[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
He wouldn't have to if he amended the constitution.

At least that's a blatant admission that a ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional.

-s*

Nobody but spacefreak ever hinted otherwise.


Why not just go to the supreme court now, and save billions of dollars in wasted time/effort on behalf of the US government? If they don't. The loser of this debate should refund the American public.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
Not the first time the president was a biggot.

actually, as I've said in the past, I don't think this is Bush's idea, but I DO think he is pandering to the religious right voting bloc, which IS bigoted on this issue.

I would not go so far as to say Bush himself is, I think he's just correctly determined a wedge issue of enough vehemence to sway the religious right.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
actually, as I've said in the past, I don't think this is Bush's idea, but I DO think he is pandering to the religious right voting bloc, which IS bigoted on this issue.

I would not go so far as to say Bush himself is, I think he's just correctly determined a wedge issue of enough vehemence to sway the religious right.

Perhaps your right.

But he's been talking about this for years. They showed the other day him talking about the topic well before his presidency. So it's not a presidental re-election thing. It goes much further back.

But it does go back to his consitutional toilet paper policy.

[Lerkfish]

I should further clarify that I'm not completely ruling out that Bush may be a bigot on this issue (I frankly have no idea) , I'm just saying the only thing we can determine for certain is its a pandering to those who are bigoted, independent of his own personal thoughts.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
Nobody but spacefreak ever hinted otherwise.


Why not just go to the supreme court now, and save billions of dollars in wasted time/effort on behalf of the US government? If they don't. The loser of this debate should refund the American public.

My theory is that the constitutional amendment is never going to happen. It would be too fundamental. "...that all men are created equal."

Instead, by dragging this issue through all available courts for as long as possible, W. will be able to milk it until the elections.

After that, it won't matter that he will back down and let justice run its course.

Nothing new here, just politics.

Spacefreak is just the only one who hasn't noticed yet.

-s*

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Your argument is simply this: Yes it is discrimination, and you like it because you are on top. But I ask you, what does "equal protection under the laws" mean to you? Does it mean granting special favors to special people, or does it mean what it says?

Better yet, I've got a better question for you. Suppose someone came along and suddenly told you that you that we don't like your religion, eye color, color of hair, political affiliation, or whatever, and as a consequence, the state is going to revoke your marital status. Under established law, privileges extended by the state can be withdrawn at any time. That includes your marriage under your theory. As a consequence, you will pay more taxes, risk losing your home if your partner dies, risk not being allowed to visit her in hospital, etc. etc. In other words, because some group decided they didn't like you for some arbitrary reason, your life is thrown into chaos. Is your marriage still a privilege? Wouldn't you be just a tiny bit upset?

I'm not married, but why can't I have those benefits, too? Why shouldn't I be allowed to be put on my roommates' insurance policies? Why can't I get those so-called tax benefits? Am I a second-class citizen?

If I die, my roomate will not get my house, because I have what's called a "will". See, with this legal piece of paper, I denote who gets my house if/when I die. If I wanted my roommate to get the house, I would state as much in my will. Otherwise, the house would go to my family AFAIK.

I have repeated stated in numerous threads that I support allowing same-sex civil unions to have the same legal benefits as marriage. So you can run through all these scenarios all you want, but the fact remains that i support same-sex unions enjoying those benefits.

However, I'm not for redefining the word because a small minority wants to replace the words "man" and "woman" with "person A" and "person B".

Moreover, you are simply legally wrong. Marriage has been recognized as a right since at least Loving v. Virginia struck down inrerracial marriage bans.

Marriage is definitively the union of a man and a woman. Look in a dictionary from the early 1900s, you'll find the same definition. The striking down of interracial marriage bans did not change the meaning of the word.

[NYCFarmboy]

Posted this on another thread, but looks like it belongs more here:
From an email I received. Apologies it if was already posted.



Why GAYS Should NOT MARRY


12 reasons why gay people should not be allowed
to get married:
_
1. Homosexuality is not natural, much like
eyeglasses, polyester, and birth control.
_
2. Heterosexual marriages are valid because they
produce children. Infertile couples and old
people can't legally get married because the
world needs more children.
_
3. Obviously, gay parents will raise gay
children, since straight parents only raise
straight children.
_
4. Straight marriage will be less meaningful if
Gay marriage is allowed, since Britney Spears' 55-
hour just-for-fun marriage was meaningful.
_
5. Heterosexual marriage has been around a long
time and hasn't changed at all; women are
property, blacks can't marry whites, and divorce
is illegal.
_
6. Gay marriage should be decided by people, not
the courts, because the majority-elected
legislatures, not courts, have historically
protected the rights of the minorities.
_
7. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In
a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion
are imposed on the entire country. That's why we
have only one religion in America.
_
8. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay,
in the same way that hanging around tall people
will make you tall.
_
9. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to
all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish
to marry their pets because a dog has legal
standing and can sign a marriage contract.
_
10. Children can never succeed without a male and
a female role model at home. That's why single
parents are forbidden to raise children.
_
11. Gay marriage will change the foundation of
society. Heterosexual marriage has been around
for a long time, and we could never adapt to new
social norms because we haven't adapted to things
like cars or a longer lifespan.
_
12. Civil unions, providing most of the same
benefits as marriage with a different name are
better, because a "separate but equal"
institution is always constitutional. Separate
schools for African-Americans worked just as well
as separate marriages for gays and lesbians will.


_

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
I'm not married, but why can't I have those benefits, too? Why shouldn't I be allowed to be put on my roommates' insurance policies? Why can't I get those so-called tax benefits? Am I a second-class citizen?

What is your commitment to your roommate?

If you can't tell the difference between a couple and roomates, then I question whether you really live in the society whose traditions you claim to uphold.

