Marriage Amendment in works - Gay rights foes seek law with teeth.
Printable View
That stupid (insert several foul words here)
Marriage should be shared with someone you love. Only when it comes to religion do you find it stating that it is a man and woman.
I am so sick of this subject because it is the "religious" do gooders, who probably have more skeletons in their damn closets then John Wayne Gacy.
Marriage should be available for any couple that truly loves each other. Man/Woman, Man/Man and Woman/Woman.
<font color="#000002" size="1">[ April 25, 2004 02:00 AM: Message edited by: Quoth the Raven ]</font>
Gay folks already have civil unions.
Why must they be "married"?
In reality the only difference between straights and gays is sexual prefferance.
You can say it's a "lifestyle" all you want, but in truth, the only difference is who they are attracted to physically.
To be honest again, on the whole ay marraige thing.
I DONT CARE!
If a stupid ring on someones finger is that big a deal to then buy your partner a ring. It's not like gays get married to have children, because they cant without the help of a member of the opposite sex. (yes that includes donated sperm and eggs)
They want something to show their "union" or their love for each other. So when it comes down to it, if they allready have a civil union then just get a ring and be happy.
This thing has been beaten to death and there are much bigger problems in the world.
<font color="#000002" size="1">[ April 25, 2004 11:04 AM: Message edited by: cincygreg ]</font>
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Because the love each other I would assume. Just like I want to marry Lindsay, I am sure Bill wants to marry Keith, out of love.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Raven, I'm with you on the love part. However, the word "marriage" has traditionally implied man and woman.Quote:
Originally posted by Quoth the Raven:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by gae:
Gay folks already have civil unions.
Why must they be "married"?
Find another word.
Until the gays started pushing this down our collective throats, I didn't care.
I do now. I'm tired of special rights for gays. Equal rights, sure. But not special.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I am all for equal rights, and it would seem to make it equal, marriage should be allowed. Right now on that issue, there not equal.Quote:
Originally posted by gae:
[QBRaven, I'm with you on the love part. However, the word "marriage" has traditionally implied man and woman.
Find another word.
Until the gays started pushing this down our collective throats, I didn't care.
I do now. I'm tired of special rights for gays. Equal rights, sure. But not special.[/QB]
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Because the love each other I would assume. Just like I want to marry Lindsay, I am sure Bill wants to marry Keith, out of love.Quote:
Originally posted by gae:
Gay folks already have civil unions.
Why must they be "married"?
"Marriage v. Civil Union"
I think little things like death benefits, insurance benefits, social security benefits, spousal support in case of divorce, etc etc hinge on the words to such a degree that without the legal sanctity of "marriage" the surviving "partner" is SOL.
I agree with Raven on this 100%. And 100 yrs from now people will look on this debate with as much chagrin as we today look upon laws 100 yrs ago that forbade people from living together without being married. As Raven said, it's all a church driven issue.
I agree with Raven, 110%. My man, you must have a high I.Q.
<font color="#000002" size="1">[ April 26, 2004 11:39 AM: Message edited by: G L. ]</font>
Girls should not marry girls and boys should not marry boys. It aint natural. You can rub yourselfs together or whatever but don't get married!
Bottom line is, what motivated the Ohio Legislature (at least in part) is the blatant judicial activism of the Massachusetts Supreme Court. Our own Supreme Court has acted this way in the past (remember the fuss over school financing?) I realize you can't keep politics out of it altogether, but the fact is, each branch has its role, and the role of the judiciary is to interpret laws made by someone else, not to make their own laws.
I'm not going to argue against Brown v. Board of Education, but the fallout from it is that its principles have been endorsed by anyone and everyone since then who wanted to force change on the public via the judiciary. Brown was the right decision, but it should be left to its own legacy. Marriage is NOT a fundamental right, therefore the inequality of its availability is NOT a violation of equal protection or due process. We don't let children marry. We don't let siblings marry. We don't let living people marry the dead. We don't let humans marry animals.
If the legislature wishes to change the marriage laws, that's their business to do so. And as I've said before, if they allow gay marriage, I'm not one of these people who thinks the sky will fall. I tend to agree with Greg's opinion of it.
But one thing I will always object to is a court playing legislative body. And I support most any measure to curtail such abuse of power.
"Until the gays started pushing this down our collective throats, I didn't care. I do now. I'm tired of special rights for gays. Equal rights, sure. But not special."
It is amusing how frequently anti-gay rhetoric employs homo-erotic imagery. [img]graemlins/rainbow.gif[/img] [img]wink.gif[/img] I think that is quite revealing. [img]graemlins/shhh.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/angel.gif[/img]
OK so we don't allow gays to marry now, but if we changed the law to allow them to marry, how is that granting gays "special rights"?
