Top Senator Backs Amendment Banning Gay Marriage - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

phredgreen · 06-29-2003, 01:55 PM

Quote:

<i>as seen here:http://asia.reuters.com/newsArticle....toryID=3007639</i>

<b>Top Senator Backs Amendment Banning Gay Marriage
Sun June 29, 2003 12:57 PM ET
By Peter Kaplan</b>

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Republican leader of the U.S. Senate said on Sunday he supported a constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist expressed concern about the Supreme Court's decision last week to strike down a Texas sodomy law. He said he supported an amendment that would reserve marriage for relationships between men and women.

"I very much feel that marriage is a sacrament, and that sacrament should extend and can extend to that legal entity of a union between, what is traditionally in our Western values has been defined, as between a man and a woman," said Frist, of Tennessee. "So I would support the amendment."

The comment, during an interview on ABC's "This Week" program, comes days after the U.S. high court struck down sodomy laws that made it a crime for gays to have consensual sex in their own bedrooms on the grounds the laws violated constitutional privacy rights.

The court's decision was applauded by gay rights advocates as a historic ruling that overturned sodomy laws in 13 states.

Conservatives have expressed their fears that the June 26 ruling could lead to the legalization of gay marriages.

The marriage amendment, reintroduced in the House of Representatives last month, says marriage in the United States "shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman."

Amending the constitution requires the approval of two thirds of each of the houses of the U.S. Congress and approval of 38 state legislatures.

Frist said he feared that the ruling on the Texas sodomy law could lead to a situation "where criminal activity within the home would in some way be condoned."

"And I'm thinking of, whether it's prostitution or illegal commercial drug activity in the home, and to have the courts come in, in this zone of privacy, and begin to define it gives me some concern," Frist said.

Frist said the questions of whether to criminalize sodomy should be made by state legislatures.

"That's where those decisions, with the local norms, the local mores, are being able to have their input in reflected," Frist said.

i'm not even gay and this law concerns me. i just think our government has completely thrown the separation between church and state completely to the wind and is legislating anything they think might be "immoral" or releigiously (not socially) "indecent" to make thsi world a safer place for their god. this really worries me. it's getting out of hand. refer this website for more throught provoking arguments against our current government.

Downtownat10 · 06-29-2003, 02:05 PM

This is the main view of the Republican Party. If you look at the platforms of almost all the Demo hopefuls, they will mention something about "Civil Unions," of which Dean has the most outspoked view of all. If you then go to the GOPs website, and look through their so-called "important information" about all of the democrats trying for nomination, they point out which candidates support Civil Unions. You can find the information on Dean here:
http://www.gop.com/Newsroom/RNCResea...arch011003.htm

As far as the sodomy law is concerned, I'm not gay, but one of my ex-girlfriends was a fan of "getting the dirty," and I was happy to oblige her, regardless of the legality of it. Bear in mind that the law was not intended to prevent gay sex initially, that is just how it began to be applied when people like Frist became terribly afraid of the Pink Mafia.

seretogis · 06-29-2003, 04:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by phredgreen
i'm not even gay and this law concerns me. i just think our government has completely thrown the separation between church and state completely to the wind and is legislating anything they think might be "immoral" or releigiously (not socially) "indecent" to make thsi world a safer place for their god. this really worries me. it's getting out of hand. refer this website for more throught provoking arguments against our current government.

I think you're off a bit on this one. "Separation of church and state" is intended to prevent the establishment of a national religion, not to deny legislatures from belonging to a religion and have said religion affect their policy.

Taken from the Republican platform: (LINK)

Quote:

Our country was founded in faith and upon the truth that self-government is rooted in religious conviction. While the Constitution guards against the establishment of state-sponsored religion, it also honors the free exercise of religion. We believe the federal courts must respect this freedom and the original intent of the Framers. We assert the right of religious leaders to speak out on public issues and will not allow the EEOC or any other arm of government to regulate or ban religious symbols from the workplace. We condemn the desecration of places of worship and objects of religious devotion, and call upon the media to reconsider their role in fostering bias through negative stereotyping of religious citizens. We support the First Amendment right of freedom of association and stand united with private organizations, such as the Boy Scouts of America, and support their positions.

Even though their beliefs in this regard are not what I would find acceptable, their attempts to stand up to the "free-love" movement is commendable. However, I think that their thinking is off a bit, and that they should promote marriage (regardless of sexual preference), rather than restrict it. Marriage represents (or used to, at least, I'm a bit old-fashioned) a committment between two people which is beneficial to public health and local communities.

