Then come back and tell us all about it. Your canvas jacket ( -you'll love it, it's just like Tagpole's!) has been properly sized now and will be waiting for you...
posted on February 13, 2004 05:25:39 PM new
Pat - It's crystal clear that many here have no objection to officials BREAKING THE LAW that were voted on BY THE PEOPLE. Nor do you [collectively] appear to want our laws to follow the will of the majority of the voters. typical....
So, what is the difference between civil union and marriage? Why would you approve of civil union with all the rights and priviledges of marriage but not approve of the same union of two people if it is called marriage.
posted on February 13, 2004 10:22:00 PM new
Yeah...69% of Americans and your hopeful Kerry and I ...we're all confused, not using logic.... right.... funny
posted on February 14, 2004 04:47:25 AM new
Helen, I would not support civil unions being "equal" to marriage.
Only thing a civil union should be is like a living will.
That person can come to the hospital and make some decisions there, employers would not be forced to offer benefits for these "unions".
Linda you notice how people want to overlook that Kerry also does not approve of Gay marriage... that is finally something that may get people behind him, considering the majority of the US do no believe in same sex marriages.
AIN'T LIFE GRAND...
http://www.nogaymarriage.com/
[ edited by Twelvepole on Feb 14, 2004 04:50 AM ]
posted on February 14, 2004 09:45:34 AM newGavin Newsom's letter to the San Francisco County Clerk:
February 10, 2004
Nancy Alfaro
San Francisco County Clerk
City Hall, Room 168
1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place
San Francisco, CA 94102
Dear Ms. Alfaro,
Upon taking the Oath of Office, becoming the Mayor of the City and County of San Francisco, I swore to uphold the Constitution of the State of California. Article I, Section 7, subdivision (a) of the California Constitution provides that "[a] person may not be . . . denied equal protection of the laws." The California courts have interpreted the equal protection clause of the California Constitution to apply to lesbians and gay men and have suggested that laws that treat homosexuals differently from heterosexuals are suspect. The California courts have also stated that discrimination against gay men and lesbians is invidious. The California courts have held that gender discrimination is suspect and invidious as well. The Supreme Courts in other states have held that equal protection provisions in their state constitutions prohibit discrimination against gay men and lesbians with respect to the rights and obligations flowing from marriage. It is my belief that these decisions are persuasive and that the California Constitution similarly prohibits such discrimination.
Pursuant to my sworn duty to uphold the California Constitution, including specifically its equal protection clause, I request that you determine what changes should be made to the forms and documents used to apply for and issue marriage licenses in order to provide marriage licenses on a non-discriminatory basis, without regard to gender or sexual orientation.
posted on February 14, 2004 11:54:42 AM new
Not a good way for an elected official to take action that breaks the laws of the state. No excuse for that. Totally goes against what our country was founded on....LAWS.
You'd think an elected representative would bow to the wishes and VOTES, respect the way the voters decided, UNTIL the law was changed.
But not with ultra-liberals...if you don't agree with the citizens and how they voted....just BREAK THOSE LAWS....why take it to the courts for decisions.
This decision will be cut down, just like the others have been, because IT'S UNLAWFUL.
------------
I have no worries about Kerry twelve - President Bush's supporters will have a field day with Kerry if he does get the nomination, on many issues. Kerry's too liberal for most moderate democrats....he's further left than Ted Kennedy. It's already out on the internet how many times Kerry has changed his position on the gay marriage issue [and others I might add ]. Saying he is against gay's marrying, but then won't vote for the marriage being defined as one man and one woman.
Like I said, the American public will be shown how he speaks out of both sides of his mouth, trying to appease both sides. It won't pass muster.
Even DEAN called Kerry 'Bush lite'. He supported the No Child Let Behind, the Iraq war and one other republican issue that, right now, escapes me. The ultra-left, read Dean supporters won't like that in a candidate either. But, of course, we have those democrats who will vote for anything that walks and talks as long as there's a hope of beating this President. I just don't believe voters can't see Kerry as one of the many who continually reverses himself on the issues....so they won't know where he really stands.
posted on February 14, 2004 12:08:50 PM new
Linda:
But not with ultra-liberals...if you don't agree with the citizens and how they voted....just BREAK THOSE LAWS....why take it to the courts for decisions.
