Homo Marriage in Massachusetts ?!

[db682]

Gays score civil rights victories in Virginia
House last week reaffirmed ban on same-sex marriage

RICHMOND, Virginia (AP) --Proponents of civil rights for gays scored victories in Virginia's conservative-leaning House of Delegates on measures involving access to health insurance and home loans.

The House, which last week passed a bill reaffirming the state's ban on gay marriage, narrowly passed legislation Monday that would allow employers to offer group insurance benefits to gay partners who live together. It rejected a measure seeking to make state mortgage loans available only to married heterosexuals or blood relatives.

The health insurance bill, sponsored by Republican Delegate James Dillard, passed 50-49 with the support of numerous Republicans, and now advances to the state Senate, which Republicans control 24-16.

Republican Delegate Richard Black's bill to exclude same-sex and unmarried couples from Virginia Housing Development Authority loans failed to advance on a vote of 54-44.

"Virginia families will find it ironic that the same body of legislators voted in favor of a ban on civil unions but continues to give away those rights and privileges that go along with a traditional marriage," said Victoria Cobb, spokeswoman for the Family Foundation, a conservative group.

But Dyana Mason, executive director of gay rights group Equality Virginia, praised the House for recognizing how the housing bill could affect low-income families and other groups.

The state used to require Virginia Housing Development Authority borrowers to be married or related by blood, but the authority repealed the measure last year. Black had blamed lobbying by gay activists for the demise of the "family rule," which he said encouraged stable family relationships and reduced the risks of lending.

But fellow Republican Delegate Terrie Suit said the measure would hurt those in greatest need of housing assistance. She cited a poor mother who wanted to buy a home with the mother of her imprisoned boyfriend.

"That might constitute an irregular relationship to a couple of people on the floor of this House, but I thought that that was admirable," she said. "They did not get to buy their home. And it broke my heart."

The other bill would allow companies with group insurance policies to offer benefits to gay partners, unmarried heterosexual partners, siblings, parents and any other individuals living in with the insured person.

Virginia law currently restricts group policy coverage to spouses and dependent children.

Democratic Gov. Mark R. Warner supports allowing nontraditional couples to access state mortgage loans and giving employers the right to offer benefits to domestic partners, spokeswoman Ellen Qualls said.

"The governor views it as an economic development issue," she said. "There are companies that have indicated a desire for the measure so that they can attract and retain the good workers."

Copyright 2004 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.



Find this article at:
Invalid Link Removed

 

[Cogar]

Nearly 2,500 gay couples have been married in San Francisco since Thursday -- 825 in a chilling rain on Monday -- and Newsom said the marriages would continue until a court stops them.

One legal expert said that, because so many of those tying the knot are from outside California, the case could wind up in federal court. Couples have been traveling to the city to marry because San Francisco does not require proof of residency to wed.

This has been the "preferred method" for a pressure group to get what it wants for some time now. They do not like the California law that recognizes only marriages between a man and woman. Therefore, someone breaks the law deliberately and challenges the law in court. It seems as though the judicial system in this country has become the new way of legislating law . . . and judges are not elected.

 

[PC1]

The people of CA passed that marriage is between a man in a woman in thier state, so I guess it doesn't mean anything. My guess is they are planning to take it to court. Hmmmm I wonder how the most left wing and over turned court in the land is going to vote on this issue.

I would like to know, where is my personal hero and tough guy, Arnold Schwarzenegger in all of this?!

 

[VanillaGorilla]

That's a good question PC1. So far he hasn't done or said anything that I am aware of.He should order them to stop.

 

[labrad]

read some of the comments we have talked about. That should give you some idea why people are so upset.

OK here goes the arguments and my rebuttal:

1. Comparing gays to child molesters: most child molesters are straight according to data(didn't y'all see the "A very special Diff'rent Strokes").

2. Sin(being gay) according to religion(marriage is a religious rite): Separation of church and state. Further, no one gets upset if an agnostic marries an atheist.

3. Sanctity of marriage: Biggs covered this well enough.

4. Homosexuality is abnormal and should not be condoned: If this is the case then I am abnormal b/c my porno collection involves scenes of girl on girl. I guess I am a freak. Take it one step further, I know y'all want to get down w/ 2 girls at the same time. I can't be the only one. Correct me if I am wrong.

5. Homosexuality is wrong b/c it is not reproductive sex?: C'mon, ever heard of birth control or a guy having oral/anal w/ a girl?

My brother and his wife have been married for 10 years. They don't have kids nor plan to have any. Should their marriage be annulled?

6. Judges don't make law(technically true): Judges make law everyday by interpreting the law(it's called precedence). Further, the supreme court can overturn laws by ruling them unconstitutional. Checks and balances.

7. Two guys kissing is disgusting: I actually thought this was one of the more persuasive arguments(I can't stand to see to guys kissing). However, I remember a time when a buddy of mine was making out w/ a fat chick, I was so disgusted I had to leave the bar. So...

I am not gay, have no gay friends, nor is a member of my family gay. Once again, gay marriages do not upset me.

 

[BingeAndPurge]

I am in love with my sister and she loves me. We are adults and have a healthy relationship. No worry about incestial reproduction for we plan to adopt. I think we too should be allowed to marry.

 

[Cogar]

I would like to know, where is my personal hero and tough guy, Arnold Schwarzenegger in all of this?!

He addressed it yesterday. From the article

Invalid Link Removed

Gov: SF wrong on gay marriage

Schwarzenegger has just called on San Francisco to obey the law. Here is his statement:

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

 

[labrad]

I am in love with my sister and she loves me. We are adults and have a healthy relationship. No worry about incestial reproduction for we plan to adopt. I think we too should be allowed to marry.

You don't have to be married to adopt kids.

 

[size]

Labrad...

I do not think you really addressed any of the legitimate agruments. Nor do I feel you added any validity to the argument for gay marriage.
Some of the issues you briefly addressed, I hope were just peoples comments made in haste.

But hey, just my opinion and everybody has one.

 

[houseman]

Hey all...

As you can somewhat guess I have bowed out of the debate.

I still read the comments but this is a topic that I find hard to fight for when I don't completely agree with what I am saying 100% myself.

