Your homework assignment

[Guest]

All I want to ask is wh do people always fall back on the bible when it comes to gay marriges? What is that all about if you want to go by the good book (which I'm not saying is out of date) Then why don't we make laws against premarital sex and fornication and hell why not even thoughts of coveting your neighboors wife after all the bible preaches against it all. and if I'm not mistaken according to the bible a sin is a sin.

I think they fall back on the Bible because it's convenient. And often the outdated and poorly translated King James version suits their needs.

But they'll only pick and choose the portions of the Bible which fulfill their own warped agenda.

Idiots.

 

[Guest]

Photos from San Francisco, my home.

Perdita

Gay weddings

 

[Guest]

Thank you, perdita!

How can anyone not be moved when they see the absolute joy on those faces?

(Well, except for the tree guy, I suppose.)

My husband and I cheer each additional day couples are allowed to get licenses. (How funny - the people bringing suit to stop it couldn't prove they were being "irreparably harmed by same-sex marriages.")

 

[BlackSnake]

People hold on to their prejudice where they can publicly do so without being singled out as bigots. When they find a group that share their views then they are able to channel it.

Same shit different target. If to men want to get married or ladies, please...leave them...the fuck...alone.

 

[minsue]

Photos from San Francisco, my home.

Perdita

Gay weddings

Thanks for that 'Dita. Makes the heart sing.

It's always pissed me off that my husband & I were married in Vegas 1 month & 3 days after our first kiss by a guy who obviously thought it was just for shits & giggles, but a same sex couple who have been together for 10 years are not allowed the same right.

- Mindy

 

[BlackSnake]

Photos from San Francisco, my home.

Perdita

Gay weddings

While I agree with the celebration, I don't agree with playing to the media. The union should have real meaning to the couples, and shouldn't be exploited for some cause.

 

[shereads]

Or are you asking if the state should legalise gay nuptials? I'm guessing here but I'm pretty sure that, what with weddings anywhere you like and theological doctorates available on the net, then the legalities of conuptial bliss are purely a matter for the courts, as I'm sure they already have been, in terms of alimony etc.

You have it in everything but name as far as I can tell.

Gauche

I don't know if this is true in other countries, but in the U.S. there are legal and tax benefits accorded to married couples that aren't available any other way.

I also believed that the same-sex marriage issue was largely symbolic. I understood the significance of it when I read about a male couple who had been together for more than ten years, and when one partner was hospitalized and unable to make his wishes known, his family refused his partner the right to visit him.

If they had been married, the family would have had to go to court to stop visitation. The same thing is true of leaving your estate to your partner. If you die without a will, it's assumed that your spouse is entitled to your estate. The will can be contested by family, but they have to prove a reason why the spouse shouldn't be entitled to inherit.

So in the U.S., there is a constitutional argument for allowing same-sex couples to access the legal protections of marriage.

There is a moral contradiction in discouraging the lifetime commitment between two people that marriage at least implies (even if it's true less than half the time.)
I know a number of gay men, and while I can't say their livestyle is typical of anyplace other than a certain segment of 20- to 40-something urban professionals in Miami, I know only one coupls who have sustained a monogamous relationship longer than a few months. If society wants to discourage promiscuity and the danger of AIDs among young gay men, even a symbolic gesture that encourages a long-term commitment would be a step in that direction.

As it is, our government takes what it thinks is a moral high ground, to placate the religious right. The issue is not just the legalization of same-sex marriage; it's that President Bush promised in his state of the union address to sign into law a constitutional amendment that would define marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

The rarity with which we amend the U.S. constitution makes this an enormously powerful condemnation of gay men and women. For government to determine what constitutes a marriageable couple is insulting to everyone, straight and gay.

 

[shereads]

deleted quadruple double triple mega posts

 

[shereads]

deleted double post

 

[shereads]

If marriage is a sacrament, or a divinely bestowed blessing by an agent of whatever god(s) this individuals in question honor, than it cannot and should not be a governmentally sanctioned bond between these individuals. Rather than define marriage in the lawbooks, they should set forth what the criteria for establishing recognition of the rights, privileges, and responsibilities that an individual may share with, pass on to, or divide among whatever other individuals they desire.

Amen. A constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage is one more way to weaken the separation of church and state.

McKenna, I understand your point about the Mormon church not being allowed to practice polygamy. But having read some startling things about extremist fundamentalist Mormons who practice polygamy in defiance of the law, I no longer think of that as a freedom of religion issue. In it's purest form, as practiced by Joseph Smith, men are allowed to coerce women including underage girls, into marriage, and those who object are shunned or otherwise punished by the community.

Joseph Smith didn't reveal polygamy as part of God's plan for the Mormon Church until his wife, outraged over his adulterous relationships, went public with it and his congregation threatened to remove him as head of the church.