What about with Bush. You dont like the constitution and equal protection for all citizens, write an amendment changing the constitution.
The constitution provides due process for all it's citizens. Now Bush wants to write an amendment defining marriage because he doesnt like what is taking place in this country.
Whatever happen to not mixing church and state. Where does he get off defining what marriage is and is not? Who made him God?
Hasnt Bush done enough damage during his presidency already, with the war in Irag and the economy here.
I cant wait for him to get his butt kicked in Noevember. It would be fitting for him to loose the same way he won.
posted on February 14, 2004 12:18:57 PM new
Linda, I really think you are confused.
Yeah...69% of Americans and your hopeful Kerry and I ...we're all confused
then:
[i] Kerry's too liberal for most moderate democrats....he's further left than Ted Kennedy. [i]
Why dont you just come out with it? If an alternative lifestyle is on an equal par in the so called governing laws of marriage as YOURS and straights, that somehow makes straight marriage a farse and a falsehood. Isn't that what it's really about? Stop making it a republican/democrate issue. People of all party affiliations have different feelings about it! sheesh! You strum the same guitar strings over and over, Linda. Learn some other chords, at least.
posted on February 15, 2004 12:03:29 AM newWhat about with Bush. You dont like the constitution and equal protection for all citizens, write an amendment changing the constitution.
At least he's doing it the way our country was set up to handle the issues. He didn't break any law. The amendment he proposing hasn't pass yet....heck he hasn't even presented one yet....quite unlike what was done in CA.
And I will remind you that 38 states have already passed their own laws regarding this issue. Bush is following the will of the majority of the people/voters. But I understand how breaking the law doesn't matter to the liberals when they don't agree with it.
-----------
neroter12learn some other chords? LOL But, but... it's the same old tune...being played out the same old way, by another elected liberal who thinks he doesn't have to obey the will of the people....the law that was passed in CA...a decision made by the voters of CA. He could have chosen to go about getting the CA law changed/reversed...but no....same ol' same ol', same ol' tune.
Re-elect President Bush!!
[ edited by Linda_K on Feb 15, 2004 12:07 AM ]
posted on February 15, 2004 04:43:35 AM new
Linda, I meant that there are, in case you are unaware of it, republican gays who probably secretly or even outrightly resent their party's stand on this issue.
If we always have to see an issue from an 'us verses them' stance, the issue itself ultimately gets lost in the fight.
I will agree with you the mayor of SF did an outlandish thing. In my opinion, he was sworn in to uphold the laws and fractured that oath by what he did. But, since SF is so highly populated with gays maybe it is the right thing for that population.
You always talk about 'majority of what people want.' But again, you are extremely selective in where you will allow this application to proceed. In any case, it doesn't affect me, so I don't care if they want to get married. I only gave this issue a lot of thought because I wanted to explore my own feelings on the subject. What two people (adults) want to do in union is between them - you cannot put laws on that. Maybe its time to recognize the shear validity of my previous statement. Nobody is going to make gay people stop being gay. And if they are sinning, that is between them and their maker. We so benignly and routinely accept that for heterosexual couples. I think it was your man Bush who not to long ago quoted the biblical, "get the board out of your own eye before youre looken to pick out specks from anothers."
(The fight will go on I am sure, but in the words of MY MENTOR, Forest Gump: "Thats all I gots to say about that!"
posted on February 15, 2004 05:00:46 AM newyou cannot put laws on that
Wrong, there are already laws on that... just that now elected officials seem the think they can ignore those laws...
I hope the queers are now getting their eyes opened that WE the People do not like their deviant life style and will not allow them to soil marriage...
Same sex marriage or anything else for that matter is wrong wrong wrong...
People who are for them, must not mind queers molesting young boys as in the case of those priests...
posted on February 15, 2004 05:12:56 AM new
Mornin' neroter12 - I'm sure there are gay republicans that feel that way. I gave the figures on how the whole picture is.
And I don't agree that breaking the law is okay since SF has such a large gay community.
