posted on May 21, 2004 06:43:52 PM new
Here is a picture of Bush blocking the doorway of a church in Massachusetts where a gay couple is trying to get married. Oops! I made a mistake. It's a picture of George Wallace standing in the schoolhouse door trying to keep blacks out. If my memory is correct, Wallace stated, "I will do anything that is necessary, even if that means standing in the schoolhouse door". Here we have an elected official trying to prevent a segment of society from obtaining something. Pretty sick, isn't it?
True Americans do not exclude anybody. They recognize that everyone should have the same rights. Bigotry, intolerance and hatred are cancers of the mind.
posted on May 22, 2004 07:02:37 AM new
Activists who weren't getting their way.....broke the law...rather than establishing new laws....and that too is further decay of our society. We are a nation of laws.....not civil disobedience
Throughout U.S. History there has always been a minority group that did not like the current laws at the time. If they relied upon passing laws to change the status quo things would a) not change or b) would have taken twice as long to accomplish. Sometimes a little civil disobedience is necessary to make changes whether the majority of the people like it or not.
That is true. There have been many, many people who were arrested civil disobedience, but have never been arrested for anything else in their lives. They stood for what they believed in. Two of the most prominent people noted for this were Martin Luther King, and Rosa Parks.
As we all know, it was their acts that brought the US to a better understanding for all Americans to allow others to participate in society.
For anyone to say that gay men and women should have only the right to a civil union, but not a true marriage is akin to saying to Rosa Parks, "you can ride on this bus, but not in the front of it".
True Americans do not exclude anybody. They recognize that everyone should have the same rights. Bigotry, intolerance and hatred are cancers of the mind.
posted on May 22, 2004 01:07:58 PM new
What we have here are people who have decided it's okay to break the law when THEY say it's okay.
It's never okay - our whole system is based on laws - we'd have total anarchy if we all decided we have the right to break whatever laws we don't agree with.
posted on May 22, 2004 01:52:55 PM new
Interesting article that appeared in our news paper today.
"Episcopal bishop weds same-sex partner"
San Francisco (AP)
Bishop William Swing of the Episcopal Church's Diocese of California says he suspended Bishop Otis Charles from clergy functions because he brok Swing's directive when he spoke publicly about entering a same-sex marriabe.
"I said don't use the word marriage, and don't talk to the press." Swing recalled Monday. He suspended Charles when the San Francisco Chronicle published Charles' accout of the April wedding to Felipe Sanchez Paris.
Charles is the first Episcopal bishop known to marry a same sex partner. Charles is 78, is divorced from his wife of 42 yhears. Paris, 62, was previously married four times.
Previously, Charles was the first Episcopal bishop to announce gay identity, following his retirement as president of Episcopl Divinity School in Cambridge, Mass. last year New Hamshire's V.Gene Robinson became the first Episcopal bishop to be elected while living openly with a same-sex prtner, an action that has divided Episcopalians.
Charles had said his marriage "was done with the bishop's knowledge and done according to his protocols." Swing confirmed that he knew about the planned ceremony and was shown the liturgy, but thought it would be a private blessing, not a wedding.
Now wouldn't you think that after 1 marriage that you would know you were gay. One of the partners did and I understand that but it took the other gentlemen 4 times. I wonder how the women and if there were children of all those marriages will think.
posted on May 23, 2004 06:31:56 AM new
Yeager:
For anyone to say that gay men and women should have only the right to a civil union, but not a true marriage is akin to saying to Rosa Parks, "you can ride on this bus, but not in the front of it".
That is a good way of looking at.
Since same sex marriages are legal in Mass, you know same sex divorces will eventually happen. I wonder if the straight community will be upset with the term "same sex divorce". After all straights have been using the term divorce for 2000+ years.
posted on May 23, 2004 07:04:11 AM new
But Logan, that is EXACTLY what Kerry is saying. He will not oppose same sex unions, but he does not believe in calling it marriage.
And alot of black people have brustled at the civil rights comparisions being made, too.