Naturally, as soon as it became clear that God wanted men to procreate with as many women as they could handle, but forbade the same behavior by women, the popularity of the religion soared. The modern Mormon church no longer sanctions polygamy, but there is a virulent and scary subculture in isolated pockets of Utah and the western U.S. where fundamentalists practice polygamy openly within their small communities - and where more than one young woman who was forced into an illegal marriage, ran away, and pressed charges, later recanted and then disappeared.

Polygamy, as it's practiced by these fundamentalists, is not about freedom of anyone's religion except the man's.

Clearly, government has to prohibit certain religious practices, or you could start a church that encourages sex with children. Where I see a difference with the issue of same-sex marriage is that consenting adults are being denied the legal and financial advantages with which government sanctions marriage. I agree with Remec that government has no business sanctioning marriage to begin with - unless it's simply a legal contract between two people who agree to share responsibilities such as having power of attorney for a disabled partner, and the right to inherit in the absence of a will.

 

[minsue]

The plot thickens...

Schwarzenegger Seeks Stop to Gay Weddings

Sat Feb 21,12:33 PM ET

By BETH FOUHY, Associated Press Writer

BURLINGAME, Calif. - Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger waded deeper into the debate over same-sex marriages, directing the state attorney general to take immediate legal steps to stop San Francisco from granting marriage licenses to gay couples.

Schwarzenegger told a cheering crowd at the state GOP convention that "in San Francisco, the courts are dropping the ball."

"It's time for the city to stop traveling down this dangerous path of ignoring the rule of law. That's my message to San Francisco," he said Friday night.

Schwarzenegger's directive to Attorney General Bill Lockyer was prompted in part by a judge's decision not to impose a temporary restraining order that would have halted San Francisco's weeklong parade of 3,175 same-sex weddings, said Rob Stutzman, Schwarzenegger's communications director.

A spokeswoman for Lockyer told the Los Angeles Times that the attorney general's office planned to seek a judgment soon declaring the city's action a violation of state law, but said Schwarzenegger had no authority over the elected Democrat.

Peter Ragone, a spokesman for San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, scoffed at Schwarzenegger's directive.

"The truth is, thousands of people are involved in loving relationships and having them recognized for the first time," Ragone said. "We urge the governor to meet with some of the couples because what's happening is both lawful and loving."

Earlier Friday, Judge Ronald Evans Quidachay denied the Campaign for California Families' request for a temporary restraining order, saying it failed to prove same-sex weddings would cause irreparable harm. In a separate case, another judge declined to order an immediate stop to the marriages Tuesday.

The Campaign for California Families argued that the weddings harmed all the Californians who voted in 2000 for Proposition 22, which defined marriage as between a man and a woman.

The judge suggested that the rights of the gay and lesbian couples appeared to be more substantial.

"If the court has to weigh rights here, on the one hand you are talking about voting rights, and on the other you are talking about equal rights," Quidachay said.

Quidachay consolidated the Campaign for California Families' lawsuit against the city with one filed by another conservative group, and told lawyers for both sides to work out between themselves when the next hearing would be held.

Mathew Staver, a lawyer representing the Campaign for California Families, said he believes the court ultimately will find that Newsom acted illegally when he began allowing gay marriages last week.

"He can't decide to grant same-sex marriage licenses any more than he can declare war against a foreign country," Staver said.

But chief deputy city attorney Therese Stewart said the failure of conservative opponents to win emergency injunctions demonstrates that the city has a strong case.

"Both judges really recognized there is nobody who is hurt by allowing gay people to marry," Stewart said.

Newsom remained defiant before the ruling, officiating at the wedding of one of California's most prominent lesbian politicians inside his offices at City Hall.

About 25 anti-gay-marriage protesters later blocked the door of the county clerk's office, lying down in front of the line and singing religious songs. Gays and lesbians responded by belting out "The Star-Spangled Banner" until sheriff's deputies escorted the protesters out. No arrests were made.

While defending its new marriage policy in court, the city also is suing the state, challenging its gay-marriage ban. The city contends the ban violates the equal protection clause of the California Constitution.

In Bernalillo, N.M., dozens of gay and lesbian couples arrived to get married Friday after a county clerk announced she would grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

The Sandoval County clerk's office granted licenses to 26 same-sex couples before New Mexico attorney general Patricia Madrid issued a late afternoon opinion saying the licenses were invalid under state law.

The clerk's office stopped issuing licenses and told newly wed couples their licenses were invalid.

I hope Maria throws him out of bed for this.

 

[shereads]

While I agree with the celebration, I don't agree with playing to the media. The union should have real meaning to the couples, and shouldn't be exploited for some cause.

But in this case, the cause they're promoting is urgent: if they don't drum up enough public support for same-sex marriage, the President and Congress have promised an amendment to prohibit states from allowing same-sex marriage.

There will be time later on for these couples to have a more meaningful ceremony. Unless the amendment passes next session, in which case they won't have a chance.

