posted on February 19, 2004 11:22:34 PM new
bunni, you make an excellent point if we considered gays enslaved for being witheld the right to marry. But does anybody think of it along those terms?
posted on February 20, 2004 12:21:06 AM new
taken from Boston Herald.com
Rep. Barney Frank opposed San Francisco's gay marriage effort
By Associated Press
Wednesday, February 18, 2004
SAN FRANCISCO - Rep. Barney Frank [related, bio] said San Francisco's decision to challenge state law and grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples was a ``distraction´´ that could damage efforts by gay rights advocates to defend the Massachusetts court decision legalizing gay marriage.
``I was sorry to see the San Francisco thing go forward,´´ said Frank, a gay congressman from Massachusetts who shared his concerns with San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom as the city prepared to begin marrying gays and lesbians last week.
In an interview with The Associated Press, Frank also expressed concern that the image of lawlessness and civil disobedience in San Francisco would pressure some in Congress to support a federal constitutional amendment banning gay unions.
Frank said he and other gay marriage advocates had hoped that the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court's ruling that same-sex couples have the right to marry would serve as a national model for orderly, legal protection of gay marriage.
``If we go forward in Massachusetts and get same-sex marriage on the books, it´s going to be binding and incontestable,´´ Frank said Tuesday.
Instead, Frank said, San Francisco's decision to promote civil disobedience and allow gay and lesbian couples to obtain marriage licenses promotes the notion that unpopular laws can be broken or ignored.
``We have something real to defend here,´´ Frank said of the SJC decision and efforts to stop the federal constitutional amendment. ``When you´re in a real struggle, San Francisco making a symbolic point becomes a diversion.´´
California law explicitly defines marriage as ``a personal relation arising out of a civil contract between a man and a woman.´´ In addition, voters approved a ballot measure in 2000 that said only marriages between a man and woman are valid.
Newsom spokesman Peter Ragone praised Frank as a respected leader on gay rights issues, but denied that the mayor's decision to issue same-sex marriage licenses promotes illegal behavior.
------------
CA also has a law on it's books that people are not allowed to carry weapons. So...if some pro-gun mayor decides L.A. is a dangerous place and any body that wants to should be allowed to carry a gun....then the mayor could just order the permits to be handed out, right? Even though it's breaking the law. Elected officials swear to uphold the laws of the state they are elected to represent.
Imo, my pro-gun mayor should be allowed to do what he wants.... no different than what's going on with these marriage licenses being handed out right now.
posted on February 20, 2004 12:43:07 AM newbunni, you make an excellent point if we considered gays enslaved for being witheld the right to marry. But does anybody think of it along those terms?
It's not slavery, but it is a denial of equality. It's not just the marriage issue. Many things that we heterosexuals take for granted are denied or made extremely difficult for homosexuals. They don't even have the rights that have been granted to common-law spouses. Merely holding hands or kissing their loved one in public is called "shoving their sexuality in out faces." Adoption is out for them in most places, and if they have a child of their own the safety of that child is called into question. Then there's the idiocy that despite the fact that child molesters are almost always heterosexual, homosexuals are assumed by many to be child molesters. If they refuse to hide their sexual orientation they are denied military service--and no matter how long they've been in the service or how well they've served they'll be kicked out.
So, yes, many people do "think along those terms."
******
Censorship, like charity, should begin at home; but unlike charity, it should end there --Clare Booth Luce
posted on February 20, 2004 12:53:33 AM new
Also taken from BostonHerald.com
Gay weekly bashes Frisco over licenses
By J.M. Lawrence
Thursday, February 19, 2004
One of New England's largest gay newspapers today condemns San Francisco City Hall for ``making a mockery´´ out of same-sex marriage by issuing 2,600 illegal licenses in one week.
``I understand the symbolism. We all do. But here in Massachusetts on May 17, it´s going to be real. We´re not talking about just playing dress up,´´ wrote editor Fred Kuhr in the magazine, In Newsweekly.
Kuhr's editorial says San Franciscans may have rushed to the altar because they ``didn´t like New Englanders having the spotlight.´´
``This symbolic gesture on the part of San Francisco seems like sour grapes that Massachusetts is further ahead than their state on this issue,´´ the editorial says.
Flouting California law to hand out licenses is just as bad as trying to circumvent the Massachusetts Supreme Judical Court ruling allowing same-sex marriage, the paper says.
Mayor Gavin Newsom approved same-sex marriage licenses, arguing gays can marry under the California Constitution's equal protection clause.
***But California officials said yesterday the forms are worthless.***
-----------
Bunni - I don't have a link at this moment but I've read that a lot of states DO allow adoption by gay couples.
