posted on December 16, 2004 11:42:04 AM new
EVER SINCE the election, I've been carrying around a small newspaper clipping with an Alabama dateline. It tells how the voters rejected a referendum to cleanse their constitution of language that once required segregated schools.
Some embarrassed citizens insist that the vote was not really about race. They say that ballot question was framed by its opponents as a backdoor way to raise taxes. They remind me that the Alabama Constitution has as many amendments as my city has parking meters.
But there's no way around the fact that half a century after Brown v. Board of Education, Alabamans left discrimination enshrined in their constitution. There's no way around the fact that 40 years after Governor George Wallace declared "segregation forever," some portion of Alabamans are still not "ready" for integration.
I raise this because there's a lot of conversation in the aftermath of the election about civil rights and the pace of change, especially around the issue of gay marriage.
One of the more tenacious ideas about the 2004 presidential election is that same-sex marriage dunnit. The decision to legalize gay marriage in Massachusetts and the pictures of weddings in San Francisco, New York, and Oregon "energized" the Republican base and reelected the president.
Well, not exactly. Eleven states had ballot amendments against gay marriage, but eight of those states were unalterably Republican. In the three battleground states, Kerry actually did better than Gore. All in all, only 2 percent of voters said gay rights was their most important issue. And Kerry, we need to remember, opposed same-sex marriage.
Nevertheless, the much-debunked exit poll that declared "moral values" as a deciding factor in the campaign retains as powerful a hold over the post-election analysis as a biopic holds over biography.
The story line has not just caused a much-needed debate about how Democrats must frame their values. It's also caused a queasy argument about whether the gay rights movement was too much, too fast. The conversation is even going on in the gay community where every small dissenting voice is amplified like a family fight.
At heart are the old questions: Do you wait for people to be more comfortable to make change? Or do people only become more comfortable in the wake of change? Do you sacrifice incremental benefits by going for the whole enchilada? Or do small changes merely sustain the status quo?
Evan Wolfson, the author of "Why Marriage Matters," says that "the classic American pattern of civil rights advances is a patchwork of advances, resistance, regression, all at the same time." Today the map of America looks decidedly like a patchwork quilt.
In Oregon 3,000 couples asked the state Supreme Court Wednesday if their marriages are still legal. In California, one assemblyman just introduced legislation to legalize same-sex marriage. Two others introduced a bill that would not only outlaw these marriages but strip gay couples of domestic partnership rights.
Meanwhile in Michigan, gay couples who work for the state are losing their benefits because of the vote to ban same-sex marriage "and similar unions." In Massachusetts, some employers are eliminating benefits for unmarried gay couples because they now have equal access to the altar.
The gay rights movement is not solely about marriage, and there are real gains in pursuing health benefits and Social Security. Activists do, as Hilary Rosen of the Human Rights Campaign says, need to tell the everyday stories of couples barred from hospital rooms and from health coverage.
But if we waited for comfort levels to rise, would we still have laws against interracial marriage? Would we still be waiting for Alabama to get comfortable with integration?
Four years ago, Vermont took the radical step of legalizing civil unions. Now civil unions are the moderate position. Does anyone think this would have happened without marriage on the agenda?
Last year, same-sex marriage was legalized in Massachusetts with a huge uproar. But the sky never fell, and the uproar became a low hum.
In The Advocate, Rosen worried, "This election may have shown us that the change agents for gay marriage are looking too much like a noisy red Ferrari speeding down quiet Main Street." But in Massachusetts, they now look more like an SUV with two parents, a kid, and a golden retriever on a quiet suburban street. We've even begun the next, less cheerful, chapter in equality: same-sex divorce.
There is nothing that the gay community can do to appease its opponents except perhaps disappear. But in one of the exit polls that got less attention, 60 percent of voters favor either gay marriage or civil unions. The younger the voters, the more likely they are to favor marriage. That's not a bugle sounding retreat.
Q. What's the difference between the Vietnam War and the Iraq War?
A. George W. Bush had a plan to get out of the Vietnam War.
--------------------------------------
There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again." —George W. Bush, Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002
---------------------------------- "Give it up for George W. Bush, the best friend international jihad ever had."
posted on December 16, 2004 12:39:43 PM new
Nothing to ponder....the people of the state of Oregon have spoken [voted] no on the issue of gay marriage.
And I totally disagree with whoever the author of your post is when he/she says:
Last year, same-sex marriage was legalized in Massachusetts with a huge uproar. But the sky never fell, and the uproar became a low hum.
