BS: Same-sex marriage and the constitution

Subject: RE: BS: Same-sex marriage and the constitution
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 25 Feb 04 - 05:05 PM

" The Constitution of the United States of America is one of the greater documents ever written."

From my outsiders perspective, the constitution seems to contain some nice ideals... but most seem to have been absolutely obliterated when anyone has tried to put them to practical application...

And it makes me question the usefulness of it at all...

And well, why hold on to something hundreds of years old, like it has any real relevance today? The people who crafted it couldn't possibly have had any inkling what today's world would be like... Now, outside of it's sweeping ideals it seems to be to be mostly outmoded... If it doesn't grow, change and evolve as the population it concerns grows changed and evolves, then it's just some fancy ink, on a piece of old paper...

I mean, it's not like it's a sacred document, handed down by the Grey Aliens who build Stonehenge... it's just a record of how some old white guys felt the country SHOULD be run a few hundred years ago...

Maybe they were wrong?

And well, when ever a politician starts talking about "Ghad" I immediately tune him out.... Just like I do when a priest starts talking about politics...

And all this hoopla over what some people wanna do with their own private lives? How does it matter a ton of tinkers toenail clippings?

Subject: RE: BS: Same-sex marriage and the constitution
From: Don Firth
Date: 25 Feb 04 - 06:01 PM

I do not questioned the right of a same-sex couple, who have signed the necessary legal papers to make the nature of their relationship a matter of record, having the same legal rights as a mixed-sex couple, and confirming their commitment to each other in a ceremony if they so choose. In fact, the church I attend (one of a group of "Reconciled in Christ" churches in this area, whose statement of principles includes an "Affirmation of Welcome" to all, regardless of race, nationality, ethnic origin, or gender orientation) has performed a number of "Confirmation of Commitment" ceremonies for same-sex couples. I must admit, though, that I did raise an eyebrow about calling a same-sex relationship a "marriage." However, in the light of new information—and after a bit of thinking (that really helps!)—I have since changed my mind.

One Sunday afternoon a few weeks ago, at a meeting of a writer's group my wife and I belong to, I asked a friend who is in a same-sex relationship if it would not be acceptable if there were, in essence, two kinds of recognized relationships (and this could hold for mixed-sex couples as well). One would be a civil recognition, which would include all the rights and privileges such as benefits, inheritances, hospital visits and all that. This would be a simple declaration and the signing of a few papers for legal purposes, and could include a civil ceremony if they wished. The other would be a religious ceremony if the couple wished one, performed in one of a growing number of liberal and open-minded churches such as the one he and I both attend, and would be, or could be, called a "confirmation of commitment," as these ceremonies already performed at our church had been called. I don't think it had occurred to anyone until now to insist on calling them "marriage ceremonies." My idea was that whether a particular church accepted it or not, the civil part of it would cinch the legal aspects. It sounded good to me. My main question:   was the word "marriage" really that crucial?

He responded that, as he understood it, one state does not necessarily have to recognize such civil relationships or "contracts" if they are not legal in that state, but they do have to recognize a marriage which has been performed in another state. So according to him, the distinction between civil union and marriage is not just a matter of semantics. In the United States, at least, for those who may move to or travel in another state, it is a matter of legality.

Any lawyers out there? Is my friend correct in this?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Same-sex marriage and the constitution
From: LilyFestre
Date: 25 Feb 04 - 06:14 PM

Funny thing about the same-sex marriage issue...when the Episcopal Bishop of New Hampshire was voted in, there were folks at my church crying their eyes out....they just can't understand...blah blah blah...this from the same people who can't get enough free help from those "artsy" people. The hypocracy of it all is enough to make a body sick. I personally think that love between two consenting adults is a WONDERFUL THING...who cares what the gender. Isn't love hard enough to find in this world without the government sticking their nose in telling you who is okay to love and who isn't?

I agree...it's time to vote...let's bring up an issue that gets everyone's panties in a wad and distract all the stupid Americans from the issues that truly matter (typed with extreme sarcasm).