The_Dude · 06-29-2003, 04:28 PM

it's not like the GOP is trying to represent all religions. they're only gonna represent christianity. check out my sig quote to see an example of that.

i skimmed thru the GOP site and most of the things they criticize about dean are good things in my mind.

anyway, this is one of the reasons why i dislike the GOP. most of their social policies have some ties to religion. somehow it all goes back to god.

sixate · 06-29-2003, 04:51 PM

It's not the damn governments business who gets married. Shit, if you want to marry a fucking dog go right ahead and do it. I don't care. I won't agree with it, but that doesn't mean that people shouldn't be allowed to do it.

Stupid ass comments like the ones this moron of a senator shit out of his mouth is exactly why I'll never believe in any religion or believe in any god. Religion should not decide your politics.

Downtownat10 · 06-29-2003, 06:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by The_Dude

i skimmed thru the GOP site and most of the things they criticize about dean are good things in my mind.

Yeah, strangely enough, I got more good information on candidates from that site than from anything else. I was looking through the list of negative points for everyone, thinking, "Hmm, that's good, I support that too!" I found it odd at first that the GOP's negative points were rather showing me which Dem to support.

Yes, the majority of issues that the GOP feels strongly about have exact correlations with religion. The irony, though, is that the Democrats have been known to be more "caring" to other people, which is a constant trend in the Bible.

The_Dude · 06-29-2003, 06:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Downtownat10
The irony, though, is that the Democrats have been known to be more "caring" to other people, which is a constant trend in the Bible.

well, a lot of other sources also preach caring

Downtownat10 · 06-29-2003, 06:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by The_Dude
well, a lot of other sources also preach caring

Oh, I know, I am just saying that you would expect the Republicans to follow it more, and be more understanding to "different" people, in many ways.

Mojo_PeiPei · 06-29-2003, 10:40 PM

I am not for gay marriages. However there is no reason that a consenting gay couple should not be allowed to get married. Here is the thing though, religions do not have to endorse it or marry them, the couples could be married at a justice of the peace. I would however have a problem, not so much if, but when the said gay couples go after the church(s) for discrimination.

papermachesatan · 06-29-2003, 11:22 PM

as a result of being denied the right to a civil union, homosexual couples are denied:

-Denial of hospital rights to partner.
-Adoption, Custody, Immigration, Social Security, and Property Transfer rights are denied to partner.

A financial look at the extra costs a gay couple suffers from:
MONEY LOST FOR GAY COUPLES:

Health insurance:
Heterosexual Worker: Spouse gets employer-provided group health coverage worth about
Gay or Lesbian Worker: Nothing
value of benefit: $250/month.

Dental insurance
Heterosexual Worker: Spouse gets coverage
Gay or Lesbian Worker: Nothing
value of benefit: $42.27/month

Vision
Heterosexual Worker: Spouse gets eyeglasses and contacts under vision plan
Gay or Lesbian Worker: Nothing
value of benefit: $6.34/month

Life insurance
Heterosexual Worker: The employer provides a $5,000 life insurance plan
Gay or Lesbian Worker: Partner gets benefit only if he is named as beneficiary.
value of benefit: $5000

Bereavement leave
Heterosexual Worker: Up to three days paid time off for death of a spouse or a member of spouse’s family
Gay or Lesbian Worker: No time off is guaranteed for the.
value of benefit: $480 yr

Pension
Heterosexual Worker: If employee dies before retirement, spouse automatically gets $800/month pension plus two

week's pay for each year employee worked
Gay or Lesbian Worker: Partner would get the severance pay, but not the pension
value of benefit: $800/month.

Social Security
Heterosexual Worker: if employee died, a spouse upon reaching age 60 could receive benefit
Gay or Lesbian Worker: partner is ineligible
value of benefit: $492 month

Club memberships
Heterosexual Worker: Example: A tennis club where married couples pay $2,500 initiation and $101/month.
Gay or Lesbian Worker: Two unmarried people each pay $2,000 and $91/month, nearly double the family

membership.
value of benefit: $1,500 initiation / $71 month

Auto Club Road Service
Heterosexual Worker: Married couples pay $55/year
Gay or Lesbian Worker: Two unmarried people each pay $44.
value of benefit: $33 month

Total amount extra cost for gay worker:
$55,890 less for the gay worker -
nearly $6,000 less each year!

