|
24 Feb 04 - 02:31 PM (#1122755) Subject: BS: Same-sex marriage and the constitution From: GUEST,Jim Dixon I heard today that GWBush has called for a constitutional amendment to prohibit same-sex marriage. It seems he wants to turn this into a campaign issue. Specifically, he wants to force the Democratic candidates to take a position, knowing that whichever way they go, they will lose some support. I find it paradoxical that, as justification for his proposed amendment, he says he considers marriage to be "sacred." Fine, but that seems like an argument for making the government STAY THE HELL OUT. Christians consider baptism sacred, too, but we don't allow the government to tell us who can be baptized. Discuss. |
|
24 Feb 04 - 03:05 PM (#1122789) Subject: RE: BS: Same-sex marriage and the constitution From: GUEST,TIA What, again, is the divorce rate for these sacred marriages? How many of these sacred marriages involve abuse? How many involve sacred infidelity? Sacred my ass! (well, bad example, because I think it may be) Your right Jim, it's a political ploy to make the opposition look like bleeding heart libruls (oh that's another thread) |
|
24 Feb 04 - 03:41 PM (#1122820) Subject: RE: BS: Same-sex marriage and the constitution From: Charley Noble Before this is over, all of us who got married in a civil service will have to be re-married in a church service and we better believe in God. It was ironic to see the 2000 clip of Cheney on CNN today opposing a constitutional amendment relating to defining "marriage" as restricted to a couple of the opposite sex. Not that it really matters what a Vice President says... Charley Noble |
|
24 Feb 04 - 04:04 PM (#1122832) Subject: RE: BS: Same-sex marriage and the constitution From: Richard Bridge Kinder, Kuche, und Kirche... |
|
24 Feb 04 - 04:06 PM (#1122834) Subject: RE: BS: Same-sex marriage and the constitution From: Peace A few Canadian and Scottish 'catters are going to have to make arrangements about the sheep thing. Where will that living arrangement fit in the scheme of things? |
|
24 Feb 04 - 05:36 PM (#1122915) Subject: RE: BS: Same-sex marriage and the constitution From: Amos Marriage is not a zone over which the Federal Government has any jurisdiction nor ever should; the notion of a Constitutional Amendment governing marriage is a violation and degradation of the Constitution, in spirit at least. As a President whose whole office depends on trampling states' rights (witness his end-run around the Forida Supreme Court four years back) this President --whatever he should be called -- has prior offenses already in dramatization. The notion that the President of this nation could conceive of legislating marriage and making such legislation a constitutional mandate proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that he is wholly unqualified to be elected, having no grasp of the fundamentals that govern the job. A |
|
24 Feb 04 - 05:45 PM (#1122924) Subject: RE: BS: Same-sex marriage and the constitution From: Bill D "... the fundamentals that govern the job" I suspect he intends to redefine THOSE, also. (In words of no more than 2 syllables or 6-8 letters) "If you are prez,and well connected, you get to do what you want" |
|
24 Feb 04 - 06:08 PM (#1122947) Subject: RE: BS: Same-sex marriage and the constitution From: Bee-dubya-ell A VERY SHORT PLAY ADVISOR: But Mister Bush, a proposed amendment has to be approved by 2/3 of both houses of Congress and then ratified by 3/4 of the states. All it takes is enough voters in 13 states saying 'No' and it's dead. DUBYA: What do I care if the thing has a snowball's chance in hell of passage? There's an election right around the corner and I need a new football to kick around. Everybody's tired of prayer-in-schools and abortion and the Ten Commandments. THE END |
|
24 Feb 04 - 06:17 PM (#1122951) Subject: RE: BS: Same-sex marriage and the constitution From: InOBU George is worried that as long as gay marriage is an option... he may someday be tempted. CHeers Larry |
|
24 Feb 04 - 06:23 PM (#1122954) Subject: RE: BS: Same-sex marriage and the constitution From: GUEST 'Get out of that closet and rattle those pots and pans' (sic) lol |
|
24 Feb 04 - 08:23 PM (#1123047) Subject: RE: BS: Same-sex marriage and the constitution From: katlaughing I've been following this. My Rog says if they feel that strongly about it, they should also amend the constitution to ban all divorce. :-) |
|