The only thing I offer as my last comment is that while I don't agree with the entire thing (gays, marriage, etc) I do agree what's good for the goose is good for the gander - fair and decent for ALL, not select individuals or groups.

The idea of a gay marriage has no baring on my life - not now... not ever.

Enjoy!

A

 

[labrad]

My current health care plan has a clause for "domestic partners".

Here in Houston, Texas judges are elected. Personally, I am not a fan of this.

 

[labrad]

Labrad...

I do not think you really addressed any of the legitimate agruments. Nor do I feel you added any validity to the argument for gay marriage.
Some of the issues you briefly addressed, I hope were just peoples comments made in haste.

But hey, just my opinion and everybody has one.

I honestly tried to address the legitimate arguments. I did keep my arguments brief, b/c I feel that most people (me included) don't read long posts. Please tell me what the legitimate arguments are, and I will address them.

 

[VanillaGorilla]

1. Comparing gays to child molesters: most child molesters are straight according to data(didn't y'all see the "A very special Diff'rent Strokes").

Where are you getting the data from. The majority of cases I have seen on the news have been man molesting boys and how do you explain nambla?

2. Sin(being gay) according to religion(marriage is a religious rite): Separation of church and state. Further, no one gets upset if an agnostic marries an atheist.

Again you are comparing apples and oranges. You can not compare two different faiths marriage to two men. It's not even in the same ball park.

4. Homosexuality is abnormal and should not be condoned: If this is the case then I am abnormal b/c my porno collection involves scenes of girl on girl. I guess I am a freak. Take it one step further, I know y'all want to get down w/ 2 girls at the same time. I can't be the only one. Correct me if I am wrong.

Again it's not about you it's about the two girls in the video. How many porn stars do you think had normal childhoods? Have you heard about some of the things they went threw? A good chunk of them have been molested.

5. Homosexuality is wrong b/c it is not reproductive sex?: C'mon, ever heard of birth control or a guy having oral/anal w/ a girl?
My brother and his wife have been married for 10 years. They don't have kids nor plan to have any. Should their marriage be annulled

I didn't say it was wrong, in fact I purposely took right and wrong out of the debate. What I said was it's not normal. If they don't have or want kids that's fine but they point is they could have them if they wanted them.

6. Judges don't make law(technically true): Judges make law everyday by interpreting the law(it's called precedence). Further, the supreme court can overturn laws by ruling them unconstitutional. Checks and balances.

That is true but their is a fine line between that function and judicial activism. Judges are not supposed to dictate to the legislature.

 

[VanillaGorilla]

I do agree what's good for the goose is good for the gander - fair and decent for ALL

It's not normal and if it's not normal why should they be allowed to marry. Why is marriage a right? It goes back to the point I made before house that you didn't address. You argument is that they are being discriminated against simply because they are not allowed to marry. If that's true bigamist, polygamist, incestual relationships, and bestialities are all being discriminated against.When you do that you are giving the cultural stamp of approval to a disorder.

 

[VanillaGorilla]

My current health care plan has a clause for "domestic partners".

Here in Houston, Texas judges are elected. Personally, I am not a fan of this.

This brings up another point. If all the gay activist want is to be treated equal, why aren't they complaining about this? The health plan gives them special rights. I can't get on my g/f insurence and we have been together for over 5 years.

 

[labrad]

Where are you getting the data from. The majority of cases I have seen on the news have been man molesting boys and how do you explain nambla?

True, it's mostly men molesting either boys or girls. My point was in their private life they were hetero(this is debatable, maybe Diff'rent Strokes was wrong). Either way I believe it is completely wrong for one to assume that a gay person is a child molester.

Again you are comparing apples and oranges. You can not compare two different faiths marriage to two men. It's not even in the same ball park.

Agnosticism/atheism are not faiths. They basically do not believe in a God. My point was everybody assumes that marriage is necessarily religious.

Again it's not about you it's about the two girls in the video. How many porn stars do you think had normal childhoods?
RELEVANCE?

Have you heard about some of the things they went threw? A good chunk of them have been molested.

Again, you must be assuming that gays are molesting kids
.

5. Homosexuality is wrong b/c it is not reproductive sex?: C'mon, ever heard of birth control or a guy having oral/anal w/ a girl?
My brother and his wife have been married for 10 years. They don't have kids nor plan to have any. Should their marriage be annulled6. Judges don't make law(technically true): Judges make law everyday by interpreting the law(it's called precedence). Further, the supreme court can overturn laws by ruling them unconstitutional. Checks and balances.

That is true but their is a fine line between that function and judicial activism. Judges are not supposed to dictate to the legislature.

IF YOU SAY SO ???

It is simply declaring a law unconstitutional. Once again, checks and balances.

 

[custom]

Hey all...

As you can somewhat guess I have bowed out of the debate.

I still read the comments but this is a topic that I find hard to fight for when I don't completely agree with what I am saying 100% myself.

The only thing I offer as my last comment is that while I don't agree with the entire thing (gays, marriage, etc) I do agree what's good for the goose is good for the gander - fair and decent for ALL, not select individuals or groups.

The idea of a gay marriage has no baring on my life - not now... not ever.

Enjoy!

A

No? You pay taxes don't you? You are contributing to health care, the country's tax base will get smaller from tax credits, It effects everyone.

You never know what is going to effect you and what is not in life.

 

[houseman]

No? You pay taxes don't you? You are contributing to health care, the country's tax base will get smaller from tax credits, It effects everyone.

You never know what is going to effect you and what is not in life.

That's a crock and only a someone with a strong dislike of gayt's actually believes that.

You people can sugar coat it all you want and say you have no problem with gays, etc but it's the same old story... you have no problem with something as long as it's not in your backyard. THEN you have a problem.

I say we do away with marriage altogether if that's your argument - heath care, tax bases - because hetero marriages cost FAR MORE than the potential gay marriages could.


To VanillaGorilla... bigamist, polygamist, incestual relationships, and bestialities... those are ILLEGAL. Being gay is NOT illegal. See the difference? I bet you don't, because you don't want to open your mind to actually SEE the differences.