Moreover, if the gay worker outlived their partner by ten years, they could lose $8,000 in pension payments, and

would never get $4,920 of their partner's Social Security benefits.

source: San Franisco newspaper

yatzr · 06-30-2003, 01:10 AM

Quote:

"And I'm thinking of, whether it's prostitution or illegal commercial drug activity in the home, and to have the courts come in, in this zone of privacy, and begin to define it gives me some concern," Frist said.

wtf??? did this line make sense to anybody? I think i know what he's trying to say, but to me it sounds like he's contradicting himself maybe? Maybe i'm just really starting to lose my reading skills.

Mojo_PeiPei · 06-30-2003, 02:13 PM

It makes plenty of sense. The idea behind legalizing sodomy was that "hey its done in private between consenting people, its ok...". So therefore I, as a consenting adult, could fuck a prostitute while shooting heroin in the privacy of my house, because hey its in private.

The_Dude · 06-30-2003, 02:57 PM

look @ it this way.

if a straight guy is smokin heroin and fuckin a prostitute, he gets busted.

a gay guy does that, he gets busted too.

both get same punishment.

but it's not the same for sexual intercourse

geep · 06-30-2003, 03:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by yatzr
wtf??? did this line make sense to anybody? I think i know what he's trying to say, but to me it sounds like he's contradicting himself maybe? Maybe i'm just really starting to lose my reading skills.

The problem with this Supreme Court edict is that it's based on a right to privacy which is noticeably undefined in the Constitution. Nowhere in the constitution is it mentioned, specifically. The closest mention it gets is in Amendment X:

Quote:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

This Supreme Court has effectively disregarded this Amendment by taking away a right from the states. By making a false assumption that the states do not have a right to enforce the lawful acts of their legislatures in the home of an individual and within the realm of the powers expressly given to it (or denied it) by the Constitution, the Court is reduced to a role of "judicial activism", not "Defender of the Constitution".

papermachesatan · 06-30-2003, 06:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by The_Dude
look @ it this way.

if a straight guy is smokin heroin and fuckin a prostitute, he gets busted.

a gay guy does that, he gets busted too.

both get same punishment.

but it's not the same for sexual intercourse

All three of the examples should be legal in my opinion.

papermachesatan · 06-30-2003, 06:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by geep
The problem with this Supreme Court edict is that it's based on a right to privacy which is noticeably undefined in the Constitution. Nowhere in the constitution is it mentioned, specifically. The closest mention it gets is in Amendment X:

This Supreme Court has effectively disregarded this Amendment by taking away a right from the states. By making a false assumption that the states do not have a right to enforce the lawful acts of their legislatures in the home of an individual and within the realm of the powers expressly given to it (or denied it) by the Constitution, the Court is reduced to a role of "judicial activism", not "Defender of the Constitution".

I'm, in all honesty, glad that the Courts have chosen to respect privacy, constituationally based or not.

lurkette · 06-30-2003, 06:38 PM

I think where it comes to marriage, politicians who support these "defense of marriage" acts are caught in the worst hipocrisy. They claim that recognizing gay marriage would "threaten the institution of marriage," but I just don't see it. If you're defining marriage religiously, then you've got a church v. State issue - the State is only recognizing religiously defined guidelines for marriage. If you define marriage simply as a union recognized by the State (for example, a heterosexual couple married by a j of the p) then the State has basically said that relgious definition of marriage is not necessary for the State to recognize and honor it. Why should we not, then, extend the same legal privileges to homosexual couples? If it's religous marriage they're talking about (as opposed to civil unions) that's a religous issue up to the congregations. But I can't see any reason why denying civil marriage/civil unions to a certain class of people is seen as an attack against marriage. It's only an attack against a particularly narrow-minded conception of religiously-defined "family values."

The_Dude · 06-30-2003, 06:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by geep
The problem with this Supreme Court edict is that it's based on a right to privacy which is noticeably undefined in the Constitution. Nowhere in the constitution is it mentioned, specifically. The closest mention it gets is in Amendment X:

i have to disagree on that.

the closest thing would be the ninth. which says just cuz a liberty is not mentioned in constitution/bill of rights, it doesnt mean that it doesnt exist.

so, guarenteed liberties could exist, but it doesnt necessarily have to be stated.

fnaqzna · 06-30-2003, 09:44 PM

Great... another senator pushing yet another Constitutional Amendment that doesn't stand a chance of being approved. These people need to get out of office or find better use for their time (and tax dollars).

