Unions v. Marriage

[GypsySorcerer]

First-off: I don't want this thread to turn into a flame-fest.


I am just confused about these "terms" civil union and gay marriage. What exactly is the difference? Either you support gay couples' rights to commit themselves to each other and receive the legal benefits that heterosexual marriage couples do, or you don't.

I have always supported civil unions, but I recently asked myself what is the difference between that and marriage? I can't come up with anything, so I conclude if you support one you support both.

I don't see how John Kerry can oppose gay marriage and disagree with the Massachusetts court ruling, but repeatedly state he supports unions.

So can anyone tell me what they think the difference is? I am beginning to think that politicians are getting hung up on this terminology in an effert to appear moderate on the issue. That way, for the religious right, they can say, "I oppose gay marriage," but say "I support civil unions" to appease some liberals.

[strandinthewind]

It is all about politics and semantics. Putting gay people in a separate category is good politics because polls show a majority of America does not care about gay people.

A good analogy would be the history of black people in the U.S. First, the vast majority were slaves. Then, the slaves were freed after the war between the states and the Const. Amendment. So, the black americans started to assert rights (voting, sitting together with white people, schooling, marriage to white people, etc.). In 1896, the U.S. Sup. Ct. considered a case where:

On June 7, 1892, a 30-year-old colored shoemaker named Homer Plessy was jailed for sitting in the "White" car of the East Louisiana Railroad. Plessy was only one-eighths black and seven-eighths white, but under Louisiana law, he was considered black and therefore required to sit in the "Colored" car. Plessy went to court and argued, in Homer Adolph Plessy v. The State of Louisiana, that the Separate Car Act violated the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution. The judge at the trial was John Howard Ferguson, a lawyer from Massachusetts who had previously declared the Separate Car Act "unconstitutional on trains that traveled through several states." In Plessy's case, however, he decided that the state could choose to regulate railroad companies that operated only within Louisiana. He found Plessy guilty of refusing to leave the white car. Plessy appealed to the Supreme Court of Louisiana, which upheld Ferguson's decision. In 1896, the Supreme Court of the United States heard Plessy's case and found him guilty once again. Speaking for a seven-person majority, Justice Henry Brown wrote:

"That [the Separate Car Act] does not conflict with the Thirteenth Amendment, which abolished slavery...is too clear for argument...A statute which implies merely a legal distinction between the white and colored races -- a distinction which is founded in the color of the two races, and which must always exist so long as white men are distinguished from the other race by color -- has no tendency to destroy the legal equality of the two races...The object of the [Fourteenth A]mendment was undoubtedly to enforce the absolute equality of the two races before the law, but in the nature of things it could not have been intended to abolish distinctions based upon color, or to enforce social, as distinguished from political equality, or a commingling of the two races upon terms unsatisfactory to either." (footnote omitted)

This separate but equal rationale quickly spread into all areas and a wide majority of Americans thought black people sould not have the same rights as white people.

Then, on May 17, 1954, Chief Justice Earl Warren of the U.S. Sup. Ct. read the decision of the unanimous Court in Brown v. Board of Education:

"We come then to the question presented: Does segregation of children in public schools solely on the basis of race, even though the physical facilities and other "tangible" factors may be equal, deprive the children of the minority group of equal educational opportunities? We believe that it does...We conclude that in the field of public education the doctrine of 'separate but equal' has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal. Therefore, we hold that the plaintiffs and others similarly situated for whom the actions have been brought are, by reason of the segregation complained of, deprived of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. [12]
The Supreme Court struck down the "separate but equal" doctrine of Plessy for public education, ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, and required the desegregation of schools across America.

The Supreme Court's Brown v. Board of Education decision did not abolish segregation in other public areas, such as restaurants and restrooms, nor did it require desegregation of public schools by a specific time. It did, however, declare the permissive or mandatory segregation that existed in 21 states unconstitutional. [13] It was a giant step towards complete desegregation of public schools. Even partial desegregation of these schools, however, was still very far away, as would soon become apparent.

_________________________________________________

The rest of the story is that the U.S. Govt. passed the Civil Rights Act in, I think, 1964 and black people have the deserved equal rights to white people.

The civil unions v. marriage is similar in that it creates the separate but equal atmosphere that Plessy v. Ferguson established. In other words, the term civil unions will create a second class marriage like the second class busing, school systems, etc., accorded to black people under this same ssytem.

____________________________________________________

Sorry for the length. I hope that helped. :wavey:

[GypsySorcerer]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
,

Sorry for the length. I hope that helped. :wavey:



Thanks for your thoughtful response. I never thought of it as a "separate, but equal" issue. I am taking a Constitutional History course this semster so I hope we dig deeper into these issues. :wavey:

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by GypsySorcerer
Thanks for your thoughtful response. I never thought of it as a "separate, but equal" issue. I am taking a Constitutional History course this semster so I hope we dig deeper into these issues. :wavey:

You are welcome. Also, I think you will find Con Law fascinating - I certainly did. In the end, I concluded the Court is the conscious of America - regardless of whether it was supposed to be :laugh:

Also, the sep. but equal thing was clearly worse for black people than it ever has been for gay people in that gay people do not ride in the back of the bus, have sep. water fountains, and they were never enslaved. But the general gist is there IMO :cool:

[dissention]

I think that Kerry does support gay marriage (as reflected in his voting record), but he just says "civil unions" to get on the liberals side, while saying "no gay marriage" to get the votes of those who oppose it. You hit that right on the head. It's purely politics.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by dissention
I think that Kerry does support gay marriage (as reflected in his voting record), but he just says "civil unions" to get on the liberals side, while saying "no gay marriage" to get the votes of those who oppose it. You hit that right on the head. It's purely politics.

:nod: :nod: :nod:

Although I agree that Kerry proabably could care a less about gay marriage over civil untions, etc., Kerry's vote not to pass the Defense of Marriage Act is a tenuous connection to his supporting gay marriage. He said he did that solely because he thought the Defense of Marriage Act was sponsored by hate, which it mostly was. but, I agree, politics, etc.

:laugh:

[CarneVaca]

Originally posted by dissention
I think that Kerry does support gay marriage (as reflected in his voting record), but he just says "civil unions" to get on the liberals side, while saying "no gay marriage" to get the votes of those who oppose it. You hit that right on the head. It's purely politics.

And yet another reason why I can't vote for him.

It is semantics and politics. Two people love each other and want to consummate that love, I say let them. Not only let them, encourage them.

[dissention]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
And yet another reason why I can't vote for him.

It is semantics and politics. Two people love each other and want to consummate that love, I say let them. Not only let them, encourage them.

