[Spheric Harlot]

FYI.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/02/04/ga....ap/index.html

The Massachusetts high court ruled Wednesday that only full, equal marriage rights for gay couples -- rather than civil unions -- would be constitutional, erasing any doubts that the nation's first same-sex marriages could take place in the state beginning in mid-May.

[vcutag]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
FYI.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/02/04/ga....ap/index.html

You want to talk about quick.. I've already gotten an invite from some friends in Boston.

I'd like to be optimistic about it, but I think the religious right will be able to milk this one for all it's worth. I don't think they should have called it marriage, though, that has religious implications that, as far as the government should be concerned, don't exist, but will be capitalized on by the Republicans.

2004's gonna be nasty, folks. I'm not ready to shelve my Canadian immigration paperwork just yet...

[wataru]

This is one small step toward ridding this country of the Religious Right's bullsh�t. I hope more states will follow Massachusetts's lead.

[chris v]

This is NOT the distraction we need this election cycle. I fully support the right of any two legally consenting people to marry one another. I just don't want to see this trotted out as a big social issue and have it used to veer the media and the attention of the electorate away from serious, immediate business. The religious right will be all over it like white on rice, we'll have proposals for constitutional amendments both barring and enshrining same-sex marriage, there'll be shouting matches in the streets between gays and Christers, and everyone will conveniently forget that the environment is being raped while the US budget is flushed down the toilet.

Keep the eye on the prize, people.

CV

[cpt kangarooski]

chris v--

This is NOT the distraction we need this election cycle. I fully support the right of any two legally consenting people to marry one another.

I support this decision as well, but why did you say two?

[wataru]

Originally posted by cpt kangarooski:
chris v--


I support this decision as well, but why did you say two?

Are you saying we should legalize polygamy?

[OldManMac]

Originally posted by cpt kangarooski:
chris v--


I support this decision as well, but why did you say two?

I'm missing something here; please expand on this.

BTW, I support this decision 100%

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by wataru:
Are you saying we should legalize polygamy?

I don't see why not. There's no good reason to exclude polygamists from marriage benefits.

[voyageur]

Originally posted by wataru:
Are you saying we should legalize polygamy?

Well, in Mass. we do have a Mormon governor.

But, Chris V, I agree. I can just see the delight with which republicans branding Kerry next fall as "the guy from the state that destroyed the sacred institution of marriage".

[chris v]

Originally posted by voyageur:
I can just see the delight with which republicans branding Kerry next fall as "the guy from the state that destroyed the sacred institution of marriage".

Aarrgg. I think you've hit the nail on the head. The Republicans can probablay milk a win out of it that way, Willie Horton-style.

CV

[chris v]

Originally posted by nonhuman:
I don't see why not. There's no good reason to exclude polygamists from marriage benefits.

Polygamy, Utah Mormon style anyway, could be more aptle titled "child abuse," which is why I don't support it. Most of the time, it would appear to be coercive, which negates the "consenting adults" part of my previous statements.

CV

[zigzag]

Originally posted by vcutag:
I'd like to be optimistic about it, but I think the religious right will be able to milk this one for all it's worth. I don't think they should have called it marriage, though, that has religious implications that, as far as the government should be concerned, don't exist, but will be capitalized on by the Republicans.

2004's gonna be nasty, folks. I'm not ready to shelve my Canadian immigration paperwork just yet...

Perhaps, but it's also possible that people will get tired of right-wing sanctimony and hypocrisy, as they did in 1992 and 1996. The more they rant, the more moderates will start to think "Good grief - we have more important things to worry about. Get a friggin' life."

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally posted by chris v:
Polygamy, Utah Mormon style anyway, could be more aptle titled "child abuse," which is why I don't support it. Most of the time, it would appear to be coercive, which negates the "consenting adults" part of my previous statements.

CV

how convenient.

I seek the love and marriage of at least 3 women simultaneously. I was born with this mindset and that's how I feel most comfortable living my life. I'm not asking you to agree with my lifestyle - I'm just asking you to accept it as 'legitimate'.

Why do you seek to deny me and my future wives our right to marry?

I can have 3 wives - but not at the same time.

Is that some sort of Christian belief? Where did that come from? The rightwing Bible thumpers?

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by chris v:
Polygamy, Utah Mormon style anyway, could be more aptle titled "child abuse," which is why I don't support it. Most of the time, it would appear to be coercive, which negates the "consenting adults" part of my previous statements.

