Unions v. Marriage

[Jason T.]

I have never understood the opposition to gay marriage...granted, I've never understood the religious right anyway. Hell -- I'm one of those people who actually tried to become left-handed a while back. Anyway, this whole thing has been powered by hate of which they shove God in front of. From someone who was raised Catholic, I think I know a little about God and understand that he was just about love and not hate. I personally feel that those who oppose letting others be happy, and would rather treat them as "subhuman" are full of crap. It just pisses me off...

[strandinthewind]

Yes, Bill O'Reilly would have supported teh arrest of Rosa Parks. My point of view is COME ON, yes, the mayor of SFCA is breaking the law set forth in that proposition that states that marriage is between a man and a woman. But, the mayor of SFCA is saying that is not the law because it is against the California Constitution's equal protection clause, which trumps any law but a federal law. No federal laws address this exact issue, they (the DOMA) merely allow any other state to refuse to accpet the gay marriages made in California, NM, and Mass.

In the end, the USSC will have to decide this issue - expect a 5-4 decision

[strandinthewind]

What an a$$hole!

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/...age/index.html

[Jason T.]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
What an a$$hole!

Am I the only one who isn't surprised? This just shows the intolerance of Bush, no, this goes beyond intolerance...what he is trying to do is simply a form of hate.

[strandinthewind]

You know - I even get the argument that marriage is traditionally between a man and a woman and I am actually fine with that. But, the far religious right is using the govt. to give these straight alliances rights that no one else can get uless they are in a heterosexual union. This whole "civil unions" will provide the same rights is a load of crap. Thus, I say if the govt. is going to give any extra rights to married people then everyone ought to be able to be married as they define marriage.

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
You know - I even get the argument that marriage is traditionally between a man and a woman and I am actually fine with that. But, the far religious right is using the govt. to give these straight alliances rights that no one else can get uless they are in a heterosexual union. This whole "civil unions" will provide the same rights is a load of crap. Thus, I say if the govt. is going to give any extra rights to married people then everyone ought to be able to be married as they define marriage.

And let us not forget that they are completely contradicting the Defense of Marriage Act, the same act that they say they're protecting.

The thing that gets me is that they're trying to make this ban permenant for all future generations, even 150 years form now. THAT'S WRONG.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by dissention


And let us not forget that they are completely contradicting the Defense of Marriage Act, the same act that they say they're protecting.

The thing that gets me is that they're trying to make this ban permenant for all future generations, even 150 years form now. THAT'S WRONG.

I truly believe the mission feemed divine by the far far religious right is to make everyone a pentacotal christian. They want all Jews, Muslims, Catholics, Gays, and uppety woman silenced in not killed. I know that sounds far fetched, but ya gotta admit it is not so far off of the mark. For example, it is oft said that "an angry man's words are a sober man's thoughts." Jerry Falwell blamed these exact people save, maybe the Catholics, immediately after 9/11 when he was angry and Pat Robertson agreed with him on national television. Here is exactly what that Fat Ass Falwell (sorry I hate him) said while placing balme for the tragic events of 9/11:

"The abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked. And when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad. I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America, I point the finger in their face and say: you helped this happen."


Both Falwell and Robertson apologized once they were forced to by a decline in donations - claiming they were taken out of context, etc. PUULLEEZZEEE Again, "an angry man's words are a sober man's thoughts" - how many times in our own lives and applied to us can we say this old saying has not been true?

You know the funny thing is once they get rid of all non-fundamentalist Christians, they will turn on each other.

They make be sick to my stomach.

BTW - did you see W make his statement this morning. He looked as if he had been hit in the head with a 2x4.

P.S. Here is one sided site bashing Piggy Falwell

http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/re...jerry-falwell/

[strandinthewind]

Also, did you notice W had the effrontery to mention NM, where same sex marriage violates no law - at least I think there is no def. of marriage there as btw. one man and one woman. Yet, W lumped NM in with SFCA, where Prop. 32 (?) is being violated under the auspice of following the Calif. Const. - ditto for Mass. What an ass.

[Johnny Stew]

In the immortal words of Maude Findlay... "God will get you for that, Walter!"

Seriously though, Bush and his ilk are racking up all kinds of bad karma over their little agenda of hate.
I don't know about their God, but mine is about love, acceptance and compassion... not about discrimination and intolerance.

It's a twisted world we live in.

"God save me from Your followers."

[strandinthewind]

I have reading everything on this I possibly can. According to what I read and watched, I think the Bill for the Amendment will not reach a vote in the Congress until at the earliest a year and that vote may take a year. It is uncertain whether the bill will pass the Senate by the required majority. So, who knows?

[DeeGeMe]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
I have reading everything on this I possibly can. According to what I read and watched, I think the Bill for the Amendment will not reach a vote in the Congress until at the earliest a year and that vote may take a year. It is uncertain whether the bill will pass the Senate by the required majority. So, who knows?