Mojo_PeiPei · 06-30-2003, 10:07 PM

Somebody has to stand up for morals in this country, more power to him.

seretogis · 06-30-2003, 10:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mojo_PeiPei
Somebody has to stand up for morals in this country, more power to him.

Indeed, too many people are wishy-washy when it comes to any topic that they may lose votes by declaring their views on. However, I think that with a 50% divorce rate in this country, marriage couldn't be farther from a "respectable institution" that would be soiled by the nasty nasty dirty fags simply because they want recognition for a form of committment to their partner. Pretending that marriage is some holy unity of two virgins 'til death do they part, is nothing but ignorance on your part (not you specifically).

The state -- the government -- should never need to rely on a definition of marriage as a union between a femael and a male. There should be no reason at all for their involvement in what is a union between two people -- between two families. As for insurance purposes, there are many companies which offer "partner-benefits" which essentially recognize a homosexual couple as married. If your insurance company does not offer this, switch. If you want the extra $76 back in taxes because you married a Wiccan of the same sex in a nude outdoor ceremony (for example

), lobby for a flat no-fringe income tax with no marital penalty/benefit.

Think of the government as basically being a rule-book. Instead of having 349,583,458 rules regarding marriage which deal with every possible combination of ethnicity, race, gender, sexual orientation, number of limbs, apple/pc preference, etc. simply remove the "rules" which are that specifically targeted. In the end, you will have a much smaller, much more effective, rule-book.

geep · 07-01-2003, 06:08 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by The_Dude
i have to disagree on that.

the closest thing would be the ninth. which says just cuz a liberty is not mentioned in constitution/bill of rights, it doesnt mean that it doesnt exist.

so, guarenteed liberties could exist, but it doesnt necessarily have to be stated.

Put them together and it still gives the Supreme Court nothing. If the rights exist, and we all agree there is a right to privacy, and it is addressed by the IX Amendment, then the X Amendment removes the United States government from any obligation to enforce that right, leaving that activity to the states or to the people (read majority). While many (myself included) do not believe the government has any business in certain private affairs, the Constitution does not prohibit the states from regulating these affairs. The proscribed remedy for this intrusion, as outlined in X, would be removal of any laws restricting or violating these rights by the state or people of the state in which the violations take place.

Macheath · 07-01-2003, 07:06 AM

So this'll get through when...before or after Dan Quayle's flag burning amendment?

Pure cheap, pointless political stunt.

The_Dude · 07-01-2003, 08:01 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by geep
Put them together and it still gives the Supreme Court nothing. If the rights exist, and we all agree there is a right to privacy, and it is addressed by the IX Amendment, then the X Amendment removes the United States government from any obligation to enforce that right, leaving that activity to the states or to the people (read majority). While many (myself included) do not believe the government has any business in certain private affairs, the Constitution does not prohibit the states from regulating these affairs. The proscribed remedy for this intrusion, as outlined in X, would be removal of any laws restricting or violating these rights by the state or people of the state in which the violations take place.

that right to privacy could be incorporated to the state governments (thru the 14th). i dont know if it's been incorporated yet, but if it has, states would have to respect the right also.

geep · 07-01-2003, 08:32 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by The_Dude
that right to privacy could be incorporated to the state governments (thru the 14th). i dont know if it's been incorporated yet, but if it has, states would have to respect the right also.

I agree that the states have to protect those rights . Most states have constitutions of their own that do address rights in much greater detail than does the US constitution (although I'm not sure any address "Privacy" individually). If a law is enacted that encroaches on the rights of citizens that are NOT outlined in any of these documents, then it is up to the citizens of that particular state to decide if the states regulation of that right is something they want or not. It is NOT up to the judicial system to decide. Article III Section 2 outlines the duties of the US judiciary branch. It offers no protection to the citizens of a particular state and their own state government, except in relation to cases specifically contained in the US Constitution.