Personally, I dont care what gays do, as pointed out in another thread, it doesnt affect or effect my life in the least. But as a matter of opinion, I do think gay people have to accept that their lifestyle is out of the box, and is still a small percentage of the so-called norm in society. In calling their union a marriage for any definative purpose is encroaching on the standards of marriage as we know it. To me, that is why there is so much opposition to it.
posted on May 23, 2004 07:58:38 AM new
Libra's correct about kerry's position on the issue. But it appears many just refuse to acknowledge the truth of that.
-----------------------
There are thousands of articles on the internet that speak directly to the gays comparison of their 'rights' to the civil right actions of blacks. This is just one of those"
--
"Rosa Parks didn't wait for the courts to tell her it was all right to ride in the front of the bus," Gavin told Newsweek.
However, many civil rights leaders are not pleased with the comparison.
Rev. Gene Rivers, president of the National Ten-Point Leadership Foundation and a minister in Boston, said gay activists have no right to compare their struggle with what blacks went through in the 1950s and 1960s.
"The gay community is pimping the civil rights movement and the history," Rivers told the Associated Press.
"In the view of many, it's racist at worst, cynical at best."
Bishop Andrew Merritt, head of Straight Gate Ministries in Detroit, joined several other local pastors recently to support traditional marriage and denounce these comparisons to black civil rights.
"We find the gay community's attempt to tie their pursuit of special rights based on their behavior to the civil rights movement of the 1960s and 1970s abhorrent," Merritt told the AP. "Being black is not a lifestyle choice."
Even Rev. Jesse Jackson, an icon of the civil rights struggle, has stated gay rights cannot be equated with civil rights for blacks.
"The comparison with slavery is a stretch in that some slave masters were gay, in that gays were never called three-fifths human in the Constitution ... and in that they did not require the Voting Rights Act to have the rights to vote," Jackson recently stated in a speech he made in Boston.
Rev. Joseph Lowery, who supports gay rights, said he is disturbed that gay activists try to compare their struggle with what blacks went through.
"Homosexuals as people have never been enslaved because of their sexual orientation," he told the AP.
Star Parker, a conservative black leader in California, said black Americans may be liberal on many social issues, but "not this one," referring to gay marriage.
Rev. Jeffrey Brown, a Massachusetts pastor who has joined with others in the Black Ministerial Alliance of Greater Boston, said he is joining the effort against gay marriage because "there is something to this that is not right."
While some blacks may not agree with the comparison, the issue is a reminder to many of them of the struggles they went through for rights.
Yet, despite the attempt by gay activists to find empathy for their cause from black Americans, several conservative groups are encouraging black churches to outright deny the erroneous comparison.
"We oppose attempts to equate homosexuality with civil rights or compare it to benign characteristics such as skin color or place of origin," states the Family Research Council on its website.
Matt Daniels, executive director for the Alliance for Marriage, argues "communities of color" strongly support traditional marriage and a constitutional amendment that would define marriage as between one man and one woman.
Interestingly, black Americans, who have traditionally voted overwhelmingly for Democrats, are torn between supporting Republicans, the party that opposes gay marriage or the Democrats, who are leading the effort to give marriage rights to homosexuals.
As previously reported by Talon News, the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies found that black support for the Democratic Party fell sharply from 74 percent to 63 percent from the 2000 election to the 2002 election.
-------------
posted on May 23, 2004 08:34:59 AM new
I commend Rosa Parks what she did. Coming from the north we saw no discrimination between blacks and whites. Traveling south in those days was a horrible history lesson as to the conditions that the blacks lived in. Granted when I went visiting in Florida and my relatives owned a sugar cane farm they employed blacks. That year it was mandatory to put toilets in their living quarters and they did that only to find them out on the lawn the next day, the reason I don't know. I was appalled at going to a drive in where blacks and whites could not be in the same line or go to the same wash room. I just wish we could get them from saying we owe them a living. Gay people don't have that problem and I see no comparison between that and this. If the gay people are trying to get sympathy they are not getting it from me. Let me explain I honestly don't care if someone is gay I will treat them the same as anyone else. Granted they can get "married" in Mass. but if they live in a state where that "marriage" is not recognized than what they did is for naught.See URL below..
posted on May 23, 2004 09:18:03 AM new
Neroter_12:
But as a matter of opinion, I do think gay people have to accept that their lifestyle is out of the box,
By saying lifestyle, you assume people choose to be gay. Why do you choose to be straight?
and is still a small percentage of the so-called norm in society.
