The Great Gay Marriage Debate of 2004
mar...@pacbell.net
the major topics of the upcoming Presidential elections, I began
thinking about it for the first time, even though I have no particular
feelings regarding the issue one way or the other. But there is always
a value in trying to figure out what it is about major public debates
that makes them so volatile simply because they have, in one way or
another, an effect on our overall society. The whole topic of Gay
Marriage is no exception. Who knows what other issues it might point
to. Perhaps some that have a somewhat more direct impact on myself or
those who are important to me. So, I've spent some time considering
the whole Gay Marriage thing and what it might mean.
First, you really have to come up with a reasonable definition of what
exactly a "marriage" is. This isn't all that easy, since it
incorporates elements that are very etherial (love, etc.).
In trying to reach a workable definition, it struck me that there are
four major aspects to marriage - financial, legal, social and
spiritual - all of which are based on the concept of "two made one"
(or, to put it another way, the creation of a single entity composed
of two separate and independent entities.)
FINANCIAL
One of the arguments being used against Gay Marriage is that many of
the rights available in a marriage are already provided to homosexuals
who wish to have a binding relationship through the various "domestic
partner" contracts already in place in various states throughout the
country.
I am not very well schooled in specific state laws, but it occurs to
me that those financial marrige rights could consist of the following:
1. Ability to utilize "spouse" status for various work related
benefits packages (health insurance, IRA's, etc.)
2. Full "community property recognition.
3. Recognition of "married" status with regards to state and federal
taxes (as well as the extention of tax benefits and/or penalties
associated with joint filing status.)
I'm sure there are others that strike specifically to financial
matters, but my question would be, are these aspects all covered or
recognized in current "domestic partnership" laws? If not, then can a
"domestic partnership" truly be consider a suitable equivilent of
marriage?
LEGAL
These would be areas outside of the financial where there is already a
clear, protected definition of "married status rights". Such as...
1. "Next of kin" status to make "power of attorney" decisions on
behalf of the "spouse" when the spouse is not able to make such
decisions for themselves. (illness, incapacity, insanity, etc.)
2. Constitutional protections against incrimination, such as those
extended to a spouse to protect them from being forced to testify
against a defendant in a criminal action.
Again, I'm sure there are others, but again are these covered in
"domestic partnership" laws?
SOCIAL
This is perhaps the least dicey area, since it covers areas where most
of the rules are unwritten, based primarily on "common accepted
practice" and culture. Indeed, they already seem to have slowly
adjusted over time already to include homosexual relationship. Very
rarely any more does one see an invitation to a social event marekd
"and spouse". Instead the standard now seems to be "and guest." Also
it is unlikely to be an area of major concern, simply because people
tend to form their social groups based on mutual acceptance. I doubt
if anyone is going to make a major stink about the ability to get into
a social grouping where one would already feel uncomfortable
regardless of marital status. We all tend to flock to "our own", where
we are accepted and feel comfortable.
SPIRITUAL
This is actually the "hot button" area for most people, and
conversely, the most ridiculous, even by the standards of those who,
for religious or "moral" reasons are so opposed to gay marriage.
To understand this you have to finally boil down the definition of
marriage to its essense, even though that essense also applies to all
the other areas as well.
I doubt if anyone can come up with a more valid definition of
"marriage" beyond saying it is simply "one entity composed of two
individual entities." That one entity (that is the married couple) is
recognized as such financially, legally, socially and spiritually.
But when you pick out the spiritual aspect of it, you get into a very
slippery area indeed. For one thing, the spiritual aspect is based on
"love", and no one can adequetely define what love is to the agreement
of any single group regardless of its composition.
But let's look at "love" as it is supposed to apply to the very groups
(primarily the Christian, conservative, religious belief systems) who
most vehemently protest the very possibility of "gay marriage".
These groups profess to believe in a theology and dogma the very root
of which is "love". Indeed, the greatest doctrine in all of
Christianity is "love thy neighbor as thyself". This is their ideal
toward which they proport to strive constantly. In other words, they
justify their entire belief system on its transcendant aspects, that
realm that is beyond this world and composed purely of the spirit.
Do they deny that it is possible for a man to love another man or a
woman to love another woman? Those I've talked to say that such is
possible but that love is supposed to be a "spiritual love". Fair
enough. If that is the case, it occurs to me that the aspect of a man
loving another man or a woman loving another woman which they protest
against relates exclusively to the entirely NON-spiritual part of that
love, i.e., the physical part... in other words, the sexual part.
Far too many of these Christians know little about the great Christian
thinkers throughout history who have postulated that, in the spiritual
realm (heaven) there is no such thing as "sex identity". Some of these
great philosophers believe all angels are neither male nor female but
in fact have no sexual definition at all. And to me that makes sense.
What is "sex definition"? What's it purpose? It is completely and
exclusively a corporeal necessity, a biological necessity, whose
ultimate purpose is to allow the propogation of the species. True,
it's a hell of a lot of fun, but that is not its purpose.
And since the spiritual realm is exclusively non-corporeal, and there
is no need to propogate (reproduce) there, then having sex definition
in heaven makes absolutely no sense. It might even be terribly
distracting.
Unfortunately there's an aspect to modern Christianity that tends to
muddy up things, that being the concept that when we die we carry with
us our entire personalities (one major component of which is our
self-definition which of necessity includes our sexual definition as
male or female as we have experienced it here on earth.) This idea
that our currently experienced self-definition (including our sex
definition) will be carried in tact into that spiritual realm upon
death is a relatively modern idea. The idea used to be that those
aspects of our "self-definition" which were in conflict with all that
was good and worthy of heaven would be "burned away" (including our
sex definition) and what was left would then transcend to paradise.
My point is that by opposing gay marriage on spiritual grounds, those
that do so for Christian reasons are, in fact, focusin on an area that
has nothing whatsoever to do with spirituality.
They tend to default to using the Bible and its strictures to support
their arguments against gay marriage. But they are completely
unwilling to admit that the Bible, in toto, was written for a specific
time and place in human history (whehter you look at the Old Testament
or the New). They were written not only as spiritual guides but also
as social guides for people living two millenia ago in a specific
location and under certain climactic and technological conditions. The
Bible speaks not just of right and wrong spiritually, but also right
and wrong socially, medically, culturally and is aimed toward
promoting the continued survival of the people of that time and place.
(The Bible says homosexuality is wrong primarily because of the
contemporary infant mortality rate and lack of medical knowledge which
required an increased birth rate to keep pace with the death rate. In
other words, "homosexuals don't make babies and we need babies or
we'll die out completely. It also speaks of eating pigs as wrong
because the "unclean" animal would make you sick and kill you, not
because it was somehow an inherently "unholy" animal. How can any
animal created by God be unholy?)
The jist is.... Christians who are opposed to gay marriage are
reacting to something that has nothing to do with spirituality. It's
ok to "love your neighbor", but you have to do so within their limited
definition, which is actually based not on spirituality at all, but on
sex which is completely corporeal and earthbound. In other words, they
are like lawyers trying to give you medical advice.
My personal feelings about gay marriage remain ambivilent. I don't
think gay marriage is going to destroy society, because I don't
believe by recognizing and sanctifying gay marriage we will suddenly
have an instant rash of heterosexual people turning spontaneously gay
(especially against their will.) I personally am not gay, and never
will be. I am also not black and never will be. So gay marriage will
effect me about as much as whether the current black hair fashion
includes the use of jerri curl or not.
The only thing I would ask of any system that recognizes and
sanctifies gay marriage would be that it simply be as binding as
heterosexual marriage. By that I mean that if people really want to do
it, let them. However, if they later discover they want out, make it
just as torturous and painful for them as it is for heterosexuals,
with lawyers and community property and custory fights and all the
other crap that goes along with it.
Any thoughts?
Masterwoof
mar...@pacbell.net wrote:
> The only thing I would ask of any system that recognizes and
> sanctifies gay marriage would be that it simply be as binding as
> heterosexual marriage. By that I mean that if people really want to do
> it, let them. However, if they later discover they want out, make it
> just as torturous and painful for them as it is for heterosexuals,
> with lawyers and community property and custory fights and all the
> other crap that goes along with it.
>
> Any thoughts?
Why inflict that sort of pain on everyone? It's long since obvious that
peopple live much longer than they used to, and that a promise made
"'til death do us part" is harder to live up to nowadays.
Besides that, why must marriage be forever? Why can't it be ended in a
civil way?
--
MasterWoof <masterwoof at timberwoof dot com>
http://www.timberwoof.com/masterwoof/
Shelly K.
TV or radio show), but this was sent to me, and I'd like to share it.
At first I thought this guy was gonna "bash" the subject, but, he managed to
put a smile on my face by the end of the article.
If anyone out there knows who wrote this, (and my apologies to the author
for not knowing), please give credit. THX....
************************************************
So the Massachusetts' Supreme Judicial Court upheld a ruling today that gays
should have the right to marry in the state of Massachusetts. This will of
course lead to many a heated moments as the beer swilling Catholics in
downtown Boston get liquored up and decide to voice their opinions to those
who may strike them as light in the loafers, I'm sure. I had actually
intended on doing a blurb on this subject about a month ago and it slipped
my mind, until I received this email last week...
"I live in Indiana, and in the past week or so I have been hearing a lot of
talk on the radio about same sex marriages becoming legal. Just hearing that
makes my stomach drop. Could you lift my spirits for me by doing a little
old fasion gay bashing? Well not really bash them, that could cause a lot of
trouble, just tease them a little. It would put a smile on my face.
Thanks a lot!
long time viewer-
Mike"
Now a few years ago I used to live with a girl who had not only a
spectacular pair of breasts, but a gay sister as well. I dunno if the gay
sister had great boobs too because, well, she was gay. But anyway, this
sister lived in California with her -- of what's the politically correct
term -- life partner? Yeah, so these two lesbians have been with each other
for a like eleven years and they were as committed to each other as any
heterosexual couple I know. But since they obviously can't have any children
without some help, they decided one of them gets artificially inseminated.
They took a look at their jobs, and decided the one who had the lesser
paying job would be the one to carry the baby, since her taking time off
from work wouldn't be as financially straining. Nine months later, poof
they've got a kid.
The first thing that struck me as a little unfair is only my girlfriend's
sister -- the one who actually carried the baby -- could be listed on the
birth certificate as the parent. Granted even if they could they'd either
have to play paper-scissors-rock to see who gets listed as the father, but
still it struck me as a little unfair that only one of them was legally
allowed to be recognized as a parent. I mean hey, ya wait around for that
long putting up with world class bitchiness beyond belief, you're gonna want
some public recognition, right?
The next quirk they came across was health insurance. As it so happened, the
birth mother's health insurance coverage was not as robust as the her
partner's insurance. You know how that goes, better job and all that, right?
Well the baby's medical coverage could not be claimed against this better
policy for obvious reasons -- she wasn't legally the child's parent. So this
ended up costing them a lot of money out of pocket for medical expenses, and
there were even some areas where the child didn't get the same level of care
as she could have if she had been covered under the better insurance policy.
Again, it seemed unfair not only to the parents financially, but to the baby
in regards to her health care.
And suppose for the sake of argument, that while the three of them were
driving home from the hospital, there was a car accident and the birth mom
was rendered brain dead. If it were a husband and wife deal, the surviving
spouse would have legal control over medical treatment (or ceasing of it)
for their injured partner, plus have no problem securing sole custody of the
baby. But in this case, the surviving lezbo would have no legal recourse
despite having just as much time and energy invested as a male partner
would.
All these issues because same sex marriages are currently illegal. Okay. So
let me think for a minute, that if they were legal, how would they effect my
life? Would I have to pay more taxes? No. Would married gay people get a
special check out line at the supermarket to get through line faster than
me? No. Do they get their own special lane to avoid traffic jams? No. Do
they get cheaper car insurance? No. Free car? No. Free socks? No.
So my question would be... what the fuck do I care if gay people want to be
married?
They're not fighting to have two guys dressed in wedding gowns, mascara and
five o'clock shadows to prance down the aisle of your local church. They're
not fighting for the right to fuck on the crosstown bus. They're not
fighting to have Hers-and-Hers bathrooms at the mall. All the benefits and
rights they're fighting for, wouldn't impact my life one bit if they did get
them, so why the hell would I oppose it? It's like going out and saying you
oppose blue socks. You can't see em anyway, so who the fuck cares?
