Konichiwaneko

I'm not supporting this, but wasn't their an argument about how a Same Sex couple raising a child can do harm to the child as they grow up in our society. Thus working off Harry's "Harming others" part.

What ever happened to that.

In reponse to you harry, no I don't respond as well to people who piss me off because they never did anything to earn my respect. They tend to try to interject their opinoin over mine rather then lead us both to thoughtful conclusion.

__________________

hannukah harry

i've heard of numerous studies showing that a child of a same sex couple is not better or worse off then a child of a hetero couple i've never heard any that state otherwise (not taht i'm sure there aren't some out there, but the fact you don't hear about them even when gay marriage was a big election issue that wasn't raised as a reason).

you may not respond to people who piss you off well. neither do i. but politely saying "excuse me, sir, ma'am, but... " doesn't seem to work these days. to compete with people like rush and coulter unfortunatly you do have to be brash.

since you don't know me, of course you necissarily have any respect for me. you know nothing or very little about me for you to base any respect or disrespect on. but don't you think if you were walking down the street and 10 people whom you don't know say you didn't tie your shoe well, you'd eventually stop to look down and see if they might be on to something? and sometimes in order to get someone to give thought beyond their normal processes you've got to do something drastic.

__________________
shabbat shalom, mother fucker! - the hebrew hammer

Konichiwaneko

actually I'm from the south, we tend to say "Sir your shoes are untied."

And yes it's constant down here.

Your example I can understand though, I guess it's jsut where you are from.
The world seems so much ruder the colder it gets, and the more people stuff into one area.

__________________

pedro padilla

Marriage is a vow between 2 people. An oath to your partner more than to your personal god. Why can a man or woman marry 10 times in a life yet deny this legal bond to a same sex couple of a lifetime? Why is this an issue?

hannukah harry

heh, well that's because when the air's cold it hurts to talk so we try to say what we can as succinctly as possible.

__________________
shabbat shalom, mother fucker! - the hebrew hammer

alansmithee

Really? I'm sure the IRS would have something to say about that.

I disagree, I'm not asking to cut off a woman's arm, I want to have the same say in a child that I would be responsible for that the woman does. Are you saying discrimination against males is ok?

That's good to know, now I can pack heat when I go to the hospital. And gays can gain the same benefits, males just have to marry a woman, or women marry males.

It should if gender is inherent to purpose of the contract.

They can, all they have to do is marry the guy who got them pregnant.

Why would they die out? People can always chose to be gay. And many "fags" don't think they should be allowed to adopt. Also, I personally believe it lessens the value of a mother and father in raising a child.

Apparently many people think there is compelling reasons for denying them the ability to marry. Wouldn't it make sense that the "public" would define what is in their intrest? And it happened in at least 11 states this year. There are lots of things that are prohibited because people think they are "icky". Again, you are framing the question wrong. It's not "Why should these people be denied rights" its "Why should a particular behavior have prefered status over others?" and no gay marriage advocate has come up with a logical reason for that (at least that I have read or heard from someone, maybe there is one somewhere).

pedro padilla

All legal bullshit aside, why the hell does it bother you so much? Is it religious upbringing? Personal distaste? Where does this predjudice come from?
Why should anyone really give a shit? If it makes em happy...

Konichiwaneko

sometimes it's not prejudice but people getting tired of "Fuzzy Definitions".

Prejudice is once again one of things I mention earlier about "Hate Rherotic". You probably mean well, but your assumption that people voted against the law is because of prejudice can cause a lot of anguish and gap into the conversation.

If we allowed gay marraiges would we allow also polygamy?

__________________

host

The way to best counter what you and those in the eleven states that voted
to "protect" marriage espouse is to demonstrate against your penchant for
legislation intended to restrict the sexual behavior of consenting adults or the
reproductive rights of women, by boycotting your tourist and convention
venues, and other currently conducted commerce that the rest of us do with
you or your business interests. There are still many areas in the U.S.
where the majority of the voters have no interest in using their state
constitutions as instruments of discrmination, intolerance, or to extend
the police and prosecutory powers of government. The consequences of
your political philosophy will be more evenly shouldered by you and everyone
you intend to disenfranchise and control if the rest of us avoid doing
business with you. If we don't act to discourage you, who will you next
focus on when your goals of anti gay and anti women's reproductive rights agendas have been fully achieved?