The sky 'fell' by way of all the states, not just the 11 that had it on their ballots THIS election cycyle, who also joined the almost total majority of states to vote AGAINST gay marriage. So the end result was action WAS taken by the states to prevent the activist judges from taking the decision about this hot issue away from the voters. They've spoken their positions.
And the consequences of losing the benefits some states had given to same-sex unions being taken away is not a small thing to be dismissed either. So, imo, pushing the issue got the 'movement' opposite results than they'd hoped for.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Four More Years....YES!!!
posted on December 16, 2004 12:52:52 PM new
Massachusetts gays divorcing
Monday, December 13, 2004 Posted: 10:58 AM EST (1558 GMT)
BOSTON, Massachusetts (AP) -- Less than seven months after same-sex couples began tying the knot in Massachusetts, the state is seeing its first gay divorces.
Newlyweds seeking to renounce the vows they so recently took have been trickling into probate courts across the state, filling out obsolete forms that still read "husband" and "wife."
Josh Friedes, a spokesman for the Massachusetts Freedom to Marry Coalition, said the rapid divorces are no cause for concern.
"It would be wonderful if every marriage lasted until a couple lived to a ripe old age, but unfortunately we know from our heterosexual peers that all too often there are irreconcilable differences, and for these couples, divorce is often the most humane option," Friedes said. "Anyone who argues that gay and lesbian couples divorcing is grounds for opposing gay marriage is being incredibly hypocritical."
Exactly how many same-sex couples are seeking divorces is not clear -- nor is it clear whether any gay divorces have become final -- because not all counties keep track of which divorce filings are from gays.
The first gay divorce case in Suffolk County, which includes Boston, was filed Wednesday by a male couple who exchanged vows on May 22, five days after same-sex marriage was legalized.
One partner was a 33-year-old religious educator from Boston, the other a 39-year-old professor based in Washington. Since then, the couple said in their divorce filing, "our interests have grown in different directions." Each man signed a settlement attesting that the marriage had "irretrievably broken down."
The most difficult part of the settlement appeared to be custody of their three cats, who will live exclusively with the professor.
But "in recognition of the emotional hardship of such relinquishment," the settlement reads, the professor agreed to provide his ex "with periodic updates, photographs, and any health-related information pertaining" to the cats.
Massachusetts began sanctioning gay marriages on May 17, six months after a landmark ruling by the state Supreme Court. (Full story)
According to the state Registry of Vital Records, at least 4,266 gay marriage certificates have since been issued, although there is a lag time in the records and hundreds more may have wed this year.
Hampshire County reporting a divorce filing within about two months of the first gay weddings.
Middlesex County, which is the state's largest and includes Cambridge, Lowell and other outlying communities, received its first gay divorce case on December 2, involving a 38-year-old woman who works for a cleaning business, and a 27-year-old student. The older woman sought the divorce, citing "cruel and abusive treatment" during the three months of marriage.
Opponents of gay marriage said the divorces, occurring so soon after the weddings, confirm that gay couples are not equipped for marriage.
"We're not surprised," said Kris Mineau, president of the Massachusetts Family Institute, which is fighting for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. "Particularly among male homosexuals, the promiscuity is just phenomenal."
With the national divorce rate hovering near 50 percent, gay rights advocates dismissed such arguments.
"That's a cheap shot," said gay rights attorney Mary Bonauto, who represented seven gay couples in the landmark Massachusetts lawsuit.
Americans again prove Pres Bush is the best man for the job
"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." --John Stuart Mill
posted on December 16, 2004 01:40:37 PM new
Bear what is your point? It was bound to happen.
How many times has Elizabeth Taylor been married....11, 12 13...
How long was Brittney Spears married the first time. 12 HOURS???
Oh but I see...it is ok for straight people to do it but it is not OK for gay people. Yep the old double standard.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- "Give it up for George W. Bush, the best friend international jihad ever had."
posted on December 16, 2004 01:50:17 PM new
Nothing to ponder....the people of the state of Oregon have spoken [voted] no on the issue of gay marriage.
Typical response from the right. No free thinking attitude with them.
Some people miss the entire point of article, but rather focus on one particular meaning.
If people do not try to make change, nothing will ever change. I am glad some people don't have that attitude and are willing to take risks for the good of all people.
It is a good thing people like Linda was not in charge of ending slavery. It is a good thing people like Linda was not Rosa Parks. It is a good thing people like Linda was not involved in getting women the right to vote.