The only people that could possibly have a valid argument against anti-same
sex marriages are the religious groups. "Homosexuality is an abomination!"
they say. Well, okay, that's your take on it that's cool. Fair enough. But
then there's two things to consider when you enter that realm, too. One,
where the hell were you when priests were treating eight year old children
like fuck toys? I didn't hear you say too much then, in fact you kind of
looked at your shoes, mumbled something about out of court settlements, and
then wandered off into the crowds. I don't hear you protest when atheists
get married. I don't hear you protest when atheists get married in a church.
I don't hear you protest when religious people get married on a cruise ship
snot hanging drunk after grabbing the nearest vacationer to serve as their
witness. So please, if you're going to get all high and fucking mighty, at
least have the courtesy to do it evenly across the board.
And secondly, this situation my friend, is a perfect example of the REAL
reason behind the separation of Church and State. It's not just a
springboard for some loudmouthed asshole to use and get his name in the
paper when he wants to talk about the Pledge of Allegiance, but instead a
genuine reason why Judge Judy needs to leave her Bible/Koran/Torah/Whatever
at home.
What if I created a religion where marriage was illegal altogether, would
the government have to rule all marriages null and void? What if all the
43,000 people in the United Kingdom who checked their religion as "Jedi" all
decided they're never going to get laid and decided they could marry their
dog? Would governments then have to recognize those marriages? The answer is
no in both cases, because the whole purpose of the separation of Church and
State is Uncle Sam can't pick and choose what religious movements they're
going to acknowledge and which they aren't. Churchgoers have every right in
the world to voice their opinions in a public forum, but when it comes time
to making laws it's time to have a nice tall glass of Shut-The-Fuck-Up. The
only thing Uncle Sam can do is to make sure everyone, man, woman, black,
white, tall, short, cute, ugly, straight or gay, gets a fair shake.
Sockermom9
>I'm sure there are others that strike specifically to financial
>matters, but my question would be, are these aspects all covered or
>recognized in current "domestic partnership" laws? If not, then can a
>"domestic partnership" truly be consider a suitable equivilent of
>marriage?
Nope. Another aspect to consider is immigration status. A local woman--a
friend, actually--has a partner from out-of-country. Who could be deported,
despite their committed relationship of many years, if she doesn't continue to
jump through INS hoops, since her relationship with an American isn't a
marriage.
Lynn
Brian
which flouts international law, and is trying to change your constitution in
ways that would make the US even less palatable to the world at large.
Nuff said.
Brian
--
--
___________________________________________________________________________
Any opinions expressed above, are just that, opinions.
please add salt to taste.
Only my Eyes are blind....
switc...@blueyonder.co.uk
___________________________________________________________________________
<mar...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:ib0o30p5a6mocito7...@4ax.com...
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free, so there!
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.593 / Virus Database: 376 - Release Date: 20/02/04
Asmodeus
> If anyone out there knows who wrote this, (and my apologies to the author
> for not knowing), please give credit
It's from Ernie's House of Whoop Ass Dot Com, at
http://www.ehowa.com/february2004.shtml
--
/"\ ||
\ / ASCII RIBBON CAMPAIGN || A democracy occurs when three wolves and
X AGAINST HTML MAIL || one sheep vote on what to have for dinner.
/ \ AND POSTINGS || A republic occurs when the sheep is armed.
-- mr_antone
Jason Crowell
switc...@blueyonder.co.uk says...
> The real debate, I'd say is how long you want to keep an administration
> which flouts international law, and is trying to change your constitution in
> ways that would make the US even less palatable to the world at large.
>
> Nuff said.
Unfortunately, a MINIMUM of four more years. I'm betting that there
will be rampant "Floridation" this year as touch-screen voting booths
are rolled out nationwide. Notably, the security measures are about as
effective as a screen door on an airlock, and there is NO paper trail
anymore.
Now, you can vote straight-ticket Democrat, have someone switch the
totals so that you end up voting for a Republican, and you will never be
able to prove who you voted for. Strangely, most of the companies
providing these machines are either strong Republican backers, or were
even owned by Republican office holders.
Zuleika
say, lets get on with the important things in life and let anyone who wishes
to make a legally binding marriage do so. Not only will this then permit
gay/lesbian couples the choice to be married/de facto or not, the way the
rest of us can so choose, but it also removes the anomaly whereby
transgendered folk who have managed to make the change in every other aspect
of their lives cannot form legally recognised married relationships.
It is way past time that outdated marriage laws were changed. Religious
dogma should not enter this debate - in the 21st century separation of
church and state should be more than just talk.
Zuleika
--
"Moral indignation is jealousy with a halo." -- H. G. Wells
mar...@pacbell.net
<asmo...@REMOVEinsightbb.com> wrote:
>"Shelly K." <bttm...@toast.net> wrote in news:403c...@news03.toast.net:
>
>> If anyone out there knows who wrote this, (and my apologies to the author
>> for not knowing), please give credit
>
>It's from Ernie's House of Whoop Ass Dot Com, at
>
>http://www.ehowa.com/february2004.shtml
Hey now, do NOT take credit for MY POST. I wrote it... (look at the
post ID) and I don't know who this Ernie person is from Adam...
So there.
Asmodeus
4ax.com:
> Hey now, do NOT take credit for MY POST.
No, no, no. Not your post--go back and reread.
TyMeDwn1st
>Unfortunately, a MINIMUM of four more years. I'm betting that there
>will be rampant "Floridation" this year as touch-screen voting booths
>are rolled out nationwide. Notably, the security measures are about as
>effective as a screen door on an airlock, and there is NO paper trail
>anymore.
>
>Now, you can vote straight-ticket Democrat, have someone switch the
>totals so that you end up voting for a Republican, and you will never be
>able to prove who you voted for. Strangely, most of the companies
>providing these machines are either strong Republican backers, or were
>even owned by Republican office holders.
You forgot the part about the senior corporate official for the company
providing the machines making public statements about doing whatever he could
to see that George is re-elected.
Yeah, that increased my confidence in the entire concept of "touch voting," all
right.
--
Ty
Who is mostly just
a slightly skewed
Donna Reed
Recommended reading for February: American Dynasty: Aristocracy, Fortune, and
the Politics of Deceit in the House of Bush. By Kevin Phillips, published by
The Penguin Group.
mar...@pacbell.net
<asmo...@REMOVEinsightbb.com> wrote:
>mar...@pacbell.net wrote in news:ct4p30lclj2i4ocbqi5ht48hj2samikqos@
>4ax.com:
>
>> Hey now, do NOT take credit for MY POST.
>
>No, no, no. Not your post--go back and reread.
I did. And went to your site. It looks like you take credit for what I
wrote and are using it to direct people to a site I have absolutely
nothing at all to do with. Not a nice thing to do. Shame on thou.
Asmodeus
4ax.com:
> I did. And went to your site
It is not my site.
That is where I saw it first. Now, if you wrote it, I suggest
you take it up with the owner of my site.
And once again, just to make sure it sinks in: it is not my site.
Shelly K.
> Hey now, do NOT take credit for MY POST. I wrote it... (look at the
> post ID) and I don't know who this Ernie person is from Adam...
>
> So there.
Don't get your panties up in a wad.....
I wasn't asking who started this post, but I used someone else's words,
("Ernie's"), and was asking if anyone knew who wrote what I used.
K?
Sorry for the confusion....
bttm_zup
***********************************************
"I sold my soul for freedom....it's lonely, but it's sweet." (Melissa
Etheridge)
Asmodeus
>First, you really have to come up with a reasonable definition of what
>exactly a "marriage" is. This isn't all that easy, since it
>incorporates elements that are very etherial (love, etc.).
>In trying to reach a workable definition, it struck me that there are
>four major aspects to marriage - financial, legal, social and
>spiritual - all of which are based on the concept of "two made one"
>(or, to put it another way, the creation of a single entity composed
>of two separate and independent entities.)
This is what was referred to, which I first saw
on ehowa.com:
>Now a few years ago I used to live with a girl who had not only a
>spectacular pair of breasts, but a gay sister as well. I dunno if the
gay
>sister had great boobs too because, well, she was gay. But anyway, this
>sister lived in California with her -- of what's the politically correct
>term -- life partner? Yeah, so these two lesbians have been with each
other
>for a like eleven years and they were as committed to each other as any
>heterosexual couple I know. But since they obviously can't have any
children
>without some help, they decided one of them gets artificially
inseminated.
>They took a look at their jobs, and decided the one who had the lesser
>paying job would be the one to carry the baby, since her taking time off
>from work wouldn't be as financially straining. Nine months later, poof
>they've got a kid.
The same person most certainly did NOT write both. So
which of the two are you claiming to have written?
And once again, ehowa.com is not my site.
Joe Sergio
<maste...@timNOberSPANwoof.com> writes:
>Why inflict that sort of pain on everyone? It's long since obvious that
>peopple live much longer than they used to, and that a promise made
>"'til death do us part" is harder to live up to nowadays.
Divorce laws come with marriage laws. If you don't want to face the
possibility of divorce and all the carp that goes with it, then don't get
married. Live together. Lobby for something that grants nonmarried couples
(gay and straight) in a ltr who aren't married to have the same rights. Just
as it's not fair to let straight couples marry and refuse it to gay couples, it
isn't fair to let gay couples out of marriage without giving staight couples
the same easy out.
As for "till death do us part", most folks that I know intend to stay with
their spouse forever. Even in the case of my first marriage where I married
her only because she was pregnant. I fully intended to fulfill my obligation
for the rest of my life. You can write your own vows that don't specify that
wording if you wish, but since marriage is also a legal contract, you have to
use legal means to end it.
Divorce can be a very civilised thing. So can a breakup. It depends on the
two people involved. Many breakups are messier than divorces and vice versa.
If you want one you have to take the other.
>
>Besides that, why must marriage be forever? Why can't it be ended in a
>civil way?
Oops, I meant to put that other stuff down here. I'm a tad rusty posting here.
Anyway, I gave my opinion. ;-)
--
Joe
DonSideB
the right and wrong of the issue, but will use it to whip up fervor and
polarize and already divided nation.
From Bush's POV, supporting an amendment he knows will never be ratified
solidifies his support from the social conservatives, but will cost him few
votes. Few who support gay marriage were going to vote for Bush anyway. He'll
probably get 10 to 1 from the undecided. Even those who are uncertain about gay
marriage itself are going to favor Bush taking a stand in the face of mayor's
and judges ignoring plainly written law.
From Kerry's point of view, this whole thing is a nightmare and he will
carefully take both sides. He can use it to whip up supporters he already had,
but doing so will drive out others who were leaning his way.
THe sad thing is that before the Mass courts and the mayors of SF and Chicago
decided to make a crisis out of what could have been compromise, civil unions
were a sure thing. Now they are doubtful.
Make no mistake who brought this on though. There was no way Bush could let
blatant violation of Federal Law (Clinton's Defense of Marriage Act) go
unchallenged. It would have been better for Ashcroft to have asserted and
defended the DMA rather than go for the amendment, but letting it slide was not
an option.
What I wonder is how Rove got those mayors and judges to sabotage their party's
chances.
--
don
Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech
(except to muzzle critics of the Congress for 60 days before an election.)
SSBB Diplomatic Corps: Tidewater Virginia
Joe Sergio
>It's from Ernie's House of Whoop Ass Dot Com, at
That name sounds so fucking cool!
--
Joe
Volcano
dons...@aol.combackatyu says...
>
> From Bush's POV, supporting an amendment he knows will never be ratified
> solidifies his support from the social conservatives, but will cost him few
> votes.
According to some sources, Bush "knew" when he signed McCain-Feingold
that it would be found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Ooops.
--
,~~~~
/ \ Board Member: Darkest Desires Central Texas
/ \ Volcano Founder: Pink Pistols Central Texas
www.PinkPistolsCenTex.org
DonSideB
<vol...@pinkpistolscentex.org> writes:
>In article <20040225091541...@mb-m19.aol.com>,
>dons...@aol.combackatyu says...
>>
>> From Bush's POV, supporting an amendment he knows will never be ratified
>> solidifies his support from the social conservatives, but will cost him few
>> votes.
>
>According to some sources, Bush "knew" when he signed McCain-Feingold
>that it would be found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Ooops.
>
Yeah, that may be why he is reluctant to trust in the courts to uphold the
Defense of Marriage Act.
Once bitten and all that....
