[forkies]

Sorry the articles are all from cnn, but the older articles were easy to find there, plus it nicely shows the progression of the issue. The dissident in me loves this stuff!!

Massachusetts

2003/11/08 "Massachusetts court rules ban on gay marriage unconstitutional"
"We have been together 32 years," said Gloria Bailey, whose partner, Linda Davies, proposed on the way to the conference. "Without a doubt this is the happiest day in our lives. The most important thing for us is knowing whatever comes ahead in the rest of our lives, we now know we can be at each others' sides."

2004/02/04 "Massachusetts high court: Same-sex couples entitled to marry"
"The history of our nation has demonstrated that separate is seldom, if ever, equal," the four justices who ruled in favor of gay marriage wrote in the advisory opinion. A bill that would allow for civil unions, but falls short of marriage, makes for "unconstitutional, inferior, and discriminatory status for same-sex couples."

California

2004/02/12 "San Francisco weds gay couples"
"These unlawful certificates are not worth the paper they are printed on. The renegade mayor of San Francisco has no authority to do this," said Randy Thomasson, executive director. "This is nothing more than a publicity stunt that disrespects our state law and system of government itself."

2004/02/19 "San Francisco challenges state's same-sex marriage ban in court"
Supporters of same-sex marriage say denying gay and lesbian couples marriage licenses denies them basic rights.

"We're talking about state inheritance, we're talking about state property issues, we're talking about children's issues, we're talking about power of attorney," Ralph Neas, president of the group People for the American Way, said.

"It's an equal protection issue. It's a fundamental civil rights issue," he added.

2004/02/20 "Judge combines same-sex marriage cases"
A few representatives of "Repent America," a Philadelphia-based group opposed to "homosexual rights," carried signs opposing the ceremonies. One read, "Warning Fornicators, Thieves, God Haters, Drunkards, Adulterers, Liars, Homosexuals. Judgment."

"We wanted to just uphold the laws that already existed, lock the door, keep them from marrying, stopping the spread of AIDS, stopping the spread of perversion," one man said.

New Mexico

2004/02/20 "Gay couples marry in New Mexico"
A sign-up list at the Sandoval County courthouse grew to 38 couples after county clerk Victoria Dunlap announced she would issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

[jonn804]

MA --> CA --> NM--> VA--> NJ--> NC--> SC--> GA--> FL--> NH--> WA--> AZ--> UT--> WV--> TN--> OH--> NM--> ND--> SD--> USA

[maxelson]

...and it is about time.

[vmpaul]

from SF Chronicle:

(Mayor) Newsom remained defiant before the ruling, officiating at the wedding of one of California's most prominent lesbian politicians inside his offices at City Hall.

A crowd of politicians and lawyers celebrated that wedding as other gays and lesbians, who lined up beginning at 4 a.m., prepared to join the more than 3,000 same-sex couples allowed to marry so far.

But remember, gay marriage threatens the sanctity of marriage.

[maxelson]

Of course it does. And just y'all remember, that is, by God, what we as Americans are all about: sanctity.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by jonn804:
MA --> CA --> NM--> VA--> NJ--> NC--> SC--> GA--> FL--> NH--> WA--> AZ--> UT--> WV--> TN--> OH--> NM--> ND--> SD--> USA

Yeehah! [/howarddean]

[nredman]

Originally posted by BRussell:
Yeehah! [/howarddean]

[Dex13]

it's all for votes

Arnold hasn't even touched the subject yet even as S.F. new (D) Mayor is giving out licenses by the hundreds.

Well I feel it was sorta inevitable especially in a place such as S.F.

[John C. Smith]

gay marriage

[forkies]

Originally posted by Dex13:
it's all for votes

Arnold hasn't even touched the subject yet

do you mean before 2004/02/17?

[macvillage.net]

Arnold has a tough fight either way. His party is 100% same-sex marriages. If he is for it, he's going to be canned by his own. He can't have that.

But his state does have a rather broad section in it's constitution prohibiting discrimination. This is where Cali is different from most states. Most states are specific on what discrimination is legal and illegal (age/race/sex). Cali's is a bit more open to interpretation.

So Arnold essentially has to decide what to go by. His parties bylaws, or his states constitution.


Tough call. Either way, he loses.


I'm personally only a follower of the Constitution. I have said a million times now I'm for outlawing political parties. They are fundimentally flawed and go against the ideas of Democracy and the Constitution.

