OMNI - Massachusetts Same-Sex Marriage Case

View Full Version : Massachusetts Same-Sex Marriage Case

Doppy

Nov 19, 03, 2:38 pm

The other thread is corrupt, so let's move the discussion here.

Doppy

Nov 19, 03, 2:57 pm

Constitutional amendment could leave couples in legal limbo

By JENNIFER PETER
Associated Press Writer

BOSTON --
Massachusetts voters could be placed in the unprecedented position of stripping civil rights from fellow citizens if legislative opponents of this week's gay marriage decision succeed in putting a constitutional amendment on the ballot in November 2006.

{snip}

"Then we have the physical and logistical question of spending taxpayer dollars to hire government lawyers to forcibly divorce families who don't want to be divorced," said Sen. Cheryl Jacques
...
"I cannot imagine a single Massachusetts resident who would want to see their taxpayer dollars spent on breaking up families," said Jacques.

http://www.heraldtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20031119/APN/311190888

DenverBrian

Nov 19, 03, 3:01 pm

From the corrupted previous thread:

I'm actually okay with both same-sex and plural marriage. Plural marriage is quite common in many countries in the Middle East, for instance.

And if bro and sis want to marry, why not? Who really cares? Conservatives who quote "6,000 years of tradition" should note that the "tradition" of marriage started with Adam and Eve, and then their kids...who married each other!

------------------
Brian/\/\

Droneklax

Nov 19, 03, 3:09 pm

Quiz time!

http://www.buddybuddy.com/quiz-1.html

Doppy

Nov 19, 03, 3:12 pm

Originally posted by DenverBrian:
Conservatives who quote "6,000 years of tradition" should note that the "tradition" of marriage started with Adam and Eve, and then their kids...who married each other! 

I don't know when civil marriage - that is marriage under the law - started. But I bet it started more recently than slavery and the oppression of women. Two other long-standing "traditions"

Do we need to defend those traditions as well, or are we doing this buffet style where "tradition" is an 100% argument against same-sex families, but we just ignore it in the case of women and slavery?

d

amanuensis

Nov 19, 03, 3:24 pm

Originally posted by Doppy:
Constitutional amendment could leave couples in legal limbo

By JENNIFER PETER
Associated Press Writer

BOSTON --
Massachusetts voters could be placed in the unprecedented position of stripping civil rights from fellow citizens 

This reporter needed to do better research before labeling something as "unprecedented." In the nineteenth-century the U.S. Supreme Court decided that thousands of polygamous marriages were illegal. At which time, some polygamous quit living with their "extraneous" spouses while others did not. Several of my ancestors were polygamists, while several others were staunch anti-polygamists.

The problem with those that still practice polygamy is that they are part of very small and insular clans, resulting in them marrying VERY close relatives, who are often VERY young. For years (since a disastrous raid in Arizona in the 1950's), the authorities have tended to turn a blind eye to this, but, fortunately, the DAs now appear to be giving this issue greater attention.

Perhaps the reason why the authorities ignored the practice in recent years has been that it is legally hard to argue that polygamists were doing something prosecutable that monogamist people who engage in adultery were not also doing. "Bigamy" is legally defined as marrying more than one spouse, but most polygamists never engage in a civil marriage ceremony with more than one woman, and thus polygamists cannot be prosecuted for that. Basically, most DAs did not want to take the time that would have been required to have built a case against a polygamist couple, only to have a jury find the couple not guilty. However, several DAs are now prosecuting polygamists for violating tax and welfare laws; in other words, taking a page from the prosecution of organized crime figures.

amanuensis

Nov 19, 03, 3:30 pm

I'm curious -- has anyone attempted to determine just how many gay couples in Massachusetts want to engage in same-sex marriages? Presumably, not all of them would want to, since not all monogamous couples choose to marry.

OttoGraham

Nov 19, 03, 3:32 pm

Originally posted by Doppy:
I don't know when civil marriage - that is marriage under the law - started. But I bet it started more recently than slavery and the oppression of women. Two other long-standing "traditions"



Slavery=oppression of women=opposition to homosexual marriage.

I am really disappointed in you Doppy, certainly you could craft a better argument than this.

StudentExplorer

Nov 19, 03, 3:36 pm

[QUOTE]Originally posted by OttoGraham:
Slavery=oppression of women=opposition to homosexual marriage.

I am really disappointed in you Doppy, certainly you could craft a better argument than this.[/QUOTE

Certainly you can read between the lines can't you? Resort to "tradition" is suspect as an argument. Hence the examples of slavery and women.

Doppy

Nov 19, 03, 3:42 pm

Originally posted by amanuensis:
This reporter needed to do better research before labeling something as "unprecedented." In the nineteenth-century the U.S. Supreme Court decided...

The reporter said that voters being placed in the position of stripping rights was unprecedented. Your example is not of voters doing the stripping, but of a court.

Originally posted by OttoGraham:
Slavery=oppression of women=opposition to homosexual marriage.

I am really disappointed in you Doppy, certainly you could craft a better argument than this.

Nice try, but you were the one who said that "tradition" trumps. The onus is on you to explain why tradition trumps in some cases, but not others.

d

OttoGraham

Nov 19, 03, 3:51 pm

Originally posted by Doppy:
Nice try, but you were the one who said that "tradition" trumps. The onus is on you to explain why tradition trumps in some cases, but not others.

d

I say that the exercise of power by the people in a democratic society trumps - which is why homosexual marriage advocates will never seek to put such matters up to a vote.

Only a decision by unaccountable judges might result in recognition of homosexual marriage, not a decision by the electorate.

StudentExplorer

Nov 19, 03, 3:58 pm

Originally posted by OttoGraham:
I say that the exercise of power by the people in a democratic society trumps - which is why homosexual marriage advocates will never seek to put such matters up to a vote.

Only a decision by unaccountable judges might result in recognition of homosexual marriage, not a decision by the electorate.

Out of curiosity . . . . assume a state legislature did vote to legalize same-sex marriage. Then what?

OttoGraham

Nov 19, 03, 4:01 pm

Originally posted by StudentExplorer:
Out of curiosity . . . . assume a state legislature did vote to legalize same-sex marriage. Then what?

Suppose a state legislature voted to reinstate the death penalty for engaging in sodomy?

Neither is likely to happen - why bother discussing unlikely hypotheticals?

Doppy

Nov 19, 03, 4:02 pm

Originally posted by OttoGraham:
I say that the exercise of power by the people in a democratic society trumps

Well before you were making the argument that the "tradition" of male-female marriage trumped. Unfortunately, the other thread is corrupt.

Only a decision by unaccountable judges might result in recognition of homosexual marriage, not a decision by the electorate.

Aren't judges subject to impeachment? They're accountable via our representatives. Welcome to the republic.

d

OttoGraham

Nov 19, 03, 4:06 pm

People believe homosexual marriage, plural marriage, and incestuous marriage are wrong and should not be countenanced by society. The basis of this belief is a thousands-of-years old moral basis which can't be washed away in a spray of cliched legalisms by four judges.

