Should this be an issue?

[Pettybird]

Gas is going to run well over $2 a gallon this summer, hitting $3 in places like L.A. in spikes?- did you read that? OPEC's lowering production, sure, but it's also due tho the lowest national reserves in a generation.

Did you read we're going to restart talks with Libya, whom we've had sanctions against for 20 years, about pumping oil to us? Keep in mind the administration's reason we went into Iraq to prevent the spread of WMD's, and Libya admitted to enriching Uranium from equipment obtained illegally from Pakistan?

Anyone notice the economy's still in the dumpster? Sure, the market's back up, but millions are still unemployed that had jobs in '00, and Congress voted down a benefits extension for them.

NO??
WHY??

We're talking gay rights! And not just this post, or you here--It's on the cover of the Washington Post! 67% of America doesn't want it. It's called a "wedge issue", as lendaddy alluded to. And it is absolutely intentional. Why fight the losing fight (I'm a Democrat, after all) when you can denounce the other party as immoral?

I could rant for DAYS about this--I'm in my final semester of my senior year at George Washington University, and I'm a Political Science major... Nothing like a little homework for a couple years to make you cynical about the system.

I'm not sure what the latest craze to plactate gays is all about, though. Within the last year, civil unions have been allowed in a few states, some major employers are covering partners' health costs, and more. DId someone need their vote? We went from throwing the show "Ellen" off the air to celebrating openly gay shows such as Will and Grace, Queer Eye for the Straight Guy (I watch it... it's cool), Queer as Folk, and Boy Meets Boy.

I'm not denouncing gays... I really don't care what your preference is. I am shocked at the cultural shift, though... It's sly, and it's taken a major issue like gay marriage to get the traditional right fired up for action.

A constitutional ammendment would never fly--it's another tactic. 29 times the constitution's been ammended. In 200+ years. Bush would have better luck banning the Twinkie. Or 'winning' the war on terror (tm).

I've always considered 'marriage' to be a religious term. Maybe the answer is to call ALL marriages performed by the state outside of a religious institution civil unions. No where near as many people seem fired up about that term. Sure it means the same, but it ends the debate.

But, then again, we'd have to face 500+ dead in Iraq, high gas prices, steel shortages, and perhaps even resort to Janet Jackson's boob again. And no one wants that.

-Doug

[dd74]

In my view, this should galvanize Democrats as it shows the Republican party (or at least the Pres.) has issues which truly have no basis in contemporary life. Is this another argument that fortifies the closed-mindedness of a party which seems bent on appeasing ultra-right wing conservative religious groups? A part of the party he has let down since he came up with his idea to give "temporary amnesty" to illegal aliens.

For its worth, Bush, Inc. served up another fat one to hit out of the park, but the Democratic bats aren't swinging.

On the "Right" of things, if at all, Bush should be careful (as should our future president Schwarzennegger). There are quite a few homosexual Republicans out there who might feel a strain to their party loyalty.

But alas, where's Kerry's voice in this? Or Edwards? They should be pounding the podium with claims of discrimination and unconstitutional. Or are we seeing, once again, the gutless nature of our potential elected officials before they even win their party's nomination?

[dd74]

Pettybird - I think the religious aspect of marriage has been brought in from The Right. The issue of fairness in legalities, inheritance, taxes and other "non-religious" issues are the concerns of those seeking same-sex marriages.

[Pettybird]

dd- you're right, and I acknowledge that. That's why I'm suggesting the use of civil unions for all non-religious marriages. I don't think that you can discuss "marriage" without religion- it is a religious term, and I think that's what's bothering people. That's what's bothering me. Marriages by the state in general bother me. Marriages are historically a union before God, meant to keep men from running willy nilly through hoardes of nubile women. I am by no means an overly religious person, and I'm not happy with religion at ALL lately (my family went to church for Christmas--I stayed home and cooked), but at some base level it gnaws at me. I understand what the (mostly financial) implications of "marriage" mean, as well as the symbloic, and I wouldn't take a stand against joint ownership of houses, pensions, health benefits, etc. Maybe I'm old fashioned (at 28?), but it bothers me.