Asmodeus
news:MPG.1aa684379...@news.gvtc.com:
> According to some sources, Bush "knew" when he signed McCain-Feingold
> that it would be found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Ooops
As it indeed is.
Asmodeus
news:3khp30d5a8ks08g9d...@4ax.com:
> prove me wrong
I suspect he/she/it is far too busy chewing on his/her/its foot
right at the moment.
Asmodeus
news:20040225090932...@mb-m27.aol.com:
> Divorce laws come with marriage laws
Exactly--you can't have it both ways. And either way, it amounts
to the government intruding into a relationship.
Malcolm Weir
wrote:
[ Snip ]
>Make no mistake who brought this on though. There was no way Bush could let
>blatant violation of Federal Law (Clinton's Defense of Marriage Act) go
>unchallenged. It would have been better for Ashcroft to have asserted and
>defended the DMA rather than go for the amendment, but letting it slide was not
>an option.
Don is spinning....
People being 'married' in California and Mass. would have NO impact on
the Federal Defense of Marriage Act. That is the whole POINT of the
Defense of Marriage Act: it does *nothing* to limit what the states
do, but limits what the Feds recognize.
So there's no violation. Don, of course, is too busy spouting his
extremist propaganda to actually bother with facts.
And, in a typical piece of Don-crap, the Defense of Marriage Act was
not Clinton's, but BY REPS. BOB BARR (GA), STEVE LARGENT (OK), JIM
SENSENBRENNER (WI), SUE MYRICK (NC), ED BRYANT (TN), BILL EMERSON
(MO), HAROLD VOLKMER (MO), and IKE SKELTON (MO).
Still, Clinton *is* a Southern Baptist, and as such belongs to a
church whose views on the status of women is pretty damn primitive.
But unlike the solution of Don's hero (Bush), the DOMA can be repealed
by the Congress that passed it...
Oddly enough, the Defense of Marriage Act has the balls to refer to
U.S. Supreme Court definition of marriage: "the union for life of one
man and one woman". Strange how they left out those two words, isn't
it?
>What I wonder is how Rove got those mayors and judges to sabotage their party's
>chances.
Ummm, Don, Judges aren't *supposed* to _have_ a party. Obviously,
that isn't true of the wholly-owned subsidiary of Dick Cheney, United
States Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin "Dick's Bitch" Scalia!
Malc.
Malcolm Weir
Zenger) wrote:
>mar...@pacbell.net come on down:
>
>>Any thoughts?
>
>what's so great about this debate?
>
>a guy on a message board i frequent put it best, i think.
>
>if you're opposed to gay people getting married, make up your own extralegal
>idea of marriage. call it "ultra marriage under god 4000" or something.
>marriage is a civil institution. complaining about how people who don't fit
>into your particular worldview are allowed to do it is like complaining that
>christmas is a federal holiday even for atheists.
I noticed, in the preamble to the Defense of Marriage Act, an
interesting point:
There's a difference between "marriage" and "holy matrimony".
So the loons who believe that letting too many people onto the
marriage bus will somehow weaken the institution (which, I'd note, has
never *needed* legal protection before, but now the poor dear
obviously requires noble defenders) could call themselves in "holy
wedlock", etc...
Malc.
mar...@pacbell.net
<asmo...@REMOVEinsightbb.com> wrote:
>mar...@pacbell.net wrote in news:bg6p301ufe9uoom6uui0s2b4s1g5donh89@
>4ax.com:
>
>> I did. And went to your site
>
>It is not my site.
>
>That is where I saw it first. Now, if you wrote it, I suggest
>you take it up with the owner of my site.
>
>And once again, just to make sure it sinks in: it is not my site.
Ok, but what I don't get is, I composed it and posted it about ten
minutes before you put your original reply in attributing it to that
site. I doubt if anyone can hypertext code something, post it, have it
read and commented on in ten minutes... so my conclusion is that you
just mistook it for something someone else wrote. Case closed.
Asmodeus
4ax.com:
> Case closed.
No, not case closed. For one thing, YOU did not write both
of those texts--and you are still avoiding the question of
which one you wrote. For another, you accused me of taking
your text and claiming it as my own, and I have yet to get
an apology.
And since I'm in a bad mood, just fuck yourself.
DonSideB
<ma...@gelt.org> writes:
>On 25 Feb 2004 14:15:41 GMT, dons...@aol.combackatyu (DonSideB)
>wrote:
>
>[ Snip ]
>
>>Make no mistake who brought this on though. There was no way Bush could let
>>blatant violation of Federal Law (Clinton's Defense of Marriage Act) go
>>unchallenged. It would have been better for Ashcroft to have asserted and
>>defended the DMA rather than go for the amendment, but letting it slide was
>not
>>an option.
>
>Don is spinning....
>
>People being 'married' in California and Mass. would have NO impact on
>the Federal Defense of Marriage Act. That is the whole POINT of the
>Defense of Marriage Act: it does *nothing* to limit what the states
>do, but limits what the Feds recognize.
>
Actually, I was just passing along Barney Frank's position. He was adamant that
the actions of the SF mayor were counterproductive and would require a response
by the Feds.
Shelly K.
> Ok, but what I don't get is, I composed it and posted it about ten
> minutes before you put your original reply in attributing it to that
> site. I doubt if anyone can hypertext code something, post it, have it
> read and commented on in ten minutes... so my conclusion is that you
> just mistook it for something someone else wrote. Case closed.
>
************************************************
If you wrote what I COPIED to this group, then you most certainly did NOT
write it 10 minutes before anything! I recieved the article in question
from a friend in my e-mail more than a week prior to "using" it here.
(Again).....I did not know who wrote it, and asked if anyone else here did.
I did not want credit for something I did not author, and thank the person
for coming up with a "credit" for it. The writing styles are OBVIOUSLY not
alike....I read most of your rantings.
I think you must have missed MY post, that's what this is all about. Ya
might want to go back and look for it....it's NOT yours. Asmodeus was
commenting/giving credit to MY posting on your subject....NOT on yours.
AGAIN....get your facts straight before you start chewing ass....nobody is
commenting on what YOU wrote. Get a grip.
(Feel like I'm talking to walls.......)
Shelly K.
**************************************************
"If all it takes is an infinite number of monkeys with typewriters, how come
AOL users haven't written any Shakespeare yet?"
-Andy Dingley
Asmodeus
news:20040226090832...@mb-m28.aol.com:
> Actually, I was just passing along Barney Frank's position. He was
> adamant that the actions of the SF mayor were counterproductive and
> would require a response by the Feds
And for once, he was right.
Janet Hardy
> dons...@aol.combackatyu (DonSideB) wrote in
> news:20040226090832...@mb-m28.aol.com:
>
>>Actually, I was just passing along Barney Frank's position. He was
>>adamant that the actions of the SF mayor were counterproductive and
>>would require a response by the Feds
>
> And for once, he was right.
I'm not sure Newsom did it on purpose. But what he's actually done, IMO,
is to drive a wedge into the vulnerable crack in the Republican Party --
the gap between the stated ideals of the party, its less
government/states' rights mission statement, and its increasing desire
to place itself squarely in America's bedrooms and brains.
He's exposed a big, big lie, god love him. A poll in this morning's
Chronicle showed that the majority of Californians still oppose gay
marriage (although the percentage is dropping) -- but a larger majority
oppose a constitutional amendment against it. While California is
certainly a liberal state, I don't think the rest of the country is
going to be too far behind on this issue. Not too many people are ready
to see the Constitution altered to take people's rights *away*.
Call me an optimist, but I think this one is going to work out in our
favor in the end -- and possibly in bigger ways than anyone imagined.
If nothing else, it's made this the most interesting couple of weeks'
worth of news I can remember in *ages*.
Janet
--
PHOTOGRAPHY FOR PERVERTS by Charles Gatewood. "The family photographer
of America's sexual underground" tells you how to take your own fetish
photographs for pleasure or publication. Lots of hot fetish photography
too! Now available from Greenery Press at http://www.greenerypress.com.
Asmodeus
news:f502439ff8f3caf7...@news.teranews.com:
> I'm not sure Newsom did it on purpose
He broke the law. Intentionally.
How would you feel if a mayor had said he didn't believe the
abortion laws were ethical, and decided not to honor them?
You know, instead of marrying gay folks, sent the cops out
to close up all the clinics?
It's the same damn thing. He should be impeached.
And yes, I'm pissed. We worked long and hard, and not so
a bunch of assimilationist, narcissist little activists
could throw it all away with their antics.
Real pissed.
Boris Ludmenkov
<tymed...@aol.comPEARLS> writes
>You forgot the part about the senior corporate official for the company
>providing the machines making public statements about doing whatever he
>could to see that George is re-elected.
>
>Yeah, that increased my confidence in the entire concept of "touch
>voting," all right.
>
Just to put the idea into people's minds: a mass movement in which
people went down to their local voting station and demanded the right to
vote with paper and pencil would get great publicity....
Actually, I suspect there will be enough court cases to prevent the roll
out of the new devices. Would be if I were running the campaign against
them.
That said, I must say that the gentleman from the House of Whup Ass
(silly name, if memorable) summarised the argument for me. I've been
reading the various web sites of the people pushing this constitutional
amendment (which has about as much chance of being ratified as I have of
becoming Ms World but is bound to use up a lot of time and emotional
energy) and it strikes me that their arguments for it boil down to:
1) Gay marriages have never happened before.
2) Gay marriages are an abomination before the Lord.
And while the first argument may be convincing for those who are
emotionally committed conservatives and the second for those who are
True Believers the rest of us need a little more. They fanfare their
movement as being 'In defence of marriage' but I've not yet found a
single statement of how anyone's marriage is diluted, harmed or
diminished by allowing people who happen to share a gender to enter that
blessed state.
Have they got an argument? Or just enthusiasm?
--
Boris Ludmenkov
Pervert & Pornographer
"If the law where you are doesn't permit you to read this, shouldn't you be out
organising a revolution or something?"
Boris Ludmenkov
<dons...@aol.combackatyu> writes
>THe sad thing is that before the Mass courts and the mayors of SF and
>Chicago decided to make a crisis out of what could have been
>compromise, civil unions were a sure thing. Now they are doubtful.
Well, I'm British and have nothing against a bit of semantic slight of
hand to get a needed reform to go down smoothly (it's the root we're
going down in the UK), but I can sympathise with the statement of the
Mass. Court that 'separate but equal' has a rotten record in the US.
Asmodeus
$qwijDRA...@room3b.demon.co.uk:
> amendment (which has about as much chance of being ratified as I have of
> becoming Ms World but is bound to use up a lot of time and emotional
> energy
Exactly.
However, it will quite possibly set civil union legislation
back significantly. That is what's so infuriating about all
these antics--that, and the fact that the mayor is exactly
the same as Judge Moore, but because people like what the
mayor is doing, he's suddenly a hero.
Feh on that. He should be forcibly removed from office, if
not prosecuted.
Malcolm Weir
<asmo...@REMOVEinsightbb.com> wrote:
>Boris Ludmenkov <bor...@room3b.demon.co.uk> wrote in news:m
>$qwijDRA...@room3b.demon.co.uk:
>
>> amendment (which has about as much chance of being ratified as I have of
>> becoming Ms World but is bound to use up a lot of time and emotional
>> energy
>
>Exactly.
>
>However, it will quite possibly set civil union legislation
>back significantly. That is what's so infuriating about all
>these antics--that, and the fact that the mayor is exactly
>the same as Judge Moore, but because people like what the
>mayor is doing, he's suddenly a hero.
Clay, being a *very* aggressive right wing extremist, has failed to
understand that NOTHING that Gavin Newsome has done has defied a court
(in fact, the opposite is true) and indeed NOTHING that Gavin Newsome
has done is illegal.
It *may* well be that the marriage licenses issued by SF City Hall
turn out to be not worth the paper used to print them, but NOTHING in
California or Federal law prohibits the mayor from issuing worthless
pieces of paper.
That's where these dogmatic idiots like Clay and Don and their tame
pundits fall flat on their faces: California and Federal law may
decide not to *recognize* the marriages, but so what? Unless someone
*demands* that the state and federal governments respect these
marriages, there's absolutely NOTHING wrong with issuing the licenses.
And this isn't just my opinion: THREE COURTS have ruled on the matter!
>Feh on that. He should be forcibly removed from office, if
>not prosecuted.
For what? For actions which are totally legal (albeit potentially
also totally pointless)? For respecting the will of the people of San
Francisco?