StudentExplorer

Nov 19, 03, 4:06 pm

Originally posted by OttoGraham:
Suppose a state legislature voted to reinstate the death penalty for engaging in sodomy?

Neither is likely to happen - why bother discussing unlikely hypotheticals?

Because that's what debate is. Why do you have such trouble answering the question? It's rather simply really . . . .

StudentExplorer

Nov 19, 03, 4:17 pm

Guava

Nov 19, 03, 4:37 pm

Originally posted by OttoGraham:
Suppose a state legislature voted to reinstate the death penalty for engaging in sodomy?



Uh, Otto...do you even live in the U.S. and are you sure you are an American? I mean, you should know that no State Legislature can possibly make a law that is unconstitutional. The June Supreme Court decision clearly outlaws such practice, therefore, any such laws is automatically null or no effect... If this is arguing for the sake of argument, it's getting old...

OttoGraham

Nov 19, 03, 4:40 pm

Originally posted by Guava:
Uh, Otto...do you even live in the U.S. and are you sure you are an American? I mean, you should know that no State Legislature can possibly make a law that is unconstitutional. The June Supreme Court decision clearly outlaws such practice, therefore, any such laws is automatically null or no effect... If this is arguing for the sake of argument, it's getting old...



I agree with you that it is pointless to discuss unlikely hypotheticals - which was my point. http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttravel_forum/wink.gif

[This message has been edited by OttoGraham (edited Nov 19, 2003).]

essxjay

Nov 19, 03, 4:49 pm

I am simultaneouisly overjoyed at the Mass. decision and totally pissed off at much of the left. Overjoyed that the rights of same-sex couples are finally being asserted legally (about freaking time), and totally pissed at the likes of Gephart et al. who are equivocating about the ruling.

I don't often have much to agree about with Carol Mosley Brown and Al Sharpton, but they were the only two yesterday who came out unequivocally in favor of the ruling. Where the h!ll are the rest of the Dems?? Fraidy cats. http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttravel_forum/mad.gif

StudentExplorer

Nov 19, 03, 4:51 pm

Originally posted by OttoGraham:
I agree with you that it is pointless to discuss unlikely hypotheticals - which was my point. http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttravel_forum/wink.gif

[This message has been edited by OttoGraham (edited Nov 19, 2003).]

So I guess I can assume you have no reasons as to why same-sex marriage SHOULD not be allowed?

Note the word "should." Different from "would" or "could."

Guava

Nov 19, 03, 4:55 pm

Originally posted by OttoGraham:
[B] I agree with you that it is pointless to discuss unlikely hypotheticals - which was my point. http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttravel_forum/wink.gif



On the contrary Otto, the ability to make the logical hypothesis is what set humans apart from animals, and ultimately allow us to become masters of Earth. This ability is absolutely crucial and necessary. Of course, there are some suppositions which are totally waste of time because they are pointless (no offense, most yours fall in this category like the previous example).

It is this ability to time everything in a logical and optimal sequence that has resulted in this astounding victory in Massachussets. From the timing of brining this to the Court till the choice of whom will be the 'Model Couple' (in this case, the two women Goodbridge weren't a random choice). They were chosen for very concrete and logical reasons - the most opposition are from older, male segment of the population. Men's senses are much more visual than women (hence Playboy works well with guys but Playgirl don't do so well with women) so by choosing two women as the cover couple will go accross much better with the opposing population than having two handsome male models whom will likely be regarded as threatening to some straight male populaiton. There are many other aspects and details...but nothing is random. And this ability to plan comes from the expertise of good hypothesis, including the possible outcomes after this ruling has been expected too. This is why the result of this ruling is now almost irreversible or set in stone because the right people have anticipated the probably outcomes through the right hypothesis - they have outsmarted their opponents...

[This message has been edited by Guava (edited Nov 19, 2003).]

anonplz

Nov 19, 03, 4:55 pm

Originally posted by Guava:
Uh, Otto...do you even live in the U.S. and are you sure you are an American? I mean, you should know that no State Legislature can possibly make a law that is unconstitutional. The June Supreme Court decision clearly outlaws such practice, therefore, any such laws is automatically null or no effect... If this is arguing for the sake of argument, it's getting old... 

Yeah, right? I was just thinking the same thing. These arguments are all VERY familiar, if you know what I mean.

essxjay

Nov 19, 03, 5:01 pm

People believe homosexual marriage, plural marriage, and incestuous marriage are wrong and should not be countenanced by society. 

Correction: Some people, not all.

You do not speak for me, Otto.

OttoGraham

Nov 19, 03, 5:04 pm

Originally posted by essxjay:
You do not speak for me, Otto.

Nor you me. Fortunately.

[This message has been edited by OttoGraham (edited Nov 19, 2003).]

Droneklax

Nov 19, 03, 5:05 pm

I am simultaneouisly overjoyed at the Mass. decision and totally pissed off at much of the left. Overjoyed that the rights of same-sex couples are finally being asserted legally (about freaking time), and totally pissed at the likes of Gephart et al. who are equivocating about the ruling.

I don't often have much to agree about with Carol Mosley Brown and Al Sharpton, but they were the only two yesterday who came out unequivocally in favor of the ruling. Where the h!ll are the rest of the Dems?? Fraidy cats

Absolutey correct.

But what's happening is that the issue is so contentious that the Democrats who back this decision will lose votes.

One cannot rely on the public for decisions like these, otherwise why even have a judiciary? The 1954 rulings on school integration were not supported by the general population either, yet they were right on principle.

In a couple of years when the Mass. voters will have two years of living with the measure, it'll probably pass. People will think it was much ado about nothing.

What does piss me off is a statement liek the one released by the White House yesterday.

Marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman. Today's decision of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court violates this important principle. I will work with congressional leaders and others to do what is legally necessary to defend the sanctity of marriage.

Since WHEN are the executive and legislative branches of gvt. in charge of SANCTITY around here???????

I wasn't aware that Bush was elected Pope.

And WHOSE definition of sanctity? And WHAT is it anyway?

People like Limbaugh or Dick Morris, who've been divorced countless times or have cheated on their wife pontificating on Fox News over the SANCTITY of marriage?

Give me a break.

[This message has been edited by Droneklax (edited Nov 19, 2003).]

Droneklax

Nov 19, 03, 5:14 pm

I'll add one thing.

I don't thing the govt should be in the business of blessing people's unions.

I don't care if you marry one, three, twenty wifes, as long as everyone's a consentng adult, and for all I care polygamy is fine with me.

BUT

I you are going to attach benefits and rights to that goverment-sanctioned contract, then you have to do it across the board to anyone who wants one.