If you "want to have the same say in a child that I would be responsible for that the woman does" , why not ask your lawyer to draw up a contract
that you can present to any woman that you intend to have intercourse
with, that informs her that as a pre-condition of mating with you, she must
agree to surrender her right to choose whether or not to endure a full term
pregnancy and birth that might result from you fertilizing her ovum?

Are you so insecure about how desirable you are as a sex partner to members
of the opposite sex that you are unwilling to allow women to choose between
you and your pre-natal "paternal rights", versus other potential partners who
recognize a woman's right to choose whether to host an embryo in her body
until it grows large and robust enough to sustain itself?

You feel strongly about having "the same say" as the woman who must carry
and deliver the product of your mutual conception. Other men do not, and
are willing to cede the choice entirely to their female partner. Why not
conduct your own interpersonal relations with members of the opposite sex
without attempting to interfere with the existing right of choice currently
enjoyed by most women of reproductive age in the U.S., by advocating
legislation to restrict access to safe and legal abortion?

You are free to advocate for equal pre-natal paternal reproductive rights
for yourself, but if you advocate legislating your rights so that you will
be on equal footing with the male competition who largely are pro-choice,
you demonstrate that you are not willing to endure the consequences of
your position which even you seem to recognize as diminishing from your
attractiveness as a potential mate.

host

You're right that it's "not prejudice". It's homphobia encouraged by religious
centric intolerance and the ignorant belief that homosexually oriented
individuals "choose" to be attracted to members of their own sexual gender.

"Gay" marriage is interchangeable with "same-sex" marriage, which is defined
as <a href="http://www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn?stage=1&word=same-sex+marriage">"two people of the same sex who live together as a family".</a>

How does your question, (reasonable from your point of view, as you are
influenced by the belief systems endemic to your geographic environment)
read when the word "Gay" is replaced with: If we allowed two people of the same sex who live together as a family, "would we also allow polygamy"?

I' m from the northeast, more recently residing in Manhattan for several
years. I also have the perspective of living very near to where you are
located for the past 33 months. When I read your polygamy question,
I reacted with the same huhhhh??? at the apparent disconnection in your
question, with your use of "gay marriage" and "polygamy" in the same
sentence. Your point of view is totally foreign to mine. You apparently
see the term "Gay" as a deviant reference, where I see it as interchangeable
with "same-sex" orientation or attraction. We both apparently recognize
the term "polygamy" as deviant.

My 33 months living in your area has opened my eyes to societal differences
that I had never before considered. Creationist earth science and geology;
a belief that the earth is only 10,000 years old.....and the declaration that
evolution is "just one theory" were probably the "biggest eye openers" for
me to adjust to.

People in your area do not accept that "gay" is normal. Same-sex marriage
is not something that you.....or your local laws, "allow", any more than you
"allow" opposite-sex marriage. Marriage just "is". Sexual attraction and
romantic love, just "are". You will see that constitutional law, as embodied
in your Georgia state and in the U.S. constitutions is incompatible with
your state's new "marriage" amendment.

Much of what you attriibute to the ways of your part of the country, are,
in their intent, and in their impact, prejudicial and intolerant, whether you
perceive it or not. Manhattan is the center of the most vibrant and
internationally and minority inclusive city in the world for a reason. It is a
city comprised of people who want to live there because they stand a
better chance of being accepted there because of what they can accomplish,
and in spite of who they are, than just about anywhere else.
From what I have experienced, you live in a parochial and homogeneous
society, not unlike a typical communtiy in the European countryside.
Primarily composed of people of one race, one religion, one political
orientation. Your environment constrains your ability to react matter of
factly to people of different ethnic, sexual, religious, or political orientation
than the ones that are dominant in your communtiy. Your tendency is to
be intolerant and to exclude reflexively. The new marriage amendment is
a symptom of a deficiency that short changes everyone in your state, not
just those that it aims to "control".

New York may seem like a cold, hectic, and harsh place to live, from your
point of view, but I assure you, having lived in both places, unless you are
a caucasian, middle class, protestant, republican, Georgia would seem a
much more harsh and unforgiving environment to live in than Manhattan.
If living in freedom is about not being held back because of your race, creed,
gender or sexual orientation, Manhattan is recognized by the world as the
place to be. What kind of a place do you want your state to be recognized
as ?