If you're referring to anti-discrimination laws, we also prohibit discrimination based on national origin, race, religion, age, gender, disability, and military service. As has been noted numerous times, these protections cover a large majority of the population. So how would adding protection for gays constitute "special rights" that the rest of us do not enjoy?
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Or for that matter, why must you be married? I mean what the hell makes you so special?Quote:
Originally posted by gae:
Gay folks already have civil unions.
Why must they be "married"?
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Because the love each other I would assume. Just like I want to marry Lindsay, I am sure Bill wants to marry Keith, out of love.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Raven, I'm with you on the love part. However, the word "marriage" has traditionally implied man and woman.Quote:
Originally posted by gae:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Quoth the Raven:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by gae:
Gay folks already have civil unions.
Why must they be "married"?
Find another word.
Until the gays started pushing this down our collective throats, I didn't care.
I do now. I'm tired of special rights for gays. Equal rights, sure. But not special.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Woman, open a history book and don't come back here until you've got your head out of your ass.
Marriage is an evolving thing, and same sex unions are not a unique thing. We have numerous mainstream clergy people more than willing to perform the ceremonies. We only have people like you getting in the way.
.
<font color="#000002" size="1">[ April 27, 2004 04:51 PM: Message edited by: reason ]</font>
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Lew is a prime example that just because one has years of education and can form a sentence doesn't necessarily mean that one is smart.Quote:
Originally posted by Lew:
Bottom line is, what motivated the Ohio Legislature (at least in part) is the blatant judicial activism of the Massachusetts Supreme Court. Our own Supreme Court has acted this way in the past (remember the fuss over school financing?) I realize you can't keep politics out of it altogether, but the fact is, each branch has its role, and the role of the judiciary is to interpret laws made by someone else, not to make their own laws.
I'm not going to argue against Brown v. Board of Education, but the fallout from it is that its principles have been endorsed by anyone and everyone since then who wanted to force change on the public via the judiciary. Brown was the right decision, but it should be left to its own legacy. Marriage is NOT a fundamental right, therefore the inequality of its availability is NOT a violation of equal protection or due process. We don't let children marry. We don't let siblings marry. We don't let living people marry the dead. We don't let humans marry animals.
If the legislature wishes to change the marriage laws, that's their business to do so. And as I've said before, if they allow gay marriage, I'm not one of these people who thinks the sky will fall. I tend to agree with Greg's opinion of it.
But one thing I will always object to is a court playing legislative body. And I support most any measure to curtail such abuse of power.
The exercise in abject stupidity as witnessed by Lew's essay above, is rife with illogical ramblings.
For example, comparing the marriage of two consenting adults with children getting married. Good grief, where do you come up with this stuff?
Or siblings for that matter. Hey, I'm surprised you didn't add animals in the mix for that matter, Lew.
Marriage provides all sorts of legal and social advantages. Good things we've got our resident legal dolt Lew to expound on what's wrong with the right.
Get the fucking government out of our bedrooms. That's what this is about - what happens in the privacy of our bedrooms.
Added comment after edit: I missed the fact that Lew did in fact mention humans marrying animals, just proving just what a idiot he really is. Personally I don't think fat, ugly people should marry...Let's add that to the Constitution and see how Lew likes THAT! Afterall, it's not a fundamental right and the reason for restriction similarly arbitrary, eh Lew?
<font color="#000002" size="1">[ April 27, 2004 04:59 PM: Message edited by: reason ]</font>
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Because the love each other I would assume. Just like I want to marry Lindsay, I am sure Bill wants to marry Keith, out of love.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Raven, I'm with you on the love part. However, the word "marriage" has traditionally implied man and woman.Quote:
Originally posted by gae:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Quoth the Raven:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by gae:
Gay folks already have civil unions.
Why must they be "married"?
Find another word.
Until the gays started pushing this down our collective throats, I didn't care.
I do now. I'm tired of special rights for gays. Equal rights, sure. But not special.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The Catholic Church didn't even bother to make marriage a Holy Sacrament for over 1,000 years after the birth of Christ. In the meantime, the whole idea of same sex unions was by and large hunky dory. But then, the Church figured the transfer of money was involved, so then they decided marriage was so much holier than it ever was before.
As time progressed, politics got involved, and religion decided that homosexual sex just wasn't cool and didn't do much to fill the ranks, so people started changing the interpretation of the Bible.
So today, we've got Bible thumpers and supposed conservatives "protecting" something that half those who attempt fail at anyway, wanting to hop into the privacy of our bedrooms and telling us who can and can't marry because of what we do there.