-----
I just think there are lots of ways to give gays the same 'rights' as straights have without making it a 'marriage' license issue. Laws can be passed for anything.
--------
Already there are problems with gays from Canada coming to the US and demanding their gay marriages be recognized....when our Federal law [DOMA] says it's up to each state to decide if they want the term 'marriage' to mean one man and one woman.
posted on February 20, 2004 02:33:21 AM newBunni - I don't have a link at this moment but I've read that a lot of states DO allow adoption by gay couples.
Only 6 states have outright approved homosexual adoptions. About 18 have had lower courts approve it, but not at the state level.
Of the rest, 4 have outright banned it, and the other 22 have no specific laws either way & individual judges make the decision.
So in only in half the states are homosexual adoptions really allowed (& remember of that 24 , 18 have local, not state sanction). I can't think of many heterosexuals looking to adopt that would put up with being told that in 1/2 the country they couldn't do so. Doesn't seem equitable to me.
******
Censorship, like charity, should begin at home; but unlike charity, it should end there --Clare Booth Luce
posted on February 20, 2004 03:34:15 AM new
What part of they don't deserve any rights don't you understand Bunnicula?
They made a choice for an abhorrent life style and now a whining because people really don't like them... marriage is a RIGHT not a privilege no matter what any queer thinks...
Anyone that keeps comparing this issue to Black's and Women's movements of the past is just naive and knows little of how this issue runs across all genders and races... Got news for you Bunni Black's and Women don't want queers married either...
I have yet to see one reason why a queer should be allowed to marry NOT A ONE!
Gov Arnold needs to act swift and make an example of SF, the good people of California passed Prop 22 and that POS Mayor and company are deserving of removal.
Whether you people like it or not, these POS queers are going to cause bloodshed to be spilled here at home...
It is just that divisive
posted on February 20, 2004 06:35:46 AM new
Lets put this issue to a National Vote... if the people decide that queers can be "married" I will grudginly accept that... however if as I suspect will happen they will not be given the right to be "married" then the queers can STFU and crawl back into whatever hole they came from...
I am betting queers are the ones who would fear a vote.
posted on February 20, 2004 07:40:51 AM new
neroter12:
Logan, I have a question for you. What about bi-sexuals? Is that also genetic according to your belief?? Or are they really one or the other (straight or gay) and just for the time sexually experimenting?
I am afraid I don't a perfect answer for you one this. In my opinion, there are a lot of variables. If the person is young or has not been sexually active, I would say it be just experimentation. If the person has been "switch hitting" for years, then I would say he/she is truly bisexual.
What would you say to a man was born a man then became a woman and later married a man?
Would you say this is a straight marriage or a gay marriage?
Marriage is a Human Right not a Heterosexual Privledge
posted on February 20, 2004 09:42:06 AM new
Logan, I really dont know what *I* would call that union, but I dont think its important what I'd call it, rather than what they'd define it as.
According to you answer, I gather your opinion is bixsexuality is something we can choose to do. ?
Bunni, have you ever heard the term equal but different? I used to argue with a Lt. in the military about that term where men and women are concerned. I'd say, there is no such thing as equal but different.
equal = equal. But men and woman are different. Just as undeniably heterosexual couples are different than homosexual couples. For me personally, I've come to the fact that men and woman can be equal but different.
I have to wonder if gays would balk, at say for instance, if the heterosexual bird club of America (or whatever) said, 'we want to be included in the gay parades, and we want equal amount of floats and our representatives allowed to be able to wear tee-shirts that say, "straight bird-watchers are the tweatest". Wouldn't the homosexual community's stance be, "uh, this is a gay parade, celebrating gay pride and you really should be gay to be part of it. Or contribute something to the gayness of it?" Now aside from the right wingers who try to ruin it for them by protesting - who is running around crying 'denial of equality' to be part of the gay club here without being gay?
posted on February 20, 2004 11:58:11 AM new
Neroter:Logan, I really don't know what *I* would call that union, but I don't think its important what I'd call it, rather than what they'd define it as.
If it is up to the two people involved in that "union" to define their own "union" then why are you saying two men can't define their "union" as a marriage?
According to you answer, I gather your opinion is bixsexuality is something we can choose to do. ?
No, I didn't say that. If a person who is experimenting because he/she is confused about his/her sexuality, then that person is acting upon the more dominant hormones at the time. That person will continue to act up on the more dominant hormones until the stronger one emerges. If there is not a dominant hormone/tendency, then the person is truly bisexual and will "switch hit". No where did I say or imply the person is making a choice. I believe a person's sexuality is all biological.