 

[minsue]

Hear! Hear! *standing & applauding*

 

[shereads]

Hear! Hear! *standing & applauding*

You can't applaud with wings. And if you try using your feet, you'll fall on your ass.

 

[shereads]

I hope Maria throws him out of bed for this.

Maria Shriver's personal opinons are being kept in a safe deposit box for the duration of his term.

 

[minsue]

You can't applaud with wings. And if you try using your feet, you'll fall on your ass.

Dammit! Now I'm giggling in the backyard again!

 

[Boxlicker101]

Four years ago, the people of California voted by a big margin that marriages could only be between men and women. This is now state law and it has already been ruled to be constitutional. I hate to rain on anybody's parade but the state law trumps a mayor's personal opinion any time. All the city is doing is getting themselves involved in an expensive legal hassle that they can't win. As for the couples involved, this won't change anything for them, except to maybe make some of the unions stronger. There really isn't that much of an advantage to being married over being domestic partners anyhow, at least not in SF

 

[minsue]

Four years ago, the people of California voted by a big margin that marriages could only be between men and women. This is now state law and it has already been ruled to be constitutional. I hate to rain on anybody's parade but the state law trumps a mayor's personal opinion any time. All the city is doing is getting themselves involved in an expensive legal hassle that they can't win. As for the couples involved, this won't change anything for them, except to maybe make some of the unions stronger. There really isn't that much of an advantage to being married over being domestic partners anyhow, at least not in SF

Leaving aside all arguments against the concept of 'separate, but equal', do you mean that CA &/or SF has a civil union law then to give same sex couples the same rights as married heterosexual couples? I wasn't aware of it, but that doesn't mean that they don't so I'm curious now.

 

[kellycummings]

Four years ago, the people of California voted by a big margin that marriages could only be between men and women. This is now state law and it has already been ruled to be constitutional. I hate to rain on anybody's parade but the state law trumps a mayor's personal opinion any time. All the city is doing is getting themselves involved in an expensive legal hassle that they can't win. As for the couples involved, this won't change anything for them, except to maybe make some of the unions stronger. There really isn't that much of an advantage to being married over being domestic partners anyhow, at least not in SF

Yes, but the mayor is suing the state because of that same law, saying is discriminates. From what I've seen, they have a decent chance because it may go federal. By the time it sees the Supreme Court, Bush will be gone, might be a new justice or two on the court and things could very well go SF's way.

 

[McKenna]

.

 

[Boxlicker101]

double post

 

[Boxlicker101]

Leaving aside all arguments against the concept of 'separate, but equal', do you mean that CA &/or SF has a civil union law then to give same sex couples the same rights as married heterosexual couples? I wasn't aware of it, but that doesn't mean that they don't so I'm curious now.

Unmarried couples, either gay or straight can register in San Francisco as a "civil union", and they have as many rights as the city can enforce. Employers who offer health insurance to spouses of employees have to offer the same to partners of civil unions. Companies doing business with SF have to comply with these same rules. Hospitals in SF offer the same visitation rights to partners. I believe the only thing domestic partners can't do is file joint income tax returns. I don't live there and I'm not sure of all the rules but, in some ways, individuals are better off in a civil union than in a marriage, because of the "marriage penalty" in income taxes.

 

[CharleyH]

Well somehow, Canada is actually condiered a bit stupid in the mentality - but you fuckers actually lost the WAR! What did we gain? Free anal sex, gay marriage, the right to bear out breast, and almost on the verge : non-criminal pot

Sorry folks. And how about ARNOLD in the news? Yo BABY, fuck you asshole?

And he's Gov of what? CALIFORNIA? LOL - lived there - complete gay quality on many - oh - many fronts, or backs - LOL

 

[Guest]

Re. my governor, he is going by the pressure of his party now, but I wonder how the film industry will treat him when he's through being head of state. Hollywood is so openly filled with gay professionals, including execs; either way he is screwing himself and that's fine with me.

FYI, SF also has a 'domestic partners' law that requires any business contracted with the city to give health and other benefits to one's partner when not legally married.

Perdita

 

[Couture]

Four years ago, the people of California voted by a big margin that marriages could only be between men and women. This is now state law and it has already been ruled to be constitutional. I hate to rain on anybody's parade but the state law trumps a mayor's personal opinion any time. All the city is doing is getting themselves involved in an expensive legal hassle that they can't win. As for the couples involved, this won't change anything for them, except to maybe make some of the unions stronger. There really isn't that much of an advantage to being married over being domestic partners anyhow, at least not in SF

The people here in in the south voted that it was against the law to help a runaway slave. Just because there is an overwhelming majority, it doesn't make it right for them to discriminate against an overwhelming minority.

The fact of the matter is, the state is discrimintating by not allowing homosexual marriage. If the state is not going to grant equal rights on this issue, then it needs to get out of the marrying business.