The merged Gay Marriage thread

[Superbelt]

I thought the whole purpose of gay marriage was so that these couples now have the drive to approach random people on the street and sandwich hump them.
What do you have to say to that lurkette? Huh? Tell me how that DOESN'T impose a way of living on me.

That and all the good wedding rings will be sold out when my fiancee and I go to pick them out next month.
I'll have to settle for a cheap silver ring with dolphins etched into the band.

Same thing with the uppity negroes. Now I have to share the same water fountain as them. (ew, gross!) I don't get the good seat on the bus anymore. They want to actually COACH our football teams and I'm sick and tired of them getting the last piece of Boston Creme pie at the diner!

[Bill O'Rights]

Originally posted by Xell101
My view can be summed up easily, who are they to impose a way of living upon me?

Color me naive, but how does gay marriage affect you, in the least little bit? No one is imposing a damn thing. All these people want, are the same rights and dignities that you and I enjoy. Is that asking so much?

[brianna]

Originally posted by gorilla
Marriage is a religious matter, and religion prohibits homosexuality. So, needless of what the government says finding someone to marry two homosexuals is going to be hard.

There are tons of options for finding someone to marry you... outside of the church (and there are actually a good number of churches that will happily marry two people reguardless of sexual orientation) you've got the obvious justice of the peace, the las vegas wedding or having a friend officiate -- you don't need to be married by a religious figure for the government to recognize your union.

[Superbelt]

The Episcopal church is on track to start marrying homosexuals as well, having not too long ago confirmed an openly gay man as a bishop.

[Xell101]

Originally posted by Bill O'Rights
Color me naive, but how does gay marriage affect you, in the least little bit? No one is imposing a damn thing. All these people want, are the same rights and dignities that you and I enjoy. Is that asking so much?

Pardon the inadequate grammatical clarity on that one, assume I'm gay and, being pro-gay marriage rights and all, the sentence will make sense.

[HarmlessRabbit]

Just a quick picture to share. How can you look at this and see anything wrong with two people making a committment to each other?



More here:
http://ephemera.org/sets/?album=justlymarried&img=1

[JumpinJesus]

Just for all your information. Ohio just recently passed a Defense of Marriage Act. Governor Taft signed it.

Next month, the Ohio Legislature will pass legislation refusing to recognize sunrise and sunset.

[Paq]

maybe i am a secularist that is out to destroy all american values and morals and everything decent...sorry, from oreilly and his war in america...Ok, i'm not, i still have a strong sense of what's right and wrong, and that doesn't strike me as "Wrong"



but i see that pic and all i see are 2 happy people, why deny them that.

[Superbelt]

http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGAL2SQMWQD.html

New Mexico is marrying gay couples now as well.
That's Two states. Good start.

This time though, New Mexico has no clear laws on the definition of marriage. There it is "two consenting parties"

[mrbuck12000]

Why is it so hard for this country to be open to anything? We say this society is based around a constitution that was written a few hundred years ago, when it is really based around a black book that was written 1000s of years ago.

I DON"T GET IT!!!!

mr b

[Strange Famous]

I am ashamed that this isnt even a debate in the UK, the church will bless gay couples, but the state wont let them marry... which is direct defiance of the European Union constitution on human rights.

Proof, again, that despite the myth of America as a right wing country, it is actually a very radical country.

Gay marriage should be allowed and no one else has the right to say it shouldnt, I may be biased, since my mum is gay - and I see no reason why her relationship with her girlfriend should be devalued or treated as less serious by the state.

[brianna]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...22/SAMESEX.TMP

The California attorney general is refusing to follow ahhhhnolds orders that he do something about san francisco. he's my new hero.

[irateplatypus]

the double standards, straw-men, and appeals to emotion are beginning to crowd me.