Well, good luck getting a candidate that isn't all semantics and politics. Besides for Kucinich. :laugh: I *love* Kucinich and his charts. :laugh:

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by dissention
Well, good luck getting a candidate that isn't all semantics and politics. Besides for Kucinich. :laugh: I *love* Kucinich and his charts. :laugh:

And - like Sharpton, DK will probably stay in the race until the end because he is not spending any money (at least I think he is still in - did he drop out :laugh: )

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
And - like Sharpton, DK will probably stay in the race until the end because he is not spending any money (at least I think he is still in - did he drop out :laugh: )

Yup, they are both still in. I love both of them. :nod: :D

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by dissention
Yup, they are both still in. I love both of them. :nod: :D

For not spending any money at all, Al S got respectable numbers of Tues. I think he beat Dean one time, but could be wrong :laugh:

[hayley]

I think in no way are the terms "marriage" and "civil union" interchangeable- and they shouldn't be used that way by anyone, let alone politicians.

I believe that "marriage" is an institution that should not be recognized by the government in any way whatsoever. Marriage is a religious institution historically, continuing today, describing the spiritual and physical union of a man and woman. Marriage ceremonies were designed to wed a man and a woman together in a religious ceremony, uniting the two as a couple with God...

Marriage is a religious institution, and shouldn't be considered a governmental one. As far as I'm concerned, a union between ANY two people, gay or straight, blue green or yellow- should be considered a civil union in the eyes of the government. A person should have the right to choose who they want to be united with in that manner, and the government should have no problem whatsoever with allowing any kind of civil union in that matter.

Separate church and state- a religious couple should be considered a civil union by the government, and are welcome to further their union by consecrating it as a marriage in the eyes of their religion.

[Johnny Stew]

Actually, you're completely right, Hayley... they should be regarded as two different entities, under the "separation of church & state" banner.
Which is exactly where our current President and his followers are muddying the lines, by denouncing gay unions/marriages as being wrong in the eyes of God, and making this whole debate a "religious thing."

To be honest, I think that had conservative groups not put up such immediate and fierce opposition, gay rights groups would be pushing more for civil unions, as opposed to "marriage."
In some aspects, I believe it's become a battle of wills.

All I know is that I want the same rights and benefits as everyone else. Nothing more and certainly nothing less... and I think that's only fair.
If they allowed gay unions to be recognized by law, I'd be satisfied, and you wouldn't hear another peep out of me on the matter. :)

[sparky]

I don't have much of a personal stake in the semantics of this brouhaha. Marriage, civil union...whatever. The point, I am certain, is attempting to legislate a "moral judgement" on gay people. The constant harping about gays among the usual suspects is annoying, questionable, and enough to write a book about. The main reason I want this, or a similar law, to go into effect is to not allow those people a victory over us. How dare they think they can decide I am a second class citizen ? They can legislate all they want - I'm still going to have a boyfriend. And the usual suspects - Santorum, Helms, Frist, Schlafly and the like - will still be obsessively picturing our sex lives and driving themselves into legislative and psychlogical frenzies. I think that's the more interesting issue here, really...why are these politicians and religious leaders fascinated by and fixated on the sex lives of homos ? Now THAT'S an entire book, that one.

[Johnny Stew]

Originally posted by sparky
I think that's the more interesting issue here, really...why are these politicians and religious leaders fascinated by and fixated on the sex lives of homos ?Closet-cases, perhaps? ;) :laugh:

[sparky]

Originally posted by Johnny Stew
Closet-cases, perhaps? ;) :laugh:

Considering the individuals involved, I am doing my best to banish the idea of a visual. That's about enough to scare me straight.

[GypsySorcerer]

Originally posted by dissention
I think that Kerry does support gay marriage (as reflected in his voting record), but he just says "civil unions" to get on the liberals side, while saying "no gay marriage" to get the votes of those who oppose it. You hit that right on the head. It's purely politics.


:nod: I knew about his vote against the DOMA, which made me think it was all political. His comments yesterday are what sparked this topic.

[GypsySorcerer]

Originally posted by sparky
I think that's the more interesting issue here, really...why are these politicians and religious leaders fascinated by and fixated on the sex lives of homos ? Now THAT'S an entire book, that one.


My best friend came out recently to his parents, and we've been having lots of conversations about this.

In all honesty, I think because it's very easy to point the finger at homosexuals. Religious leaders, especially, have dubbed homosexuality the cardinal sin of life. Kind of that "all you others" syndrome.

:distress:

[strandinthewind]

Interestingly, while I agree and have said before, the govt. should stay out of marriage and picking and choosing IMO violates the 1st Amendment's establishement clause, the states historically have always had the power to regulate marriage since this country was formed. So, to argue it is a violation of the U.S. Const.'s establishment clause (sep. of Church and state) is a bit misleading since that right was there when they wrote the document, etc. :cool:

As of now ( :laugh: ), I think Mass. is going at it the right way by insisting on all out marriage. I mean the factuals situation and generous time contraints there bode well for this. I am just scared of them failing. What will happen then? But, the fact that Mass cannot amend its Const. until 11/06 IMO will make this a dead issue then. I think by then people will see that Satan has not opened the gates of hell, no one has been burned at the stake, etc. :laugh:

Finally, if I have said it once :laugh: - sadly, organized religion is all about control. The various churches know that if they whip this issue up into a frenzy, they will be able to control the masses and take the masses eyes off of other problems like pedophile priests. Also, this is a big money maker for various religious organizations as well as the Republican party. In fact, this issue could surpass Hillary and Bill as the ultimate money maker for the Republican Partry and some Democrats :laugh:

The whole thing is just hate and it just sickens me. :confused:

[dissention]

Originally posted by sparky
I think that's the more interesting issue here, really...why are these politicians and religious leaders fascinated by and fixated on the sex lives of homos ? Now THAT'S an entire book, that one.

That leads me to the age-old question...

If sex is such a natural phenomenon, why are there so many books telling us what to do?

:laugh:

[strandinthewind]

OMG ANOTHER ONE :eek:


CHICAGO — Mayor Richard Daley said he would have "no problem" with Cook County issuing marriage licenses to gay couples in Chicago, the nation's third largest city.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,111882,00.html

[Johnny Stew]

Every great change has been brought about by an act (or acts) of anarchy.

More power to these men for challenging archaic (and discriminatory) notions, and for not being afraid to stand up for what's right.

"Let there be light in this lifetime...."

[strandinthewind]

Thursday, February 19, 2004

SAN FRANCISCO — After sanctioning more than 2,700 gay marriages in the past week, the city said Thursday it is suing the state of California, challenging its ban on same-sex marriages on constitutional grounds.


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,111935,00.html

[DrummerDeanna]

Well, in light of all this same-sex marriage license stuff New Mexico has jumped on the band wagon (sort of) a small county, Sandoval County, which is in the northern part of the state, but has no major cities...anyway, they are issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples because our state law defines marriage as a partnership between two contracting individuals, no wording on gender, therefore the county officials decided it would be a liability if they refused the licenses....all of this is very interesting indeed...