A group who pays eachother to ensure their own power and wellbeing at the expense of all others isn't democracy. It's more of a monarchy without the blood relation. Unless they adopt you as a child of the family, you are nothing.

And the adoption only comes by either blood relation, or business power (CEO's, oil barrons, etc.).

Not quite "all men were created equal".

More like "all whit adult, upper class, land owning, men were created equal"

Quite a difference.

[Drifter]

It is completely wrong. Firstly, in the 50's, no gay men ever wanted to get married. IT was the bourgeoisie thing to do. Firstly, you get married to have kids. Gay people can't have kids. Second, it is redefining such an old and tested institution. This isn't about Tommy and Timmy getting married, it's about attacking family values.

Anyway, even if you disagree, the mayor is going against state law, so he should get a visit from the attorney general.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Drifter:
This isn't about Tommy and Timmy getting married, it's about attacking family values.

Tommy and Timmy getting married is a family value. Otherwise Tommy and Timmy would be living in sin.

[itai195]

What are family values?

[forkies]

Originally posted by itai195:
What are family values?

duh... christianity


Repent America members chant "This is wrong" at couples waiting for marriage licenses.

hmm, they're all male...interesting.

i'd hate to run into such fanatic people in a dark alley.

[itai195]

Originally posted by forkies:
duh... christianity

D'oh!

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by Drifter:
It is completely wrong. Firstly, in the 50's, no gay men ever wanted to get married. IT was the bourgeoisie thing to do. Firstly, you get married to have kids. Gay people can't have kids. Second, it is redefining such an old and tested institution. This isn't about Tommy and Timmy getting married, it's about attacking family values.

Anyway, even if you disagree, the mayor is going against state law, so he should get a visit from the attorney general.

Both the Govenor and the Attorney General have been asked if the Mayor is violating or abiding by the state Constitution. Both refused to comment.

Constitution has more power than any state law.

It's completely possible, that if found the Consitution has a clause against discrimination... The govenor and Attorney General could end up facing a judge over the issue.

Elected officials willingly and knowingly violating the consitutional rights of others is a serious offense.

Originally posted by forkies:

i'd hate to run into such fanatic people in a dark alley.

I'd bet in prison they are the ones that find alternative to sex with a woman.

[Angus_D]

Originally posted by Dex13:
Arnold hasn't even touched the subject yet even as S.F. new (D) Mayor is giving out licenses by the hundreds.

I wonder if he still thinks gay marriage is something that should be between a man and a woman?

[spacefreak]

Next up: No restrictions on marriage and consent ages, and no restrictions on bloodline marriages. Those arguments will the be taken further to legalize child porn (providing the child gives "consent") and polygamy.

There's going to be a fight. I fully expect this to go to the Supreme Court.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Next up: No restrictions on marriage and consent ages, and no restrictions on bloodline marriages. Those arguments will the be taken further to legalize child porn (providing the child gives "consent") and polygamy.

There's going to be a fight. I fully expect this to go to the Supreme Court.

Yawn.

Bloodline marriages are medically shown to cause some genetic disorders (though not to the extent previously thought).

Consent age won't change. This has been challenged many times. A minor is a minor. No questions.

Child Porn has also been challenged in the court of law ("the parent consented and the child cooperated"). Of course that didn't go far.


THIS case, however, will go to the supreme court. No question about it.

This case, and Bush's re-election are the only two reason O'Connor hasn't retired yet. She wants to ensure Bush doesn't have a monopoly over the courts (her seat is pivotal in that).

After both pass, she will retire. She's hinted at it a few times now.


On an interesting note, the California "Family Code" states: “capable of consenting to and consummating marriage.”

Sexual disabilities prohibit you from marriage (as said a year ago when this passed). But how do they actually check this? Must you have sex with a clerk to prove your "abilities"? Hope the clerk is hot.

[OldManMac]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Next up: No restrictions on marriage and consent ages, and no restrictions on bloodline marriages. Those arguments will the be taken further to legalize child porn (providing the child gives "consent") and polygamy.

There's going to be a fight. I fully expect this to go to the Supreme Court.