Doppy

Nov 19, 03, 5:17 pm

Originally posted by OttoGraham:
People believe homosexual marriage, plural marriage, and incestuous marriage are wrong and should not be countenanced by society. The basis of this belief is a thousands-of-years old moral basis which can't be washed away in a spray of cliched legalisms by four judges.

Some people believe a lot of things, for example, oppressing women is acceptable.

Fortunately, in the US, when the legislature errors with respect to rights, we have courts to protect us.

People are still free to believe that marrying people of the same sex, different race, "wrong" religion, etc. is "wrong," and they can keep on believing that. What they don't have the right to do is dictate, Soviet style, how other people can and should live their lives, and what rights those people can and cannot have.

Thus, we go back to the idea of tolerance. You can believe that same-sex families are "wrong," but you should be tolerant and not attack the same sex couples or their children by singling them out for discrimination under the law.

Homosexuals serve in the military, police and fire department. These people put their lives on the line for us every day, and when, god forbid, they are injured or killed, social conservatives tell their surviving spouse and children that they are second class citizens and don't deserve the survivor benefits that every heterosexual family gets in the same situation.

I cannot think of much more disgraceful than watching social conservatives argue with zeal and fire in their eyes that the spouses and children of the rescue workers who died on September 11th trying to save lives deserve nothing, while the families headed by heterosexual couples were entitled to a litany of benefits, such as pensions, tuition assistance for their children, etc.

d

essxjay

Nov 20, 03, 1:21 am

Originally posted by Droneklax:
I don't thing the govt should be in the business of blessing people's unions.


Absolutely! I'm writing a paper for Philosophy of Law on this very premise. Get the gov't the hell out of the licensing business. They have no moral right to sanction such a sacred union.

Doppy

Nov 20, 03, 2:27 pm

Originally posted by essxjay:
Absolutely! I'm writing a paper for Philosophy of Law on this very premise. Get the gov't the hell out of the licensing business. They have no moral right to sanction such a sacred union.

While I'd probably support this in theory, in practice it would require a serious overhall of so many laws and such for things that you can't get without the government's OK, as per my post right above yours, that it's not likely to happen this century.

d

Analise

Nov 20, 03, 2:38 pm

Originally posted by essxjay:
I'm writing a paper for Philosophy of Law on this very premise. Get the gov't the hell out of the licensing business.

Ahhhh, but the gov't gets easy revenue from licenses. Why would they want to give those fees to the private sector?

They have no moral right to sanction such a sacred union

Indeed marriage is a sacred union. I don't think the gov't is looking to sanction the sacred union as much as acknowledge and welcome its very existence for those who get married in either a religious setting or a secular one.

Guava

Nov 20, 03, 3:41 pm

Here are some clips, some Public Service Announcements (otherwise known as commcercials, but they are non-profit) which are due to be released on air in Canada this week in support of same-sex marriage. It seems fitting to post the links here given the MA case is now on fire.

Bedroom (http://www.samesexmarriage.ca/psa/Bedroom.mpg)

Parents (http://www.samesexmarriage.ca/psa/Parents.mpg)

Blanket (http://www.samesexmarriage.ca/psa/Blanket.mpg)

And here are some radio clips:

Complaints (http://www.samesexmarriage.ca/psa/Complaints.mpga)

Message (http://www.samesexmarriage.ca/psa/Message.mpga)

Late (http://www.samesexmarriage.ca/psa/Late.mpga)

Doppy

Nov 20, 03, 5:00 pm

Originally posted by Guava:
Here are some clips, some Public Service Announcements...

Very important part of the fight for equal rights.

It's important to put a face on the people and families that some are trying to discriminate against. It's easy for the so-called "pro-family" groups to attack same-sex couples and their children from a far and with a faceless prey, but much more difficult when you're doing it directly to someone you know or can relate to.

d

Doppy

Nov 20, 03, 5:15 pm

And speaking of the very advertisements we were just talking about:

Jo and Teresa live in Maryland. They’ve been in a loving, committed relationship for 19 years and have three children — Jake, 12; Matthew, 9; and Bena, 2. Between skinned knees, soccer practices and never enough time in the day, they face all the same joys and frustrations as other parents — but without the same protections.

Because the government won’t give them legal protections, Jo and Teresa’s children don't qualify for full Social Security survivors’ benefits if one of them dies, even after a lifetime of paying taxes. And if one of the kids gets sick, in some states they could even be denied the right to visit them in the hospital because they aren’t “family.” And Jo and Teresa aren't eligible for COBRA health coverage for each other or for family medical leave to care for a sick loved one.

http://www.hrc.org/millionformarriage/hrc_adcenter/jo_teresa.html 

HRC is attempting to raise money to place this ad in USA Today next Tuesday:

https://secure.ga3.org/03/HRCAdCenter_2/nH71_s711kQzX

d

Nov 20, 03, 5:21 pm

Originally posted by Droneklax:
Quiz time!

http://www.buddybuddy.com/quiz-1.html

I passed your "quiz" with flying colors. I would like to add that a black man marrying a white woman fits the definition of marriage being that between ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN very easily. It is one man and one man or one woman and one woman that do not fit.

I could just as easily take the arguments in favor of gay marriage, delete the significant words, and then present them in the same manner, thus "proving" that polygamy and incetuous and animal and plant marriages deserve equal protection under the law.

------------------
"It's as easy as 1, 2, C" -- Kelly, Married With Children

StudentExplorer

Nov 20, 03, 5:47 pm

Originally posted by JS:
I passed your "quiz" with flying colors. I would like to add that a black man marrying a white woman fits the definition of marriage being that between ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN very easily. It is one man and one man or one woman and one woman that do not fit.



Rather circular. Yes, it fits the definition very easily because that's how you choose to define it. And not too long ago, marriage was defined to mean the union between members of the same race (in addition to opposite sex).

Your other argument is just slippery slope rehashed. Nobody denies that the same types of arguments can be used in other contexts. But 1) that's not a justification for keeping the defintion as man/woman and 2) it ignores half of the equation - that is the interests of the state which get balanced against the claimed Equal Protection/privacy violation.

The 2nd point is key and one which people seem to continually ignore. Any evaluation of a constitutional deprivation involves a BALANCING of rights and interests. Arguably, there are much stronger interests in preventing polygamy, beastiality, and incest vs. interests which are advanced in opposition to same-sex marriage.

[This message has been edited by StudentExplorer (edited Nov 20, 2003).]

[This message has been edited by StudentExplorer (edited Nov 20, 2003).]

Doppy

Nov 20, 03, 5:59 pm

Originally posted by StudentExplorer:
2) it ignores half of the equation - that is the interests of the state which get balanced against the claimed Equal Protection/privacy violation.

The 2nd point is key and one which people seem to continually ignore.