Michelle

Subject: RE: BS: Same-sex marriage and the constitution
From: katlaughing
Date: 25 Feb 04 - 06:32 PM

My gay friend, who has been with his partner for about 15 years, sent me an article about a lesbian couple they know, who went to San Francisco for the ceremony last week. Here's a bit of that article:

Two Oregon women marry in San Francisco but don't expect the government to recognize their marriage certificate

02/25/04
BILL GRAVES

Today, the two women can say they are married.

They have the official License and Certificate of Marriage issued to them 10 days ago by the city and county of San Francisco. It bears their names: Kathy Belge, 38, and Tay Juncker, 39.

Bouquets of flowers bloom on windowsills and tabletops in their North Portland home, including pink and white tulips sent by Belge's father and a balloon that says "Congratulations."

But the couple, who have lived together 12 years, do not expect the government to allow their marriage to last. In fact, they thought the courts would have dissolved it by now. And they were disappointed, but not surprised, that President Bush on Tuesday declared his support for a constitutional amendment that would make marriages such as theirs illegal.

The Constitution should not be used to deny rights to people, Belge said. "It would be a horrible direction for our country to go in," she said.

Juncker said the president seems to be letting his religious views shape his political opposition to gay marriage, contradicting the fact that "our country is founded on the idea of having different ideas and religious views."

Juncker, a graphic artist, and Belge, a freelance writer, have long been active in gay-rights issues. They resisted a commitment ceremony "that wouldn't afford us any recognition of our rights," Belge said.

They were weighing whether to go to Massachusetts to marry under a new court ruling there. But when they saw San Francisco issuing marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples on Valentine's Day, they decided to make their move.

That city's action gave them a chance to make a political statement. But more importantly, they said, it gave them their first opportunity to express their commitment to each other in a legally binding ceremony.

"I didn't want to regret we didn't do this," Belge said.

They bought plane tickets online and three hours later were on their way to San Francisco. After standing in line 10 hours the next day, they were married.

Some Portland couples have been married longer under Canadian law.

Marc Acito, 38, a syndicated humor columnist and novelist, and Floyd Sklaver, 45, a technical writer, married in Canada seven months ago after living together 17 years.

Without marriage, Acito said, he and Sklaver, who live in Southwest Portland, lack the tax, property, inheritance and hospital visitation rights that married couples have.

Gay and lesbian couples want to marry for the same reasons heterosexual couples do: for protections and rights established by law and to publicly declare their lifetime commitment to one another, said Roey Thorpe, executive director of Basic Rights Oregon, a group fighting for gay rights.

When you look at relationships such as Juncker and Belge's, she said, "it is hard to understand how their marriage hurts anyone else. For President Bush to say it does, I think spreads misinformation."

In my opinion, what Bush wants to do is a bias crime and would only encourage more hate crimes against the lesbigay communities.

Have any of you glanced at the 700 Club, lately? Pat Robertson is at his worst/best, depending on your view, spewing vitriolic statements and misinformation on a daily basis about this issue, sex ed in schools, and many other issues from the right-wing agenda. The scary part is that he has such a large and loyal following. He pays to have his show broadcast on hundreds, if not thousands of stations, and the money comes from his followers.

I do NOT make a habit of watching him, but one of the tv stations here carries him, for pay, at 10a every morning for one full hour. This is the man who should have been delegated to the fringe long ago when he claimed Feminism encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians.

SRS, I agree and am glad to see that the ERA is still alive. There is a new bumper sticker over at Northern Sun, which I've not seen before. It says, I'll be post-feminist in the post-patriarchy!

They've also got "Xena for President" and "What would Xena do?" **bg**

kat

Subject: RE: BS: Same-sex marriage and the constitution
From: KateG
Date: 25 Feb 04 - 06:41 PM

The thing that gets me riled up is the muddy thinking and semantics.

According to the Christian church, marriage is one of the seven sacraments. It is up to the various religious denominations individually to decide who they will and will not permit to partake of said sacrament. Any Federal law trying to restrict who can and can't partake is a de facto violation of the second amendment.