Oh, and I really don't understand the word compromise. Fine. If you are happy to remove all the discriminatory rules (that previously you claimed didn't exist) against gay couples provided we reserve the word "marriage" to you special people, then that's fine by me. Call them "civil unions" if you like. We can call gay marriages "grapefruit" for all I care. Unlike you I do not attach irrational importance to mere words. As long as the legal substance is the same, that's fine by me.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
I have repeated stated in numerous threads that I support allowing same-sex civil unions to have the same legal benefits as marriage. So you can run through all these scenarios all you want, but the fact remains that i support same-sex unions enjoying those benefits.

However, I'm not for redefining the word because a small minority wants to replace the words "man" and "woman" with "person A" and "person B".
Marriage is definitively the union of a man and a woman. Look in a dictionary from the early 1900s, you'll find the same definition. The striking down of interracial marriage bans did not change the meaning of the word.

The above is what this ultimately comes down to.
Just call it a civil union and everyone is happy. There is no point in denying homosexuals their right to form a legally recognised partnership. It's nothing short of discrimination. Bush's policy on this is backward (just like everything else he does) because it doesn't achieve anything or resolve the problem.

You cannot call it 'marriage' because marriage has always been between a man and a woman. You can't change that. It would be a civil union. Semantics? yes it is, but at least it would mean everyone were happy.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
What is your commitment to your roommate?

We've been friends for 20 years, and likely will be for the rest of our lives.

If you can't tell the difference between a couple and roomates, then I question whether you really live in the society whose traditions you claim to uphold.

Question me all you want. I don't give a crap. The difference is that we don't engage in sexual activity with each other.

Oh, and I really don't understand the word compromise. Fine. If you are happy to remove all the discriminatory rules (that previously you claimed didn't exist) against gay couples provided we reserve the word "marriage" to you special people, then that's fine by me. Call them "civil unions" if you like. We can call gay marriages "grapefruit" for all I care. Unlike you I do not attach irrational importance to mere words. As long as the legal substance is the same, that's fine by me.

And by me, too. If this is all about the priviledges associated with marriage/unions and their partners, I would think that more gay marriage advocates would support this position and be fine with it.

But I think that this is more than that. Many feel it has to be called "marriage", and this leads me to believe that they are somewhat envious of heterosexuals because heteros can get "married" as a symbol of committment to someone of the opposite sex.

I'm not trying to be rude, it's just that if this were all about the benefits extended to married couples vs. committed gay unions, why the firm insistence that gay unions also be called "marriage"?

As I've stated in other threads, I'd like to challenge the gay community to create their own term for their unions - something that is a little more special than the generic-sounding "civl unions". I think the effort could be done online, and could be a spectacular one that epitomizes the interconnected times we live in as much the legal/social emergence of this issue.

[Mithras]

I don't understand supporting civil unions but not marriage.
Making public policy from dictionaries is foolish. Look up 'conception' in a 1900-era dictionary and I doubt you'll see anything about in vitro fertilization. Should we ban that too? We've gracefully extended 'parenthood' to include adoption, rather than producing a completely separate category. (There is the separate category of 'guardian' for non-adoptive folks, like grandmothers looking after grandchildren, etc.)

Also, the major point is, why go through an elaborate effort to build a parallel institution called 'civil union' (or whatever)? We'll have to go through all the laws and contracts and change 'marriage' to 'marriage or civil union', 'spouse' to 'spouse or civilly-unioned-partner', in order to allow unioned couples the same rights as married ones. And we'd have a whole separate but identical code having to do with 'de-unioning' or whatever word you'd like to use to preserve the sanctity of 'divorce'.

But if someone really wants to keep the word 'marriage' for just men with women, fine. But to make civil unions really the same as marriage, one major thing has to change: As of now, men and women who are married don't have to get re-married every time they move from one state to another. If states permit civil unions, then gay couples should be able to carry that status without hassle from one state to another. Otherwise it wouldn't really be equivalent to marriage.

[Mithras]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
this leads me to believe that they are somewhat envious of heterosexuals because heteros can get "married" as a symbol of committment to someone of the opposite sex.

yes, isn't this the whole idea?

[NYCFarmboy]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
As I've stated in other threads, I'd like to challenge the gay community to create their own term for their unions - something that is a little more special than the generic-sounding "civl unions". I think the effort could be done online, and could be a spectacular one that epitomizes the interconnected times we live in as much the legal/social emergence of this issue.

The term I think most appropriate is: M A R R I A G E

Anything else is no different than being put in the back of the bus and being discrimated against.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
Just call it a civil union and everyone is happy. There is no point in denying homosexuals their right to form a legally recognised partnership. It's nothing short of discrimination. Bush's policy on this is backward (just like everything else he does) because it doesn't achieve anything or resolve the problem.

You cannot call it 'marriage' because marriage has always been between a man and a woman. You can't change that. It would be a civil union. Semantics? yes it is, but at least it would mean everyone were happy.

Bush is getting involved not to deny benefits to same-sex unions, but rather to preserve the definition and 'sanctity' of the word "marriage". He forewarned of this in the State of the Union - that if some judges decided to gender neutralize "marriage", he would support an amendment.

I don't agree that it doesn't solve anything. I do agree, however, that this is nowhere near a complete solution to the overall issue.

For this amendment to really have a chance at passage, it should solve the overall issue. Maybe part one would define marriage (again), and part two would allow for states to recognize and honor civil unions between same-sex partners, or better yet, federally recognize these unions.

If the amendment accomplished both of those, I think we'd see it have a better chance at passage. But there are 38 states AFAIK who have laws stating gay unions are not regonized in their state, and some of those states are die-hard.

This whole thing is backwards. Instead of a push by the gay community and civil union advocates to get their unions recognized federally, instead the large majority has to amend the constitution to ensure that a thousands-of-years-old word doesn't get redefined.

[OldManMac]

Originally posted by NYCFarmboy:
The term I think most appropriate is: M A R R I A G E

Anything else is no different than being put in the back of the bus and being discrimated against.

