[Kodachrome]

Friday, March 26, 2004
News Story from the Associated Press


WASHINGTON_—_Democratic presidential candidate_John Kerry (search)_says he believes people are born gay but are not guaranteed the right to marry within their own gender.


"I think it's entirely who you are from birth, personally," Kerry said in an interview to be broadcast on MTV. "Some people might choose, but I think that it's, it's who you are. I think you have ... people need to be able to be who they are."

Asked why he favors_civil unions (search)_instead of marriage if people are born gay, Kerry replied: "What is distinct is the institutional name or whatever people look at as the sacrament within a church, or within a synagogue or within a mosque as a religious institution. There is a distinction. And the civil state really just adopted that, and it's the rights that are important, not the sort of ... the name of the institution."

In a transcript released Friday by MTV for its Tuesday special "Choose or Lose: 20 Million Questions for John Kerry," the presumptive Democratic nominee said he favors civil unions to give people partnership, inheritance and other rights.

"I think that people have a right in America to be who they are," Kerry said. "I believe very strongly that we can advance the cause of equality by moving toward civil union."

President Bush supports a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, a measure Kerry opposes on the grounds that marriage is a state issue. Kerry has said he would outlaw job discrimination against homosexuals, extend hate-crime protection to them, and allow them to serve openly in the military.

Bush has continued President Clinton's policy allowing gays to serve in the military if they are not open about their homosexuality.

[NYCFarmboy]

this has been discussed here before......Kerry supports amending the Massachusetts constitution to ban gay marriage as well.

It is repulsive that he thinks people should not have full and equal rights especially since he believes being gay is something people are "born" as.

So..in Kerry's mind it is ok to discriminate against someone who is gay even if he or she is born that way.

[daimoni]

.

[Kodachrome]

Originally posted by daimoni:
Topic: Kerry: People Born Gay But Shouldn't Be Married

Well, that's not exactly what he said. So it's not cool to frame your topic as if it was a quote from him.

But it does seem that's what he's saying. And that's unfortunate. Maybe his staff thinks it'll get him more votes from the unwashed masses?

Speaking of which, I wonder how many senators and congress-people openly support equal marriage rights?

sorry didn't mean to leave that impression..that is the news head line I pulled off a website with no changes.

I believe had it been a quote, then quotation marks would be used.



But I agree..it is unfortunate that Kerry is so anti-gay.

[quandarry]

Originally posted by Kodachrome:
sorry didn't mean to leave that impression..that is the news head line I pulled off a website with no changes.

I believe had it been a quote, then quotation marks would be used.



But I agree..it is unfortunate that Kerry is so anti-gay.

anti-gay? where did you see or hear that?

i don't believe a farmer should marry a cow. but that doesn't mean i'm against

animal husbandry.

[DeathToWindows]

disgusted.

religous marriage is one thing, civil marriage is entirely another...

[olePigeon]

Gay people can't marry. Marriage is a union between a man and a woman. However, it doesn't mean they can't be legal life partners and receive the same benefits as a married couple.

[daimoni]

.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by olePigeon:
Gay people can't marry. Marriage is a union between a man and a woman. However, it doesn't mean they can't be legal life partners and receive the same benefits as a married couple.

Yes. Isn't that written in stone somewhere? Right next to the law that says people of mixed race can't marry.

Whaaa? marriage has never said anything against or for race.

BTW
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,114936,00.html

The problem is, I can't remember where I left that stone. Oh, yeah. I remember. I left it in the previous century. Now all we need is a time machine that we can all fit in...

The ideal that murder is wrong is a old one as well.

Should we get rid of it too?

[Krusty]

I tend to fall on the side of Kerry (and olePigeon) on this issue:

Asked why he favors_civil unions (search)_instead of marriage if people are born gay, Kerry replied: "What is distinct is the institutional name or whatever people look at as the sacrament within a church, or within a synagogue or within a mosque as a religious institution. There is a distinction. And the civil state really just adopted that, and it's the rights that are important, not the sort of ... the name of the institution."

Basically, my reading of his statement is that he's saying its just a semantic issue whether you call it "marriage" or not. He supports same-sex civil unions that have the same rights as "marriage". What's the difference then ? Who cares if your call it a "marriage" a "civil union" or "garbleblat" ? There's ABSOLUTELY NO REASON a gay couple couldn't marry one another and refer to their bond as a "marriage" even if the government's "official" term for it is "civil union". "Marriages" have traditionally been performed under the auspices of religions which themselves recognize marriage as a man-woman bond. So, the term "marriage" has been used to specify this type of union. If you have a priest/church that sanctions as same sex bond, then it is a "marriage" in the eyes of that church. Similarly, the government does not recognize polygamy ... and the 2nd ... Nth unions between a polygamist and his wives are not legally recognized by the term "marriage" by the government. However, they ARE recognized by the religion that condones them.

[Zimphire]

I at least respect Kerry for standing up in this case.

Lets hope two weeks from now he wont change his mind.

[cpt kangarooski]

Krusty--

He supports same-sex civil unions that have the same rights as "marriage". What's the difference then ? Who cares if your call it a "marriage" a "civil union" or "garbleblat" ?

Well, remember that racial segregation was held to be unconstitutional not merely because it treated people unequally, but because even if they had been treated absolutely identically, to be kept seperate is itself unequal.

