BS: On Same-Sex Marriages

Subject: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Amos
Date: 31 Aug 07 - 12:51 AM

Iowa judge approves gay weddings

(BBC News)

Same-sex couples are banned from marrying in 49 of the 50 US states
A county judge has struck down a ban on same-sex marriages in the US state of Iowa as unconstitutional.

Judge Robert Hanson ruled that a law allowing marriage only between men and women violated the rights of due process and equal protection.

Polk County Attorney John Sarcone said he would appeal against the ruling.

Only the state of Massachusetts allows gay marriages. Nine others - including New Jersey, New Hampshire, Connecticut and Vermont - offer civil unions.

Civil unions do not give gay couples the same legal rights as heterosexual marriages.

'Significant step'

The Iowa decision came after six gay couples sued Polk County in 2005 after it refused to give them marriage licences.

Judge Hanson ruled that the state's 1998 Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as solely between a man and a woman, violated the couples' constitutional rights.

He ordered county officials to issue licenses for the six couples as he made the ruling.

One of the couples' lawyers, Dennis Johnson, said the decision was: "A significant step forward in recognising the constitutional rights of all Iowans."

"And it's an amazing day for same-sex couples and their families all across Iowa," he said.

As soon as the decision was announced, Polk County attorney John Sarcone moved to prevent any same-sex couples from marrying until the appeal was decided.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: TRUBRIT
Date: 31 Aug 07 - 01:07 AM

It's a shame that Atty Sarcone has nothing else to do to fill his time.....

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: GUEST,PMB
Date: 31 Aug 07 - 03:59 AM

People who love each other are to be recognised as living together! Civilisation will collapse!

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Leadfingers
Date: 31 Aug 07 - 06:47 AM

Doing a Ceilidh at a Civil Union or Gay Wedding , has a totally different conception of 'Now swing the Other way' !

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: kendall
Date: 31 Aug 07 - 07:32 AM

What are the homophobes afraid of?
No one told me who I could or couldn't marry, so where do they get that right?

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 31 Aug 07 - 08:22 AM

It's often a religious tenet Kendall, and not just homophobia.
G

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Bee
Date: 31 Aug 07 - 08:36 AM

Giok, the religious who hold to that tenet do not have to marry anyone of the same sex, nor do their pastors/priests/ministers have to perform the ceremonies. There are hundreds of religious tenets which do not make it into the civil laws because they are only important to those who practice that religion. Do we rail against the legal eating of pork? Do Orthodox Jews try to pass laws against pigs?

It is homophobia, which means fear.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 31 Aug 07 - 08:57 AM

I'm aware of what it means, I'm just pointing out that homophobia is not the sole reason for objections, and I thought that Kendall's post was therefore misleading, and possibly denigrating of those who oppose it for religious reasons.
Just trying to be fair in other words.
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Rapparee
Date: 31 Aug 07 - 09:26 AM

My own opinion, which is worth what it costs you:

Permit a legal civil union, with all of the attendant tax and other benefits, for anyone who wants it. Define "marriage" as a religious ceremony that can be blessed by a Church or not, as the Church sees fit.

"Render unto Caesar" and all that.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 31 Aug 07 - 10:25 AM

Rapaire has just written the post I'd been going to write.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Bee
Date: 31 Aug 07 - 10:35 AM

Same sex marriage is legal in Canada. No church is required to perform marriage ceremonies for anybody, gay or straight, and before (and still) anyone even thought of same sex marriage, churches of various sorts refused to perform marriage ceremonies for all kinds of people, the divorced, different religions, non-members, etc. That has not changed. The religious are not inconvenienced except in the case of their own particular sect/church/minister deciding to go against their personal wishes.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Amos
Date: 31 Aug 07 - 10:36 AM

"Being stupid as a member of Congress is hardly a reason to be ridden on a rail from Washington. But Republican presidential campaigners are urging Mr. Craig to resign fast as a swift boat. One senator offered the ultimate rebuff between political pros by returning Mr. Craig's campaign donation.