Exactly. That's the point I've been trying make, but some people aren't so secure in their definition of the word. They would deny my daughter the right to be married to her lover, because it would denigrate their own straight marriage, which means it wasn't very strong to begin with.

Your turn, spacefreak.

[spacefreak]

Exactly. That's the point I've been trying make, but some people aren't so secure in their definition of the word. They would deny me the right to marry my two lovers, because it would denigrate their own single-partner marriage, which means it wasn't very strong to begin with.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Bush is getting involved not to deny benefits to same-sex unions, but rather to preserve the definition and 'sanctity' of the word "marriage". He forewarned of this in the State of the Union - that if some judges decided to gender neutralize "marriage", he would support an amendment.

The amendment as proposed denies any recognition to civil unions as well. That's partly why it is losing support in the Senate. Even a lot of backers of it are admitting that it is too broad (see the ongoing debate at the National Review for details).

So as it stands, your compromise position is unavailable.

[Mithras]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Exactly. That's the point I've been trying make, but some people aren't so secure in their definition of the word. They would deny me the right to marry my two lovers, because it would denigrate their own single-partner marriage, which means it wasn't very strong to begin with.

We can talk about polygamy in a separate thread if you wish. But the slippery slope argument is worth exactly zero. Here we're talking about marriage for same-sex couples.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Bush is getting involved not to deny benefits to same-sex unions, but rather to preserve the definition and 'sanctity' of the word "marriage". He forewarned of this in the State of the Union - that if some judges decided to gender neutralize "marriage", he would support an amendment.

I don't agree that it doesn't solve anything. I do agree, however, that this is nowhere near a complete solution to the overall issue.

Bush is proposing to ban gay marriage altogether. That, IMO, is a backward suggestion. Whilst such a move would protect the meaning of the term 'marriage' it does not address the general dispute.

Originally posted by spacefreak:
For this amendment to really have a chance at passage, it should solve the overall issue. Maybe part one would define marriage (again), and part two would allow for states to recognize and honor civil unions between same-sex partners, or better yet, federally recognize these unions.

That is precisely what it should do, however that is not what Bush is advocating.

[daimoni]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
You cannot call it 'marriage' because marriage has always been between a man and a woman. You can't change that. It would be a civil union. Semantics? yes it is, but at least it would mean everyone were happy.

What!? Are we all now culturally trapped in amber for centuries and centuries? And the meaning of words of can never change? Well, I've got some news to break to you...

Yes. It comes down to semantics. But if you get 'married' someday, you will soon realize that what it's called doesn't define what it is. That is defined by the couple who lives it, and the vows they take (whatever they may be).

At first, I thought the problem could be neatly solved by having the State only distribute civil unions to one and all and do away with the word 'marriage' all together. But upon further reflection I think this is a cop out. I already have a 'marriage' license. Why shouldn't others... regardless of their gender pairings?

The whole argument of separate but equal in regards to straight people getting to call it one thing, but gay people having to call it something else... and then we all get to live happily ever-after is wrong. It's just a kinder, but gentler form of bigotry - and those people can report directly to Hell (wherever that's located).

Heck, I'll even test the water for them.

[daimoni]

Originally posted by NYCFarmboy:
The term I think most appropriate is: M A R R I A G E

Anything else is no different than being put in the back of the bus and being discrimated against.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by daimoni:
What!? Are we all now culturally trapped in amber for centuries and centuries? And the meaning of words of can never change?

Yes actually! I think that's what it comes down to. There are way to many conservative people stuck in the firm belief that marriage is for men and women only. So many, that Bush's ban would probably pass!

I think that an overwhelming majority of people have a strictly traditional view on what marriage is and isn't, therefore I think civil unions are the only way you're going to get around this issue.

If the rights granted to homosexuals under civil unions are identical to those granted to heterosexuals under marriages, then is there really anything left to complain about?

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by NYCFarmboy:
The term I think most appropriate is: M A R R I A G E

Anything else is no different than being put in the back of the bus and being discrimated against.

:applause:

[Lerkfish]

Let's call a spade a spade. Those who support this amendment are NOT pro-sanctity of marriage they are anti-GAY. If they were indeed pro-sanctity of marriage they'd be marching against the St. Elvis Quickie Wedding Chapel and Pizzeria in Las Vegas.

[zigzag]

The objection to the use of the word "marriage" is a smokescreen, much like the "sanctity" argument - anyone with a double-digit IQ knows that word usages and definitions can change. Spacefreak expressed his true sentiments earlier with his story about the women who left the hospital.

I can't believe so much time and energy is being wasted making sure that a tiny segment of the adult population can't use the word "marriage." We're spending hundreds of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars to supposedly liberate the Iraqis and here we are arguing about whether the word "marriage" can apply to same-sex couples. Now Bush has made it official: he wants to amend the friggin' Constitution. I have one word for these people: Grow the f*ck up. OK, four words.

The Republicans lost the elections in '92 and '96 partly because centrists perceived them (and rightly so) as childish, reactionary bigots. If they lose again over this, it will serve them right.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by daimoni:
But if you get 'married' someday, you will soon realize that what it's called doesn't define what it is. That is defined by the couple who lives it, and the vows they take (whatever they may be).

Easy for you to say, being married to a friggin' supermodel.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
Let's call a spade a spade. Those who support this amendment are NOT pro-sanctity of marriage they are anti-GAY. If they were indeed pro-sanctity of marriage they'd be marching against the St. Elvis Quickie Wedding Chapel and Pizzeria in Las Vegas.

Don't knock it - the pizza is good and the ceremonies quick.

[Big Booger]

Bush Corporation.
Stock market symbol 'FUBAR' (**** U Bush Always Right)
Current stock price = $1000000000000 per share. Only the ultra-rich apply.
Slogan 'Who Shall We Discriminate Against Today?'
Company information = Withheld.

