I suppose it's because a) I wouldn't mind if gay marriage was legal but b) I wouldn't feel bad if it didn't happen either, maybe because I don't know any gay couples closely enough for it to be that personal to me.

However, I think this will be an issue in the upcoming election, and I think it goes Kerry's way unless the Supreme Court allowed gay marriage throughout the country. If that happened (yeah right) I could see a huge backlash and I could see a federal constitutional amendment going through like a hot knife. But as it stands now, with only individual states doing it and no requirement to recognize other states' gay marriages, I think Bush would be on the wrong side of the issue to push for it. It would just seem gratuitous at this point, since right now, this is purely a state matter.

And BTW, although Bush has suggested he would push for an amendment, I'm not at all sure he really will, given the present circumstances.

[trumptman]

Originally posted by BRussell
OK trumptman, so you're saying that barring gays from marriage may be federally unconstitutional. It may be. And then you would support a Constitutional Amendment banning gays from getting married?

To be honest, and with all due respect to Kirkland and you and others who have strong feelings about the issue, I find it hard to get worked up about it too much. I suppose it's because a) I wouldn't mind if gay marriage was legal but b) I wouldn't feel bad if it didn't happen either, maybe because I don't know any gay couples closely enough for it to be that personal to me.

However, I think this will be an issue in the upcoming election, and I think it goes Kerry's way unless the Supreme Court allowed gay marriage throughout the country. If that happened (yeah right) I could see a huge backlash and I could see a federal constitutional amendment going through like a hot knife. But as it stands now, with only individual states doing it and no requirement to recognize other states' gay marriages, I think Bush would be on the wrong side of the issue to push for it. It would just seem gratuitous at this point, since right now, this is purely a state matter.

And BTW, although Bush has suggested he would push for an amendment, I'm not at all sure he really will, given the present circumstances.

Actually I don't recall expressing support for an amendment to the Constitution. I said Bush has said that he would do what is legally necessary and it appears all other options short of that are going to be exhausted.

I've argued repeatedly this is about people being able to define their own words, and not really even about rights.

Newsweek Poll (http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/02-07-2004/0002105043&EDATE=)

Drudge linked to this Newsweeek poll and it is very interesting in that while the public does not support gay marriage, it support giving homosexuals all the rights that they would gain from marriage.

What I've contended is that people, myself included are not comfortable with having words redefined from a common understanding. This is why I said creating new words at times and switching is even more powerful in a debate. I gave the example undocumented worker vs. illegal immigrant.

People are uncomfortable having "marriage" redefined as they would be having love, birth, death or other such concepts redefined.

Nick

[bunge]

If we all agree that the Constitution supports gay marriage, what's the problem them?

[bunge]

Originally posted by trumptman
The reciprication is key. It acts like a domino effect.

You're afraid gay marriage will spread. What I don't understand is, if that's the legally correct thing to do, why would you fight it? I mean, it will only spread IF there is already a legal foundation to support it. So, it doesn't spread because Mass. thinks it should, it spreads because legally it can't be fought.

What is there to be upset about? If the Constitution allows for it, why wouldn't you embrace it?

The arguments you're making while possible correct, have nothing to do with gay marriage per se. They have to do with legalities, not gay marriage. You're essentially arguing against how laws work from state to state, or Federally, not about gay marriage.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by trumptman
Actually I don't recall expressing support for an amendment to the Constitution. I said Bush has said that he would do what is legally necessary and it appears all other options short of that are going to be exhausted. That's why I phrased it as a question. What is your opinion on the amendment? And again, I'll ask you to fill in the rest of the "legally necessary" clause. Why not just call it what it is: If he supports the amendment, he doesn't want gay marriage or gay civil unions anywhere in the country. It would outlaw states from interpreting their own constitutions as allowing gay marriage, not to mention civil unions or even recognizing other states' gay marriages.Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this constitution or the constitution of any state, no state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.Maybe he won't push this, or maybe he'll favor one with different wording. What about you - would you support this? Or a different one?
I've argued repeatedly this is about people being able to define their own words, and not really even about rights.[/B] This I just don't agree with at all. That's like saying the fight over slavery was simply an argument over the semantics of the words "human" and "property." No, this really is a substantive issue of rights, of whether gays are allowed to be married like straights or not. I mean I suppose you could argue that any rights issue is a semantic one: abortion (what is the meaning of "murder" and "life"), "speech," "freedom," etc. But in the end, there's a substantive difference for real people depending on how you define the terms, and that's what is really important.