I don't ignore it. The state most certainly has an interest in seeing that children get the protection afforded by marriage - regardless of whether their parents are the same or opposite sex. That's good for society, hence good for the state.

d

StudentExplorer

Nov 20, 03, 6:01 pm

Originally posted by Doppy:
I don't ignore it. The state most certainly has an interest in seeing that children get the protection afforded by marriage - regardless of whether their parents are the same or opposite sex. That's good for society, hence good for the state.

d

My post wasn't directed at you. It was directed at those against same-sex marriage who make the slipe slope argument without recognizing the difference in interests that are balanced on the other side.

Doppy

Nov 20, 03, 7:15 pm

Originally posted by StudentExplorer:
My post wasn't directed at you. It was directed at those against same-sex marriage who make the slipe slope argument without recognizing the difference in interests that are balanced on the other side.

I know it wasn't. I was making the point that opponents think that they've got a monopoly on "state interest" and thus...

But I say the state has just as much interest in protecting homosexual-headed families as it does in protecting heterosexual-headed families. So it's not "state interest" versus "equal rights" - it's in the states interest to protect all families.

This is a critical education point that needs to be made. There's no value to society or the state in discouraging stable families or denying parents from visiting their child in the hospital.

d

Guava

Nov 20, 03, 10:53 pm

Originally posted by essxjay:
I am simultaneouisly overjoyed at the Mass. decision and totally pissed off at much of the left. Overjoyed that the rights of same-sex couples are finally being asserted legally (about freaking time), and totally pissed at the likes of Gephart et al. who are equivocating about the ruling.

I don't often have much to agree about with Carol Mosley Brown and Al Sharpton, but they were the only two yesterday who came out unequivocally in favor of the ruling. Where the h!ll are the rest of the Dems?? Fraidy cats. http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttravel_forum/mad.gif 

essxjay, to answer you: STRATEGY, STRATEGY, STRATEGY

Think of this like a game of chess. Sometimes, a string of advances without considering the steps beyond can ultimately brought defeat and check mate. I have no problem with the way that most Dem candidate react, in fact, I think they handled the best they could under these circumstances, strategically. If the Democrats come out and endorse this ruling, then they will only shoot themselves in the corner and give the Republicans an easy target to pin them down. Consequently, the Democrats may be forced to compromise on the FMA which may ultimately give the Conservatives the only win they need. As it stands, if the Democrats unite together, the FMA will be blocked and strategically, that's more important than paying lip service now. Ask yourself, what do you want to see? A Republican proposed FMA that will strip all rights from same-sex couples or Democrats who support same rights for all (Civil Union) while verbally rejecting civil marriage (for now, and trust me, a lot of them wish they could openly endorse it) and reject FMA to prevent the radicals to have their way? I say it's a no-brainer. The radicals are looking for ways to attack, don't give them an extra excuse to add flame on oil. Proceed slowly is warranted in this case. Let them defer the responsibility to the States as they should be in the U.S. and let Bush take the heat from the push of the ultra-conservatives who are obvioulsy in a panic mode right now as you can see them scrambling all over the place trying all kinds of crazying thing. I have heard MA Senator simply deleting the hundreds of e-mails he got knowing that they are carbon copies from the same source, and were sent from other States (outside of his district). They actually said one or two well written and heartfelt e-mails would actually be so much better than those carbon copy, coordinated movement. To tell you the truth, this is nothing we have not seen. Canada is one step ahead on this issue - what's happening right now in Massachussetts, we have seen it over the summer in Canada. It's almost identical, the reactions and the tactics used by the radicals, boy...these people really can't think of new tactics, can't they? I am glad those MA Legislators are smart enough not to waste their time with it. One was even quoted today saying that if you read all the e-mails he got, you would think a super majority is totally agaisnt gay marriage. But as he paid a visit to a local coffee shop before going to State House, the reaction is much different. It tells you why those disgruntled e-mails are unlikely going to vote Democrats in the first place and most of them are not from MA anyway. So why bother? Oh, I even heard one more ridiculous suggestion - a radical actually think of ask for an indefinite injunction on the decision. Read this again: "Indefinite Injunction" ROFL Well, any attempt that is constructed to circum the ruling, where the intention of such is so clear, will not be accepted by the Court, especially one that is originally based on English Common Laws and ideologically so similar to the Canadian system.

Let them ramble but let us not act stupidly like them.

essxjay

Nov 21, 03, 12:16 am

Originally posted by Droneklax:
Absolutey correct.

But what's happening is that the issue is so contentious that the Democrats who back this decision will lose votes.


Well, I know that. I was mostly posing my question rhetorically. I still find the fence-sitting contemptible.

Agreed about the legislation of sanctity discussion. I can't imagine a more ridiculous function of gov't. That kind of social conversativism is sickening to the nth.

Analise

Nov 21, 03, 8:22 am

DenverBrian

Nov 21, 03, 9:02 am

Interesting to note that the feared "homosexual agenda" (whatever that is) actually has a great deal of success to celebrate, regardless of the outcome of the gay marriage issue.

Ten years ago, conservatives like Rick Santorum couldn't even say the word "gay." Back then, they all were predicting anarchy in the streets if gays were simply allowed equal treatment in employment, housing, etc.

To a large extent, these basic protections are in existence today, or at least assumed, even by most of the right wing. They've had to "make a stand" on gay marriage while simultaneously stating that they really aren't for discrimination against gays, just against gay marriage.

The hidden message in all that: Gay people are today seen as near-"normal" even by most conservatives. A great victory for the gay rights movement.

Ten years ago, these same conservatives predicted mass chaos, cats and dogs living together, etc., if anti-gay legislation ala Colarado's Amendment 2 wasn't passed nationwide. Ten years later, I haven't seen a man fornicating with a man on the streets of my town yet. http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttravel_forum/smile.gif

These same conservatives are now busy predicting the end of the world if the government issues a marriage license to two people of the same gender. I'm quite comfortable predicting the same outcome ten years from now. We'll all still be here; straight people will continue to marry, divorce, and in general screw up that "institution" all by themselves, thank you very much.

The principles of fairness, equity, freedom and sharing of responsibility are the foundations of this country, not "marriage is between one man and one woman." Gay marriage is no longer a question of if...just when.

------------------
Brian/\/\

anonplz

Nov 21, 03, 9:06 am

Originally posted by DenverBrian:
Interesting to note that the feared "homosexual agenda" (whatever that is) actually has a great deal of success to celebrate, regardless of the outcome of the gay marriage issue.

Speaking of which, Brian, I lost my copy - can you shoot me one by e-mail? Thanks!

Doppy

Nov 21, 03, 10:18 am

Originally posted by Analise:
That's a fact which is why you will only see same-sex marriages come about through an activist liberal court.

Even without the court cases, same sex marriage wasn't more than 5-10 years away from being legalized in a state through a legislature. Several states have had bills introduced for a few years in a row now; there was certainly a foundation being built. States like NJ and Mass. have polled well into the majority of the population in favor of same-sex marriage. Unfortunately, the anti-family groups have well funded attacks on homosexual couples and their children, and then force that on everyone. That's the real "agenda" here - it's much better funded than the homosexual side.