[daimoni]

Originally posted by zigzag:
Easy for you to say, being married to a friggin' supermodel.

Not just any supermodel, a supermodel with a greater than double-digit IQ.

But according to some of the lower primates, we're not really married - because we had a civil ceremony.

And to make them really snort fire and brimstone from their snouts...

1. The best man is gay.
2. The maid of honor is black.
3. The officiant is a jew.
4. And worst of all... a good time was had by all.

[Troll]

Originally posted by zigzag:
I can't believe so much time and energy is being wasted making sure that a tiny segment of the adult population can't use the word "marriage." We're spending hundreds of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars to supposedly liberate the Iraqis and here we are arguing about whether the word "marriage" can apply to same-sex couples. Now Bush has made it official: he wants to amend the friggin' Constitution. I have one word for these people: Grow the f*ck up. OK, four words.

Hear hear!

[scottiB]

Originally posted by daimoni:
But according to some of the lower primates, we're not really married - because we had a civil ceremony.

And to make them really snort fire and brimstone from their snouts...

1. The best man is gay.
2. The maid of honor is black.
3. The officiant is a jew.
4. And a good time was had by all.

That's so un-American--that that many diverse people celebrating that at not-a-church. There needs to be an ammendment to prevent that. I mean spelled out. Right in the Constitution. Of our country. So that sort of thing can't happen again. Especially the "good time" part.

[Troll]

You know, I watch this and I really can't understand how this guy got where he is today. He's a nutjob America. A very scary nutjob.

[daimoni]

Originally posted by scottiB:
That's so un-American--that that many diverse people celebrating that at not-a-church. There needs to be an ammendment to prevent that. I mean spelled out. Right in the Constitution. Of our country. So that sort of thing can't happen again. Especially the "good time" part.

It wasn't really that diverse, (except for a few out of town guests) we were all Californian.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Troll:
You know, I watch this and I really can't understand how this guy got where he is today. He's a nutjob America. A very scary nutjob.

He's not being a nutjob. He's being very smart and cynical. The sad fact is this issue polls well even among rank and file Democrats. That's why people like Kerry are waffling instead of standing up for equality.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
My theory is that the constitutional amendment is never going to happen. It would be too fundamental. "...that all men are created equal."

Instead, by dragging this issue through all available courts for as long as possible, W. will be able to milk it until the elections.

After that, it won't matter that he will back down and let justice run its course.

Nothing new here, just politics.

Spacefreak is just the only one who hasn't noticed yet.

-s*

Your most likely right. You make a good point.


most of these are funny.

Originally posted by NYCFarmboy:


12 reasons why gay people should not be allowed
to get married:

_
1. Homosexuality is not natural, much like
eyeglasses, polyester, and birth control.

Actually it occours in all sexual species. Hardly unnatural, since it's a natural occourance in all animals. Dogs, monkey's, goats, horses, if it has a penis, it does it. And about the same ratio as humans (or higher).

_
2. Heterosexual marriages are valid because they
produce children. Infertile couples and old
people can't legally get married because the
world needs more children.

So in a world where just about all scientists agree is about 1 billion overpopulated... "the world needs more children"? Please explain the starvation/disease fetish.

_
3. Obviously, gay parents will raise gay
children, since straight parents only raise
straight children.

Ok, not even strict christians (or the cathoic church) believes this one. No more needs to be said.

_
4. Straight marriage will be less meaningful if
Gay marriage is allowed, since Britney Spears' 55-
hour just-for-fun marriage was meaningful.

Ha ha!

_
5. Heterosexual marriage has been around a long
time and hasn't changed at all; women are
property, blacks can't marry whites, and divorce
is illegal.

:-D

_
6. Gay marriage should be decided by people, not
the courts, because the majority-elected
legislatures, not courts, have historically
protected the rights of the minorities.

No comment on this one. Just remember almost all cases of lynching is done by a democratically ruled mob.

_
7. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In
a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion
are imposed on the entire country. That's why we
have only one religion in America.

Actually true. Goes against the whole separation of church and state *idea*, but true.

_
8. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay,
in the same way that hanging around tall people
will make you tall.

I used to hang around tall kids. I'm still 5ft 8.

_
9. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to
all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish
to marry their pets because a dog has legal
standing and can sign a marriage contract.

Yea right.

Person 1: Bob Barker
Person 2: Spot Barker

_
10. Children can never succeed without a male and
a female role model at home. That's why single
parents are forbidden to raise children.

Yea. In a culture where most kids are raised without both parents. I remember all through ever year the discussion comes up, and we do a class poll "whose parents are divorsed?". All but me, and 1-3 others raise their hands. Same result for "who lives with both parents".

Most these days don't. And that doesn't include those who lost a parent to cancer, drugs, car accident, etc. That's a lot as well. 18 years to raise a child. That's a lot of time for 1 of 2 parents to die of the many hazards in life. I think everyone can name at least 15 people who lost a parent before the the child turned 16.

_
11. Gay marriage will change the foundation of
society. Heterosexual marriage has been around
for a long time, and we could never adapt to new
social norms because we haven't adapted to things
like cars or a longer lifespan.

Yep. They already live together and do everything a married couple would do. All this would do is give them the legal rights married people have.

_
12. Civil unions, providing most of the same
benefits as marriage with a different name are
better, because a "separate but equal"
institution is always constitutional. Separate
schools for African-Americans worked just as well
as separate marriages for gays and lesbians will.

[/B][/QUOTE]
This is actually a big misnomer. Civil Unions aren't recognized across most state lines. And almost always outside the country. So even if a constitutional ammendment was passed revoking anti-discrimination laws, and passing the marriage bill as proposed.... we would still need to pass a federal law requiring states to recognize civil unions, and look at international laws.

Not to mention these rights are what everyone is fighting over. Conservatives don't want them to have the rights, they want to have the rights.

The civil-union method is the least likely to pass just for that reason. It's the one thing both sides agree on. it's bogus.