[HOM]

Originally posted by trumptman
All I did was replace race with sexual orientation.

These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the sexual orientation classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious sexual orientation discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another orientation resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

These convictions must be reversed.

Nick

Originally posted by trumptman
You are so convincing when you argue against made up nonsense.

Nick

Well, I'm convinced :lol:

[bunge]

Interesting article (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/07/arts/07GAY.html?ei=5062&en=3a6bba0d3feab09a&ex=1076734800&partner=GOOGLE&pagewanted=print&position=) about homosexuality.

[trumptman]

Originally posted by ShawnJ
Hmm. Let's see about that:

Love: Currently, not exclusive to heterosexuals.
Birth: Currently, not exclusive to heterosexuals.
Death: Currently, not exclusive to heterosexuals.
Marriage: Currently, exclusive to heterosexuals.

Yes, now I see how the tyranny of the heterosexual majority works.

Amazing how you shift the question. Did anyone say anything about exclusivity? I said definitions.

If I wanted to call love punching you in the head. You wouldn't be hateful, bigoted, a religious fanatic, etc. in arguing that my new definition of love is not the commonly understood definition of love. Likewise ;) , if I sued to have my definition recognized, your discomfort with such an unorthodox definition of love wouldn't mean you desire to deny me rights.

This is why I have argued that civil unions should be for homosexual and heterosexual couples. People even argue about what marriage means since the vows might say the woman has to obey the man, or they might pledge to be married until death do they part when that is increasingly rare.

Times change, and so does vocabulary. People watching in discomfort as you pound a square peg into a round hole doesn't mean they are hateful. It means you ought to try a round peg.

Nick

[trumptman]

Originally posted by bunge
Interesting article (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/07/arts/07GAY.html?ei=5062&en=3a6bba0d3feab09a&ex=1076734800&partner=GOOGLE&pagewanted=print&position=) about homosexuality.

Isn't that called "prison love.":lol:

The article raises a lot of interesting questions.

Nick

[trumptman]

Originally posted by BRussell
That's why I phrased it as a question. What is your opinion on the amendment? And again, I'll ask you to fill in the rest of the "legally necessary" clause. Why not just call it what it is: If he supports the amendment, he doesn't want gay marriage or gay civil unions anywhere in the country. It would outlaw states from interpreting their own constitutions as allowing gay marriage, not to mention civil unions or even recognizing other states' gay marriages.Maybe he won't push this, or maybe he'll favor one with different wording. What about you - would you support this? Or a different one?

I doubt the amendment has the energy to get passed. I couldn't see myself supporting it because I'm not against homosexual unions.

I'm sorry if I'm so picky about words, but sometimes people just toss them around with no meaning and when they get burned they get pissed off at others. Marriage as a concept is not just supposed to go with the flow in my opinion. I'd much rather adopt alternative forms or words that hold a truer meaning to the new understanding. Polls like the one I posted, show that others feel this way, but truly don't wish to be hateful or withhold rights to homosexual couples. They just don't want language and the concepts associated with them dictated to them.

Now with regard to Bush and homosexual marriage, I don't see him supporting them. I do think he would support an amendment to prevent them. However you also add civil unions in there and believe it or not, I do think Bush would support civil unions. I recall Cheney going on record as supporting civil unions when asked since he has a child who is homosexual.

This I just don't agree with at all. That's like saying the fight over slavery was simply an argument over the semantics of the words "human" and "property." No, this really is a substantive issue of rights, of whether gays are allowed to be married like straights or not. I mean I suppose you could argue that any rights issue is a semantic one: abortion (what is the meaning of "murder" and "life"), "speech," "freedom," etc. But in the end, there's a substantive difference for real people depending on how you define the terms, and that's what is really important.

Well we will have to agree to disagree here. I do appreciate you thinking it through though. You are correct that there are indeed differences in how these semantic arguments pan out. I've argued that I wouldn't even call what most heterosexual people do today marriage. So I've said I would give them civil unions as well. More and more people seem to live in temporary relationships and wish to have the legal requirements to each other left more open. I find it most amusing that while some homosexuals are fighting to marry, many more heterosexuals are fighting to just live together.

