|
Should this be an issue?
Not just what Bush thinks, I mean should the whole issue even be an "issue."
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/24/elec04.prez.bush.marriage/index.html |
It should not but some think it is... Arnold thinks it is a problem that must be corrected also.
|
Hey, things like this are what make the world go round... so why not? Banning gay marriage is similar to the laws in Texas and other southern states regarding sodomy. Riduculous. As long as it doesn't hurt others, it should be legal.
|
On second thought, I suppose sodomy hurts others, but I'm ass-uming that both parties are consenting :d
|
No, it shouldn't be an issue in my opinion. :rolleyes:
I think it's the word "marriage" that is kicker, maybe we should call it "civil union" or something. What worries me is that the administration's response is that they will attempt to put an AMENDMENT to the Constitution to support what is clearly an entirely religious interpretation of the issue. I will make it quite clear here that I support people's right to worship as they choose. However, I think that instituting religious beliefs as law will just serve to divide the country in the future. A slippery slope that could cause huge conflict. JCM |
I think we should allow multiple-wife marriages too. As long as it's not hurting anybody ....
|
Multi-hubby marriage sounds good to me...
|
Ammend the constitution just to ban gay marriage?....sounds absurd.
|
I'm going to side with concentric on this one -- while I believe that gay people joining in civil union detracts from the ideal of "marriage" as designed, I also believe that it is dead wrong for the government to step in and take a side. <sigh>
Um ... instead of polygamy, can I have concubines instead? A harem sounds like a lot more fun than a bunch of wives. :) Dan |
I dissected this one today! Now keep in mind politics is a game and I think this one is a Republican play of mastery. Now bear with me :)
I don't know if the first few gay marriages were plants or if this phenom just happened. Regardless the republicans saw an opportunity to divide the dems and squash a growing unity in the party. By making this a forefront isssue they have forced Kerry to denounce gay marriage and double talk the issue. This has pissed off alot of gays and their supporters. It may also push hardcores to Nader(is he pro gay marriage? I honestly don't know) and or keep them home on election day. Those in favor were never going to vote Bush anyway so no harm done there. Also the ammendment will never pass so, again much adu about nothing. In the end no one wins but the dems lose. Kind of a cute little plan I say. FWIW I don't care if gays get married, but I think they should lobby for law change within their states not break current laws. |
I would like to DEMAND a constitutional amendment so that I can marry my 911. Then I could expect that my free health insurance from my employer would cover all the sicknesses and maintenance issues. Would really be nice... she could stay home on the charger all day while I work.
Should my dearly beloved become disabled, especially 'on the job', I will expect the State of California's Workman's Compensation Program to cover that too. I feel that my rights as a taxpayer are being infringed upon by the licenses granting spousal rights to partners in San Francisco, and I cannot bestow these rights on my beloved Porsche partner of 11 years. We have tried to have a civil union conferred in Oregon, but there were some envionmental issues. Once this union is sanctified and certified, I could then take up with my 944 on the side, and possibly be in a position to marry her if the 911 starts making too many demands. My Mercedes will undoubtedly take umbrage at all of this, but I tend to only be with her when I am in Nevada (a non-community property state). I have written my congressman about this, but have not yet heard back. P.S. Do you think this pic makes her a$$ look too big???? http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1077678582.jpg |
A Porsche's ass never looks too big, unless it's the ass of somebody else's Porsche. Thus the 10th Commandment: "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his house, nor your neighbor's ass." I like to think that God was referring to Porsches at the time. :)
|
That is frickin hilarious singpilot!
|
BOSTON—Justices of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled 5-2 Monday in favor of full, equal, and mandatory gay marriages for all citizens. The order nullifies all pre-existing heterosexual marriages and lays the groundwork for the 2.4 million compulsory same-sex marriages that will take place in the state by May 15.