Peace

A

 

[PC1]

LABrad, Houseman, et al.........

Not that I've bowed out of the debate, but I have just started a new job which is absorbing a lot of my time.

LABrad, I know you indicate you don't like reading long posts, but I and several others have pretty well addressed your rebuttal points there. For many, this is a clear cut decision based on deeply held convictions of morality. Yet others view it instead as a matter of application of civil rights.

Bottom line is that according to recent polling data, most Americans don't want to see gay marriage. And since this is such an emotional, polarized issue, it should be decided by we, the citizens, NOT the judiciary, not even our elected officials as far as I'm concerned.

If the reverse was true, that 6-7 out of 10 people were in favor of gay marriage, well that would be a different story. It would be difficult to argue in favor of the minority opinion.

 

[houseman]

LABrad, Houseman, et al.........

Not that I've bowed out of the debate, but I have just started a new job which is absorbing a lot of my time.

LABrad, I know you indicate you don't like reading long posts, but I and several others have pretty well addressed your rebuttal points there. For many, this is a clear cut decision based on deeply held convictions of morality. Yet others view it instead as a matter of application of civil rights.

Bottom line is that according to recent polling data, most Americans don't want to see gay marriage. And since this is such an emotional, polarized issue, it should be decided by we, the citizens, NOT the judiciary, not even our elected officials as far as I'm concerned.

If the reverse was true, that 6-7 out of 10 people were in favor of gay marriage, well that would be a different story. It would be difficult to argue in favor of the minority opinion.

PC1... dude, you have made extremely valid and well thoughout points in all posts regarding this topic. I don't disagree with what you just said. HOWEVER...

I will leave you this to ponder (and yes it goes back to apples and oranges - races and gender rights)...

If you had of asked Americans in 1900 if they believe women should have equal rights as men - what do you think the polling numbers would end yp being?

If you had of asked Americans when slavery was abolished if they beleived blacks deserved to be treats with the same rights and freedoms of white males - what do you think the polling numbers would be?

The RIGHT decision isn't always the popular one! History has shown that great people have done the RIGHT things even when it was shown not to be the popular one. Some were even killed for having done so.

Some can say my blacks and women argument doesn't hold up but if you take an HONEST, hard look at it... it does. It truly does.

A

P.S. PC1...work has been very busy which is also another reason why I con't keep up witht he discussion. I know where you are coming from. It's hard

 

[db682]

Schwarzenegger: Gay marriage licenses illegal

(CNN) --California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger announced that the marriage licenses San Francisco is issuing to same-sex couples are illegal, after the city sued the state over a law banning such marriages.

"The marriage certificates submitted to the Department of Health Services by the city and county of San Francisco fail to meet legal standards," Schwarzenegger said in a statement on his Web site.

San Francisco on Thursday filed a lawsuit against the state of California, challenging the state law that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman only, the city attorney's office said.

The suit came a week after newly elected Mayor Gavin Newsom ordered the county clerk to begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Nearly 3,000 couples have taken advantage of it, despite the filing of two lawsuits to stop the practice.

San Francisco's city attorney Dennis Herrera said his city and county are "going on the offense" with the lawsuit. "Mayor Newsom took a bold step last week, and we fully agree with him that his position is justified,"

Herrera said the city's case will assert that the state law banning same-sex marriage goes against California's constitution because it violates the equal protection and due process clauses.

Schwarzenegger's statement said California citizens generated, and passed, Proposition 22 -- the marriage law -- and it will be defended.

"The attorney general has assured me that he will vigorously defend the constitutionality of the law in the case brought against the state by San Francisco," the governor's statement said.

Herrera said he hopes to consolidate the cases against same-sex marriage pending against the city with the city's lawsuit against the state. A hearing on that matter is scheduled for Friday at 11 a.m. PT (2 p.m. ET).

"I would anticipate that this case is going to have a long life," Herrera replied when asked about the national ramifications of the city's move.
Separate suits

One of the suits against the city was to resume in San Francisco County Superior Court at 2 p.m. PT (5 p.m. ET) Friday. Judge Ronald Quidachay had continued the case from Tuesday.

That lawsuit was filed by the Campaign for California Families and the Alliance Defense Fund, which contend the city's issuing of same-sex marriage licenses violates current state law. They asked the judge to stop the practice immediately.

A separate suit, filed by the Proposition 22 Legal Defense and Education Fund, was continued until March 29 to allow city attorneys time to prepare to show cause as to why Newsom's action is allowable.

Across the street from the Superior Court is City Hall, where lines of people snaked out the front door and down the steps as gays and lesbians from inside and outside the state hurried to get their relationships validated in the eyes of the law.

Newsom has said that marriage between same-sex couples is "inevitable" and that anything less is "fundamentally wrong."

Almost two-thirds of Americans do not think same-sex marriages should be recognized as legally valid, according to a new CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll.

But the 1,006 people polled on Monday and Tuesday were almost split over whether individual states or the federal government should determine laws regarding marriages between gays or lesbians.

President Bush Wednesday repeated his belief that marriage should be restricted to heterosexual couples, adding that he was "troubled" by what was happening in San Francisco.(Full story)

Supporters of same-sex marriage say denying gay and lesbian couples marriage licenses denies them basic rights.

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

Critics of same-sex unions say those rights can be afforded through other means, and homosexual couples don't need a marriage certificate to validate them.

Genevieve Wood, vice president of the Communications Family Research Council, said that redefining marriage might be a slippery slope.

"There are people out there ... who want to engage in polygamy, they think that's a good family structure. There are others who think that group marriages are a family structure," Wood added.

CNN correspondent David Mattingly contributed to this report


Pretty colors like the rainbow bumper stickers.

db

 

[Godlike]

What Does “Separation of Church and State” Mean?

The current understanding of “separation of church and state”--the view that the state is thoroughly secular and not influenced by religious values, especially Christian--was completely foreign to the first 150 years of American political thought. Clearly the Fathers did not try to excise every vestige of Christian religion, Christian thought, and Christian values from all facets of public life. They were friendly to Christianity and encouraged its public practice and expression.