Norm is defined by society at any particular stage. How long ago was it the norm for women to stay at home and take care of the house?
Homosexuality has been around since the time of Ancient Egypt. The ancient Egyptians practiced many forms of sex that we consider taboo today. It has already been pointed out that polygamy was once accepted as "normal". Cultures tend to criticize what they do not understand and they believe is evil. If majority of the people in the US today wanted to have multiple spouses wouldn't that be considered the norm?
In calling their union a marriage for any definitive purpose is encroaching on the standards of marriage as we know it. To me, that is why there is so much opposition to it.
I would agree with you in that most are having problem with the word "marriage". I have heard straight people would be OK with the term "civil union" and allowing gays to have the same benefits of "straight marriage".
My question then is why do straight people value the traditions of "marriage" or want to preserve the "sanctity of marriage" so badly when they have destroyed it for themselves through divorce, adultery, Vegas style weddings that last 1 day, and reality based TV shows that make marriage seem more like a joke than a life long commitment.
In my opinion it is these things that have destroyed the definition of marriage, not because two people of the same sex want to have opportunity that a couple of the opposite sex have. I have yet to hear any politician or religious leader condone any of the above items.
Do straight people really care whether it is called same sex marriage or civil union or do they feel more threatened by the idea that two guys or two women can have a loving committed relationship that includes living in suburbia with 2 kids and a dog while the straight couple next door is going through a divorce and has kids that are on drugs? Are straight people afraid gays can "have a better marriage" than straights?
If I am not mistaken the 1913 law that the Mass. governor is using to prevent out of state gays from getting married was originally meant to prevent a white person from marrying a black person.
I am sure people could remember a time when inter-racial marraiges were considered against the norm and states passed laws preventing such unions.
posted on May 23, 2004 09:51:52 AM newAre straight people afraid gays can "have a better marriage" than straights?
lol - I doubt that VERY much considering the stats about how unfaithful gays are in their 'committed' relationships compared to married people and how long they stay together compared to the average length of marriages.
Gays are only 2-3% of the population who have worked to force their 'alternative' lifestyle on the majority of American's who do not wish to change the historical meaning of marriage - when they were given the opportunity to have what they CLAIMED they wanted - equal rights.
posted on May 23, 2004 10:05:58 AM new
logansdad-"Romney cites a 1913 statute that forbids nonresidents from marrying here if the union would not be legal in their home state. Since no other state allows gay marriage, Romney argues that out-of-state couples are prohibited from marrying in Massachusetts."
Nowhere does it say black and white and maybe it was for that but it does not say that. Well, we will just have to wait and see if anything comes of that. It will take time to see if any repercussions come of it.
posted on May 23, 2004 11:07:41 AM new
Libra, I am aware that the 1913 law does not specificly state it was used to prevent inter-racial marriages. I was only assuming that it was used to prevent that based on laws that were passed in other states at the time.
Are straight people afraid gays can "have a better marriage" than straights?
lol - I doubt that VERY much considering the stats about how unfaithful gays are in their 'committed' relationships compared to married people and how long they stay together compared to the average length of marriages.
As stated earlier your "facts" are based on over 40 years of straight marriage statistics. If what you said is really the case in the present day and age, then how can you explain why over 50% of marriages end in divorce.
I have yet to hear from one straight person as to how divorce, adultery, fly by night Las vegas style weddings and wedding based reality shows have played as role in "preserving the sanctity of marrige".
They probably all know it is these factors that have led to the marriage problems within the straight community but do not want to admit it as it is easier to place blame on someone or something else.