The_Dude · 07-01-2003, 08:35 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by geep
I agree that the states have to protect those rights . Most states have constitutions of their own that do address rights in much greater detail than does the US constitution (although I'm not sure any address "Privacy" individually). If a law is enacted that encroaches on the rights of citizens that are NOT outlined in any of these documents, then it is up to the citizens of that particular state to decide if the states regulation of that right is something they want or not. It is NOT up to the judicial system to decide. Article III Section 2 outlines the duties of the US judiciary branch. It offers no protection to the citizens of a particular state and their own state government, except in relation to cases specifically contained in the US Constitution.

well, the constitution does state that federal law is supreme than state law.
a precedent in a supreme court case has similiar effects to a law.

geep · 07-01-2003, 09:39 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by The_Dude
well, the constitution does state that federal law is supreme than state law.
a precedent in a supreme court case has similiar effects to a law.

You're right, but there is no law in the US banning states from infringing on the right to privacy. Maybe there should be. Or, better yet, there could be an amendment to the Constitution defining privacy as a right.

The_Dude · 07-01-2003, 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by geep
You're right, but there is no law in the US banning states from infringing on the right to privacy. Maybe there should be. Or, better yet, there could be an amendment to the Constitution defining privacy as a right.

again, according to the supreme court, the right to privacy is IN the 9th.

geep · 07-01-2003, 12:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by The_Dude
again, according to the supreme court, the right to privacy is IN the 9th.

Quote:

Amendment IX: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The Constitution says they are retained by the people.

papermachesatan · 07-01-2003, 01:35 PM

just to throw a few quotes from the supreme court into the discussion:

Quote:

In Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), Justice Douglas wrote:

"...that specific guareanttess in the Bill of rights have penumbras formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance... Various guarantees create zones of privacy. The right of association contained in the penumbra of the First Amendment is one... The Third Amendment in its prohibition agaisnt quartering of soldiers "in any house" in the time of peace without the consent of the owner is another face of privacy. The Fourth Amendment explicitly affirms the "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects agaisnt unreasonable seraches and seizures." The Fifth Amendment in it it's self Incrimination Clause enables the citizen to create a zone of privacy which the government may not force him to surrender to hit detriment. The Ninth Amendment provides: "The enumeration in the constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disprage others retianed by the people."

Quote:

From page 124, Civil Rights and Liberties- Provactive Questions and Evolving Answers by Harold J. Sullivan:
"While the First and Fifth Amendments protect us from exposing our private thoughts, when those thoughts could subject us to harm, the Third and Fourth Amendments provide protection for our homes and personal papers. They, in effect, codify the notion that "your home is your castle." FInally, the liberty protected by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments has been interpreted at times as protecting us from government instrustion into our "private affairs"."

Quote:

Justice Blackmun, Bowers v. Hardwick(1986):
"This case is no more about 'a fundamental right to engage in homosexual sodomy', as the Court puprorts to declare, than Stanley v Georgia was about a fundamental right to watch obscene movies, or Katz v. United States, was about a fundamental right to palce interstate bets from a telephone booth(1967). Rather, this case is about "the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men, namely, the right to be left alone'".Olmstead v. United States(1928)

Quote:

Justice Stevens, Bowers v. Hardwick(1986):
Our prior cases make two propositions abundantly clear. First, the fact that the governing majority in a state that has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a suffficent reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice; niether history nor tradition could save a law prohibiting miscegenation(interracial marriage) from constitutional attack. Second, individual decisions by married persons, concering the intimacies of their phyiscal relationship, even when not intended to prodcue off-spring, are a form of "liberty" protected by the due processs clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

fnaqzna · 07-01-2003, 03:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mojo_PeiPei
Somebody has to stand up for morals in this country, more power to him.

Your morals are your own. Quit worrying about everyone else's.

james t kirk · 07-01-2003, 06:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Macheath
Pure cheap, pointless political stunt.

Exactly.

Any publicity is better than no publicity if you are a politician.

Nyenrodian · 07-01-2003, 07:12 PM

Why would anybody be against gay marriages anyway? So what if you don't like Gay people. They're still people and should have ALL the rights you and I have. Gay people aren't different from any of us. Why deny the right of marriage? It just doesn't make any sense to me at all.

Just as that law against sodomy. As i read in the article:

Quote:

Frist said he feared that the ruling on the Texas sodomy law could lead to a situation "where criminal activity within the home would in some way be condoned."

Why would anyone WANT a law against sodomy? How can it be a criminal activity?

What do you mean: "land of the Free"? Don't make me laugh.