Sen

Regardless of the rest of the statement made above, this particular section seems to me to be extremely condecending. I think this would be offensive to the many, many minorities that live in GA. Have you been to Atlanta lately? To suggest that only caucasians are "social conservatives" is not to understand the demographics of our country. True, the vast majority of African Americans vote Democrat, but I would also venture to say they support gay marriage bans. I have many African American friends that are Dems, but are socially conservative.

__________________
"I want to announce my presence with authority!"

"You want to what?"

"I want to announce my presence with authority!!"

host

Yeah....Atlanta schools are a compelling example.......

alansmithee

First of all, I would like to commend your typing technique. It must be quite a trick to reach the keyboard while looking down your nose from that far . Maybe instead of regurgitating whatever line you have been brainwashed with, you would try to read what I was saying and not just jump over 2 carefully selected lines. My point was that the way many liberals frame the gay marriage issue is wrong, and they do not appreciate when they have the same tactics used against them. They try to say how anti-gay marriage legislation are "hate laws" and bigoted, giving the impression they are morally superior. I was taking an issue that they could be seen to fall on the other moral side of (abortion) and framing it in their same way they view gay marriage, as a discrimination issue and something that is morally abhorrent.

You also made alot of assumptions about my child murder views (as well as labeling me "insecure" which seems to have no logical justification, and was made by jumping to many conclusions that could not rationally be seen in the couple of lines I typed on the subject of child murder) so I will elaborate on those so you won't be as misinformed. You seem to think that males are largely pro-child murder, do you have any evidence for this? The whole right to abortion arises from a legal decision, and was not voted on. It was based purely on the opinions of 9 people who happened to be positions of power at the time. And it could easily be overturned by 9 people who are currently on the bench. Many laws have been passed in the states restricting the womens right to unilaterally murder their offspring, some of which have been overturned by various state courts. I don't personally care, as I have no desire to have children and make sure to use protection. But where I find inequality is that women can choose to carry a baby to term or kill it, with the father having no say in a decision which could greatly effect his life. Around 2 months ago, a woman won a paternity judgement against Sean "Puffy" Combs where I think he was ordered to pay approx. $50,000 per month in child support (can't remember the figure, but it was high and I don't feel like checking it exactly). Now, this child arose from a one-night stand. There was no reason to believe that either desired a child, yet she was able to cash in off his wealth, and he had no recourse. This is where I feel an inequality comes in. It has nothing to do with whatever you were trying to say. And unlike most liberals, I'm willing to work through the system to change these rules, and accept defeat if they don't change.

More on topic, I think the quoted post shows how many liberals think, namely that because they think a view is correct that the majority hold it to be the truth and anyone who doesn't is a "bigot" or "redneck" or "fundamentalist" or whatever the buzzword is. They don't acknowledge that a differing view can have the same merit and think anyone who disagrees is automatically inferior. That is why you can have some in the media still thinking that the election was stolen, or that it's result is somehow invalid. I couldn't personally stand Clinton, but when he was re-elected in 1996 I didn't run around crying, throwing fits, or threatening to leave the country. I accepted it, and took a long term view.

flstf

1. Gay Marriage

I don't believe the average voter was knowingly thinking that they were being hateful towards gays when they voted for the ban. I really don't think most people considered the legislation that deeply. They just thought to themselves "should marriage be defined as a union between a man and a woman" or not. People across all demographics simply affirmed the traditional definition of marriage.
Very often the majority will discriminate (pass laws) against minorities. The only recourse is the constitution and the courts.

2. Voter Turnout

I believe that both sides managed to help themselves by increasing turnout among those most likely to vote for their cause. It could have easily gone the other way. Even though GW was a weak candidate, Kerry was considered even weaker. I don't consider the margin of victory that much of a mandate of Bush's policies as much as a statement of just how weak Kerry was as a candidate. A "good ol' boy" like Bill Clinton would have made it much closer.

I think that folks on the TFP are more socially aware and consider the issues in greater depth than the general public. I hope this doesn't come across as elitist,, I'm basing my opinion on discussions with family, friends and neighbors.

aliali

Opinion as fact, and wrong at that.

aliali

Good question. I don't think anyone has answered it. What about cousins marrying?

aliali

But it is about the law. None of this would have come up before the voters if four state judges in Mass. hadn't tried to change the law by misinterpreting the constitution (my opinion). It is about the legal definition of marriage, whether the constitution requires same sex marriage and whether by ballot initiative, the people want to allow it if it is not a constitutional issue. As to your question as to why people voted how they did, I have two guesses: 1) there were many, many, many different reasons; 2) since you have labeled them all as prejudiced, few people who voted to ban gay marriage are likely to want to discuss it with you.