24 Feb 04 - 08:53 PM (#1123065) Subject: RE: BS: Same-sex marriage and the constitution From: Bob Hitchcock Perhaps, if GWB ever gets his Constitutional Amendment, I should divorce my wife because I don't want to a part of an institution that promotes discrimination. It's a pity I am an ex pat and cannot vote in this upcoming election, or I might write in Mickey Rooney! Bob |
|
24 Feb 04 - 09:40 PM (#1123087) Subject: RE: BS: Same-sex marriage and the constitution From: GUEST,TIA I've heard so much blather about how same sex marriage will harm this great nation. Can someone, anyone, please tell me exactly and with specificity, how a same sex marriage between any two people will hurt them? No generalities please. How will a same sex marriage between two other people hurt YOU? |
|
24 Feb 04 - 09:42 PM (#1123088) Subject: RE: BS: Same-sex marriage and the constitution From: GUEST Bush is a very desperate presidential candidate. He can't run on his record of course, so he has to reach into the grab bag of polarizing wedge issues, to pull out a magic trick. Thing is, nobody is too hot and bothered to get a constitutional amendment thing going besides the right wing loonies. This will really work to get him re-elected, don't you think? |
|
24 Feb 04 - 10:03 PM (#1123096) Subject: RE: BS: Same-sex marriage and the constitution From: Bobert Ahhhh. Can anyone explain to my why Bush thinks this is going to give him any political adavantage? It solidifies his Christain Right base. So the heck what? LIke they weren't going to vote... or vote for hom? What a joke. Of course they're going to vote.... and for him. That's a given! If I'm an advisor to either Kerry or Edwards I advise my guy to say "Hey, if 2/3's of the American people want this then and only then will it be something for me to get involved with.Right now, however, I'm real concerned with the real messes that the Bush administration has gotten the United Sates in, like the economy and Iraq. Next question." Bush is acting very much like a desperate man. I really don't understand the panic on his part. It's his election to lose...Oh yeah, daddy was in the same place and did nothin'. Hopefully, doing somethin' won't work either. Bobert |
|
24 Feb 04 - 10:23 PM (#1123101) Subject: RE: BS: Same-sex marriage and the constitution From: Peace I agree with Amos' posting above. The Constitution of the United States of America is one of the greater documents ever written. It speaks of and for freedom and all humanity, and it is remarkable. It ranks up there (in my estimation) with The Ten Commandments or The Magna Carta. (I realize the MC has a few problems, but it did begin to establish rights and responsibilities within government.) It is literature at its finest, and people gotta be real careful before they go messin' with it. It is not really my business; I'm Canadian. However, I have brought it into senior English classes for students to study. That and the "Gettysburg Address" and "I Have a Dream." These writings are priceless. I hope Americans will stop Bush from using a document (that has inspired people all over the world) as a means of furthering his agenda. However, if the people don't, I hope the Supreme Court does. Bruce Murdoch |
|
24 Feb 04 - 10:28 PM (#1123104) Subject: RE: BS: Same-sex marriage and the constitution From: GUEST,MarkS My new missus and I got married by the mayor of our community. We did that because we wanted to get spousal benefits for her, and in order to do that, we needed a piece of paper issued by the state saying we were a wedded couple. What a crock. The only reason the state is involved goes back to the days when a woman was considered the "property" of the man and proceedures had to be in place to regulate inheritance trails and dowry distribution. There is no reason in todays day and age why the state should be involved at all, as long as the people who choose to form a pair are mentally competent and of a recognized age of consent. The state needs play no role in the agreement, any more than they need play a role in a couples taste in groceries or music. Any person today should be able to agree to "wed" any other person by any means they choose to use. Religious ceremony? Great and more happyness to you Private ceremony? Ditto No ceremony? Ditto Public announcement, private contract, whatever, Ditto Constitutional amendment my butt! Stay the hell out and let people get on with their lives the way they like. Other than that I have no strong feelings on the matter. Mark |
|