I find it very funny to have at least moderate conservatives saying they are against gay marriage but could live with some form of civil union. Seems to me they've got things backwards, since government does have juristiction over the legal aspects of domestic partnerships: benefits, taxes, inheritance, maintenance of children etc.

Actually, I think the genie is out of the bottle....and high time too! We may have to go through a period of tooth gnashing and breast beating, rather like breaking in new shoes, but gay marriage is not going away.

Subject: RE: BS: Same-sex marriage and the constitution
From: Jim Dixon
Date: 25 Feb 04 - 07:24 PM

Here are a couple of articles that may throw some light on the legal issues:
(I haven't had time to read them myself yet, so I won't comment.)

"Three Bad Reasons—and One Very Good Reason—to Oppose a Constitutional Amendment Barring Same-Sex Marriage" at FindLaw. (Why do they put this in their "corporate" section?)

"Same-Sex Marriage: A History of the Law" also at FindLaw.

You can probably find some other good articles at FindLaw. Here are the results of searching for "same-sex marriage."

Subject: RE: BS: Same-sex marriage and the constitution
From: Sttaw Legend
Date: 25 Feb 04 - 07:44 PM

3 Brits die each year testing if a 9v battery works on their tongue.

142 Brits were injured in 1999 by not removing all pins from new shirts.

58 Brits are injured each year by using sharp knives instead of
screwdrivers.

31 Brits have died since 1996 by watering their Christmas tree while the fairy lights were plugged in.

19 Brits have died in the last 3 years believing that Christmas decorations were chocolate.

Subject: RE: BS: Same-sex marriage and the constitution
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 25 Feb 04 - 08:09 PM

Wha????

Subject: RE: BS: Same-sex marriage and the constitution
From: jaze
Date: 25 Feb 04 - 09:09 PM

I think this is mainly an issue of pushing the envelope. Since prejudice in this country has switched from that against blacks(at least outwardly-when was the last time you heard anyone use the word ni**er in casual conversation?)It has switched to gays(someone new to hate and feel superior to) Gay-bashing is in. I'm astonished at the otherwise intelligent people who express such vehement prejudice against gays. Why, I wonder? If a gay person forces him or her self 's unwanted attentions on you, I can maybe see you having such strong feelings. But really, how often does that really happen? (I"m talking about between adults here, so we'll leave out pedophile priests and pedophiles in general)If people had been willing to accept "civil unions" and accept that we're all different, I don't think the "marriage" issue would have been forced as it has. Isn't every American entitled to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness-despite their sexual preference?

Subject: RE: BS: Same-sex marriage and the constitution
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 25 Feb 04 - 09:18 PM

ANd remember- TRhe Republicans are the party advocating less Federal governmental interference with the rights of States and the rights of individuals. Write this on the blackboard 100 times.

Subject: RE: BS: Same-sex marriage and the constitution
From: Peace
Date: 26 Feb 04 - 07:04 PM

CH: Metric ton or a short ton?

Subject: RE: BS: Same-sex marriage and the constitution
From: Bobert
Date: 26 Feb 04 - 07:28 PM

Well, gol danged!

It's 'bout time to get this little situation *straightened* an' Iz proud as punch that President Bush has stepped up to the plate. Hey, I ain't gonna say nuttin' 'bout that little experiement that he went thru a few years back. No sir, 'er mame.

Shoot, this ain't rocket surgery here. I mean, haz any of you folks ever checked out yer danged plumbin'? Well, that oughtta be 'nuff to end the arguments and proof, accordin' to the Wes Ginny Slide Rule, that marriage is 'sposed to be 'tween folks that ain't got what the other one has. Or hasn't!

I mean you ain't ever heared no story 'bout Adam and Fred have ya? Well, heck no ya' ain't. Everybody knows itz Adam and Eve. Right there in the Bible...

Plus, think about this one if you will. When men is jus married to men and the womenz to other womenz then the population will end and then where will you be???

Yeah, didn't think you all had thought 'bout that...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Same-sex marriage and the constitution
From: Peace
Date: 26 Feb 04 - 07:55 PM

Clinton H: Who says it was Gray Aliens? Why not the Nordics?