Thanks for the list

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by zigzag:
Now Bush has made it official: he wants to amend the friggin' Constitution. I have one word for these people: Grow the f*ck up. OK, four words.

Well, we are growing up. This is part of the process. It ain't pretty.

Let's face it, since WWII ended the US has basically been a teenager going through puberty. We're starting to get muscles (the military), our voice is changing (world democratic leader), and earn our own keep (growth of capitalism).

But we still blush when we see a naked breast (Janet Jackson's Nipplegate), still need to learn to communicate with others (foreign relations), and we still rely too heavily on some of our parents backwards way of looking at the world (segregation, 1800's morality).

It's been barely a generation since the Civil Rights Bill has passed. Up till 2000, Alabama still forbid inter-racial marriage, for chrissakes.

If we don't blow ourselves up or give in to extremists we'll have a pretty cool society when we reach adulthood in 200 or so years.

[Nonsuch]

Andrew Sullivan is pissed:

WAR IS DECLARED: The president launched a war today against the civil rights of gay citizens and their families. And just as importantly, he launched a war to defile the most sacred document in the land. Rather than allow the contentious and difficult issue of equal marriage rights to be fought over in the states, rather than let politics and the law take their course, rather than keep the Constitution out of the culture wars, this president wants to drag the very founding document into his re-election campaign. He is proposing to remove civil rights from one group of American citizens - and do so in the Constitution itself. The message could not be plainer: these citizens do not fully belong in America. Their relationships must be stigmatized in the very Constitution itself. The document that should be uniting the country will now be used to divide it, to single out a group of people for discrimination itself, and to do so for narrow electoral purposes. Not since the horrifying legacy of Constitutional racial discrimination in this country has such a goal been even thought of, let alone pursued. Those of us who supported this president in 2000, who have backed him whole-heartedly during the war, who have endured scorn from our peers as a result, who trusted that this president was indeed a uniter rather than a divider, now know the truth.

NO MORE PROFOUND AN ATTACK: This president wants our families denied civil protection and civil acknowledgment. He wants us stigmatized not just by a law, not just by his inability even to call us by name, not by his minions on the religious right. He wants us stigmatized in the very founding document of America. There can be no more profound attack on a minority in the United States - or on the promise of freedom that America represents. That very tactic is so shocking in its prejudice, so clear in its intent, so extreme in its implications that it leaves people of good will little lee-way. This president has now made the Republican party an emblem of exclusion and division and intolerance. Gay people will now regard it as their enemy for generations - and rightly so. I knew this was coming, but the way in which it has been delivered and the actual fact of its occurrence is so deeply depressing it is still hard to absorb. But the result is clear, at least for those who care about the Constitution and care about civil rights. We must oppose this extremism with everything we can muster. We must appeal to the fair-minded center of the country that balks at the hatred and fear that much of the religious right feeds on. We must prevent this graffiti from being written on a document every person in this country should be able to regard as their own. This struggle is hard but it is also easy. The president has made it easy. He's a simple man and he divides the world into friends and foes. He has now made a whole group of Americans - and their families and their friends - his enemy. We have no alternative but to defend ourselves and our families from this attack. And we will.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
He's not being a nutjob. He's being very smart and cynical. The sad fact is this issue polls well even among rank and file Democrats. That's why people like Kerry are waffling instead of standing up for equality.

True, but better IMO to be a waffler who is unlikely to push the issue than to encourage outright hostility, as Bush is. Kerry is presently seeking political cover but he did have the cajones to vote against the DOMA and one can bet that he doesn't really oppose gay marriage.

Maybe I'm misreading public sentiment but I certainly hope that centrists will see this for the reactionary waste of energy that it is, grow tired of it, and vote accordingly, as they did in '92 and '96. I think that the more Republicans bellow about it at their convention, the more it will backfire, but time will tell.

[Troll]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
He's not being a nutjob. He's being very smart and cynical. The sad fact is this issue polls well even among rank and file Democrats. That's why people like Kerry are waffling instead of standing up for equality.

That's even scarier! This is so clearly discrimination against people on the basis of their sexual preferences ... aside from the fact that it's a total waste of time and money to spend resources on amending the constitution!

Would the US recognise a foreign same-sex marriage?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by zigzag:
True, but better IMO to be a waffler who is unlikely to push the issue than to encourage outright hostility, as Bush is. Kerry is presently seeking political cover but he did have the cajones to vote against the DOMA and one can bet that he doesn't really oppose gay marriage.

Maybe I'm misreading public sentiment but I certainly hope that centrists will see this for the reactionary waste of energy that it is, grow tired of it, and vote accordingly, as they did in '92 and '96. I think that the more Republicans bellow about it at their convention, the more it will backfire, but time will tell.

No, I disagree on this particular case. The president (or presidential candidate) has no direct role in the constitutional amendment process. All the president can do is cheerlead. If Bush is going to cheerlead for an amendment, then Kerry needs to step up to the plate and take the opposite position clearly and forthrightly. If he tries to waffle this, he's going to be in effect going along with the amendment.

So far, however, the signs are not good.

I'd agree with your argument with respect to Congress or the state legislatures. There, not actively supporing would be equivilent to opposing the measure. But with the sitting president supporting, the opposition candidate needs to make his position clear.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by Troll:
That's even scarier! This is so clearly discrimination against people on the basis of their sexual preferences ... aside from the fact that it's a total waste of time and money to spend resources on amending the constitution!

Couldn't agree more.

On a second note, I'd personally hope, when the supreme court rules that this is consider discrimination, and prohibited in the united states, that people like Bush stand trial for 2000 counts of violating the consitutional rights of others.

If lawmakers can't be held responsible for stuff like this, why can private citizens be held responsible in courts for telling someone to shut up being a violation of the first ammendment, or other sillyness?