For the record, a good conservative doesn't want to amend any constitution to serve his/her religious beliefs, much less peek through the curtains so the government can regulate such activity.
Reason while I respect your feelings in this matter, and always respected you as a person, I do not understand the hostility. You don't post for months, and months and then suddenly start attacking others? Doesn't sound like the Reason I remember. Whazzup with that?
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Lets see, someone compares a relationship I have with marrying an animal. Or marrying a child. Or marrying the dead. Do you have any idea how utterly offensive, much less uneducated that is?Quote:
Originally posted by G L G:
Reason while I respect your feelings in this matter, and always respected you as a person, I do not understand the hostility. You don't post for months, and months and then suddenly start attacking others? Doesn't sound like the Reason I remember. Whazzup with that?
Lew deserves it. He is so completely obtuse about this, it's amazing.
What's worse, is that he's wrapping himself as some upstanding moral conservative, when in fact he's endorsing government regulation of the most private activities two adults can share. That's wrong. I'm sure he doesn't see it that way, but that's exactly what he's endorsing.
And about not being here...I wouldn't be here except Gail lured me back. Hmmmm....maybe I know why.
As far as my other rants, I suggest you blow those off. I don't mean those. Lew, on the other hand, is an idiot. I'd say it to his face. His post is grossly more offensive and rude than mine...by far. It's sad that we live in a world that someone can make such comparisons yet still think of themselves as a highly involved intellect.
Besides, who are you to judge...you've done a pretty good job over the years at trying to be annoying.
<font color="#000002" size="1">[ April 27, 2004 06:15 PM: Message edited by: reason ]</font>
One last comment, and I'm out of here. Last summer I had the privilege of sitting in on a service at Crossroads Community Church at the corner of Ridge and Madison.
The demographics are nice, the service is fun and interesting. A guy I work out with takes his family there, and suggested I go, too.
I went once, twice, but I knew something wasn't right. A few months later, it must've been God calling me. One Sunday morning I woke up and said, "I'm going to church."
So I did.
The topic? Homosexuality.
The minister pulled all the usual tricks, bringing up Leviticus, where sex with animals, same sex sex and assorted other "perversions" known to the Jews were forbidden.
Leviticus is really an interesting read. Unfortunately, you only hear about the specific items Lew brought up. Not that Lew mentioned Leviticus, but it's common practice to lump same sex sex with bestiality among other things, and it manages to routinely get converted into political speak about what's right and what's wrong.
Too bad the rest of Leviticus doesn't get the same attention. Funny people only pick out the stuff they like and ignore the things that are irrelevant to their daily lives.
I really think I should depart from this board, because I can more productively spend my time elsewhere. Otherwise, I'd start a Leviticus thread, so we can all learn the practice clean living...other than abstaining from homosexual sex. I guarantee you, we have a bunch of sinners here, violating Leviticus with abandon. We need to learn all the rules of Leviticus. Otherwise, how would you all separate yourselves from the Gentiles?
<font color="#000002" size="1">[ April 27, 2004 05:39 PM: Message edited by: reason ]</font>
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Ummm... Reason. Ignoring what we don't want or like is an American right. It's somewhere in the Constitution.Quote:
Too bad the rest of Leviticus doesn't get the same attention. Funny people only pick out the stuff they like and ignore the things that are irrelevant to their daily lives.
And I DID NOT lure you here. I simply invited you to the gathering.
Note to all who will attend: All weapons will be safely locked away.
[img]cool.gif[/img] , Lew agrees with me and so does Gae.
Greg looks up to see if giant meteor is heading tword earth. LOL!
Just kidding. [img]wink.gif[/img]
[img]tongue.gif[/img] [img]cool.gif[/img]
Well Reason let me say I for one would never consider you to be perverted or sinful. I do not oppose gay marriage. I do not look upon homosexuality as sinful or sick, simply different. As I said a long time ago I think it is a natural form of population control but won't get into that here. I think your (however infrequent) visits to the board are great. But what really, really offends me is your statement that I have ever annoyed anyone. How utterly and completely off base you were with that. [img]wink.gif[/img]
As to Lew, well much of his commentary is peppered with tongue in cheek sarcasm and humor. Something you are no stranger to yourself. Dude no one in this board looks down on you, I'm sure. If you were to get married I would be willing to bet Gae/Trav, Lew, Greg, Raven, most anyone on here would go to the ceremony if you invited them. So lighten up and don't get your panties in such a bunch. [img]tongue.gif[/img]
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! O I am laughing so hard I am crying.... hahahahaha.Quote:
Originally posted by reason:
Besides, who are you to judge...you've done a pretty good job over the years at trying to be annoying.