So even if all the rights are the same, which itself is still perhaps debatable, the mere fact of seperation would damn civil unions. It's got to be marriage.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by cpt kangarooski:
[Well, remember that racial segregation was held to be unconstitutional not merely because it treated people unequally, but because even if they had been treated absolutely identically, to be kept seperate is itself unequal.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,114936,00.html
"When the homosexual compares himself to the black community, he doesn't know what suffering is," said the Rev. Clarence James, an African-American studies professor at_Temple University (search).

If your fight is just and credible, you don't need to use blacks to make your point. I constantly see homosexuals and those who support such a thing use blacks to further their cause.

This is despicable. I have no respect for anyone that cannot fight for their cause on their OWN merits.

So even if all the rights are the same, which itself is still perhaps debatable, the mere fact of seperation would damn civil unions. It's got to be marriage.

So does calling homosexual relationships homosexual ones and NOT heterosexual relationships someone damn homosexual relationships?

Of course not.

We use different words to show the difference. Because there is one.

There is going to be a middle ground reached here. Like it or not.

[cpt kangarooski]

Zimphire--

If your fight is just and credible, you don't need to use blacks to make your point. I constantly see homosexuals and those who support such a thing use blacks to further their cause.

This is despicable. I have no respect for anyone that cannot fight for their cause on their OWN merits.

So, for example, if we were to enact Jim Crowe laws that segregated everyone from, I dunno, Asians, we could not refer back to earlier horrific examples to show how wrong that was?

Personally, I think that what is despicable is for the government to treat people unequally due merely to prejudice. Whether the government is a racial bigot or sexual preference bigot, the bigotry is still objectionable.

The fight for equality is just, credible, and continuous. We've come a long way -- now is no time to start all over again.

So does calling homosexual relationships homosexual ones and NOT heterosexual relationships someone damn homosexual relationships?

Let's play Mad Libs with that quote:

So does calling inter-racial marriages inter-racial ones and NOT intra-racial marriages someone damn inter-racial marriages?

Or to make my point clearer: Colloquially, we may distinguish between intra- and inter-racial relationships. We may distinguish between intra- and inter-faith relationships. Or between matches made in heaven, and matches made in hell.

The government does not have that pleasure. It is blind to the adjective, and all it gets to see is one word: Relationships. It has to treat them all equally. It cannot tell the difference.

So it shall be here.

Marriage is a union between consenting persons. Their races don't matter. Their faiths don't matter. Their genders don't matter. Not to the government. Not if we're going to rise above the prejudices of the past and actually live up to our ideals.

You personally can call them whatever the hell you want. No one cares about that, and that's not what the fight is about.

[Zimphire]

cpt until you can realize there is a difference between the two, there is no discussing this with you.

You are helplessly lost in your deluded comparisons.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,114936,00.html

"To equate a lifestyle choice to racism demeans the work of the entire civil rights movement," the statement said. "People are free in our nation to pursue relationships as they choose. To redefine marriage, however, to suit the preference of those choosing alternative lifestyles is wrong

Being gay may or may not be a choice.

But choosing the lifestyle indeed is.

[phoenixboy]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
The ideal that murder is wrong is a old one as well.
Should we get rid of it too?

well, if nobody would suffer from the consequences...oh..wait...

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by phoenixboy:
well, if nobody would suffer from the consequences...oh..wait...

You missed the whole point.

Just because a belief is an old one, doesn't automatically make it incorrect.

Some would like you to think that.

It's simply not true,

[phoenixboy]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
You missed the whole point.

no, you missed the point. the comparison was essentially flawed. murder is in no way the same as gay people getting married.

[simonjames]

How unusual - Zimp splitting hairs again and trying to negate other posters points when they use history as both an example and a similie to compare with current events. I thought we were supposed to remember history and learn from it so that we don't repeat mistakes? Zimp realises that this is the probably the strongest argument and wants the use of it 'over-ruled' - well too bad Zimp - the use of examples from history stays.

Take your mind back 40 or 50 years to the debates about allowing mixed race marriages - I wonder if they used religion as an argument to ban them back then? Given the current religious verocity against gay marriages its not hard to put two and two together.

I know I am not in America and therefore American law does not apply to me but I just want to thank Zimp and others like him sincerely for his thoughts and words about the segregation that he would like to impose on relationships such as mine - 15 years and going strong. People like myself have grown complacent as being gay has become very mainstream but reading his words of hate and vilification is a good wakeup call.

Even if the rights of all civil unions one day reach the same level of
'marriage' by not allowing the use of the word 'marriage' is continue the hateful segregation and discrimination.

As to the equality of civil unions and marriage - there is a long way to go.

[cpt kangarooski]

simonjames--

Take your mind back 40 or 50 years to the debates about allowing mixed race marriages - I wonder if they used religion as an argument to ban them back then? Given the current religious verocity against gay marriages its not hard to put two and two together.

They did. One of the arguments was something along the lines of 'if God placed different races in different lands, it was wrong of men to interfere with this and marry one another.'

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by phoenixboy:
no, you missed the point. the comparison was essentially flawed. murder is in no way the same as gay people getting married.

No, I got the point that you made. You still missed mine I see.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by cpt kangarooski:
[B]
They did. One of the arguments was something along the lines of 'if God placed different races in different lands, it was wrong of men to interfere with this and marry one another.'