U. Okla. Study Shows No-fault Law is what Increased Divorce
Using a quasi-experimental pre-post intervention design and archival
data from the National Center for Health Statistics, a team of
researchers at the University of Oklahoma examined the effect adoption
of no-fault divorce law had on the divorce rate across the 50 states.
Education and income data from the U.S. Bureau of the Census and
religiosity data from the Glenmary Research Center were used to assess
the role of education, median family income and religiosity under the
no-fault divorce regime. The researchers found that no-fault divorce
laws had a significant positive effect on the divorce rate across the 50
states. Among the other variables median family income was the only
significant predictor of the change in divorce rate; the adjusted no-
fault divorce rate increased as median family income increased.
Paul A. Nakonezny, Robert D. Shull, Joseph Lee Rodgers. "The Effect of
No-Fault Divorce Law on the Divorce Rate Across the 50 States and Its
Relation to Income, Education, and Religiosity." _Journal of Marriage
and the Family_ (May 1995): 477-488.
I have never heard anyone bring forth a viable argument. I really like following current events and am sort of a news hound. I have watched commentator TV such as Larry King and his guests, the reports on the major news networks, read the print media and still nothing.
Splain it to me Lucy, ok?
Yeager, have you gotten a viable argument yet based on what has been presented here? I know I have yet to hear a viable reason.
posted on May 23, 2004 11:57:27 AM new
logansdad - If what you said is really the case in the present day and age, then how can you explain why over 50% of marriages end in divorce.
YOU admitted yourself that the relationships gays have always had include many out-side-of-the-relations are very much accepted in the gay community. Then you went on to defend those actions. That's NOT what marriage is about. You want an open relationship/marriage....fine....call it something other than what traditional marriage has always stood for.
And when you look at the numbers of relationships gay have in their life times....one can only say WOW!! 100-500 different relationships???? Those stats don't come anywhere close to what traditional marriage is all about. It's no wonder HIV/AIDs spread so quickly.
And continuing to bring up the divorce rates of marriages....is a VERY WEAK one especially when one compares those in a so-called 'committed' gay relationship. While those who marry have small numbers who step out of their relationship....it is a VERY accept way of life in the gay community. It will only ADD tremendiously to the divorce rate since their 'committed' relations last such a short time.
I have yet to hear from one straight person as to how divorce, adultery, fly by night Las vegas style weddings and wedding based reality shows have played as role in No one has stated they have/do. But that doesn't address the issue that this is *supposed to be* about having equal rights.....not about changing what marriage has always stood for.
Re-elect President Bush!!
[ edited by Linda_K on May 23, 2004 12:02 PM ]
YOU admitted yourself that the relationships gays have always had include many out-side-of-the-relations are very much accepted in the gay community. Then you went on to defend those actions. That's NOT what marriage is about. You want an open relationship/marriage....fine....call it something other than what traditional marriage has always stood for.
Yes I admitted it. It does happen in gay relationships, but you seem to deny that cheating happens in straight relationships. My entire point of that argument was the fact that a relationship is defined by the two people in that relationship, not what society believes should happen.
How many straight relationships "are open"? How many straight couples "swing"? Whether or not you like it, straight marraiges are not all monogamous.
posted on May 23, 2004 02:34:58 PM new
And continuing to bring up the divorce rates of marriages....is a VERY WEAK one especially when one compares those in a so-called 'committed' gay relationship.
How is it very weak? You seem to want to deny that divorce is causing the problems of straight marraiges.
While those who marry have small numbers who step out of their relationship....it is a VERY accept way of life in the gay community. It will only ADD tremendiously to the divorce rate since their 'committed' relations last such a short time.
I think more straight people cheat on their spouses than you realize. You still seem to have this "Leave it to Beaver" idea of what straight marraiges are all about. When did you become such an expert on the gay lifestyle? Just because a same sex couple may or may not have a monogamous relationship does not mean it is end up in divorce. If it works for that couple then fine
posted on May 23, 2004 02:52:12 PM new
I have yet to hear from one straight person as to how divorce, adultery, fly by night Las Vegas style weddings and wedding based reality shows have played as role in No one has stated they have/do. But that doesn't address the issue that this is *supposed to be* about having equal rights.....not about changing what marriage has always stood for.
