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.
Quote:
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?
Quote:
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
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.
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.''
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.
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.
Quote:
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Quote:
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.
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.
Quote:
The text from the Bush speech.
I saw Bush's speech live, thank you. I was so hurt and upset that I vomited.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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...
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.
Quote:
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?
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.
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.
Comments
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
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.
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.
http://www.beliefnet.com/frameset_of...ry_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.''
Originally posted by chu_bakka
here's an article from business week on that very same issue.
http://www.beliefnet.com/frameset_of...ry_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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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
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
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
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.