No

[cpt kangarooski]

No

Yes.

The following quote is from Loving v. Virginia.

In June 1958, two residents of Virginia, Mildred Jeter, a Negro woman, and Richard Loving, a white man, were married in the District of Columbia pursuant to its laws. Shortly after their marriage, the Lovings returned to Virginia and established their marital abode in Caroline County. At the October Term, 1958, of the Circuit Court of Caroline County, a grand jury issued an indictment charging the Lovings with violating Virginia's ban on interracial marriages. On January 6, 1959, the Lovings pleaded guilty to the charge and were sentenced to one year in jail; however, the trial judge suspended the sentence for a period of 25 years on the condition that the Lovings leave the State and not return to Virginia together for 25 years. He stated in an opinion that:

"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."

Of course, I disagree with the trial judge's statement, but you can't deny that people made religious arguments against interracial marriages.

[Zimphire]

Oh, you claimed ONE of the arguments. Sorry I misunderstood you. I thought you meant there was a lot of Christian people using this.

[cpt kangarooski]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Oh, you claimed ONE of the arguments. Sorry I misunderstood you. I thought you meant there was a lot of Christian people using this.

I didn't say whether there were a lot or a few. I wouldn't be surprised to find that there were a lot, but it doesn't really matter. The religious argument was always just a poor attempt to disguise bigotry. Same with the people who had eugenic arguments against it. They were basically just bigots too.

I don't think much has changed in that respect.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by cpt kangarooski:
IThe religious argument was always just a poor attempt to disguise bigotry.

You do realize by not respecting that others respect the word marriage, makes you a biggot right?

I am for giving homosexuals equal rights even if I don't agree with the lifestyle. No problem.

I just ask that they respect the word marriage.

It's a give and take thing.

There will be a median we come to. One side will not get all it's way.

[simonjames]

So you'll live with us living on the same planet but you don't want to let us use a simple word that describes the union between two people.

Do you think that straight people who get married in a registry or in a civil service without any religious inclusions would mind if they too were banned from using the words 'marriage' and 'married'? Do they too have to have some new word that segregates them from religious society?

No, I didn't think you would demand that.

Zimp - how long have you been in a relationship? Are you married yet?

My relationship has lasted longer than 2 of my 3 brother's catholic marriages. Seems there is plenty of love in mine to keep it going all these years.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by simonjames:
So you'll live with us living on the same planet

Why do people feel the need to revert to such silliness?

but you don't want to let us use a simple word that describes the union between two people.

Actually between husband and wife.

Again, what I get from homosexuals is "I don't care how others feel about the word, it's what *I* want, and I want it all or nothing"

However I am saying "I could care less if they have equal rights, they should, I am just asking them to respect others wishes as well"

Who is the one that's more intolerant to other people?

The person willing to go more than half-way to appease, or those who say "My way or else!!?!"

Think about it.

[simonjames]

Answer the question Zimp - do you want all civil service marriages to be called something else? Or are you only applying your bigotry to homosexuals?

And I am not being silly - I see you only tolerate gays but you still consider us sinners who will rot in hell when we die.

And I'd still like to know if you have the experience of a long term loving relationship - your fairly quick to condemn something that you have very little experience in. And no, I am not implying that you have a same sex relationship - just seeing if you have the knowledge of being with the same person for one-third or more of your life.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by simonjames:
Answer the question Zimp - do you want all civil service marriages to be called something else? Or are you only applying your bigotry to homosexuals?

simon is me calling a homosexual relationship a homosexual relationship bigotry?

HOW DARE I NOT CALL IT A HETEROSEXUAL RELATIONSHIP!!!

Do you realize how silly you sound when you make such accusations?

And I am not being silly - I see you only tolerate gays but you still consider us sinners who will rot in hell when we die.

Where people end up I have no idea. That isn't on me. That is between that person and God.

And I'd still like to know if you have the experience of a long term loving relationship -

Yes I have. Not that it is any of your business, nor does it have any bearing in this discussion.

your fairly quick to condemn something that you have very little experience in.

Your fairly quick to assume.

You know, I've never stuck a pin in my eye. But I think I can clearly condemn it.

And no, I am not implying that you have a same sex relationship - just seeing if you have the knowledge of being with the same person for one-third or more of your life.

I've been in long relationships indeed. Again, not that it matters.

It's irrelevant.

[simonjames]

Whether you get 'hitched' in church or at the marriage registry they are both called marriages - one a religious service and the other a civil ceremony but they are both called marriage.

You want to enforce bigotry by not allowing a group within society to use the same name.

I am not asking you to call a homosexual relationship anything else than what you would call any other civil union - marriage.

Do you realise how stupid you look when you sidestep issues and continue to post when you know your argument is flawed?

And your experience does have bearing in this discussion - another inept sidestep on your behalf.

[Krusty]

Originally posted by simonjames:
Answer the question Zimp - do you want all civil service marriages to be called something else? Or are you only applying your bigotry to homosexuals?

Not to defend Zimph, but to add a 3rd perspective here: I think that all civil service marriages should simply have the title "civil union" (or something like that). In theory, the church and state are separate in this country, therefore the gov't should only have the power to condone/recognize a "civil union". "Marriage" is something that is defined by whomever conducts/recognizes the marriage ceremony. This is largely the way it actually works anyway (many people get married in a church by a representative of whatever religion they believe in, but the gov't only recognizes the union inasmuch as the two parties sign a marriage license stating a legal bond between them.) The fact that government adopted the language (eg "marriage") of the non-legally recognized (usually religious) ceremony is little more than a semantic inconvenience, IMO.