24 Feb 04 - 10:46 PM (#1123120) Subject: RE: BS: Same-sex marriage and the constitution From: Don Firth This gives an abundantly clear picture of how little Bush understands the nature of the Constitution. The Constitution is for the purpose of limiting the power of government, not American citizens in general. To clarify:— A citizen is free to do anything he or she wishes unless it is specifically prohibited by law. The government is not allowed to do anything unless it is specifically permitted by the Constitution. Bush has it bass-ackwards. The Constitution is not, in itself, a piece of legislation, nor is it intended ever to be. It is the document upon which legislation is based, and that legislation must be consistent with the principles laid out in the Constitution. Bush is trying to use (misuse) it to legislate what amounts to religious morality. He is also trying to use (misuse) it as a campaign ploy. He took an oath to preserve and protect the Constitution. This kind of political and religious hanky-panky could quite possibly constitute an impeachable offense. Don Firth |
|
24 Feb 04 - 11:25 PM (#1123143) Subject: RE: BS: Same-sex marriage and the constitution From: dianavan Bush knows he can't change the constitution but he also knows it is a good way to weaken the democratic vote. What can Kerry say? Nothing. He might lose votes. What bull#@&! To think that the fate of a nation (maybe the world) rests on the question of who's sleeping with whom. I thought the government was supposed to stay out of the bedroom. I hope Kerry simply tells him to mind his own business and lets it go at that. Make Bush look as stupid as he really is. I guess thats why I'd like to see Nader debate Bush. At least Nader will make Bush like the moron he is. d |
|
24 Feb 04 - 11:56 PM (#1123161) Subject: RE: BS: Same-sex marriage and the constitution From: LadyJean I am a proud daughter of Pennsylvania. In this state if you stand up in front of two witnesses and say you're married, you're married. It's a common law marriage in Pennsylvania. If you want to get formal about it you can get a license that will enable you to marry without anyone presiding. All you will need are two witnesses. Pennsylvania was founded by Quakers, who have no clergy. Traditionally (My best friend in high school was a Quaker, so I know from experience.) The couple say thier vows in front of the meeting, and then everyone there signs the license. What if some state decided not to recognize such weddings? Homophobia is such a wonderfully useful non issue. Gays aren't dangerous. But making them so has made millions for Jerry Fallwell, Pat Robertson, and assorted Republican politicians. |
|
25 Feb 04 - 12:33 AM (#1123178) Subject: RE: BS: Same-sex marriage and the constitution From: Peg Nader put it well. It's divorce that undermines the institution of marriage, and there is no surplus of love and commitment in this country...people who want to form loving unions should be encouraged. |
|
25 Feb 04 - 04:29 AM (#1123255) Subject: RE: BS: Same-sex marriage and the constitution From: Steve Parkes If two people who share a religious faith decide to marry (with whatever connotations that has for them), they would usually do it in a way that is agreeable their religion and their religious community and their God(s). In Britain (and the US too, I expect)this is normally accompanied by a civil legal agreement that confers a number of legal rights and duties. I'm sure you aren't obliged to have to have the legal agreement; equally, you don't have to have the religious one if you don't feel any religious duty to do so. The legal marriage entitles you to certain tax benefits and rights to each other's property, as well as putting you under certain obligations -- not unlike like a business partnership, in many ways. I don't have a problem in any two (or more, maybe!) people entering into a legally binding contract of that kind; indeed, I'm sure it's possible to have one and not call it marriage without changing any UK laws; you'd maybe start with a joint mortgage, joint bank account and two wills, and then have a solicitor draw up a contract to set out terms and conditions and tie everything together. As long as it avoided mention of a sexual relationship, there would be no problem; even in "proper" marriage, neither partner is entitled to sex. I think the real issue is that many gay people want to have their sexuality accepted -- not their personal sexuality, but "other" sexuality generally. I think there is some way to go yet. Steve (not Eve!) |
|
25 Feb 04 - 05:50 AM (#1123293) Subject: RE: BS: Same-sex marriage and the constitution From: Bobjack I've heard it all now. Homosexual marriages, Ye Gods! What perversion will you try and force me to accept in the near future then? Some things should be kept behind closed doors. Besides, if two men got "married" to each other, which one would wear the white dress? |