Funny stuff! How do you know what's up next? If you're so secure in your beliefs what are you afraid of? Why does a few minor percentage points of the population's sexual beliefs have you so worried? Why do people keep using straw man and specious arguments? Why have homosexuals been around since the beginning of man, and yet they haven't managed to "corrupt" the other 95% of us? Why do "normal" people wind up divorcing 50% of the time if marriage is so "sacred"? What proof can you offer that any same-sex marriage has resulted in pedophelia?

No country on earth is going to legalize pedophelia or child pornography, and you know that. Bloodline marriages are already banned because there is scientific evidence that interbreeding leaves children at greater risk for a host of medical and psychological issues.

I do agree with you that it will take the Supreme Court to decide this case. They've already struck down states' sodomy laws, because they realize that it's none of my business (nor yours) what my neighbors do in their bedroom.

Please don't be so afraid, none of my gay acquaintances or relatives is interested in you!

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by KarlG:
Please don't be so afraid, none of my gay acquaintances or relatives is interested in you!

He's going to sue your gay acquaintances for discriminations!

[pooka]

Originally posted by KarlG:
Bloodline marriages are already banned because there is scientific evidence that interbreeding leaves children at greater risk for a host of medical and psychological issues.

What does breeding have to do with marriage? What if I simply want to marry my sister because she's better in bed than any other woman I've known (including cousins).

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by pooka:
What does breeding have to do with marriage? What if I simply want to marry my sister because she's better in bed than any other woman I've known (including cousins).

It more often happens because a family arranges it to keep the money/assets in the family. Not by choice.

Think of all the rick decendants of money... and how divorse cost them.

This practice was very popular in many parts of Europe until actually somewhat recent (depending where). In many cases it was as simple as keeping the boat in the family for a fisherman.

Arranged marriages are still legal in the US (though no legal obligation on participants to go through), because of to many religious and customs of various cultures. I know I have Italian relatives who were arranged. It isn't just an eastern tradition. It was often done in western cultures, in particular for more remote or lower income communities.

Not going through with the arranged marriage often means being kicked out the family, loosing inheritance, etc. A severe loss to an individual.

These are rarely (though they do occour), cases of attraction, or even sexual as you imply. But more often arranged for financial gain, or preservation.


The evidence that shows birth problems in children of such parents is just to great to ignore. A cosequence to a third party. Something same-sex marriages really don't have a method to imply. There's no proven information to show any negative impact on society for allowing homosexuals to be married and claim each other for health insurance, hospital visits, and all the other rights married people have.


We are now extremely off topic. So lets keep it to Same-sex marriage.

[pooka]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
Bloodline marriages are medically shown to cause some genetic disorders (though not to the extent previously thought).

And? What does this have to do with marriage? Are you saying because two people with the same bloodline could produce a three-headed baby it should be illegal? What about people that are HIV positive? Persons with a history of heart disease? Shouldn't there be a law to prevent really ****ing ugly people from knocking each other up?

Is it because bloodline marriages aren't "natural"?

Sorry, but if Mila Jovovich was my sister... damn...
There would be no moral dilemma that could prevent me from inserting her nipple into my mouth.

edit:
Sorry for going OT. But I don't believe this is OT. To somehow limit this to a "same-sex marriage" only discussion is poopie. I thought those in favor of gay marriage often argue "What two people do in their bedroom is none of your business". So it seems like this is the best topic to discuss it.

BTW, I'm all for gays pissing their lives and money away. Getting married, I mean.

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by pooka:
There would be no moral dilemma that could prevent me from inserting her nipple into my mouth.

I hate to tell you this, but that's not how sex is done.

[forkies]

from matthew good's weblog:

Date: 2004-02-21 4:44pm

Subject: Little People

I was watching television earlier, a rarity for me, but the sun was cast directly onto the couch in my living room and I couldn’t pass up taking a break from work and enjoying a quick siesta. I was watching the BCC and discovered that the majority of Americans oppose same sex marriages. It seems the President is also in favor of attempting to amend the Constitution so that it states that a marriage is between a man and a woman.

One has to wonder where all of this fear and hatred comes from. That if two men, or two women, are married, it somehow signals the destruction of morality. Ironically, the prejudice used against gays is not seen as damaging to morality, which I find very interesting considering that the later poses a far greater threat. Intolerance is one of the worst social diseases in existence. In nations such as the US less than sixty years ago African Americans couldn’t go to school with whites in some states or eat at the same restaurants and somehow the people of those states, the white's anyway, thought it terribly moral.

Hate is hate is hate. I could care less how you dress it up.