It's funny to see these right wing zealots try to fabricate a wrong
doing to justify their loathing of tolerance...
Malc.
Malcolm Weir
<asmo...@REMOVEinsightbb.com> wrote:
>dons...@aol.combackatyu (DonSideB) wrote in
>news:20040226090832...@mb-m28.aol.com:
>
>> Actually, I was just passing along Barney Frank's position. He was
>> adamant that the actions of the SF mayor were counterproductive and
>> would require a response by the Feds
>
>And for once, he was right.
Not using any sane definition of, well, anything.
The Feds didn't have to respond any more than the state did. Of
course, they *wanted* to respond to pander to their cadre of bigots,
but response was entirely unnecessary...
Malc.
Binder
news:Xns949AA3CE0BE3Cas...@204.127.204.17:
> rednec...@aol.comspam (Joe Sergio) wrote in
> news:20040225090932...@mb-m27.aol.com:
>
>> Divorce laws come with marriage laws
>
> Exactly--you can't have it both ways. And either way, it amounts
> to the government intruding into a relationship.
If one wants the perks that come with gov't recognized marriage, then
where's the problem? Why would anyone want to be legally married if not for
gov't recognition?
Binder
news:Xns949B521EEAAE1as...@204.127.199.17:
> mar...@pacbell.net wrote in news:2pmr30lf9llchdu98k66405caudm8im2mv@
> 4ax.com:
>
>> Case closed.
>
> No, not case closed. For one thing, YOU did not write both
> of those texts--and you are still avoiding the question of
> which one you wrote. For another, you accused me of taking
> your text and claiming it as my own, and I have yet to get
> an apology.
>
> And since I'm in a bad mood, just fuck yourself.
>
marach may have missed the post by Shelly where this was:
"I don't know who the original author was, (sounds like someone who hosted
a
TV or radio show), but this was sent to me, and I'd like to share it.
At first I thought this guy was gonna "bash" the subject, but, he managed
to
put a smile on my face by the end of the article.
If anyone out there knows who wrote this, (and my apologies to the author
for not knowing), please give credit. THX....
"
Confusion rains.
Malcolm Weir
wrote:
>Asmodeus wrote:
>> dons...@aol.combackatyu (DonSideB) wrote in
>> news:20040226090832...@mb-m28.aol.com:
>>
>>>Actually, I was just passing along Barney Frank's position. He was
>>>adamant that the actions of the SF mayor were counterproductive and
>>>would require a response by the Feds
>>
>> And for once, he was right.
>
>I'm not sure Newsom did it on purpose. But what he's actually done, IMO,
>is to drive a wedge into the vulnerable crack in the Republican Party --
>the gap between the stated ideals of the party, its less
>government/states' rights mission statement, and its increasing desire
>to place itself squarely in America's bedrooms and brains.
In addition, he's created a huge pool of parties who would be impacted
by a California court who considering the (state) constitutionality of
ScumbagKnight's law.
Consider: in Mass., the suit was brought by a handful (less than 20)
of individuals who claimed they were being discriminated against by
the state. The Mass. supremes agreed, and the rest should be history
in May...
But here we have over 6000 individuals who have been granted something
by the duly constituted government of the city and county of SF. So
the issue facing a court is not "should they have the right to marry",
but "can we remove a right they've been granted".
It's a big difference when it comes to considering the harm involved.
In Mass., the justices had to go to quite a lot of effort to identify
the harm resulting from not permitting them to marry -- and most of
that harm was potential, not actual. So the impact was limited to
those who could not marry and who said they wanted to marry -- but who
might not actually go through with a marriage even if they could --
and also limited to the things they couldn't get without marriage.
In San Francisco, we have a pile o' individuals whose marriages would
have to be declared void, and from whom the court would have to remove
privileges.
And make no mistake: those married in San Francisco *do* have rights
resulting from that marriage, even if those rights are not respected
outside the city. For example, a hospital in Oakland may still refuse
to accept a same-sex partner as a spouse, but SF General *cannot*...
At present, of course, only city-run agencies are required to
recognize the marriage (and anyone else can ignore it).
>He's exposed a big, big lie, god love him. A poll in this morning's
>Chronicle showed that the majority of Californians still oppose gay
>marriage (although the percentage is dropping) -- but a larger majority
>oppose a constitutional amendment against it. While California is
>certainly a liberal state, I don't think the rest of the country is
>going to be too far behind on this issue. Not too many people are ready
>to see the Constitution altered to take people's rights *away*.
Yep. Although the spin the conservatives are trying has some
mumbo-jumbo about people's right to some specious belief being
protected, and if same-sex marriage was tolerated, then their rights
to exclusivity would be abridged.
(That makes no sense to me, either, but it's fairly traditional
right-wing why-bother-about-the-truth-when-mud-will-do tactics).
>Call me an optimist, but I think this one is going to work out in our
>favor in the end -- and possibly in bigger ways than anyone imagined.
I hope so. Despite the comments of Don et al., I think it clear that
the incentive for the call for an Amendment is based soundly in the
belief that the extreme conservatives are losing, so this is their
last chance. After "Lawrence" in Texas, the Mass. decision and
subsequent difficulty in getting a Mass. amendment rolling, these
extremists understand that the window of opportunity to regulate
people's private lives is narrowing, and they'll have a harder time
next year than this, and a still harder time the year after that.
>Janet
Malc.
Malcolm Weir
<asmo...@REMOVEinsightbb.com> wrote:
>Janet Hardy <ver...@earthlink.net> wrote in
>news:f502439ff8f3caf7...@news.teranews.com:
>
>> I'm not sure Newsom did it on purpose
>
>He broke the law. Intentionally.
No, he didn't.
No law has been broken.
>How would you feel if a mayor had said he didn't believe the
>abortion laws were ethical, and decided not to honor them?
>You know, instead of marrying gay folks, sent the cops out
>to close up all the clinics?
THERE IS NO LAW SAYING THAT THE MAYOR OF ANY CITY MAY NOT ISSUE
MARRIAGE LICENSES TO SAME SEX COUPLES.
There *is* a law saying that the State of California only recognizes
marriages between one man and one woman (and a similar law exists for
the feds).
>It's the same damn thing. He should be impeached.
Yet COURTS don't see it the same way as Clay "right wing loon" Bond.
Who should we believe? THREE courts? Or Clay? Hmmm....
>And yes, I'm pissed. We worked long and hard, and not so
>a bunch of assimilationist, narcissist little activists
>could throw it all away with their antics.
>
>Real pissed.
Oh, poor widdle diddummy Clay!
Clay hasn't figured out that what *he* wants to do has bugger all to
do with what others want to do. If Clay wants to live some hoopy
out-there queer lifestyle, that's great... but I doubt he even vaguely
understands that his position is *precisely* the same as those who
would legislate an Amendment: that's not what *he* wants, so *no-one*
should be allowed to have it.
Malc.
Janet Hardy
Asmodeus wrote:
> Janet Hardy <ver...@earthlink.net> wrote in
> news:f502439ff8f3caf7...@news.teranews.com:
>
>>I'm not sure Newsom did it on purpose
>
> He broke the law. Intentionally.
Yes -- unquestionably (although that's not what I was asking about).
Civil disobedience is not the only way to get a bad law changed, but
it's one of the ways, and heaven knows there's a lot of precedence for
it, althoug it's rarely been enacted at quite such a high and visible level.
> How would you feel if a mayor had said he didn't believe the
> abortion laws were ethical, and decided not to honor them?
> You know, instead of marrying gay folks, sent the cops out
> to close up all the clinics?
I would hate it a whole lot. That is the nature of civil disobedience --
the people who agree with it like it, and the people who disagree with
it hate it. See also: Parks, Rosa, et al.
> It's the same damn thing. He should be impeached.
And may be, before this is all over, and he well knows it. He has said
in so many words that if that is the price he winds up paying, he will
consider it a price well paid.
> And yes, I'm pissed. We worked long and hard, and not so
> a bunch of assimilationist, narcissist little activists
> could throw it all away with their antics.
>
> Real pissed.
And I'm delighted (and fascinated by the chess game that has been set in
motion). Not the first time, nor the last, you & I will disagree.
Malcolm Weir
wrote:
>
>
>Asmodeus wrote:
>> Janet Hardy <ver...@earthlink.net> wrote in
>> news:f502439ff8f3caf7...@news.teranews.com:
>>
>>>I'm not sure Newsom did it on purpose
>>
>> He broke the law. Intentionally.
>
>Yes -- unquestionably (although that's not what I was asking about).
Really? Which law would that be?
California Family Code Section 308.5 sums it up:
"Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or
recognized in California."
Same code, section 352: "No marriage license shall be granted if
either of the applicants lacks the capacity to enter into a valid
marriage or is, at the time of making the application for the license,
under the influence of an intoxicating liquor or narcotic drug."
Nothing in section 352 requires the applicants to have the capacity to
enter into a valid marriage *with each other*, merely that they have
the capacity to marry (i.e. they are not already married, etc. etc.).
Health and Safety Code 103175 talks about the contents of the
certificate of registry... but doesn't prohibit the registrar from
recording a marriage that is invalid -- and for good reason: if it
turns out that someone lacked the capacity to enter into a valid
marriage (by being already married), why should the registrar be at
fault?
And so on.
Regardless of what you or Bond or the Gropenator says, Newsom *DOESN'T
SEEM TO BE* breaking any laws. Yes, it appears that he is issuing
licenses for invalid marriages that are not recognized in California,
but there's NO law that requires Newsom to *only* issue licenses for
valid marriages.
The Gropenator (Arnold) claims that Prop 22 is somehow being disobeyed
(he called upon SF to obey it). It reads, in full:
"PROPOSED LAW
SECTION 1. This act may be cited as the "California Defense of
Marriage Act."
SECTION 2. Section 308.5 is added to the Family Code, to read:
308.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized
in California. "
That's it. That's the law that Arnold claims that SF is breaking.
Now, there *are* legitimate public interest issues about whether or
not a city or county should knowingly issue licenses that they know to
be invalid, and it is on those issues that the courts will eventually
rule. BUT if they rule that the equal protection clauses of the state
constitution invalidate 308.5, then Newsom would have been violating
the state constitution by NOT issuing the licenses!
Compare with issuing a marriage license to someone under the age of
ten: FC section 352 bites you immediately: No marriage license shall
be granted. But as long as each party named in the license has the
capacity to enter into a valid marriage (and in the situation here,
they do... not with each other) the City and County of San Francisco
is breaking no laws.
It is also issuing licenses for marriages that are invalid and
unrecognized in California, and people who get these licenses have a
strong case for a refund. But neither California nor Federal law
prevents Newsom from issuing them.
[ Snip ]
>> It's the same damn thing. He should be impeached.
>
>And may be, before this is all over, and he well knows it. He has said
>in so many words that if that is the price he winds up paying, he will
>consider it a price well paid.
I think the likelihood of Gavin Newsom being impeached by the voters
of San Francisco rather lower than the likelihood of Union Square
being renamed George W. Bush Plaza by the voters of San Francisco.
Remember, the run-off election was between Newsom (liberal) and
Gonzalez (more liberal, in fact Green). More conservative voters
didn't even get a candidate into the run-off. People who supported
Gonzalez are unlikely to oppose Newsom on this one.
I'll be amused to see the size of the GLBT "town hall" meeting this
weekend. I'm thinking huge...
[ Snip ]
>Janet
Malc.
DonSideB
<asmo...@REMOVEinsightbb.com> writes:
>
>However, it will quite possibly set civil union legislation
>back significantly. That is what's so infuriating about all
>these antics--that, and the fact that the mayor is exactly
>the same as Judge Moore, but because people like what the
>mayor is doing, he's suddenly a hero.
>
You were expecting consistency from people who think the Constitution means
whatever suits their passion of the moment?
DonSideB
<ma...@gelt.org> writes:
>
>The Feds didn't have to respond any more than the state did. Of
>course, they *wanted* to respond to pander to their cadre of bigots,
>but response was entirely unnecessary...
>
And entirely predictable. Which is exactly what I pointed out in the very first
reply in the Same Sex Marriage thread. And earlier in the celebratory thread
over the SCOTUS sodomy ruling. Sometimes I hate having my predictions come
true, but I do observe the political process and try to warn people when they
are overreaching.
Pushing the gay marriage agenda immediately after the court victory on the
Sodomy laws was certain to give the pendulum, which was swinging briskly toward
tolerance, a hard shove in the other direction. Janet Jackson didn't help
either.