|
25 Feb 04 - 06:20 AM (#1123310) Subject: RE: BS: Same-sex marriage and the constitution From: GUEST,TIA I think it's terrible that someone is trying to force Bobjack to marry another man! Whoever is doing it, please stop. Oh yeah, last one I went to Bob wore the white dress (really). |
|
25 Feb 04 - 06:57 AM (#1123330) Subject: RE: BS: Same-sex marriage and the constitution From: Sttaw Legend Bobjack, you've made the assumption you have to wear a white dress, the choice is yours, you can wear any colour you wish. Red would go with your complexion, but I also recall you looked stunning in the white one last time. |
|
25 Feb 04 - 07:34 AM (#1123344) Subject: RE: BS: Same-sex marriage and the constitution From: Sweetfia HA HA HA, looks like you walked into that one Bob! |
|
25 Feb 04 - 08:33 AM (#1123389) Subject: RE: BS: Same-sex marriage and the constitution From: Bobjack Not quite the left wing touchy - feely backlash I expected that's for sure! |
|
25 Feb 04 - 08:43 AM (#1123398) Subject: RE: BS: Same-sex marriage and the constitution From: Backstage Manager(inactive) Finally, an issue on which George W. Bush and Osama Bin Laden, and their most loyal followers, are in full agreement. |
|
25 Feb 04 - 08:56 AM (#1123410) Subject: RE: BS: Same-sex marriage and the constitution From: GUEST Actually, Xtian fundie fascists and Muslim fundie fascists have a great deal in common, as do Hindu fundie fascists and Jewish fundie fascists. I believe what they might just share in common is the worldview of religious fundamentalism and political fascism. |
|
25 Feb 04 - 09:09 AM (#1123419) Subject: RE: BS: Same-sex marriage and the constitution From: Charley Noble Yes, and if this Constitutional amendment actually passes, in 10 years or so, it won't be long before we have legislation specifying stoning for violaters. It's a constant amazement to me to witness how the Bush Administration seeks to polarize our nation, and the world. I am not amused. Charley Noble |
|
25 Feb 04 - 09:44 AM (#1123441) Subject: RE: BS: Same-sex marriage and the constitution From: Amos This offers his most dangerous piece of posturing yet -- not because gay is or should be an issue, but because the Constitution is and always must be. A |
|
25 Feb 04 - 09:56 AM (#1123447) Subject: RE: BS: Same-sex marriage and the constitution From: Sttaw Legend The problems only begin to surface post consummation. Yes, the colour of the dress and who wears it is an issue, but other major problems will surface. Who does the washing-up, who does the ironing, who chooses the curtains, who has the babies, it will get harder and harder.... |
|
25 Feb 04 - 10:18 AM (#1123456) Subject: RE: BS: Same-sex marriage and the constitution From: GUEST Polling by Pew Research, the most reputable of the US polling institutions, shows that this issue will alienate moderate voters, regardless of which way they lean. Which makes a lot of common sense, actually. Moderates and middle of the road sorts don't want to rock the status quo boat. Today's Boston Globe has good article about it: Boston Globe article Actually, the Globe has a series of articles on the subject, due to the Mass. Supreme Court & Mass Congress going apeshit over the SC decision, for anyone interested in some good writing on the subject. |
|
25 Feb 04 - 10:48 AM (#1123481) Subject: RE: BS: Same-sex marriage and the constitution From: Stilly River Sage The only amendment I want to see added is the Equal Rights Amendment. I thought it died many years ago, but according to the web page, it seems to be viable. I didn't read it closely, however, just did a quick search for it. Dubya's move is purely political, a calculation to create a reaction in people who don't know what the Constitution is all about (you gave a good description, Don!). The full text of the Equal Rights Amendment: Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex. Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification. That wording is particularly sublime at a time like this, isn't it? SRS |
|
25 Feb 04 - 10:54 AM (#1123488) Subject: RE: BS: Same-sex marriage and the constitution From: Stilly River Sage Postmodern writers of this amendment probably would substitute the word "gender" for "sex," since the word sex really has nothing to do with gender (but has everything to do with the discussion at hand!). |
|