If it were up to people like Linda, segregation would still exist in all parts of the South.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- "Give it up for George W. Bush, the best friend international jihad ever had."
posted on December 16, 2004 01:59:08 PM new
LOL - First you plagerize someone's article without giving them credit....then you get your broken crystal ball out and start spewing what Linda thinks when you don't have a clue what I think or would have fought for.
Gay marriage is YOUR issue...and I'm glad to see the majority of the voters in ALL the states, except Mass., have BEEN independant thinkers and decided for themselves they don't approve of gay marriage.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Four More Years....YES!!!
posted on December 16, 2004 02:04:38 PM new
Twig - I believe you're incorrect in that they have to be married. I know in CA they don't...and that's why they're considered a significant other, rather than a spouse that would automatically have benefits.
Merely cohabitation should not qualify. I agree. That then would lead to many wanting to have benefits for anyone that lived with them....an elderly uninsured parent, grandparent, Aunt, Uncle, sister, brother...and the list would go on. That's the problem with those sort of 'benefits'...then all the other groups think they're not getting their equal rights either.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Four More Years....YES!!!
posted on December 16, 2004 02:08:25 PM new
Who made it everyone's business to approve or disapprove of (homosexuality) in the first place?
Personally, I think one of the biggest tests put forward by "God" is to see how all you holy people will accept your own species (gays, blacks, children, etc.) as equals. It's sad people don't see that, imo.
posted on December 16, 2004 02:26:22 PM new
KD - Society does....as it's always happened.
And religious people don't hate the people...they don't approve of their behavior. There's a big difference that those who support gay marriage refuse to see.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Four More Years....YES!!!
posted on December 16, 2004 02:29:01 PM new
Miss Linda Cleo says :and I'm glad to see the majority of the voters in ALL the states, except Mass., have BEEN independant thinkers and decided for themselves they don't approve of gay marriage.
Now you are the one that knows that the population of the US were independent thinkers? What crystal ball were you looking into So where is your black kettle Linda???
Did you ever stop to think that if Bush did not get up on his soap box and make this an issue it would not have been a big issue that the religious right made it out to be? Bush made this an issue by claiming a constitutional amendment was needed. If you look at the exit polls gay marriages was not the big issue.
No you probably didn't think about that because you just follow Bush no matter what he says.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- "Give it up for George W. Bush, the best friend international jihad ever had."
posted on December 16, 2004 02:37:56 PM new
Linda, society is not made up of free-thinkers. Free-thinkers are ostracized because they rock the boat of tradition too much - tradition that has it's roots in religion. I'd like to know how a free-thinking person can judge another as being unacceptable when they do nothing wrong and break no laws.
posted on December 16, 2004 02:45:15 PM new
LOL - No, logansdad, I don't for one minute believe President Bush was at all responsible for the decision making abilities of those who are against gay marriage. They made up their own minds and he, as a politician who wanted to be re-elected supported their position. That's what politicians do...they represent the voice of the people.
So...keep whining about how all the 11 states voted against gay marriage. [And of course, all the states before this election - and how even Mass might go in 2006 when their state gets an opportunity to vote on it.]
Keep fighting for your cause...and maybe the negative results that have now come about from the gay community and activist judges pushing this down people's throats will continue to make people come out and vote their positions....because the issue being 'pushed' this time sure didn't help your 'cause'.
Be aware that not all those who oppose gay marriage, nor all those who believe gay sex is perverted are conservatives. IF that were the case, there would have been at least a few of the most liberal states supporting and voting in gay marriage. You're putting the blame for your disappointment on ONLY the shoulders of one group - the conservatives....when, if fact, the opposition to gay marriage crosses the political boundries into all of the parties.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Four More Years....YES!!!
posted on December 16, 2004 02:51:47 PM new
KD - Everybody thinks they're 'free thinkers'. LOL And of course, then the rest are sheep...and followers. I don't buy into that. I believe they too have made a personal decision for themselves about 'right and wrong'.
Take child molesters. I know you oppose their behavior from your posts. But somehow you'd see this issue differently if they were demanding that their sexual inclinations were to be accepted and made legal and that those just like them who lived with them should be allowed to marry and have 'equal rights'. You'd find that objectionable, I'd bet. Well...I'm saying that the behavior of others is just as offensive to some as that is [I believe] to you.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Four More Years....YES!!!
posted on December 16, 2004 02:59:34 PM new
Linda, I'm not sure why you continue to associate illegal activities with being gay. Do you do the same with straight people? It's false to believe being gay somehow makes you predispostioned to breaking the law. If you can't get past that, it's difficult to have a reasonable discussion about gay people and their rights as equals.
posted on December 16, 2004 04:32:31 PM new
Kraft: Linda, society is not made up of free-thinkers.