[Paq]

heh, i do find it hilarious the ahhnold was able to dodge out of the problem by dumping it on a potential candidate...so now he can say, "I ordered the attorney general to act and he didn't" and that makes his position that much stronger and his competition's that much weaker...
hilarious..if it wasn't so freaking scary..

seriously, i'm beginning to see this whole issue as a wag the dog scenario....

[filtherton]

Originally posted by irateplatypus
the double standards, straw-men, and appeals to emotion are beginning to crowd me.

I don't get it, are you for or against gay marriage?

[Superbelt]

I find it ironic and disrespectful for Bush to call for a constitutional amendment to Gay marriage from the Roosevelt Room today.

Roosevelt was the first progressive president, he fought successfully against xenophobia and bigotry.

The man was a catalyst for progress.
Roosevelt would not be pleased.


I find using Roosevelt makes this action even more despicable. And he appears pathetic, and infantile with such a strong, good figure pictured behind him.

[Mojo_PeiPei]

Bush is right to call for an amendment banning homosexual marriage. He is not trying to take/keep rights from gays, he is trying to protect one of our most oldest, sacred, and fundamental traditions. All he is doing is asking for MARRIAGE to be defined as between man and woman. He is leaving it up for the states to vote on civil unions and legal arrangements granting homosexuals the rights they seek.

But Bush also said state legislatures should be left to define "legal arrangements other than marriage," suggesting that such an amendment would do nothing to stop states from allowing civil unions for same-sex couples.

"Our government should respect every person and protect the institution of marriage," he said. "There is not a contradiction between these responsibilities."

[Superbelt]

WRONG! He is not leaving it up to states to determing civil unions. The anti-gay ammendment is designed to not only define marriage as between a man and a woman but to also deny all benefits that go along with marriage to civil unions. So a state can give a civil union to a gay couple but they will gain no rights from it. Instead it could usher in an era of discrimination where it will now be legal for.. say... landlords to evict a gay couple.

[Mojo_PeiPei]

Got documentation to back that claim up?

[Superbelt]

http://balkin.blogspot.com/2003_11_1...Law Professor?

Jack Balkin

I've been thinking about the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA), whose text is available at the website of the Alliance for Marriage. The proposed text of the amendment reads:

The Alliance for Marriage argues on their website that this language is designed to keep courts from imposing same sex marriage on the states, and to keep legislatures from passing laws authorizing same-sex marriage, but it does not prohibit state legislatures from passing laws creating civil unions for same-sex couples.


I'm not so sure. The text is cleverly and confusingly written: The amendment says that no "state or federal law shall be construed to require" that "the legal incidents of" marriage may be enjoyed by same-sex couples. These legal incidents include a whole bundle of rights in family law, pension law, tort law, property law, and so on. What the text seems to say is that everyone who is sworn to uphold the law, including not only judges, but executive and administrative officials, would be prohibited from construing the law to give same sex couples this bundle of rights or any part of them. Since the law cannot be construed to do this, it cannot be enforced to this effect either. Private employers who give same sex couples benefits simlar to those of married couples would be able to do so, but they would not be permitted to construe any federal or state law as requiring them to do so, and no government official could enforce such an interpretation against private businesses. Thus, California's laws, which now give same sex couples many (but not all) of the same rights as married couples, and Vermont's civil unions law, which gives almost all of the same rights, would probably be made unenforceable by the Amendment's second sentence.

If the FMA had been designed to do what its proponents claim it will do, it should have been drafted as follows:

Thus, Congress and state legislatures may provide all of the incidents of marital status except marital status itself. As you can see, such an amendment is not particularly difficult to draft. The fact that there is a gap between what the text says and what the Alliance for Marriage says the text will do suggests to me that they are not being entirely forthcoming about the reasons for the Amendment.

[Kadath]

"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, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups."

This is so unconstitutional it hurts my heart. I have been wracking my brain trying to figure out why people want to do this. How does the union of two people affect your commitment to your own union? The Constitution should never be used to LIMIT rights.

