Gay marriage

[thebullet]

I just heard (not sure if it's true yet) that the Supreme Court has refused to review the Massachucetts law concerning gay marriage saying that the people bringing the suit (some Catholic group and a Florida lawyer) weren't being injured by the law and therefore had no right to object to it.

At least that's what I heard.

 

[CharleyH]

I just heard (not sure if it's true yet) that the Supreme Court has refused to review the Massachucetts law concerning gay marriage saying that the people bringing the suit (some Catholic group and a Florida lawyer) weren't being injured by the law and therefore had no right to object to it.

At least that's what I heard.

I hope it is true, since most 'blue' states will probably follow suit. But I thought I read somewhere that Bush was going to try to stop gay marriage? Though the futility of the effort would be kind of . . .

 

[impressive]

This topic really pushes my buttons. The government has NO business with its nose in ANYONE's marriage -- gay, straight, or otherwise.

Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

If the government absolutely must attempt to facilitate some sort of "stable family" situation, then give the word "marriage" back to the churches and just have "civil unions" for everyone -- with ZERO difference in legal implications per gender.

</end snit>

 

[rgraham666]

Don't bet on it Charley.

That change in the minimum votes in committee that thebullet mentioned a couple of days ago will make it very easy to bring in a constitutional change.

I had figured that the neo-Marxists had made this change to bring an end to Presidential term limits. It works well for banning gay marriage as well.

The best way to check is to see what the state legislatures are up to. If they're in the process of setting up to fast track legislation, that means they're getting ready for what comes out of Congress.

 

[ABSTRUSE]

When does a government have the right to tell you whom you may or may not love and when did people in general become so stupid?

 

[thebullet]

Here is the article from the AP:

Court Declines to Hear Gay Marriage Case

Mon Nov 29,10:21 AM ET Top Stories - AP


By GINA HOLLAND, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court on Monday sidestepped a
dispute over gay marriages, rejecting a challenge to
the nation's only law sanctioning such unions.



Justices had been asked by conservative groups to
overturn the year-old decision by the Massachusetts
Supreme Court legalizing gay marriage. They declined,
without comment.


In the past year, at least 3,000 gay Massachusetts
couples have wed, although voters may have a chance
next year to change the state constitution to permit
civil union benefits to same-sex couples, but not the institution of marriage.


Critics of the November 2003 ruling by the highest
court in Massachusetts argue that it violated the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of a republican form of government in each state. They lost at the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (news - web sites) in Boston.



Their attorney, Mathew Staver, said in a Supreme Court
filing that the Constitution should "protect the
citizens of Massachusetts from their own state supreme
court's usurpation of power."


Federal courts, he said, should defend people's right
"to live in a republican form of government free from
tyranny, whether that comes at the barrel of a gun or
by the decree of a court."


Merita Hopkins, a city attorney in Boston, had told
justices in court papers that the people who filed the
suit have not shown they suffered an injury and could
not bring a challenge to the Supreme Court. "Deeply
felt interest in the outcome of a case does not
constitute an actual injury," she said.


Massachusetts Attorney General Tom Reilly told
justices that voters can overrule the Supreme Court by
adopting a constitutional amendment.


The lawsuit was filed by the Florida-based Liberty
Counsel on behalf of Robert Largess, the vice
president of the Catholic Action League, and 11 state lawmakers.


The conservative law group had persuaded the Supreme
Court in October to consider another high profile
issue, the constitutionality of Ten Commandments
displays on government property. The court agreed to
look at that church-state issue before Chief Justice
William H. Rehnquist was diagnosed with thyroid
cancer.


He is working from home while receiving chemotherapy
and radiation and will miss court sessions for the
next two weeks.


State legislators will decide whether to put the issue
before Massachusetts voters in November 2006. Voters
in 11 states approved constitutional amendments
banning gay marriage in November elections. President
Bush (news - web sites) has promised to make a federal
anti-gay marriage amendment a priority of his second
term.


The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court narrowly
ruled that gays and lesbians had a right under the
state constitution to wed.


The nation's high court had stayed out of the
Massachusetts fight on a previous occasion. Last May,
justices refused to intervene and block clerks from
issuing the first marriage licenses.


The case is Largess v. Supreme Judicial Court of the
State of Massachusetts, 04-420.

 

[CharleyH]

Don't bet on it Charley.

That change in the minimum votes in committee that thebullet mentioned a couple of days ago will make it very easy to bring in a constitutional change.

I had figured that the neo-Marxists had made this change to bring an end to Presidential term limits. It works well for banning gay marriage as well.

The best way to check is to see what the state legislatures are up to. If they're in the process of setting up to fast track legislation, that means they're getting ready for what comes out of Congress.