Of course, the court cases are a good means of getting change today, as there are many, many families out there right now that need the protections of civil marriage. It's not for social communists to tell these couples and their children that they're SOL. That's not in the spirit of equal rights, and it's not good for families.

Like I said above:

Homosexuals serve in the military, police and fire department. These people put their lives on the line for us every day, and when, god forbid, they are injured or killed, social conservatives tell their surviving spouse and children that they are second class citizens and don't deserve the survivor benefits that every heterosexual family gets in the same situation.

I cannot think of much more disgraceful than watching social conservatives argue with zeal and fire in their eyes that the spouses and children of the rescue workers who died on September 11th trying to save lives deserve nothing, while the families headed by heterosexual couples were entitled to a litany of benefits, such as pensions, tuition assistance for their children, etc.

d

Guava

Nov 21, 03, 12:19 pm

Originally posted by Analise:
Where are they? Hiding. Avoiding the subject. Now the Republicans are not going to embrace same-sex marriage and they won't be really losing a majority block of votes because of it (although I wonder if they would embrace same-sex unions for the sake of such unions getting the same protections as marriage---but then I digress into the world of semantics).

The majority of Democrats won't support it either. That's a fact which is why you will only see same-sex marriages come about through an activist liberal court. It happened in Massachusetts; it could happen in California. The mainline democrats are skirting this issue as they really fear that the majority of their supporters may reconsider their votes in the next election. Why else wouldn't they actively support the legality of same-sex marriage through legislative means?


Oh..Oh...Analise, what happened? How can you make mistakes like this? It is more likely for GWB to announce he is divorcing Laura and marrying a man than it is that a California Court will give green light to same-sex marriage. Didn't you know that California recently passed a Consitutional Amendment to that effect? Be careful what you wish may actully happen! http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttravel_forum/tongue.gif

Oh and sleep on this same-sex marriage pill if you will but I'll tell you something here since nothing of what's being said here in OMNI can possibly be used as somekind of intelligence (If anyone think this way, they need a life and quick!):

Initial analysis suggest that contrary to popular belief, the Democrats may have an easier time navigating this issue during 04 than it is for the Republicans. Since States have control of who can marry, the Federal Democrats can simply defer the responsibility to the States which is consistent with what several Republicans have proclaimed too, includign Cheney and to certain extent, the compassionate conservative image of Bush. The fact is, the White House has so far not endorsed the FMA and it could get away with it by hiding behind the skirts of fellow Republican congressmen so far but with the Massachussetts decision and the radical conservatives going to panic mode now [fearing same-sex marriage will soon spread to every corner of the U.S. through the guarantee offered in the U.S. Constitution], this group will put A LOT, A LOT OF HEAT on Bush and the Republicans. This group also happens to be the core or loyalists of the Republican party so they cannot be ignored. However, this group also happened to put a lot of expectation on Bush and the Republican Congress which means if Bush and/or the Republican Congress failed to meet their expectations, you are going to see a lot of people staying home in the next election. So the Republican faces two equally daunting dilemma:

1) Grant the wish of this core group and engage an all-out cultural war a la Houston 1992 and risk scaring the public to death again through prime-time TV and send the Republican party back to 2nd in command position for a long time.

or

2) Playing a game of compromise and alienate just about everyone instead. The core is pissed for not getting what they want, e.g. no FMA, same-sex marriage go ahead in MA and other States, DOMA under revision, gays openly serve in the military and etc. While the non-core doesn't as much as attention as they want. The issues that they want to hear such as tax cuts and etc., become secondary, then they too will feel ignored.

The Democrats have already taken the position of unsupportive of same-sex marriage [consistent with the will of majority of Americans at this time] yet, they are for granting equal rights to all people [also acceptable to most Americans and a lot more acceptance with Democrat voters] and unified opposition against FMA [stating reasons such as philosophically against tampering with the Constitution which will be easily accepted and echoed by a lot of people]. A lot of people are uncomfortable with same-sex marriage but at the same time, they are not fan of FMA because amending Constitution seems a very dangerous thing to do. So essentially, the Democrats have taken a position that is easily platable to most of their supporters. Since they can simply defer the issue to the States and support the maintain of status quo, there won't be much room for the Republicans to pick fight on. If they do, they risk of making themselves look like a bunch of bullies or heartless conservatives. But essentially, what the Democrats are doing is consistent with what the gays and lesbians would hope to see in the long-term: Any Democratic nominee becomes the next president will endorse Civil Union federally, which means same-sex marriages recognized in individual States will receive the federal benefits, essentially making them full-fledge marriage in those States. From the Long-Term perspective, without a FMA, soon or later, the U.S. Supreme Court could very well nullify all those DOMA in the 37 other States and thus, mission accomplished but that will take time. There can be no rush. So what the Democrats are doing is perfectly o.k. by their supporters, if a person can't tolerate a temporary discomfort, then he/she may never accomplish anything significant in life. That's the idea behind it.

And while we are at it, why don't you ask the 'manly Bush' to go ahead and charge a crusade against the 'morally corrupted and chicken Democrats'? You said they are hiding, then you should crush your enemies and smoke them out of their caves, don't you think? I'll tell you what, while it may seen 'heroic' in a way that blatantly taken a strong stand on a controversial issue, only people with impressive stupidity will fall into such display of 'strong command'. That's consistent with GWB's image - strong leader, yet incredibly dumb. Then Republicans wonder why people hate Bush (well because he can participate in monkey IQ competition!) But Democrats need none of that. I think in this case, I'll enjoy staying inside of the darkness where I can see my opponents but they can't see me. When they do, it's only because they have been ambushed, crushed and in ruin.

[This message has been edited by Guava (edited Nov 21, 2003).]

Analise

Nov 21, 03, 12:26 pm

Originally posted by Guava:
...but I'll tell you something here since nothing of what's being said here in OMNI can possibly be used as somekind of intelligence (If anyone think this way, they need a life and quick!)

I assume you include yourself in this proclamation of what you deem as intelligent in Omni?

Since you find intelligence to be lacking in Omni, I am not going to waste my time anymore on someone who just disqualified everything he previously said by judging the intelligence of Omni contributers. It is all about respecting others especially those whose opinions differ from one's own.

[This message has been edited by Analise (edited Nov 21, 2003).]

Guava

Nov 21, 03, 12:29 pm

It's your call, I can't force you to discuss if you don't want. At the same time, your interpretation of what I meant is incorrect.

Guava

Nov 21, 03, 12:31 pm

Replace the word 'Intelligence' with 'Reconnaissance' will probably be clearer but I think Analise just found herself an escape pod.

Doppy

Nov 21, 03, 1:08 pm

Regarding the "tradition" of marriage as trump, here's a nice letter to the editor that sums up the fallacy of that argument:

BECAUSE the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has extended marriage to same-sex couples, Jeff Jacoby warns us that society is headed "down the slippery slope" (op ed, Nov. 20). Mountains or molehills, both slope forward and backward, and Ellen Goodman (op ed, same day) reminds us of the reverse slope -- and the long climb upward toward gender equality and fair treatment under the law.