It wasn’t until 1947 that the United States Supreme Court first used the concept of “separation” to isolate government from religion.[ii] In Everson v. Board of Education, the court lifted a phrase from a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote to a Baptist church in Danbury, Connecticut. The Court ruled, “Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another....In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect ‘a wall of separation between church and state.’

 

[Godlike]

The Infamous Danbury Letter

In the Everson v. Board of Education decision, the Supreme Court quoted Jefferson’s separation language as a normative guideline for understanding the First Amendment. As David Barton points out, “There’s probably no other instance in America’s history where words spoken by an individual have become the law of the land. Jefferson’s remark now carries more weight in judicial circles than does the writing of any other Founder.”[iv]

Thomas Jefferson wasn’t a member of the Constitutional Convention, and the phrase “separation of church and state” does not appear anywhere in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. Where did it come from?

On January 1, 1802, Jefferson wrote a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association of Danbury, Connecticut, in which he used the phrase “a wall of separation between church and state.” His note was meant to quell the fears of the Danbury congregation who were concerned that a national denomination would be established. Here is the text in question:

I contemplate with solemn reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between church and state.[v]
What did Jefferson have in mind here? Is there an impregnable barrier erected by the founders[vi] that excludes religious-minded people from the political process, an ideological enmity between church and state?

 

[Godlike]

Separation: Original Intent or Recent Invention?

A Fatal Flaw

The constant appeal to Jefferson’s Danbury letter by hard core separationists reveals a fatal flaw in their approach. Quoting Jefferson’s opinion only matters if Jefferson’s original intent still applies today. If it doesn’t, then the Danbury citation is irrelevant. If it does, then Jefferson’s full views on the issue have merit in this discussion.

It’s clear, though, that the Everson Court used Jefferson’s words, not his ideas. The separation language itself was not in common use at the time. It does not show up in any notes of the Constitutional Convention or of the Congress responsible for the Bill of Rights or the First Amendment.

What was Jefferson’s intent? To show that the Federal government couldn’t establish a national denomination. That’s all. In another letter, this one to Samuel Miller in 1808, Jefferson expanded on his view:

Certainly, no power to prescribe any religious exercise, or to assume authority in religious discipline, has been delegated to the General Government. It must then rest with the States, as far is it can be in any human authority.[viii]
This is a stunning revelation for advocates of a Jeffersonian model of separation. According to Jefferson, the Federal Government couldn’t prescribe religious exercise or discipline, but the states could. It wasn’t until 1947 that the Everson Court made the federal provision binding on the states, expressly contrary to Jefferson, though they quoted him for support.
For nearly two centuries state and federal governments have had such a benevolent attitude towards religion in general and Christianity in particular--including the almost universal practice of school prayer--that it would make a 1990s fundamentalist blush.

The Northwest Ordinance of 1787, passed by the very same Congress which enacted the First Amendment, stated the following in Article III: “Religion, morality, and knowledge being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.” Notice that religion and morality were equal with knowledge as proper subjects of public education.

All but three states invoke the name of the almighty God in the preambles to their constitutions. Note these examples:

We the people of the State of California, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure and perpetuate its blessings, do establish this Constitution.
We the people of Alabama...invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish...

The people of Connecticut, acknowledging with gratitude the good providence of God, in having permitted them to enjoy a free government...

If Jefferson’s view of non-establishment mattered today, then dozens of court decisions restricting religious freedom would be annulled. The present notion of separation is not conservative, seeking to return to earlier principles, but activist, seeking to redefine--and liberalize--the past.

 

[Godlike]

[

To VanillaGorilla... bigamist, polygamist, incestual relationships, and bestialities... those are ILLEGAL. Being gay is NOT illegal. See the difference? I bet you don't, because you don't want to open your mind to actually SEE the differences.

Peace

A[/QUOTE]


The Legality or illegality of a thing does not make it right or wrong.
If incest is made legal in this country it would not make it OK.
And every argument that gays use now can also be used by Donnie
and Marie Osmond. You can try to separate morality from it's religous
roots when it comes to certain sexual behavior because sex feels good.
But what if I like to procreate with whoever I please is it wrong because
of the laws against rape or because rape is transcendently wrong.

 

[VanillaGorilla]

True, it's mostly men molesting either boys or girls. My point was in their private life they were hetero(this is debatable, maybe Diff'rent Strokes was wrong). Either way I believe it is completely wrong for one to assume that a gay person is a child molester.

I think you missed the point. I never said or assumed that all gay persons are a pedophiles. What I said was if the gay activist say that they were born attracted to the same sex, then you can say a person was born attracted to children. We know that's not true. Most pedophile were abused them selves. If that's true it's not a huge leap to make that something that happened in a homosexuals childhood cause them to be that way.Some pedophiles are hetro some are not. Some are married and molest boys and some aren't.

Agnosticism/atheism are not faiths. They basically do not believe in a God. My point was everybody assumes that marriage is necessarily religious.

You didn't write that. You were comparing two people with two different beliefs to homosexual marriage.

Again it's not about you it's about the two girls in the video. How many porn stars do you think had normal childhoods?
RELEVANCE?

Have you heard about some of the things they went threw? A good chunk of them have been molested.

Again, you must be assuming that gays are molesting kids

You are missing the point again. The point was the two girls in your video are lesbians. Do you think that the girls in the video had a normal childhood or a dysfunctional one? Many porn stars admitted to having been molested at a young age.Here is the relevance........if that is the case homosexuality is a mental disorder.

It is simply declaring a law unconstitutional. Once again, checks and balances.

There is a difference between saying a law is unconstitutional and telling the legislature how to write a law or flat out ignoring an existing law like they are doing in CA.

 

[VanillaGorilla]

To VanillaGorilla... bigamist, polygamist, incestual relationships, and bestialities... those are ILLEGAL. Being gay is NOT illegal. See the difference? I bet you don't, because you don't want to open your mind to actually SEE the differences.

You are taking what I said out of contexted. What I said was if gays are being discriminated against simply because they can't get married than polygamist ect. are being discrimanted against too.

