Homo Marriage in Massachusetts ?!

[PC1]

I have not been able to follow this argument completely (from either side), but would like to add that the presence of a "homosexual gene" has been a proposed justification for that lifestyle for some time, although I believe finding substantive support for this concept outside of the homosexual community (referring to the doctors that do genetic research) would be difficult if not impossible to find.

This is a good point to make right about here, we've kind of danced around this but not addressed it specifically. What if there is such a thing as a gay gene, would it matter?

No.

As men, we are in a sense "wired" to procreate with many different women, which would lead to a greater probability of continued existence of our species.

But behaviorally speaking we long ago recognized the need for the family unit to stay together as it was best for the well being of our offspring. Hence Marriage and committment. Hence why homosexuality and homosexual marriage is a deviation.

 

[PC1]

I agree with you, however, why should we allow the notion and/or opinion that it is simply a lifestyle choice to be the basis for the argument?

Frankly, I find it utterly disgusting that some would honestly believe it to be a true choice in one's self to be attracted to the same sex. I cannot fathom the reasons the indignity and harrasment such a person would subject themselves to having the choice to live that lifestyle. Rational, logic people would not do this.

This has to lead me to believe they're born gay.

I don't choose to like women. That's who and what I am. I like women - not men - and I never had to make a conscious decision to do so - it just is.

A

I'm not sure I buy this argument and here's why. Not everyone "likes" themselves, we sometimes do or have done things we've been ashamed of, but we did them anyway.

Beyond that many of us become involved with activities that are outside of the "norm" of what society holds as typical behavior. Just look in the mirror gentlemen! Bodybuilders, especially guys who regularly and repeatedly cycle AS are undeniably on the freakish side relative to normal people who don't train regularly. But we ENJOY being different, we REVEL in it, and we wouldn't have it any other way, would we? In fact, we seek out others who are committed to the same lifestyle and, especially given the illegality of AS, we develop a bit of an "underground" mentality about the whole thing. People think we're crazy for all the dedication and discipline we commit to that lifestyle, but we shrug it off, it's part of what we are.

Of course I'm not equating homosexuality with bodybuilding in a moral sense guys. But, how many of you who cycle AS have friends and family members who know that you do AS? Does this cause problems because they're concerned with your health or the legality aspect of it? Has it ever caused a rift in your family? Yet we continue on anyway, right? We enjoy being different, being bigger and stronger than other people.

Homosexuality is inarguably a much more SEVERE departure from our cultural norm, but paralell's with bodybuilding are apparent.

And in spite of the health risks, being viewed as immoral and social outcasts, I have no doubt that many homosexuals not only are at peace with their lifestyle, but REVEL in it as well.

 

[db682]

This thread is getting way out of hand. Im spending way to much time reading all the post and thinking to hard while doing it. Honestly, I dont think that it is going any much further cause the subject at hand is a non-budge topic. Meaning everyones beliefs are firm and changing someones mind is going to be an extremly hard thing to do. If you go back and breeze through all the post youll see that everything is getting repeated over and over again but just in a different manner. Nine pages of a well thought out pissing match. You can definitly sense hostility in the last couple pages of post as well. I just dont want to see a good thing turn bad when someone crosses the line with the help of anger. Both sides make great points but my mind hasnt changed since post one and I know im not alone on this.
Its been fun but I vote for the thread to be put to rest and a new topic be chosen.

db

 

[PC1]

This thread is getting way out of hand. Im spending way to much time reading all the post and thinking to hard while doing it. Honestly, I dont think that it is going any much further cause the subject at hand is a non-budge topic. Meaning everyones beliefs are firm and changing someones mind is going to be an extremly hard thing to do. If you go back and breeze through all the post youll see that everything is getting repeated over and over again but just in a different manner. Nine pages of a well thought out pissing match. You can definitly sense hostility in the last couple pages of post as well. I just dont want to see a good thing turn bad when someone crosses the line with the help of anger. Both sides make great points but my mind hasnt changed since post one and I know im not alone on this.
Its been fun but I vote for the thread to be put to rest and a new topic be chosen.

db

I don't know how you can say it doesn't change anyone's mind when I've been, for the past several days now, thinking seriously about leaving my wife and turning homo based on all the really great pro-homo marriage arguments being espoused through these pages?

Maybe I've missed something, I guess I'll have to go back and re-read.....



