[hyteckit]

Another vote for polygamy!

[ASIMO]

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!

Fellow homosexuals embarrassing you, wdloathe?

I wonder what homosexual conservatives think. Wow, almost an oxymoron in and of itself. Homosexual conservatives, that is -- not conservatives that think. Just making sure I do not get flamed for the wrong message.

[ghost_flash]

Originally posted by hyteckit:
Another vote for polygamy!

Ok. You condone multiple wives.

Do you really want several women getting
together and comparing notes on you, ganging
up on you?

Isn't it bad enough with just one of them, and
their mother?

Ouch.

[ASIMO]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Or pedophiles, or zooerastians

You are really living up to your post count status, now.

Unless, of course, you were merely being facetious. In which case you can be forgiven. But I doubt so.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by forkies:
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?

whhaa?

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by ASIMO:
You are really living up to your post count status, now.

Unless, of course, you were merely being facetious. In which case you can be forgiven. But I doubt so.

I was being facetious. I believed said person that I was responding to was exaggerating a bit. So I went a long.

[hyteckit]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
Ok. You condone multiple wives.

Do you really want several women getting
together and comparing notes on you, ganging
up on you?

Ganging up on me sounds nice. Nothing better than threesomes.

Isn't it bad enough with just one of them, and
their mother?

Ouch.

All my friends' mom seem to like me. Actually, I have an easier time getting the mom to like me than get the girl to want to date me. I really don't mind mother in laws. More presents during Christmas. That's all.

[ghost_flash]

Originally posted by hyteckit:
Ganging up on me sounds nice. Nothing better than threesomes.



All my friends' mom seem to like me. Actually, I have an easier time getting the mom to like me than get the girl to want to date me. I really don't mind mother in laws. More presents during Christmas. That's all.

They change when you marry their daughters.
TRUST ME.

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
I was being facetious. I believed said person that I was responding to was exaggerating a bit. So I went a long.

I most certainly was not. I can see no valid reason that two or more people of any gender or relation (so long as those people are all of age and willing) should not be allowed to join into a legally recognized relationship in which they are entitled to treat the others as family and be treated as such by the government as is currently done when a man and a woman enter into the civil arrangement unfortunately known as marriage.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by vcutag:
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)

Actually, keep in mind that by the full-faith-and-credit clause of the Constitution, any marriage in one state has to be honored in all fifty states. This is why Vermont stopped at "civil unions"; to do otherwise would have caused the same uproar that Massachusetts is having now.

In other words, Massachusetts has just indirectly legalized gay marriage in the US, as long as the marriage is performed in Massachusetts. The only way to stop such a thing at this point would be a Constitutional amendment.

[forkies]

Originally posted by Millennium:
In other words, Massachusetts has just indirectly legalized gay marriage in the US, as long as the marriage is performed in Massachusetts.

**** yeah!! awesome

[hyteckit]

California, please pass a law to legalize polygamy. Okay, Utah, you guys do it.

[vcutag]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Actually, keep in mind that by the full-faith-and-credit clause of the Constitution, any marriage in one state has to be honored in all fifty states. This is why Vermont stopped at "civil unions"; to do otherwise would have caused the same uproar that Massachusetts is having now.

In other words, Massachusetts has just indirectly legalized gay marriage in the US, as long as the marriage is performed in Massachusetts. The only way to stop such a thing at this point would be a Constitutional amendment.

::low whistle:: Wow, I never thought of it that way. So this essentially opens the door for a court case to challenge DOMA. If Kerry wins the presidency (or any other Dem, I'm a Dean fan myself, but he's got a whelk's chance in a supernova of winning at this point) and thereby gets those SCOTUS seats filled...

[John C. Smith]

If a state wants gay marriage, then a referendum should be held. That way, the voters in each state can decide on the issue. That's how it should be, right? People in other states shouldn't get upset about what one state wants to do. It is wrong for a state judge somewhere to effectively impose his ruling on a whole country.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally posted by Millennium:
In other words, Massachusetts has just indirectly legalized gay marriage in the US, as long as the marriage is performed in Massachusetts. The only way to stop such a thing at this point would be a Constitutional amendment.

Finally your country's going somewhere

[voyageur]

Originally posted by KarlG:
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.

Good post. You're a good person, KarlG.

[vcutag]

Originally posted by John C. Smith:
If a state wants gay marriage, then a referendum should be held. That way, the voters in each state can decide on the issue. That's how it should be, right? People in other states shouldn't get upset about what one state wants to do. It is wrong for a state judge somewhere to effectively impose his ruling on a whole country.

That's the same justification that caused the Civil War. See Sovereignty, Popular.

[John C. Smith]

Originally posted by vcutag:
That's the same justification that caused the Civil War. See Sovereignty, Popular.

The justification didn't cause the civil war. Forcing the values of one region onto other states is what caused the civil war. If the gay marriage issue isn't handled with tact, it could be extremely problematic. When people in the northern United States try to legalise gay marriage everywhere, other states will suspect that their own values and interests are being undermined.