Now, thanks to the impatience and arrogance of a few activists, the sure thing
of civil unions (though I'd still prefer and end to government having anything
to do with marriage) is probably dead for a decade and we'll be lucky if they
stop with an amendment banning same sex marriage and don't just go for an
amendment reinstating the sodomy laws. They could do that just as easily.
We debate politics here on a relatively rational level among generally tolerant
people, but the larger world is a very different place than SSBB. Out there,
emotions and perceptions play a much larger role than here. The perception,
wrong though it may be, was that the SCOTUS sodomy ruling was a 'gift' to
sexual minorities for which we (no, I'm not gay, but I'm all sexual minorities
share the 'other ' status in the public eye. What affects gays also affects
BDSM) should show proper gratitude. Instead, activists call them bigots and
reply with further demands and with outright defiance of the laws and
sensibilities of the mainstream.
So, the pendulum is no longer swinging toward tolerance. We could have gained a
great deal for the cause of tolerance and freedom, but arrogance and blindness
to the reality of political change will lose it all.
DonSideB
<ma...@gelt.org> writes:
>
>Same code, section 352: "No marriage license shall be granted if
>either of the applicants lacks the capacity to enter into a valid
>marriage or is, at the time of making the application for the license,
>under the influence of an intoxicating liquor or narcotic drug."
>
>Nothing in section 352 requires the applicants to have the capacity to
>enter into a valid marriage *with each other*, merely that they have
>the capacity to marry (i.e. they are not already married, etc. etc.).
>
>Health and Safety Code 103175 talks about the contents of the
>certificate of registry... but doesn't prohibit the registrar from
>recording a marriage that is invalid -- and for good reason: if it
>turns out that someone lacked the capacity to enter into a valid
>marriage (by being already married), why should the registrar be at
>fault?
>
>And so on.
>
Your knowledge of detail is almost as impressive as your total disconnect from
the reality of human nature and how politics actually works.
DonSideB
<ver...@earthlink.net> writes:
>
>And I'm delighted (and fascinated by the chess game that has been set in
>motion). Not the first time, nor the last, you & I will disagree.
>
It's not a chess game. It's not about tactics. It's about changing people's
hearts and minds.
You don't win hearts and minds with arrogance and defiance.
Those of use who live and breath politics have learned the importance of the
moral AND emotional high ground in effecting real change.
Portrayals of sexual minorities, like "Queer as Folk" and even "Will and Grace"
and real people like Richard Hatch have touched the public's heart with
sympathetic connections to people who are very different from the mainstream,
but still people who deserve tolerance and even friendship. Tolerance was seen
as the "right thing" by most people, even as they struggled with it. Racism
became passe not because of Malcom X so much as because of Rosa Parks.
But that picture on the news today of Rosie O'Donnell struting arrogantly down
the steps of city hall with that smug look of superiority and triumph on her
face has the power to wipe out everything good that has been accomplished. For
90% of tose who see tha picture, that look on her face will inspire nothing but
hatred, even if they don't understand why they feel it.
Here, in the intellectual world of SSBB, politics is about principle and
documents and abstract rights, but out there it is about perception and
emotion. Mathew Sheppard died and made people question their prejudices, Rosie
confirmed to the mainstream that they were right about 'those people' all
along.
Its a big party on Castro street right now, but Yamamoto's crew was having a
big party on Dec 8, 1941, too. The Admiral, a wiser man, was less enthusiastic
about what he had set in motion.
Markem
ma...@gelt.org says...
Let see it is an Federal election year in which "We The
People" will choose the leader of the US executive branch, the
whole of the House and one third of the Senate how can they not
pander to the people. Distasteful but true.
Of course not reelecting incumbent for say next ten years might
have an effect, but I do not see the American public as being
pissed off enough for such a thing to happen.
But I am pretty close.
Markem
Markem
smaxbin...@yahoo.com says...
> Why would anyone want to be legally married if not for
> gov't recognition?
How about love that why I did it.
Markem
MasterofDelight
> THERE IS NO LAW SAYING THAT THE MAYOR OF ANY CITY MAY NOT ISSUE
> MARRIAGE LICENSES TO SAME SEX COUPLES.
>
> There *is* a law saying that the State of California only recognizes
> marriages between one man and one woman (and a similar law exists for
> the feds).
>
> >It's the same damn thing. He should be impeached.
>
> Yet COURTS don't see it the same way as Clay "right wing loon" Bond.
>
> Who should we believe? THREE courts? Or Clay? Hmmm....
>
Citations please to the three California court decisions.
MasterofDelight
Asmodeus
@netnews.mchsi.com:
> How about love that why I did it
That's not a reason to enter into a civil contract.
MasterofDelight
> On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 00:48:09 GMT, Janet Hardy <ver...@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Asmodeus wrote:
> >> Janet Hardy <ver...@earthlink.net> wrote in
> >> news:f502439ff8f3caf7...@news.teranews.com:
> >>
> >>>I'm not sure Newsom did it on purpose
> >>
> >> He broke the law. Intentionally.
> >
> >Yes -- unquestionably (although that's not what I was asking about).
>
> Really? Which law would that be?
>
> California Family Code Section 308.5 sums it up:
>
> "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or
> recognized in California."
>
> Same code, section 352: "No marriage license shall be granted if
> either of the applicants lacks the capacity to enter into a valid
> marriage or is, at the time of making the application for the license,
> under the influence of an intoxicating liquor or narcotic drug."
>
> Nothing in section 352 requires the applicants to have the capacity to
> enter into a valid marriage *with each other*, merely that they have
> the capacity to marry (i.e. they are not already married, etc. etc.).
>
Good luck if you try to make that argument to a Court. A marriage
license is issued to two people and licenses those two people to marry
each other. It does not license those persons to each go and marry
other persons.
Want to buy a bridge in New York City?
MasterofDelight
Asmodeus
news:20040227091601...@mb-m22.aol.com:
> You were expecting consistency from people who think the Constitution
> means whatever suits their passion of the moment?
Not expecting. But it pisses me off.
If this were an Amendment to proclaim same-sex marriage, then
all these people who are frothing at the mouth would be hopping
up and down supporting it.
Feh!
Markem
204.127.204.17>, asmo...@REMOVEinsightbb.com says...
> Markem <mark...@hotmail.comN> wrote in news:MPG.1aa916646065a5639896a5
> @netnews.mchsi.com:
>
> > How about love that why I did it
>
> That's not a reason to enter into a civil contract.
>
My reason for getting married was good for me, I do not
recommend my reasoning to others. But others should be able to
make that same decision. It was also a religious ceremony (the
minister is a kink friend). Celebrating the love and friendship
my wife and I have found with our friends and family is reason
enough in my view.
So yes I think all committed couples regardless of whether it
is MM, FF, MF, or a poly situation should be recognized by the
state if the parties involved agree. That would take the state
out of making moral judgements. Polly Anna yep that it is.
Markem
Starship
>
> Clay, being a *very* aggressive right wing extremist, has failed to
> understand that NOTHING that Gavin Newsome has done has defied a court
> (in fact, the opposite is true) and indeed NOTHING that Gavin Newsome
> has done is illegal.
That is not quite correct. It is not illegal for the mayor to order his
clerks to issue pieces of worthless pieces of paper, but it is a
misdemeanor in California for anyone to solemnize an illegal marriage,
so he could be prosecuted for the small number of same-sex weddings he
personally performed.
--
Starship
He which hath no stomach to this fight,
Let him depart; his passport shall be made,
And crowns for convoy put into his purse;
We would not die in that man's company
That fears his fellowship to die with us.
Asmodeus
@netnews.mchsi.com:
> My reason for getting married was good for me
That's not the same.
People don't say, "We love each other, so let's get into this
civil contract." That's no more rational than, "It's going to
rain this weekend, so let's buy a new house."
The perks aren't the same as getting married.
Steve Pope
> Asmodeus wrote:
>> Janet Hardy <ver...@earthlink.net> wrote in
>>> I'm not sure Newsom did it on purpose
>> He broke the law. Intentionally.
> Yes -- unquestionably (although that's not what I was asking
> about). Civil disobedience is not the only way to get a bad law
> changed, but it's one of the ways, and heaven knows there's a lot
> of precedence for it, althoug it's rarely been enacted at quite
> such a high and visible level.
Actually, very high ranking officials including U.S. Presidents
also break the law, sometimes with the (often mistaken) notion
that they are doing something morally right by so doing.
The Iran-Contra affair might fall into that category, or the
recent illegal espionage at the U.N.
I don't think such acts count as "civil disobedience" because
somewhere in my personal definition of civil disobedience is
the concept that you're acting against a stronger authority --
an individual defying the police, a mayor defying state law, etc.
Steve
Asmodeus
@blue.rahul.net:
> I don't think such acts count as "civil disobedience"
They don't.
Markem
204.127.199.17>, asmo...@REMOVEinsightbb.com says...
> The perks aren't the same as getting married.
I did not say there wasn't gravy. I answered Binders question
as to why someone might get married and really not consider the
perks as the driving force. I answered from my own experience.
I married my wife because we are committed to one another.
Those are the facts.
Markem
Janet Hardy
DonSideB wrote:
> In article <7f640151c56b31fe...@news.teranews.com>, Janet Hardy
> <ver...@earthlink.net> writes:
>
>
>>And I'm delighted (and fascinated by the chess game that has been set in
>>motion). Not the first time, nor the last, you & I will disagree.
>>
>
>
> It's not a chess game. It's not about tactics. It's about changing people's
> hearts and minds.
>
> You don't win hearts and minds with arrogance and defiance.
>
> Those of use who live and breath politics have learned the importance of the
> moral AND emotional high ground in effecting real change.
>
> Portrayals of sexual minorities, like "Queer as Folk" and even "Will and Grace"
> and real people like Richard Hatch have touched the public's heart with
> sympathetic connections to people who are very different from the mainstream,
> but still people who deserve tolerance and even friendship. Tolerance was seen
> as the "right thing" by most people, even as they struggled with it. Racism
> became passe not because of Malcom X so much as because of Rosa Parks.
>
> But that picture on the news today of Rosie O'Donnell struting arrogantly down
> the steps of city hall with that smug look of superiority and triumph on her
> face has the power to wipe out everything good that has been accomplished. For
> 90% of tose who see tha picture, that look on her face will inspire nothing but
> hatred, even if they don't understand why they feel it.
I haven't looked at today's paper yet. I *have* looked at the paper for
the last two weeks, and seen dozens of photos of overjoyed couples
leaping down the steps with their mouths open in yells of happiness and
teaers streaming down their faces. I sort of hate it if your local paper
chooses to run the least sympathetic photo it has available, but I guess
that's not too surprising.
DonSideB
<ver...@earthlink.net> writes:
>
>I haven't looked at today's paper yet. I *have* looked at the paper for
>the last two weeks, and seen dozens of photos of overjoyed couples
>leaping down the steps with their mouths open in yells of happiness and
>teaers streaming down their faces. I sort of hate it if your local paper
>chooses to run the least sympathetic photo it has available, but I guess
>that's not too surprising.
>
Actually, it was on the AOL news screen and I suspect it will be around widely
by tomorrow. She was up on the steps with her trademark "Elvis" sneer. Even if
I had been off on an island with no news to provide context, that face would
have inspired an immediate response of anger. It's one of those pictures that
really is worth a 1000 words. Like the South Vietnamese Col. shooting that
prisoner. The kind of image that swings issues.
This is going to be really bad.
Bacchae
> > Portrayals of sexual minorities, like "Queer as Folk" and
even "Will and Grace"
> > and real people like Richard Hatch have touched the
public's heart with
> > sympathetic connections to people who are very different
from the mainstream,
> > but still people who deserve tolerance and even friendship.
Tolerance was seen
> > as the "right thing" by most people, even as they struggled
with it. Racism
> > became passe not because of Malcom X so much as because of
Rosa Parks.
<piggy backing here>
I personally think Richard Hatch has done more recent damage
than Rosie. I am thrilled Rosie and her partner got married,
picture or no, but Richard Hatch nakedly rubbing against
someone as an intimidation tactic during a Survivor challenge
is just plain icky.
He has used his nakedness as a figurative "fuck you" to
everyone on that game and it is not helping his or anyone
else's cause for him to be doing so. Thursday night he
definitely went way over the line from "strategy" into
"assault".