Yes, the issue is about equal right...having the same thing as a straight couple...which would include calling it a marriage.
You don't want it called "marriage" because of tradition and because it's society becoming more accepting of values/morals that go against traditional marriage and the support system that gives to young children.
If you want to talk about traditional marriage (ie one man, one woman getting married until death do us part) then you also have to be willing to discuss those items that are causing the breakdown of that traditional marriage structure. Where do you think the children of today are learning that it is acceptable to get married and later divorced if their relationship doesn't work out....most likely from their parents who also had a marriage end in divorce. They are watching TV which depicts the traditional marriage as game or shows spouses cheating on each other (soap operas).
If you want to deny divorce is the leading cause that is destroying the institution of marriage that is fine by me, but do not say divorce and how marriage is portrayed on TV is not relevant when you start to describe what the traditional straight marriage is supposed to be about.
posted on May 23, 2004 03:11:55 PM new
And when you look at the numbers of relationships gay have in their life times....one can only say WOW!! 100-500 different relationships???? Those stats don't come anywhere close to what traditional marriage is all about. It's no wonder HIV/AIDs spread so quickly
I guess Magic Johson is the poster child for the straight community. How many different women did he sleep with during his marriage?
It's no wonder HIV/AIDs spread so quickly
Yes blame the gay man for the spread of HIV. As I said earlier it is easier to blame one group of people instead of focusing on the real issue.
posted on May 23, 2004 03:55:42 PM new
Linda--I am jumping in on your side with this quote and then am going away before I get blasted. This is the reason most people who believe in God are against gay marriages..because the Bible says it is wrong.
"Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman. That is detestable." (Leviticus 18:22 NIV) How many interpretations is that open to? In the New Testament, Paul (St Paul) says this: "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God." (I Corinthians 6:9-10 NIV) That second verse was put in just in case you interpreted "detestable" as a good thing. And, just for a note, in the Bible, inheriting the kingdom of God is a good thing.
posted on May 23, 2004 04:09:55 PM new
Logan, maybe you are right. Maybe gay "marriage" threatens straights if they could show to do it better. I've seen on tv where alot of gays arent even interested in getting married - but that doesnt make national news because only the activists are the loudest voices.
I have to ask, what does calling it marriage change for the gay couple? Other than the civil liablities & benefits - what does it do? Does it give the relationship more validity?
I dont really think its about equal rights. I think its more about acceptance from a straight society. (Give our relationship the stamp of approval.)
I'm sorry to say I dont think the majority of straights are ready to embrace that idea just yet. Maybe it will change more as time goes on, maybe it wont. Everybody has the right to be happy. But who is to decide where the standards and boundries lie to pursue that happiness within our laws and definitions that govern for everyone?
posted on May 23, 2004 04:13:03 PM new
parkman - chicken Come back another time on a less devisive issue...with thicker skin. We're all entitled to our opinions.
----------------------
logansdad - Was this gay marriage issue supposed to be about gays having the same 'rights' under our laws....or do you now admit it's really about *changing* the whole structure of what the term marriage has always meant.
you seem to deny that cheating happens in straight relationships.
I have NEVER denied that. What I have said is it's NOT the normal practice in a traditional marriage...not accepted like cheating is in the gay community. In the gay community it's seen as the 'norm'....it's seen as not being the 'norm' in a traditional marriage. Trying to say...gays go into these relationships knowing they're going to have other affairs....while those straights who marry are VERY hopeful the sexual aspect of their relationship is ONLY between the two of them.
not what society believes should happen. That is incorrect....our moral standards have always been set by society....agreed our moral standards are changing. But don't agree that they've changed so much that our society is ready to accept gay *marriages* - as is proven by the 38 states voting it means one man one woman and all the other, etc, etc.
Come back another time on a less devisive issue...with thicker skin. We're all entitled to our opinions. 