Kraft, that is exactly right. Jesus was a free thinker and look where it got him. He was condemned to death by the religious right for his free thinking.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- "Give it up for George W. Bush, the best friend international jihad ever had."
posted on December 16, 2004 04:41:48 PM newSo...keep whining about how all the 11 states voted against gay marriage. [And of course, all the states before this election - and how even Mass might go in 2006 when their state gets an opportunity to vote on it.
I don't care how each state voted. I don't care if I get the chance to legally married the man I love or not. Whether or not I have a silly marriage little certificate certified by the state will not change who I am nor will it effect my love toward my partner.
Keep wishing that the people of Massachusetts will overturn same sex marriages. I do not see that happening. They have had time to see how same sex marriages effected society (it didn't despite what you may want to believe). The people of Massachusetts are not followers who pass laws out of fear and will make the right choice and allow same sex marriages to continue. They will be a leader of change in the country.
activist judges pushing this down people's throats will continue to make people come out and vote their positions
You still need to take that civics class Linda because judges do not pass laws, they interpretted the laws that were on the books already. Be like Bush, continue to follow him and use the term activist judges. Bush will lead you down the path of salvation and set you free if that is what you want to believe.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- "Give it up for George W. Bush, the best friend international jihad ever had."
posted on December 16, 2004 04:45:10 PM new
Kraft: Linda, I'm not sure why you continue to associate illegal activities with being gay. Do you do the same with straight people?
Because that is her viewpoint and will continue to people gays and gay marraiges will lead to destruction of society and family values.
She fails to see that straight people engage in anal sex. See fails to see that divorce is the leading cause of the destruction of the family. She fails to see that the Bible is not the be all and end all guide for society. She fails to see that is nation was founded on equality for all and that all people should have the same equal rights.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- "Give it up for George W. Bush, the best friend international jihad ever had."
posted on December 16, 2004 05:02:39 PM new
Do you ever ponder on anything else in life?
**********************************
Two men sit behind bars,one sees mud the other sees stars.
posted on December 16, 2004 05:12:22 PM new
KD - Linda, I'm not sure why you continue to associate illegal activities with being gay.
Whether it's legal or not is not my point....even though you are choosing to stay focused on the legality rather than the behavior. It's if the behavior/act is acceptable to our society or not...and by the way people are voting on the gay marriage issue I believe we can safely say it's still not acceptable to the majority of Americans to give them the same 'standing' as married couples have...and that was my point. Remember, having anal sex was illegal until very recently. That has changed now...and is my point.
The people who sexually enjoy children could claim their rights are being violated too, because whose business is it if the child is willing and not being forced. We have laws against it yes....but laws don't change people opinions if their values/morals are that the behavior itself is wrong. Maybe those who wish to have sex with children and work to get the laws changed, like organizations such as NAMBLE already do complain...but to no avail. And you have to question why that is. Because their behavior is repulsive to the majority. Obviously they feel/think differently. They think they are just 'loving' the child...nothing sinister nor inappropriate about it...it's showing them love. But others don't see it that way. And that leads back to my point of some finding homosexual behavior just as repulsive/abnormal as adults with children....even though they don't.
That is what I believe you refuse to accept. Who says they 'have' to accept behavior they find offensive - no matter their reasons or where their value/moral decision came from? Who says any behavior HAS to be accepted? We each make our own 'call' on that issue and they support their position in the political arena. And for now the majority of American's do not favor changing our laws to allow gay marriage.
It's false to believe being gay somehow makes you predispostioned to breaking the law. sorry, KD....
I've never said that, you're making that up in your own mind. There currently are no laws that allow the same-sex marriages....except in the state of Mass....where the voters there were not allowed to vote on the legislation...but rather a judge made the call. Their to interpret laws....not make them up. Our legislators are the ones who make and pass laws in this country.
If you can't get past that, it's difficult to have a reasonable discussion about gay people and their rights as equals.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Four More Years....YES!!!
posted on December 16, 2004 05:55:03 PM newWhether it's legal or not is not my point....even though you are choosing to stay focused on the legality rather than the behavior. It's if the behavior/act is acceptable to our society or not...and by the way people are voting on the gay marriage issue I believe we can safely say it's still not acceptable to the majority of Americans to give them the same 'standing' as married couples have...and that was my point.