Lebell

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

Publius

Is there a deep divide in our country? Simply put yes, but then again there always has been. North vs. South. Rich vs. Poor. Urban vs. Rural. (Ultra) Religious vs. Secular. These divides are not new but have existed for as long, no, longer then our country has been in existence. What does this latest vote show, if anything? I would submit to you that it shows that Americans are just only as divided as they ever have been. So Bush got more votes then Kerry. So what? Does this mean there is a new deeper divide among Americans? No. It simply shows that Bush’s team was better able to get out voters on election day. Is Bush’s reelection the harbinger of some great new divide in American culture? No, America has always been a greatly divided country. It is both our blessing and our curse. Because of these divides America has been driven to do great horrors to our own citizens (Slavery, Segregation, etc). But these divides have also driven us to some of our greatest accomplishments.

Now to depart a moment to address a different direction that this post seems to be slipping into, that being the topic of gay marriage. It’s always amazing to me see so many people throw themselves into this topic and make such conclusive statements about certain court decisions when it is evident that they aren’t really addressing the opinion expressed by the court but their own personal feelings on the topic. Case in point, the decision reached by (certain “liberal” judges in) the Massachusetts’ Supreme Court. So, and because we are talking about a “legal” definition here, lets take a look at what those “liberal” judges really had to say shall we, and not all that political pundit bullshit we are fed by the media. So here it is, or at least the brief edited version of the key points (please feel free to read the entire for yourself). Goodridge v. Department of Public Health 798 N.E.2d 941 (Mass.,2003.)

“ Marriage is a vital social institution. The exclusive commitment of two individuals to each other nurtures love and mutual support; it brings stability to our society. For those who choose to marry, and for their children, marriage provides an abundance of legal, financial, and social benefits. In return it imposes weighty legal, financial, and social obligations. The question before us is whether, consistent with the Massachusetts Constitution, the Commonwealth may deny the protections, benefits, and obligations conferred by civil marriage to two individuals of the same sex who wish to marry. We conclude that it may not. The Massachusetts Constitution affirms the dignity and equality of all individuals. It forbids the creation of second-class citizens. In reaching our conclusion we have given full deference to the arguments made by the Commonwealth. But it has failed to identify any constitutionally adequate reason for denying civil marriage to same-sex couples.

We are mindful that our decision marks a change in the history of our marriage law. Many people hold deep-seated religious, moral, and ethical convictions that marriage should be limited to the union of one man and one woman, and that homosexual conduct is immoral. Many hold equally strong religious, moral, and ethical convictions that same-sex couples are entitled to be married, and that homosexual persons should be treated no differently than their heterosexual neighbors. Neither view answers the question before us. Our concern is with the Massachusetts Constitution as a charter of governance for every person properly within its reach. "Our obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code." ...

... The larger question is whether, as the department claims, government action that bars same-sex couples from civil marriage constitutes a legitimate exercise of the State's authority to regulate conduct, or whether, as the plaintiffs claim, this categorical marriage exclusion violates the Massachusetts Constitution. We have recognized the long-standing statutory understanding, derived from the common law, that "marriage" means the lawful union of a woman and a man. But that history cannot and does not foreclose the constitutional question.The plaintiffs' claim that the marriage restriction violates the Massachusetts Constitution can be analyzed in two ways. Does it offend the Constitution's guarantees of equality before the law? Or do the liberty and due process provisions of the Massachusetts Constitution secure the plaintiffs' right to marry their chosen partner? ...

... We begin by considering the nature of civil marriage itself. Simply put, the government creates civil marriage. In Massachusetts, civil marriage is, and since pre-Colonial days has been, precisely what its name implies: a wholly secular institution. No religious ceremony has ever been required to validate a Massachusetts marriage.

In a real sense, there are three partners to every civil marriage: two willing spouses and an approving State. While only the parties can mutually assent to marriage, the terms of the marriage--who may marry and what obligations, benefits, and liabilities attach to civil marriage--are set by the Commonwealth. Conversely, while only the parties can agree to end the marriage the Commonwealth defines the exit terms. ...