You've seen me argue on both sides of these types of issues and have seen me waste many a word on family court issues. We've spent lots of cultural currency informing everyone that families don't only come in one form. Why do we insist on only calling the legal means of putting them together one word?

Marriage to me means a man and woman committing together for life and share their obligations (especially the children) for that time frame as well.

What percent of the time do you think this still applies nowadays?

That is the family court side. Men who are forced into legal commitments for years, at times even via fraud totally against their will. Men who commit to women they believe are more modern in their beliefs and then are told by courts that she is helpless, the nurturer, she should stay home and take care of their children while he earns more AFTER the divorce, etc.

So maybe that will help you understand my position a bit. I'm seeking more options than just marriage for everyone. But I don't want to enlarge marriage because it brings LOTS of baggage with it. This baggage shows up whether we believe it or not. It especially shows up in areas I have posted about with regard to family courts. There people, usually men, are being forced into the mold of marriage when they haven't committed in any way to that model.

I'll give you my "experience" family wise with these issues.

I have a gay aunt who has had multiple long term relationships. I don't think she would want to call them marriages or have the legal obligation of marriage associated with each one even though they typically lasted a minimum of 5 years.

I have a gay uncle who has been with the same man for likely 20 years now. I'd attend whatever sanctioned committment ceremony they cared to have in a second. They both have rings and by their own definition are married.

I have a father who has lived with his "girlfriend" for 9 years. They don't wish to get married because of legal entanglements that would occur. They do wish there was a way for them to commit without that happening. I personally know that they could write up pre-nups, etc. But courts can overturn those and do at times using the baggage of what they consider marriage to mean.

I have a brother who has a girlfriend. They have four children in their household. The first is from a prior relationship by the woman. The second is by a prior marriage on the girlfriends side. They have two children together. I believe they remain unmarried for a few reasons. One is that spousal support is calculated in odd ways and the woman might lose support from the fathers of the two earlier children. I believe she also gets to claim more things from the government since she is by all definitions considered a "single mother." They won't marry because of what she would lose both from previous relationships and because of what they would lose from the government.(and no I don't consider this to be right either)

The government only has two distinctions for peolple. Single or married. They need a third (at a minimum) so the choices aren't between telling someone they are committing fraud, hating "single mom's", or forcing someone to marry when it is obvious they don't want that level of committment.

We need more options and more words instead of a catch-all.

Just my very long two cents,

Nick

[Kirkland]

Originally posted by trumptman
I'm sorry if I'm so picky about words, but sometimes people just toss them around with no meaning and when they get burned they get pissed off at others. Marriage as a concept is not just supposed to go with the flow in my opinion. I'd much rather adopt alternative forms or words that hold a truer meaning to the new understanding. Polls like the one I posted, show that others feel this way, but truly don't wish to be hateful or withhold rights to homosexual couples. They just don't want language and the concepts associated with them dictated to them.

I don't care if they call them marriage or civil unions, just so long as they exist.

Perhaps we should call them Santorums.

Now with regard to Bush and homosexual marriage, I don't see him supporting them. I do think he would support an amendment to prevent them. However you also add civil unions in there and believe it or not, I do think Bush would support civil unions. I recall Cheney going on record as supporting civil unions when asked since he has a child who is homosexual.

But they're backing the amendment, which would bar civil unions as well as gay marriages. Their hateful deeds override any balanced words.

Kirk

[midwinter]

Originally posted by Kirkland
Perhaps we should call them Santorums.

That won't work, since it's what we're calling abortions these days.

Cheers
Scott

[BR]

Originally posted by midwinter
That won't work, since it's what we're calling abortions these days.

Cheers
Scott
Santorum could be the new fvck that has endless meanings and applications. Now I'm going to take a shower because I just farted and I think some Santorum leaked into my boxers.

[chu_bakka]

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/07/arts/07GAY.html

A somewhat unrelated but sweet story. But worth a smile.