For me, it's an internal struggle between a pair of evils. Either you endorse the (by most major religions, anyway--screw the Anglicans and universalists) morally wrong concept of gay marriage, or you consciously decide to commit the sin of discrimination.

Damn my Catholic education!
-I'm not one, but they do have nice schools...

-Doug

ps do-do-dotie-oh, do-do-dotie-oh... he got THE LAST DODO
(checked the site)

[dd74]

Originally posted by Pettybird
ps do-do-dotie-oh, do-do-dotie-oh... he got THE LAST DODO
(checked the site)

Good catch!

One of the best characters ever drawn!

[Pettybird]

Maybe Parade could be held in Deepest Darkest Africa? Kill two birds (no pun intended) with one stone!

I'm a huge Road Runner fan- my parents bought the Superbirds (which have the beep beep horns, Road Runner decals, etc. on them), and I grew up a WB kid. I've never understood the mickey mouse thing--not enough explosions, people falling off cliffs, getting hit by anvils, being fed wild turkey surprise, taking a wrong turn at Albequerque, dressing exploding robots up as attractive women, searching for the Illudium Q-35 explosive space modulator (or claiming planet X in the name of Mars, for that matter), or anything else fun. The dodo, with that bowling pin shape and umbrella on top of its head is fantastic. Of the era, he's second only to Daffy Duck, back when he would bounce off walls and all with that woo hoo! woo hoo! woo hoo! call...

between that and speed racer reruns, the dukes of hazzard, and knight rider i'm sure i'll be warped for life...


Doug

[Moses]

The whole same-sex marriage thing is a plot by straight conservatives to undermine the gay community.

How long will it be before some gay divorce attorney opens an office in the Castro? Welcome to the world of prenuptual agreements, community property, and spousal support. Trouble in Shangri-La!

On the upside, we will probably be seeing some world class legal spats! Can you say reality TV?

[ronin]

Originally posted by singpilot
I would like to DEMAND a constitutional amendment so that I can marry my 911.....

(snip)

P.S. Do you think this pic makes her a$$ look too big????

lol. and no, her ass looks just fine. but what's that floozie from Milan doing in there???

[Pettybird]

This is nice and off-topic, but when does the 'junior member' thing go away? Sure, I've been here all of a week, but I'd like to put something quippy there instead... I saw in a FAQ that you can change it in your profile, but I'm not seeing that.

thanks
doug

[Pettybird]

From (if I'm remembering correctly) the Kansas City Star:

"Jumping into a volatile election-year debate on same-sex weddings, President Bush on Tuesday backed a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage - a move he said was needed to stop judges from changing the definition of the 'most enduring human institution.'"

I thought the most enduring human institution was prostitution...

[ronin]

Originally posted by Pettybird
This is nice and off-topic, but when does the 'junior member' thing go away? Sure, I've been here all of a week, but I'd like to put something quippy there instead... I saw in a FAQ that you can change it in your profile, but I'm not seeing that.

thanks
doug

should be available after your 40th post. in your profile

[Pettybird]

Cool thanks Ronin

Doug

[island911]

Originally posted by Neilk
island, good point... let me add unrelated to the description above.

So back to the point... does it really matter to you if two people of the same sex get married? How does it affect you and whatever relationship you might be in?

Unrelated!? But why would the two people need to be unrelated? Wouldn't that be discrimination?
. . . and why just two people? Why not three brothers a cousin and their dog?

After all, how would it affect you and whatever relationship you might be in?

It maybe a cool, "contemporary life" notion that homosexual couples have emulated the life-style (enough) of the typical married couple, that they should be awarded the same unique "privlages." However, homosexuals do not spontaniously find themselves pregnant, and in the need of the "family stabilizing" element reflected in marriage.