Originally posted by simonjames:

And I am not being silly - I see you only tolerate gays but you still consider us sinners who will rot in hell when we die.

Well, I don't. But I'm not religious ... so, no rotting in hell for homosexuals (or anyone else), IMO. Again, this is mixing the religious and civil notions. Many religious types do think homosexuals will rot in hell because their religions tell them that homosexuality is "wrong". Getting the government to call gay unions "marriage" will not change the fact that many mainstream religions will NOT recognize that union as being consecrated by God. They may be forced to recognize the union legally (which is a good thing, IMO) but it will not force them consider it religiously legitimate. To use the (not quite appropriate, IMO) analogy with racism ... its almost like a black organization that wears white hoods and burns crosses wanting the government to recognize them as legitimate members of the Ku Klux Klan --- the government could do it, but it wouldn't make the rest of the Klan invite them to the next rally.

Originally posted by simonjames:

And I'd still like to know if you have the experience of a long term loving relationship - your fairly quick to condemn something that you have very little experience in. And no, I am not implying that you have a same sex relationship - just seeing if you have the knowledge of being with the same person for one-third or more of your life.

I have (7 years ..but its been over for a long time now). It probably explains the position I'm taking right now to a large degree. Even though I was madly, deeply bonded with this person for what was then, 100% of my adult life, I never felt the need to have a particular "title" given to it by a church or a government. She and I had talked often about "being together forever" but were ambivalent about the institution of "marriage" -- it simply didn't matter to us whether a 3rd party "officially" recognized our relationship or not. Which is why I wonder about why many homosexuals seem so concerned about having their bonds sanctioned with the same name as bonds sanctioned by religious groups that largely condemn their relationships. But of course, all of this is IMO -- so take it with a grain of salt. I don't understand why so many of us heteros want official government recognition of our relationships either.

[daimoni]

.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by simonjames:
Whether you get 'hitched' in church or at the marriage registry they are both called marriages - one a religious service and the other a civil ceremony but they are both called marriage.

You want to enforce bigotry by not allowing a group within society to use the same name.

No, I am just asking for a compromise. I am willing to give and take.

I am not asking you to call a homosexual relationship anything else than what you would call any other civil union - marriage.

Again, you miss my point. We use separate words to describe different relationships. We do this as to not dumb down our language.

This case should be no different.

Do you realise how stupid you look when you sidestep issues and continue to post when you know your argument is flawed?

Highly subjective and you know it.

And your experience does have bearing in this discussion - another inept sidestep on your behalf.

No, no it doesn't. You brining up my "experience" was a straw-man.

Again, I am willing to give and take. Make a compromise.

Are you?

Who is the one being intolerant of other people's beliefs or ideals here?

From the way things going now, there will be a happy medium between the two sides of this debate.

As so there should be.

[lurkalot]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
[snip]http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,114936,00.html
"When the homosexual compares himself to the black community, he doesn't know what suffering is," said the Rev. Clarence James, an African-American studies professor at_Temple University (search).[/snip]

The lazy Lurkalot copied an pasted in reply because he disagrees with Zimphire and Rev. James.

Coretta Scott King voiced some thoughts on the issue:

"I think we all need a few days to recuperate from the stress-filled election we have just experienced, but not much more, because we have a lot more work to do in our common struggle against bigotry and discrimination.


I say “common struggle” because I believe very strongly that all forms of bigotry and discrimination are equally wrong and should be opposed by right-thinking Americans everywhere. Freedom from discrimination based on sexual orientation is surely a fundamental human right in any great democracy, as much as freedom from racial, religious, gender, or ethnic discrimination.


My husband, Martin Luther King Jr., once said, “We are all tied together in a single garment of destiny…an inescapable network of mutuality.… I can never be what I ought to be until you are allowed to be what you ought to be.” Therefore, I appeal to everyone who believes in Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream to make room at the table of brotherhood and sisterhood for lesbian and gay people.


In addition to this fundamental moral principle, there is a very practical reason why people involved in human rights should support each other and work together. And that reason is that the whole of us united makes us stronger than the sum of our parts. This principle of synergy is eloquently summed up in the equation “One plus one equals three.” In other words, there are things we achieve together that we can’t achieve separately.


In a way, we have just had an object lesson in the power of coalition unity. And I think we have just seen the future of American democracy flash before our eyes last Tuesday. The coalition that gave Al Gore a popular majority can surely be as powerful as the New Deal coalition that transformed America in an earlier era.


So what comes next for the NGLTF, the King Center, and indeed all organizations working for human rights and social justice must be a new emphasis on working together in coalitions. With this commitment, we can pass comprehensive hate crimes legislation and the Employment Non-Discrimination Act and secure full funding for AIDS research, prevention, and treatment. We can defend affirmative action and support a broad range of common legislative and policy priorities.


It is encouraging that we have seen more gay and lesbian candidates elected to political office. It is important for lesbian and gay officeholders and their constituencies to achieve greater visibility as supporters of laws that benefit the entire community. I think this will help educate the American public that lesbian and gay people seek the same goals of quality education for young people, cleaner air and water, safe streets and better health care that straight people want. We have to work harder for the broader vision of the compassionate and caring society that demands decent living standards for all citizens.