[strandinthewind]

Yes, it is as if Rosa Parks has sat in the "whites only" section and the wheels of change are spinning like they did then.

[Johnny Stew]

(Brief... but terrific news nonetheless!)


Judge Denies Immediate Stay of Gay Unions
By LISA LEFF, Associated Press Writer

SAN FRANCISCO - Gay and lesbian couples won another reprieve Friday when a judge declined to immediately stop San Francisco from granting them marriage licenses, saying conservative groups failed to prove the weddings would cause irreparable harm.

[Johnny Stew]

Oh, and i was flipping thru the channels last night, and I saw that Shill O'Reilly* is calling for the arrest of Gavin Newsom (the mayor of San Francisco) for civil disobedience. :rolleyes:

I wonder what O'Reilly would have had to say about the Civil Rights movement in the '60s.
If it were up to him, African-American people would probably still be where they were 50 years ago.

If I had any doubts about the kind of person O'Reilly is, he's finally answered them once and for all, by coming out on the side of discrimination.


(* I know that was childish, but I couldn't resist.)

[Johnny Stew]

(The previous news item was published within 4 minutes of the story breaking. Here's the fleshed-out article.)


Judge Denies Immediate Stay of Gay Unions
By LISA LEFF, Associated Press Writer

SAN FRANCISCO - Gay and lesbian couples won another reprieve Friday when a judge declined to immediately stop San Francisco from granting them marriage licenses, saying conservative groups failed to prove the weddings would cause irreparable harm.

Judge Ronald Evans Quidachay denied the Campaign for California Families' request for a temporary restraining order but said the group did have the right to a hearing on their argument that the city is violating state law.

The conservative group argued that the weddings harm all Californians who voted in 2000 for Proposition 22, which defined marriage as between a man and a woman.

The judge suggested that the rights of the gay and lesbian couples appeared to be more substantial.

"If the court has to weigh rights here, on the one hand you are talking about voting rights, and on the other you are talking about equal rights," Quidachay said.

Quidachay consolidated the Campaign for California Families' lawsuit against the city with one filed by another conservative group, and told lawyers for both sides to work out between themselves when the next hearing would be held.

[darklinensuit]

Now Ahnuld is trying to stop the marriages. :rolleyes: I really can't stand that guy.

- Jake

[Johnny Stew]

Originally posted by darklinensuit
Now Ahnuld is trying to stop the marriages. :rolleyes: I really can't stand that guy.He should have stuck to making movies... he's not a good enough actor to be a politician. ;)

[Jason T.]

<font face="Tahoma"><p align="justify">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...
</p></font>

[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 :laugh:

[strandinthewind]

What an a$$hole!

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/24/elec04.prez.bush.marriage/index.html

[Jason T.]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
What an a$$hole!
<font face="Tahoma"><p align="justify">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.</p></font>

[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. :mad:

[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. :mad:

:nod:

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

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
:nod:

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

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/religion/televangelists/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!" :lol:

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/constitution/constitution.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. :rolleyes:

[strandinthewind]

The outcry from both sides:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/24/elec04.marriage.reacts/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/articles/A1883-2004Feb24.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/vault/stories/data022404.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?!?!

:laugh:

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by dissention
WHAT HAVE I TOLD YOU?!

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

:laugh:

If you ever watched the late 70's perhaps early 80's sitcom called "Carter Country" - all I have to say is he looks exactly like the fat ass mayor whose jowls would shake when he would say "ROY - Handle It Handle It" :laugh:

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by 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.

To paraphrase Nader, Kerry, and Edwards - W can't talk about jobs because there are none - He can't talk about 50 billion dollars to find WMD because there are none, and he can't talk about any other relevant topic because his record is too dismal. - So, he picks a hate filled wedge issue and tries to focus people in that instead of him.

So, I repeat - what an a$$hole :mad:

[estranged4life]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
He can't talk about 50 billion dollars to find WMD because there are none, and he can't talk about any other relevant topic because his record is too dismal.

Of course there are WMD, they are STILL under the 2 seats at the Smirnoff Music Centre in Dallas, TX since the werent obviously found...;) (A lil' Pearl Jam concert humor y'all!!)

Brian j.

[DeeGeMe]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
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.


Strand--I learned more from your post about Constitutional Law than I learned in an entire semester in college!

[darklinensuit]

Originally posted by Johnny Stew
He should have stuck to making movies... he's not a good enough actor to be a politician. ;)

He's not a good enough actor to stick to making movies.;)

- Jake

[HollywoodSteve]

I thought something Kathie Lee Gifford said on a recent talk show was funny : "I think that gay people deserve to be miserable just like the rest of us." Was just really funny coming from a woman who is well known as having her fair share of marital woes. Never knew the woman was so open-minded and had a sense of humor. I will no longer make fun of her again. (Okay, okay, I'm sure I will).

[DeeGeMe]

A friend sent this to me and I found it very amusing.


IN DEFENSE OF BIBLICAL MARRIAGE

The Presidential Prayer Team has urged us to: "Pray for the President as he seeks wisdom on how to legally codify the definition of marriage. Pray that it will be according to biblical principles. With many forces insisting on variant definitions of marriage, pray that God's Word and His standards will be honored by our government." Any good religious person believes prayer should be balanced by action. So here, in support of the Prayer Team's admirable goals, is a proposed Constitutional Amendment codifying marriage entirely on biblical principles:

(1)Marriage in the United States shall consist of a union between one man and one or more women.(Gen 29:17-28; II Sam 3:2-5.)

(2)Marriage shall not impede a man's right to take concubines in addition to his wife or wives. (II Sam 5:13; I Kings 11:3; II Chron11:21)

(3)A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed (Deut 22:13-21)

(4)Marriage of a believer and a non-believer shall be forbidden.(Gen 24:3; Num 25:1-9; Ezra 9:12; Neh 10:30)

(5)Since marriage is for life, neither this Constitution nor the constitution of any state, nor any state or federal law, shall be construed to permit divorce. (Deut 22:19; Mark 10:9)

(6)If a married man dies without children, his brother shall marry the widow. If he refuses to marry his brother's widow or deliberately does not give her children, he shall pay a fine of one shoe and be otherwise punished in a manner to be determined by law. (Gen. 38:6-10; Deut 25:5-10)

(7)In lieu of marriage, if there are no acceptable men in your town, it is required that you get your dad drunk and have sex with him (even if he had previously offered you up as a sex toy to men young and old), tag-teaming with any sisters you may have. Of course, this rule applies only if you are female. (Gen 19:31-36)

(Original author unknown.)

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by DeeGeMe
Strand--I learned more from your post about Constitutional Law than I learned in an entire semester in college!

Thanks!!!! I find Constitutional Law fascinating, esp. in this case where the proponents of same sex marriage have the religious right cornered in the web of the full faith and credit clause. It is a dirty little secret that the religious right believe that states should follow only the laws that they think God supports. When they do not think God supports the law, they use the activitst judges.