If a cop makes one mistake, they get axed, and their lives ruined, courts for years, civil lawsuits, etc. even if it wasn't intentional. Just an accident. Why are lawmakers exempt? They can violate the constitution without consequence?

IMHO constitutional violations on behalf of the president are a bit more serious than the president getting a hummer in the oval office. Just my personal opinion, I'm sure there are some who think just the opposite.

Would the US recognise a foreign same-sex marriage?

Typically they don't. I've never heard of a case where any state has recognized it. But there may be some. Just none that I'm aware of.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
No, I disagree on this particular case. The president (or presidential candidate) has no direct role in the constitutional amendment process. All the president can do is cheerlead. If Bush is going to cheerlead for an amendment, then Kerry needs to step up to the plate and take the opposite position clearly and forthrightly. If he tries to waffle this, he's going to be in effect going along with the amendment.

So far, however, the signs are not good.

I'd agree with your argument with respect to Congress or the state legislatures. There, not actively supporing would be equivilent to opposing the measure. But with the sitting president supporting, the opposition candidate needs to make his position clear.

I think his position is clear, it's just more complex than Bush's. Kerry has said he opposes a federal constitutional amendment, supports civil unions, and opposes gay marriage. He also said he would support a Mass. amendment that outlawed gay marriage but supported civil unions. Maybe it's too nuanced of a view, and maybe voters like simpler black-and-white kinds of positions. And maybe he's just triangulating for votes. But I think he's clear that he opposes this amendment. I think the wording of this amendment makes it pretty easy for someone like Kerry to oppose it, because it forbids not only courts but also state legislatures from enacting both gay marriage and civil unions.

More generally, I think Kerry's nuanced positions (according to his supporters) or waffling (according to his detractors) will be a big issue in the campaign. I'm honestly not sure - it does seem like he tends to take very, uh... complex positions. Even on the defining moment of his life, he was both a war hero and a war protester. And he seems to have carried that through on all his positions, including the big ones like Iraq. In some ways, I identify with that, because I don't think most people take such clear positions as Bush in the real world. On the other hand, I can see how people would want a leader that is more straightforward and less complex in their positions.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
No, I disagree on this particular case. The president (or presidential candidate) has no direct role in the constitutional amendment process. All the president can do is cheerlead. If Bush is going to cheerlead for an amendment, then Kerry needs to step up to the plate and take the opposite position clearly and forthrightly. If he tries to waffle this, he's going to be in effect going along with the amendment.

So far, however, the signs are not good.

I'd agree with your argument with respect to Congress or the state legislatures. There, not actively supporing would be equivilent to opposing the measure. But with the sitting president supporting, the opposition candidate needs to make his position clear.

Since you're affected by this and I'm not, it's sort of strange to be arguing about it, but you seem to be putting a greater onus on Kerry, who voted against the DOMA (one of only 14), is opposed to the amendment, and is otherwise a waffler, than on Bush, who is already President and is openly and actively hostile to your position. I realize that they wouldn't control an amendment themselves, but surely you recognize Bush's influence. I suspect that your otherwise understandable affinities for Republican politics are skewing your perspective a bit.

That said, I agree that it would be preferable for Kerry to take a stronger stance on the marriage issue in general.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by BRussell:
I think his position is clear, it's just more complex than Bush's. Kerry has said he opposes a federal constitutional amendment, supports civil unions, and opposes gay marriage. He also said he would support a Mass. amendment that outlawed gay marriage but supported civil unions. Maybe it's too nuanced of a view, and maybe voters like simpler black-and-white kinds of positions. And maybe he's just triangulating for votes. But I think he's clear that he opposes this amendment. I think the wording of this amendment makes it pretty easy for someone like Kerry to oppose it, because it outlaws not only court decisions but also state legislatures from both marriage and civil unions.

More generally, I think Kerry's nuanced positions (according to his supporters) or waffling (according to his detractors) will be a big issue in the campaign. I'm honestly not sure - it does seem like he tends to take very complex positions. Even on the defining moment of his life, he was both a war hero and a war protester. And he seems to have carried that through on all his positions, including Iraq. In some ways, I identify with that, because I don't think I or most people take such clear positions as Bush in the real world. On the other hand, I can see how people would want a leader that is more straightforward and less complex in their positions.

Well, lets put it this way. IF he puts some clear distance between himself and Bush, he could earn my vote. But if he continues waffling he wont. I'll hold my nose and vote for Bush -- though I may split my ticket and see if I can help flip the Congress and my state legislature since they are the ones deciding this issue, not the president.

This is going to depend on how the politics plays out. It's hard to get even popular amendments to pass, and my sense is this one will be more controversial than, say, the flagburning or Equal Rights Amendments, both of which failed. I'm hoping that enough people will realize that you don't write transient policy spats into the fvcking constitution.

This doesn't alter the fact that on about 60% of issues (and about 80% of the ones I really care about) I'm closer to being a Republican than a Democrat. It also does't alter the fact that I think the Democrats have lost their will to fight the war on terror (asuming they ever had it). But writing minorities out of the Constitution for the sake of election year politics is dispicable. What is this, the United States government, or the Taliban's?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by zigzag:
Since you're affected by this and I'm not, it's sort of strange to be arguing about it, but you seem to be putting a greater onus on Kerry, who voted against the DOMA (one of only 14), is opposed to the amendment, and is otherwise a waffler, than on Bush, who is already President and is openly and actively hostile to your position. I realize that they wouldn't control an amendment themselves, but surely you recognize Bush's influence. I suspect that your otherwise understandable affinities for Republican politics are skewing your perspective a bit.

You misread me. I'm pissed at Bush. But I expect more from a Democrat on this issue.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
You misread me. I'm pissed at Bush. But I expect more from a Democrat on this issue.