Underlying the hurry to disown the senator, of course, is the party's brutal agenda of trumpeting the gay-marriage issue. To the extent Senator Craig, a stalwart in the family values caucus, might morph into a blatant hypocrite before the voters' eyes, he reflects on the party's record in demonizing homosexuality. The rush to cast him out betrays the party's intolerance, which is on display for the public in all of its ugliness. But it also betrays their political uneasiness as the next election approaches."

---

Me, I like the policy of tolerance.

A

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Wesley S
Date: 31 Aug 07 - 10:42 AM

A favorite cartoon shows a man at a party saying: "This whole issue of gay marrage makes a mockery of all three of my marrages".

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: katlaughing
Date: 31 Aug 07 - 11:26 AM

The religious tenet against is homophobia, period.

Amos, thanks for posting that about Iowa.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 31 Aug 07 - 11:36 AM

If you can produce the person who wrote the religious prohibition of these practices in the Bible, and explain his motives for writing it I might be persuaded that you are right Kat.
There are however people who follow the teachings of the Bible blindly and who are not amenable to persuasion that it/they may be wrong, for them it's devotion and not homophobia.
Sorry to split hairs on this one, but I feel that the emotive language used on this subject often bears no relation to correct English.
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Bill D
Date: 31 Aug 07 - 11:42 AM

25¢ says the Iowa judge will be overturned.....I'd love to lose that bet.

A man & a woman can go get a civil marriage with no church officials in sight....

My proposal is that any couple who wishes to be 'married' should have a number of types of 'contracts' available, or even submit their own for approval, and therafter be bound by what they sign....and NO requirement as to M/F, M/M, F/F...ot other possibilities. IF they are same sex and want a religious ceremony and find a religious group who will allow it...fine... Let it be between themselves and their God.

I am rather tired of folks pointing and complaining that someone else's ceremony 'makes a mockery' or their own. POOH!

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: katlaughing
Date: 31 Aug 07 - 11:49 AM

Fair enough, Giok. I should have stated that as my opinion. I guess that would mean your posting was emotive, for me, at least.

Me, too, Bill!

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: kendall
Date: 31 Aug 07 - 11:51 AM

People marry for love of another person. Period.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: kendall
Date: 31 Aug 07 - 11:56 AM

Giok, why do you think the religious people believe only in concave and convex?

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 31 Aug 07 - 12:11 PM

A person's religious convictions belong in his home, in his church, or under whatever tree he likes to dance around naked beneath. They don't belong in my home, my friends homes, or in the chambers of government.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: folk1e
Date: 31 Aug 07 - 12:59 PM

IF it were purely religious in reasoning there would be not only opposition to same sex marriages, but to streight marriages performed by differing denominations / religions!
I havn't noticed this happening!

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Amos
Date: 31 Aug 07 - 02:32 PM

Stay Apparently Ends Practice Of Issuing Licesnes


A Des Moines minister married two Iowa men on Friday in the state's first legal same-sex marriage, but the window for those who rushed out for licenses quickly closed when the judge who allowed it stayed his own order.

Sean Fritz, 24, and Tim McQuillen, 21, were married Friday morning by Rev. Mark Stringer of Unitarian Church in a service in the front yard of his home.

Fritz and McQuillan are the first same-sex couple to be married after a Polk County judge's ruling that Iowa's gay marriage ban violated the state's constitution.

"This is it. We're married. I love you," Fritz told McQuillan.

Stringer is a reverend at the First Unitarian Church of Des Moines. The minister, who didn't know the couple before Friday, concluded the ceremony by saying, "This is a legal document and you are married."

Judge Issues Stay

The window for same-sex couples to get marriage licenses was only open for about four hours Friday morning. The Polk County judge who had ruled Thursday that the state could not bar same-sex couples from marriage just because of their gender placed a hold on his own order pending a state Supreme Court review.

Polk County Attorney John Sarcone had said his office would appeal the case to the Iowa Supreme Court.