Best Post Ever
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! O I am laughing so hard I am crying.... hahahahaha.Quote:
Originally posted by Quoth the Raven:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by reason:
Besides, who are you to judge...you've done a pretty good job over the years at trying to be annoying.
Best Post Ever</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Actually I think I am naturally annoying most of the time to most of you without trying. So I can hardly be accused of doing it on purpose.
Wow! If my skin was as thin as Reason's, I'd have to resort to name calling and ad hominem attacks. Though I must confess, like Gae, I am disappointed and surprised; based on Reason's past posts, I never took him for one to take the low road. Constructive debate is one thing, name-calling is another.
That said, here's my response...
Yes, not to brag, but we all have our talents, and I would say that my qualifications, as respects what I posted, are just a wee-bit higher than Reason's. I am licensed to practice law in two states, I do practice law for a living, I studied constitutional law, and I have argued points of constitutional law in both state and federal courts. I also have an undergraduate degree in political science. I also once met Robert Byrd at a rest area in West Virginia.
Now, that doesn't make my 'opinion' better or worse than anyone else's. But, as respects facts, as respects law, if you can call me out where I'm wrong, by all means do so. Otherwise, you got served. And if you serve me back, then I guess it's on.
If you go back and read my post, my main thesis (which I thought was obvious) was one of separation of powers. I believe I said I did not have a problem with gay marriage per se; my problem is how it is being attempted. The Massachusetts Supreme Court and the Mayor of San Francisco were out of line politically, and it is important that we adhere to the rule of law.
You were insulted with my comparisons, but they were not offered as insults. My point was this- those who favor change (in many areas, not just gay marriage) always point to "Equal Protection" and the ideas expressed in "Brown v. Board of Education." In other words, if you grant it to one, you must grant it to all, and when you fail to do that, you've violated my rights.
And my point was, it doesn't exactly work that way. And I used those analogies to show why. All laws are not equally applied to all persons, and they aren't meant to.
I was not comparing gay marriage, as a status, to sibling marriage or children marrying each other or any of that. What I was saying was, if the basis of your argument is strictly grounded in equal protection, then the pro-sibbling marriage crowd (if there is such a thing) can piggyback that argument as well. And I'm saying there's more to it than that. I'm an adult, I have an adult brother, I should be able to marry him and live as a married couple because the 14th amendment tells me so.
Well, no it doesn't, and I'm sorry if that concept is beyond your comprehension.
In a way, your own posting sort of betrays this. You wrote "[M]arriage provides all sorts of legal and social advantages." Indeed, it does. Or it was thought to do so. And that's why the states, in the latter 19th century, began to formally recognize it. But, they believed (and by "they" I mean the legislatures) it was marriage between a man and a woman, of age, and not related.
And as I said all along, if the legislatures want to amend this, I am fine with it. What I am not fine with is some mayor believing that he can simply act outside the law. That was my point. That is my point. I thought it was clear. Evidently not.
"Get the fucking government out of our bedrooms. That's what this is about - what happens in the privacy of our bedrooms."
In all honesty, I wouldn't have a problem if the government got out of the marriage business altogether. There is an argument they should never have gotten into it in the first place. But, they did, and that's probably not going to change anytime soon. So, go out and change it.
And, of course, just because gays can't legally be married, that does NOT mean they can't share the same bedroom. But I'm sure you didn't mean to imply otherwise in your post.
"Personally I don't think fat, ugly people should marry...Let's add that to the Constitution and see how Lew likes THAT!"
That's a well-constructed, well-articulated argument. I'm surprised your not teaching constitutional law at UC. Indeed, I may be fat, and no, I may not be the best looking guy in the world, but I can tell you this- come October 2, I will be legally, lawfully and Constitutionally married to my beautiful bride. There's no way Congress can get your proposed amendment passed in time to stop me, and if they enact it after I'm married, Ex Post Facto (let me know if you need me to explan what that means) will kick in. So honestly, I hope y'all like it 'cause you sure can't stop it.
"Afterall, it's not a fundamental right and the reason for restriction similarly arbitrary, eh Lew?"
I would move for clarification of that statement. Sounds like something Kenny Smith might post.
Nevertheless, I was glad to see you back, and wish you wouldn't leave, Reason, but so be it if you must. Come on back sometime and take the high road, show us that you're still smart. Maybe not as smart as Big Daddy LewMan, but hey, most aren't.
Damn you Lew! How can I be expected to leave a professional message on the phone for a possible client when I am reading:
"I also once met Robert Byrd at a rest area in West Virginia".
And maintain any kind of credibility whatsoever?