A great example of this is in the late 90's, the Oregon population voted affirmatively for a right to die statute. Once Ashcroft became the U.S. Attorney General, he ignored Janet Renos settlement of the matter, and determined on his own that this law was against God no matter what the citizens of Oregon thought (so much for state's rights). So, Ashcroft looked for a way to overturn the law. The only thing he could find was to argue that Oregonian physicians were breaking fedeal law by illegally prescribing/dispensing federally controlled substances (i.e. medication) to use in assisted suicides, which the DEA's regulaions did not specifically address and still do not to my knowledge. In other words, he said, Oregonians you can vote on the right to die all you want, but I control the DEA which dispenses the drugs that let you do this humanely and you cannot have these drugs. WTF?

Again, these people really think they are the hand of God and all that are not amognst the faithful should be without a voice. Scary - VERY SCARY

[strandinthewind]

http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/luckovich/index.html

[DeeGeMe]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Again, these people really think they are the hand of God and all that are not amognst the faithful should be without a voice. Scary - VERY SCARY

Scary doesn't even begin to describe them. There is nothing more dangerous than a zealot and these folks crossed that line a long, long time ago! They honestly believe that God is a Republican! How long before they decide to ban abortion, divorce, and anything else they see as ungodly?

Oh, and I love this constitutional stuff too. I was a double major in college--English & Political Science. Constitutional History/Law was my favorite Poly Sci course.

[dissention]

Originally posted by DeeGeMe
A friend sent this to me and I found it very amusing.


IN DEFENSE OF BIBLICAL MARRIAGE

The Presidential Prayer Team has urged us to: "Pray for the President as he seeks wisdom on how to legally codify the definition of marriage. Pray that it will be according to biblical principles. With many forces insisting on variant definitions of marriage, pray that God's Word and His standards will be honored by our government." Any good religious person believes prayer should be balanced by action. So here, in support of the Prayer Team's admirable goals, is a proposed Constitutional Amendment codifying marriage entirely on biblical principles:

(1)Marriage in the United States shall consist of a union between one man and one or more women.(Gen 29:17-28; II Sam 3:2-5.)

(2)Marriage shall not impede a man's right to take concubines in addition to his wife or wives. (II Sam 5:13; I Kings 11:3; II Chron11:21)

(3)A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed (Deut 22:13-21)

(4)Marriage of a believer and a non-believer shall be forbidden.(Gen 24:3; Num 25:1-9; Ezra 9:12; Neh 10:30)

(5)Since marriage is for life, neither this Constitution nor the constitution of any state, nor any state or federal law, shall be construed to permit divorce. (Deut 22:19; Mark 10:9)

(6)If a married man dies without children, his brother shall marry the widow. If he refuses to marry his brother's widow or deliberately does not give her children, he shall pay a fine of one shoe and be otherwise punished in a manner to be determined by law. (Gen. 38:6-10; Deut 25:5-10)

(7)In lieu of marriage, if there are no acceptable men in your town, it is required that you get your dad drunk and have sex with him (even if he had previously offered you up as a sex toy to men young and old), tag-teaming with any sisters you may have. Of course, this rule applies only if you are female. (Gen 19:31-36)

(Original author unknown.)

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

That? Is the best thing I've read in a long time.

There was some ASSHOLE on larry King last night and I just wanted to jump through my TV and kill him. He was some pastor and, if anyone else saw it, you probably felt the same way. The same thing about that Congresswoman form Colorado.

You have my sympathies, darling Chris. I can bet money that you didn't vote for her. :laugh: :wavey:

[strandinthewind]

OMG - did you see that smug female dog from Colorado's face when Larry King or someone said "You would have sent Rosa Parks to the back of the bus and told her to effectuate change through the 1956 Alabama legilature ( :rolleyes: ) this was in response to that woman's smugly patronizing "I am using the deliberative process to establish change as opposed to breaking the law like they are doing in SFCA" crapola. That "rhymes with a brand of ketchup" (I annot use that horrible word here but it fits :laugh: ) embarrasment for Colorado had no coherent reply - she just, like W and that radio in Iraq at the beginning of the war, kept smugly saying the same incorrect byline over and over again.

BTW - I sent that ketchup an email saying I hoped she burnt in hell for the hate she is fostering in the name of God. If I dissappear soon, that means they have gotten me and are holding me without benefit of a lawyer, etc. a la the Patriot Act. :laugh:

[strandinthewind]

OMG - just as I was spouting off about Ashcroft and his and the religious rights' selective enforecement of God mandated stuff, Newsweek (Eleanor Clift) is right there with me :laugh:

The Enforcer

John Ashcroft’s latest bid to curb abortion rights is a politically risky overreach. Why doesn't he pursue federal gun control laws with equal vigor? WEB-EXCLUSIVE COMMENTARY

Newsweek
Updated: 1:04 p.m. ET Feb. 20, 2004

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4327093/

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
OMG - did you see that smug female dog from Colorado's face when Larry King or someone said "You would have sent Rosa Parks to the back of the bus and told her to effectuate change through the 1956 Alabama legilature ( :rolleyes: ) this was in response to that woman's smugly patronizing "I am using the deliberative process to establish change as opposed to breaking the law like they are doing in SFCA" crapola. That "rhymes with a brand of ketchup" (I annot use that horrible word here but it fits :laugh: ) embarrasment for Colorado had no coherent reply - she just, like W and that radio in Iraq at the beginning of the war, kept smugly saying the same incorrect byline over and over again.

BTW - I sent that ketchup an email saying I hoped she burnt in hell for the hate she is fostering in the name of God. If I dissappear soon, that means they have gotten me and are holding me without benefit of a lawyer, etc. a la the Patriot Act. :laugh:

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

I sent an email to that hag, too!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

For anyone else who wants to send that hateful wench an email, here's her addy:

[email protected]

And here's her ****ty website:

http://wwwc.house.gov/musgrave/

I hope her husband turns out to be gay. :laugh:

[strandinthewind]

Scarily, the manager of my building (condo) looks just like her and acts just as smug. I hate her too and she knows it :laugh:

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Scarily, the manager of my building (condo) looks just like her and acts just as smug. I hate her too and she knows it :laugh:

:laugh:

[strandinthewind]

Rev. Frost is a local well known minister and many of my friends' minister. Here is his well thought out and well reasoned opt ed on this issue.

http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/0204a/25frost.html

Here is my friend's hysterical response:

I will cut it out of the paper and save it when I get home. In the meantime, please give Rev. Frost a huge hug and kiss for me! When I meet the gay man or lesbian woman who can "undermine and devalue the sacredness of marriage" as ruthlessly and cavalierly as my womanizing, lying ex-husband, I will see if I can arrange a commitment ceremony for him/her in the Episcopal Cathedral of St. Phillip, where the aforementioned ex sanctified the sacredness of his (third) marriage with the full blessings of church and state.