[tecoyah]

Maybe we should protect all the older rights the constitution implies.....hell I could use a couple slaves. maybe I could get you for a good price.

[Superbelt]

I think, the only amendment that comes close to the type of action this is taking is the Prohibition Amendment. Which was followed closely, two amendments later, by the repeal of the Prohibition Amendment.

[Kadath]

Originally posted by tecoyah
Maybe we should protect all the older rights the constitution implies.....hell I could use a couple slaves. maybe I could get you for a good price.

I...what? Just...what? I think you need to follow up a little bit there, cowboy. The Constitution doesn't provide the right to own slaves. It just didn't allow the rights of all people equally, which is what I'm bitching about...what? Seriously, what?

[brianna]

I'm amazed that so many concervatives that supposedly support smaller government are so willing to invite the government into our bedrooms and personal relationships.

How would all of the pro-amendment folks feel aobut the government furhter legislating *your* marriage? what if we made it impossible to get a divorce without a 3 year waiting period? what if we passed a law that made marriage valid in the eye of the government only if you were married in a church?

[FaderMonkey]

Originally posted by Mojo_PeiPei
Bush is right to call for an amendment banning homosexual marriage. He is not trying to take/keep rights from gays, he is trying to protect one of our most oldest, sacred, and fundamental traditions. All he is doing is asking for MARRIAGE to be defined as between man and woman...

You say yourself that it is a "sacred" tradition, and if your religious beliefs are that marriages between same sex couples are wrong, then fine, but the government has no business in that issue. To ban gay marriage on a government level is discrimination.

[tecoyah]

I'm not sure ...but I think it was the state of georgia, that recently amended its constitution to allow for bi- racial marriage. I guess we give some rights, and take others away but discrimination is ugly no matter how it is worded.

By the way....the slave comments were a joke, and I find it hard to believe anyone would mistake that type of comment for anything else.

[Mojo_PeiPei]

Frankly I don't care, let Adam and Steve get married in the eyes of the law I'm all for that. But soon enough that won't be enough for them, pretty soon they'd be going after any church that wouldn't marry them. Ofcourse then the "progressive" 13th circuit quasi-liberal facsists would find in favor of the gays.

[Superbelt]

Are you incapable of making your argument without this?

Are you in this just to make people squirm?
If you are all for it, then be all for it. Don't assume other things will happen.
Churches are private institutions, as long as they do not accept federal funds they do not have to marry gay and lesbian couples. That is the law and that will stand in court. There is a mountain of prescedent for it. Gays and lesbians will be welcome in the majority of american churches, the fringes and the baptists can do whatever the hell they want. Once gay marriage becomes lawful and it starts happening widespread public perceptions will sway heavily in favor, pressure will be placed from the inside and the major, non-radical sects of christianity will bow or face a mass exodous to a tolerant religion that will.
This will all change on the "free market" No need for government regulations.

I don't think gays want to be baptist anyway.

[filtherton]

I don't think gays want to be baptist anyway.

Yeah, really. Which member of a gay marriage would be obliged to "gaciously submit" to the husband's leadership? Would they both submit?

It would just complicate things.

[Kadath]

Originally posted by tecoyah
By the way....the slave comments were a joke, and I find it hard to believe anyone would mistake that type of comment for anything else.

Something you'd do well to keep in mind is we're not in your head and can't hear the sarcastic tone of voice you apply to those words. Just throw in a winking smiley or something to make it clear; it may be hard for you to believe, but your assumption sure confused the hell out of me.

Originally posted by Mojo_PeiPei
Frankly I don't care, let Adam and Steve get married in the eyes of the law I'm all for that. But soon enough that won't be enough for them, pretty soon they'd be going after any church that wouldn't marry them. Ofcourse then the "progressive" 13th circuit quasi-liberal facsists would find in favor of the gays.

God damn pushy gays! Give them an inch and they'll take a yard! Soon they'll want to be in the same schools with white...er...straight children.