[pooka]

Originally posted by nonhuman:
I hate to tell you this, but that's not how sex is done.

Well, maybe not in your house... but... and.. so... who are you to judge what me and Mila do in the privacy of our own home?

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by pooka:
Well, maybe not in your house... but... and.. so... who are you to judge what me and Mila do in the privacy of our own home?

I've been charged by God to blot out your perverted nipple-sucking, that's who.

[forkies]

http://ephemera.org/justly/




full-size steps pic <--BEAUTIFUL IMAGE!!

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by forkies:
http://ephemera.org/justly/




full-size steps pic <--BEAUTIFUL IMAGE!!

Wow, there are some really nice pictures in there. I really like this one. They give you the impression that they've been together forever and it's really great that they've finally gotten this chance.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by nonhuman:
Wow, there are some really nice pictures in there. I really like this one. They give you the impression that they've been together forever and it's really great that they've finally gotten this chance.

This is one of the most spontaneously smart things the gay community has done since we started coming out. A debate about rights needs faces.

[macvillage.net]

Funny thing is in 30 years, this will be looked at [url=http://www.mecca.org/~crights/montgomery.html]like this[/ur]. Lots of people objected to what they did back then (robbing the white man of pride, and income from bus fare). Now, only a handful will admit to being against the bus boycott.

I remember on TV they did a little bit showing the video and a "whatever happened to" segment on people. This one guy, despite distinct facial features present on a video, and a few whitnesses swore he wasn't the one mocking the bocotters as they walked. Funny what time does.

I'll bet this will just be another example of this.

[Secret__Police]

Let them marry, it will make it much easier to round these people up when the time arrives.
Subversive beware, your kind will not be tolerated in the new America.

[The Mick]

Originally posted by Secret__Police:
Let them marry, it will make it much easier to round these people up when the time arrives.
Subversive beware, your kind will not be tolerated in the new America.

So sad, but so true.

[Dex13]

Originally posted by forkies:
do you mean before 2004/02/17?

LOL I love how people chop up quotes .....
weak statement to me.
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger released the following statement today:


"I support all of California's existing laws that provide domestic partnership benefits and protections. However, Californians spoke on the issue of same-sex marriage when they overwhelmingly approved California's law that defines marriage as being between a man and a woman. I support that law and encourage San Francisco officials to obey that law. The courts should act quickly to resolve this matter."

You know I can never find anyone in California who actually have said they voted for Arnold, I guess they realized how big of a mistake they made....

[TheMosco]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Next up: No restrictions on marriage and consent ages, and no restrictions on bloodline marriages. Those arguments will the be taken further to legalize child porn (providing the child gives "consent") and polygamy.

There's going to be a fight. I fully expect this to go to the Supreme Court.

You have been playing this one to death. Enough with the hollow fallacies.

[TheMosco]

Originally posted by Drifter:
Firstly, you get married to have kids. Gay people can't have kids. Second, it is redefining such an old and tested institution. This isn't about Tommy and Timmy getting married, it's about attacking family values.

Firstly, What about people who can't have kids? What are people who choose not to have kids, should their marriage be revoked.

Second, And old and tested institution? Maybe in the Judeo Christian sense one could argue that but even then, John Boswell argues that the medieval church accommodated homosexuality so its not so clear cut. There are a number of societies like the Spartans(not the best example because the men were married to women too) and the people of Sambia where homosexuality played an important role. The Sambia people perform homosexual acts on eachother until they are 17 or something like that, only then do they get to interact at all with women. And guess what, The homosexual rate among adult men is no greater than in western society.

Family Values? Why aren't people trying to ban tv shows like "Who wants to marry a millionaire"? Why aren't people trying to ban divorce? Try banning sex before marriage and enforcing that. Banning people who love eachother form marrying seems to be the least of your worries if you are concerned with "family values".

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by KarlG:
Why have homosexuals been around since the beginning of man, and yet they haven't managed to "corrupt" the other 95% of us? Why do "normal" people wind up divorcing 50% of the time if marriage is so "sacred"? What proof can you offer that any same-sex marriage has resulted in pedophelia?

No country on earth is going to legalize pedophelia or child pornography, and you know that.

I am not afraid of any "corrupting". And as for the divorce rate, I highly doubt such a statistic would be tracked with such passion were it not for children. I mean, if it were only about adults, no one would care what the divorce rate is.