:laugh:

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Rev. Frost is a local well known minister and many of my friends' minister. Here is his well thought out and well reasoned opt ed on this issue.

http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/0204a/25frost.html

Here is my friend's hysterical response:

I will cut it out of the paper and save it when I get home. In the meantime, please give Rev. Frost a huge hug and kiss for me! When I meet the gay man or lesbian woman who can "undermine and devalue the sacredness of marriage" as ruthlessly and cavalierly as my womanizing, lying ex-husband, I will see if I can arrange a commitment ceremony for him/her in the Episcopal Cathedral of St. Phillip, where the aforementioned ex sanctified the sacredness of his (third) marriage with the full blessings of church and state.

:laugh:

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

I'm sorry, but the man doesn't have a well-thought out thin gin his brain. All he can do is give religious reasons and religion has nothing to do with it. He proved himself to be a real, dare I say it, ----sucker last night. I'm not religious, but if I was, I'd be embarassed to have that man preaching the word of God. He is the one who is having a helping hand in ruining society.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by dissention
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

I'm sorry, but the man doesn't have a well-thought out thin gin his brain. All he can do is give religious reasons and religion has nothing to do with it. He proved himself to be a real, dare I say it, ----sucker last night. I'm not religious, but if I was, I'd be embarassed to have that man preaching the word of God. He is the one who is having a helping hand in ruining society.

I think you are confusing the guy on Larry King and Rev. Frost who is for same sex marriage in this opt ed article. :cool:

[Johnny Stew]

Originally posted by dissention
There was some ASSHOLE on larry King last night and I just wanted to jump through my TV and kill him. He was some pastor and, if anyone else saw it, you probably felt the same way. The same thing about that Congresswoman form Colorado.I was disappointed because I only caught the re-airing at 3am, and I had several questions and comments I would have loved to have called in and posed to Pastor MacArthur and Representative Musgrave.
Of course, it's probably best that I couldn't, because my blood was boiling, over what they were saying.

And I just looooooved Musgrave's asinine questioning of Gavin Newsom in regards to polygomy.
She was backed into a corner, and all of her arguments were intelligently shot down and countered, so all she could come up with was that tired old polygomy argument.

Yes, lady... not only do we want the right to marry someone of our own gender, but we also want to make sure that we can marry DOZENS of 'em!!!
In fact, we won't stop until we've turned the entire world into one giant den of iniquity!
Mwah-Ha-Ha-Ha!!!

:rolleyes:

At any rate, I realized too late that I should never watch a debate over gay marriage at 3 in the morning, because then I couldn't sleep the rest of the night!

[strandinthewind]

I still maintain that the far religious right is correct in that polygamy will be next. I also think the proponents of same sex marriage are wisely doing everything they can to avoid that question. I mean I think inequity still exists as long as anyone is unable to have the govt. sanction their idea of marriage when it recognizes other groups and gives them benefits. I think that is why there should be no govt. sanction of marriage in any way shape or form. According to the far religious right, that would really have no effect on anyone's rights because any committed relationship can get the same rights through the use of legal contracts, etc. But, the far religious right will never go for that because they know that they are lying when they say the same rights are easily achieved, if achievable at all, through other legal means. :mad:

But, no one will ever buy my argument, so I say govt. sanctioned same sex marriage is the way to go and the hell with the polygamists!!!! :laugh:

[estranged4life]

being that I live in the $%^&@#$%# center of the Bible Belt, The religious right want to make <b>adultery</b> their next target!!!

Brian "the burning <b>Shrub</b> told Moses to join the NRA as their president" j.

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
I think you are confusing the guy on Larry King and Rev. Frost who is for same sex marriage in this opt ed article. :cool:

Oh. :laugh:

My mistake. What was the name of the guy on Larry King then?! :laugh:

[strandinthewind]

LARRY KING, HOST: Tonight, the president comes out hard against same-sex marriage, and emotions are rising as the debate heats us. With us tonight, San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom. He brought this issue center stage earlier this month when he ordered the city and county to issue same-sex marriage licenses; nationally syndicated Christian broadcaster Pastor John MacArthur of California's Grace Community Church; Chad Allen, the actor and producer who starred in TV hits like "My Two Dads" and "Dr. Quinn Medicine Woman," became an activist after he was outed by tabloids in 1996; and Representative Marilyn Musgrave, Republican of Colorado. The White House says the president approves of the broad principles in the federal marriage amendment. That's an amendment she introduced in the House. They're all next on LARRY KING LIVE.

____________________________________________-

Here is a copy of the transript

http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0402/24/lkl.00.html

[strandinthewind]

Here is the portion of the transcript where the ketchup shows her bias against gay people. She smugly says "I actually have no opinion on that." I mean really. Does she really believe that and expect anyone to believe that. Also, notice how she never answers the "here we go again with sep. but equal" part. She refuses to say Dr. King did a good thing by breaking the law. I hate few people, but I probably hate her.

ketchup ketchup ketchup
________________________________________________

KING: Congresswoman Musgrave, what do you have against Chad Allen expressing that love with is partner in marriage?

REP. MARILYN MUSGRAVE (R-CO), INTRODUCED FED. MARRIAGE AMENDMENT: I actually have no opinion on that. What I do have an opinion on is whether or not in this country we will allow activist judges to redefine marriage. You know, Chad needs to be aware that the deliberative process, the legislative process has been available all along for people to change laws. But they've not chosen to go that way, but rather to go through the judicial branch, activist judges, to get their way. And the American people should not be forced...

KING: I see. But...

MUSGRAVE: ... to recognize gay marriage by federal judges or state judges.

KING: But Congresswoman, hasn't it been true in the past -- there's only two ways to change a law, legislatively or breaking it and then having a judge deciding or a constitutional Supreme Court deciding? Martin Luther King broke many laws on the way to justice. So what is open to someone other than to challenge a law, if the legislature doesn't change it, than to challenge it legally?

MUSGRAVE: Well, what is open to them is the legislative deliberative process. If we're ever to change the definition of marriage in this country, it should be done by the American people and their elected representatives. And they've had every opportunity to go that route but have chosen not to do that because the American people overwhelmingly support the traditional definition of marriage...

KING: But states...

MUSGRAVE: ... a union between one man and one woman.

KING: States in the South historically supported a separation of color in the South, and Martin Luther King challenged that. Many states held to it. A black couldn't marry a white in the Southern states. This is 20 years ago that couldn't happen.

MUSGRAVE: What we're talking about...

KING: The legislature didn't change it.

MUSGRAVE: ... here, Larry, is the definition of marriage, changing the definition of marriage. And again, if that's to be done, it should be done by the American people and their elected representatives.