25 Feb 04 - 10:58 AM (#1123490) Subject: RE: BS: Same-sex marriage and the constitution From: Chief Chaos This isn't about "gay" folks getting hitched. It's about money. That's the real "sacred" to the repugnican party. Marriage would allow the partners to have the same benefits that "sraight" folks are accorded and cost businesses alot of dough. Not to mention benefits accorded to widowed folk by the Gov't. Social Security comes to mind right off the bat. My opinion is that love should be encouraged and nurtured regardless of the sexual preference of the party. |
|
25 Feb 04 - 11:15 AM (#1123499) Subject: RE: BS: Same-sex marriage and the constitution From: GUEST Actually, the idea that allowing gay couples will cost the economy more money if they are married is a myth. They won't. Many already are contributing throught their labor and wealth, more than they are consuming. I do think there is a small religiously oriented group in the US that is opposed to gay and lesbian lifestyles, that feel that no matter what the argument, it won't dispossess them of their religious beliefs about the community of gay and lesbian people. So you just won't ever reach them and change their minds. But that is an extremely small segment of American society. The majority of Americans will not want the right wing religious fundamentalists dictating the terms of marriage to them with a constitutional amendment, because they know how binding those amendments are in the US. Although other democracies do amend and rescind amendments to their constitutions a bit more readily than the US does, amending constitutions of Western democracies is always a contentious and arduous process. And according to the Pew polls, the majority of Americans simply won't do it on this issue. Out of a list of 25 issues the polled people about (ie the economy, jobs, NAFTA, etc) gay marriage was 24th out of 25, according to the Globe article. So this really is a non-issue to Americans. However, it is damn sexy for the media and what is beginning to be a real yawner of a political season. |
|
25 Feb 04 - 11:19 AM (#1123503) Subject: RE: BS: Same-sex marriage and the constitution From: Uncle_DaveO Katlaughing said: I've been following this. My Rog says if they feel that strongly about it, they should also amend the constitution to ban all divorce. :-) Kat, shhhhh! Don't give them any ideas! Dave Oesterreich |
|
25 Feb 04 - 11:34 AM (#1123514) Subject: RE: BS: Same-sex marriage and the constitution From: Uncle_DaveO While I have some sympathy with the motivation to authoritatively define marriage as between one man and one woman, the Constitution is not the place. If there is a place. The function of the Constitution, its purpose for being, is not to set in stone rules on all subjects that may be seen as important. The function of the Constitution is, rather, to set up the framework for how the United States is to be governed. Period. The only amendment that has actually been adopted (that I can think of) that didn't deal with the subject of governance was prohibition, and it was repealed because the Constitutional approach was not appropriate to that problem. Alcohol and alcoholism were at that time seen as a major, major problem, and activists wanted what they considered a rock-solid umbrella solution, which seemed to be offered by a constitutional prohibition, but the production, sale, and use of alcohol were not the proper subject matter of the Constitution. And before anyone cites the slavery-abolition and subsequent related amendments as being contrary to that last paragraph, I assert that those amendments DID deal with governance and basic political relations, and thus were appropriate under my principle discussed in the second paragraph. Dave Oesterreich |
|
25 Feb 04 - 11:59 AM (#1123535) Subject: RE: BS: Same-sex marriage and the constitution From: Strick Well it's all to the good. The Amendment will never pass and all three candidates, Kerry, Edwards and Bush have had to make some posititve statement about civil unions to show they're not completely and hopelessly biased. First time any of them have committed to anything that I know of. I wouldn't be surprised to see this make civil unions, an issue that was causing Dean some trouble only a little while ago, a virtual shoe in nation wide in only a couple of years. |
|
25 Feb 04 - 12:46 PM (#1123570) Subject: RE: BS: Same-sex marriage and the constitution From: dianavan Chatley Noble : "Polarize" is right! Somebody should tell Bush part of his job is to unify the nation. The unity of two consenting adults is none of his business! Here we go again. His only strategy seems to be divide and conquer. d |
|