Hey dB , btw, weren't you the guy who, about 175 posts ago, thought this was a really great debate and wanted to see it keep going bro?!



Hey, 2nd edit......

Ya know dB, you don't HAVE to keep reading it? You COULD just ignore the email notifications of NEW POSTS to this thread OR, you COULD just UNSUBSCRIBE to this thread?

BUT, you'd feel like you'd be MISSING OUT, wouldn'tcha bro ?! The TEMPTATION to come back and KEEP READING is just too strong, isn't it ?! Almost like a good novel, you can't LEAVE IT ALONE, can you?! Heh heh!!

 

[db682]

Yeah but debates have outcomes. This is going nowhere. Someone normally wins in debates. One of the first things that they teach you in debate is that repetition is a big no-no. The idea of debate is to try and swing the audience's decision by dissecting the topic at hand from every available point possible that may strengthen your standing on the subject. At the same time you must be able to refute the opposing sides points in a manner fit for debate. YOU CANNOT WIN DEBATES WITH REPETITION! If someone doesnt except your point the first time then you need to give supporting evidence for that point without directly dicussing it again. Hammering at one point does nothing but give the opposing side an excellant chance to ruin you. If they see that thats your only point of argument then they can chisel away at it by giving there counter points. (AKA Weak Spot).
Both sides are at a stand still as of now. Its the same **** over and over but nobodies really chiseling away at the weak spots because this topic is much to broad and a very difficult one to debate, especially when religion, government, science, morality and ethics are all brought forward into it.

db

Is was a great debate though until the it started going downhill.

 

[size]

I agree. The debating has come to halt. To me, it appears just to be the same issues being explained repeatedly.

As I posted before, there have been many explanations against homosexual marriage, but I really believe there has been a lack of explanations for such actions.

Ultimately, I have enjoyed the discussion.

 

[db682]

Ya know dB, you don't HAVE to keep reading it? You COULD just ignore the email notifications of NEW POSTS to this thread OR, you COULD just UNSUBSCRIBE to this thread?

BUT, you'd feel like you'd be MISSING OUT, wouldn'tcha bro ?! The TEMPTATION to come back and KEEP READING is just too strong, isn't it ?! Almost like a good novel, you can't LEAVE IT ALONE, can you?! Heh heh!!

After 5 and a half years of debate in school it kinda becomes habit forming. Your right, something like a good novel. Except its more like Im not reading cause its a good novel but because im hopeing to find a major turning point in the novel that will make finishing it sooner even better. If that makes sense.

Im hopeing to see someone make a point that has yet to be mentioned that will be make me say "damn now this is a good debate". I love learning and debates are definitly an awesome way to teach people. I dont wanna miss something that may stay with me the rest of my life. Thats why i cant stop reading and rereading and rereading the posts in this thread. If anyone of us posters in this thread were asked about this topic in public we would be able to stand up straight while discussing it just because of some of the info from this thread will have stuck with us. We all now have a better understanding of both sides of the argument which make us stronger for public discussion. YOU MUST HAVE AN UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT YOUR UP AGAINST BEFORE GOING INTO BATTLE. KNOWING THE ENEMIES TACTICS AND ARSENAL INCREASE YOUR CHANCE OF SUCCESS. Its a learning experience.

DB

 

[Cogar]

After 5 and a half years of debate in school it kinda becomes habit forming. Your right, something like a good novel. Except its more like Im not reading cause its a good novel but because im hopeing to find a major turning point in the novel that will make finishing it sooner even better. If that makes sense.


Im hopeing to see someone make a point that has yet to be mentioned that will be make me say "damn now this is a good debate".

Well, so come up with one!

I love learning and debates are definitly an awesome way to teach people. I dont wanna miss something that may stay with me the rest of my life. Thats why i cant stop reading and rereading and rereading the posts in this thread. If anyone of us posters in this thread were asked about this topic in public we would be able to stand up straight while discussing it just because of some of the info from this thread will have stuck with us. We all now have a better understanding of both sides of the argument which make us stronger for public discussion. YOU MUST HAVE AN UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT YOUR UP AGAINST BEFORE GOING INTO BATTLE. KNOWING THE ENEMIES TACTICS AND ARSENAL INCREASE YOUR CHANCE OF SUCCESS. Its a learning experience.