Fortunately, we are safe from that influence RG. We don't have the same kind of lobby as the states, and the lobby is large there I believe. I had heard on the news - as Bush was coming to our fair country, that he would not address Parliament because as the Whitehouse stated, "they were not happy with our liberal views" and he did not want to be boo'd LOL

 

[curious2c]

What irritates me is the fact that religion has taken over so many aspects of our country. I know that it had part in many laws over the years but lately it seems to be headed to a type of government I thought we were protected from.

The seperation between church and state is blurring so much that I wonder if there is a seperation anymore?


I think that what two (or more for that matter) people think believe is right for them in their relationship is their own business. Not the goevernments or insurance companies either for that matter.

If two men or two women want to be married then so be it. Since when is marriage just for certain religious persons and not anyone else? If we are to make marriage be between a man and a woman, then what type of service will suffice in the governments eyes? Lutheran? Catholic? Morman?

Which religion will be the 'correct' one?

That is why I think our forefathers wanted a seperation between church and state...yet today we are headed for a state run church it seems.

I mean...President Bush...a born again christian...right leaning too.

I'm against any kind of legislation requiring marriage to be between a man and a woman. I feel that it should be between two persons or people. Sex of the parties should not be something the State has any say over.







Guess this subject bothers me a tad bit.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by ABSTRUSE
When does a government have the right to tell you whom you may or may not love and when did people in general become so stupid?

Respectfully, this is the sort of response to the gay-marriage question that represents the worst in propoganda--even if well intentioned.

The government, at no point, has concerned itself with whom you may or may not love. To drag "love" into the equation is to complicate an issue that was not designed to deal with it. The issue is "marriage' not "love". Everyone needs to keep their eye on that ball if they want to do things with it.

If all you're worried about is "love", then don't concern yourself with gay marriage laws or any of that... they're allowed to love each other. The fight for that right is over. They won. Love is fine.

The issue is legal marriage.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by curious2c
I'm against any kind of legislation requiring marriage to be between a man and a woman. I feel that it should be between two persons or people. Sex of the parties should not be something the State has any say over.

Regrettably, I believe in the political philosophy surrounding the government protecting societal investments for the future and can't put myself in favor of gay marriage--in that respect.

 

[Guest]

well, its good to know who is for and against gay marriage ...
atleast we'll know who to invite to the ceremony


joe, i respect the fact that you dont condone or believe in gay marriages but if youre going to spout off about not believing in it, maybe you could say ...in english.. just exactly what it is that makes you so staunchly against it.

i dont want to get into a huge debate. but ive seen you post over and over again about your beliefs... but ive never seen you say... what the problem is in your eyes.

sometimes, if you don't listen, you miss a great deal.
my 2 cents.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

I think you have to understand the legal reasoning behind Massachusetts' decision to recognize gay marriage.

The US Constitution says that all people are to be treated equally under the law. That means that everyone should have the same rights, no mater what their religion or race or sexual preference. The Massachusetts Supreme Court found that a ban on gay marriage was a violation of gay people's consitutional rights and so felt compelled to recognize that right.

That's is a hard argument to refute, and so the anti-gay marriage people are looking to run around the law not by challenging it, but by amedning the US constitution so as to make an exception to the equal rights guarantee. That's the only way they can beat it.

Is this ludicrous? Of course it is. You can't say you believe in equal rights for everyone and then start making exceptions. And you don't start fucking around with the Constitution--the basis of everything the United States professes to stand for--for something as silly as this. This is worse than the prohibition amendment.

Even if it passes, I have no doubt that it will be repealed in a few years as this rampant homophobia dies down. Then it's just be another embarrassing chapter in US history, along with racial discrimination and refusing women the vote.

---dr.M.

 

[thebullet]

Joe W said: If all you're worried about is "love", then don't concern yourself with gay marriage laws or any of that... they're allowed to love each other. The fight for that right is over. They won. Love is fine.

The issue is legal marriage.

Joe, you make a lot of sense, but allow me to throw this into the equation: Many who would otherwise look upon homosexuality as no big deal are turned off by the propensity of gays (especially males) to be wildly promiscuous. When two people choose to commit to each other, this is considered to be a good thing in American society and in American law. They are given certain financial benefits, such as preservation of capital, shared health and retirement benefits. These mean a great deal to the couple's financial well being.

To deny a couple these benefits because they are gay is fundamentally unfair. I personally have no problem differentiating between civil unions and marriage, if certain churches object to the use of the term 'marriage'. On the other hand, I'm sure that there are plenty of religious gay men and women who feel the need to be 'married'. And I can't blame them, even though I'm an atheist myself.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by vella_ms
well, its good to know who is for and against gay marriage ...
atleast we'll know who to invite to the ceremony


joe, i respect the fact that you dont condone or believe in gay marriages but if youre going to spout off about not believing in it, maybe you could say ...in english.. just exactly what it is that makes you so staunchly against it.

i dont want to get into a huge debate. but ive seen you post over and over again about your beliefs... but ive never seen you say... what the problem is in your eyes.

sometimes, if you don't listen, you miss a great deal.
my 2 cents.