CV

I'm not sure what you mean. How is being married to more than one person child abuse? If it's some other factor with Utah Mormons that turns polygamy into a form of child abuse then why couldn't we legalize polygamy but not allow whatever that other thing is?

[chris v]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
how convenient.

I seek the love and marriage of at least 3 women simultaneously. I was born with this mindset and that's how I feel most comfortable living my life. I'm not asking you to agree with my lifestyle - I'm just asking you to accept it as 'legitimate'.

Why do you seek to deny me and my future wives our right to marry?

I can have 3 wives - but not at the same time.

Is that some sort of Christian belief? Where did that come from? The rightwing Bible thumpers?

The problem with hillbillys is that they're illiterate. When 15-year-old girls are married off by their fathers because it's either that, or suffer bannination by their "leader," it's not f*ing consentual. Do try to learn to read, Spliff.

CV

[Millennium]

Frankly, I think the best way to go would have been to remove the name "marriage" from all of this stuff, straight and gay alike, and solve it that way.

"Marriage" is a religious term. The state shouldn't be using it for anyone. I don't claim to know what a better term would be ("joining", perhaps?), but by removing it from all of this, you end the religious right's ability to complain.

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally posted by chris v:
The problem with hillbillys is that they're illiterate. When 15-year-old girls are married off by their fathers because it's either that, or suffer bannination by their "leader," it's not f*ing consentual. Do try to learn to read, Spliff.

CV

I forgot to mention that one of my wives will also be my first cousin. Again, I'm not asking you to agree with my lifestyle, I'm just asking you to accept it as 'legitimate'.

All joking aside, my point is a damn good one.

You can't justify denying the 'right' of marriage to anyone.

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by chris v:
The problem with hillbillys is that they're illiterate. When 15-year-old girls are married off by their fathers because it's either that, or suffer bannination by their "leader," it's not f*ing consentual. Do try to learn to read, Spliff.

CV

That's a completely separate thing from polygamy. That being illegal and polygamy being legal are completely separate things.

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
I forgot to mention that one of my wives will also be my first cousin. Again, I'm not asking you to agree with my lifestyle, I'm just asking you to accept it as 'legitimate'.

All joking aside, my point is a damn good one.

You can't justify denying the 'right' of marriage to anyone.

Agreed.

[chris v]

Originally posted by nonhuman:
I'm not sure what you mean. How is being married to more than one person child abuse? If it's some other factor with Utah Mormons that turns polygamy into a form of child abuse then why couldn't we legalize polygamy but not allow whatever that other thing is?

Utah Mormons, ouside of maybe 50 or so swingers, are the only group of people who seem to desire polygamy. But what the hell. Let's all get married, since this is such a big love-fest here.

I think the original thread was about gay marriage, but let's drop the number two. I support the right of any number of consenting adults to marry one-another. May the lord have mercy on you, though, when their periods synchronize.

CV

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally posted by nonhuman:
Agreed.

So you don't have a problem if I marry my first cousin and 2 other women?

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
So you don't have a problem if I marry my first cousin and 2 other women?

None whatsoever.

[chris v]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
I forgot to mention that one of my wives will also be my first cousin. Again, I'm not asking you to agree with my lifestyle, I'm just asking you to accept it as 'legitimate'.

All joking aside, my point is a damn good one.

You can't justify denying the 'right' of marriage to anyone.

Moral Relativism is unbecoming of you, Spliff.

You mean cousins can't marry in Tennessee? Well, then! Move to Texas, my friend! One of my best friends was married to his first cousin for about 6 years. The wedding was geart fun-- one big happy family.

CV

[maxelson]

THIS Massachusetts resident is really pleased with the decision. About time. I really hope Romney (with whom I have relatively few gripes) loses this fight, because it seems to me that it is based upon nothing but simple bigotry and so called "morality".
I look forward to our state breaking ground here. First one is always the toughest.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by chris v:
Moral Relativism is unbecoming of you, Spliff.

I don't think he's necessarily trying to go into the whole moral-relativist thing. I think he's trying to indirectly pose the question: is marriage a right at all?

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Frankly, I think the best way to go would have been to remove the name "marriage" from all of this stuff, straight and gay alike, and solve it that way.

"Marriage" is a religious term. The state shouldn't be using it for anyone. I don't claim to know what a better term would be ("joining", perhaps?), but by removing it from all of this, you end the religious right's ability to complain.

Can you imagine the outrage?

"MASSACHUSETTS ABOLISHES MARRIAGE!!!"

I don't think so.

-s*

[Millennium]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
Can you imagine the outrage?