- Sandy
DonSideB
<bac...@nospam.telusplanet.net> writes:
>
>I personally think Richard Hatch has done more recent damage
>than Rosie. I am thrilled Rosie and her partner got married,
>picture or no, but Richard Hatch nakedly rubbing against
>someone as an intimidation tactic during a Survivor challenge
>is just plain icky.
>
>He has used his nakedness as a figurative "fuck you" to
>everyone on that game and it is not helping his or anyone
>else's cause for him to be doing so. Thursday night he
>definitely went way over the line from "strategy" into
>"assault".
>
Yeah, and he got voted off the island for it.
But I agree, up until last night he was a positive image. A gay guy straight
guys could look up to as winner, tough, and just plain smart. Then he went over
the top just once and he's gone.
Joe Sergio
dons...@aol.combackatyu (DonSideB) writes:
>She was up on the steps with her trademark "Elvis" sneer. Even if
>I had been off on an island with no news to provide context, that face would
>have inspired an immediate response of anger.
I thought her mouth just did that. I saw her in "Harriet the Spy" and she
looked like that a lot. Ive also seen her do that on the Kid's Choice awards
on Nick.
--
Joe
Malcolm Weir
wrote:
>In article <u8et30dbth4t76ln1...@4ax.com>, Malcolm Weir
><ma...@gelt.org> writes:
>
>>
>>Same code, section 352: "No marriage license shall be granted if
>>either of the applicants lacks the capacity to enter into a valid
>>marriage or is, at the time of making the application for the license,
>>under the influence of an intoxicating liquor or narcotic drug."
>>
>>Nothing in section 352 requires the applicants to have the capacity to
>>enter into a valid marriage *with each other*, merely that they have
>>the capacity to marry (i.e. they are not already married, etc. etc.).
>>
>>Health and Safety Code 103175 talks about the contents of the
>>certificate of registry... but doesn't prohibit the registrar from
>>recording a marriage that is invalid -- and for good reason: if it
>>turns out that someone lacked the capacity to enter into a valid
>>marriage (by being already married), why should the registrar be at
>>fault?
>>
>>And so on.
>Your knowledge of detail is almost as impressive as your total disconnect from
>the reality of human nature and how politics actually works.
Don, I am constantly amused by your ability to wriggle and spin!
What you were replying to was an examination of California law. The
"reality of human nature" and "how politics actually work" are
entirely irrelevant.
Still, expect relevance from you is a bit much: if you aren't
spoon-fed some extremist propaganda, you seem incapable of forming a
coherent opinion, and when your propaganda is shown to be false (as
with your baseless claim that Bush's dereliction of duty in failing to
take his medical "didn't matter", rather at odds with a pair of Guard
Generals' views), you shut up *or* try to pretend that it doesn't
matter!
Now, absent your hysterical spin, we have a situation where same sex
marriage may or may not be valid, depending on whether a court rules
the same way as the Massachusetts court did, or not. UNTIL a court
rules, there *isn't* an issue of laws being broken in California,
because *if* the courts rules the same way as the Mass. court did,
*then* the California Constitution trumps the Family Code... but until
it rules, Newsom's argument that he is obeying the California
Constitution is NO MORE OR LESS VALID than an argument that he should
follow the Family Code.
Yes, Don, I *KNOW* you want other people to fight and suffer for your
principles, just as Clay is pissed because, apparently, other people
don't think the way he does (lucky, I'd say, for society!).
BUT despite your personal opinions as to whether marriage suits YOU,
and despite Clay's personal opinions about what the "gay community"
should do, SOME PEOPLE WANT TO GET MARRIED.
And they aren't going to blindly follow people like you and Clay who
are incapable of recognizing that other people don't have to think the
same way as you.
Tolerance. It's a fine thing. You right wing nuts should try it some
time.
Malc.
Malcolm Weir
(MasterofDelight) wrote:
>> California Family Code Section 308.5 sums it up:
>>
>> "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or
>> recognized in California."
>>
>> Same code, section 352: "No marriage license shall be granted if
>> either of the applicants lacks the capacity to enter into a valid
>> marriage or is, at the time of making the application for the license,
>> under the influence of an intoxicating liquor or narcotic drug."
>>
>> Nothing in section 352 requires the applicants to have the capacity to
>> enter into a valid marriage *with each other*, merely that they have
>> the capacity to marry (i.e. they are not already married, etc. etc.).
>>
>> <snip of rest of post>
>
>Good luck if you try to make that argument to a Court. A marriage
>license is issued to two people and licenses those two people to marry
>each other. It does not license those persons to each go and marry
>other persons.
You are missing the point (although, to be fair, I didn't make very
well).
Perhaps it would be easiest to illustrate what Prop. 22 *could have*
done:
It *could have* modified section 352 to prohibit the issue of licenses
except to one man and one woman. But it didn't.
So instead we look at 352 and see what it requires of the issuer: that
the issuees must be free to marry. THAT is the requirement on the
issuer. As someone else correctly pointed out elsewhere, there is a
*separate* requirement concerning the solemnization of marriages, and
that is a harder nut to crack.
I guess the crux of the matter is that it is not up to registrars to
determine whether or not a marriage is valid, and it never has been.
THAT has been the responsibility of the courts. Until they rule on
the 308.5 vs Due Process argument, SF can honestly and accurately
state that they are NOT issuing licenses that *are* invalid, only ones
that might be... and they aren't responsible for deciding whether they
are or not.
But back in the land of reality: THREE COURTS have heard the issues,
and NONE have blocked the City from acting, so any claim that the
matter is clear-cut is *obviously* bogus: if the law was simple, the
court would have acted promptly.
>Want to buy a bridge in New York City?
It *really* pisses off those right wing nuts, which is a lovely
thought!
>MasterofDelight
Malc.
SupremeLordOfEverything
Malcolm Weir
wrote:
>In article <7f640151c56b31fe...@news.teranews.com>, Janet Hardy
><ver...@earthlink.net> writes:
>
>>
>>And I'm delighted (and fascinated by the chess game that has been set in
>>motion). Not the first time, nor the last, you & I will disagree.
>It's not a chess game. It's not about tactics. It's about changing people's
>hearts and minds.
No, it's about doing what's right. NOTHING significant in the realm
of civil rights has happened by your ridiculous "changing people's
hearts and minds" tactic.
It all happens because people stood up and were seen and became more
than an abstraction.
It's easy for people like you and Clay, who have the tolerance of an
old time Falwell-style preacher on crack cocaine to casually and
arrogantly blame the victims, because it's *no* skin off your nose
whether or not these people are victimized or not. You've
demonstrated repeatedly that you don't care about anyone outside your
immediate circle, and even espouse political ideology that enshrines
that selfishness.
>You don't win hearts and minds with arrogance and defiance.
But the only way you *can* force the issue is by arrogantly and
defiantly sitting on that bus instead of standing. By arrogantly and
defiantly collecting salt on the beach in India. By arrogantly and
defiantly sitting at that lunch counter.
>Those of use who live and breath politics have learned the importance of the
>moral AND emotional high ground in effecting real change.
And those of you who want to justify their own intolerance have
learned the value of being able to divert criticism by blaming the
victims!
>Portrayals of sexual minorities, like "Queer as Folk" and even "Will and Grace"
>and real people like Richard Hatch have touched the public's heart with
>sympathetic connections to people who are very different from the mainstream,
>but still people who deserve tolerance and even friendship. Tolerance was seen
>as the "right thing" by most people, even as they struggled with it. Racism
>became passe not because of Malcom X so much as because of Rosa Parks.
If you want to preserve your veneer (actually, probably your pretense)
of supporting those who want to marry, you may be well advised to
avoid being so selective in which images you focus on.
Rosa Parks, Malcolm X, an more than all of those Dr. King achieved
something *because* they were prepared to take the spotlight and be
seen. And those 3000+ couples who married in San Francisco in the
past two weeks are no different, and it is *their* humanity that your
cronies are trying to discount.
>But that picture on the news today of Rosie O'Donnell struting arrogantly down
>the steps of city hall with that smug look of superiority and triumph on her
>face has the power to wipe out everything good that has been accomplished. For
>90% of tose who see tha picture, that look on her face will inspire nothing but
>hatred, even if they don't understand why they feel it.
For 73.975% of people who read anything you write will see your
hatred, even if they don't understand why!
Inventing statistics to prove your bias is patently ridiculous, even
by your lax standards!
Whether you like it or not, Rosie O'Donnel *is* a popular figure to
significant chunks of the population.
And the fact that you somehow feel the need to demonstrate your
personal intolerance by characterizing her as "strutting" and "smug"
is your problem.
>Here, in the intellectual world of SSBB, politics is about principle and
>documents and abstract rights, but out there it is about perception and
>emotion. Mathew Sheppard died and made people question their prejudices, Rosie
>confirmed to the mainstream that they were right about 'those people' all
>along.
"Out there" it's about people: identifiable, flesh-and-blood people.
Now, obviously, in *your* circle, people don't count unless they are
in your immediately circle... the idea of tolerance and a broader
society is not one that you would be familiar with, simply because you
move in a political pool that preaches selfishness and isolationism.
Most of the rest of the USA is far less extreme (which is why Bush
lost the popular vote):
>Its a big party on Castro street right now, but Yamamoto's crew was having a
>big party on Dec 8, 1941, too. The Admiral, a wiser man, was less enthusiastic
>about what he had set in motion.
Ah, you really can't STAND it that advances are being made in favor of
tolerance and civility and human rights, can you!
Malc.
Malcolm Weir
(MasterofDelight) wrote:
Read a newspaper, you idiot!
Three courts have looked at the matter, and none have accepted that
the issue is as simplistic as Bond claims.
Had it been that simple, the courts would have issued a preliminary
injunction as requested. They didn't: therefore the matter is more
complicated than Bond would have you believe.
>MasterofDelight
Malc.
ImperialOverlordOfFabulousness
Malcolm Weir
wrote:
>In article <3o2t30hop8j5esj99...@4ax.com>, Malcolm Weir
><ma...@gelt.org> writes:
>
>>
>>The Feds didn't have to respond any more than the state did. Of
>>course, they *wanted* to respond to pander to their cadre of bigots,
>>but response was entirely unnecessary...
>>
>
>And entirely predictable. Which is exactly what I pointed out in the very first
>reply in the Same Sex Marriage thread. And earlier in the celebratory thread
>over the SCOTUS sodomy ruling. Sometimes I hate having my predictions come
>true, but I do observe the political process and try to warn people when they
>are overreaching.
>
>Pushing the gay marriage agenda immediately after the court victory on the
>Sodomy laws was certain to give the pendulum, which was swinging briskly toward
>tolerance, a hard shove in the other direction. Janet Jackson didn't help
>either.
I'd meant to comment on Don's self-serving piece of bovine excrement
when he posted it, but events passed it by.
It is very clear to me that Don's "very first reply" was an attempt to
distance himself from the consequences of the actions of his fellow
right-wing extremists. The fact that his primary tactic is to blame
the victims of discrimination just shows the weakness of his position.
In the real world, which Don seems to think he inhabits, the agenda
wasn't being set by those who wanted the right to marry. I suspect
that Don knows this, but he won't admit it because it suits his need
to pretend to be concerned about the backlash, but all he is really
concerned about is protecting the image of him and his fellow right
wing extremists.
The fact is that, despite his implication above, no-one was "pushing
the gay marriage agenda immediately after the court victory on the
sodomy laws". Goodridge vs Department of Public Health started not
"immediately after" Lawrence was decided, but actually THREE WEEKS
after the Texas Court of Appeals upheld Lawrence's conviction, and
some FIFTEEN MONTHS BEFORE THE US SUPREME COURT WAS EVEN ASKED TO HEAR
THE CASE.
Yup, Don would have us believe that, cunningly, Hillary Goodridge
filed suit on April 11th, 2001 in order to "push" the gay marriage
agenda so soon after SCOTUS ruled on Lawrence in June 26th, 2003.
Aren't those lesbians cunning! A whole week before the Texas Court of
Criminal Appeals refused to hear the Lawrence appeal (April 17th,
2001) and fifteen months before the Supreme Court were asked to hear
the case (which happened on July 16, 2002), TWENTY MONTHS before the
Supreme Court agreed to hear the case (December 2, 2002), and
TWENTY-SIX MONTHS before the case was decided, they filed suit.