There is no fixed point in the evolution of the institution of marriage to which one can point and say this is "it." The ideal state of marriage has never been codified. A perfect marriage is the result of the good intentions and good actions of the people involved, not rules laid down by church or state. Domestic violence, abandoned children, and the remedy of divorce are testimony to the difficulty in establishing rules that ensure a good marriage. To mitigate harm to individuals and families, the institution has been altered over the years to the benefit of heterosexuals.

There was a time when a wife's property was her husband's, but not vice versa. A woman had no right to control her body, but the state did. Couples of different races could not marry. Rape by a husband was legal. A husband, disappointed in his wife's performance, could have her declared unstable and dump her into a mental institution. Conversely, and not long ago, a husband was assumed to be the less nurturing partner and automatically lost the right to his children in a divorce.

The laws and customs of marriage have been redefined over centuries, and the process will continue.

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/letters/articles/2003/11/21/continuing_evolution_of_marriage/

DenverBrian

Nov 21, 03, 1:18 pm

Let's face it...in a lot of straight people's heart of hearts, what really bothers them about gay marriage is what I like to call the "ick" factor.

Straight men just can't handle the mental imagery of two men having sex, although many of them seem to have quite a good time with the mental imagery of two women having sex.

When you strip all the logic all away, you tend to get something like, "THAT going into THAT? Ewwwwwwww!" (Even though, through pure logic, more anal sex is committed on the planet by straight people each day than by gay people - by quite a wide margin.)

And that's the root of most of the oppostion to all things gay.

------------------
Brian/\/\

anonplz

Nov 21, 03, 1:35 pm

Originally posted by DenverBrian:
Let's face it...in a lot of straight people's heart of hearts, what really bothers them about gay marriage is what I like to call the "ick" factor.

Straight men just can't handle the mental imagery of two men having sex, although many of them seem to have quite a good time with the mental imagery of two women having sex.

When you strip all the logic all away, you tend to get something like, "THAT going into THAT? Ewwwwwwww!" (Even though, through pure logic, more anal sex is committed on the planet by straight people each day than by gay people - by quite a wide margin.)

And that's the root of most of the oppostion to all things gay.



At one time, I would have wholeheartedly agreed with you, but consider that many people who oppose equal rights for gays are themselves quite gay (and even practice anal sex), and I'm not sure that's the whole story anymore. It's also about the decline of the authority of church authorities in civil matters, which has been ongoing for centuries - they simply don't want people doing what they want without giving them a certain respect.

amanuensis

Nov 21, 03, 2:54 pm

I think that given enough time, many states would enable gays to obtain the social and financial benefits of marriage as part of some type of civil union, and that there would not be a lot of adverse public reaction to that. Hmmm ... how can I phrase this ... gays are in danger of getting a whole lot of nothing because they want revolutionary change ASAP instead of evolutionary change. In other words, by pushing hard for exactly what they want in very liberal state courts, they run the risk of enabling the right-wing to convince the moderates in 3/4 of the state legislatures to vote for a federal constitutional amendment.

Nov 21, 03, 3:08 pm

Originally posted by DenverBrian:
Let's face it...in a lot of straight people's heart of hearts, what really bothers them about gay marriage is what I like to call the "ick" factor.

Straight men just can't handle the mental imagery of two men having sex, although many of them seem to have quite a good time with the mental imagery of two women having sex.

When you strip all the logic all away, you tend to get something like, "THAT going into THAT? Ewwwwwwww!" (Even though, through pure logic, more anal sex is committed on the planet by straight people each day than by gay people - by quite a wide margin.)

And that's the root of most of the oppostion to all things gay.



Don't quit your day job. You suck as a mind reader. http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttravel_forum/smile.gif

Re "Even though, through pure logic, more ..." -- please explain your pure logic for that one.

------------------
"It's as easy as 1, 2, C" -- Kelly, Married With Children

DenverBrian

Nov 21, 03, 7:01 pm

Originally posted by JS:

Re "Even though, through pure logic, more ..." -- please explain your pure logic for that one.



Sigh...total number of heteros in the world? Total number of homos in the world? Even the gay community rarely uses a figure higher than 10%. Every conservative I know makes a point of claiming "the numbers are actually quite small...5%, 3%, maybe less."

So, as long as some number less than 100% of gay people don't practice anal sex (and believe me, the number IS less than 100%), and some number greater than 10% of heteros practice anal sex (which all the literature I've read indicates is more like 20%, 30%, 40% or MORE)...QED. Pure logic, without even a "don't quit your day job" snide remark.

------------------
Brian/\/\

Guava

Nov 21, 03, 7:36 pm

Originally posted by amanuensis:
I think that given enough time, many states would enable gays to obtain the social and financial benefits of marriage as part of some type of civil union, and that there would not be a lot of adverse public reaction to that. Hmmm ... how can I phrase this ... gays are in danger of getting a whole lot of nothing because they want revolutionary change ASAP instead of evolutionary change. In other words, by pushing hard for exactly what they want in very liberal state courts, they run the risk of enabling the right-wing to convince the moderates in 3/4 of the state legislatures to vote for a federal constitutional amendment.

What makes you think the proposal will even make it out of the Congress in the first place? Bush's energy bill is killed today because Republican has difficulty even collecting the needed 60 votes. To make this amendment possible, they would need 67 or 16 Democrat votes + unanimous Republican support. Many Senators are uncomfortable with playing around with the Constitution whether they support or against same-sex marriage. The Leader of Democratic party in the Senate has already said his party is against the FMA. How do you propose to get the 16 Democrat votes? More to the point, how do you make sure there would be a Republican unanimity on it? Did I mention in the House, they would 60 Democrat votes assuming Republican unanimity? It's easier to say than done. We'll see.

And I don't think the hens would welcome a fox to their funeral at this time.

Guava

Nov 21, 03, 7:41 pm

Besides, what make you think that sitting around and do nothing, then the far right wing will play nice guys? I think it's very naive to make such assumption in the first place. They are masters at pre-emptive strike, sure you can see that by now? Regardless of what's happening in Massachussets or elsewhere, they have been pushing for such amendment for almost a decade now and if it wasn't happening 10 years ago, it sure doesn't look like they are going to have the Full Package they wanted now. Here is a thought, while we are at this, we might as will re-criminalize sodomy. Why not? Sounds good, doesn't it?

[This message has been edited by Guava (edited Nov 21, 2003).]

Nov 21, 03, 8:36 pm

Originally posted by DenverBrian:

Sigh...total number of heteros in the world? Total number of homos in the world? Even the gay community rarely uses a figure higher than 10%. Every conservative I know makes a point of claiming "the numbers are actually quite small...5%, 3%, maybe less."