RaGe2012 · 07-01-2003, 10:32 PM

In my opinion, Bill Frist is just another hateful, biased jerk who's in our ruling party. If people like him stopped wasting time trying to take away people's civil rights, maybe something else more worthwile could be discussed in our legislative branch.

Most of these Republicans are wierdo bible-thumpers anyway who would rather bring us back to the dark ages when the church ruled everything then step ahead in the name of progress and let equality and freedom rule the day. This is another example of the party's history of contradiction. Bush mentions God in damn near every one of his speeches and then lets the government crack down on religion the first chance he gets. Now it appears he's trying to do the same in people's bedrooms. I really don't care if two men or two women want to have sex, let alone get married. More power to them. Love isn't limited to gender.

It's a perfect example of why civil rights in this country has become such a joke, because we let haters like Frist into power.

cronopio · 07-04-2003, 10:51 AM

I think banning gay marriages is an attempt to turn the clock back to some golden age when daddy went to work and mommy stayed at home to take care of the kids. Some mythical time when everything was simple.

Gay marriages would allow a more expanded view of what constitutes family. That two people, any two people, want to make a commitment to each other should be celebrated and supported. It is hard enough to date anybody for any length of time, imagine wanting to spend the rest of you life with somebody.

I don't think the gender of the people should be any concern of the government.

I'm not sure what allowing gay people to marry is supposed to do with the institution of marriage. I guess it is supposed to make it less a noble institution. These were the same sorts of arguments that people had against divorce laws. "It won't be so special if you can just end it." Ridiculous. Marriage is still special. People still get married.

I'm pretty cynical about marriage, but if people want to get married, whoever they are, the more power to them.

Mojo_PeiPei · 07-04-2003, 12:56 PM

Like it or not this country was founded on Judeo-Christian morals and beliefs. The more and more we stray from this foundation, the foundation that made our nation the greatest there ever was, the more problems we will have. Some change is good, too much change, too fast, is bad and society can't handle it.

papermachesatan · 07-04-2003, 01:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mojo_PeiPei
Like it or not this country was founded on Judeo-Christian morals and beliefs.

And what would those be?

james t kirk · 07-04-2003, 05:00 PM

By and by, i was at a party the other night which was attended by a lot of gay guys and the issue of marriage came up.

One guy has been engaged to his boyfriend for 2 years and put it quite well when he said, "why shouldn't we have the same rights as anyone else?"

Good point.

He also said that there are those in the gay community who oppose being able to get married and don't like the recent changes in Ontario. The reason is that they feel like marriage is a straight institution that they want no part of.

I think it's because they enjoy belonging to a counter culture of sorts. There is a feeling of community within the gay area of toronto that they fear loosing if they become more and more mainstream.

My personal opinion is let anyone get married who wants to get married. I could care less and I hardly see it as a threat to civilization.

Can't wait for the first gay divorce though, that should be interesting. I am sure the divorce lawyers in Toronto love this new source of business.

papermachesatan · 07-04-2003, 06:21 PM

Vermont legalised Civil Unions and there has been divorce lawsuits, etc. in various states. Over 75% of all Civil Unions done in Vermont are for out-of-staters.

06-29-2003, 02:05 PM	#2 (permalink)
Downtownat10 Crazy Location: A Fortified Compound, East Coast	This is the main view of the Republican Party. If you look at the platforms of almost all the Demo hopefuls, they will mention something about "Civil Unions," of which Dean has the most outspoked view of all. If you then go to the GOPs website, and look through their so-called "important information" about all of the democrats trying for nomination, they point out which candidates support Civil Unions. You can find the information on Dean here: http://www.gop.com/Newsroom/RNCResea...arch011003.htm As far as the sodomy law is concerned, I'm not gay, but one of my ex-girlfriends was a fan of "getting the dirty," and I was happy to oblige her, regardless of the legality of it. Bear in mind that the law was not intended to prevent gay sex initially, that is just how it began to be applied when people like Frist became terribly afraid of the Pink Mafia. __________________ Heh. Oops. Sorry about that one...