It is almost impossible to get a Constitutional Amendment through the many hurdles it has to go through, including votes by both the House & The Senate and approval by.. 2/3rds of the states (I didn't check that figure, it's off the top of my head so someone correct me if I'm wrong).

This is a wedge issue designed by the Republican party to get Shrub elected. I'm not sure how well that's going to work for them when Kerry & Edwards are both saying that they don't support gay marriages but oppose an amendment to that effect-instead preferring to let states decide for themselves what they want to do. Remember--States Rights is a huge Republican issue so I'm not sure how Bush supporting this huge constitutional amendment is going to play with right-wing Republicans who think States Rights is right up there with their Bibles in their list of favorite things.

But beyond that, I saw a really interesting article the other day that compared the feelings about the civil rights movement in the early 1960's to the gay marriage movement of today. In 1964 or 1965 (again, off the top of my head), there was far more people OPPOSED to the idea of civil rights of ANY KIND than there that oppose gay unions/marriages today. It was like over 75% of the public were opposed to the idea of extending equal rights to minorities (!) The opposition to gay marriage/partnership rights isn't nearly that high.

With 40 years of hindsight in our rear view mirror, we know now that our civil rights policies in the early 1960's were anything but civil in our treatment of African Americans. We know now just how wrong we are. And we're still paying the price for our ignorance today in race relations because of the damage of years of oppression. Change was difficult, and it was ugly, but it was the right thing to do.

My guess is that many people will look back 40 years from now and realize just how wrong they were about extending partnership & marriage rights to gays.

[strandinthewind]

ITA it is a wedge issue. But, when the D's say it is a state's rights issue, that is incorrect and they are spinning it. All legal beagles know know that unless a Const. Amendment is passed prohibiting gay marriage, it most certainly will come before the U.S. Sup. Ct. (USSC).

As correctly noted by W today, the U.S. Const. requires each state to give "full faith and credit" to a sister state's laws. Specifically, Article IV, Section 1 states:

Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

This is why let's say Florida must recognize a marriage performed and legally recognized in New York. So, the minute same sex marriages are legally performed in MA in May 2004, you can bet even money that some recently married same sex couple is going to go the next day to Vermont some other carefully chosen state and demand their marriage be given "full faith and credit." That second state will have no choice but to recognize the marriage. The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) seemingly prohibits such recognition, but the U.S. Const.'s clear language in the full faith and credit clause and pretty much the entirety of the relevant USSC case law clearly trump and therefore render useless the DOMA. As an aside, that is why pretty much everyone knows the DOMA was a farcical political posturing ploy from the start. The USSC decision recognizing same sex marriages will also render void the 38 states whose state Const. prohibit same sex marriage.

So, once that scenario happens, and believe me it will in May 2004, this issue is no longer confined to a state's rights issue. One can NEVER correctly estimate what the USSC will do or. more importantly, their reasons for acting. However, the tenor of the current Court indicates a fairly favorable position to gay rights. For example, the very recent Texas decision disallowing state laws from banning homosexual sodomy and the 1997 or so USSC decision striking down, under the easiest test to pass (rationale basis) no less, the Colorado law that basically said that homosexuals are not really allowed any rights bode well for the Court to allow the same sex marriage based on the full faith and credit issue discussed above. The Court really appears not to have a choice in the matter, although and again, that is a dangerous assumption with those 9.

So, this is why pretty much all party loyal Republicans and some Democrats want to Amendment the U.S. Const. The only way to stop the effect of an Amendment is to pass another Amendment. In the 230 or so years of this country and not counting the first ten amendments none as the "Bill of Rights," which were pretty much simultaneously passed (1791) with the ratification of the Const., the Const. has been amended only 18 other times and most of those were procedural. Go here for a site containing the Const. http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitut...ion.table.html

In sum, the R's are putting forth a dangerous precedent that history indicates in a facutally similar scenario (Prohibition in the 18th Amendment (1919) and recission of prohibition in the 21st Amendment in 1933) cannot work.

I think they should add an automatic death by stoning clause (as Biblically mandated) for adulterer and adultress in this assinine proposed amendment. I mean if we are going to protect hetersosexual marriage, let's do it.

[strandinthewind]

The outcry from both sides:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/...cts/index.html

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,112360,00.html

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,112314,00.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Feb24.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...ata022404.html (public evenly split here)

[estranged4life]

I was watching the NBC news tonite and they showed something that was interesting, President Bush said back in 2000, while on the campaign trail, That the federal govt. shouldnt decide the issue of gay marriage but it should be left to govt. of the individual states...Doesnt that sound like a contradiction??

I do have to agree with NBC that the issue will be used as an election tool by Bush for votes in the "heartland' for the upcoming election.

Brian j.

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Jerry Falwell

WHAT HAVE I TOLD YOU?!

NEVER say that name. NEVER. Do you hear me?!?!