posted on April 21, 2004 10:03:52 AM new
Well Lawyers are smiling coast to coast then...
I think that there will be major backlash from this and it will strenghten a national admendment drive...
Of course the Supreme Court will have to hear a case first...
AIN'T LIFE GRAND...
It's too bad that their blindness can't see they are killing more soldiers than President Bush ever has... Protest Loud and Proud! Your fellow taliban and insurgents are rejoicing at the support...
posted on April 25, 2004 06:53:04 PM newRomney ordered changes to the state's marriage application, including now asking applicants for evidence of where a person resides and intends to reside. It warns out-of-state couples that if they do not intend to reside in Massachusetts, the marriage "shall be null and void."
Hmmm appears they won't be getting married in Mass. and leaving for another state...
AIN'T LIFE GRAND...
It's too bad that their blindness can't see they are killing more soldiers than President Bush ever has... Protest Loud and Proud! Your fellow taliban and insurgents are rejoicing at the support...
posted on April 25, 2004 08:01:53 PM new
What if one applicant is a resident and the other isn't ?
What will happen is that thousands of same sex couples will have one or both establish residency and then get married, and then leave. It may prolong the SC case a month or perhaps six months, but there will be hundreds of same sex couples marry and leave MA just to get the ball rolling. It only takes one same sex couple to bring the case.
But, if other states didn't have to recognize the marriages as you once seemed to assert, then why have this restraint on out of state couples ?
posted on April 25, 2004 08:17:31 PM new
We shall see how other states handle it, if and when it happens, however if the SC doesn't hear any state cases, there still would not need for a national admendment.
Mass has already stated that they must be residents to marry, so if one is, then they should not be allowed to be married.
AIN'T LIFE GRAND...
It's too bad that their blindness can't see they are killing more soldiers than President Bush ever has... Protest Loud and Proud! Your fellow taliban and insurgents are rejoicing at the support...
posted on April 26, 2004 08:45:54 AM new
Do you really think that there will not be a case come out of MA marriages?
I'm telling you that there will be same sex couples that have lived their whole lives in MA that will get married and move to another state just to get the SC case started.
But it won't not be necessary to move either.
All you need is one same sex partner that works in another state that refuses to recognize the marriage. The non-recognition laws will be challenged due to the employer refusing to grant married benefits to the other partner. It will also come up on any taxes paid in the other state where being married has an effect on your taxes paid to anothe rstate.
It could also happen if the couple has children and the child in hospitized in another state.
It could also come up if the couple has a child that goes to college out of state and fills out a finanacial aid form for the state that will not recognize his same sex parents marriage.
There are more issues than I can begin to list if just one state allows same sex marriages that will bring the issue of non-recognition by other states to the SC.
Compulsory testimony and the marriage exception in a criminal case will come up if the couple is in a criminal traffic accident in a state that doesn't recognize same sex marriages.
The first case may very well be a benefits/tax case of a same sex spouse that works out of state.
posted on April 26, 2004 06:44:44 PM new
and if the SC refuses to hear the case, that is all there will be to it... very easily solved.
AIN'T LIFE GRAND...
It's too bad that their blindness can't see they are killing more soldiers than President Bush ever has... Protest Loud and Proud! Your fellow taliban and insurgents are rejoicing at the support...
posted on April 26, 2004 09:04:18 PM newThere is no way they could not hear it
They have refused to hear cases before, no precedent would be set if they didn't hear it.
AIN'T LIFE GRAND...
It's too bad that their blindness can't see they are killing more soldiers than President Bush ever has... Protest Loud and Proud! Your fellow taliban and insurgents are rejoicing at the support...
posted on April 26, 2004 10:20:17 PM new
No, the SC would have to resolve this issue. There will undoubtably be split Circuits that the Court could not ignore, and there could also be a suit brought between states which would demand original jurisdiction from the Supreme Court. There is no way the Court would refuse to hear the case unless it was satisified with a lower court ruling. That just happened with the VMI prayer case. The lower court ruled that VMI could not have prayers and the SC refused to hear the case. When that happens, the lower court ruling is the law for that Circuit.