... The Massachusetts Constitution protects matters of personal liberty against government incursion as zealously, and often more so, than does the Federal Constitution, even where both Constitutions employ essentially the same language. That the Massachusetts Constitution is in some instances more protective of individual liberty interests than is the Federal Constitution is not surprising. Fundamental to the vigor of our Federal system of government is that "state courts are absolutely free to interpret state constitutional provisions to accord greater protection to individual rights than do similar provisions of the United States Constitution."

The individual liberty and equality safeguards of the Massachusetts Constitution protect both "freedom from" unwarranted government intrusion into protected spheres of life and "freedom to" partake in benefits created by the State for the common good. Both freedoms are involved here. Whether and whom to marry, how to express sexual intimacy, and whether and how to establish a family--these are among the most basic of every individual's liberty and due process rights. ...

...In their complaint the plaintiffs request only a declaration that their exclusion and the exclusion of other qualified same-sex couples from access to civil marriage violates Massachusetts law. We declare that barring an individual from the protections, benefits, and obligations of civil marriage solely because that person would marry a person of the same sex violates the Massachusetts Constitution. We vacate the summary judgment for the department. We remand this case to the Superior Court for entry of judgment consistent with this opinion. Entry of judgment shall be stayed for 180 days to permit the Legislature to take such action as it may deem appropriate in light of this opinion. ...”

So did the Massachusetts Supreme Court define “marriage” to include gays as many people have claimed? No, they simply stated that baring a state constitutional amendment, the Massachusetts State Constitution bared the legislature from defining “marriage” as only between one man and one women. Was the Court acting out of some liberal agenda? Maybe, but more importantly they were adhering to the law, and their ruling was based upon upholding that law. 11 states recently passed State Constitutional referendums defining marriage, why? Because that is how law is made. Had Massachusetts such a constitutional provision defining marriage, then, the court would have been bound to uphold that provision. As it was, however, no such provision existed and because of this the court was bound as a matter of law to make the ruling that they did. Thank God for “liberal” judges who know how to follow that law, instead of handing down opinions based upon personal religious moral ideologies.

smooth

thank you publius.

and aliali, I support polygamists marrying--and I've stated this before. And before you throw out another non sequiter, I also think statutory "rape" laws should be revamped.

I also don't have any pressing issues against cousins marrying, if you must know my position on that. I think it's even legal already in some states.


EDIT: Here is my original post on the topic:

from here: http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...light=polygamy

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

mml

1. To be fair, there is some truth to this statement. Much of the country can agree that they believe marriage is exclusively between a man and a woman, and it does cross party, racial, economic and religious lines. There is (inexplicably to me) a sense in this country that sanctioning same-sex marriage will damage the institution of marriage and denigrate the moral standards of our nation. On this issue there is a great deal of agreement. However, this agreement does not extend to other issues, nor is the reasoning behind the opposition homogenous. It is alltogether too simplistic to say (and frankly sickening if true) that this issue is acutally bringing us together as nation. You said the initiative in MO passed with 73%, but the President only received 53.4% of the votes in this past election in MO. If this were such a homogenizing issue, I think we would have seen a true landslide (not a statistical one) in this last election.

2. I believe that there is a movement towards conservatism in the country. We have, throughout our history, had times when the country moves to the right and times it moves to the left. Frequently these movements are pushed by a Charismatic individual (FDR, Reagan) and at other times, like today and during the 1960's, there is simply a feeling within the populous that we need to move in a new direction. George Bush is riding that wave and has helped to strenghen it at the same time. It is a little silly, to call this a mandate in the traditional terms, but I don't blame the Bush administration or the GOP for claiming it. Any edge they can get to push through their agenda they will take. (Just as the Dems would). The point has already been made, but it is worth pointing out, that due to the large turnout, the President did received the most votes ever for President, but he also has the most votes against someone who won the presidency. This is not the recipe for a "clear mandate". As far a the concept of a large turnout helping the Dems. What do you know, the media and pollsters were wrong. What a shock. (Disdain for pollsters, may actually be a unifying issue)

The Republicans now have one of those very rare opportunities. They control pretty much the whole ball of wax. What they do with their power and influence will determine the fate of this nation and will have strong effect on the entire world. Extremism and hubris will not make them successful (IMO) in the long run. They have the opportunity to develop this victory into a true mandate. If they govern with prudence, even-handedness, forethought and equality they have an incredible opportunity to dominate our politics for many years to come. If they fail, they have the potential to severely hurt the country, the world and their party. This being said, the protection of Tom Delay and the attacks on Arlen Specter do not show me a party ready to create this true mandate.