[BRussell]

Does anyone really know what Bush's position is? Here's the statement that he released about the Mass. ruling a few months ago:Today's ruling of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court is deeply troubling. Marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman. If activist judges insist on re-defining marriage by court order, the only alternative will be the constitutional process. We must do what is legally necessary to defend the sanctity of marriage. He doesn't just come out and say what he means, but he at least seems to be implying he would support a constitutional amendment under certain circumstances. But under what circumstances is unclear. Maybe the circumstances are already present.

For an even more unintelligible statement, look to spontaneous Bush:DIANE SAWYER:__ Massachusetts Supreme Court said that they were not, they did not feel the law was in a position to block gay marriage. When you talk about the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman, are you saying you will absolutely support a Constitutional amendment against gay marriage and against gay civil unions?

PRESIDENT BUSH:__ If necessary, I will support a constitutional amendment which would honor marriage between a man and a woman, codify that, and will — the position of this administration is that whatever legal arrangements people want to make, they're allowed to make, so long as it's embraced by the state or [?] start at the state level. Let me tell you, the court I thought overreached its bounds as a court. It did the job of the legislature. It was a very activist court in making the decision it made. As you know, I'm a person who believes in judicial restraint, as opposed to judicial activism that takes the place of the Legislative Branch.

DIANE SAWYER:__ But you and Secretary — why do I get —

PRESIDENT BUSH:__ It's just a throwback.

DIANE SAWYER:__ That's right. Some of us are still —

PRESIDENT BUSH:__ Vice President Cheney.

DIANE SAWYER:__ Thank you very much. Some of us are still stuck back in the '70s and '80s. Vice President Cheney has spoken out in favor of civil unions. In the 2000 election, you said pretty much it was a state issue.

PRESIDENT BUSH:__ That's right. Except and unless judicial rulings undermine the sanctity of marriage. In which case, we may need a Constitutional amendment.

DIANE SAWYER:__ And do you think that the defense of marriage law is enough then?

PRESIDENT BUSH:__ It may be undermined at this point. I also think it's very important, on this subject, that the country be tolerant of people and understand people, but tolerance and belief in marriage aren't mutually exclusive points of view.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by trumptman Amazing how you shift the question. Did anyone say anything about exclusivity? I said definitions.

So definitions don't exclude? Isn't that their function?

If I wanted to call love punching you in the head. You wouldn't be hateful, bigoted, a religious fanatic, etc. in arguing that my new definition of love is not the commonly understood definition of love. Likewise ;) , if I sued to have my definition recognized, your discomfort with such an unorthodox definition of love wouldn't mean you desire to deny me rights.

The problem with your analogy is that it is violent, and therefore assumes a violation of individual rights (for those of you paying attention, this is the core of the anti-homosexual argument). Let's change it to love = sitting on a couch with someone like-minded and looking a pretty pictures of kittens. Let us further assume that those kitten-picture lovers are systematically oppressed. Let's say that it is against the law for them to sit and look at their pictures of kittens. Let's say that, from time to time, they are beaten up for their enjoyment of pictures of kittens. Let's say that a good number of them in recent memory have been killed for their desire to look at pictures of cute and fuzzy kittens. Let's say that there are laws on the books making it illegal for two people to sit on the couch and look at pictures of cute and fuzzy kittens.

Now, do they not have a right to engage in this consensual behavior? And if the law bans them from doing so, do they not have the right to appeal? Regardless of how unorthodox it may be?

This is why I have argued that civil unions should be for homosexual and heterosexual couples. People even argue about what marriage means since the vows might say the woman has to obey the man, or they might pledge to be married until death do they part when that is increasingly rare.

I think you've got a crucial point here (and I realize that your position is far more nuanced that others will allow). The question, for me, is not what actually constitutes marriage, but instead what people think when they hear the phrase "gay marriage."

A civil union, which I imagine is no different than going to the JP and getting hitched on your lunch break, is a matter of the relationship between individuals and the state. Marriage, if I understand it all correctly, is a religious matter, and the traditional ceremony (which includes the signing of the state-licensed marriage certificate) is a union of two people BOTH in the eyes of the state and in the eyes of the church/God. And so now we have two questions: ought the state allow it, and ought the church allow it. Churches, so far as I care, can do whatever they want with all of this. It'll sort itself out, eventually. The state, on the other hand, has no business being concerned with it, and if it starts making claims about the burden on the state that marriages often cause, had better look into going back to miscegenation laws before it pushes that line of reasoning too far.