That said, I do think Bush is over-reaching to seek an amendment . . .though he (as President. . .and a conservative) is fully justified in calling BS on a Mayor who is so obtusely breaking the law of his state.

[cegerer]

"Unrelated!? But why would the two people need to be unrelated? Wouldn't that be discrimination?
. . . and why just two people? Why not three brothers a cousin and their dog?"


A serious question: where is the limit? Do we stop with 2 person homosexual marriage? If so, why?

[lendaddy]

How long will it be before some gay divorce attorney opens an office in the Castro? Welcome to the world of prenuptual agreements, community property, and spousal support. Trouble in Shangri-La!

Moses, I almost went there

I think in the end they may find all they have won is the right to lose half their wheatchex if you will.

[RickM]

What are the other implications if same sex marriages were allowed?

- Burden on health care (added spouses and family members)

- What cost to the couples? (Marriage tax penalty)

- Attorneys and the new market segment (Gay couple divorce)


Can't gay couples get legally married in Hawaii?

[dd74]

Originally posted by RickM
What are the other implications if same sex marriages were allowed?

- Burden on health care (added spouses and family members)

- What cost to the couples? (Marriage tax penalty)

- Attorneys and the new market segment (Gay couple divorce)


Can't gay couples get legally married in Hawaii?

These are good questions, which I think has probably been thought out by the more serious couples looking for legal fairness under The Constitution.

However, there are also those who probably said vows just to do so - sort of like a Vegas wedding w/ BS (Brittany Spears).

It is legal in Hawaii from what I remember. But they passed that back when this wasn't an issue to The Pres. as he said then, "It's a state's issue."

[Neilk]

A serious question: where is the limit? Do we stop with 2 person homosexual marriage? If so, why?

Well 50 years ago the US didn't allow whites and blacks to marry in some states. Has the world gone to hell because of interracial marriage?

I don't think that extending marriages to gays is going to put us on the slippery slope to polygamy. That's ridiculous.

[djmcmath]

Cegerer makes an excellent point. If I can "marry" my male room-mate because we've lived together for 6 years, why can't I "marry" _both_ of my room-mates? As three men living in an apartment, we share all of the responsibilities and relational issues that married people share. Heck, we've even signed a contract to stay in the apartment for a year, which is longer than a lot of marriages last. Why can't we have a tax benefit for demonstrating our commitment to one another in this fashion?

The argument that you make, Neil, is the same one that has been presented every single time something has been cheapened, a definition has been broadened beyond it's intended scope. I remember way back when the Navy Achievement Medal really meant something -- then somebody said "Well, I'm sure that signing off this one NAM isn't going to send us down the slippery slope into meaningless awards," and off we go. My CO told me the other day to "write yourself a NAM and take the rest of the day off."

But that isn't really the point of this thread -- the question is whether or not the gov't ought to get involved. The homosexuals rights crowd has played their cards well on this one -- had they announced it as they really mean to, as a "civil union," the gov't could clearly get involved and pass legislation one way or the other. But because it's "marriage," that's somehow deemed a religious institution, something that the gov't has no part in. If homosexuals wish to refer to themselves as "married," the gov't shouldn't care less. If they wish to partake in "civil union," which is what they really want, but aren't asking for by name, then the gov't obviously should have a say.

... is it more important than talks with Libya? War in Iraq? Trips to the Moon? Starving orphans on the streets of Chicago and New York? Not so much.

BTW, if any of you are interested, I'm about to post "one soapbox, slightly used" for sale in the classifieds section.

Dan

[cegerer]

Neilk, I didn't say I was for or against homosexual marriages. I said, where is the limit? And why limit it to homosexual couples? 50 years from today we may look back and say 'that was so old-fashioned in 2004 when we didn't allow relatives to marry, or groups of 3 or 4 to marry or whatever'. It's a simple question: where is the limit and, if there is a limit, why is there a limit? I'd like to see someone answer that. -- Curt