Below is from Bush's speech.
"The Constitution says that full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts and records and judicial proceedings of every other state. Those who want to change the meaning of marriage will claim that this provision requires all states and cities to recognize same-sex marriages performed anywhere in America. Congress attempted to address this problem in the Defense of Marriage Act, by declaring that no state must accept another state's definition of marriage. My administration will vigorously defend this act of Congress."
"Yet there is no assurance that the Defense of Marriage Act will not, itself, be struck down by activist courts. In that event, every state would be forced to recognize any relationship that judges in Boston or officials in San Francisco choose to call a marriage. Furthermore, even if the Defense of Marriage Act is upheld, the law does not protect marriage within any state or city."
posted on April 27, 2004 03:49:28 AM new
I love it. Reamond [and others] call President Bush a liar on almost everything he has ever said.....but to make his case with twelvepole....reamond quotes Bush so his agrument will be believed.
posted on April 27, 2004 03:55:43 AM new
These United States
Will same-sex marriage lead to incest and polygamy? Let's hope so!
BY JULIA GORIN
Monday, April 26, 2004 12:01 a.m. EDT
Proponents of redefining marriage to include same-sex unions dismiss as alarmist the concern that it will set a precedent for incest and polygamy. But progressives and traditionalists alike should see the social advantage of the not-too-distant eventuality of all such unions--and mandate them.
For example, the number of single-mother homes could be greatly reduced if a woman were simply allowed to marry her son (a Jewish mother's dream!). Otherwise, we might suffer the fate of Sweden and Norway, where gay unions have been legal for a decade and today out-of-wedlock births are at 60% and single motherhood, with its accompanying poverty, has risen. If our society doesn't take the social experiment to its logical conclusion, then women and children, whom marriage protects, will become victims.
Same-family and multispousal unions (but please, don't ignorantly equate one with the other) can play a key role even in traditional family configurations, as when the man of the house dies and leaves an inheritance to a widow who eventually dies herself, leaving the kids to pay taxes on the estate. If, however, a widow were allowed to marry her son upon her husband's death, the death tax could be avoided, since spouses are immune. And if there is no son but only a daughter, same difference. In fact, there would be nothing to keep a widow from marrying all her kids.
Meanwhile, with the gap in the ratio of women to men ever on the rise, especially with more and more American couples adopting unwanted female babies from China, the redefinition of marriage will enable women to have enough kids of both sexes to be able to pair them up with one another, ensuring that every girl gets her man. Not that the uneven female-to-male ratio would have any ramifications for this brave new world. Perhaps the greatest societal benefit will be a decrease in the divorce rate. It's a lot harder to leave your wife when she's your sister. Blood is thicker than water.
Polygamy will be further instrumental in solving the phenomenon of the noncommittal male--an extravagance that a female-dominated populace can ill afford. Polygamy will encourage the confirmed bachelor to commit at last, leaving him no excuse not to tie the knot with all the women he's keeping on a string.
In India, polygamy has already spared one woman from a very lonely life.
The Associated Press reported late last year that an Indian man married two sisters, one of whom is in a wheelchair. He had asked the father of the brides for the healthy sister's hand in marriage, and the patriarch insisted that he also marry the handicapped sister so that she could be guaranteed lifelong care.
It may all seem far-fetched, but last week the San Francisco Chronicle reported that "Unitarians from Boston to Berkeley," acting under the aegis of the Unitarian Universalists for Polyamory Awareness, "have opened another front in the . . crusade to expand the definition of marriage and family in America," insisting that "their relationships are at least as ethical as other marriages--gay or straight." And consider the following from Reuters in Paris last January:
A man who had an incestuous relationship with his half-sister may not adopt the child they had together, France's highest appeals court has ruled.
The 13-year-old daughter, Marie, lives with the couple and knows they are siblings. . . . Marie's father wanted to adopt her to 'regularise the situation.' He got the backing of a lower court in 2001, but the ruling [by the appeals court] overturned that decision. The court . . . followed a request by public prosecutor Jerry Saint-Rose to uphold "the universal ban on incest, which has always been a fundamental pillar of society."