Subject: RE: BS: Same-sex marriage and the constitution
From: kendall
Date: 26 Feb 04 - 08:01 PM

Maybe most Americans are against same sex marriage, but I'll bet none of them can give you a rational answer as to why.

I'm reminded of Robert Preston in The Music Man...and thAT rhymes wit "P" and that stands for pool..

Look, the bastard has no record to run on, so his only hope is to smear the democrat. He's dispicable.

Subject: RE: BS: Same-sex marriage and the constitution
From: LadyJean
Date: 26 Feb 04 - 11:22 PM

I was at a wedding once, where the bride was a 46 year old twice divorced lady with a 15 year old son, and her groom was a 23 year old man, never married recent college graduate.
The Catholic Church wouldn't marry them, for which I do not blame the Catholic Church. The Episcopalians would, and did. The service was as high church as they could make it. You could feel the resentment from the groom's parents. But there wasn't a thing they could do to stop the marriage. It was perfectly legal.
To my amazement, the happy pair will celebrate their 15th anniversary this spring. Hey! What do I know about marriage!
If Britney Spears wants to marry again, she'll be allowed, as long as it's a guy.
So, I'm not going to worry if a couple of ladies in San Francisco want to tie the knot.

Subject: RE: BS: Same-sex marriage and the constitution
From: Shanghaiceltic
Date: 27 Feb 04 - 05:14 AM

5 years ago and after 17 years of marriage which included us having a son, my ex-wife came out.

As an former seving member of the RN I carried some pretty awfull baggage.

At the time I was naturaly upset. My son was pretty upset at the idea of us divorcing, he was about 13 at the time. However he did not seem upset that the new partner would be a woman. As he said when we gently questioned him about homosexuality and what it meant in his understanding, his reply was 'Oh yeah, I saw that on South Park'

Good has come out of this. She emigrated to NZ with her partner, she also had custody of our son but I have uncontested visiting rights. We get on better than we did married and I have changed my views in many many ways.

NZ seems more aware and open to same sex partnerships and this year they will have a ceremony much the same as a wedding. Am I upset, no.

I have visited them and stayed with them. I could also see that rather than my ex wife struggling as a single parent and this affecting our son, there is again a GOOD family atmosphere. My own guilt is not being able to see him as much as I would like.

My son? At college, getting good marks, with a good bunch of mates who do not take the piss at him having a gay mother. Proud of him and his adjustment.

If people like Bush and other homophobics cannot see that to make an issue out of bashing gays is likely to affect not just the partners but in many cases children by a previous marriage then he definatley has his head up somewhere.

I did hesitate very much before posting this as it is very personal.

Subject: RE: BS: Same-sex marriage and the constitution
From: Amos
Date: 27 Feb 04 - 10:39 AM

Clinton Hammond and George W Bush, I am sorry to say, have this much in common: neither of them understands the Constitution.

The abuse of the Constitution as a vehicle for moral mandates is unthinkably dumb and unconscionably anti-social. Subordinating it to the power-lust of radical megalomania is criminal.   It messes about with issues much to wide and deep for Bush's little self-serving, hypocritical, uneducated and murderous mind to grasp.

The man should be locked up before he does further harm.

How many lives does he have to ruin before he is stopped?

A

Subject: RE: BS: Same-sex marriage and the constitution
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 27 Feb 04 - 11:49 AM

Go, Amos!

Subject: RE: BS: Same-sex marriage and the constitution
From: Peace
Date: 27 Feb 04 - 04:59 PM

"And well, why hold on to something hundreds of years old, like it has any real relevance today? The people who crafted it couldn't possibly have had any inkling what today's world would be like...".

CH, there goes folk music!

(I'm quoting you out of context. Just havin' a little fun. BM)

Subject: RE: BS: Same-sex marriage and the constitution
From: katlaughing
Date: 27 Feb 04 - 05:23 PM

Shanghaiceltic, than you VERY much for sharing. I wish all families could have such a positive experience. Good for you and yours, as well as NZ!

kat