25 Feb 04 - 01:23 PM (#1123598) Subject: RE: BS: Same-sex marriage and the constitution From: Bob Hitchcock If they outlaw gay unions like they did alcohol, would we see gayeasies springing up all over the place? |
|
25 Feb 04 - 02:52 PM (#1123668) Subject: RE: BS: Same-sex marriage and the constitution From: Chief Chaos Dianavan - For bush thats "divider upperer" and "conquerator"! |
|
25 Feb 04 - 03:45 PM (#1123720) Subject: RE: BS: Same-sex marriage and the constitution From: GUEST Well, to be fair to the polarizers, first we become polarized before we become unified. To be genuinely unified, one must first have a clear understanding of what is dividing people. Once that is understood, it is possible to do the work of bringing people together. If only the Israelis could finally figure that one out, they could readily (not easily yet, but that too will come) co-exist with a Palestinian state without fearing for their personal safety in their homeland. |
|
25 Feb 04 - 03:55 PM (#1123742) Subject: RE: BS: Same-sex marriage and the constitution From: McGrath of Harlow People always talk as if weddings were carried out by the person officiating - the priest or the registar or the Captain of the ship or whatever. In fact that person is really just a special kind of witness to a ceremony which is actually carried out by the people getting married. |
|
25 Feb 04 - 04:15 PM (#1123754) Subject: RE: BS: Same-sex marriage and the constitution From: Bob Hitchcock I beg to differ McGrath, most of the weddings I have attended have been officiated by the brides Mother... |
|
25 Feb 04 - 04:17 PM (#1123756) Subject: RE: BS: Same-sex marriage and the constitution From: WFDU - Ron Olesko What is all the fuss about banning a gay marriage? I thought it was supposed to be a happy time. Seriously, the scary thing, if you believe polls, is that most Americans do not want to see same-sex unions. There is still a lot of people that need an education. The times they are a-changin, whether George Bush & Rush Limbaugh believe it or not. |
|
25 Feb 04 - 04:48 PM (#1123770) Subject: RE: BS: Same-sex marriage and the constitution From: GUEST I'm not worried about this. While a majority of Americans (varies drastically according to the poll you are looking at) may oppose gay and lesbian marriage, the only question that matters is: what are they willing to do to stop it? Answer right now seems to be, not much. |
|
25 Feb 04 - 04:53 PM (#1123773) Subject: RE: BS: Same-sex marriage and the constitution From: McGrath of Harlow There seem to be two issues here that get mixed up together. One is whether there's any reason why the State should have any objections to people in same sex partnerships being able to have the same recognised arrangements as in mixed partnerships. The other is whether the term marriage is appropriate in same sex partnerships. When people say they are in favour of civil partnerships, but are against these being called marriages, that's surely just arguing linguistics. A bit like "what is folk" - getting all het up over a mere label that doesn't really matter a great deal. |
|
25 Feb 04 - 05:02 PM (#1123780) Subject: RE: BS: Same-sex marriage and the constitution From: Uncle_DaveO McGrath of Harlow said: People always talk as if weddings were carried out by the person officiating - the priest or the registar or the Captain of the ship or whatever. In fact that person is really just a special kind of witness to a ceremony which is actually carried out by the people getting married. Well, there are two ways to look at marriage, from the inside out and the outside in. The two people involved can (and should) decide and ordain their mutual commmitment, and can publish it to the world. This is the personal-relations view of marriage. However, that decision is private and subjective, and society needs something objective to look to. The society has a role here, in how it views and treats the people involved. This is, was, always has been true. This is the social- institution view or function of marriage. This involves such things as tax status, social status as it will be recognized by others, Social Security status, and lots of other things. Under the common law, anyone (understood at that time as any man and woman not already married and not within the proscribed degree of consanguinity, etc.,)could decide that they were married, declare it to the society around them, and they were in fact married under that legal regime. As society grew more complex, this function of the common law was abolished (in most or I think all states), and a legal set of objective requirements was set up in order to qualify a relationship as marriage, including licenses and officiation (or at least official witnessing) by certain kinds of persons, who would certify for the public record that John X and Jane Y, pursuant to license, were publicly joined. This record served the public's interest in regularity of inheritance, prevention (or at least discouragement) of bigamy, prevention of incestuous unions, assurance of legitimacy of offspring, affecting tax status, and lots more. While the officiating person doesn't do something that magically "creates" a marriage, from society's point of view a marriage doesn't exist unless it is properly spread of record according to society's rules. I remember teasing my bride, 43 years ago, by saying, "Aha! I done you in, gal! You think we got married, but I'll tell you, now that I've had my way of you, that preacher didn't have a permit to perform marriage ceremonies!" Which was true enough, but then neither does any other preacher or judge or whatever. Their mere status (as preacher, registrar, judge, ship captain at sea) is sufficient to establish their ability to certify to the fact that the couple presented themselves publicly as man and wife. The ceremony gets dressed up in ritual, sometimes, which makes it appear that the officiating person waved a wand, so to speak, and brought about the married state, but it ain't so. You know, when I started to write this post I thought I was disagreeing with McGrath, but I see that all I've done was extend his comments. I think. Dave Oesterreich |
|
25 Feb 04 - 05:05 PM (#1123784) Subject: RE: BS: Same-sex marriage and the constitution From: Clinton Hammond " 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? |
|
25 Feb 04 - 06:01 PM (#1123834) Subject: RE: BS: Same-sex marriage and the constitution From: Don Firth 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 |
|
25 Feb 04 - 06:14 PM (#1123849) Subject: RE: BS: Same-sex marriage and the constitution From: LilyFestre 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 |
|
25 Feb 04 - 06:32 PM (#1123869) Subject: RE: BS: Same-sex marriage and the constitution From: katlaughing 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 |
|
25 Feb 04 - 06:41 PM (#1123877) Subject: RE: BS: Same-sex marriage and the constitution From: KateG 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. |
|
25 Feb 04 - 07:24 PM (#1123905) Subject: RE: BS: Same-sex marriage and the constitution From: Jim Dixon 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." |
|
25 Feb 04 - 07:44 PM (#1123917) Subject: RE: BS: Same-sex marriage and the constitution From: Sttaw Legend 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. |
|
25 Feb 04 - 08:09 PM (#1123936) Subject: RE: BS: Same-sex marriage and the constitution From: Uncle_DaveO Wha???? |
|
25 Feb 04 - 09:09 PM (#1123969) Subject: RE: BS: Same-sex marriage and the constitution From: jaze 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? |
|
25 Feb 04 - 09:18 PM (#1123976) Subject: RE: BS: Same-sex marriage and the constitution From: dick greenhaus 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. |
|
26 Feb 04 - 07:04 PM (#1124772) Subject: RE: BS: Same-sex marriage and the constitution From: Peace CH: Metric ton or a short ton? |
|
26 Feb 04 - 07:28 PM (#1124795) Subject: RE: BS: Same-sex marriage and the constitution From: Bobert 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 |
|
26 Feb 04 - 07:55 PM (#1124814) Subject: RE: BS: Same-sex marriage and the constitution From: Peace Clinton H: Who says it was Gray Aliens? Why not the Nordics? |
|
26 Feb 04 - 08:01 PM (#1124818) Subject: RE: BS: Same-sex marriage and the constitution From: kendall 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. |
|
26 Feb 04 - 11:22 PM (#1124897) Subject: RE: BS: Same-sex marriage and the constitution From: LadyJean 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. |
|
27 Feb 04 - 05:14 AM (#1125023) Subject: RE: BS: Same-sex marriage and the constitution From: Shanghaiceltic 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. |
|
27 Feb 04 - 10:39 AM (#1125183) Subject: RE: BS: Same-sex marriage and the constitution From: Amos 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 |
|
27 Feb 04 - 11:49 AM (#1125229) Subject: RE: BS: Same-sex marriage and the constitution From: Stilly River Sage Go, Amos! |
|
27 Feb 04 - 04:59 PM (#1125381) Subject: RE: BS: Same-sex marriage and the constitution From: Peace "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) |
|
27 Feb 04 - 05:23 PM (#1125398) Subject: RE: BS: Same-sex marriage and the constitution From: katlaughing 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 |