What makes this case freakish, aside from a Frenchman intimating that there is actually such a thing as a "fundamental pillar of society," is that another Frenchman is trying to do the right and socially responsible thing by normalizing "the situation," but is being prevented from doing so. Even though everyone knows that kids do better psychologically and emotionally when their parents are married.
We mustn't be as wrongheaded as France.
The usual argument that even the most progressive-minded folks offer against incestuous unions is that the children who result have a higher risk of birth defects. Yet the child in question already exists and is reportedly healthy, thereby negating that argument--a discriminatory argument that, no one ever points out, implies that the handicapped, deformed and mentally disabled are undesirable.
Besides, if handicap is the issue, it must be stated that the law does not restrict retarded or genetically handicapped citizens from marrying and having children.
Indeed, the law doesn't even restrict citizens from purposely breeding handicapped children, as two deaf lesbians living in Bethesda, Md., did.
According to a 2002 BBC report, Sharon Duchesneau and Candy
McCullough went to several sperm banks, looking for a donor who suffers from congenital deafness. After being turned down by all, the couple came to a friend who had five generations of deafness in his family and who himself had no hearing but did have sperm. He had already been a donor for the couple's daughter, born five years earlier, who is "profoundly deaf and able to communicate only through sign language."
Echoing sentiments by gay-rights activists that being gay is the same as being black, McCullough compared being handicapped to being black: "You know, black people have harder lives. Why shouldn't people be able to go ahead and pick a black donor if that's what they want?"
Meanwhile, the practice of sperm donation has already crossed incest lines. Two women, one British and one French, gave birth to their brothers' babies in 2001. Being infertile themselves but wanting to continue their genetic lineage, the women were implanted with zygotes composed of their brothers' sperm and eggs from outside donors.
Further, according to Britain's Guardian newspaper, the phenomenon of sperm donating contributes to "genetic sexual attraction," a force society mustn't underestimate:
You're 40, happily married--and then you meet your long-lost brother and fall passionately in love.
This isn't fiction; in the age of the sperm donor, it's a growing reality: 50% of reunions between siblings, or parents and offspring, separated at birth result in obsessive emotions. Last [April], a former police officer was convicted of incest with his half-sister--but should we criminalise a bond hardwired into our psychology?
So to ensure that redefining marriage solves as many problems as it may create, it must be an all-or-nothing proposition. Why leave it to a slippery slope to decide? Lawmakers should rewrite the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment to mandate every kind of union imaginable. We've already come such a long way since the scandalous days of Florence Henderson dating her TV stepson. Why stop now?
[Ms. Gorin is a comedian touring with The Right Stuff and performing in Republican Riot, a monthly stand-up show in New York. She is also an Election 2004 comedy correspondent for America Online's ElectionGuide04.com and a contributing editor of JewishWorldReview.com.]
Re-elect President Bush!!
posted on April 27, 2004 05:07:48 AM new
I do believe it will lead to other types of marriage.
It is funny isn't Linda, quoting President Bush after declaring in thread after thread that President Bush is a liar.
Kerry is also against same sex marriages, so it is not a safe concept by any stretch...
I believe that many law cases will come about, the SC will get involved and in setting a precedent they will side with the States on this issue...even Mass. is getting a constitutional admendment up declaring same sex couples can have a "civil union"
Most states are going to allow that...
AIN'T LIFE GRAND...
It's too bad that their blindness can't see they are killing more soldiers than President Bush ever has... Protest Loud and Proud! Your fellow taliban and insurgents are rejoicing at the support...
posted on April 27, 2004 12:06:25 PM new
To those against gay marriages, I would still love to know what type of impact the 3000+ gay marriages in San Fran. has had on your life personally in the past month.
Since the ceremonies have been performed the world has not come to end so I do not see what the problem is, except that it goes against what you have been brought up to believe.
Impeach Bush
Marriage is a Human Right not a Heterosexual Privledge.