[Holo]

The gross misunderstanding of gays lies in the fact the media chooses to whip out the camera when they're dressed like fetish clowns or leather men, and mainly portray gays as deviant individuals. I think most gays are normal ppl. They want a house, car, marriage, even kids. Totally normal ppl and the same as all of society save one detail.

Allowing gay marriage can only be a god thing. Like it's been said in the thread already 50% of marriages end in divorce and most in the first 7 years. Marriage is in crisis and it's straightppl's fault since gays aren't allowed to be married. Straights fucked the institution all by themselves.

I bet gay marriages would end in divorce less, and that's what scares the Babble thumpers. Most gays I've met are very together ppl...they've had to overcome a lot of crap to be out and they end up being very well adjusted savvy ppl. Sure some do gloryholing and baths and shit, but they're only 10% of the population and straights aren't in the spotlight for promiscuity since that's "ok" so their behavior is largely not called on them. The gay ppl I've met are very careful on who they call a bf and who they commit to. I think they have to, knowing there isn't nearly as many gay fish in the sea to pick from.

As far as the Amendment is concerned, Amendments shouldn't be wasted on bullshit like this, and his lame attempt to bring xian beliefs into the Constitution should be grounds for impeachment. I really hope I die before this country becomes a Christian police state. Keep your Babble out of the lives of americans...many of us don't want it or need your twisted message of hate and intolerance in the name of Gawad.

[GuttersnipeXL]

There are times I am totally ashamed to live in this country and be represented by the likes of George Bush. What is all this freedom bullshit we've been hearing for the past four years? Is it exactly that? Bullshit?...The guy is an ultra-hypocrite on so many levels. "Hmm let's see here, freedom for you and you, oh and that guy over there...What? Those people? Nope, none for them".
If this talk about a new ammendment proposition doesn't get people off their asses come voting time, we are more screwed than I had thought.

I'll actually contribute something worthwhile to this thread, when my brain stops reeling from the past few days events.

[hannukah harry]

Originally posted by GuttersnipeXL
There are times I am totally ashamed to live in this country and be represented by the likes of George Bush. What is all this freedom bullshit we've been hearing for the past four years? Is it exactly that? Bullshit?...The guy is an ultra-hypocrite on so many levels. "Hmm let's see here, freedom for you and you, oh and that guy over there...What? Those people? Nope, none for them".
If this talk about a new ammendment proposition doesn't get people off their asses come voting time, we are more screwed than I had thought.

this is one of the main reasons i finally decided to stop being an apathetic youth and registered to vote.

[JumpinJesus]

Do we want a government that dictates to us the choices we are allowed to make in our lives? Is this what we envision when we think of that oft-used word, "freedom"?

I find it frightening that we are willing to deny these choices to a segment of our population because we are uncomfortable with the way they live.

Of all the caterwauling I hear from those deeply threatened by the thought of two men saying "I do" comes the most commonly used defense of denying marriage rights to homosexuals: We need to protect our traditional family values!

Will someone please define for me just exactly what these values are? I hear the words used quite often in conjunction with certain topics but have yet to grasp exactly what is meant by them.

[Arsenic7]

This may have been brought up already but it just occurred to me.

If you believe marriage is a solely religious event then the first amendment applies to it. Congress cannot make an amendment regarding it.

This is why Bush needs to explain his reasoning, or be forced to. If it is religious reasoning he has no right to make a law limiting marriage to heterosexuals (since some christian groups disagree with homophobia and bigotry.)

If it is not...well he just loses because there are no good non religious reasons.