Cheers
Scott

[trumptman]

Originally posted by midwinter
So definitions don't exclude? Isn't that their function?


You are welcome to look up the definition of definition if you don't understand what it means.:devil:

The problem with your analogy is that it is violent, and therefore assumes a violation of individual rights (for those of you paying attention, this is the core of the anti-homosexual argument). Let's change it to love = sitting on a couch with someone like-minded and looking a pretty pictures of kittens. Let us further assume that those kitten-picture lovers are systematically oppressed. Let's say that it is against the law for them to sit and look at their pictures of kittens. Let's say that, from time to time, they are beaten up for their enjoyment of pictures of kittens. Let's say that a good number of them in recent memory have been killed for their desire to look at pictures of cute and fuzzy kittens. Let's say that there are laws on the books making it illegal for two people to sit on the couch and look at pictures of cute and fuzzy kittens.

Now, do they not have a right to engage in this consentual behavior? And if the law bans them from doing so, do they not have the right to appeal? Regardless of how unorthodox it may be?

You would be right if the issue were, is sodomy legal?

Seems you own analogy is a bit off as well.

To make it correct, you would need to have other couples look at pictures of puppies on couches and have that be perfectly legal. The people who are looking at pictures of kittens would sue to be allowed to look at pictures of kittens saying that looking at different animals isn't really different, but the same. You would also have to have a word that society uses to codify and license those who look at puppies together for a long time. Say the the word is.... I don't know. Pup-trimony.

So society becomes much more enlightened about kitten pictures over time. A court rules that looking at pictures of kittens is okay. (sodomy) So now all the kitten picture lookers are seeking the right to put their kitten viewing into a long term commitment. They want the state to recognize their right to view kittens by granting them the right to...pup-trimony.

Polls show that people support them viewing kittens and also that they should be allowed to get a license for viewing kittens on their couch and the privleges it conveys when society recognizes... you look at pictures of animals.:lol: They just aren't comfortable with calling looking at pictures of cats... pup-trimony. Many suggest a word that gives them all the privleges of pup-trimony but, well when they hear the word they don't think of puppies. They suggest animal-trimony.

Some of the cat-trimony people are incensed. They won't give up the fight until everyone is willing to call looking at pictures of cats, pup-trimony. Some even declare that if you aren't willing to call looking at pictures of cats pup-trimony, you are a hateful bigot.

This would be a much better understanding of the issues with civil unions and marriage with regard to wordsmithing. I would bet that pretty much 100% of dictionaries you pick up have something very similar to dictionary.com as the first definition.

Marriage - The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.

To apply this to other civil rights issues would be like saying that since white have all the rights, let's call everyone white. Or since men have all the rights, let's call everyone men. You would have a LOT of discomfort with this. Instead they just started adding phrases that insuring the rights of these other groups in legislation and over time we also understand that historical references that didn't include those references were to be applied in the context of our modern understanding so that they were included.

So although the Declaration of Independence might say, All men are created equal. We have written legislation since then that says all PEOPLE are created equal. When we read the historical document, we know men refers to people and they just weren't as "enlightened" then as we are now.:p

So over time legislation would be amended to likely say marriage and civil unions, or likely a more generic legal unions. You would look at historical documents that didn't say marriage, civil unions, perhaps an etc that is more about love and less about lifetime legal obligations and understand they were just less "enlightened" when writing back then.

Hope that is clear enough.

Nick

[groverat]

Convoluted analogies are the refuge of the weak-minded.

[HOM]

Originally posted by trumptman
You are so convincing when you argue against made up nonsense.

Nick

Haven't we been over this already? Or is ok for you to argue made up nonsense? :lol:

[trumptman]

Originally posted by HOM
Haven't we been over this already? Or is ok for you to argue made up nonsense? :lol:

HOM,

You did make up your nonsense. I showed how a court case could be applied in another instance. If you can't see how a court case isn't nonsense, that is your issue to deal with.

Nick

[HOM]

Originally posted by trumptman
HOM,

You did make up your nonsense. I showed how a court case could be applied in another instance. If you can't see how a court case isn't nonsense, that is your issue to deal with.

Nick

And I was trying to show how Bush's language if written 50 years ago could have just as easily applied to segregation. "Activist judges" and the rest.