If we always have to see an issue from an 'us verses them' stance, the issue itself ultimately gets lost in the fight. This issue has always been one man and one woman. THEY are the ones seeking to change the statis quo. In every debate it' an US vs THEM. One picks their side and argues it....if it's important enough to them.
You always talk about 'majority of what people want.' But again, you are extremely selective in where you will allow this application to proceed. I'd be interested in an actual example of where you see me being that way please. I'm open to constructive criticism. I just don't care much for insults or name calling.
What two people (adults) want to do in union is between them - you cannot put laws on that. Sure...there are already laws...they want to ignore them. Just like the sodomy case the USSC recently ruled on....there was a law against that...but now there's not. And I don't agree with the stand that "whatever others do doesn't affect me or my life" kind of mind set. Sure it does as a person with my own value system I see it as further moral decline for the institution of marriage. And if you read articles on the three countries who do currently recognize same sex marriages, you will see the change that has been brought about in their societies....to marriages...to families...to their countries.
Nobody is going to make gay people stop being gay. I personally am not for making them change. I don't want MY value system and my traditions changed. And if they are sinning, that is between them and their maker. That I also agree with. But doesn't mean I have to condone the behavior.
I think it was your man Bush who not to long ago quoted the biblical, "get the board out of your own eye before youre looken to pick out specks from anothers."
Contrary to what many have assumed here....I'm really not into quoting BIBLE verses. No offense intended to you.
But please share with me your answer to my above question.
posted on February 15, 2004 05:17:30 AM new
mornin' twelve - You beat me to the 'there already are laws. sorry...I type too slow.
Re-elect President Bush!!
posted on February 15, 2004 05:55:51 AM new
You know there is already a jurisdiction where the religeous vs. the civil aspects of marriage are in substantial conflict and everything is a mess...Israel.
Of course we are not allowed to talk about it because if you ever ever say anything negative about the Jews they wave the Hitler card and remind you they are above any criticism for eternity.
However not only are most American Jews not Jewish enough to be regarded as real Jews in Isreal but many Israeli's have to leave the country to get married because one of them is not Jewish enough for a legal wedding.
Considering all the billions of dollars of aid that flow in from American Jews and through their political influence it is an incredible example of biting the hand that feeds you.
They let a bunch of old men too dumb to take their fur hats off when they come to a tropical climate tell them how to live just like people here allow their old goats in skirts to boff their little boys as a perk
posted on February 15, 2004 06:32:49 AM new
LOL twelve @ I'm a little left of you on this one. I started out in what I thought was the middle, leaning just a tiny bit to the right. But over these past [almost] four years I've definitely moved quite a bit to the right. I believe it's seeing how far left the left has moved....that drove me further to the right.
posted on February 15, 2004 06:40:54 AM new
Tweleve:
Same sex marriage or anything else for that matter is wrong wrong wrong...
Now you are against everything. Climb back in the little hole you came out of. You must be a really good employer since you cant seem to tolerate anyone's views except your own.
People who are for them, must not mind queers molesting young boys as in the case of those priests...
What about all the mothers and fathers who molest their own children. Or better yet prostitute them so they can get money to buy drugs. I suppose this is ok in your eyes since they are "married".
Just because a person is gay doesn't mean they are child molesters. But of course one equals the other in your eyes.
"An Army of One"
Bigotry and hate will not be tolerated.
[ edited by logansdad on Feb 15, 2004 06:54 AM ]
posted on February 15, 2004 06:55:01 AM newAnd if you read articles on the three countries who do currently recognize same sex marriages, you will see the change that has been brought about in their societies....to marriages...to families...to their countries.
Linda, of course....
Belgium: On 2003-JAN-30, Belgium became the second country in the world to allow gay and lesbian couples to marry. However, the legislation does not allow them to adopt children.
Brazil: Marta Suplicy is a legislator representing the Workers Party. He brought forward a gay-partnership bill which "assures rights to inheritance, succession, welfare benefits, joint-income declaration, right to nationality in case of a foreign partner and joint income in order to buy a house." to gay and lesbian couples. The bill passed a Senate committee in 1996-DEC by a vote of 11 to 5.
Conservative religious elements were able to delay a vote on the bill until 1997-OCT when the Pope will be visiting the country. They may be motivated by the belief that the Pope may be able to sway some legislators to vote against the bill.