KING: OK. Mayor, what's wrong with that? What's wrong with letting the people decide?

NEWSOM: Yes, Larry, I feel, I must say, when I'm listening to the congresswoman -- and I say this with respect -- that if we wait for popularity in the polls and the people, we still would be talking about interracial marriages in this country. The year I was born, finally, it was some activist judges in Loving versus the State of Virginia that finally recognized that 16 states were being discriminatory in not affording the rights of blacks to marry whites, whites to marry Asians, et cetera. The point is, there's certain principles you stand on and those principles of non-discrimination.

I've got to say, as well, I think we're affirming family. And I would challenge anyone that doesn't think that gay couples are an extention of the fabric of family to come to City Hall and see young kids, to see mothers and fathers with their sons and daughters that are engaging in bonds and extending themselves to loving relationships and affirming marriage. And as I said, Larry, I got married two years ago. I have certain rights and privileges that, until we took action here in San Francisco, were denied literally millions of people across this country. That is fundamentally flawed, and I would argue that's not American.

KING: Let me get a break, and we'll come back...

MUSGRAVE: It might be interesting...

KING: I'll have Marilyn respond...

MUSGRAVE: OK.

[estranged4life]

From what I see about this lady I think the appropriate word would be "Sprunt" (As George Carlin once said: "A feminine spray...Hey, The name says it all.")

Brian "I may have been misunderstood"-"Misunderstood" by Dream Theater" j.

[CarneVaca]

Strand, the slippery slope is never a good argument. It's faulty because it is based on conjecture, not facts.

Be that as it may, if people want polygamy, give polygamy to the people. Me, I can't see having to juggle multiple spouses!!

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by estranged4life
From what I see about this lady I think the appropriate word would be "Sprunt" (As George Carlin once said: "A feminine spray...Hey, The name says it all.")

Brian "I may have been misunderstood"-"Misunderstood" by Dream Theater" j. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
Strand, the slippery slope is never a good argument. It's faulty because it is based on conjecture, not facts.

Be that as it may, if people want polygamy, give polygamy to the people. Me, I can't see having to juggle multiple spouses!!

Lord - can you imagine having more than one spouse :eek:

I think the slippery slope is a silly argument in most cases. But, I do think if we want to fair to all people, it applies here and it is factual noy conjecture. The polygamist are already suing to be recognized. That is why I say the state has no business in marriage. :cool:

[CarneVaca]

But it does, Strand. I had to get a marriage license.

[dissention]

Originally posted by estranged4life
From what I see about this lady I think the appropriate word would be "Sprunt" (As George Carlin once said: "A feminine spray...Hey, The name says it all.")

Brian "I may have been misunderstood"-"Misunderstood" by Dream Theater" j.

LMAO!!!!!!!!

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Watching her last night, I thought to myself that she probably hadn't been laid in years.

"I think a lay...
A lay would do you good..."

[Johnny Stew]

Originally posted by dissention
Watching her last night, I thought to myself that she probably hadn't been laid in years.

"I think a lay...
A lay would do you good..." Actually, what I think would do her the most good, would be to have to walk a mile in the shoes of the people she wishes to discriminate against.

Let her see what it's like to be told you're a second-class citizen and that what you are is "Un-American," sinful, and a detriminent to the moral standing of society.

Let her see what it's like to be told that you're an abomination, by those who profess to teach God's word.

Let her see what it's like to be unable to profess your love for someone, and what it's like to have to hide who you are, and what it's like to hate yourself for not being "normal."

Let her see those things, and getting laid will be the least of her worries.

[dissention]

Originally posted by Johnny Stew
Actually, what I think would do her the most good, would be to have to walk a mile in the shoes of the people she wishes to discriminate against.

Let her see what it's like to be told you're a second-class citizen and that what you are is "Un-American," sinful, and a detriminent to the moral standing of society.

Let her see what it's like to be told that you're an abomination, by those who profess to teach God's word.

Let her see what it's like to be unable to profess your love for someone, and what it's like to have to hide who you are, and what it's like to hate yourself for not being "normal."

Let her see those things, and getting laid will be the least of her worries.

Good points!

:wavey:

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
But it does, Strand. I had to get a marriage license.

I know - but my point is it should not as I think marriage is a strictly religious ideal. Once, as now, the govt. recognizes with special rights only one type of religion or religions' marriages and excludes even one legitimate (see the USSC Lemon decision ) religion's marriage, the govt. is establishing a religion. So, I say the govt. ought to be out of religion altogether. Again, that ketchup from Colorado says all benefits in the current form of marriage can be obtained via a lawyer. So, why should the state automatically grant them just because two straight people want to marry :shrug:

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by Johnny Stew
Actually, what I think would do her the most good, would be to have to walk a mile in the shoes of the people she wishes to discriminate against.

Let her see what it's like to be told you're a second-class citizen and that what you are is "Un-American," sinful, and a detriminent to the moral standing of society.

Let her see what it's like to be told that you're an abomination, by those who profess to teach God's word.

Let her see what it's like to be unable to profess your love for someone, and what it's like to have to hide who you are, and what it's like to hate yourself for not being "normal."

Let her see those things, and getting laid will be the least of her worries.

These are good points. However, given what I have seen from her and my experience in the world makes me sure that she could be repeatedly hit over the head with the facts and she would refuse to see them for what they are. She has her agenda of hate and persecution and will never let it go. Again, she refused to acknowledge that our legal system clearly allows people to address the constitutionality of a law in court and the only way to make that challenge is to break the law a la Dr. King, Rosa Parks, etc. Yet, she refused even to acknowledge that the violation of the law in the civil rights movement was a good thing. She just smugly repeated in reference to same sex marriage "[I am using the deliberative legislative process so should they.]" She refuses to recognize that the deliberative legislative process does not work when the majority of people and, therefore, legilators are bigots a la the 1950's in the civil rights movements. Without civil disobedience then, I truly believe black people would still be in the back of the bus begging people like that bitch (sorry I just despise her and her ilk ) from Colorado, Trent Lott, etc., to give them rights while cleaning their houses for starvation wages and no benefits such as health care. :mad:

[strandinthewind]

Posted 2/25/2004 9:14 PM

Gay-marriage amendment unlikely to pass this year, many say


http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-02-25-gay-marriage-usat_x.htm

AND EVEN BETTER!!! :laugh:

Rosie O'Donnell to marry girlfriend in San Francisco

http://www.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/TV/02/26/odonnell.ap/index.html

Another example of rights that pretty much cannot be given via a legal method:

O'Donnell said she decided to marry Carpenter, a former dancer and marketing director at Nickelodeon, during her recent trial in New York over the now-defunct Rosie magazine.

"We applied for spousal privilege and were denied it by the state. As a result, everything that I said to Kelli, every letter that I wrote her, every e-mail, every correspondence and conversation was entered into the record," O'Donnell said. "After the trial, I am now and will forever be a total proponent of gay marriage."