__________________
Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so."
-Douglas Adams

alansmithee

Again, lower courts held that the law did allow for restricting marriage to something between a man and a woman. The lower courts also probably thought they were acting within the law.

Hopefully one of these new state amendments actually gets before the US Supreme Court, and have the issued settled once and for all (at least until there is a fundamental shift in the court's makeup).

aliali

You may think it is o.k. for cousins to marry and for people to have more than one spouse at a time, but does that mean that everyone who disagrees with you on those two topics is an irretrievable bigot? If not, then why are they bigoted for opposing gay marriage.

smooth

I've met lots of people who disagree with me on all of the things you listed.
I believe that personal disagreement is separate from legislating one's differences and imposing those beliefs on others in a hetergenous society.

What do you mean by "irretrievable?"
Whether they are bigoted or not depends on the reasons for their disagreement.

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

filtherton

I think the problem comes in when certain groups attempt to legislate away the rights of a minority groups, despite the fact that those rights have zero effect on the lives of those who would prohibit it. Bigotry is going out of your way to be intolerant.

Konichiwaneko

"I' m from the northeast, more recently residing in Manhattan for several
years. I also have the perspective of living very near to where you are
located for the past 33 months. When I read your polygamy question,
I reacted with the same huhhhh??? at the apparent disconnection in your
question, with your use of "gay marriage" and "polygamy" in the same
sentence. Your point of view is totally foreign to mine. You apparently
see the term "Gay" as a deviant reference, where I see it as interchangeable
with "same-sex" orientation or attraction. We both apparently recognize
the term "polygamy" as deviant."


Carpetbagger!

Joking aside and think you did yourself a disfavor Host by assuming about me. I brought up the point of polygamy because it's a state of union. Am I against it? No not really. I don't really care.

I'm not to say any point you brought up is unvalidated because of this. I feel a conversation is more constructive basing it on what you know and feel then what you assume others to know and feel.

__________________

Konichiwaneko

I know you don't mean it this way, but could we also assume that many Liberals would support fornication and having affairs because they supported clinton?

Are liberals responsible for 911 because Clinton refused to capture Osama in 1996?

I don't think they are. You can't have a perfect client. You vote for who you believe covers most of your beliefs. Our country allows change as time goes on. This situation now with gay marraiges. The institution of marraige has been in place for centuries, if you can't change it now, try again when people are more willing. If they don't want to change it then analyze why you really want it and see if you can get those individual rights.

If some people are just fighting to have the good fight, then you risk alienating more and more people. If gays can't marry it doesn't mean they can't still love each other, and work for some of the rights a married couple has. It's not a downright defeat.

I for one hope that eventually can get "married" or whatever media coined termed is popular at the time.

__________________

Bauh4us

While I am not sure where my personal opinion lies on this matter, I find it difficult to swallow the assumption that people who were against gay marriage are "bigots". I think they are just looking for a definition of marriage as between one man and one woman. I think a line defining marriage must be drawn somewhere and some people want it here. Some say it would devalue it, I can't say that legalizing same sex marriage would devalue it for me, but I can understand how it could for someone else.

If you redefine it to allow same sex couples, this devalues it for some.

If you redefine it to allow polygamy this devalues it for others.

If you redefine it to allow bestiality this devalues it many more. (I would imagine)

Not saying any of the above is right or wrong, but it is something to think about.

__________________
"I aint got time for pain! The only pain I got time for is the pain I put on fools who don't know what time it is!" - Terrible Terry Tate

smooth

Something else to think about, however, is that none of those things are "redefinitions."

Marriage hasn't historically been union between one man and one woman, that's just a specific group's (in this case, christians) rhetoric to claim ownership over some term they never possessed.

The idea of how it crosses over into unacceptable behavior is that the legislation passed didn't just merely define something, it made other forms of unions illegal, too.