Denmark: The first movement towards same-sex partnerships occurred in 1968 with a proposal by the Socialist People's Party to recognize gay and lesbian relationships. A committee rejected the idea in 1973 because it would change the institution of marriage and adversely affect the way that people in other countries viewed Danish marriages. A commission was formed in 1984 to restudy the matter. Their Parliament amended laws covering inheritance and tax laws to give same-sex couples equality with married couples. The Social Democratic Party and the Socialist People's Party cosponsored a bill in 1989 which would create registered partnerships. On June 7, 1989, and with the support of about 60% of the population, Folketing (parliament) passed the law by a vote of 71 to 47. It became effective on 1989-OCT-1.
The Danish gay newspaper Pan-Bladet reported (circa late 1995) that there have been about 1,449 gay and 634 lesbian registered partnerships registered under the law. 23% of the lesbians and 14% of the gay couples have since divorced; 11% have been terminated by the death of one partner. The divorce rate is lower than for married couples.
Partnership guarantees certain rights that were previously restricted to married couples: inheritance, insurance plans, pension, social benefits, income tax reductions, unemployment benefits and social benefits. It also makes them responsible for alimony payments if they divorce. But they originally were not allowed to have their partnership ceremony within the state Church of Denmark, or adopt children or receive free artificial insemination services. The law will probably be amended in the future to grant some of these rights. Opponents to the law were concerned that it would generate an influx of gays and lesbians into the country, seeking benefits. This did not occur, perhaps partly because the law requires one spouse to be a Danish resident. Not all gays and lesbians supported the law. Some, particularly lesbians, objected because of past negative experiences while married. Kim Engelbrechtsen, the information manager for Denmark's Tourism Department said: "It's had only a positive effect. It's showing we're an open-minded society." Per Stig Moller, a member of the legislature who abstained from voting on the bill, regards the bill as a success because it has helped stabilize homosexuals in committed relationships. "Now they live officially..."It works."
In 1997, the bishops of the state church (Danish Lutheran Church) voted to accept same-sex partnerships. Gay and lesbian couples can now have their partnership ceremony conducted in the state church.
Starting in 1999, gay and lesbian couples were allowed to adopt their partner's children. However, they are still not able to adopt children from outside of their partnership.
France: They have a national health insurance plan which covers the partners of civil servants (and perhaps others). The French government introduced Civil Solidarity Pacts (PACS) in 1998. They would give unmarried same-sex and opposite-sex couples the same tax breaks and legal benefits that are currently enjoyed only by married couples. It would also make it easier for unmarried heterosexual couples to adopt children; it does not extend the same option to homosexual couples. Pastor Jean Tartier, president of the Protestant Federation of France favors the proposed law: "The PACS must be seen as a contract of solidarity, not a marriage in disguise. If that is the case, this proposition seems to me clear and positive." Fr. Olivier de la Brosse, spokesperson for the permanent council of the Roman Catholic bishops took a negative view: "Marriage and the family are fundamental sacred institutions essential for society. Legislation that places other unions at the same level creates a serious problem for the structure of society." Jewish and Muslim spokespersons also took negative views. A massive demonstration was held in opposition to the bill by about 100,000 individuals on 1999-JAN-31. The bill was passed in the National Assembly, and became law on 1999-OCT-13. Under the law, couples can register at their local courthouses after "three years of stated fidelity." According to the Feminist Majority Foundation, "Couples registered under the new law can file joint tax forms, take simultaneous vacations, are subject to lower inheritance taxes, and are responsible for each others debts. There is speculation that the law...will eventually lead to easier adoption and artificial insemination for gay couples. The law also makes separation easier." 3
Germany: The Federal government has passed a law which would allow gay and lesbian couples to exchange vows at a local government office. They would need to apply to a court for a divorce. They would receive some of the benefits that are automatically given to heterosexual married couples -- e.g. inheritance rights and health insurance coverage. However they are not granted the right to adopt and will not receive the same tax benefits as heterosexual married couples. The law was championed by the Green party -- a group devoted to the environment. It was supported by the ruling Social Democrat coalition partners. passed in the lower house of parliament in the year 2000. However, the upper house, stripped the law of some tax privileges that are granted to heterosexual married couples. The states of Bavaria and Saxony applied to the Federal Constitutional Court for an injunction to prevent the law from taking effect on 2001-AUG-1. They argued that the law breaks constitutional provisions that protect heterosexual marriage and the "family." The court turned down the request for an injunction but has yet to rule on the complaint. 4 Angelika Baldow and Gudrun Pannier, both 36, became the first couple to exchange vows in Berlin. Pannier said "I feel great. This is very symbolic -- a message that Berlin is a tolerant city. It is the fulfillment of a dream, but it is just the beginning. We haven't got equal rights yet." Manfred Bruns, spokesperson for the German Lesbian and Gay Association said: "The registration of life partnerships still does not being equality, but is a great leap forward in the right direction."