Now that the election is finally behind us, we must turn our full attention to building a tightly knit coalition of human rights groups that can act swiftly and effectively for needed policy reforms. Let’s make this first decade of the 21st century an era of unprecedented expansion in freedom and democracy.


And as we work for needed reforms, we must also look ahead to the next elections, mindful that we need more people of color in America’s federal, state, and local political institutions. And we also need more women and more lesbian and gay officeholders as well. This is how we make our political institutions reflect the diversity of the American people.


In closing, my friends, I just want to say that I’m proud to stand with you today as we build a great new American coalition for freedom and human rights for all people. Despite the formidable challenges we face, I believe that we will succeed in creating a more compassionate and just society.


I’ll conclude my remarks tonight with a few words spoken by Martin Luther King Jr. at the National Press Club in July of 1962. The 38 years that have come and gone since then have done nothing to diminish the relevance of his remarks. Indeed, they seem particularly appropriate to the challenge we face today.


“We are simply seeking,” said Martin, “to bring into full realization the American dream—a dream yet unfulfilled. A dream of equality of opportunity, of privilege and property widely distributed; a dream of a land where men no longer argue that the color of a man’s skin determines the content of his character; the dream of a land where everyone will respect the dignity and worth of the human personality—this is the dream. When it is realized, the jangling discords of our nation will be transformed into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood, and men everywhere will know that America is truly the land of the free and the home of the brave.”


With this faith, sisters and brothers, let us work together with renewed passion and commitment to create the beloved community of Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream, where all people can live together in a spirit of trust and understanding, harmony, love, and peace."

blue lines added by lurkalot.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Krusty:
Not to defend Zimph, but to add a 3rd perspective here:

Might as well not, they will just call you a bigot and other names, while at the same time taking on the bigot role themselves. They wont realize it either.

[lurkalot]

Originally posted by Zimphire:

No, I am just asking for a compromise. I am willing to give and take.

Again, you miss my point. We use separate words to describe different relationships. We do this as to not dumb down our language.

This case should be no different.

Highly subjective and you know it.


No, no it doesn't. You brining up my "experience" was a straw-man.

Again, I am willing to give and take. Make a compromise.

Are you?

Who is the one being intolerant of other people's beliefs or ideals here?

Compromise? It is neither yours to give nor to take.

Marriage is a fundamental right in the United States. So is equality.

Marriage is not a religious word and neither is it a religious ceremony nor does marriage necessarily only involve a man and a woman.

Same sex marriage is just that. Marriage. Nothing more nothing less.

[daimoni]

.

[cpt kangarooski]

Zimphire--

We use separate words to describe different relationships. We do this as to not dumb down our language.

Actually, you haven't been using seperate words. You've been using adjectives. You've been talking about hetero- and homosexual relationships, but even you have been calling both of them 'relationships,' merely using adjectives to clarify their natures.

Likewise, my parents, who are of the same race, enjoy an intraracial marriage, whereas one of my best friends, whose first child was born a couple of days ago, enjoys an interracial marriage with his wife. Both couples are married. And we can, if we desire, point out details about it.

Well, given the countless examples you've used, I think that you'd have little objection to saying that marriages might also be opposite sex or same sex marriages.

Of course, the label we might attach to it informally doesn't alter the fact that it's still a marriage, and treated by the government, just like any other marriage. It can't tell the difference, nor should it.

No, I am just asking for a compromise. I am willing to give and take.

Well, I know you hate the idea that the struggle for equality is above faction, but desegregationists didn't compromise.

Who is the one being intolerant of other people's beliefs or ideals here?

Your beliefs are irrelevant. So are mine. The only matter of importance here is that the government treat people equally. That it ignore their faiths, colors, or orientations.

No one ever asked you to like, or approve of, same sex marriage. If you want to hate it, that's perfectly acceptable. But nevertheless, it's got to happen if we're to live up to our ideals of just society.

After all, sometimes our ideals conflict with our preferences. I don't like Nazis, but I feel I must support free speech and association, even for them.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by lurkalot:
Compromise? It is neither yours to give nor to take.

Oh I am afraid marriage belongs to man and woman more so than man and man and so on.

Marriage is a fundamental right in the United States. So is equality.

No, marriage is not a RIGHT. Marriage is a privilege.
There is a BIG difference.

Marriage is not a religious word and neither is it a religious ceremony nor does marriage necessarily only involve a man and a woman.

Er yes, yes it is. It's just been distorted.

Same sex marriage is just that. Marriage. Nothing more nothing less.

Hey, I would be all for calling it "Same Sex Marriage"

That would STILL differentiate between the two.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by cpt kangarooski:
Your beliefs are irrelevant. So are mine. The only matter of importance here is that the government treat people equally. That it ignore their faiths, colors, or orientations.

That is why I am for equal rights. You can call it two different things and it still be equal. No matter how badly you feel otherwise.

No one ever asked you to like, or approve of, same sex marriage. If you want to hate it, that's perfectly acceptable. But nevertheless, it's got to happen if we're to live up to our ideals of just society.

I agree, same sex unions need to be treated the SAME WAY. But they will never be 'marriages" in the sense marriages are. Just come to grips with that.

WE don't need to dilute our language.