So, as long as some number less than 100% of gay people don't practice anal sex (and believe me, the number IS less than 100%), and some number greater than 10% of heteros practice anal sex (which all the literature I've read indicates is more like 20%, 30%, 40% or MORE)...QED.

It is preposterous to say that 20% of heteros engage in anal sex. More than 40%? Get real! Think about it -- what would be the point when there's already another hole available just for that purpose?

I would be surprised if 1% of heteros do that. Even if gays are 3%, that's only 1/3.

Pure logic, without even a "don't quit your day job" snide remark.

The generalizations that you wrote about what straight men think is in the parking lot behind left field.

------------------
"It's as easy as 1, 2, C" -- Kelly, Married With Children

anonplz

Nov 21, 03, 9:40 pm

Originally posted by JS:
Think about it -- what would be the point when there's already another hole available just for that purpose?

http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttravel_forum/biggrin.gif Are you serious?

Doppy

Nov 21, 03, 10:43 pm

The Power of Marriage
By DAVID BROOKS

Published: November 22, 2003

Anybody who has several sexual partners in a year is committing spiritual suicide. He or she is ripping the veil from all that is private and delicate in oneself, and pulverizing it in an assembly line of selfish sensations.

But marriage is the opposite. Marriage joins two people in a sacred bond. It demands that they make an exclusive commitment to each other and thereby takes two discrete individuals and turns them into kin.
...
Today marriage is in crisis. Nearly half of all marriages end in divorce. Worse, in some circles, marriage is not even expected. Men and women shack up for a while, produce children and then float off to shack up with someone else.

Marriage is in crisis because marriage, which relies on a culture of fidelity, is now asked to survive in a culture of contingency.
...
Still, even in this time of crisis, every human being in the United States has the chance to move from the path of contingency to the path of marital fidelity — except homosexuals. Gays and lesbians are banned from marriage and forbidden to enter into this powerful and ennobling institution. A gay or lesbian couple may love each other as deeply as any two people, but when you meet a member of such a couple at a party, he or she then introduces you to a "partner," a word that reeks of contingency.

You would think that faced with this marriage crisis, we conservatives would do everything in our power to move as many people as possible from the path of contingency to the path of fidelity. But instead, many argue that gays must be banished from matrimony because gay marriage would weaken all marriage. A marriage is between a man and a woman, they say. It is women who domesticate men and make marriage work.

Well, if women really domesticated men, heterosexual marriage wouldn't be in crisis. In truth, it's moral commitment, renewed every day through faithfulness, that "domesticates" all people.

Some conservatives may have latched onto biological determinism (men are savages who need women to tame them) as a convenient way to oppose gay marriage. But in fact we are not animals whose lives are bounded by our flesh and by our gender. We're moral creatures with souls, endowed with the ability to make covenants, such as the one Ruth made to Naomi: "Where you go I will go, and where you stay I will stay. Your people will be my people and your God my God. Where you die I will die, and there I will be buried."

The conservative course is not to banish gay people from making such commitments. It is to expect that they make such commitments. We shouldn't just allow gay marriage. We should insist on gay marriage. We should regard it as scandalous that two people could claim to love each other and not want to sanctify their love with marriage and fidelity.

When liberals argue for gay marriage, they make it sound like a really good employee benefits plan. Or they frame it as a civil rights issue, like extending the right to vote.

Marriage is not voting. It's going to be up to conservatives to make the important, moral case for marriage, including gay marriage. Not making it means drifting further into the culture of contingency, which, when it comes to intimate and sacred relations, is an abomination.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/22/opinion/22BROO.html

Doppy

Nov 22, 03, 12:42 pm

For Gay Couples, New Rituals at the Altar
By LOIS SMITH BRADY

Published: November 23, 2003

Commitment ceremonies tend to be tear-jerkers, involving underdogs and classic American themes.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/23/fashion/weddings/23MARR.html

DenverBrian

Nov 22, 03, 6:54 pm

Originally posted by JS:
I would be surprised if 1% of heteros do that. Even if gays are 3%, that's only 1/3.



Surprise!

http://www.netdoctor.co.uk/menshealth/facts/analsex.htm

"There is a common misconception that anal sex is practised almost exclusively by gay men. This is certainly not the case. An estimated one third of gay couples do not include anal intercourse in their lovemaking with about one third of heterosexual couples doing so from time to time. About 10 per cent of heterosexual couples have anal intercourse as a regular feature of their lovemaking. In absolute numbers, more heterosexual couples have anal sex than homosexual couples."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=2059146&dopt=Abstract

"Review of surveys of sexual practices suggest that heterosexual anal intercourse is far more common than generally realized, more than 10% of American women and their male consorts engaging in the act with some regularity."

No cites of 40% or 30% that I can find on first pass. That doesn't mean they don't exist; I know they do because I've read them, but I don't carry a card index of all the stuff I've read in my life. If you want more, google it yourself; most medical literature is still off the net.

------------------
Brian/\/\

Nov 22, 03, 7:35 pm

Sex surveys can be notoriously inaccurate.

------------------
"It's as easy as 1, 2, C" -- Kelly, Married With Children

QuietLion

Nov 23, 03, 6:38 am

Analise

Nov 24, 03, 10:17 am

Originally posted by QuietLion:
The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land and that document protects the rights of individuals and minorities over the tyranny of the majority, especially religious tyranny.

No, the constitution certainly does not favor secular tyranny over religious tyranny. http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttravel_forum/wink.gif

SRQ Guy

Nov 24, 03, 11:08 am

Originally posted by JS:
It is preposterous to say that 20% of heteros engage in anal sex. More than 40%? Get real! Think about it -- what would be the point when there's already another hole available just for that purpose?

I would be surprised if 1% of heteros do that. Even if gays are 3%, that's only 1/3.


Pardon my blatant ad-hom, but you are completely out of touch with reality, insulated by your little religious "morals" cocoon. It may be that only a small percentage of hetero couples ADMIT to practicing anal sex, but I'd wager the 20% guess posted above is far below the actual percentage.

Nov 24, 03, 12:13 pm

Originally posted by SRQ Guy:
Pardon my blatant ad-hom, but you are completely out of touch with reality, insulated by your little religious "morals" cocoon. It may be that only a small percentage of hetero couples ADMIT to practicing anal sex, but I'd wager the 20% guess posted above is far below the actual percentage.

That's exactly my point -- few people admit to it, so the researchers substitute their guess based on their own personal bias ("We need 40% of heteros engaging in anal sex for the study to be useful, so let's solve for the admission rate!")

------------------
"It's as easy as 1, 2, C" -- Kelly, Married With Children

DenverBrian

Nov 24, 03, 12:27 pm

Originally posted by JS:
That's exactly my point -- few people admit to it, so the researchers substitute their guess based on their own personal bias ("We need 40% of heteros engaging in anal sex for the study to be useful, so let's solve for the admission rate!")