 

[VanillaGorilla]

To VanillaGorilla... bigamist, polygamist, incestual relationships, and bestialities... those are ILLEGAL. Being gay is NOT illegal. See the difference? I bet you don't, because you don't want to open your mind to actually SEE the differences.The

I addressed this earlier but I will repeated what I said again in a earlier post. The Massachusetts supreme court decision that said that alternate marriages are mostly between homosexual couples. Mostly between homosexual couples? What else is there?This is leaving the door open for other marriages which is why I used the analogy of polygamy ect. My augment is that homosexuality can't be normal because if the whole planet turned gay we will become extinct. It can be also stated that homosexuality isn't a healthy life style. If you looked at the life expectancy of a gay male I believe it's about 35 years old. They are also about 2 to 3 % of the population and account for 20 to 30% or more of STDs.

 

[VanillaGorilla]

Houseman you keep ignoring the points that people have made and reverting back to the civil rights defense. Which brings me back to the points I keep making that you keep dodging. Your entire argument is that gays are being discriminated against simply because they can't get married. If that your argument, then anyone person who wants to get married and can't is being discriminated against. This would include polygamy ect.
I will also state again why you can not compare homosexuality with the civil rights movement.
1. You can not tell by looking at someone if they are gay.
2. Gays are not told that they can't ride on public transportation or told the only restaurants they can eat at are gay only.
3. They are not denied any basic rights most of us have. In fact they have "special rights" in some cases. They have the domestic partnership clause for health insurance. If they get fired they can sue the company for discrimination regardless if that's the reason they were fired or not.
I will state again, if you accept the point that homosexuality is a type of dysfunction be it a genetic or mental one and they have most of the rights everybody does. Why should they be allowed to get married simply because they want to? When did marriage become a right? If you believe that marriage is a right then everyone who wants to get married and can't is being discriminated against. Bubba and his sister Bobby Joe love each other they want to get married. If a brother and sister has a child the child will have genetic problems. So we can say that a brother and sister in a sexual relationship and having children is not normal. Gays can't have kids at all. Being gay is not normal. Just because they are a highly organized political movement can not change the fact that it is a dysfunction. Why act as if a group of people that have a dysfunction are normal when they aren't.
One more thing.............

I bet you don't, because you don't want to open your mind to actually SEE the differences.

Please don't revert to the tactics of the left to label me an intolerant, homophobic, hetrocentric, ignorant bigot who is speaking hate speech. I was commenting your definition of discrimination which you still have not addressed.

 

[VanillaGorilla]

Some can say my blacks and women argument doesn't hold up but if you take an HONEST, hard look at it... it does. It truly does.

It really doesn't at all. I will ask you the same question I asked before that you didn't answer. Besides not being able to marry how are gays being discriminated against?

If you had of asked Americans in 1900 if they believe women should have equal rights as men - what do you think the polling numbers would end yp being?

Women weren't aloud to vote or drive a car. Can gay people vote and drive a car? Yes

If you had of asked Americans when slavery was abolished if they believed blacks deserved to be treats with the same rights and freedoms of white males

Are gay people owned and treated like property? No . Are they murdered when they run away from their owners? No
Are they considered separate by equal not being allowed to go in to straight only grocery stores? No
It simply doesn't hold up at all and shows some major logical flaws.

The idea of a gay marriage has no baring on my life - not now... not ever.

Your going to feel allot different about this if you children come home from school asking you if it's ok to experiment with homosexuality. Don't tell me that this isn't happening because I could post about 20 articles showing that this is happening now.

 

[PC1]

.......
If you had of asked Americans in 1900 if they believe women should have equal rights as men - what do you think the polling numbers would end yp being?

If you had of asked Americans when slavery was abolished if they beleived blacks deserved to be treats with the same rights and freedoms of white males - what do you think the polling numbers would be?

The RIGHT decision isn't always the popular one!.......

In the end, our government is supposed to be a government of the money, by the mone ..... wait, strike that.

A government of the PEOPLE, by the PEOPLE and for the PEOPLE.

And while we seek analogies and comparables for discussion purposes, I don't think either women's suffrage nor slavery are very good comparisons here. People's main objection to homo marriage are still based on morality, the other 2 were not.

It's true what you say about polls and changing winds about many things. However, I highly doubt that at any point in our nation's history popular opinion would be in support of homo marriage. Maybe in 100 years that will change the way things are headed now.

 

[PC1]

Go Vanilla Gorilla....... racking up the posts in this thread bro!

 

[PC1]

What Does “Separation of Church and State” Mean?

The current understanding of “separation of church and state”--the view that the state is thoroughly secular and not influenced by religious values, especially Christian--was completely foreign to the first 150 years of American political thought.........

You obviously are a fanatical religious crackpot and kook. You hold conservative views, are judgmental and intolerant of any other viewpoint save for your own biblical "interpretations". No doubt you spend time each and every day listening to cretins like Rush Limbaugh and Laura Ingraham to inforce your hateful viewpoints.

You and all the other right wing conspirators are exactly what is wrong with this country. If only your man made God could be stripped from this country it would be a far better place.

People like you cannot be trusted to accurately quote historical sources since you would gladly change the text to have it "prove" your right wing viewpoint.

 

[PC1]

I am in love with my sister and she loves me. We are adults and have a healthy relationship. No worry about incestial reproduction for we plan to adopt. I think we too should be allowed to marry.

If it is indeed discriminatory in the light of our constitution to preclude homosexuals from marrying, I see no way that we can discriminate against you and your sister. Or against you and your dog. Or against you and your sister's dog. Actually, if you both own the dog together now, as joint property, nothing would change if you and sis tied the knot. Just 1 more reason no one can discriminate against you and your sister's wedding.

 

[Godlike]

You obviously are a fanatical religious crackpot and kook. You hold conservative views, are judgmental and intolerant of any other viewpoint save for your own biblical "interpretations". No doubt you spend time each and every day listening to cretins like Rush Limbaugh and Laura Ingraham to inforce your hateful viewpoints.

You and all the other right wing conspirators are exactly what is wrong with this country. If only your man made God could be stripped from this country it would be a far better place.

People like you cannot be trusted to accurately quote historical sources since you would gladly change the text to have it "prove" your right wing viewpoint.