Bigotry and hate will not be tolerated.
posted on April 27, 2004 12:50:12 PM newI didn't post the Bush quote for my benefit, I posted for you sycophants who believe everything Bush says...... SURE....
posted on April 27, 2004 01:33:51 PM newOtherwise, we might suffer the fate of Sweden and Norway, where gay unions have been legal for a decade and today out-of-wedlock births are at 60% and single motherhood, with its accompanying poverty, has risen.
Hmmm. If you look at Statistical Abstracts online you will find that those statistics here in the US have been growing without gay marriages being leagal...
******
Censorship, like charity, should begin at home; but unlike charity, it should end there --Clare Booth Luce
posted on April 27, 2004 01:42:28 PM newHmmm. If you look at Statistical Abstracts online you will find that those statistics here in the US have been growing without gay marriages being leagal...
I brought this up almost two months ago when the gay marriage debate began and this will continue to be there defense. The straight community is afraid of what the future may bring if gay marriage is allowed. Instead of trying to fix what is wrong with their "sacred institution" and the problems caused by their "sacred institution" they try to push the blame on others. I suppose the gay community is cause of the high divorce rate and the low marriage rate and the increasing number of children born out of wedlock within the straight community?
Traditions are not set in stone and eventually gay marriages will be accepted just like inter-racial marraiges, just like slavery was ended, just like woman being allowed to vote.
Impeach Bush
Marriage is a Human Right not a Heterosexual Privledge.
Bigotry and hate will not be tolerated.
posted on April 27, 2004 06:17:09 PM new
Probably logansdad, but in 50 or 60 years I won't care.
I don't have to have any reason other than I don't like it... is that so hard for you to understand?
AIN'T LIFE GRAND...
It's too bad that their blindness can't see they are killing more soldiers than President Bush ever has... Protest Loud and Proud! Your fellow taliban and insurgents are rejoicing at the support...
posted on April 28, 2004 06:34:39 AM newI don't have to have any reason other than I don't like it... is that so hard for you to understand?
Is there anything you do like Twelve. You seem to hate everything. Did you ever consider you might be in the minority with your views? Of course not, bigots are always right.
Impeach Bush
Marriage is a Human Right not a Heterosexual Privledge.
Bigotry and hate will not be tolerated.
posted on April 28, 2004 05:53:10 PM new
Ahhh I proudly wear the badge of bigot when it comes to those who make a choice to be gay.
Makes life so much easier....
AIN'T LIFE GRAND...
It's too bad that their blindness can't see they are killing more soldiers than President Bush ever has... Protest Loud and Proud! Your fellow taliban and insurgents are rejoicing at the support...
I agree with you. Who cares who gets married to who. I have more important things to worry about in my life than that. The 3000+ gay marriages in San Fransisco hasn't affected ANYONE.
The institution of marriage. What a laugh. What about the TV shows such as Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire? What about the Brittany Spears 2 day so called wedding. These things are so STUPID.
If I wanted to, I could fly to Las Vegas tomorrow and return tomorrow night legally married here in Michigan. I could go to the Elvis wedding chapel and get hitched.
I could get married by the county clerk here in Michigan too.
Twelepole,
"I proudly wear the badge of bigot when it comes to those who make a choice to be gay".
Do you really think that people choose to be gay. Studies are pointing to a position that being gay is an genetic. If a person chooses to be gay and you really believe that, then you should be able to tell everyone specifically when a person "chooses" to be gay. At what age is it? Is it 50 years old? Maybe 25 years old? Could it be 20? How about 15 years old?
Or is it 10 years old? Is it 5 years old? Could it be 2 years old? Or is it 6 months old?
At what age does a person make this choice?
Twele,
You also say "Probably logansdad, but in 50 or 60 years I won't care."
Why do you care now? If two gay men moved next door to you, how would that effect you?
posted on April 29, 2004 06:37:53 AM new
Yeager: The 3000+ gay marriages in San Fransisco hasn't affected ANYONE.
THAT IS MY POINT EXACTLY. THE MARRIAGES HAVE HAD NO IMPACT ON ANYONE ELSE'S LIFE JUST LIKE WHEN TWO STRAIGHT PEOPLE GET MARRIED.