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Posted 2/25/2004 9:14 PM

Gay-marriage amendment unlikely to pass this year, many say


http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-02-25-gay-marriage-usat_x.htm

AND EVEN BETTER!!! :laugh:

Rosie O'Donnell to marry girlfriend in San Francisco

http://www.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/TV/02/26/odonnell.ap/index.html

Another example of rights that pretty much cannot be given via a legal method:

O'Donnell said she decided to marry Carpenter, a former dancer and marketing director at Nickelodeon, during her recent trial in New York over the now-defunct Rosie magazine.

"We applied for spousal privilege and were denied it by the state. As a result, everything that I said to Kelli, every letter that I wrote her, every e-mail, every correspondence and conversation was entered into the record," O'Donnell said. "After the trial, I am now and will forever be a total proponent of gay marriage."

:eek:

Geez. When Rosie decides to get married, that will be the end of society. I can already hear the outcry from that hag Musgrave. :rolleyes:

[strandinthewind]

Again, The Bible says nothing about lesbians!!! :cool: So, where is the hag's argument?

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by dissention
:eek:

Geez. When Rosie decides to get married, that will be the end of society. I can already hear the outcry from that hag Musgrave. :rolleyes:

It happened this afternoon. Congratulations to Rosie and Kelly.:)

[strandinthewind]

OMG - my adopted state did something right in the way of civil rights!!!!!

House debating gay marriage ban
Posted at: Thursday, February 26, 2004, 03:28 PM

The Georgia House of Representatives rejected by three votes a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage Thursday evening.

Debate on the controversial measure began at 2:50 p.m. and wrapped up at about 6:15 p.m.

The first speaker of the GOP-sponsored measure was a Democrat who urged its passage.

Mike Boggs (D-Waycross) said lawmakers had an opportunity to protect the state against “activist judges” who might try to overturn the state law that bars same-sex marriage.

“Whether you’re a Democrat or a Republican, we have seldom had an opportunity to stand up for things that are common-sensical, things that stand up for Christian values,” Boggs said.

He was followed by Republican Bill Hembree, of Douglasville, who concurred with Boggs.

“Stand up in the defense of marriage,” said Hembree, after reading the definition of marriage from a dictionary as between “husband and wife.”

Hembree and other supporters repeatedly urged the chamber not to change the bill, and to vote for the bill so “the people can decide.”

Rep. Bob Holmes argued against the bill, saying “activist judges” often issue rulings that are in the public’s best interest. He cited rulings pertaining to the Voting Rights Act, guaranteeing voting rights for African-Americans.

“This goes beyond the notion of preventing same-sex marriage,” Holmes said. “We’re not talking about special privileges … we’re going to constitutionally discriminate against this segment of the population.”

Holmes disputed Republican assertions that a constitutional amendment would provide more protection than the current state law against a ban being overturned by the courts.

Rep. Stephanie Stuckey Benfield (D-Decatur) said the amendment would threaten domestic partner benefits many large Georgia companies, such as Coca-Cola and BellSouth, offer members of gay couples.

She also asked if legislators thought the amendment would make gay couples go away.

“If anything, it will make them stronger,” Benfield said.

Rep. Kathy Ashe (D-Atlanta), the 10th speaker on the resolution, said she hoped one day politicians would move past “attacking gay folks for political advantage.”

“Tonight, if we move this resolution forward I will go home and cry. I will cry for the lost hopes and dreams of thousands of my constituents who simply want to live their lives the way so many of us do every day.”

“Nobody can stand here and say that anyone is harmed by two loving individuals pledging their love for one another. … People who are not harming anyone deserve to be left alone. I thought both political parties believed that. Today, that lie is being exposed.”

Rep. Nan Orrock (D-Atlanta) said members would live to regret a vote in favor of the ban. Like previous speakers, she invoked the legacy of civil rights legend Martin Luther King Jr.

“Folks, this is the same thing as when legislatures put Jim Crow laws and codified them in their law books. You’re saying that people because of their status are not allowed to have the same rights as us.”

In a passionate speech, Rep. Alisha Thomas-Morgan (D-Austell) chastised Republicans for seeking to interfere with Georgians’ lives and in their bedrooms.

“How is it when you talk about less government, you want to talk about what people can do?” she said.

Thomas-Morgan said she is a Christian and opposes “this hateful bill.” She said she consulted her pastor and he told her to vote her conscience and he would support her.

“I urge you to have some guts,” she told her colleagues. “Have some courage.”

By about 5 p.m., 17 House members had spoken on the resolution in more than two hours of debate. Six had spoken in favor of it, 11 against.

Rep. Larry Walker (D-Perry), who is not running for re-election after 31 years in the legislature, said he supports the resolution but announced he would offer an amendment that he said would strengthen it. The change would drop language saying “no union between persons of the same sex shall be recognized by this state as entitled to the benefits of marriage.” The language has raised questions about whether companies and local governments would be able to offer health benefits to domestic partners.

Under Walker’s change, the resolution would say only, “the state shall recognize as marriage only the union of man and woman. Marriages between persons of the same sex are prohibited in this state.”

A hush fell over the chamber as Rep. Karla Drenner (D-Avondale Estates) took the podium to speak. Drenner is the only openly gay legislator in the General Assembly. She spoke in largely personal terms, telling colleagues she didn’t expect to change minds but wanted them to know more about her.

Drenner noted that she was raised Southern Baptist and is a mother. She wasn’t raised to be gay, and isn’t raising her children to be gay. She said she’s more than just a gay legislator.

“I have a tag line: the only openly lesbian legislator. That’s what I have become as a result of this. I wear that label, but I am more than that label. I represent 45,000 people just like you do,” she said.

Drenner went on to condemn Senate Resolution 595, saying President Bush declared war on gay people when he announced this week that he would support a ban in the U.S. Constitution.

“This amendment does not create more jobs, it does not improve education, nor does it provide access to affordable housing and healthcare,” she said. “It seeks to vilify and persecute an already oppressed minority.”

The bill passed a crucial committee vote this afternoon.

By a 23-6 vote, the House Rules Committee passed Senate Resolution 595 to the House floor for debate. If it passes without change in the full House, where it needs the vote of 120 of 180 members, it would be placed on the November ballot for a vote.

Rep. Calvin Smyre (D-Columbus), chairman of the House Rules Committee, asked for a roll-call vote on the resolution.

The committee’s secretary then read each member’s name. Twenty-three members said “yes” while only six said “no” to the amendment; one member was absent.

“S.R. 595 is voted out of committee and onto the general calendar,” Smyre said after that vote. “Now, for the bill to go on the floor for debate.”

By a voice vote, House Rules members then immediately voted to discuss the bill before the full House, which was to convene at 2 p.m.