DB

Some people read and don't post. I am that way in most forums. This has been an unusually well spoken thread on a very volatile topic. As you mentioned, someone who is undecided or at least not committed to a viewpoint could find this thread helpful.

 

[VanillaGorilla]

If you go back and breeze through all the post youll see that everything is getting repeated over and over again but just in a different manner. Nine pages of a well thought out pissing match.

Nothing wrong with thinking hard if you want a break from it check out the booty thread.lol I didn't think it has turned into a pissing match at all. What I noticed was that when people argue in favor of gay marriage they would keep using the same arguments and when their arguments were addressed they wouldn't answer any of the counter points. They would then disappear and come back posting the same thing or try to change the subject. It's also a long thread so there was the occasion when some one wouldn't read the prev. posts. Obviously this leads to a lot of repetition, which I must admit I am guilty of this more than anyone else.

You can definitely sense hostility in the last couple pages of post as well.

Any way, I hope I didn't come off as being hostile to anyone. I tried to be as respectful as possible.

 

[VanillaGorilla]

Yeah but debates have outcomes.

Not all the time. Look at the pres. debates. Not only to they go no were but I have never seen so many people use so many words to say nothing.lol

 

[VanillaGorilla]

YOU CANNOT WIN DEBATES WITH REPETITION! If someone doesnt except your point the first time then you need to give supporting evidence for that point without directly discussing it again. Hammering at one point does nothing but give the opposing side an excellent chance to ruin you. If they see that that's your only point of argument then they can chisel away at it by giving there counter points.

It's kind of different situation on a message board though. Obviously if you keep saying the same thing over and over again it doesn't work too well. I remember that Gary Condit interview ..."I am not perfect and I have made mistakes", he must have said that 50 times.
What do they say to do if the other side of the debate dodges the points and questions you are trying make. For example what I have notice the left does a lot is to change the subject and use labels. Take an immigration debate I say recently with Pat Buchanan and a socialist. Pat was trying to talk about important immigration issues and all the woman he was debating would say is "we are a nation of immigrants" and try to change the subject which she did well.
How do you force them to stay on the subject with out repeating yourself?

 

[Godlike]

If no one learned anything from what I wrote. then all is lost.

 

[VanillaGorilla]

You made some good points Godlike.

 

[VanillaGorilla]

My guess is that gay marriage will not be stopped. 38 states have the definition of marriage is being between a man and a woman CA being one of them.All one has to do is to look to CA. Even though what they are doing in San Fran is illegal no one has stopped it. They took it to court and the judge admitted it was illegal but refused to order them to stop.On the Bill O'rielly show yesterday the guy filling in for him made a good point. What the mayor is doing could be considered fraud. They are taking money for marriage licenses and they aren't valid. What is prob. going to happen is the activist will pick the most liberal states where they know they can win. They will challenge the CA and the leftist judges will deem it unconstitutional. At some point it will make it to supreme court. Unfortunately by the time it makes it to the supreme court the will be handing out marriage licenses like it's going out of style. In some of the rulings the court made it's clear that they were concerned about their image after the 2000 election. It will be another 5-4 and my guess is that they will vote in favor of gay marriage. Then marriage will be considered an equal right opening the door for other different kinds of marriages. I have heard some where that a bigamist or polygamist is already challenging the law. If any one finds this post the news story.

 

[goldylight]

I want to marry my cat.

 

[goldylight]

Where does it end???

 

[Cogar]

LOL goldylight.

 

[derekmac]

A slippery slope indeed.

 

[derekmac]

I want to marry my cat.

lmao

 

[jweave23]

LOL I really get a kick out of the people who actually think that this will be a "slippery slope". Bill Maher had a good line when he compared that to women's voting rights in the twenties.....it's not like we're having problems because now dogs should be allowed to vote too

 

[size]

LOL I really get a kick out of the people who actually think that this will be a "slippery slope".

bigamy, incest, etc

I do not think this is funny or far fetched.

 

[jweave23]

Well I'm sure there will be an overwhelming demand for animal marriage and multiple wives, etc.



I can see where people can have this argument because of potential legal loopholes that could possibly allow random events such as above, but when are we going to get real for a second: when are we going to realize that polygamy and bestiality do not go hand-in-hand with homosexuality??