You are forgetting that the Catholic Church opposses divorce and therefore it is a sin and thusly immoral and against the teachings of Jesus. It is ironic that those who are preaching moral keeping denying this fact. Once again they need to clean up their own act before trying to oppose things they know nothing about.
The Catholic Chruch also belives killing is wrong but you dont here about the Dictator Bush and the rest of the religious right talking about constitutional amendments to make abortion and the death penalty illegal. I guess two consenting adults that want to get married is more offensive than the killing of innocent babies.
Maybe those who wish to have sex with children and work to get the laws changed, like organizations such as NAMBLE already do complain...but to no avail.
First off it is NAMBLA not NAMNBLE. Second you want to give pedophiles the same rights as consenting adults. This is why you can't get past this issue. You are trying to make pedophilia equal to being gay. Having sex with children is wrong on any level. Children can not consent to having sex. That is why the act is illegal and will never pass the "morality test" of society. Same sex marriages are between TWO CONSENTING ADULTS. This is a totally different issue and in no form involves children. Two people of the same sex getting married does not harm society despite what you may think or want to believe. So Linda try comparing pedophilia to something else but do not compare it to same sex marriage because these are not equal things nor are the on the same level.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- "Give it up for George W. Bush, the best friend international jihad ever had."
posted on December 16, 2004 06:38:25 PM new
LOL - crystal ball.....still broken.
You are forgetting that the Catholic Church opposses divorce and therefore it is a sin and thusly immoral and against the teachings of Jesus.
I am? And you know this ...how? lol
It is ironic that those who are preaching moral keeping denying this fact.
Who's denying this? Certainly I haven't. Are you implying, FALSELY, that I have? lol
Once again they need to clean up their own act before trying to oppose things they know nothing about.
People don't have to have sex with children to believe it's wrong to do so and should not be allowed. Neither does one need to have sexual relations with someone of their same sex in order to form an opinion. But I bet you were joking about that...surely. lol
The Catholic Chruch also belives killing is wrong but you dont here about the Dictator Bush and the rest of the religious right talking about constitutional amendments to make abortion and the death penalty illegal.
President Bush is not a Catholic. Why would he be expected to support Catholic doctrine? lol And for the rest...people have voted on the death penalty. CA voted on this issue years ago and it was also reversed by the courts. And this President did encourage our House and Senate to pass a bill making partial birth abortions illegal. Again those liberal judges stepped in and said it couldn't stand as passed.
I guess two consenting adults that want to get married is more offensive than the killing of innocent babies. I wouldn't think so. Just another position/platform the majority don't want to see happen. Form your own 'unions' and call them something different. If you had you wouldn't be seeing so many states working feverishly to pass legislation to keep what happened in Mass from happening in their states.
Maybe those who wish to have sex with children and work to get the laws changed, like organizations such as NAMBLE already do complain...but to no avail.
First off it is NAMBLA not NAMNBLE. Second you want to give pedophiles the same rights as consenting adults. This is why you can't get past this issue. You are trying to make pedophilia equal to being gay. Having sex with children is wrong on any level. Children can not consent to having sex. That is why the act is illegal and will never pass the "morality test" of society. Same sex marriages are between TWO CONSENTING ADULTS. This is a totally different issue and in no form involves children. Two people of the same sex getting married does not harm society despite what you may think or want to believe. So Linda try comparing pedophilia to something else but do not compare it to same sex marriage because these are not equal things nor are the on the same level.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Four More Years....YES!!!
posted on December 17, 2004 02:52:10 PM newPresident Bush is not a Catholic. Why would he be expected to support Catholic doctrine?
He shouldn't...Just like the country should not be following a Baptist, Lutheran or Mormon religious philosophy. There should be no religious philosophy that is practiced at the federal level. There is a separation of Church and state.
lol And for the rest...people have voted on the death penalty.
Oh yeah, when did the people of Illinois VOTE to put a moratorium on the death penalty....They didn't. The decision was made by the Governor.
Regardless of whether the people voted on the death penalty or abortion, those that keep claiming gay marriage is wrong because it is against religious teachings, but also support abortion and the death penalty are nothing but religious bigots.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- "Give it up for George W. Bush, the best friend international jihad ever had."
posted on December 21, 2004 10:02:05 PM new
linda,
How fugging stupid can you be?
Why is it that you ALWAYS want to draw a parallel to pedophilia and Gay Marriage? As logan has clearly pointed out to you, there are COMPLETELY different situations. For you to compare the 2 on any level or in any way try to associate them really shows how weak your positions is.