Marriage is a Human Right not a Heterosexual Privledge
posted on February 20, 2004 12:00:28 PM new
I guess it is ok for a man to have sex with two women at one time or for a man to watch two women having sex together, but when it comes to two women getting married then they have an issue with it?
Marriage is a Human Right not a Heterosexual Privledge
posted on February 20, 2004 12:10:59 PM new
logansdad - Imo, those acts are done by individual choice...in privacy. We do have laws not allowing it in public.
We also haven't asked for a state or the Federal government to make it legal...nor to put it into law, thereby condoing that behavior. Especially when the majority might not want it approved.
posted on February 20, 2004 12:18:05 PM new"I don't know that much about homosexuality in animals. Not being an animal myself I don't think I'm qualified to speak to that issue without research into the subject."
Huh?? a/ - you ARE an animal, and b/ - making such profound statements about homosexuality, when you've admitted to not knowing much on the subject, (see above statement) is hypocritical, socksandshoes. Go read up, then come back and tell us your beliefs.
Logansdad, has anyone here been able to answer your question yet? Any able to answer without bringing in religious beliefs?
posted on February 20, 2004 12:28:27 PM newTranscript of Bill Maher's Feb. 13 show, the portion of it wherein he spoke about gay marriage (and more).
New Rule, Special Valentine's Day Edition: You can't claim you're the party of smaller government and then make laws about love. On this occasion of this Valentine's Day, let's stop and ask ourselves what business is it of the state how consenting adults choose to pair off, share expenses and eventually stop having sex with each other. And why does the Bush Administration want a Constitutional amendment about weddings? Hey, why stop at weddings? Birthdays are important; let's put them in the great document. Let's make a law that gay people can have birthdays, but straight people get more cake. You know, to send the right message to kids.
Republicans are always saying we should privatize things like schools, prisons, Social Security. Hey, how about we privatize privacy? Because if the government forbids gay men from tying the knot, what is their alternative? They can't all marry Liza Minnelli.
You know, Republicans used to be the party that opposed social engineering. But now they push programs to outlaw marriage for some people and encourage it for others. If you're straight, there's a billion-five in the budget to promote marriage, but gay marriage is opposed because it threatens or mocks or does something to the 'sanctity' of marriage, as if anything you can do in Vegas, drunk off your ass in front of an Elvis impersonator, could be considered sacred.
Half the people who pledge eternal love are doing it because one of them is either knocked up, rich or desperate. But in George Bush's mind, marriage is only a beautiful lifetime bond of love and sharing. Kind of like what his dad has with the Saudis. Please, I kid.
All right, but at least the right wing aren't hypocrites on this issue. They really believe that homosexuality is an abomination and a dysfunction that's curable. They believe that if a gay man just devotes his life to Jesus, he'll stop being gay, because that theory worked out so well with the Catholic priests.
But I have to tell you, the greater shame in this story goes to the Democrats, because they don't believe homosexuality is an abomination. And therefore, their refusal to endorse gay marriage is hypocrisy. Their position doesn't come from the Bible. It's ripped right from the latest poll, which says most Americans are against gay marriage.
Well, you know what? Sometimes most Americans are just wrong. And where is the Democrat who will stand up and go beyond the half measures of 'civil union' and 'hate the sin, love the sinner' and say loud and clear, 'There is no sin; it's not an abomination and no one can control how cupid aims his arrows. And the ones who pretend they can usually turn out to be the biggest freaks.'
The law in this country should reflect that some people are just born 100% outrageously, fabulously, undeniably, Fire Island gay! And they do not need reprogramming. They need a man with a slow hand!
posted on February 20, 2004 12:35:38 PM new
KD - without religion. Yes, I think neroter12 has made several great points.
------
I think what some might be assuming is that in all of the 38 states in the US, who have voted to keep 'marriage' different from 'gay unions', they are NOT all religious people.
posted on February 20, 2004 12:42:07 PM newwhy does the Bush Administration want a Constitutional amendment about weddings?
First of all some here argue that he hasn't taken a stand on it...then some argue he has.
Second of all, what's all this blame Bush for this? CLINTON is the one who signed DOMA into law. Does that mean he wanted to regulate everything too? What a silly statement to make.
They BOTH are doing their jobs....representing ALL the people of the US and their beliefs and views.
Just as clinton followed the polls so closely on which way the wind was blowing on ALL the issues....presidents are aware of how the majority they represent think and feel. Anyone can easily see that the majority are against this.
posted on February 20, 2004 12:46:32 PM new
I guess I'm missing something, Linda. I don't see where Neroter says homosexuality is wrong and explains why. Can you show me?
posted on February 20, 2004 12:46:55 PM new
Linda, you seem to forget (or, more likely, you've never understood) that our Constitution was drafted with the idea of protecting the minority of Americans, in everything from how laws are made/applied to the powers the State can exercise for or against its citizenry.