"MASSACHUSETTS ABOLISHES MARRIAGE!!!"

I don't think so.

Those accusations will happen anyway, what with this decision. I merely suggested a method which I believe would step on the fewest toes.

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by Millennium:
I don't think he's necessarily trying to go into the whole moral-relativist thing. I think he's trying to indirectly pose the question: is marriage a right at all?

Marriage, perhaps not, but the ability to share your life with another person, and have the sharing recognized by the government with shared benefits and responsibilities definitely should be.

[nredman]

The Massachusetts high court ruled Wednesday that only full, equal marriage rights for gay couples -- rather than civil unions -- would be constitutional, erasing any doubts that the nation's first same-sex marriages could take place in the state beginning in mid-May

i couldn't care less if gay couples car marry or not, i don't agree with it but its not my right to judge anyone...at least if they did we wouldn't have to listen to them bitch about it anymore.

[ghost_flash]

Originally posted by nonhuman:
Marriage, perhaps not, but the ability to share your life with another person, and have the sharing recognized by the government with shared benefits and responsibilities definitely should be.

This is one heterosexual married male who is
very happy indeed that the gay community of
Mass. can finally join in Holy Matrimony and
suffer like the rest of us Fu@kers.

Good on them!

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Those accusations will happen anyway, what with this decision. I merely suggested a method which I believe would step on the fewest toes.

I believe that is the situation right now.

Oh, and nredman: supporting the right thing out of convenience is still supporting the right thing, so

-s*

[saddam hussein]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
FYI.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/02/04/ga....ap/index.html

I don't see the big deal.
The US is a secular government (supposed to be) and thus can't prohibit gay marriage. The rule that gays can't marry is a religious one. Is there another reason why they shouldn't, aside from the bible?

If not, then separation of church and state should prevail.

Of course, it won't because christians run the gov thru money and influence.

Isn't America wonderful?

[The Mick]

Originally posted by saddam hussein:
I don't see the big deal.
The US is a non-secular government (supposed to be) and thus can't prohibit gay marriage. The rule that gays can't marry is a religious one. Is there another reason why they shouldn't, aside from the bible?

If not, then separation of church and state should prevail.

Of course, it won't because christians run the gov thru money and influence.

Isn't America wonderful?

Close, but no cigar. The US Government is indeed non-secular, but it's supposed to be secular. (Hint: look up the meaning of secular)

[saddam hussein]

Originally posted by The Mick:
Close, but no cigar. The US Government is indeed non-secular, but it's supposed to be secular. (Hint: look up the meaning of secular)

Dammit. Typo. Bad one. THanks, Mick.

[vcutag]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Frankly, I think the best way to go would have been to remove the name "marriage" from all of this stuff, straight and gay alike, and solve it that way.

"Marriage" is a religious term. The state shouldn't be using it for anyone. I don't claim to know what a better term would be ("joining", perhaps?), but by removing it from all of this, you end the religious right's ability to complain.

EXACTLY.

[ASIMO]

Originally posted by nredman:
...
i couldn't care less ...

And I support those who correctly use the much misused "I couldn't care less..."

You, sir, deserve the Post of the Day Award. Smile.

[wdlove]

I'm embarrassed by this situation. Another example of the Liberal agenda being pushed through the courts against the will of the voters!

[ghost_flash]

Originally posted by wdlove:
I'm embarrassed by this situation. Another example of the Liberal agenda being pushed through the courts against the will of the voters!

What does it mean that gay people can be
married? It only really means, they can
have the benefits of married people!

That is a good thing right? Why shouldn't
they be allowed this privelage. Love is love
baby!

Marriage Tax.
Divorce court would be a real hoot now!

[Millennium]

Originally posted by vcutag:
EXACTLY.

The problem I see with the current situation is that some religious sects may actually try to frame this as an attack on the separation of church and state.

I'm not making this up. According to such a school of thought, this law would force those who (for religious reasons) reject the morality of homosexuality to suddenly recognize gay marriages as actual marriages, which would grant them an air of legitimacy that some religions deny.

By simply removing the term for all such relationships, this issue could be neatly sidestepped. If we are going to have separation of church and state, let's make it a clean break by ensuring the state doesn't use religious terminology.

[thunderous_funker]

Wouldn't the government stepping in and stripping the word "marriage" from everyone be even more invasive than extending civic marriage rights to same gender couples??

I don't really care what churches think of this. It has nothing to do with them.

[Eriamjh]

Let the gays marry so they can pay the marriage penalty in taxes!