Your point of society having certain standards for everyone is also flawed. The United States has a long history of having a double standard for many different groups of people. As you know, you as member of the female segment of this country weren't allowed to vote until 1920. The reason is that society thought it was unneeded. Women were treated as second class citizens until that time. For many years thereafter, they were placed in subordinate roles to the male counter part. Today, women are struggling to be paid the same as a man for the same work. Why is that linda? Why do you think women have to struggle for equal pay? Do you have the courage to answer that question? I don't think that you do. I believe that you answer will be something to this affect. "I don't have to answer any of your questions". Or, you r just may overlook it altogether.
Please don't give me the religious crap about Gay Marriage. You should keep your religion to yourself. Your religion doesn't affect me, nor should it. Keep it to yourself at all times.
The people who sexually enjoy children could claim their rights are being violated too, because whose business is it if the child is willing and not being forced.
that is the key word in your stupid statement. FORCED. When any person is FORCED to participate in any sexual act or anything similar against their will, it's a crime. That include a child, or and adult man or woman. So stop making an GIANT ASS OF YOURSELF BY PLAYING THE PEDOPHILIA CARD.
Also, linda one more thing. Please tell me why you believe that a certain segment of the population shouldn't be given all the benefits that the protection of marriage brings to the majority of society? Is it because the majority doesn't want them to have it? Do you have courage to answer this one too? The ACLU will sue on behalf of many Gay couples for equal protection under the law.
Bigots are miserable people. Prevent Bigotry through Education.
posted on December 23, 2004 11:36:14 AM new
It should be interesting to see what happens in 2005.
SAN FRANCISCO -- Ten months after San Francisco's mayor defiantly granted marriage licenses to thousands of gay couples, a judge began hearing arguments Wednesday in a pair of lawsuits that seek to have California's one-man, one-woman matrimony law declared unconstitutional.
Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer's courtroom is only the first stop in what is expected to be a yearlong odyssey that ultimately could reach the state's highest court.
The consolidated cases were brought by the city of San Francisco and gay advocacy groups representing a dozen same-sex couples. They seek to put California on par with Massachusetts, the only state where gays can legally wed.
"The assertion that marriage is inherently heterosexual can no longer be maintained now that there are a number of jurisdictions that allow same-sex couples to marry," Shannon Minter, legal director for the National Center for Lesbian Rights, said in a packed courtroom.
The state government maintains that the progress the state has made in advancing gay rights is sufficient to ward off a constitutional challenge.
"This is not a state like other states, where rights have been denied same-sex couples," Senior Assistant Atty. Gen. Louis Mauro said previously. "The issue is whether it's unconstitutional to provide those rights and benefits without calling it marriage."
The state also contends that if Californians want to legalize same-sex marriage, the way to do it is through the Legislature or a ballot proposition, not the courts. Two Christian legal groups have joined the state's position.
At issue is a 1977 amendment to the California Family Code that defined marriage as "a personal relation arising out of a civil contract between a man and a woman." Before that, the law on marriages was silent on the subject of sex.
The lawsuits are an outgrowth of San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom's decision early this year to openly challenge state law by granting marriage licenses to gays and lesbians, about 4,000 couples in all.
The judge said he would rule sometime after mid-January.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- "Give it up for George W. Bush, the best friend international jihad ever had."
posted on December 23, 2004 04:36:14 PM new
Instead of pedophilia, Linda should compare gay marriage to having sex with the uncooked dinner entree. It's not being forced, but everybody can see the obvious draw-backs and have personal objections.
OTOH, this horse was fly-swarming dead before y'all started beating it again.
__________
The Democrats were rejected by a majority of Americans
posted on December 23, 2004 08:50:16 PM new
parklane,
You are another idiot.
Linda should compare gay marriage to having sex......
Gay Marriage is the issue of having the protection that marriage brings to those that are allowed. Sex is very likely part of that marriage. Gay Marriage and gay sex are two different things. There are many gay and straight people that are not married, but have sex. Not all of them want marriage.
What gay men and women want is the simple chance to be recognized as equal citizens, and be allowed the protection of marriage.
It may be complicated for you, but if you need to, read it 100 times. Then you might get it.
Bigots are miserable people. Prevent Bigotry through Education.
posted on December 23, 2004 09:16:51 PM new
Parklane, please explain to me what the obvious draw backs are to being gay. I'd really like to hear what you have to say.
Prevent Bigotry through Education.