As I understand it, legal marriage is an investment in the continuation of our society by certain guidelines (the family, as an instance). As such, I have absolutely no problem with religious marriage. I'm Catholic. If the Church were to allow gay marriage in the Church, then yippee. If someone wants to start a Church or change a church or attend only a church that allows it, good going. All for that.

Its the legal matter I have a problem with. I see a net-zero return on the investment, by itself, and a negative return given what we give to marriages.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I think you have to understand the legal reasoning behind Massachusetts' decision to recognize gay marriage.

The US Constitution says that all people are to be treated equally under the law. That means that everyone should have the same rights, no mater what their religion or race or sexual preference. The Massachusetts Supreme Court found that a ban on gay marriage was a violation of gay people's consitutional rights and so felt compelled to recognize that right.

That's is a hard argument to refute, and so the anti-gay marriage people are looking to run around the law not by challenging it, but by amedning the US constitution so as to make an exception to the equal rights guarantee. That's the only way they can beat it.

Is this ludicrous? Of course it is. You can't say you believe in equal rights for everyone and then start making exceptions. And you don't start fucking around with the Constitution--the basis of everything the United States professes to stand for--for something as silly as this. This is worse than the prohibition amendment.

Even if it passes, I have no doubt that it will be repealed in a few years as this rampant homophobia dies down. Then it's just be another embarrassing chapter in US history, along with racial discrimination and refusing women the vote.

---dr.M.

I disagree with you on it being repealed. People who are for gay marriage have really put themselves behind the eightball if this amendment passes. It takes 2/3rds majority to pass and to repeal, but if it passes, how exactly are you going to convince 2/3rds of the states it isn't bad? Frankly you can't.

There are easily enough states now ready to pass it, based on the majority of their constituents. Where will you build a 2/3rds majority to repeal it, if if is illeagal and you can't show anyone it isn't bad?

No state south of the mason dixon line, with the possible exception of Florida will ever condone it. I see very little hope in getting most staes west of the mississippi and east of the west coast states to vote to repeal it. If it passes, I think gay mariage is a dead issue for many years to come.

The 1960's was not the civil rights movemnet in it's entierty, it was the end game of something that had been worked on and built from at least the end of the first world war. No ground work has been laid for gay marriage. There has not been any attempt to pass civil unions and spousal benefits laws in the majority of states to give a frame work for demanding full marriage rights. If this amendment passes, it becomes doubtful at best you will even be able to build that framework as opponents will take you to court saying you are playing with semantics to get around the amendment, which conservatice judges are likely to agree with. It seems very likely we will have mostly conservative judges for the foreseeable future.

If it passes, I truly don't see a repeal coming in my life time. The Dems will first have to capture both houses of congress and that seems a long shot in and of itself. As to the 2/3rds of the states...thats even more unlikely from where I am sitting today.

 

[curious2c]

I know that part of the reason many are against gay marriage is about insurance rates on health insurance. Of course the arguments I hear are quite...well...homophobic in many ways but when it comes to rates on health insurance...it seems that many people are under some kind of false impression that gay people will sleep around a lot, and catch diseases. Then, the health insurance will be having to pay to take care of them when they catch aids.

*sigh* What about the married people, heterosexuals that is, that cheat on their spouses and catch diseases too? I guess that's different?

Where I work...I think I'm the only one there that thinks that gays should have the basic rights of a citizen. I mentioned it in a discussion one day and I'm still hearing how I must be a closet gay and other comments. I smile and just say that I'm comfortable in my sexuality...and it drives them nuts.

Anyway...I see no way that two men or two women getting married is going to effectively mean anything to me other than two people got married. More the power to them.

I still think it's not the governments place to decree who and what sex a person can be to get married. It smells too much of religion being part of the government and not seperated as it should be.

 

[Amy Sweet]

Gay peoples sex life has never effected my sex life (or anybody elses), so I doubt there marriages would effect mine (or anybody elses) either.

 

[CharleyH]

Respectfully, this is the sort of response to the gay-marriage question that represents the worst in propoganda--even if well intentioned.

The government, at no point, has concerned itself with whom you may or may not love.

Must disagree Joe, the U.S. government, I access memory of Mr. Bush's press conferences - two in fact - where he diligently and as the head of Government elect, has concerned himself with the gay issue. In a broadcast having stated how antithesis gay was to the "american family". What is an "American Family". I respect your opinion, and so please tell me WHEN your current head of state said "oh ya for sure gays go for it."

When has the current head of state said it mattered not?