The Associated Press reported that the county recorder said she was ordered to stop issuing licenses to same-sex couples. Julie Haggerty said she was instructed by the county attorney's office after Judge Robert Hanson verbally issued a stay of his ruling striking down same-sex marriages.

Judge Robert Hanson said the stay was officially filed early Friday afternoon.

Haggerty said about 20 marriage applications from gay couples were accepted before she was told to stop.

Couples Line Up

At least four same-sex couples were lined up outside the Polk County Recorder's Office at the courthouse when the office opened at 7:30 a.m. Friday.

The county recorder said 11 out of the first 12 marriage licenses issued Friday morning were to same-sex couples.

The law requires a waiting period of three business days. But the male couple who married said the waiting period can be ignored if they pay an extra $5 and get a judge's signature approving an expedited process. The couple said they got an approval signature Friday morning from District Court Judge Scott Rosenberg

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 31 Aug 07 - 02:49 PM

"Haggerty said about 20 marriage applications from gay couples were accepted before she was told to stop."

So I wonder, will those 20 couples be allowed to get married with the licenses they have received?

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Bill D
Date: 31 Aug 07 - 02:53 PM

"The Polk County judge who had ruled Thursday that the state could not bar same-sex couples from marriage just because of their gender placed a hold on his own order pending a state Supreme Court review."

Yep...I don't think I'm gonna lose my quarter.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: bobad
Date: 31 Aug 07 - 03:03 PM

I have nothing against same sex marriage, everyone should have the same right to be miserable.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: GUEST,Don Firth
Date: 31 Aug 07 - 03:26 PM

I believe that early on, the religious prohibitions had to do with "go forth and multiply," the command to increase the tribe. Any "waste of seed" (any activity, solo or with a partner, that did not have the potential of producing offspring) was considered a sin against the "go forth and multiply" prescription. And the idea that God destroyed Sodom because they were practicing "sodomy" there is just somebody's half-assed (!?) idea. There is nothing in the Bible that specifies that!

I know at least two couples who are "out of the closet." Both couples are solid citizens. One of the guys is a member of a writers' group Barbara and I belong to, and he's an excellent writer. When we have social gatherings, he and is partner often come. A fellow in the other couple is politically active (not limiting himself to "gay" issues) and has recently been elected to the state legislature. Politically, he and I are in very close agreement on a lot of things.

I see no reason why these two couples (and a few other such relationships, both male and female, that I am acquainted with) should not have the full benefits that any committed couples have.

The "defense of marriage" issue?

Someone is going to have to do some tall explaining and come up with much better reasons than I have heard yet to convince me that letting these folks have the same rights and privileges that heterosexual couples have, in any way, effects Barbara's and my marriage.

I agree with Rapaire. And, although it is perhaps more famous for its social activism in general, there is a church near where we live that will marry committed same-sex couples, whether the law recognized the marriage or not.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Amos
Date: 31 Aug 07 - 04:20 PM

On this point, the law is a piece of ass....



A

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Mike Miller
Date: 31 Aug 07 - 05:00 PM

The issue of marital rights and obligations requires a look at the history of the institution. It is not as religion based as one would imagine. There are. or were, cultural and moral reasons for their establishment. In an era of more defined gender roles, they protected women from desertion and children, from abandonment. The societies, of the time, were of one religion, so religious bias was the same as societal bias. Times, admittedly, have changed. Women are as likely to be providers as be provided for. (I, for instance, am covered by Helen's medical plan from work). Our society is so mottled as to forbid a state sponsered religion, even if the pious wanted one. There isn't a single religion, in this country, that could command a majority and Christians are as fragmented as Moslems.
But, and this is a big but, all those feuding Roman Catholics, Protestants, Moslims and a whole lot of others agree about recognising gay marriage. They're agin' it. And they are being told that they must change their beliefs and they are fighting for their truths and who can blame them?
Of course, there is a simple answer. Get the government out of the marriage business. Let all "marriages" be civil contracts, specifying terms and duties. Let the religions have their Marriage Ceremonies and let them excercise their rituals and, if those rituals
preclude same sex unions, so be it. Let the government be concerned with governing and, either grant gay partners equal legal entitlement or deny marital entitlement, altogether. That means tax breaks, inheritence rights and tacit power of attorney.
Of course, the churches would bitch about it but it would place the responsibility for maintaing religious discipline back where it belongs.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Riginslinger
Date: 31 Aug 07 - 05:08 PM