IMO the problem may lie within the "loophole" that may possibly be created. I can see where some would argue that if homosexuals are let marry, then an argument can be made for polygamy or bestiality. OK fine, that would need special attention, but do you really think this would be a widespread epidemic or a substantial enough problem to warrant serious concern? Are we all of a sudden going to find ourselves in the supermarket standing with Bob Smith and his wife Elsie the cow?? Give me a fucking break here.

And let me pose another crazy hypothetical question (possibly becuase I enjoy playing Devil's advocate oftentimes, lol)...... if all parties were to have to sign and testify that they agree to be engaged in a multiple partner marriage......why is that so absolutely heinous?

With that said I'm off to propose to my boyfriend Butch, girlfriend Miss Piggy, and farm-love partner Porky Pig. Get real people.

 

[size]

Jweave...

At what point does society draw the line?

Years ago no one would have imagined gay marriages would be an issue just as you do not see polygamy or polyandry or incestual marriages(not even extreme examples) being an issue today. These are not even extreme examples.


Society has to have limits. Not everything can be considered acceptable behavior.

 

[jweave23]

And so the government is to determine what is "acceptable behavior"?? This is the gray area we find ourselves upon. Currently it seems the government decides certain aspects of our behavior are not "acceptable" while others aren't touched.....so where is this line? At what point do we allow (or not allow) the government to legislate our behavior? What standards are there, who sets them, and what would be the basis for acceptable behavior?

 

[size]

My response to your question:
Government determined murder as "unacceptable behavior" is this wrong?

 

[jweave23]

My response to your question:
Government determined murder as "unacceptable behavior" is this wrong?

IMO (and that of nearly everyone I'm willing to bet)...no. But that does not answer the question. Many people have different definitions of what beahvior is accpetable, so who is to say who's "right" or "wrong"? It's not defined and clear, just as the answer to this thread will never be. My problem is when people fail to realize that because something is clear to the them, it is not necessarily so clear to everyone else. All we can hope to do is have a convincing argument either way, but the answer is not right in front of us IMO. It seems to me that an issue such as this could only be solved by mass popular vote, I can't quite see another way that truly represents the majority opinion.

 

[Godlike]

Hmmm

IMO (and that of nearly everyone I'm willing to bet)...no. But that does not answer the question. Many people have different definitions of what beahvior is accpetable, so who is to say who's "right" or "wrong"? It's not defined and clear, just as the answer to this thread will never be. My problem is when people fail to realize that because something is clear to the them, it is not necessarily so clear to everyone else. All we can hope to do is have a convincing argument either way, but the answer is not right in front of us IMO. It seems to me that an issue such as this could only be solved by mass popular vote, I can't quite see another way that truly represents the majority opinion.

Do you believe in objective truth or is it all relative? Question: Was American
slavery always wrong or did it become wrong only when Lincoln emancipated
them. He lost the popular vote be the way.

 

[jweave23]

Do you believe in objective truth or is it all relative? Question: Was American
slavery always wrong or did it become wrong only when Lincoln emancipated
them. He lost the popular vote be the way.

This does pose an interesting question:

Let's say we did a popular vote and homosexual marriage was allowed, this tells us what: that the majority of Americans feel that it should be, but it does not answer if it's "right" or "wrong".

The fact of the matter is that there seems to be no way to prove this issue to be inarguable on one side or the other, yet we still need a resolution. Objective truths, by definiton, exist regardless of what I believe... that is inherent in the definiton of that phrase.

Is the subject of homosexuality an "objective truth"? I see no way of telling, but it would seem not to be. Usually hindsight provides us with alot of these answers.

 

[ex_banana-eater]

My response to your question:
Government determined murder as "unacceptable behavior" is this wrong?

There are victims involved.

 

[ex_banana-eater]

bigamy, incest, etc

I do not think this is funny or far fetched.

Bigamy has no victims, neither does incestual marriages. Proper precautions should be made in order to prevent birth of disabled babies (which is a 1/100 thing only with father/daughter mother/son relationships) as there would then be a victim.

Beastiality is hard to legalize since there is no way you can legally get an animal to consent. This would probably not be legalized because there would be a rape victim involved (animal).

 

[size]

Bigamy has no victims, neither does incestual marriages. Proper precautions should be made in order to prevent birth of disabled babies (which is a 1/100 thing only with father/daughter mother/son relationships) as there would then be a victim.

Beastiality is hard to legalize since there is no way you can legally get an animal to consent. This would probably not be legalized because there would be a rape victim involved (animal).