Ditto. You know I have never witnessed an informed conservative lose a debate with a liberal.

 

[VanillaGorilla]

Go Vanilla Gorilla....... racking up the posts in this thread bro!

Probably too many.lol I am writing an article on the subject, hopefully someone will pick it up. How's the new job?

 

[VanillaGorilla]

Go Vanilla Gorilla....... racking up the posts in this thread bro!

Don't get me started on taxes.lol

 

[serengo]

You obviously are a fanatical religious crackpot and kook. You hold conservative views, are judgmental and intolerant of any other viewpoint save for your own biblical "interpretations". No doubt you spend time each and every day listening to cretins like Rush Limbaugh and Laura Ingraham to inforce your hateful viewpoints.

You and all the other right wing conspirators are exactly what is wrong with this country. If only your man made God could be stripped from this country it would be a far better place.

People like you cannot be trusted to accurately quote historical sources since you would gladly change the text to have it "prove" your right wing viewpoint.

You seem to be very intolerant of political ideologies that are not aligned with yours. Why do you stereotype conservatives? I guess free speech only applies to you, otherwise it's "hate-speech" because you hate to hear it. Debating the point is in order, rather than dismissing the opposing point of view because it comes from a conservative.

 

[Godlike]

You seem to be very intolerant of political ideologies that are not aligned with yours. Why do you stereotype conservatives? I guess free speech only applies to you, otherwise it's "hate-speech" because you hate to hear it. Debating the point is in order, rather than dismissing the opposing point of view because it comes from a conservative.

I believe PC1 is just being facetious.

 

[serengo]

I believe PC1 is just being facetious.

OOOOOHHHHHHH, well Nevermind.

 

[PC1]

You seem to be very intolerant of political ideologies that are not aligned with yours. Why do you stereotype conservatives? I guess free speech only applies to you, otherwise it's "hate-speech" because you hate to hear it. Debating the point is in order, rather than dismissing the opposing point of view because it comes from a conservative.

Sorry bro!

Yeah, I was just being OBNOXIOUSLY facetious. I'm probably as far to the right pollitically as anyone else here

"Tolerance" is pretty much a one way street, from a liberal perspective, no?

 

[VanillaGorilla]

In numerous high schools across Massachusetts, entire days have been devoted to "Gay/Lesbian and Transgender" programs, and academic classes are cancelled and students are led to the activities, including panels, speakers, etc.

In Newton, a first grade teacher "came out" as a homosexual to his class. He told them that could love a man "the way your mother and father love each other." The Superintendent defended the action, saying that the teacher needed to "be himself." Several upset parents who called the school were told that "you are the only one" who has complained.

Newton North High School had a "Bi-Sexual Awareness" day with posters around the school and students invited to a discussion event.

In Natick, high school students in the "gay-straight alliance" club were shown an R-rated movie about a graphic "love story" between two boys.

At a required school assembly in Chelmsford, an instructor used four-letter words, described the joys of oral and anal sex, and had children participate in licking condoms.

Statewide in high schools: students were told to answer surveys on their use of drugs and about personal feelings on suicide, death, homosexual activity and similar subjects. The wording was very intrusive. Parents were outraged when they found out that the survey was funded by the State of Massachusetts.

Newton, MA: 9th grade girls in the health classes are assigned to go to a drug store and buy condoms, and practice putting them on a banana.

At the Lexington High School's Resource Center, a parent found out that her thirteen-year-olds could borrow a book (bought with state health funds) telling how gay men at the opera can socialize with "the backs of their trousers discreetly parted so they could experience a little extra pleasure while viewing the spectacle on stage."

In Newton, a high-school principal told a group of parents that they may not remove their children from the condom distribution program because "it is too important".

At Silver Lake High School, the ninth-grade health text teaches: "Testing your ability to function sexually and to give pleasure to another person may be less threatening in the early teens with people of your own sex." Also, "You may come to the conclusion that growing up means rejecting the values of your parents." Students were told to keep the book in their lockers and not take it home.
- Boston Globe

Manomet, MA: An eight-grade health class passed out material which one boy said was against his parents' beliefs. He was told by the instructor, "If you have any trouble with your parents, tell me and I'll handle them."

Newton, MA: The high school's World Language Department presented the film "ma vie en rose" - an R rated film about a homosexual 7 year old boy. The film's advertising describes: "Seven-year-old Ludo enjoys being a girl. Borrowing mommy's red high-heels, her lipstick, her earrings ... yummy! Trouble is, 7-year-old Ludo -- short for Ludovic (Georges du Fresne) -- is a boy, even if he is pretty in pink."

Nutting Lake, MA: "Counselors" conducted a group session where a girl was asked to share the details about her parents' divorce and her father's affair with the class. The sessions were to be kept confidential from parents.

Framingham, MA: The following questionnaire was distributed in Framingham High School homerooms. (It was defended by the principal in a Boston Herald article.):

1. What do you think caused your heterosexuality?
2. When did you first decide you were heterosexual?
3. Is it possible heterosexuality is a phase you will grow out of?
4. Is it possible you are heterosexual because you fear the same sex?
5. If you have never slept with anyone of the same sex, how do you know you wouldn't prefer it? Is it possible you merely need a good gay experience?
6. To whom have you disclosed your heterosexuality? How did they react?
7. Why are heterosexuals so blatant, always making a spectacle of their heterosexuality? Why can't they just be who they are and not flaunt their sexuality by kissing in public, wearing wedding rings, etc.?
8. Most child molesters are heterosexual men. Do you consider it safe to expose your children to heterosexual males? Heterosexual male teachers particularly?
9. How can you have a truly satisfying relationship with someone of the opposite sex, given the obvious physical and
emotional differences?
10. Heterosexual marriages has total societal support, yet over half of all heterosexuals who marry this year will divorce.
Why are there so few heterosexual relationships?
11.Given the problems heterosexuals face, would you want your children to be heterosexual? Would you consider
aversion therapy?
- Parent. (Copy of questionnaire on file.)