[vcutag]

Originally posted by John C. Smith:
The justification didn't cause the civil war. Forcing the values of one region onto other states is what caused the civil war. If the gay marriage issue isn't handled with tact, it could be extremely problematic. When people in the northern United States try to legalise gay marriage everywhere, other states will suspect that their own values and interests are being undermined.

Unfortunately, I don't see it being handled that way. Say what you will about the Republican Party, tact isn't one of its strong suits.

[John C. Smith]

Originally posted by vcutag:
Unfortunately, I don't see it being handled that way. Say what you will about the Republican Party, tact isn't one of its strong suits.

Since the Republican Party is not trying to enforce gay marriage on other states, I see no reason why they should use tact. It's the gay activists who should use tact if they want people to accept gay marriage, otherwise they will just alienate people.

The main reason most people don't like the idea of homosexual marriage is because they aren't familiar with it. Getting people used to it is the only way to get them to accept it. It could take time, but its better than forcing it on people. Gay activists have made a lot of progress by preaching the virtues of tolerance, and if they stick to this message eventually the stigma attached to being gay will disappear. If they try and rush things by supporting radical innovations like nation-wide gay marriage, the whole country will be polarised.

Just putting more openly gay characters on TV, in the movies, etc, will do a lot more to win over people's hearts than this Mass. judge can do with his ruling.

[vcutag]

Originally posted by John C. Smith:
Since the Republican Party is not trying to enforce gay marriage on other states, I see no reason why they should use tact. It's the gay activists who should use tact if they want people to accept gay marriage, otherwise they will just alienate people.

The main reason most people don't like the idea of homosexual marriage is because they aren't familiar with it. Getting people used to it is the only way to get them to accept it. It could take time, but its better than forcing it on people. Gay activists have made a lot of progress by preaching the virtues of tolerance, and if they stick to this message eventually the stigma attached to being gay will disappear. If they try and rush things by supporting radical innovations like nation-wide gay marriage, the whole country will be polarised.

Just putting more openly gay characters on TV, in the movies, etc, will do a lot more to win over people's hearts than this Mass. judge can do with his ruling.

No, but they are the ones convincing Joe Schmoe that if those "activist judges thwart the will of the people," then Joe's church will be forced to marry gay couples. There's a very big difference between legal and religious marriage, and the government is purposely muddling that issue to get their religious zealot followers whipped up in a frenzy on the issue.

I live in the south, as you maybe have noticed from my info. Everyone I've talked to about the issue, when asked "do you oppose gay marriage?" says yes. When you clarify, though, and ask if they oppose gays being given the same legal rights as marriage, the issue becomes a bit less polarized. I know, because my parents and family fall into the latter category, as do my partner's.

But I don't see the Republican party stooping to make that clarification. And since they, like it or not, run the show, they're the ones I'm concerned with. The Democrats haven't the balls god gave a hamster, they'll just sit back and do whatever the polls tell them to.

[cpt kangarooski]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Actually, keep in mind that by the full-faith-and-credit clause of the Constitution, any marriage in one state has to be honored in all fifty states. This is why Vermont stopped at "civil unions"; to do otherwise would have caused the same uproar that Massachusetts is having now.

In other words, Massachusetts has just indirectly legalized gay marriage in the US, as long as the marriage is performed in Massachusetts. The only way to stop such a thing at this point would be a Constitutional amendment.

Yeah, and? I seem to remember that traveling to Nevada was popular among those people that wanted a divorce.

Similarly, interracial couples once had to go north to get married, and had to stay there since it was (unconstitutionally) criminalized down south. Of course, the ban on interracial marriages turned out to be unconstitutional anyway.

This isn't new.

OTOH, people who don't like it ought to take a good look at some of the failings of the first US government under the Articles of Confederation. There's a good reason why the framers went to the trouble of putting the full faith and credit clause in the Constitution.

[maxelson]

Originally posted by Sherwin:
I agree.

So was killing off segregation. GOt anything against that? Of course you don't. Because it was the right thing to do. Relegating a class of the citizenry to unequal status- REGARDLESS of your opinions of the morality of the situation- is plain WRONG. There is nothing more to this argument than opinions of the morality of same sex relationships. All this talk of the sactity of marriage is absolute garbage.
What we have now is the legalized relegation of a group to second class status. The court agrees.

How would ANYONE know what the voters feel in this state? No one has ASKED us. Then again, this state could generally care less what the voters think- Clean Elections comes to mind. THis is another issue of "seperate but equal"- and we all know quite well how that works: IT DOESN'T, and we have hundreds of examples in this country to support it.

Again: this "sanctity of marriage" thing is a bad smokescreen, and yes, I would go so far as to say that those who would deny that are being less than truthful. I ALL comes down to your opinion of homosexuality, and that my friends, is simple bigotry- no matter what drives it.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by - - e r i k - -:
Finally your country's going somewhere

One would argue what direction that would be.