You are amazing. You know everything there is to know in this world. Why bother to wait to reach adulthood?


Bigamy has victims as does incest. If you fail to see this then I would believe that you must be one of the victims.

 

[Godlike]

Duude

This does pose an interesting question:

Let's say we did a popular vote and homosexual marriage was allowed, this tells us what: that the majority of Americans feel that it should be, but it does not answer if it's "right" or "wrong".

The fact of the matter is that there seems to be no way to prove this issue to be inarguable on one side or the other, yet we still need a resolution. Objective truths, by definiton, exist regardless of what I believe... that is inherent in the definiton of that phrase.

Is the subject of homosexuality an "objective truth"? I see no way of telling, but it would seem not to be. Usually hindsight provides us with alot of these answers.

All I asked was do "YOU" believe in objective truth. And was slavery wrong before Lincoln emancipated them. Your such a lib.

 

[jweave23]

All I asked was do "YOU" believe in objective truth. And was slavery wrong before Lincoln emancipated them. Your such a lib.

Do I believe that objective truths exist? Of course I do, but mostly they are present in science, not in vague social policy or human behaviour. Again, the definiton of what an "objective truth" is does not require me to believe in them, they exist regardless of what I believe. If you had asked "do you believe that the issue of the right to homosexual marriage is an objective truth" (regardless of the outcome of the truth) my response may have been different. I try to be as specific as possible when discussing these types of things, as nothign can be taken for granted.

I work at a law school, sometimes I think I spend too much time talking law with the students

And yes, I am a liberal and damn proud to say so. This doesn't mean I fit the mold exactly, but it's not a bad term to me anyway.

 

[size]

And yes, I am a liberal and damn proud to say so. This doesn't mean I fit the mold exactly, but it's not a bad term to me anyway.

Is conservative a "bad term" to you?

 

[Godlike]

I wasn't arguing about what the word meant, I only wanted to see more clearly where your coming from.

You still did not answer the question about slavery.(Social Policy)
How about the genocide of Jews and Christians (who objected) in Nazi Germany?
(Social Policy)

 

[jweave23]

Is conservative a "bad term" to you?

No, not at all. It may be a word representing ideals I don't always agree with, but to each his own.

 

[Godlike]

When I try to view other boards on here it keeps telling me
Sorry. The administrator has banned your IP address. To contact the administrator click here.
jweave say it aint so.

 

[jweave23]

I wasn't arguing about what the word meant, I only wanted to see more clearly where your coming from.

You still did not answer the question about slavery.(Social Policy)
How about the genocide of Jews and Christians (who objected) in Nazi Germany?
(Social Policy)

I fail to see the relevancy of these in this topic?

Objective truths cannot usually be applied to social policy very well IMO. For something to be an objective truth it must be inarguably right or wrong, true or false, 1 or 0 (you get the idea) or have almost no subjective ideas behind it. Social policy is a gray area that may have unending support in one way or another, but can rarely can sides be "proven", so I see no point in where you are going, please explain.

As for my personal opinion, I happen to believe that both examples you stated are "wrong", as do most. But because most (including myself) do believe this, it does not mean there is no argument for the other side (however far-fetched it may seem to you and I).

You brought up objective truth here, but if you were implying that it could be applied to this topic IMO you are incorrect. A good example is the Earth being flat vs. round. For many years most people believed it to be flat, while it can be proven to be round (the objective truth in this case). There is no argument for it being flat anymore, it has been proven. We cannot prove anything here that I see, so what's your point?

 

[jweave23]

When I try to view other boards on here it keeps telling me
Sorry. The administrator has banned your IP address. To contact the administrator click here.
jweave say it aint so.

Your status shows up as "registered" which is normal. I see nothing wrong. Are you behind a proxy server? Also another possibility is an IP address that was previously banned being reused by the ISP. Looks fine to me though. If this continues to happen, PM Bobo.

 

[goldylight]

try a manual release and renew of your ip and see if it changes your ip

 

[Godlike]

I fail to see the relevancy of these in this topic?

Objective truths cannot usually be applied to social policy very well IMO. For something to be an objective truth it must be inarguably right or wrong, true or false, 1 or 0 (you get the idea) or have almost no subjective ideas behind it. Social policy is a gray area that may have unending support in one way or another, but can rarely can sides be "proven", so I see no point in where you are going, please explain.