06-29-2003, 04:28 PM	#4 (permalink)
The_Dude The GrandDaddy of them all! Location: Austin, TX	it's not like the GOP is trying to represent all religions. they're only gonna represent christianity. check out my sig quote to see an example of that. i skimmed thru the GOP site and most of the things they criticize about dean are good things in my mind. anyway, this is one of the reasons why i dislike the GOP. most of their social policies have some ties to religion. somehow it all goes back to god. __________________ "Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal

06-29-2003, 10:40 PM	#9 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	I am not for gay marriages. However there is no reason that a consenting gay couple should not be allowed to get married. Here is the thing though, religions do not have to endorse it or marry them, the couples could be married at a justice of the peace. I would however have a problem, not so much if, but when the said gay couples go after the church(s) for discrimination. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

06-30-2003, 02:13 PM	#12 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	It makes plenty of sense. The idea behind legalizing sodomy was that "hey its done in private between consenting people, its ok...". So therefore I, as a consenting adult, could fuck a prostitute while shooting heroin in the privacy of my house, because hey its in private. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

06-30-2003, 02:57 PM	#13 (permalink)
The_Dude The GrandDaddy of them all! Location: Austin, TX	look @ it this way. if a straight guy is smokin heroin and fuckin a prostitute, he gets busted. a gay guy does that, he gets busted too. both get same punishment. but it's not the same for sexual intercourse __________________ "Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal

06-29-2003, 04:51 PM	#5 (permalink)
sixate Registered User Location: Somewhere in Ohio	It's not the damn governments business who gets married. Shit, if you want to marry a fucking dog go right ahead and do it. I don't care. I won't agree with it, but that doesn't mean that people shouldn't be allowed to do it. Stupid ass comments like the ones this moron of a senator shit out of his mouth is exactly why I'll never believe in any religion or believe in any god. Religion should not decide your politics.

06-29-2003, 11:22 PM	#10 (permalink)
papermachesatan Psycho Location: Texas	as a result of being denied the right to a civil union, homosexual couples are denied: -Denial of hospital rights to partner. -Adoption, Custody, Immigration, Social Security, and Property Transfer rights are denied to partner. A financial look at the extra costs a gay couple suffers from: MONEY LOST FOR GAY COUPLES: Health insurance: Heterosexual Worker: Spouse gets employer-provided group health coverage worth about Gay or Lesbian Worker: Nothing value of benefit: $250/month. Dental insurance Heterosexual Worker: Spouse gets coverage Gay or Lesbian Worker: Nothing value of benefit: $42.27/month Vision Heterosexual Worker: Spouse gets eyeglasses and contacts under vision plan Gay or Lesbian Worker: Nothing value of benefit: $6.34/month Life insurance Heterosexual Worker: The employer provides a $5,000 life insurance plan Gay or Lesbian Worker: Partner gets benefit only if he is named as beneficiary. value of benefit: $5000 Bereavement leave Heterosexual Worker: Up to three days paid time off for death of a spouse or a member of spouse’s family Gay or Lesbian Worker: No time off is guaranteed for the. value of benefit: $480 yr Pension Heterosexual Worker: If employee dies before retirement, spouse automatically gets $800/month pension plus two week's pay for each year employee worked Gay or Lesbian Worker: Partner would get the severance pay, but not the pension value of benefit: $800/month. Social Security Heterosexual Worker: if employee died, a spouse upon reaching age 60 could receive benefit Gay or Lesbian Worker: partner is ineligible value of benefit: $492 month Club memberships Heterosexual Worker: Example: A tennis club where married couples pay $2,500 initiation and $101/month. Gay or Lesbian Worker: Two unmarried people each pay $2,000 and $91/month, nearly double the family membership. value of benefit: $1,500 initiation / $71 month Auto Club Road Service Heterosexual Worker: Married couples pay $55/year Gay or Lesbian Worker: Two unmarried people each pay $44. value of benefit: $33 month Total amount extra cost for gay worker: $55,890 less for the gay worker - nearly $6,000 less each year! Moreover, if the gay worker outlived their partner by ten years, they could lose $8,000 in pension payments, and would never get $4,920 of their partner's Social Security benefits. source: San Franisco newspaper

06-30-2003, 06:38 PM	#17 (permalink)
lurkette My future is coming on Moderator Emeritus Location: east of the sun and west of the moon	I think where it comes to marriage, politicians who support these "defense of marriage" acts are caught in the worst hipocrisy. They claim that recognizing gay marriage would "threaten the institution of marriage," but I just don't see it. If you're defining marriage religiously, then you've got a church v. State issue - the State is only recognizing religiously defined guidelines for marriage. If you define marriage simply as a union recognized by the State (for example, a heterosexual couple married by a j of the p) then the State has basically said that relgious definition of marriage is not necessary for the State to recognize and honor it. Why should we not, then, extend the same legal privileges to homosexual couples? If it's religous marriage they're talking about (as opposed to civil unions) that's a religous issue up to the congregations. But I can't see any reason why denying civil marriage/civil unions to a certain class of people is seen as an attack against marriage. It's only an attack against a particularly narrow-minded conception of religiously-defined "family values." __________________ "If ten million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing." - Anatole France