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

Publius

Touché. However, it is important to keep in mind that the lower courts are courts of limited power. They are bound in their decisions to reach verdicts that are compatible with the long precedent laid down before be higher courts and the legislature. In this particular case the courts were asked to rule on a question of law that had not been directly addressed by the Massachusetts Courts before. Therefore, the lower courts are expected to give deference to the custom interpretation(s) given to the law by other governmental agencies. It is not often when a lower court or even an appellate court will risk itself to overturn this precedent. Remember, they have to run for election too. They often leave the dirty work to the Supreme Court, as in this case. The Supreme Court (SC)reviewed the custom interpretation of the marriage laws and determined that this interpretation was in conflict with the rights guaranteed to citizens of Massachusetts by their State Constitution (It may be amazing for some to learn that most of our rights are protected by state constitutions rather then the Federal Constitution. Take for instance California, which has the largest constitution in the world. If you are a citizen of California you have a constitutionally protected right to fish. Try finding that in the Federal Constitution. Point being, your rights may vary from state to state. Scary ain’t it?) The SC found in their ruling that, as a matter of law, the common interpretation given to the Massachusetts marriage statute was in violation of the Massachusetts Constitution’s guarantees of equality before the law. In making this ruling the SP held open the door for the Massachusetts legislature or the people of Massachusetts to amend the State Constitution to specifically define marriage in the common interpretation. Seeing that this ruling was likely to duplicate itself in other states, 11 of these states took the hint, drafted constitutional amendments to change their constitutions to reflect the common interpretation of marriage and as such preempted similar rulings in their own SC. My point is, this entire process and the preemptive action taken in these 11 states is much more nuance then the talking heads and political pundits would have one believe.

hannukah harry

and in terms of the gay marriage argument, you're 'counter examples' still are irrelevant to the topic at hand.

1) the irs won't care if someone who works at mcdonalds spends every dime they make or if a football player does it. yes, they're paying different %'s of their income in taxes, but you can spend as much of the takehome income as you want. and there's nothing wrong with that. trying to argue that having to pay taxes is somehow related to gay marriage is assinine.

2) you do not get to same say as a woman because you do not have to carry it to term for 9 months. you will not get morning sickness. you will not get fat and feel bloated all the time. you will not risk getting pregnancy related diabetes. when you are equal partners in teh pregnancy, then you can have equal say. until then, you're nothing more than a gob of goo giving her a nine month headache. and no one's restricting your rights there. and the govt. isnt' restricting hers there. if anything, this would be an argument FOR gay marriage.

3) my impression from things you've posted are that you live in michigan. well, here in michigan, you can get a permit to carry a concealed weapon. you can pack heat at almost anytime anywhere. as long as you make sure you've got that permit on you, you can probalby carry it anywhere unless the location does not allow them on site. which would be not the govt. telling you what you can't do, but telling businesses and property owners that they can make those restrictions on their property. again, that would be an argument FOR gay marriage because the property owners have the freedom to do what they wish with thier land.

4) gender is not inherent in the purpose of the contract. many states do not have marriage as stated as being between a man and a woman. gender is not included. thats why massechusets allows gay marriage. because they don't define gender in teh contract. they arent' the only one.

5) a modern family is about love. it is about 2 people whom love each other raising a child (in the ideal form, non-ideal form being current 'broken homes' due to divorce). if two women love each other and either adopt or get sperm from the bank, or two men that love each other adopt, why should they not be allowed to get married? why should they not be allowed to share legal custody of the child, share all assets and have all the same inheretance priveliges that hetero couples have?

6) it's called sarcasm. that was dripping with it. nice umbrella. i think you'd have a hard time finding a enough gay people to fill a small room who think that gays should not be allowed to adopt. and if you want to do something about lessening the values of the mother and father rasising a child, do something about the current divorce rate and dead beat dads. go help get kids adopted so they aren't being raised by the system... oh wait... might accidently give 'em to one of them thar fags.

7) most people's compelling reason for denying gays the right to marry is religous. and since govt. should have no say in religion, and religion no say in govt., the govt. should, as long as it is in the business of marrying people, disregard the religious argument for it. part of the function of our govt. is to give voice to the minority and protect their rights. but that isn't happening now.

and no, i'm not framing the question wrong. my stance is that in order for something to be denied, there must be a compelling reason for the govt. to do it. and people thinking it's icky or morally (religiously) wrong are not compelling reasons.

but you are framing the question correctly. why are heterosexuals getting perferred status over homosexuals? and out side of religion and 'i think homosexuality is wrong', there is no reason. i have yet to hear one that doesn't involve god or bigotry.

if you haven't heard a logical reason for game marriage, i think you need to look into a hearing aid or glasses, cause their not hard to find.

i don't mean this next statement to be an insult, although it could be taken that way.

you sound like one of those christians who thinks that not getting preferential treatment (no 10 commandments in the courtroom, no prayer in school) over other religions is the same thing as being discriminated against.

you're not losing anything by having gays get married. but maybe you just like the fact that you can hold someone back.