After all, sometimes our ideals conflict with our preferences. I don't like Nazis, but I feel I must support free speech and association, even for them.

I respect the wishes of the homosexuals to have the same rights. And I treat them just as fairly. That is being tolerant.

All I ask is for them to be tolerant to a lot of other people's beliefs.
But what I am getting back is. NO! TOO BAD! WE WANT IT THIS WAY OR ELSE YOU BIGOT!!

They say that, and don't realize they too are being bigots while they point their bigot finger.

Glass houses and stuff. So yes, you are indeed a bigot too. Welcome to the club.

it's not ME that is being intolerant here. I am willing to compromise.

You aren't.

Again, you will see. There will be a happy medium.

I was told back when the "Gays weren't allowed to join the military" thing was going on. I was told it would change like it or not.

Well it didn't. They just came to an median agreement. "Don't ask, don't tell"

Same will happen with this. There will be an agreement between the two sides.

Like it or not. And that is how it SHOULD be. Compromises on both sides is the only way to get progress. Otherwise contempt will grow on both sides. And that isn't progress.

[lurkalot]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Oh I am afraid marriage belongs to man and woman more so than man and man and so on.
[/b]
No, marriage is not a RIGHT. Marriage is a privilege.
There is a BIG difference.
[/b]
Er yes, yes it is. It's just been distorted.

Hey, I would be all for calling it "Same Sex Marriage"

That would STILL differentiate between the two. [/B]

Same sex marriage would only appear in speech between people not on the marriage certificates although these need to be altered slightly to accomodate the listing of the spouses names.

After the ceremony these people will be just another legally married couple. In the record there should be no further mention of the sex of the partners. Their "marriage" will be registered as "marriage". Not as "same sex marriage"

Marriage is indeed a right, not a privilege. Once again from Loving v. Virginnia but there are others to quote from if you want them.

Loving v. Virginia;
"These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

THE FREEDOM TO MARRY HAS LONG BEEN RECOGNIZED AS ONE OF THE VITAL PERSONAL RIGHTS ESSENTIAL TO THE ORDERLY PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS BY FREE MEN.**

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...88&invol=1
** My emphasis.

[Zimphire]

http://www.theeastcarolinian.com/vne.../4044fa807d149

There never has been a "right" to marry. Marriage is a privilege, not a right.

The issue and the stakes are about the institution of marriage and not changing its definition just because it suits somebody's needs at the moment. If we allow marriage to be defined by current social "sensitivities," there will be no right to deny marriage to other non-traditional groups. Once we start down that road, there's no telling what we as a society will be forced to recognize as "marriage."

There are prohibitions against marrying direct family members. Fathers cannot marry daughters, mothers their sons, brothers and sisters cannot wed, even first cousins are barred from marriage. If we change the definition of marriage to allow same sex couples to marry, would we have the right to deny familial weddings?

http://www.roundupnews.com/news/2004...t-633517.shtml

First off, I'd like to point out that marriage is not a right it is a privilege. Homosexuals have exactly the same "right" to marry as heterosexuals: zero.

I can post quotes of people sharing their opinion too.

BTW your quotes wasn't about homosexual couplings.

he was talking about the RIGHT for a MAN to marry a WOMAN no matter what color she was.

If your fight is just and credible, you don't need to use blacks to make your point.

Funny how homosexuals can never stand by their OWN merits. They always have to play the Race Card.

And this ticks off a lot of African Americans. Rightfully so.

You aren't winning any friends by doing such a dishonest comparison.

That top doesn't spin here.

Being Gay MAY or MAY NOT be a choice.

Having sexual relations or intimate relations with someone of the SAME SEX is however a choice.

Just because someone may be 'born" with feelings. Does not, and I repeat, does not justify any actions that stems from them as being legitimate.

And again , I am not trying to DENY homosexuals the right to couple and get the same benefits. I am ALL for that.

It just will never be a marriage.

In the same sense that a homosexual couple will never be a heterosexual couple. No matter if you call it that.

There will be a happy medium. And it looks to be what I described above.

[lurkalot]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
http://www.theeastcarolinian.com/vne.../4044fa807d149

There never has been a "right" to marry. Marriage is a privilege, not a right.

The issue and the stakes are about the institution of marriage and not changing its definition just because it suits somebody's needs at the moment. If we allow marriage to be defined by current social "sensitivities," there will be no right to deny marriage to other non-traditional groups. Once we start down that road, there's no telling what we as a society will be forced to recognize as "marriage."

There are prohibitions against marrying direct family members. Fathers cannot marry daughters, mothers their sons, brothers and sisters cannot wed, even first cousins are barred from marriage. If we change the definition of marriage to allow same sex couples to marry, would we have the right to deny familial weddings?

http://www.roundupnews.com/news/2004...t-633517.shtml

First off, I'd like to point out that marriage is not a right it is a privilege. Homosexuals have exactly the same "right" to marry as heterosexuals: zero.

I can post quotes of people sharing their opinion too.

BTW your quotes wasn't about homosexual couplings.

he was talking about the RIGHT for a MAN to marry a WOMAN no matter what color she was.

If your fight is just and credible, you don't need to use blacks to make your point.

Funny how homosexuals can never stand by their OWN merits. They always have to play the Race Card.

And this ticks off a lot of African Americans. Rightfully so.

You aren't winning any friends by doing such a dishonest comparison.