Legalized polygamy is right around the corner.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: katlaughing
Date: 31 Aug 07 - 05:26 PM

Mike Miller, well said, though I suppose Riginslinger has a point.:-)

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Bill D
Date: 31 Aug 07 - 05:30 PM

I'm not even against polygamy in principle...or polyandry, or other complex forms. But the rules for it would need to be VERY careful, and there would need to be notarized, witnessed agreements by all parties stating that they are aware and cognizant of all the terms.

No more 'pressure' setups by obscure sects with underage girls being the focus...

Yes, I could write up the rules, but nawwww...I won't bother, because I think it's HIGHLY unlikely to ever be legal.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Amos
Date: 31 Aug 07 - 05:37 PM

They are NOT being told they must change their beliefs in any way. They are being told they do not have the right to impose them on others who do not subscribe to them. I'll call "Amen" to that any day.

If I believe girls who display cleavage in public are agents of Satan, which as anyone who knows e will attest I do not, I can work hard to find and associate with only women willing to live under that belief.

But neither I nor any governmental agency has any right to say to those who believe otherwise "This is a satanic act and therefore illegal."

Conversely, no member of the Temple of the Golden Globes has any right to force anyone to display their cleavage. IT is a purely volulntary, if divine, transaction.


A

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Riginslinger
Date: 31 Aug 07 - 06:01 PM

"I'm not even against polygamy in principle..."

                You're right, I suppose, if it wasn't taking advantage of underage girls, and everything was documented as you say. But why, then, wouldn't it become legal?

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Mike Miller
Date: 31 Aug 07 - 06:05 PM

I always wanted to be a high ranking official in the Temple of the Golden Globes but I am told that it is just a titular position.
About the gay marriage thing, all we have to do is stop calling civil unions, "marriages" or have the churches/synagogues/mosques/storefronts/etc. call their "marriages" something like "holy unions". Oh, Hell, let them call their stuff "marriage" if they want.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 31 Aug 07 - 06:13 PM

Mike Miller-
All any government deals with are civil unions. The confusion lies in calling it "marriage". The state sholdn't give a damn about religious connotations--it should insure that all citizens be entitled to the same legal rights. These include such things as hospital visitation rights, tax status, inheritance rights, pension rights etc.

FRankly, if legal polygamy is just around the corner, I would have a great deal of trouble working myself up to giving a damn.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Bill D
Date: 31 Aug 07 - 06:17 PM

"But why, then, wouldn't it become legal?"
Because of all the (rightfully) negative publicity it has received over the years, and the general attitude that "if it is THAT attractive, it must be immoral".

The history of the LDS church and other groups who have tried it has pretty well colored the concept in the eyes of the public. Also, other cultures which DO approve it are not very popular these days.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Riginslinger
Date: 31 Aug 07 - 07:21 PM

Yes, I suppose you're right. Those weird church groups have really been negative, but the way I recall it, they were taking girls in their early teens and placing them with 40 something year old men.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: kendall
Date: 31 Aug 07 - 07:40 PM

I have a friend who is a rabid believer in traditional marriage. I have tried to nail her down to explain why she gives a damn what other people do, how does it cause her any trouble, but I never get an answer.
In my opinion, it is simply being a control freak, but of course neither she nor any other homophobe I have ever met will admit that.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 31 Aug 07 - 08:20 PM

I find it difficult to get too worked up about the sanctity of traditional marriage, when about half of the traditional marriages wind up in divorce.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Joe_F
Date: 31 Aug 07 - 09:35 PM