[Sparhawk]

Wow, you know Bush fucked up when he's managed to turn the ultra-conservative (albeit gay) Andrew Sullivan into a Kerry voter:

WAR IS DECLARED: The president launched a war today against the civil rights of gay citizens and their families. And just as importantly, he launched a war to defile the most sacred document in the land. Rather than allow the contentious and difficult issue of equal marriage rights to be fought over in the states, rather than let politics and the law take their course, rather than keep the Constitution out of the culture wars, this president wants to drag the very founding document into his re-election campaign. He is proposing to remove civil rights from one group of American citizens - and do so in the Constitution itself. The message could not be plainer: these citizens do not fully belong in America. Their relationships must be stigmatized in the very Constitution itself. The document that should be uniting the country will now be used to divide it, to single out a group of people for discrimination itself, and to do so for narrow electoral purposes. Not since the horrifying legacy of Constitutional racial discrimination in this country has such a goal been even thought of, let alone pursued. Those of us who supported this president in 2000, who have backed him whole-heartedly during the war, who have endured scorn from our peers as a result, who trusted that this president was indeed a uniter rather than a divider, now know the truth.

NO MORE PROFOUND AN ATTACK: This president wants our families denied civil protection and civil acknowledgment. He wants us stigmatized not just by a law, not just by his inability even to call us by name, not by his minions on the religious right. He wants us stigmatized in the very founding document of America. There can be no more profound attack on a minority in the United States - or on the promise of freedom that America represents. That very tactic is so shocking in its prejudice, so clear in its intent, so extreme in its implications that it leaves people of good will little lee-way. This president has now made the Republican party an emblem of exclusion and division and intolerance. Gay people will now regard it as their enemy for generations - and rightly so. I knew this was coming, but the way in which it has been delivered and the actual fact of its occurrence is so deeply depressing it is still hard to absorb. But the result is clear, at least for those who care about the Constitution and care about civil rights. We must oppose this extremism with everything we can muster. We must appeal to the fair-minded center of the country that balks at the hatred and fear that much of the religious right feeds on. We must prevent this graffiti from being written on a document every person in this country should be able to regard as their own. This struggle is hard but it is also easy. The president has made it easy. He's a simple man and he divides the world into friends and foes. He has now made a whole group of Americans - and their families and their friends - his enemy. We have no alternative but to defend ourselves and our families from this attack. And we will.

He also linked to this cartoon off his blog:

http://www.comics.com/editoons/lucko...2200040225.gif
(not putting in an img tag because just saw the notice on political cartoons)

This is just the latest in a long string of acts designed to kowtow to his religious right fanatics. America is better than this, I know in my heart it is.

[Mojo_PeiPei]

So because people aren't wishy-washy in their convictions and beliefs they are fanatics? Wow you really are a model of tolerance.

[Sparhawk]

Originally posted by Mojo_PeiPei
So because people aren't wishy-washy in their convictions and beliefs they are fanatics? Wow you really are a model of tolerance.

That's quite a non sequitur you've got there. But yes, as long as they remain intolerant homophobes, so shall I remain intolerant of them.

[gibingus]

Originally posted by hannukah harry
this is one of the main reasons i finally decided to stop being an apathetic youth and registered to vote.

right on! it is all about voting. pass it on, brother. pass it on. a lot of blood has been spilled so we can vote.

real time with bill mahr tonight was brilliant on the gay marriage issue. if you don't get hbo, it's worth it for that one program.

laws like this come up in election years to suck up to small minded people, but small minded people vote because they like to push other people around and they tend to form packs out of some kind of insecurity. if they get through, they always get knocked down later.

look at how fast the dominoes are falling, they will never get three quarters of the states to ratify, even if it could get through the house and senate.

meanwhile, what we really need is an amendment to protect personal privacy. i don't think the founding fathers could have even dreamed of cel phone taps and dna sampling when they were just trying to stop search and seisure. the best way to shut down spying on americans is an ammendment. it's personally based, not for the "collective" so i would expect that real conservatives would have to support it, or go against the fundamental plank of their belief structure. liberals would go for it in heart beat, but middle roaders and brain washed facists who like giving their tax dollars to halliburton would be against it.