/gays, the new blacks.

__________________
shabbat shalom, mother fucker! - the hebrew hammer

hannukah harry

or maybe you'd find that many minorities that live in georgia, out side of being in atlanta or other predominatly black (that's the minority we're talking about, right) towns, would agree.

__________________
shabbat shalom, mother fucker! - the hebrew hammer

hannukah harry

if you're point was that liberals don't like it when their argument is taken out of context, has arguments irrelevant and unrelated to the issue used as strawmen against it, then you're right. liberals aren't framing the question wrong. we're saying 'why deny these rights/privliges that everyone else has?' and outside of religion or hate or fear, there are no reasons. it is discrimination. if using the bible and jesus saying 'love thy neighbor' while telling them that they can't get married is morally superior to allowing them, then i guess i'm misinterpreting the jesus.

abortion isn't a discrimination issue. to frame it that way is logically incorrect. or maybe it's not. in which case it's discrimination either way... you either discriminate against the mother by giving the father control of her body, or you discriminate agasint the father by letting the mother control her own body. so i dont' think you really want to try to use that as an example.


uhm... how have liberals not worked through the system for change? was there a hostage crisis that lead to change that i don't know about?

i've already posted the definition of bigot in this thread. and based on it's definition, it's a very accurate word to describe most people who are anti-gay marriage. fundamentalist is used to describe people who vote based on the bible and 'morals.' again, an accurate buzz word that i have yet to see used improperly (whether or not argumet has had merit, the use of the word has). and you don't hear 'redneck' too much anymore. we prefer the term 'white trash.'

__________________
shabbat shalom, mother fucker! - the hebrew hammer

hannukah harry

not really. marriage is between two people. in some places, it's further defined as between a man and a woman. and seeing as how there are people who marry without god involved, marriage is about the couple.

his definition is fact, but incomplete (dependent on location, etc.)

currently, second cousins can marry (or maybe it's third). and the reason cousins can't marry is because the closer together two people are genetically the more likely birth defects are to occur. hemophilia used to run rampant in royal familes of europe becuase by the 15-1600's, the relationships between royalter were so close they were basically inbreeding. i read a study recently though about inbreeding with rats (i think) where they concluded that it's not as bad as previously thought.


misinterpret? i'm sorry, but i believe they stated that because the law on marriage in mass. did not specify that marriage was between 1 man and 1 woman, gays could marry. they followed the letter of the law. you may not like that interpretation, but they were followign their states law.

__________________
shabbat shalom, mother fucker! - the hebrew hammer

hannukah harry

but then you have to wonder why redefining it (in the case of gay marriage) would devalue it? is it supposed to be some secret club that only people who know the handshake can enter?

__________________
shabbat shalom, mother fucker! - the hebrew hammer

aliali

Obviously, people disagree on all of these issues. Obviously, there are laws in many states prohibiting not just same sex marriage, but polygamy and incest (defined as first cousins or something like that). The question is whether or not you must be a bigot for voting for or against repeal of any or all of these laws. It doesn't seem to make sense to separate the same sex part of this as a special minority group when there are lots of people who fit into the other categories as well. The crux of the argument for same sex marriage seems to be that it is a private matter that doesn't hurt anyone and the gov't should stay out of our private lives in that respect. The same arguments seem to work for the other situations. I don't think it is fair to label everyone who may be against some or all of these types of marriage a bigot without knowing more about the person and the reasons for their thoughts. You seem to be suggesting that as well. I just don't like reading over and over on these treads--and there are lots of them--how the bigots of the world support hate amendments if they don't vote a certain way. It's too simple, too convenient, unproductive, and unnecessarily insulting

pedro padilla

it´s kinda sad that some folk can work themselves into such a frenzy over this. We, as humans on this earth, are facing such crucial issues that all this trivial crap serves only to distract from the all important life threatening reality of the modern world. If it ain´t gay marriage it´s Martha Stewart or Scott Peterson.
Taking your minds off the real problems is the greatest achievment of the last century. Janet Jacksons tit is a bigger concern than the American kids gunned down in a foreign country the same day. Look at the goddam big picture. It ain´t pretty.
If you´re against gay marriage, don´t marry a gay person. C´mon, get a grip.