 

[Liar]

Its the legal matter I have a problem with. I see a net-zero return on the investment, by itself, and a negative return given what we give to marriages.

So if I have understood you correctly, it is the inability for a gay couple to biologically spawn that makes you object to the legal union with all it's benifits? Or is there any other "net-zero return on the investment" here that I am missing?

So, infertile people in general should ideally also be denied this right? If that's not the case, then please explain again. I'm so not following.

#L

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

As I understand it, legal marriage is an investment in the continuation of our society by certain guidelines (the family, as an instance). As such, I have absolutely no problem with religious marriage. I'm Catholic. If the Church were to allow gay marriage in the Church, then yippee. If someone wants to start a Church or change a church or attend only a church that allows it, good going. All for that.

Its the legal matter I have a problem with. I see a net-zero return on the investment, by itself, and a negative return given what we give to marriages.

Churches do allow gays to marry already. Living in Mass. I'm sure you've seen the ones willing to marry two men or two women in the eyes of the Lord. I doubt any of your cathedrals are doing it, but there are avenues for religious marriage.

On a similar line, civil family units are allowed for those who go through the paperwork, but they are built on just that: paper. Two women or two men can adopt children, open joint accounts, live together, fuck each other, care for their children, raise their children and all the rote exercises of a family unit, but they have no legal protection in terms of wills, hospital visitation rights, etc. Similarily, their children can be taken away from them at the whim of a hat if any of their relatives choose to bring it about the court.

To protect these family units from exactly this sort of (i'm sorry to say) bullshit, legal marriages must be performed. Civil Unions won't work because they are legally inferior as well as open to persecution by loophole freaks. For full protection from assholes, the final piece of the puzzle, legal marriage, is neccessary.




As far as you're net-zero return on investment argument. I've defeated it before. I can defeat it again. It, like a golden cow, is bullshit. There are family units which provide direct child raising services. There are connected lives and stability (assuming legal marriage is allowed to reduce fear and legal fees) that spend money on nesting items that propel the economy. And so on and so forth.

Why don't you give up the ghost and just admit the truth of your detraction? Sure, some will look disfavorably as occurs when truths are spoken, but frankly bullshit is tiring and I'm really sick of hearing it.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by CharleyH
Must disagree Joe, the U.S. government, I access memory of Mr. Bush's press conferences - two in fact - where he diligently and as the head of Government elect, has concerned himself with the gay issue. In a broadcast having stated how antithesis gay was to the "american family". What is an "American Family". I respect your opinion, and so please tell me WHEN your current head of state said "oh ya for sure gays go for it."

When has the current head of state said it mattered not?

Bush isn't the US Government, either by definition or essence. If you're asking "what does Bush think the American Family is?", that's easy--classic Mom, Dad, kids situation. I think you're mistaking our "head of state" for the state itself.

He is entitled to his opinion. I was speaking about the government in essence.

Originally posted by Liar
So if I have understood you correctly, it is the inability for a gay couple to biologically spawn that makes you object to the legal union with all it's benifits? Or is there any other "net-zero return on the investment" here that I am missing?

So, infertile people in general should ideally also be denied this right? If that's not the case, then please explain again. I'm so not following.

#L

Strictly speaking, that starts getting into gray areas. Interesting, though.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by Lucifer_Carroll
but frankly bullshit is tiring and I'm really sick of hearing it.

So don't listen.

...

...that was easy.

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

So if I have understood you correctly, it is the inability for a gay couple to biologically spawn that makes you object to the legal union with all it's benifits? Or is there any other "net-zero return on the investment" here that I am missing?

So, infertile people in general should ideally also be denied this right? If that's not the case, then please explain again. I'm so not following.

#L

It's simple: Homophobes are uncomfortable with the idea of gays existing. It makes their skin crawl, it puts uncomfortable thoughts in their minds, and worst of all it makes them doubt the sexuality of everyone around them including themselves.

They do this because like the overused cliche goes, they are not confident about their sexuality. That is, they do not have the strength of confidence in their straightness to unearnestly make homoerotic actions.

Thus, they want gays gone, but since they can't do that by wishing and doing it by action reminds too many people of Nazism, they try to do everything else they can. From campaigns to erase it out of culture to breaking up any family dynamics that form. Currently the craze is in preventing gay marriage but already the rhetoric has shifted. Now its war against the gay agenda.

The gay agenda for those on the sidelines is like the Israeli agenda: The right to exist.





Not that Joe is a homophobe or anything. God forbid we accuse somebody of that.

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

So don't listen.

...

...that was easy.

Hmm, yeah, I can do what you do. Can I call myself logical afterwards?

P.S. Finally read Watchmen, good book.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by Lucifer_Carroll
Hmm, yeah, I can do what you do. Can I call myself logical afterwards?

Whatever.