As for my personal opinion, I happen to believe that both examples you stated are "wrong", as do most. But because most (including myself) do believe this, it does not mean there is no argument for the other side (however far-fetched it may seem to you and I).

You brought up objective truth here, but if you were implying that it could be applied to this topic IMO you are incorrect. A good example is the Earth being flat vs. round. For many years most people believed it to be flat, while it can be proven to be round (the objective truth in this case). There is no argument for it being flat anymore, it has been proven. We cannot prove anything here that I see, so what's your point?

Invalid Link Removed
Wow, people are still debating this. You seem to be saying because something can be debated or because people have differing views on a topic than objective proof can't be known (except in science). Well I guess the earth being round is just an opinion. As for my personal opinion, I happen to believe that they are "wrong", as do most. But because most (including myself) do believe this, it does not mean there is no argument for the other side (however far-fetched it may seem to you and I). Now if there is no trancendant measure of right and wrong then you are "right" and it's all just opinion
But the logical conclusion of that is I can enslave blacks kill jews and bash homos. Now you shouldn't if it is wrong for you but wouldn't most of the people in society who do disagree with me be pushing their morals down my throat if I choose to.

 

[jweave23]

But the logical conclusion of that is I can enslave blacks kill jews and bash homos. Now you shouldn't if it is wrong for you but wouldn't most of the people in society who do disagree with me be pushing their morals down my throat if I choose to.

This goes back, in a way, to what I asked several posts ago. How do we determine what should be law when morals are concerned, when topics cannot be proven so or not so (right or wrong)??

I don't always believe in a transcendental "right" or "wrong", no. I do, however, realize the need to come to a conclusion on such matters for the purpose of social policy and law. I will not make a statement as to what I believe that law should be in this case (too many factors for me to decide just yet) but rather am simply posing the question: where does this law come from, and what morals are deemed "right"? Why are they deemed "right"? Are they religious in nature, or scientific, or a bit of both?

It seems you are looking for answers from me on my opinions when I haven't fully developed my own opinion yet. What I am stressing is that the basis for these decisions needs to be fully examined and explored before it can simply be accpeted as the right one. Everyone has an opinion, that's great, but let's not pretend the answer is right there in front of us to pick and everyone else is "wrong". There are simply too many sides and issues to this topic to come to a swift decision, and to do so would be rash IMO (a theme I see repeated quite often lately in our government)

In conclusion: I see where you are going with your statement above, but let me ask you this: do you feel the answer to this question is simply right in front of us, waiting to be picked? If so that's fine, but certaintly is not enough for me to be considered a thorough and fair examination of the matter at hand.

 

[Biggs]

oh weave why can't you just admit that the dykes and pillow biters are sinning against god, and see them for the social blemish they are? if only more people would go to church and pray for the constitutional amendment, our holy ceremony of marriage and its lofty status in this good country would not be threatened.

 

[jweave23]

oh weave why can't you just admit that the dykes and pillow biters are sinning against god, and see them for the social blemish they are? if only more people would go to church and pray for the constitutional amendment, our holy ceremony of marriage and its lofty status in this good country would not be threatened.

LOL

BTW I love the whole "sanctity of marriage" thing.........in fact it's so sacred and special it's not like you can do it in vegas at 3AM by Elvis and get divorced the next day!

 

[size]

BTW I love the whole "sanctity of marriage" thing.........in fact it's so sacred and special it's not like you can do it in vegas at 3AM by Elvis and get divorced the next day!

This is a problem also and the "deconstruction" of marriage continues

 

[ex_banana-eater]

You are amazing. You know everything there is to know in this world. Why bother to wait to reach adulthood?


Bigamy has victims as does incest. If you fail to see this then I would believe that you must be one of the victims.

No need to insult.

 

[jweave23]

I must say I'm not sure where I stand yet on this, there's just too many damn angles.

I definitely believe that, at least, civil unions should be federally recognized.

Question for anyone who actually has a definite answer here:

Let's say you live in Vermont and have a civil partner, recognized by the state. I'm assuming you still are not entitled to any federal benefits related to marriage (tax filings and so on), correct?? If so then I think we will definitely have to come to a decision very soon.

 

[db682]

Ministers who married same-sex couples charged

From Jonathan Wald
CNN

KINGSTON, New York (CNN) -- Two Unitarian ministers were charged Monday for marrying 13 same-sex couples in the upstate New York village of New Paltz.