Greenland: is a dependency of Denmark. They adopted the Danish law in 1994.
Hungary: Their Constitutional Court on 1995-MAR-8, declared that: "It is arbitrary and contrary to human dignity ... that the law withholds recognition from couples living in an economic and emotional union simply because they are same-sex...Despite growing acceptance of homosexuality [and] changes in the traditional definition of a family, there is no reason to change the law on [civil] marriages,". The court gave Parliament one year to introduce legislation which would recognize same-sex partnerships and give them the same rights, privileges and responsibilities as have long been given to opposite-sex common-law couples. Parliament voted 207 to 73 in favor of the legislation during 1996-MAY. Registered gay and lesbian partnerships now have all of the privileges of common-law marriages, except for the right to adopt. Some reaction by gay groups: Laszlo Rusvai: "This will help homosexuals to live together in a legal framework...I hope this ruling will help the further demolition of social prejudices."
Rainbow spokesperson Geza Juhasz: "We welcome the fact that parliament passed this law but I don't think this proves that most MPs are more enlightened. The law was...imposed on parliament by the Constitutional Court."
Iceland: On 1996-JUN-27, their Althing (Parliament) approved a bill (44 in favor, 1 opposed, 1 abstention, 17 not present) which gives gays and lesbians the right to unite in a civil ceremony which is recognized by the state. Margaret Olafsdottir, who leads the Association of 78 (the country's gay rights movement), said "This will revolutionize the lives of the gay couples in Iceland who have, until now, had to suffer great inequality in matters regarding insurance, taxes and the rights to inherit from one's partner....This injustice has, in the past, led to many personal tragedies.". Later, she said: "Iceland is now in the forefront of countries giving lesbians and gay men the legal right to have their cohabitation recognized with mutual rights and responsibilities."
Shared custody of children is permitted if one of the spouses has a child when they are married. But the law does not allow them to adopt children or practice artificial insemination. They also do not have the right to a church wedding. But they have all of the other rights and obligations of a married couple.
Three couples (two gay and one lesbian) were married in the Reykjavic central registry office immediately after the bill was passed. Anna Sigridur Sigurjonsdottir said "We look upon this as a recognition of our existence." Her new wife, Solveig Magnea Jonsdottir, added: "This brings with it an unbelievable feeling of freedom." Whether by accident or intention, the bill was approved during Gay Pride week.
Netherlands: On 2000-DEC-19, the upper house of the Dutch government has passed a bill that enlarges the concept of marriage in the Netherlands. Since 2001-APR, gay and lesbian couples, who are either citizens of the Netherlands or who have residency permits, have been able to marry and adopt. This makes the Netherlands the first western country in recent history to have legalized gay and lesbian marriages. More details.
New Zealand: They have a Federal law which bans discrimination based on sexual orientation. Their marriage act does not specifically prohibit same sex marriages; it only disallows marriages which would "damage the gene pool." However, three lesbian couples were denied the right to marry. They appealed to the High Court. In 1996-MAY, they lost the case. High Court Justice Kerr apparently did not view their petition as a civil rights matter, believing that the majority of the people should favor same-sex marriage before it is legalized. he said: "To give marriage a meaning which the plaintiffs seek would require me to interpret the law in a way which I do not perceive Parliament to intend...Community attitudes in 1996 are much more relaxed to gay and lesbian couples ... but whether that relaxation would extend to supporting marriage of such couples is difficult to gauge." [The same argument could have been used to continue a ban on inter-racial marriages in 1967]. One of the plaintiffs, Lindsay Quiltrer commented: "I refuse to take no for an answer. This is not just about queer rights. It shows that the Bill of Rights doesn't have the teeth it claimed to have."