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of what he was never reasoned into." -Jonathan Swift
posted on February 20, 2004 12:57:11 PM new
Well that me be the spirit in which the constitution was drafted, however, it failed to protect minorities (i.e..slaves) or view them as equals.
posted on February 20, 2004 01:02:42 PM new
Linda, I asked Logansdad if anyone answered his question without bringing religion into it. If Neroter answered it, I've missed it and need someone to point it out to me.
posted on February 20, 2004 01:14:11 PM new
KD - How about this, instead. He's made several points. If you have read all neroter12's posts and you see any mention of religion in them....please point it out to me.
posted on February 20, 2004 01:18:38 PM new
No argument there, KC. But it was that very Constitution which was used as the basis for outlawing slavery and discrimination against nearly all citizens. It is a 'living' document -- it is amended over time as times and people change. Usually, though, amendments reflect a greater freedom for all; the perversion of the Republican/Fundie call for an amendment to ban gay marriage is that it seeks to limit the rights of some. The wiser Republicans have come out squarely against butchering the Constituion in this way, and they are right to be horrified and indignant about it.
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of what he was never reasoned into." -Jonathan Swift
posted on February 20, 2004 01:19:55 PM new
Linda:
logansdad - Imo, those acts are done by individual choice...in privacy.
Linda, I want to clarify your statement. Do you mean what goes on in the privacy of one's home is ok no matter who is involved?
We do have laws not allowing it in public.
I agree sex acts have no place in public no matter who is involved
What do you consider a sex act? Is kissing ok to do in public? What about hand holding? If both of these acts are ok, why is it ok for a man and a woman to do these in public, but not two people of the same sex?
Marriage is a Human Right not a Heterosexual Privledge
posted on February 20, 2004 01:51:48 PM newHahaha, it's becoming a nationwide revolt!
New Mexico County Begins Issuing Marriage Licenses to Gay Couples
By Susan Montoya Bryan
Associated Press Writer
Published: Feb 20, 2004
BERNALILLO, N.M. (AP) - A county clerk issued marriage licenses Friday to at least 15 gay couples, some of whom then exchanged vows outside the courthouse, and dozens more same-sex couples lined up for a chance to tie the knot.
A sign-up list at Sandoval County courthouse grew to 38 couples after county clerk Victoria Dunlap announced she would issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
Dunlap said she made the decision after county attorney David Mathews said New Mexico law is unclear: New Mexico law defines marriage as a contract between contracting parties but does not mention gender.
"This has nothing to do with politics or morals," she said. "If there are no legal grounds that say this should be prohibited, I can't withhold it. This office won't say no until shown it's not permissible."
Outside the courthouse, two preachers conducted marriage ceremonies.
"When we heard the news this morning, we knew we couldn't wait. We had to come down here," said Jenifer Albright of Albuquerque, who exchanged vows with partner Anne Shultz.
The move came just over a week after San Francisco began issuing marriage licenses to thousands of gay couples in a direct challenge to California law.
A spokeswoman said Democratic Gov. Bill Richardson was opposed to same-sex marriage.
"The governor has always been a champion for human rights. He supports equal rights and opposes all forms of discrimination. However, he is opposed to same sex marriage," said Marsha Catron.
Two New Mexico state senators - one Democrat and one Republican - asked Friday for an opinion from New Mexico Attorney General Patricia Madrid. A spokeswoman for Madrid said an opinion could be issued next week.
Republican state Sen. Steve Komadina criticized the county clerk and called for a prompt opinion from the attorney general.
"I feel badly that action was taken before an answer was obtained," Komadina said. "That was very irresponsible and will cause heartache to people on all sides of the question."
Bernalillo is a few miles north of Albuquerque, New Mexico's largest city.
posted on February 20, 2004 01:51:57 PM new
I agree with every point stated in your post. The Constitution promotes the idea, that all men are equal. Yet the abolishment of slavery was not brought about until there existed a substantial body of people (or a majority) that felt it criminal in nature.
posted on February 20, 2004 02:01:59 PM new
Pat, no, I cant say I've ever heard of it or know what it is. (So what is it?)
Btw, thanks for posting that Bill Mawr transcript. I used to really enjoy his show and was a pretty big fan of his that I almost had PC withdrawal when they kicked him off ABC. (Not that I always agreed with everything he said.) I just like the debate and different POVs I quess. But since dont have premium cable, last I saw him was on Larry King ):