That top doesn't spin here.

Being Gay MAY or MAY NOT be a choice.

Having sexual relations or intimate relations with someone of the SAME SEX is however a choice.

Just because someone may be 'born" with feelings. Does not, and I repeat, does not justify any actions that stems from them as being legitimate.

And again , I am not trying to DENY homosexuals the right to couple and get the same benefits. I am ALL for that.

It just will never be a marriage.

In the same sense that a homosexual couple will never be a heterosexual couple. No matter if you call it that.

There will be a happy medium. And it looks to be what I described above.

I know you can quote. You frequently do. What I quoted was from the highest authority on Constitutional issues in the United States. Absent an amendment of the Constitution SCOTUS correctly recognized marriage as a right. That is what I quoted. If you have a higher authority than that I would be most interested in a quote if that authority disputes marriage as a right.

Courts need precedents. Loving v. Virginnia is not recognized for it's parallel between race and sexual orientation in some state courts but something to that effect will happen. One day legally married gay couples will move across state lines and no defense of marriage law will in the end hold up to close constitutional scrutiny. In time people will recognize as Johnson did in Baker v. State in Vermont that same sex unions or a similar semantic "fix" will not satisfy the equality principle. She wrote in her partially dissenting opinion in Baker v. State:

Quote:
"Plaintiffs come before this Court claiming that the State has unconstitutionally deprived them of the benefits of marriage based solely upon a discriminatory classification that violates their civil rights. They ask the Court to remedy the unlawful discrimination by enjoining the State and its municipalities from denying them the license that serves to identify the persons entitled to those benefits. The majority agrees that the Common Benefits Clause of the Vermont Constitution entitles plaintiffs to obtain the same benefits and protections as those bestowed upon married opposite-sex couples, yet it declines to give them any relief other than an exhortation to the Legislature to deal with the problem. I concur with the majority's holding, but I respectfully dissent from its novel and truncated remedy, which in my view abdicates this Court's constitutional_ duty to redress violations of constitutional rights. I would grant the requested relief and enjoin defendants from denying plaintiffs a marriage license based solely on the sex of the applicants....

The majority declares that the issue before this Court does not turn on the heated moral debate over intimate same-sex relationships, and further, that this Court has a constitutional responsibility to consider the legal merits of even controversial cases. Yet, notwithstanding these pronouncements, the majority elects to send plaintiffs to an uncertain fate in the political caldron of that very same moral debate. And to what end? Passing this case on to the Legislature will not alleviate the
instability and uncertainty that the majority seeks to avoid, and will unnecessarily entangle this Court in the Legislature's efforts to accommodate the majority's mandate within a "reasonable period of time...."

And that is all it will be. A matter of time.

[lurkalot]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
The issue and the stakes are about the institution of marriage and not changing its definition just because it suits somebody's needs at the moment. If we allow marriage to be defined by current social "sensitivities," there will be no right to deny marriage to other non-traditional groups. Once we start down that road, there's no telling what we as a society will be forced to recognize as "marriage."

There are prohibitions against marrying direct family members. Fathers cannot marry daughters, mothers their sons, brothers and sisters cannot wed, even first cousins are barred from marriage. If we change the definition of marriage to allow same sex couples to marry, would we have the right to deny familial weddings?

In reply to red herrings...

More quotes:
"The results of more than a century of anthropological research on households, kinship relationships, and families, across cultures and through time, provide no support whatsoever for the view that either civilization or viable social orders depend upon marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution. Rather, anthropological research supports the conclusion that a vast array of family types, including families built upon same-sex partnerships, can contribute to stable and humane societies.

The Executive Board of the American Anthropological Association strongly opposes a constitutional amendment limiting marriage to heterosexual couples."
http://www.aaanet.org/press/ma_stmt_marriage.htm

[Zimphire]

We will see wont we.

I hope you aren't TOO disappointed.

Like I said, I am being tolerant. I am willing to compromise.

You aren't.

That is just going to make animosity towards homosexuals GROW.

This is not progress. You don't want progress. You just want to force your ideals and or lifestyles onto the rest of the country, while saying "You must accept this as being the same!!!" When it's clearly not. You are trying to mass delude.

There either will be a compromise, or there will be no change. If I was you, I would take the compromise.

Again, I was told the SAME thing by someone just like you telling me that Homosexual WOULD be allowed in the military.

But no. They came to a middle ground. They are allowed, as long as it's not vocal.

I wasn't wrong about that, I doubt I will be wrong in this case either.

The majority should not rule out the minority.

But the minority shouldn't control the majority either.

There WILL be a compromise.

So far it looks to be supportive of gay relationships as being treated equally. But they will be called civil unions. That is what most people are going for. That is what is most supported.

Cry fowl all you want. having the RIGHT to be with the one you want, and being treated equally may be.

But there is no RIGHT saying it MUST be called a marriage. Sorry.

[lurkalot]

Non race related -international- precedent. Same sex marriage on it's own merit.

Link

Edit to add: Once again. The compromise is neither yours to offer nor to take.

There have always been gays in the military. Those who have that sexual orientation and chose or were drafted into that profession have been among you as they have been among you in every other apsect of society. In secret.

The issue of the status of homosexuals in the armed forces is far from over. Only a matter of time until there too the laws on equality prevail. Before long there will be legally married homosexuals in the military and current -but outdated rules- will be adjusted to that reality.