06-30-2003, 09:44 PM	#19 (permalink)
fnaqzna Meat Popsicle Location: Left Coast	Great... another senator pushing yet another Constitutional Amendment that doesn't stand a chance of being approved. These people need to get out of office or find better use for their time (and tax dollars).

06-30-2003, 10:07 PM	#20 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	Somebody has to stand up for morals in this country, more power to him. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

07-01-2003, 07:06 AM	#23 (permalink)
Macheath Junkie Location: Sydney, Australia	So this'll get through when...before or after Dan Quayle's flag burning amendment? Pure cheap, pointless political stunt.

07-01-2003, 10:32 PM	#34 (permalink)
RaGe2012 Upright Location: New Jersey	In my opinion, Bill Frist is just another hateful, biased jerk who's in our ruling party. If people like him stopped wasting time trying to take away people's civil rights, maybe something else more worthwile could be discussed in our legislative branch. Most of these Republicans are wierdo bible-thumpers anyway who would rather bring us back to the dark ages when the church ruled everything then step ahead in the name of progress and let equality and freedom rule the day. This is another example of the party's history of contradiction. Bush mentions God in damn near every one of his speeches and then lets the government crack down on religion the first chance he gets. Now it appears he's trying to do the same in people's bedrooms. I really don't care if two men or two women want to have sex, let alone get married. More power to them. Love isn't limited to gender. It's a perfect example of why civil rights in this country has become such a joke, because we let haters like Frist into power. __________________ "Yesterday we bowed our heads to kings and bent our necks to emperors. But today we kneel only to truth..." - Kahlil Gibran

07-04-2003, 10:51 AM	#35 (permalink)
cronopio oulipian Location: La Paz, Bolivia	I think banning gay marriages is an attempt to turn the clock back to some golden age when daddy went to work and mommy stayed at home to take care of the kids. Some mythical time when everything was simple. Gay marriages would allow a more expanded view of what constitutes family. That two people, any two people, want to make a commitment to each other should be celebrated and supported. It is hard enough to date anybody for any length of time, imagine wanting to spend the rest of you life with somebody. I don't think the gender of the people should be any concern of the government. I'm not sure what allowing gay people to marry is supposed to do with the institution of marriage. I guess it is supposed to make it less a noble institution. These were the same sorts of arguments that people had against divorce laws. "It won't be so special if you can just end it." Ridiculous. Marriage is still special. People still get married. I'm pretty cynical about marriage, but if people want to get married, whoever they are, the more power to them. __________________ Tu causes, tu causes, c'est tout ce que tu sais faire. -- Zazie dans le metro

07-04-2003, 12:56 PM	#36 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	Like it or not this country was founded on Judeo-Christian morals and beliefs. The more and more we stray from this foundation, the foundation that made our nation the greatest there ever was, the more problems we will have. Some change is good, too much change, too fast, is bad and society can't handle it. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

07-04-2003, 05:00 PM	#38 (permalink)
james t kirk Junkie Location: Toronto	By and by, i was at a party the other night which was attended by a lot of gay guys and the issue of marriage came up. One guy has been engaged to his boyfriend for 2 years and put it quite well when he said, "why shouldn't we have the same rights as anyone else?" Good point. He also said that there are those in the gay community who oppose being able to get married and don't like the recent changes in Ontario. The reason is that they feel like marriage is a straight institution that they want no part of. I think it's because they enjoy belonging to a counter culture of sorts. There is a feeling of community within the gay area of toronto that they fear loosing if they become more and more mainstream. My personal opinion is let anyone get married who wants to get married. I could care less and I hardly see it as a threat to civilization. Can't wait for the first gay divorce though, that should be interesting. I am sure the divorce lawyers in Toronto love this new source of business.

07-04-2003, 06:21 PM	#39 (permalink)
papermachesatan Psycho Location: Texas	Vermont legalised Civil Unions and there has been divorce lawsuits, etc. in various states. Over 75% of all Civil Unions done in Vermont are for out-of-staters.