If I were a Supreme Court justice (God forbid), I would say government doesn't belong in the marriage business at all, and most especially it doesn't belong in the sanctity-of-marriage business. Let the various religions & nonreligions define marriage as they please. If any number of people of whatever sexes want a legally enforceable cohabitation contract, let them write it & sign it -- by & with the advice & consent of their churches, if they want. The tax code has no legitimate interest in marital status except insofar as it includes dependence, which can be defined in purely economic terms.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Mike Miller
Date: 31 Aug 07 - 11:21 PM

I thank Mr. Greenhaus for translating my thoughts into Mudcat. As the good Mr. G knows, I am a firm believer in traditional marriage, the traditional marriage vows and the sanctity of the institution. I have carried these beliefs through all my marriages as, you can be sure, have all my wives.

      Mike

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: GUEST,Art Thieme
Date: 01 Sep 07 - 12:10 AM

Whether you are an atheist or sincerely religious, to me, simply stated, it's about inclusion rather than exclusion.

Oh, the master guards the sheepfold bin
And he wants to know, "Is my sheep brung in?"
And he's callin', callin' -- callin' softly, softly callin'
For them all to come a-gatherin' in!

Love,

Art

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: katlaughing
Date: 01 Sep 07 - 12:51 AM

Ah, Artdarlin'...too true.

Dick, you said it so well, too.

I could do with a couple of more fellahs around the house for all of the "Honey-Do's" that need doing! Polyandry I hear you callin'!

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Riginslinger
Date: 01 Sep 07 - 09:01 AM

How did this "One Man/One Woman" thing ever get started in the first place?

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Mike Miller
Date: 01 Sep 07 - 10:06 AM

I don't know how the one man/one women rule started but I know how it got into Christianity. The earliest converts were Roman women and, in the first couple centuries of Christianity, the church had the gender breakdown of a bridge club. Sure, the men were in charge but they had to address the needs of the flock. Women, probably because of maternity, are less likely to want multiple mates. It is every man's fantacy that women are as constantly horny as men but, alas, it ain't so.
This gender generalization seems to hold true, even, among gay men and women. There may be female equivilants to tea rooms, glory holes and the baths but I haven't heard of them.

                     Mike

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Amos
Date: 01 Sep 07 - 10:33 AM

Monogamous life-long marriage is believed to be a good team-building exercise, and a survival trait. I don't off hand see any particular advantage it has over a well-balanced polyamory arrangement, but it is possible that jealousy and self-interest make the politics of such an arrangement unstable. If that is true as a general thing, it would have lower survival value in the reproductive cycle for the species, I suppose.


A

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 01 Sep 07 - 11:44 AM

Is this the Polly Amory you had in mind Amos?
Come to think of it, that LuLu VonLightswitch looks a lot like you.

Giok ¦¬]

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: GUEST,Desdemona
Date: 01 Sep 07 - 12:02 PM

I live in Massachusetts, and the night before same-sex marriage became "officially" legal in 2004, my morris team was one of several that went down to the State House for some celebratory hankie-waving, bell-ringing action...one of those times I felt proud of my home state. And you know what? In 3.5 years, the Earth has STILL not opened up and swallowed the Commonwealth whole...go figure!

~D

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Justa Picker
Date: 01 Sep 07 - 12:20 PM

I think there is way way way too much hoopla being made about same sex marriages and same sex legislation.

I believe governments should shift the focus more towards helping ANYONE who's been in a long term relationship - and instead be enacting SOME sex legislation.

:-)

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Bill D
Date: 01 Sep 07 - 01:08 PM

A number of years ago, (like in those weird 60s, man!), there was a book, Proposition 31, examining the idea of plural marriage, by Robert Rimmer (who had written several other books examining our moral/sexual proclivities...notably, The Harrad Experiment.)

Now, it seems that Propostion 31 is available online.

It is a fascinating read which explores almost all the issues that confront both individuals AND society if such practices are attempted openly.