In reality, when Don wrote his denunciation of those uppity gays
agitating and how it would hurt them, the only "pushing" that was
going on in the field of gay marriage was by *his* fellow right
wingers, and the push was to amend the Massachusetts constitution.
That was it. In January, the only people pushing an agenda were those
trying to override the decision of a properly constituted court.
What Don, and others, and afraid of is that *IF* his fellow right wing
extremists in the Republican party and elsewhere succeed in pushing
their agenda, *THEN* Americans in particular and the world at large
will see them for what they are: intolerant, bigoted and aggressively
and religiously intrusive.
Which *will* result in a backlash. It's hard to be a "compassionate
conservative" when your pushing only the second amendment in history
that was designed to limit rights... and we repealed the first!
>Now, thanks to the impatience and arrogance of a few activists, the sure thing
>of civil unions (though I'd still prefer and end to government having anything
>to do with marriage) is probably dead for a decade and we'll be lucky if they
>stop with an amendment banning same sex marriage and don't just go for an
>amendment reinstating the sodomy laws. They could do that just as easily.
Hey, they could go for an amendment restricting the sale and movement
of alcohol "just as easily".
Malc.
Sockermom9
>> Why would anyone want to be legally married if not for
>> gov't recognition?
>
>
>How about love that why I did it.
Is it possible to love without being married?
Lynn
jenner
wrote:
>In article <Xns949BBA6C221E4as...@204.127.204.17>, Asmodeus
><asmo...@REMOVEinsightbb.com> writes:
>
>>
>>However, it will quite possibly set civil union legislation
>>back significantly. That is what's so infuriating about all
>>these antics--that, and the fact that the mayor is exactly
>>the same as Judge Moore, but because people like what the
>>mayor is doing, he's suddenly a hero.
>>
>
>You were expecting consistency from people who think the Constitution means
>whatever suits their passion of the moment?
14th Amendment -- equal (look up the word) protection under the law.
What part of "Liberty and Justice for all" don't they understand
either?
jenner
wrote:
>In article <7f640151c56b31fe...@news.teranews.com>, Janet Hardy
><ver...@earthlink.net> writes:
>
>>
>>And I'm delighted (and fascinated by the chess game that has been set in
>>motion). Not the first time, nor the last, you & I will disagree.
>>
>
>It's not a chess game. It's not about tactics. It's about changing people's
>hearts and minds.
>
>You don't win hearts and minds with arrogance and defiance.
Yeah, don't sit in the front of the bus. Wait for "market forces" to
even things out.
jenner
wrote:
>In article <0e6dde8c303355e2...@news.teranews.com>, Janet Hardy
><ver...@earthlink.net> writes:
>
>>
>>I haven't looked at today's paper yet. I *have* looked at the paper for
>>the last two weeks, and seen dozens of photos of overjoyed couples
>>leaping down the steps with their mouths open in yells of happiness and
>>teaers streaming down their faces. I sort of hate it if your local paper
>>chooses to run the least sympathetic photo it has available, but I guess
>>that's not too surprising.
>>
>
>Actually, it was on the AOL news screen and I suspect it will be around widely
>by tomorrow. She was up on the steps with her trademark "Elvis" sneer. Even if
>I had been off on an island with no news to provide context, that face would
>have inspired an immediate response of anger. It's one of those pictures that
>really is worth a 1000 words. Like the South Vietnamese Col. shooting that
>prisoner. The kind of image that swings issues.
>
>This is going to be really bad.
It will be, as long as some people just don't get equal protection
under our laws.
Markem
LususNaturae
>Actually, it was on the AOL news screen and I suspect it will be around widely
>by tomorrow. She was up on the steps with her trademark "Elvis" sneer. Even if
>I had been off on an island with no news to provide context, that face would
>have inspired an immediate response of anger. It's one of those pictures that
>really is worth a 1000 words. Like the South Vietnamese Col. shooting that
>prisoner. The kind of image that swings issues.
Sneer, like beauty, must be in the eye of the beholder. I saw
the picture and thought it bland and neutral. They didn't look
as delighted as some have, but I didn't notice the sneer. The
only thing that bothered me a bit was that the report sounded as
though they had decided to join in because it was a big event,
not because they couldn't stand not being married.
--
Lusus Naturae
Bacchae
I wrote:
> >He has used his nakedness as a figurative "fuck you" to
> >everyone on that game and it is not helping his or anyone
> >else's cause for him to be doing so. Thursday night he
> >definitely went way over the line from "strategy" into
> >"assault".
"DonSideB"
> Yeah, and he got voted off the island for it.
>
> But I agree, up until last night he was a positive image. A
gay guy straight
> guys could look up to as winner, tough, and just plain smart.
Then he went over
> the top just once and he's gone.
Actually, I don't think that incident was on the minds of his
teammates when they decided to vote him off. Nowhere in the
"deliberations" as to who was going to be voted off that night
was the incident with his nakedness ever mentioned. I think he
was voted off for many other (good) reasons. Now, if the vote
had been in the hands of the other teams, or even just Susan
Hawk's team, I think it definitely would have been an issue but
I do not recall any one else talking about that incident being
specific reason as to why he was being voted out.
I'm just glad he's gone though. I didn't like him the first
time and I still don't like him. I did like seeing him get bit
by the shark though. Of course, I would have been more
entertained if the shark had chosen other (wabbly?) bits to
latch onto, but hey, that's just me. And my dislike of him has
nothing to do with his sexual orientation. It has mostly to do
with his arrogance and overall ickiness.
- Sandy
Asmodeus
news:20040227142932...@mb-m03.aol.com:
> Actually, it was on the AOL news screen
It was on Yahoo as well. That nasty piece of work, Rosie, with
her nasty smirk.
Asmodeus
$Hy3.37285@edtnps89:
> I am thrilled Rosie
I will be thrilled when Rosie dies. Not unitl then.
Asmodeus
$Hy3.22240@edtnps89:
> nothing to do with his sexual orientation. It has mostly to do
> with his arrogance and overall ickiness
We've never watched Survivor, but the few times we've seen him
on talk shows we've found his slime factor to be significant.
Asmodeus
news:fd00409d18cica0nq...@4ax.com:
> Yeah, don't sit in the front of the bus
It's not sitting in front of the bus. Don't even try that. It's
driving the bus off the cliff.
Asmodeus
news:na0040ltla0940g56...@4ax.com:
> What part of "Liberty and Justice for all" don't they understand
> either?
It would be really nice if it were that simple and we lived in a
little smiley-face world.
We don't.
Let me put some historical perspective on this. When I was an
undergrad, cops regularly came into bars and harassed us. All
the things these "activists" you liken to Rosa Parks take for
granted they have because we fought for them.
We fought to get the government OUT of our lives and OFF our
backs. It was a long and difficult struggle, and progress was
slow. It came bit by bit, mostly due not to government, but
the private sector.
The leap came in 1992 when a presidential candidate courted
the gay vote and won the election--then slit our throats, but
that's another topic. That could not have happened, even four
years previously.
Then Matthew Shepard changed everything--and not for the better.
We became victims, government pets, and suddenly, it was no
longer fighting to keep the cops from beating on us and tossing
us into jail, it was fighting to gain official victim status
with hate crime laws.
The upside to the Shepard incident was that it shifted public
opinion. And Don is correct here. It has shifted back again,
and it will most likely take something of similar proportions
to swing it back.
Marriage is not, in any way, liberty or justice. We could have
had the perks--civil union legislation. Bush supported it. But
no, because apparently nobody cared about the perks. No, it
had to be marriage.
These morons going to city hall to get married are just that.
The officials are grand-standing and nothing more. They are
not heros, they bear no relationship to Rosa Parks and there
is no "back of the bus" analogy.
This whole debacle disgusts and infuriates me. In a week, these
"activists" have managed to threaten nearly all of the progress
we fought for.
And here's something else. If you were out there in the trenches
throughout the 70s and after, then you have the right to an
opinon. If you weren't, you don't. Period.
DonSideB
<Xblack...@Xcomcast.net> writes:
>
>>It's not a chess game. It's not about tactics. It's about changing people's
>>hearts and minds.
>>
>>You don't win hearts and minds with arrogance and defiance.
>
>Yeah, don't sit in the front of the bus. Wait for "market forces" to
>even things out.
>
>
Uh, that is what happened.
The bus systems were not integrated by acts of defiance in seating
arrangements, but by blacks, the primary users of the system, boycotting the
buses until they were integrated.
DonSideB
<asmo...@REMOVEinsightbb.com> writes:
>dons...@aol.combackatyu (DonSideB) wrote in
>news:20040227142932...@mb-m03.aol.com:
>
>> Actually, it was on the AOL news screen
>
>It was on Yahoo as well. That nasty piece of work, Rosie, with
>her nasty smirk.
>
There seem to be a lot of pictures of the event, and some venues are showing
the smiling picture and others the arrogant smirk. Just another example of how
the press can manipulate the truth without lying just by choosing what to show.
But you can bet those who wish to do harm to the ideal of tolerance will make
good use of the smirk picture.
DonSideB
<Xblack...@Xcomcast.net> writes:
>
>>You were expecting consistency from people who think the Constitution means
>>whatever suits their passion of the moment?
>
>14th Amendment -- equal (look up the word) protection under the law.
>
Please understand that I am not opposed to anyone getting married if they
choose to. I offered advice that getting the government out of the marriage
business FOR EVERYONE was the best course.
But there is no conflict between the Defense of Marriage act and the 14th
amendment. The DOMA defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman. It
simply removes the requirement for one state to recognize same sex marriages
performed in another state, that would otherwise be covered by the full faith
and credit clause of the Constitution. That is nothing new. There is no
requirement, for example, for another state to recognize my Virginia Concealed
Carry Permit, though many do through reciprocal agreements.
However, California law forbids the issue of marriage licenses to same sex
couples. That is also not a 14th amendment problem as it equally forbids
heterosexuals from marrying members of their own sex as it does homosexuals. I
know that is lawyer talk, but that is how law goes.
>What part of "Liberty and Justice for all" don't they understand
>either?
>
>
That is not from the Constitution, it is from the pledge of allegiance, which
also contains the 'under God' phrase that pisses so many folks off , and the
'indivisible' part that pisses me off. None of those has any legal force.
DonSideB
<asmo...@REMOVEinsightbb.com> writes:
>
>"Bacchae" <bac...@nospam.telusplanet.net> wrote in news:3%V%b.96279
>$Hy3.22240@edtnps89:
>
>> nothing to do with his sexual orientation. It has mostly to do
>> with his arrogance and overall ickiness
>
>We've never watched Survivor, but the few times we've seen him
>on talk shows we've found his slime factor to be significant.
>
He is always playing the game. He pushed it too far this time, but the ickiness
was part of his strategy. It got him a million last time around. He won the
first time by being icky enough that everyone wanted it to come down to a vote
between him and them, thinking they would win that choice. Then he manuevered
himslef into being in the final two with the one person everyone felt had
betrayed them along the way.
He played the game brilliantly the first time, but this time I think they saw
the same strategy coming at a higher intensitiy and didn't fall for it.
jenner
<asmo...@REMOVEinsightbb.com> wrote:
>jenner <Xblack...@Xcomcast.net> wrote in
>news:na0040ltla0940g56...@4ax.com:
>
>> What part of "Liberty and Justice for all" don't they understand
>> either?
>
>It would be really nice if it were that simple and we lived in a
>little smiley-face world.
>
>We don't.
We don't live in such a world. It doesn't mean it isn't worth working
towards a world where the government does treat citizens equally.
[...]
I agree with you about Clinton courting the gay vote and betraying
lesbigay folk. I agree that too many lesbigay folks are seeking victim
status. I don't agree that civil unions are good enough and I don't
agree that Bush actually supports civil unions which have all the
rights, responsibilities and civil protections as marriage.
>And here's something else. If you were out there in the trenches
>throughout the 70s and after, then you have the right to an
>opinon. If you weren't, you don't. Period.
Well, people have gone before me and I wasn't old enough to fight for
my rights in bars in the seventies. I was busy trying not to get the
crap kicked out of me through the early parts of the seventies for
being queer -- by one former sucked my dick and liked it former
boyfriend too right after he discovered girls liked him too.
<shrug>
Then I learned that I didn't have to be a victim and that I
could/should speak out. It cost me some career opportunities and,
here we are today.