[maxelson]

Seperation of Church and state, Zim. The Church may relegate certain elements of society to another class. Government may not.

[Zimphire]

Max cool. But what about the people that aren't religious that are against it?

[brapper]

good for them.
honestly, who cares who marries who...it's really not affecting my life either way and therefore I'm inclined to just let it be.
i've never understood it when people get so worked up...have your beliefs, hate it, love it, whatever. It's no one's business other than those marrying.

[Sherwin]

Originally posted by maxelson:
How would ANYONE know what the voters feel in this state? No one has ASKED us.

Exactly. You should be asked before policy (especially such wide-reaching and important policy) is made. Anything less just ain't democracy.

[zigzag]

It's about equal protection under the law, not popular opinion or religion. That's why we have a Constitution, and courts - they aren't subject to popular opinion. That's why the anti-gay marriage folks have to introduce a Constitutional amendment to do anything about it.

[macvillage.net]

I find this quite amazing:

200+ years later, we still have the same debate.

Is it legal to discriminate in the United States of America?


Over the years:
Religion
Landownership
"Race"
Ethnicity (different than "race")
Sex
Age
Sexual Orientation
Birth order


You would think by 2004, we would have overcome this by now.

Yet still, many of these are open debates on the legality, in some cases outlawed, in some cases debatable, in some cases opposed. Example: Can't discriminate based on Race, but elected officals can? .


IMHO, get over it. As long as the US claims to be a free country, and as long as the US doesn't discriminate, same sex couples should be entitled to all the same rights as other couples.



The debate isn't about religion, ethics, or morals. It's about the right to discriminate (or lack off, depending on your position).

The religious hatred tore out the pages that Jesus preached compassion and proper treatment of sinners. Jesus in the bible treated sinners better than those who were just. But some individuals tear those pages out.

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by Sherwin:
Exactly. You should be asked before policy (especially such wide-reaching and important policy) is made. Anything less just ain't democracy.

The whole function of the courts is to make sure that the majority-rules nature of democracy doesn't oppress the minority. They're supposed to go over the heads of the people because in a constitutional republic it is held that the values of the constitution should be upheld over the desires of the people.

Democracy is an inherently unfair system, that's why we don't use it.

[Sherwin]

Originally posted by nonhuman:
The whole function of the courts is to make sure that the majority-rules nature of democracy doesn't oppress the minority. They're supposed to go over the heads of the people because in a constitutional republic it is held that the values of the constitution should be upheld over the desires of the people.

I'll look forward to having a nice smoke in a public bar in NYC sometime soon then.



(And this, if you think about it, goes back to what WD was saying.)

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by Sherwin:
I'll look forward to having a nice smoke in a public bar in NYC sometime soon then.



(And this, if you think about it, goes back to what WD was saying.)

The case would have to come up before the supreme court first. They don't get to arbitrarily exercise their power.

[Chemmy]

This is a good thing. I'm proud to live in Boston.

I don't see why people could have anything against this. "Oh no, consenting adults can make a commitment to each other!"

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by zigzag:
It's about equal protection under the law, not popular opinion or religion. That's why we have a Constitution, and courts - they aren't subject to popular opinion. That's why the anti-gay marriage folks have to introduce a Constitutional amendment to do anything about it.

dingdingdingdingding!

It's that way for a reason, too, folks!

-s*

[maxelson]

Originally posted by Sherwin:
Exactly. You should be asked before policy (especially such wide-reaching and important policy) is made. Anything less just ain't democracy.

In this case, I disagree. It is a blatant case of discrimination. The supreme court has spoken. This is the right thing to do. As I have said, opposition is not based upon the sanctity of anything or the definition of the "institution" or threatening of tradition (worst argument yet). It is based upon some "morality" thing. One thing all those who are against gay marriage have in common is that they think homosexuality is WRONG. Don't care and I have yet to hear anyone actually deny that- including the Governor of the Commonwealth. See my post above. And macvillage's. And nonhuman's. And zigzag's.
Sherwin, I am still waiting for your argument against. You are obviously uncomfortable with it. I'm asking why. Once again, I have yet to hear a good argument for denying equal protection under the law.

[maxelson]

Originally posted by Sherwin:
Exactly. You should be asked before policy (especially such wide-reaching and important policy) is made. Anything less just ain't democracy.

y the by- desegregation wasn't a voter issue either. Where do you stand on that (the fact that it wasn't a voter issue- not segregation itself- I am fairly sure you see desegregation as a good thing)?

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by maxelson:
Sherwin, I am still waiting for your argument against. You are obviously uncomfortable with it. I'm asking why. Once again, I have yet to hear a good argument for denying equal protection under the law.

My signature, despite "offending" a few (like I really care if someone finds that offensive)... explains it all.