Understood. I recognize and respect the fact that you don't want to be defined by the issue.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by BRussell:
I think his position is clear, it's just more complex than Bush's. Kerry has said he opposes a federal constitutional amendment, supports civil unions, and opposes gay marriage. He also said he would support a Mass. amendment that outlawed gay marriage but supported civil unions. Maybe it's too nuanced of a view, and maybe voters like simpler black-and-white kinds of positions. And maybe he's just triangulating for votes. But I think he's clear that he opposes this amendment. I think the wording of this amendment makes it pretty easy for someone like Kerry to oppose it, because it forbids not only courts but also state legislatures from enacting both gay marriage and civil unions.

More generally, I think Kerry's nuanced positions (according to his supporters) or waffling (according to his detractors) will be a big issue in the campaign. I'm honestly not sure - it does seem like he tends to take very, uh... complex positions. Even on the defining moment of his life, he was both a war hero and a war protester. And he seems to have carried that through on all his positions, including the big ones like Iraq. In some ways, I identify with that, because I don't think most people take such clear positions as Bush in the real world. On the other hand, I can see how people would want a leader that is more straightforward and less complex in their positions.

Kerry's #1 problem is ending up in noman's land.

Ultra Conservatives and Conservatives want Homsexuality banned (to different degrees), or as close to it as possible. Bush wins that audience hands down.

Liberals, homosexuals want equal rights. _______ wins that

Kerry, is off on mars, living digging for evidence of water. Kerry wins __________.?



Kerry's standing gets such a tiny backing on a giant issue, it's almost suicide. He pisses off both sides, and wins pershaps 1 or 2 who would have voted for Al Sharpton.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Well, lets put it this way. IF he puts some clear distance between himself and Bush, he could earn my vote. But if he continues waffling he wont.

What I'm getting at though, is whether Kerry really is waffling. There's a difference between 1) taking a principled but moderate position and 2) flipping back and forth on an issue in an unprincipled way. I think it can be a principled position to oppose gay marriage but oppose this amendment.

What is this, the United States government, or the Taliban's?

Heh, I don't know if you sound more like Noam Chomsky or Michael Moore.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Mithras:
We can talk about polygamy in a separate thread if you wish. But the slippery slope argument is worth exactly zero. Here we're talking about marriage for same-sex couples.

What you call a slippery slope argument is absolutely valid. The problem for you is that you don't have an answer, or you do but it wouldn't support your agenda.

If you want a slippery slope, please read this article. It studies the effects of legalized gay unions in Scandinavia, where they have been legal for some time. In a nutshell, the children suffer as a result of the destruction of the institution of marriage.

The article is very long. I'm condensing it to about 1/3 of it's original size, but I do encourage others to read the entire article.

MARRIAGE IS SLOWLY DYING IN SCANDINAVIA. A majority of children in Sweden and Norway are born out of wedlock. Sixty percent of first-born children in Denmark have unmarried parents. Not coincidentally, these countries have had something close to full gay marriage for a decade or more. Same-sex marriage has locked in and reinforced an existing Scandinavian trend toward the separation of marriage and parenthood. The Nordic family pattern--including gay marriage--is spreading across Europe. And by looking closely at it we can answer the key empirical question underlying the gay marriage debate. Will same-sex marriage undermine the institution of marriage? It already has.

More precisely, it has further undermined the institution. The separation of marriage from parenthood was increasing; gay marriage has widened the separation. Out-of-wedlock birthrates were rising; gay marriage has added to the factors pushing those rates higher. Instead of encouraging a society-wide return to marriage, Scandinavian gay marriage has driven home the message that marriage itself is outdated, and that virtually any family form, including out-of-wedlock parenthood, is acceptable.<snip>

Because so many Scandinavians now rear children outside of marriage, divorce rates are unreliable measures of family weakness. Instead, we need to know the rate at which parents (married or not) split up. Precise statistics on family dissolution are unfortunately rare. Yet the studies that have been done show that throughout Scandinavia (and the West) cohabiting couples with children break up at two to three times the rate of married parents. So rising rates of cohabitation and out-of-wedlock birth stand as proxy for rising rates of family dissolution.

By that measure, Scandinavian family dissolution has only been worsening. Between 1990 and 2000, Norway's out-of-wedlock birthrate rose from 39 to 50 percent, while Sweden's rose from 47 to 55 percent. In Denmark out-of-wedlock births stayed level during the nineties (beginning at 46 percent and ending at 45 percent). But the leveling off seems to be a function of a slight increase in fertility among older couples, who marry only after multiple births (if they don't break up first). That shift masks the 25 percent increase during the nineties in cohabitation and unmarried parenthood among Danish couples (many of them young). About 60 percent of first born children in Denmark now have unmarried parents. The rise of fragile families based on cohabitation and out-of-wedlock childbearing means that during the nineties, the total rate of family dissolution in Scandinavia significantly increased.

More than a decade into post-gay marriage Scandinavia, out-of-wedlock birthrates have passed 50 percent, and the effective end of marriage as a protective shield for children has become thinkable. Gay marriage hasn't blocked the separation of marriage and parenthood; it has advanced it.<snip>

In liberal Denmark, where out-of-wedlock birthrates were already very high, the public favored same-sex marriage. But in Norway, where the out-of-wedlock birthrate was lower--and religion traditionally stronger--gay marriage was imposed, against the public will, by the political elite.

Norway's gay marriage debate, which ran most intensely from 1991 through 1993, was a culture-shifting event. And once enacted, gay marriage had a decidedly unconservative impact on Norway's cultural contests, weakening marriage's defenders, and placing a weapon in the hands of those who sought to replace marriage with cohabitation. Since its adoption, gay marriage has brought division and decline to Norway's Lutheran Church. Meanwhile, Norway's fast-rising out-of-wedlock birthrate has shot past Denmark's. Particularly in Norway--once relatively conservative--gay marriage has undermined marriage's institutional standing for everyone. <snip>

Despite the reluctance of Scandinavian social scientists to study the consequences of family dissolution for children, we do have an excellent study that followed the life experiences of all children born in Stockholm in 1953. (Not coincidentally, the research was conducted by a British scholar, Duncan W.G. Timms.) That study found that regardless of income or social status, parental breakup had negative effects on children's mental health. Boys living with single, separated, or divorced mothers had particularly high rates of impairment in adolescence. An important 2003 study by Gunilla Ringb�ck Weitoft, et al. found that children of single parents in Sweden have more than double the rates of mortality, severe morbidity, and injury of children in two parent households. This held true after controlling for a wide range of demographic and socioeconomic circumstances.