I understand your anger. You have walked a path I have not walked and
for longer than I. That does not mean I do not understand to a
significant degree some of your experiences and that I cannot support
what is right.
jenner
wrote:
>In article <na0040ltla0940g56...@4ax.com>, jenner
><Xblack...@Xcomcast.net> writes:
>
>>
>>>You were expecting consistency from people who think the Constitution means
>>>whatever suits their passion of the moment?
>>
>>14th Amendment -- equal (look up the word) protection under the law.
>>
>
>Please understand that I am not opposed to anyone getting married if they
>choose to. I offered advice that getting the government out of the marriage
>business FOR EVERYONE was the best course.
>
>But there is no conflict between the Defense of Marriage act and the 14th
>amendment. The DOMA defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman. It
>simply removes the requirement for one state to recognize same sex marriages
>performed in another state, that would otherwise be covered by the full faith
>and credit clause of the Constitution.
And that is wrong. It was wrong then and it is wrong now. It was an
end run around the full faith and credit clause and it was wrong.
> That is nothing new.
No, homophobia is nothing new.
> There is no
>requirement, for example, for another state to recognize my Virginia Concealed
>Carry Permit, though many do through reciprocal agreements.
>
>However, California law forbids the issue of marriage licenses to same sex
>couples. That is also not a 14th amendment problem as it equally forbids
>heterosexuals from marrying members of their own sex as it does homosexuals. I
>know that is lawyer talk, but that is how law goes.
This is so much bullshit.
And homosexuals have the right to marry. Why a gay man can marry any
woman that will have him, right Don?
I've had my say.
>
>>What part of "Liberty and Justice for all" don't they understand
>>either?
>>
>>
>
>That is not from the Constitution, it is from the pledge of allegiance, which
>also contains the 'under God' phrase that pisses so many folks off , and the
>'indivisible' part that pisses me off. None of those has any legal force.
I didn't say it was from the constitution, Don. I didn't say that.
DonSideB
<Xblack...@Xcomcast.net> writes:
>> There is no
>>requirement, for example, for another state to recognize my Virginia
>Concealed
>>Carry Permit, though many do through reciprocal agreements.
>>
>>However, California law forbids the issue of marriage licenses to same sex
>>couples. That is also not a 14th amendment problem as it equally forbids
>>heterosexuals from marrying members of their own sex as it does homosexuals.
>I
>>know that is lawyer talk, but that is how law goes.
>
>This is so much bullshit.
>
>And homosexuals have the right to marry. Why a gay man can marry any
>woman that will have him, right Don?
>
>I've had my say.
>
Don't confuse my technical discourse on the application of the Constitution as
advocacy of a position. It isn't.
I DON"T CARE who marries. I don't care about their gender, how many spouses one
wants to marry, I don't even care about species.
I think government has no place in marriage, there should be no special status
given by government to those who marry, and government should have no say in
who chooses to marry.
Everyone should be able to designate their next of kin, inheritence, and living
arrangements equally under the law, but marriage should be something sanctified
by your church, comunity, bowling league, munch group or whatever forum of
friends and relatives you choose to declare your love to.
ANd the government should take no notice of it whatsoever beyond those
designations you make about legal family status. A good will and a power of
attorney should just about do it.
But as a matter of politcal tactics, you could get those things bundled
together in a standard package recognized by law, called a civil union, and not
face too much resistance. Call it marriage and you'll get nothing.
Boris Ludmenkov
<dons...@aol.combackatyu> writes
>But you can bet those who wish to do harm to the ideal of tolerance
>will make good use of the smirk picture.
Could don or anyone please point me at this picture? Since I have no
idea who we are talking about perhaps I can give some sort of
disinterested opinion as to whether it's offensive or not.
--
Boris Ludmenkov
Pervert & Pornographer
"If the law where you are doesn't permit you to read this, shouldn't you be out
organising a revolution or something?"
Joe Sergio
>But as a matter of politcal tactics, you could get those things bundled
>together in a standard package recognized by law, called a civil union, and
>not
>face too much resistance. Call it marriage and you'll get nothing.
>
Let me ask this. Marriage was first and foremost a commitment between two
people and their gods, right? When did government, any government, not just
the US get involved in it, and where? What was the reson the govt got
involved? I have no idea how it went from something that wasn't needed to have
verified etc, to something requiring the govt.
Also, if marriage was first a religious institution, didn't they take that away
completely by allowing civil ceremonies? You can get married in a church, but
your not required to. Hell, in Vegas you can get married by Elvis. So
wouldn't objecting on gay marriage on religious grounds mean that they should
object to all civil ceremonies too? It they say "My God says its wrong and
it's only between a man and a woman" then shouldn't they say "Marriage was
sanctioned by God and can only be performed by clergy?"
I'm not trying to make a point. I'm asking a question. How can they bitch
about gay marriage but not about, say, Athiests being married, because
"marriage is sanctioned by God, and Athiests don't believe in God, so no."
Just curious.
--
Joe
Masterwoof
Asmodeus <asmo...@REMOVEinsightbb.com> wrote:
> And here's something else. If you were out there in the trenches
> throughout the 70s and after, then you have the right to an
> opinon. If you weren't, you don't. Period.
Ah, it's clear now. Only someone who came out and became a gay activist
in or before 1970 is entitled to an opinion.
Someone who lived, say, in Colorado in 1992 and wore a "No on 2" evey
day, demonstrated before the Democratic headquarters, walked with the
Governor to the State Capitol, and attended the community meeting in the
days after ... has no right to an opinion.
Someone who went to early Promise Keepers rallies and engaged people in
discussions about homosexuality and put a real, personal face on it ...
doesn't count.
Someone who proudly wore his "No on 2" button the day after the election
and looked into the shamed faces of other people who just realized they
had hurt someone they didn't even know ... doesn't count.
Asmodeus, fuck off and die.
--
MasterWoof <masterwoof at timberwoof dot com>
http://www.timberwoof.com/masterwoof/
Boris Ludmenkov
<rednec...@aol.comspam> writes
>Let me ask this. Marriage was first and foremost a commitment between
>two people and their gods, right? When did government, any government,
>not just the US get involved in it, and where?
The first time a dispute arose between the two parties to a marriage and
one of them appealed to the party with the army on its side.
This is why don's 'let's get the government out of marriage' mantra
doesn't really work: unless your aim is to get government out of all
disputes between people and I don't believe that will work either.
>Also, if marriage was first a religious institution, didn't they take
>that away completely by allowing civil ceremonies? You can get married
>in a church, but your not required to. Hell, in Vegas you can get
>married by Elvis. So wouldn't objecting on gay marriage on religious
>grounds mean that they should object to all civil ceremonies too? It
>they say "My God says its wrong and it's only between a man and a
>woman" then shouldn't they say "Marriage was sanctioned by God and can
>only be performed by clergy?"
>
>I'm not trying to make a point. I'm asking a question. How can they
>bitch about gay marriage but not about, say, Athiests being married,
>because "marriage is sanctioned by God, and Athiests don't believe in
>God, so no."
I dunno. They don't because they see marriage as a Good Thing and they
want even the heathen unbeliever to give it a go. But from all the
religious types' pronouncements it seems to me that they believe that
marriage is a magical not a rational arrangement and they fear that
allowing gays to marry will spoil the magic.
DonSideB
<maste...@timNOberSPANwoof.com> writes:
>
>In article <Xns949D397FB5328as...@204.127.199.17>,
> Asmodeus <asmo...@REMOVEinsightbb.com> wrote:
>
>> And here's something else. If you were out there in the trenches
>> throughout the 70s and after, then you have the right to an
>> opinon. If you weren't, you don't. Period.
>
>Ah, it's clear now. Only someone who came out and became a gay activist
>in or before 1970 is entitled to an opinion.
>
I have to agree, it's just as silly as the things people say about those who
didn't serve in Vietnam not being allowed an opinion on whether we should go to
war now.
Or those who served in the Navy knocking people who served in the Air National
Guard.
DonSideB
>>two people and their gods, right? When did government, any government,
>>not just the US get involved in it, and where?
>
>The first time a dispute arose between the two parties to a marriage and
>one of them appealed to the party with the army on its side.
>
>This is why don's 'let's get the government out of marriage' mantra
>doesn't really work: unless your aim is to get government out of all
>disputes between people and I don't believe that will work either.
>
government role in marriage could be better accomplished with a set of
standardized contracts and legal documents.
Just as any contract dispute, the courts can be called upon to enforce the
terms of the contracts.
But that has nothing to do with 'upholding the sanctity of marriage' as
government has absolutely no business sanctifying anything.
Joe Sergio
>Or those who served in the Navy knocking people who served in the Air
>National
>Guard.
Theres always rivalry. Career military especially as a whole (not everybody)
seems to look down on National Guard.
--
Joe
Joe Sergio
>But that has nothing to do with 'upholding the sanctity of marriage' as
>government has absolutely no business sanctifying anything.
>
If it was the "sanctify" they were worried about, then why do judges perform
civil veremonies?
--
Joe
Josh Rosenbluth
> In article <na0040ltla0940g56...@4ax.com>, jenner
> <Xblack...@Xcomcast.net> writes:
>
> >
> >>You were expecting consistency from people who think the Constitution means
> >>whatever suits their passion of the moment?
> >
> >14th Amendment -- equal (look up the word) protection under the law.
>
> Please understand that I am not opposed to anyone getting married if they
> choose to. I offered advice that getting the government out of the marriage
> business FOR EVERYONE was the best course.
>
> But there is no conflict between the Defense of Marriage act and the 14th
> amendment. The DOMA defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman. It
> simply removes the requirement for one state to recognize same sex marriages
> performed in another state, that would otherwise be covered by the full faith
> and credit clause of the Constitution. That is nothing new. There is no
> requirement, for example, for another state to recognize my Virginia Concealed
> Carry Permit, though many do through reciprocal agreements.
Section 2 of DOMA protects Idaho from recognizing what Massachusetts
does. You are correct, that isn't a 14th issue.
However Section 3 of DOMA defines marriage as opposite-sex only and
forbids federal marital benefits from being provided to same-sex
married couples (assuming some state does just that). That is a 14th
issue.
> However, California law forbids the issue of marriage licenses to same sex
> couples. That is also not a 14th amendment problem as it equally forbids
> heterosexuals from marrying members of their own sex as it does homosexuals. I
> know that is lawyer talk, but that is how law goes.
Bans on inter-racial marriage applied equally to black and white. And
yet those laws violated the 14th. Your so-called "equal application"
theory is not a "get of the 14th jail free card".
Josh Rosenbluth
Starship
>
> Don said:
>
> >But as a matter of politcal tactics, you could get those things bundled
> >together in a standard package recognized by law, called a civil union, and
> >not
> >face too much resistance. Call it marriage and you'll get nothing.
>
> Let me ask this. Marriage was first and foremost a commitment between two
> people and their gods, right? When did government, any government, not just
> the US get involved in it, and where? What was the reson the govt got
> involved? I have no idea how it went from something that wasn't needed to have
> verified etc, to something requiring the govt.
The government started getting involved in marriage about the time
formal governments with codified laws came into being. (Marriage as a
civil institution - an agreement between two families - is older than
either formal government or organized religion.) This was done first and
foremost because marriage leads to children, which leads to disputes
over inheritance - most importantly, the inheritance of titles. This
was, of course, long before Christianity.
Many of the early Christian writers had serious doubts about the value
of marriage. A few, such as the ascetic thinker Hierakes, went so far as
to doubt that married people could enter Paradise. Obviously such an
extreme view could not and did not last, and marriage was eventually
brought into the church as a sacrament. Nevertheless, for many centuries
the church taught that celibacy was better than marriage.
During the Middle Ages, many theologians argued that marriage should be
not be under the authority of the government, but solely controlled by
the church. They met with little success however (European nobles seem
to have had an odd aversion to letting the church decide who gets to be
the next king), and there has never been a time in western history when
the church was able to wrest control of this institution away from the
secular authorities.
--
Starship
He which hath no stomach to this fight,
Let him depart; his passport shall be made,
And crowns for convoy put into his purse;
We would not die in that man's company
That fears his fellowship to die with us.
Steve Pope
> special status given by government to those who marry, and
> government should have no say in who chooses to marry.
For once, Don and I are in agreement. :-)
Steve
Joe Sergio
>The government started getting involved in marriage about the time
>formal governments with codified laws came into being.
<snip of really good stuff>
Thanks Starship. I never knew that.
I appreciate your taking the time to explain it to me. :-)
--
Joe