Needham, MA: Even with the Parents' Rights Law in place, parents were not notified when the "Gay/Straight Alliance' at Needham hosted an assembly for the entire student body.
At the assembly, a high school student described her first lesbian kiss, and extolled the "virtues" lesbianism.
Parents were not notified that this assembly was going on, students were not [informed that they were] allowed to refuse to attend, and following the assembly, each homeroom moderator was asked to continue the discussion when the students returned to homeroom.
Later, the Faculty Advisor to the Gay/Straight Alliance publicly stated that parents' desires to exempt their children from the assembly next year would not be honored, as the "assembly did not teach any moral or religious beliefs … By introducing students to the topic of homosexuality, we hope that they will be prepared to react appropriately [to the homosexuals they meet]"
- Needham TAB, February 17, 2000, p.8).

Ashland, MA: Children were assigned to play "gays" in a school skit. One boy's line was, "It's natural to be attracted to the same sex." Two girls were told to hold hands and pretend they were lesbians.
- Middlesex News, "'Gay' skit in school angers Ashland mother," April 1, 1994, B1.

Beverly, MA: A 14 year-old Beverly High School girl came home and told her father that he was a "homophobe." She had just returned from a four day mandatory assembly called "Homophobia Week." Sessions at the school instructed, and she accepted, that homosexuals should have the right to marry and adopt children. This was done without parental notification or permission.
- Parent

Beverly, MA: An upperclassmen wrote in a local paper, "I felt disturbed and nauseated. I witnessed biased testimonies by gays, and the public mocking of a priest in our very auditorium."
- local Beverly newspaper

Beverly, MA: A four day seminar took time out of Algebra class to address "sexual harassment." One parent pulled their child out of the classroom after seeing the material. The teacher waited a day, then asked the student to come back saying, "Your parents don't have to know."
- Parent

Brookline, MA: A transexual came into first-grade classes and described to the
children how sex-changes take place. Parents had not been notified,
and had to counsel their frightened, confused children.
- The Boston Sunday Globe: City Weekly, "Sex-change counseling angers parents: Runkle School apologizes for not giving prior notice," November 14, 1993, 1.

Newton, MA: School officials announced in the local newspapers that masturbation would be covered in the required courses for ninth grade.
- Newton WEEKLY GRAPHIC, "Plan OK'd amid sex ed furor: Tense emotions surround vote," May 13, 1993, 1.

Newton, MA: 9th Grade Sexuality and Health Course Outline reveals that "slanguage" will be used to discuss sex in the classroom. Additionally, videos shown "reveal" that there is a "range of opinions" about homosexuality. The following class is a discussion of "issues about how homosexuals are treated in our society."
- 9th Grade Sexuality and Health Course Outline, 1994-1995 school year.


[Note: Many people have contacted us, asking how these can be true. All of the above incidents were verified by us, using eyewitness testimony, source materials brought home from the schools, discussions with school officials, newspaper accounts, etc. Often, the parents confronted school officials directly. In none of these situations did the schools deny that the incident took place; in many cases they actually took pride in their "progressiveness."]

 

[db682]

That is some sick ****!!! I dont know if Id be able to control my anger if my kids came home from school telling me this stuff and that they were supposed to keep it from me. Id probably make the news for aggravated assualt on education (so-called)professionals. Im getting pissed just thinking about it.

db

 

[goldylight]

Moral of the story - if you live in MA - GET THE **** OUT - holy **** -

 

[VanillaGorilla]

There are some pretty F'd up things going on and it's not just happening in Massachusetts. The main problem no one knows about it because the media won't report on it. If you complain to the school they will tell you that you are the only one that had a problem with it or that it was an isolated incident. I am writing an article about it. I'll post it when I am done. I think I'll be home schooling my kids.

 

[labrad]

In the end, our government is supposed to be a government of the money, by the mone ..... wait, strike that.

A government of the PEOPLE, by the PEOPLE and for the PEOPLE.

And while we seek analogies and comparables for discussion purposes, I don't think either women's suffrage nor slavery are very good comparisons here. People's main objection to homo marriage are still based on morality, the other 2 were not.

It's true what you say about polls and changing winds about many things. However, I highly doubt that at any point in our nation's history popular opinion would be in support of homo marriage. Maybe in 100 years that will change the way things are headed now.

As far as validity of a gay marriage - we live in a free country and (all of you agree what happens behind closed doors(b/w 2 consenting adults) is fine). Now, y'all don't have a problem w/ gays just gay marriage, right? I understand your point w/ polygamy/bigamy/bestiality, but again this is not what is at issue. This issue has a lot to do w/ slavery(remember the civil war) women's suffrage (which I am still against j/k), and segregation. The point is in the 1st one (slavery) we had to go to a civil war and the last two we were fortunate enough to let judges decide not the people. As far as morality, this again goes to religion. My rebuttal(once again is separation of church and state). In short, y'all consider being gay moral/legal, but yet gay marriages are immoral/not legal. Double standard. Let it go. It is not that big of a deal. The divorce rate is approximately 50% so spare me the sanctity of marriage nonsense. In this day and age it seems as if no one is complying w/ the tenets of marriage. Hell, let the gays have a go at it. They can't do any worse than "us".

I probably missed the legitimate arguments again. So please state them. My apologies.

 

[db682]

Bush calls for same-sex marriage-ban amendment
'Prevent the meaning of marriage from being changed forever'

WASHINGTON (CNN) --President Bush said Tuesday that he supports a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage to "prevent the meaning of marriage from being changed forever."

Criticizing San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, judges of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, and county officials in New Mexico who moved to let same-sex couples receive marriage licenses, Bush said that in recent months "some activist judges and local officials have made an aggressive attempt to redefine marriage.

"And unless action is taken, we can expect more arbitrary court decisions, more litigation, more defiance of the law by local officials, all of which adds to uncertainty. (Transcript of Bush comments)

"After more than two centuries of American jurisprudence and millennia of human experience, a few judges and local authorities are presuming to change the most fundamental institution of civilization. Their actions have created confusion on an issue that requires clarity."

Bush said states might be forced to recognize same-sex marriages performed in states that allow them.

"On a matter of such importance, the voice of the people must be heard. Activist courts have left the people with one recourse. If we're to prevent the meaning of marriage from being changed forever, our nation must enact a constitutional amendment to protect marriage in America. Decisive and democratic action is needed because attempts to redefine marriage in a single state or city could have serious consequences throughout the country."