Gay marriage is both an effect and a reinforcing cause of the separation of marriage and parenthood. In states like Sweden and Denmark, where out-of-wedlock birthrates were already very high, and the public favored gay marriage, gay unions were an effect of earlier changes. Once in place, gay marriage symbolically ratified the separation of marriage and parenthood. And once established, gay marriage became one of several factors contributing to further increases in cohabitation and out-of-wedlock birthrates, as well as to early divorce. But in Norway, where out-of-wedlock birthrates were lower, religion stronger, and the public opposed same-sex unions, gay marriage had an even greater role in precipitating marital decline.<snip>

Nonetheless, although cohabiting parenthood is growing in America, levels here are still far short of those in Europe. America's situation is not unlike Norway's in the early nineties, with religiosity relatively strong, the out-of-wedlock birthrate still relatively low (yet rising), and the public opposed to gay marriage. If, as in Norway, gay marriage were imposed here by a socially liberal cultural elite, it would likely speed us on the way toward the classic Nordic pattern of less frequent marriage, more frequent out-of-wedlock birth, and skyrocketing family dissolution.

In the American context, this would be a disaster. Beyond raising rates of middle class family dissolution, a further separation of marriage from parenthood would reverse the healthy turn away from single-parenting that we have begun to see since welfare reform. And cross-class family decline would bring intense pressure for a new expansion of the American welfare state.<snip>

What about Vermont-style civil unions? Would that be a workable compromise? Clearly not. Scandinavian registered partnerships are Vermont-style civil unions. They are not called marriage, yet resemble marriage in almost every other respect. The key differences are that registered partnerships do not permit adoption or artificial insemination, and cannot be celebrated in state-affiliated churches. These limitations are gradually being repealed. The lesson of the Scandinavian experience is that even de facto same-sex marriage undermines marriage.

The Scandinavian example also proves that gay marriage is not interracial marriage in a new guise. The miscegenation analogy was never convincing. There are plenty of reasons to think that, in contrast to race, sexual orientation will have profound effects on marriage. But with Scandinavia, we are well beyond the realm of even educated speculation. The post-gay marriage changes in the Scandinavian family are significant. This is not like the fantasy about interracial birth defects. There is a serious scholarly debate about the spread of the Nordic family pattern. Since gay marriage is a part of that pattern, it needs to be part of that debate.

Conservative advocates of gay marriage want to test it in a few states. The implication is that, should the experiment go bad, we can call it off. Yet the effects, even in a few American states, will be neither containable nor revocable. It took about 15 years after the change hit Sweden and Denmark for Norway's out-of-wedlock birthrate to begin to move from "European" to "Nordic" levels. It took another 15 years (and the advent of gay marriage) for Norway's out-of-wedlock birthrate to shoot past even Denmark's. By the time we see the effects of gay marriage in America, it will be too late to do anything about it. Yet we needn't wait that long. In effect, Scandinavia has run our experiment for us. The results are in.

[TheMosco]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
What you call a slippery slope argument is absolutely valid. The problem for you is that you don't have an answer, or you do but it wouldn't support your agenda.

If you want a slippery slope, please read this article. It studies the effects of legalized gay unions in Scandinavia, where they have been legal for some time. In a nutshell, the children suffer as a result of the destruction of the institution of marriage.

The article is very long. I'm condensing it to about 1/3 of it's original size, but I do encourage others to read the entire article.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4340088/

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4340270/

Read those.

Scholars say the evolution of marriage is nothing new; it's an institution in constant flux, always responding to the particular needs of each era. "Throughout much of history, if you acted like you were married, then you were treated like you were married," says Stephanie Coontz of Evergreen State University, a historian of marriage. Religion, a major part of the current defense of traditional marriage in this country, didn't even enter the picture, Coontz says, until the ninth century, and then only to prevent European aristocrats from marrying close relatives. The goal was not to stop incest but to make sure noble families didn't consolidate too much power. (Commoners could still hook up with anyone they fancied.)
While critics contend that same-sex weddings will destroy the "sanctity" of traditional unions, researchers say that it's actually heterosexual couples like Settle and Berthiaume who are redefining marriage�not only in this country but throughout the Western world. Over the past few decades, they've made walking down the aisle just another lifestyle choice. The old model�marriage and then kids�has given way to a dizzying array of family arrangements that reflect more lenient attitudes about cohabitation, divorce and children born out of wedlock. In fact, says University of Chicago sociologist Linda Waite, author of "The Case for Marriage," gay couples are "really swimming against the tide. What they want is something that maybe heterosexual couples take for granted: the social, religious and legal recognition of a union�to be able to say to the clerk at the grocery store, 'My husband is right behind me. He has the money'."

This increasingly diverse family album could be a reason why gay marriage has struck a nerve. The institution of marriage is so battered that many consider gay unions the last straw, says Princeton historian Hendrik Hartog, author of "Man and Wife in America." "They see gay marriage as a boundary case"; in other words, a line too far. But if the past is a guide, that line is going to keep moving no matter who objects.

Establishing a family used to involve four steps: a marital ceremony, moving in together, beginning a sex life and finally having children. Today couples pick and choose not only the steps but also which will come first. Thirty years ago, says Kiernan, only five of 19 European countries reported 10 percent or more of children born out of wedlock. Today only Greece remains below that threshold, and the European average has jumped to 30 percent.