I also agree 100% with your other comment about the institution of marriage being a joke. The Church and the politicians are quick to criticize gay people who have been in love for 25 years, but don't to a dang thing to stop "joke weddings" like the Britney Spears wedding or celebrities who have been married 8 different times. The government wants to spend millions to promote healthier marriages but won't say anything against stupid TV shows like "The Bachelor", "Joe Millionaire" or the "Average Joe". These shows have been on for three years now and how many people have actually have found love yet alone STAYED MARRIED from the these shows.
It is easier to criticize someone's relationship because it is different or against what they believe in instead of trying to fix the problems that are causing the breakdown of the sacred institution.
My point has always been if they want to ban gay marriages. I could live with that as long as their is a ban on DIVORCE.
Impeach Bush
Marriage is a Human Right not a Heterosexual Privledge.
Bigotry and hate will not be tolerated.
posted on April 29, 2004 06:02:21 PM new
If an when it does come out as genetic, then I will whole heartedly support genetic engeneering...
Until such time, I do believe it is a choice... they make it they can live with it...
If 2 queers moved next door...
I would let them know every time I seen them that I believe there lifestyle to be WRONG!
No less deviant than a child molestor...
AIN'T LIFE GRAND...
It's too bad that their blindness can't see they are killing more soldiers than President Bush ever has... Protest Loud and Proud! Your fellow taliban and insurgents are rejoicing at the support...
That is exactly it! It is not a choice to be gay. I have a couple of openly gay friends. I have talked to them about their being gay, and they have told me that they first noticed the feeling of being attracted to members of the same sex when they were around 11 or 12. Then they fully realized what their sexuality was when they were about 15 years old. I know one adult man who is gay and says that he hates being gay.
What I don't understand is when ignorant bigots say gays choose to be that way. When in fact, in today's society they are the targeted group of many organizations. These would be any right wing Christian organization, the neo nazis, the kkk, and many others. Many gay people are subject to gay bashings, where they are beaten and sometimes killed. It is a group of people that has no real civil rights. Coretta Scott King, the widow of Martin Luther King Jr, says the gay civil rights movement is the new civil rights movement and she backs it.
The hate crimes that are directed towards gay men and women are horrible. I could take a baseball bat and assault a black man and say to him "N*gger, I am going to bust your head open". I could beat him with it and go to prison for a hate crime. Then I could take the same baseball bat and say "Hey f*ggot, I am going to bust your head open". I could beat him with it and go to prison on a serious assault charge, and there would be no mention of a hate crime. The difference is that HATE prompted both actions and that only one group is protected under hate crime laws. This is NOT RIGHT! Any person who is part of a recognized group that is continually victimized because they are a part of that group, should be protected by hate crime laws.
[ edited by yeager on Apr 29, 2004 06:09 PM ]
posted on April 29, 2004 06:29:01 PM new
Don't know don't care, that life style is WRONG!
Is that so hard for you to understand?
Yep but then Hitler lost didn't he...
Maybe we can get it right this time...
yeager, you and logansdad seem to be trying for some "deep" thing here, I don't like queers, beets, skunks some other things... just don't like...
If your going to be deviant... stay in the closet... where you belong...
AIN'T LIFE GRAND...
It's too bad that their blindness can't see they are killing more soldiers than President Bush ever has... Protest Loud and Proud! Your fellow taliban and insurgents are rejoicing at the support...
[ edited by Twelvepole on Apr 29, 2004 06:35 PM ]
You aren't making much sense here. First you make concrete statments that gays choose to be gay. Then you say that you "don't know and don't care". Which is it? Or do you just make blanket statments without any real thought????
If you don't like "queers", there must be something in your personality that causes that. Hmmmm? I think that I know what it might be, but in keeping within the guidelines here, I won't say.
Also, just because a person understands the position of another person, doesn't make that person like the other person.
True Americans do not exclude anybody. They recognize that everyone should have the same rights.
Truly, I don't like beets either. And I think only a limited number of people like skunks. I myself don't like them either. Boy, we certainly do have lots in common!
True Americans do not exclude anybody. They recognize that everyone should have the same rights.