"As we are all aware, it's simply not possible for gay marriage and heterosexual marriage to co-exist," Massachusetts Chief Justice Margaret H. Marshall said. "Our ruling in November was just the first step toward creating an all-gay Massachusetts." Marshall added: "Since the allowance of gay marriage undermines heterosexual unions, we decided to work a few steps ahead and strike down opposite-sex unions altogether." Marshall said the court's action will put a swift end to the mounting debate. "Instead of spending months or even years volleying this thing back and forth, we thought we might as well just cut to the eventual outcome of our decision to allow gay marriages," Marshall said. "Clearly, this is where this all was headed anyway." The justices then congratulated the state's 4.8 million marriage-age residents on their legally mandated engagements. The court issued the surprise order in response to a query from the Massachusetts Senate over whether Vermont-style civil unions, which convey the state-sanctioned benefits of marriage but not the title, are constitutional. "If the history of our nation has demonstrated anything, it's that separate is never equal," Marshall said. "Therefore, any measure short of dismantling conventional matrimony and mandating the immediate homosexual marriage of all residents of Massachusetts would dishonor same-sex unions. I'm confident that this measure will be seen by all right-thinking people as the only solution to our state's, and indeed America's, ongoing marriage controversy." Marshall then announced her engagement to Holyoke kindergarten teacher Betsy Peterson, a pairing that had been randomly generated by computers in the census office earlier that day. Those who don't choose to marry in private will be married in concurrent mass ceremonies at Fenway Park, Gillette Stadium, and the Boston Convention and Exposition Center. Any citizen who is not gay-married or is still in an illegal heterosexual relationship after that date will be arrested and tried for non-support. Hundreds of confused but vocal protesters lined the street outside the statehouse Monday night, waving both American and rainbow flags. Their chants, which broke out in pockets up and down the street, included, "Hey hey, ho ho, homophobia's got to go, but frankly, this is ****ed up" and "Adam and Eve or Adam and Steve, but not Adam and Some Random Guy." Others held signs that read, "On Second Thought, Boston Christians Are Willing To Consider A Compromise." According to police reports, demonstrators were vocal but orderly. "The unholy union of people of the same gender destroys the only type of romantic love sanctioned by Our Lord in Heaven: the love between a man and a woman," 54-year-old protester Rose Shoults said. "Me and my new partner Helene are going to fry in hell." The much-anticipated order sets the stage for Massachusetts' upcoming constitutional convention, where the state legislature will consider an amendment to legally define marriage as a union between two members of the same gender. Without the order, Rep. Michael Festa said the vote, and his personally dreaded wedding to House Speaker and longtime political opponent Thomas Finneran, would be delayed. "This is a victory, not only for our state, but for America," Festa said. "Simply allowing consenting gay adults the same rights as heterosexuals was never the point. By forcing everyone in the state into a gay marriage, we're setting the stage for our more pressing hidden agendas: mandatory sodomy and, in due time, the legalization of bestiality and pedophilia." Massachusetts has one of the highest concentrations of gay households in the country, at 1.3 percent, according to the 2000 census. Under the new laws, the figure is expected to increase by approximately 98.7 percentage points. |
|
Should this be an issue?
It should not be an issue on the basis of marriage being a religious institution.
It should be an issue on the basis that government has, over the years, granted certain benefits, liberties, and also imposed societal obligations onto the participants of this covenant. Could be construed as short-sighted, yes? In any case, there are only two sides a person can come down on in a discussion of equal rights. You are either for 'em or agin' em. The president is, of course, pandering to his most loyal supporters, the religious right, and is dividing Americans onto themselves. When we turn a corner in our own neighborhoods and see enemies, the terrorists have won. Ed |
Hey Woodpie, did you get the memo from David Letterman, it's not president but rather "president".
I say who cares. If TWO people love each other and are in a committed relationship, then they should be allowed to get married. I think, like other people have mentioned, that the word "married" is a little odd, but it's really a question of semantics. I do find it odd though that the Bush administration wants to spend $1 billion to promote marriage, but not for all committed couples. In 50 years, if the amendment passes somehow, we will all look at it like the prohibition amendments and wonder what were we thinking. |
Re: Should this be an issue?
Quote:
Anyone marry their cousin?. . .brother/sister . . .what, don't you love them? How about marrying your mother or grandmother? . . .after all, If TWO people love each other and are in a committed relationship, then they should be allowed to get married. Love -- what else could matter.:rolleyes: ------- That *is* frickin hilarious, singpilot! |
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? |
I'm all for gay marriage. I know many gay couples (some men, some women) who are responsible, deserving, devoted folks who depend on and are committed to each other just like any straight couple and in some cases are raising happy, healthy kids. The idea that they can't get the symbolic committment of marriage and the practical legal benefits of marriage is flat out wrong.
The objections to gay marriage are, when you dig into them. almost all based on religious beliefs. Well, this country isn't supposed to be run by or for the religious. I'm an atheist, my wife is Catholic, my kids are being raised Catholic but might eventually choose to be anything from born-again to Muslim to whatever. My choice and their choice is no damn business of the government. And if two gay people want to make a life-long committment, the government has no damn business stopping them. From a practical political standpoint, as a Democrat I have to admit I wish this issue hadn't come up at this time. Kind of like I thought Clinton was stupid for making gays in the military his first big initiative - there's ideals and then there's practicalities. Between the gay marriage issue and the self-absorbed idiot Ralph Nader, the past couple weeks haven't been good for the Dems. |
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 |
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? |
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.
|
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) :) |
Quote:
One of the best characters ever drawn! :D |
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 |
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? :eek: |
Quote:
|
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 |
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... |
Quote:
|
Cool thanks Ronin
Doug |
Quote:
. . . 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?:rolleyes: 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:rolleyes: 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. |
<i>"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?"</i> A serious question: where is the limit? Do we stop with 2 person homosexual marriage? If so, why? |
Quote:
I think in the end they may find all they have won is the right to lose half their wheatchex if you will. |
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? |
Quote:
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." |
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. |
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 |
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
|
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:42 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0
Copyright 2025 Pelican Parts, LLC - Posts may be archived for display on the Pelican Parts Website