Norway: Same as Denmark. Their Odelsting Chamber voted 58-40; their Lagting Chamber voted 18 to 16. The law came into effect on 1993-AUG-1
Sweden: Similar to Denmark. The vote was 171-141 with 5 abstentions and 32 absences! The law became effective on 1995-JAN-1. Their Prime Minister, Carl Bildt, said "We accept homosexual love as equivalent to heterosexual,"
Spain: Same as Denmark (since 1996).
posted on February 15, 2004 07:00:32 AM new
Linda:
At least he's doing it the way our country was set up to handle the issues. He didn't break any law.
I suppose the Patriot Act is a good example of how Bush follows the law.
That is a great law: Assume people are guilty, don't charge them with a crime and then deprive them of legal representation for years.
What ever happend to "people are inoccent until proven guilty". Bush has total disregard for the Constitution.
Ah yes, you don't like a certain laws change them so it benefits your agenda and then claim it is for the common good of America.
posted on February 15, 2004 07:31:18 AM new
logansdad - I'll say it once again. The majority of what is in our current Patriot Act....was ALREADY law...put in during the clinton administration. It was just all combined and a little more added.
But you guys make it sound like it was all Bush's doing. It wasn't. read....
posted on February 15, 2004 07:53:52 AM new
I'd sure like to see some proof of this. Marriage is a Human Right not a Heterosexual Privledge. Cause I've never read it in any of our federal papers, nor any states laws when they make reference to marriage. Nor in our US Constitution....Bill of Rights...any of the amendments.
If any of these mention gender at all.....they say husband and wife....bride and groom....man and woman....when referring to who's getting 'married'.
No where, in printed text, have I ever seen it man and man....woman and woman.
Might want to check out the NJ SC ruling when they gave their reason for denying their same sex couples the right to marry. They spell it out quite well.
posted on February 15, 2004 08:01:53 AM new
Ugh helen - Where they recognize MARRIAGES between same sex couples...not civil unions....not by anyother name.
posted on February 15, 2004 08:10:03 AM new
Linda, Marriage is no more a "right" than driving a car....
Who ever thinks so is very much mistaken...
If it was a "right" no one would need a license...
I think what still is causing shock is that the majority of Americans are against this and they can't seem to fathom that... but then again being queer is wrong, so what can you expect.
AIN'T LIFE GRAND...
posted on February 15, 2004 08:11:29 AM new
Since there are no Republicans here able to discuss issues intelligently, I read their opinions elsewhere.
Why is George so quiet on this issue?
A Republican viewpoint.
"If the president were to endorse the amendment, the Republican splits would widen. It would make the position of gay Republicans essentially untenable and Bush would lose almost all the million gay votes he won in 2000. The Republican Unity Coalition, founded to make sexual orientation a non-issue in the G.O.P., would fold. The Log Cabin Republicans would refuse to endorse the president. And such a position would be an enormous gift to the Democrats, as gay money, enthusiasm and anger would rally behind their candidate. The Amendment would do to the gay community what Proposition 187 did to Latinos in California: alienate them from the GOP for a generation. And it would send a signal to other minorities: that the Republicans, at heart, are the party of exclusion, not inclusion."
"That's why the president has remained so quiet on this subject. Any decision he takes could tear his coalition apart. He does have one viable option. He could restate his personal view that civil marriage should remain exclusively heterosexual, while also saying that the states should decide for themselves. As a last resort, he might even endorse an amendment that would simply reiterate the Defense of Marriage Act, and ensure that states wouldn't be forced by courts to recognize gay marriages from other states. The genius of federalism, after all, is that social change can be tried out in one state before it is enacted elsewhere. Will the president follow this middle, conservative course? For the sake of Republican and American unity, let's hope he will."
funny
]. Saying he is against gay's marrying, but then won't vote for the marriage being defined as one man and one woman.