The Reverends Dawn Sangrey, 62, and Kay Greenleaf, 64, were charged with solemnizing unlicensed marriages. They could spend up to a year in prison and pay separate fines of $500 if convicted.

The ministers defied threats of prosecution and conducted weddings on March 6 after the state's attorney general announced same-sex marriages were illegal in New York.

Robert Gottlieb, the lawyer representing the ministers, said this may be the first time clergy has been prosecuted for marrying gay couples.

Sangrey first heard she had been charged on the radio.

"It's a bit of a shock," she said. "Even when you think it might happen."

Similar charges were brought against New Paltz Mayor Jason West after he presided over the state's first gay marriages February 27.

The 26-year-old mayor postponed marrying couples after a court issued a temporary restraining order against him, and New York's attorney general said same-sex marriages were illegal in the state.

West decided at the last minute not to officiate March 6 and the ministers took over.

In a written statement, Ulster County District Attorney Don Williams said the court order and opinion of the attorney general "draw no distinction between the illegality of such conduct, whether performed by a public official or a member of the clergy."

Sangrey and Greenleaf signed affidavits for the couples they married and said they considered the ceremonies civil and legally binding.

Williams said he was compelled to prosecute Greenleaf and Sangrey because they "publicly proclaimed their intent to perform civil marriages under the authority invested in them by New York State law, rather than performing purely religious ceremonies."

Gottlieb said pressing charges was unnecessary.

"It's a shameful act and simply disingenuous for him to suggest he had no choice but to charge these members of the clergy," he said.

"He has absolute discretion to let this issue be decided in civil cases and the legislature, but he chose to bring it into criminal court."

Last week, Williams said he had been wrestling with the issue of whether to charge the ministers.

"It's a distasteful duty to prosecute a member of the clergy, but I can't avoid it if I've taken an oath to uphold the law," Williams said. "They are not immune just because they are members of the clergy."

Greenleaf was the first to exchange wedding vows with her partner of 17 years, Pat Sullivan, on March 6.

"We love each other and want to be recognized as legal partners," Greenleaf said.

Speaking before Williams' announcement of charges Monday, Greenleaf said, "I am certainly aware that I may be incarcerated or fined for conducting these marriages but that doesn't concern me."

"The Unitarian Universalist movement, myself included, has been conducting same-sex weddings across the United States, including New York, for the past 35 years," Greenleaf added. "No action has been taken and no notice has been taken."

Sangrey, Greenleaf and Marion Visel, another Unitarian minister, married another 25 same-sex couples in New Paltz on Saturday. Sangrey said she would happily marry more.

"I'd be pleased to perform more ceremonies and I'll certainly do what I can to encourage other ministers to conduct them if I'm unable to," Sangrey said. "There's a lot of ministers willing and able to take part. I don't think they're going to shut us down."

Williams said he is waiting to review police reports on the ceremonies conducted Saturday before deciding whether to bring further charges.

After New York Supreme Court Judge Vincent Bradley issued the injunction against the New Paltz mayor, hundreds of volunteers who assisted West in organizing the village's first gay marriages hastily founded the New Paltz Equality Initiative to ensure gay couples could continue marrying in New Paltz.

About 2,800 same-sex couples are on the waiting list of people hoping to marry.

"We're going to carry on with the marriages," said Charles Clement, director of the New Paltz Equality Initiative. "We have other ministers who will conduct ceremonies and are prepared to deal with the legal repercussions."



Find this article at:
Invalid Link Removed

 

[Cogar]

Some "ministers."

 

[pigfarmer]

I know I'll Probably regret adding my opinion to this debate, but I can't help myself. I just think having any kind of debate over gay marriage is indicative of how meddlesome we really are as a society. We are people who like to legislate our views and morality upon others. If you don't believe me, look around. American citizens have even been killed because they are different (i.e.Matthew Sheapard) I think if two consenting adults choose to commit the rest of their lives to each other, then it is none of your business, or mine. After 24 years of married bliss to the same woman, I have this definition of marriage: A union of two souls, with the commitment of one's entire self to the other till death do us part. The trouble with some of you, and a lot of others in our society is that: 1. you can't tolerate what you don't understand, and 2. you can't keep your nose in your own business. I'm apologise in advance to those of you who are offended.