The Rules Committee, which had quizzed the Senate sponsor during an early-morning meeting, took only a few minutes to pass the resolution. Rep. Bob Holmes (D-Atlanta) attempted to add an amendment that would strike out part of SR 595, but it failed.

Some people opposed to the resolution contend that it would deny domestic partnership benefits to same-sex couples. Republicans have said the resolution would have no effect on such benefits given by private businesses.

Earlier, Smyre also promised changes to the resolution. That would necessitate its reconsideration by the state Senate, which has already passed the ban.

“We will come back and perfect the legislation,” Smyre said.

At this morning’s session of Rules, Democratic House members blasted the proposed constitutional ban as flawed and questioned the sponsor’s motives.

Sen. Mike Crotts (R-Conyers), the resolution’s sponsor, said he was not surprised by the meeting’s tone.

“It went pretty much like I expected it,” Crotts said. “They are under fire on this issue, and the people in the state want to vote on it.”

Committee members took the measure apart, almost line by line.

Rep. Nan Orrock (D-Atlanta), said Crotts’ contention that the bill protects the state from “activist judges” who would want to change the current law is weak and that the bill would put the state more at risk of legal action.

“While you claim that you are not prejudiced and you love black people and you go to church with black people, you want to pass a bill saying that some people should be excluded from the Constitution,” Orrock said. “That is not equal protection.”

“Equal protection is what we have,” Crotts shot back. “They want special rights.”

Smyre adjourned the meeting after 50 minutes to allow members of the committee to convene with the full House, which started at 10 a.m. Smyre said the committee meeting will resume later in the day but he was unsure about a vote.

House Majority Leader Jimmy Skipper (D-Americus) said several legislators had called in and were having trouble making it to the Capitol because of the weather. Only three of the 30 members of the Rules Committee were absent, however.

The proposed amendment, which if it passed the Legislature would have to be voted on by the public in November, would define marriage in Georgia as a union strictly between a man and a woman.

Democrats make up 23 of the 30 committee members, but they said they had no unified position on the resolution.

Smyre is chairman of the Rules Committee, which decides which bills make it to the House floor for debate. He did not allow public comment during the committee meeting.

He said his office has received a total of more than 2,000 calls on the issue.

The Rules Committee must take two votes to consider whether SR 595 will make it to the full House for debate. The first positive vote would put it on the general calendar. The second, which leaders said would not come before next week, would put the measure on the Rules calendar, which is the agenda for the full House.

In committee, a simple majority is required for passage of the resolution, which already has passed the GOP-controlled Senate.

But on the House floor, a constitutional amendment requires approval by two-thirds of the 180 members, or 120 votes. Democrats control the House 108-71, with one independent.

Democrats might alter the legislation in the Rules Committee and place the legislation’s final fate — assuming it passed the full House — in the hands of a six-member conference committee that could further change or kill the measure.

The Republican resolution passed the GOP-held Senate, where 38 votes were required, 40-14. The party holds a 30-26 majority there.

[strandinthewind]

The stupidity we call W strikes again :laugh: According to this article, instead of just looking to see the genders of the name change applicant and their spouse, W bans the Social Security Administration from recognizing ALL (straight, gay, polygamist, whatever) marriage liscenses from San Francisco. I mean the Social Security Administration surely easily could do a gender check because when you register for a Social Security number you give your gender :shrug:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-02-28-sf-gay-marriage_x.htm

[strandinthewind]

Also, here is a USA poll on whether to pass a Const. Amendment banning same sex marriage. Interestingly and completely contrary to right wing far religious right rhetoric, as of now, a little over 84% of the 408,885 voters voted "no" and oppose therby opposed the proposed Amendment. I was one of them.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-02-24-gay-marriage-survey.htm

[BBALLGYPSY17]

Originally posted by Johnny Stew
Closet-cases, perhaps? ;) :laugh:


Agreed:D :laugh:

[darklinensuit]

'Whoopi' Engages Gay Marriage Debate
(Sunday, March 21 10:15 AM)
By Daniel Fienberg


LOS ANGELES (Zap2it.com) - Nearly a full season into her self-titled NBC comedy, Whoopi Goldberg is still discovering things about her new medium.
"I'm learning about television, so I'm learning about things like 'American Idol,'" Goldberg laughs. "I guess it's a steamroller... and you don't want to put your great episodes on up against it, because no one is watching."

This week, Goldberg's series, "Whoopi," will try again to block that steamroller's momentum when the show tackles the always-contentious issue of gay marriage. In the episode, titled "Don't Hide Love," Goldberg's character Mavis tries hosting her cousin's same-sex wedding at her hotel only to discover that her conservative brother (Wren T. Brown) is hosting a Republican organization at the same time.

The episode also finds Mavis, a formerly successful recording artist, singing her one hit, "Don't Hide Love," with the New York City Gay Men's Chorus.
Goldberg says that the writing staff had been kicking around possible gay marriage episodes for some time, but that nobody wanted to rush into the controversial topic.

"It's not an easy subject to deal with, because everybody has an opinion," she explains. "So what we came to understand is that that's what the episode is, it's everybody's opinion on it. We don't say 'Yay' or 'Nay.' We don't make any decisions for people. We just point a lot of stuff out and let folks deal with it on their own."

"Whoopi" has been letting folks deal with a variety of hot button positions since it launched back in September, weathering charges of racism along the way. The show's star insists that even if some television critics have been offended by characters Omid Djalili's Nasim, Iranian groups have been largely supportive.

"Any time you diffuse people's stereotypes, the group that's being stereotyped is quite relieved about it," she says. "Whether it's white people or black people or Asian people or Iranian people or Middle Eastern people or Puerto Rican people, it doesn't matter. Nobody wants to be thought of as only 'that.'"

In the midst of courting controversy, though, "Whoopi" has often had a difficult time courting an audience. After a smashing debut that came weeks before the start of the fall season, the show fell into a pattern of slowly declining ratings. The January launch of FOX's "American Idol" has made Tuesday night viewers even harder to come by.

Although "Whoopi" is very much on the bubble to return for a second season, Goldberg insists that NBC has been supportive of the show's efforts to shake things up.

"NBC has lived up to their end of the bargain by allowing us to do the things that we wanted to do and not stepping in our space saying 'No, no, no. Pull it back, babe,'" she notes. "They keep saying, 'More, more.' We keep saying, 'We're on at eight o'clock.'"

Part of this healthy relationship, of course, comes from Goldberg understanding the limits of network decency.

"God knows should I bare a breast on NBC, they have every right to yank me off, because it's not gonna be pretty," she jokes, referring, to Janet Jackson's notoriously exposed mammary. "I'm just not the person whose chest you want to see. But I think that NBC knows that people will not like always what we're saying... but it is part of the discussion that we're supposed to be having."

The gay marriage episode of "Whoopi" airs on NBC on Tuesday, March 23 at 8 p.m. ET.

- Jake