He called on Congress to "promptly pass and send to the states for ratification" an amendment that would specifically define marriage as the union of a "husband and wife."

But Bush also said state legislatures should be left to define "legal arrangements other than marriage," suggesting that such an amendment would do nothing to stop states from allowing civil unions for same-sex couples.

"Our government should respect every person and protect the institution of marriage," he said. "There is not a contradiction between these responsibilities."
A call for civil debate

Bush called for a civil debate on the controversial issue.

"We should also conduct this difficult debate in a matter worthy of our country, without bitterness or anger. In all that lies ahead, let us match strong convictions with kindness and good will and decency."

Bush said the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act and laws banning same-sex marriage in 38 states "express an overwhelming consensus in our country for protecting the institution of marriage."

But, he said, "There is no assurance that the Defense of Marriage Act will not itself be struck down by activist courts. In that event, every state would be forced to recognize any relationship that judges in Boston or officials in San Francisco choose to call a marriage."

As recently as last week, Bush repeated his belief that marriage should be restricted to heterosexual couples. (Full story)

He added that he was "troubled" by legal decisions in Massachusetts that could clear the way for same-sex marriage -- and the decision by San Francisco's Newsom this month to defy state law and order the county clerk to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

Thousands of couples have taken advantage. (California high court may get same-sex marriage)

Last week, Bush said he was paying close attention to what was taking place in San Francisco and Massachusetts.

"I have watched carefully what's happening in San Francisco, where licenses were being issued, even though the law states otherwise," Bush said. "I have consistently stated that I'll support law to protect marriage between a man and a woman. Obviously these events are influencing my decision."

"I am watching very carefully, but I am troubled by what I've seen," Bush said.

In his State of the Union speech last month, Bush has addressed same-sex marriage, saying, "our nation must defend the sanctity of marriage." (Full story)

He stopped short of endorsing a constitutional amendment that would ban marriages for gay and lesbian couples, as social conservative groups had hoped.

Instead, Bush said, "if judges insist on forcing their arbitrary will upon the people, the only alternative left to the people would be the constitutional process."


db

 

[db682]

Transcript of Bush statement

(CNN) --President Bush on Tuesday announced his support for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to ban same-sex marriage. The following is a transcript of the president's remarks:

BUSH: Good morning.

Eight years ago, Congress passed, and President Clinton signed, the Defense of Marriage Act, which defined marriage for purposes of federal law as the legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife.

The act passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 342-67 and the Senate by a vote of 85-14.

Those congressional votes, and the passage of similar defense of marriage laws in 38 states, express an overwhelming consensus in our country for protecting the institution of marriage.

In recent months, however, some activist judges and local officials have made an aggressive attempt to redefine marriage. In Massachusetts, four judges on the highest court have indicated they will order the issuance of marriage licenses to applicants of the same gender in May of this year.

In San Francisco, city officials have issued thousands of marriage licenses to people of the same gender, contrary to the California Family Code. That code, which clearly defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman, was approved overwhelmingly by the voters of California.

A county in New Mexico has also issued marriage licenses to applicants of the same gender.

And unless action is taken, we can expect more arbitrary court decisions, more litigation, more defiance of the law by local officials, all of which adds to uncertainty.

After more than two centuries of American jurisprudence and millennia of human experience, a few judges and local authorities are presuming to change the most fundamental institution of civilization.

Their actions have created confusion on an issue that requires clarity. On a matter of such importance, the voice of the people must be heard. Activist courts have left the people with one recourse.

If we're to prevent the meaning of marriage from being changed forever, our nation must enact a constitutional amendment to protect marriage in America. Decisive and democratic action is needed because attempts to redefine marriage in a single state or city could have serious consequences throughout the country.

The Constitution says that "full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts and records and judicial proceedings of every other state."

Those who want to change the meaning of marriage will claim that this provision requires all states and cities to recognize same-sex marriages performed anywhere in America.

Congress attempted to address this problem in the Defense of Marriage Act by declaring that no state must accept another state's definition of marriage. My administration will vigorously defend this act of Congress.

Yet there is no assurance that the Defense of Marriage Act will not itself be struck down by activist courts. In that event, every state would be forced to recognize any relationship that judges in Boston or officials in San Francisco choose to call a marriage.

Furthermore, even if the Defense of Marriage Act is upheld, the law does not protect marriage within any state or city.

For all these reasons, the defense of marriage requires a constitutional amendment.

An amendment to the Constitution is never to be undertaken lightly. The amendment process has addressed many serious matters of national concern, and the preservation of marriage rises to this level of national importance.

The union of a man and woman is the most enduring human institution, honored and encouraged in all cultures and by every religious faith. Ages of experience have taught humanity that the commitment of a husband and wife to love and to serve one another promotes the welfare of children and the stability of society.

Marriage cannot be severed from its cultural, religious and natural roots without weakening the good influence of society.

Government, by recognizing and protecting marriage, serves the interests of all.

Today, I call upon the Congress to promptly pass and to send to the states for ratification an amendment to our Constitution defining and protecting marriage as a union of a man and woman as husband and wife.

The amendment should fully protect marriage, while leaving the state legislatures free to make their own choices in defining legal arrangements other than marriage.

America's a free society which limits the role of government in the lives of our citizens. This commitment of freedom, however, does not require the redefinition of one of our most basic social institutions.

Our government should respect every person and protect the institution of marriage. There is no contradiction between these responsibilities.

We should also conduct this difficult debate in a matter worthy of our country, without bitterness or anger.

In all that lies ahead, let us match strong convictions with kindness and good will and decency.

Thank you very much.


db

 

[labrad]

Ain't no chance in hell that Bush's proposed amendment to the Constitution will pass. Nice post db (not being facetious). Now, let's hear the legitimate arguments?

 

[goldylight]

Michael Meehan of the Kerry campaign has just announced on the "Dayside with Linda Vester" show that Senator Kerry will vote AGAINST a constitutional amendment defining marriage, if such a bill comes to the floor of the Senate.