Marriage is just that. No need for a different name to describe something that is in every aspect the same thing.

[cpt kangarooski]

Zimphire--

No, marriage is not a RIGHT. Marriage is a privilege.
There is a BIG difference.

Fortunately, this is a matter that has long been settled. Let me again quote from Loving:

These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

So I'm sorry that you disagree, but your position with regards to that matter is totally unsupported.

You can call it two different things and it still be equal.

Seperate is never equal. No matter what else, the very act of being seperate is to be unequal. That dates back to Brown v. Board of Education. As you can see, the fact that our legal system operates by means of precedents makes it inevitable that the battles of the civil rights movement will be used to avoid having to refight the same ground all over again here. Equality can be promoted much more swiftly if we start from where we last left off.

All I ask is for them to be tolerant to a lot of other people's beliefs.

No one here is asking others to change their beliefs. Rather, all that is desired is that the government start treating identically situated people identically.

Surely you are not so passive that you reasonably think that equal treatment under law will have an affect on your beliefs? There are plenty of people today who hate the idea of interracial marriages. Or interfaith marriages. But no one cares much about that. What's important is that those things are possible regardless.

Just as it is fine with me if you dispute the validity and morality of same sex marriages -- so long as same sex marriages are free to occur despite you.

I was told back when the "Gays weren't allowed to join the military" thing was going on. I was told it would change like it or not.

Well it didn't. They just came to an median agreement. "Don't ask, don't tell"

Back in the 1860's we fought a war in part to ensure liberty for black slaves. It took us another century to make headway in making that liberty meaningful, rather than for it to just be in name. And that still isn't a done deal by any means.

What makes you think that the gays in the military issue is over? It's not over. That fight is going to continue and eventually will also be won.

One of the greatest things about America is that we have more or less constantly moved towards ever-increasing personal freedoms. It'd be greater if we could manage to do it faster, but it's always improving at whatever pace.

If we allow marriage to be defined by current social "sensitivities," there will be no right to deny marriage to other non-traditional groups.

That's how it always has been. It used to be illegal for you to marry people who were related to you by law, though not by blood. Bans on polygamy are basically unfounded in anything; they're just naked prejudices. This is pretty evident if you look at the (infamous) Reynolds case. Ages of consent have varied all over the place. In England it was traditionally 12, IIRC. Marriages between members of different religions, or conducted by certain churches, could be invalid. Because it was seen as improper for people to cohabit, common law marriages were created so that cohabitation acted as a marriage ceremony.

The details surrounding marriage have NEVER been set in stone. You're deluding yourself if you think otherwise.

even first cousins are barred from marriage.

No. Some places, first cousins are not allowed to marry. Other places, it is allowed. In the US, most jurisdictions permit it, in fact. You really gotta check your facts more closely.

BTW your quotes wasn't about homosexual couplings.

he was talking about the RIGHT for a MAN to marry a WOMAN no matter what color she was.

ACTUALLY, what the COURT said was that marriage is a fundamental right. It didn't say it was only kinda sorta a fundamental right, or not a right at all. It didn't qualify its statement. It did NOT say that it was limited to opposite sex couples.

The COURT then went on to say that the state could not infringe on this right on such a stupid and unsupported ground as racial bigotry.

This is plainly obvious. If you disagree, show me the language in the decision that says something to the effect of "marriage is a fundamental right except where it's between members of the same sex, because that would give uninvolved busy bodies the heeby jeebies."

But I'm not gonna hold my breath waiting for you.

[lurkalot]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
cpt until you can realize there is a difference between the two, there is no discussing this with you.

You are helplessly lost in your deluded comparisons.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,114936,00.html

"To equate a lifestyle choice to racism demeans the work of the entire civil rights movement," the statement said. "People are free in our nation to pursue relationships as they choose. To redefine marriage, however, to suit the preference of those choosing alternative lifestyles is wrong

Being gay may or may not be a choice.

But choosing the lifestyle indeed is.

Meaning what?

As has been demonstrated marriage is a right. Unless there is also the right to freely choose a partner without state interference that right becomes meaningless. There is no compelling state interest to abrogate the right to marriage for same sex couples.

Choice is fundamental to Liberty.

"Our law affords constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education. Carey v. Population Services International, 431 U. S., at 685. Our cases recognize "the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child." Eisenstadt v. Baird, supra, at 453 (emphasis in original). Our precedents "have respected the private realm of family life which the state cannot enter." Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 166 (1944). These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State."
http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/91-744.ZO.html

Does this not apply for same sex marriage? If not. Why not?

[Zimphire]

Again, I repeat, the word "marriage" is not a right. Couples being able to be with who they want to be with is not a right.

It's a privilege. Otherwise I would be able to marry ANYONE I wanted to.

And that is not the case.

Until I am allowed to marry ANYONE I want to, it is indeed a privilege.

Again, I have a feeling a lot of you are going to be disappointed when this finally comes to pass.

You will get your equal rights. It just wont be called marriage.

You don't have ANY rights to call it that. None, nada, zip.

Even Mr Kerry the non-hating Democrat feels the same way. He is taking this side because he too knows that is probably what it will come to.

You can h00p and hoolar and play the race card all you wish. It's not going to change that.

If it gets to be TOO BIG of an issue, they will just let STATES decide.

And I don't think you want that.