I never asserted that same-sex marriage resulted in pedophilia. What I do submit, however, is that the same arguments made in support of gay marriage (discrimination, restriction of freedoms, etc.) can also be made against age restrictions, bloodline restrictions, consent age restrictions, and even polygamy restricions. Taking those arguments a step further, once a minor can give consent and marry, there is no reason to deny them the right to make a living and model for photographs and videos.

It's the arguments and rulings on those arguments that affect subsequent cases. It's getting to the point that we are no longer governed by ourselves. We are no longer able to make our own laws and enforce them. The courts have replaced legislatures.

[itai195]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
I never asserted that same-sex marriage resulted in pedophilia. What I do submit, however, is that the same arguments made in support of gay marriage (discrimination, restriction of freedoms, etc.) can also be made against age restrictions, bloodline restrictions, consent age restrictions, and even polygamy restricions. Taking those arguments a step further, once a minor can give consent and marry, there is no reason to deny them the right to make a living and model for photographs and videos.

This is ridiculous spacefreak. People arguing from religious positions always like to make this slippery slope argument for some reason. It holds no basis in reality.

There are legitimate arguments to be made against all of those things. There is no legitimate argument against gay marriage other than a desire to enforce some narrow religious definition of the term. And if that's the case, fine -- define all marriage as civil unions in the law and let the various religions keep their term.

[TheMosco]

Originally posted by itai195:
This is ridiculous spacefreak. People arguing from religious positions always like to make this slippery slope argument for some reason. It holds no basis in reality.

There are legitimate arguments to be made against all of those things. There is no legitimate argument against gay marriage other than a desire to enforce some narrow religious definition of the term. And if that's the case, fine -- define all marriage as civil unions in the law and let the various religions keep their term.

Well said...

[pooka]

Originally posted by itai195:
There are legitimate arguments to be made against all of those things.

<one more attempt to derail this topic>
Still haven't heard one legitimate argument made against me marrying Mila. Well, other than jealousy, and that really doesn't count.

[itai195]

Originally posted by pooka:
<one more attempt to derail this topic>
Still haven't heard one legitimate argument made against me marrying Mila. Well, other than jealousy, and that really doesn't count.

She has coodies

[zigzag]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Next up: No restrictions on marriage and consent ages, and no restrictions on bloodline marriages. Those arguments will the be taken further to legalize child porn (providing the child gives "consent") and polygamy.

There's going to be a fight. I fully expect this to go to the Supreme Court.

Yeah, allowing these ladies to have the same legal rights as Liza Minelli and David Guest is going to threaten the sanctity of marriage and lead straight to legalized child porn and incest.

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by zigzag:
Yeah, allowing these ladies to have the same legal rights as Liza Minelli and David Guest is going to threaten the sanctity of marriage and lead straight to legalized child porn and incest.

LOL. Classic post.

[Ayelbourne]

Originally posted by zigzag:
Yeah, allowing these ladies to have the same legal rights as Liza Minelli and David Guest is going to threaten the sanctity of marriage and lead straight to legalized child porn and incest.

More love in the world, thank you.

[Xeo]

If I don't believe in god, why must I follow his rules?

[Ayelbourne]

Originally posted by Xeo:
If I don't believe in god, why must I follow his rules?

"Ignore Alien Orders"

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally posted by zigzag:
Yeah, allowing these ladies to have the same legal rights as Liza Minelli and David Guest is going to threaten the sanctity of marriage and lead straight to legalized child porn and incest.

What really intrigues me is that only late this week did I hear Mayor Newsome (sp?) say "separate is no longer equal in the country" or something to that effect. Consdering we are coming up on the 50th anniversary of Brown vs. Board of Education it would seem a most opportune time for the homosexual community to ask this country whether in fact it is ready for more separateness or more equality. My vote goes for equality.

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by dcmacdaddy:
Consdering we are coming up on the 50th anniversary of Brown vs. Board of Education it would seem a most opportune time for the homosexual community to ask this country whether in fact it is ready for more separateness or more equality. My vote goes for equality.

I agree. Unfortunately that's not how the question is framed. Usually it's framed like the ignorant comments below:

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Next up: No restrictions on marriage and consent ages, and no restrictions on bloodline marriages. Those arguments will the be taken further to legalize child porn (providing the child gives "consent") and polygamy.