[ghost_flash]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Wouldn't the government stepping in and stripping the word "marriage" from everyone be even more invasive than extending civic marriage rights to same gender couples??

I don't really care what churches think of this. It has nothing to do with them.

My question is: Do they [gays] want to be
recognized by the church?

If so, then it is a church issue, but if not then
even the government should stay out of it.

Marriage is a bond between two people, not
just man and woman. It is the commitment
they are honoring, and in my oppinion does
much to rectify my differences with their
"lifestyle of choice".

That of course is another argument.
By choice or by birth, not that I care.

Marriage between two men or two women
can't be any more weird than it is with a
man and a woman.

One will always nag the other...

[Millennium]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Wouldn't the government stepping in and stripping the word "marriage" from everyone be even more invasive than extending civic marriage rights to same gender couples??

Not at all. Simply because the government has a neutral term for it doesn't mean everyone has to use that term. The point is to remove the religiously-loaded term from legal use in the law, as well as providing a secular term which those who dislike the religious connotations of the word "marriage" could use (currently there really is no suitable secular term for this).

Or, to look at it another way, this corrects a mistake made long ago, when the religious term "marriage" was enshrined in law. I reiterate that if there is to be a separation between church and state, that the break ought to be clean.

I don't really care what churches think of this. It has nothing to do with them.

Au contraire. Marriage has and religion are, for the most part, quite intimately -if you'll pardon the pun- tied together. The point of my proposal is to loosen those ties enough that the state can disentangle itself.

[Sherwin]

Originally posted by wdlove:
I'm embarrassed by this situation. Another example of the Liberal agenda being pushed through the courts against the will of the voters!

I agree.

[cpt kangarooski]

Originally posted by wdlove:
I'm embarrassed by this situation. Another example of the Liberal agenda being pushed through the courts against the will of the voters!

Well...

1) Courts are not legislatures. They're supposed to respond to the demands of justice and the law, and not the will of the voters.

2) Integration was against the will of the voters too. I for one am quite glad that the courts pushed it through. Sometimes the voters are wrong, you see.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by nonhuman:
I don't see why not. There's no good reason to exclude polygamists from marriage benefits.

Or pedophiles, or zooerastians

[OldManMac]

Originally posted by wdlove:
I'm embarrassed by this situation. Another example of the Liberal agenda being pushed through the courts against the will of the voters!

This has nothing to do with liberals. This has to do with people who have a different sexual orientation than some of us, and not by choice, who are being denied the right to spend their lives with someone in a recognized union. No one is asking for general society to wrap their arms around a gay couple and welcome them to their group. What they are asking for is a recognition that they exist, and they have the same rights as others. Gays aren't going to go away; they've been here since the dawn of man, in larger numbers than you think.

[forkies]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Or pedophiles, or zooerastians

Do pedophilia and zooerastia involve only consensual adults? Sorry zimphire, your inflammatory analogies don't even draw accurate parallels.

Did comparing homosexuals to pedophiles go out of style so you had to move on to polygamists?

[vcutag]

Originally posted by wdlove:
I'm embarrassed by this situation. Another example of the Liberal agenda being pushed through the courts against the will of the voters!

Wow. That's almost word-for-word what Shrub had to say about it...

I love sheeple.

[vcutag]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
My question is: Do they [gays] want to be
recognized by the church?

If so, then it is a church issue, but if not then
even the government should stay out of it.

Marriage is a bond between two people, not
just man and woman. It is the commitment
they are honoring, and in my oppinion does
much to rectify my differences with their
"lifestyle of choice".

That of course is another argument.
By choice or by birth, not that I care.

Marriage between two men or two women
can't be any more weird than it is with a
man and a woman.

One will always nag the other...

How true...

My "father-in-law" (by which I mean my partner's father, there's nothing "in law" about it here in Virginia and probably never will be, but that's a moot point) and I were discussing this issue over Christmas break. His family is very devoutly Catholic, and have quite a few reservations about our relationship, but they accept me as a part of the family just as they accept their other son's fiancee. Surprisingly, we were in agreement that the only real solution is to hammer the point that there is a very real and very big difference between "legal" and "religious" marriage.

One way or another, I'll end up being a bridesmaid/groomsman/whateverthehellyouwanttocallit at a wedding for two of my good friends in Boston this June. I can hardly wait until my partner and I can do the same, either here in Virginia or after having moved. I'd gladly pay marriage taxes and put up with being one of those "poor f@ckers" as someone put it upthread for the chance to have a legally recognized relationship.