Sigh. Nice job of completely obscuring my original point. I've posted examples of studies; if you plan to reject anything posted because "it could be wrong," then God bless ya and have a beautiful fantasy life.

Back to the original point. Just tell me what percentage of the world's population you believe is gay, and we'll work from there. You seem from previous posts to like 3%. I'll take it.

--First, do 100% of homos engage in anal sex? Answer: no.

--Second, what percentage of heteros engage in anal sex? I don't need 40% to make my point. Based on 3% of the world's population as gay, I would need a whopping 3% of the hetero population to be engaging in anal sex to prove my original point - you know, the one that you've tried to dodge and swerve - that more heteros, in absolute numbers, engage in anal sex on the planet than gay people.

------------------
Brian/\/\

Nov 24, 03, 12:33 pm

Actually, I think 3% gay is too low. 5%? 10%? I dunno. Let's settle on 6%.

I realize that not all gays engage in anal sex. 75% do ==> 4.5% of the general population.

I truly believe hetero anal sex to be in the 1%, maybe 2% range. That's still less than 4.5%.

In any event, I don't know how we got on this track. My point is that saying that there are "far more" heteros doing anal sex than gays is a statement that I believe to be totally false.

BTW, this has nothing to do with religion. We're debating actual facts here -- what people actually do, not what I think people should do (as if I cared in the first place).

------------------
"It's as easy as 1, 2, C" -- Kelly, Married With Children

DenverBrian

Nov 24, 03, 12:46 pm

Originally posted by JS:
... My point is that saying that there are "far more" heteros doing anal sex than gays is a statement that I believe to be totally false.

BTW, this has nothing to do with religion. We're debating actual facts here ....



If we truly are debating actual facts here, then please present your facts, NOT your beliefs. I've presented those facts I could find in short notice by web searching; I have not been able to find any studies or surveys which purport to show a 2% or lower incidence of anal sex among the hetero population.

Just believing something doesn't make it so.

------------------
Brian/\/\

Nov 24, 03, 12:48 pm

Your "facts" are awfully fuzzy. I did read one of your links, and the part that you quoted was the ENTIRE study, all conveniently condensed into one paragraph.

IMHO, it requires more faith to believe that article than it does for me to believe that it's less than 2%.

------------------
"It's as easy as 1, 2, C" -- Kelly, Married With Children

DenverBrian

Nov 24, 03, 1:46 pm

Originally posted by JS:
Your "facts" are awfully fuzzy. I did read one of your links, and the part that you quoted was the ENTIRE study, all conveniently condensed into one paragraph.

IMHO, it requires more faith to believe that article than it does for me to believe that it's less than 2%.



Evidently there's an epidemic of ADD on this board. I presented two examples; I noted that there are many more, off the web, but I don't carry citations and references with me in my computer bag, so you'd have to look yourself.

I carefully noted that most medical studies wouldn't be on the web. If by some miracle I HAD found a complete, referenced and footnoted study on this issue on the web, I'm quite sure you would have read all 700 pages cover to cover, analyzed it in detail, then made up your mind based on the scientific study contained therein. http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttravel_forum/rolleyes.gif Or not, because after all, why change your beliefs?

YOU haven't cited anything; you've just said "I don't think you're right." So who's using opinion or belief, and who's using fact?

------------------
Brian/\/\

Doppy

Nov 25, 03, 10:03 am

HRC ad in today's USA Today:

Why Are "Pro-Family" Groups Attacking This Family?
http://www.hrc.org/millionformarriage/hrc_adcenter/jo_teresa.pdf

Pictured are Jo and Teresa, and their three children - Jake, 12; Matthew, 9; and Bena, 2.

Also today:

United States: Massachusetts Should Ensure Equal Access to Marriage

(New York, November 25, 2003) In the wake of a historic court decision last week barring discrimination based on sexual orientation in civil marriage, the state of Massachusetts should not create separate but unequal “civil unions” for same-sex couples, Human Rights Watch said today. Massachusetts’s legislators should abide by the state Supreme Judicial Court’s ruling and amend the state’s marriage-licensing law to ensure equal access to civil marriage.

http://www.hrw.org/press/2003/11/us112503.htm 

And, Connecticut, the next frontier?

Public Accepts Same- Sex Unions
November 25, 2003
Jamie L. Mills

One week ago, Decision Research released the results of a poll of Connecticut voters showing that 57 percent support same-sex marriage and 77 percent would find civil marriage for same-sex couples acceptable. That same day, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court extended the rights and protections of civil marriage to same-sex couples. Public opinion in Connecticut supports the court's ruling, yet vocal opponents threaten dire social consequences and resolve to fight same-sex couples' freedom to marry.

http://www.ctnow.com/news/opinion/op_ed/hc-mills1125.artnov25,1,7228703.story (registration req'd)

Doppy

Nov 25, 03, 10:09 pm

Americans seem happy to let homosexuals entertain them, save their lives in fires and terrorist attacks, or offer them last rights.

Just so long as they can't protect their families with marriage.

You Better Watch Out
By HARVEY FIERSTEIN

Published: November 26, 2003

According to legend, New York lore and two major Hollywood flicks, Macy's Santa is the real deal. And tomorrow, to the delight of millions of little children (not to mention the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court), the Santa in New York's great parade will be half of a same-sex couple.

And guess who the other half will be? Me! Harvey Fierstein, nice Jewish boy from Bensonhurst, dressed in holiday finery portraying the one and only Mrs. Claus.

Won't America get a kick out of that? But what if Santa really was gay? Could there be a another Mr. Claus? Would those grinches who, as we speak, are fashioning legislation to deny marriage to gay and lesbian Americans make an exception for the jolly old soul? What has Santa ever done except bring joy and gifts to all? Just the sight of his face is enough to bring a smile to the Scroogiest of politicians. Would his gifts of love and goodwill be answered with exclusion and derision?

The answer, history tells us, is "of course." Consider the Americans who have rained nothing but glory on our nation. Think about the magnificent works of Walt Whitman, James Baldwin and Hart Crane. They're just a handful of writers who shaped the American vision and yet could not achieve full citizenship because they were homosexual. How many wedding parties have walked down the aisle to the music of Virgil Thompson, Stephen Sondheim, Jerry Herman or Aaron Copland? Yes, we get to provide the music, but we are not allowed to get married ourselves. The next time you stand, hand on your heart, and sing "America the Beautiful," remind yourself that we owe those towering words to Katharine Lee Bates, a lesbian.

Remind yourself, too, of the Rev. Mychal F. Judge, the fire department chaplain who was killed on September 11. There was hardly a religious leader in our city who did not glorify his name and hold him up as someone to emulate. But remind them that he was a proud and openly gay man and those same moralists will turn their backs in denial.

The unhappy tradition continues today. The Bush administration spends billions spreading freedom abroad while at home it devises legislation to deny equal rights to gays and lesbians.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/26/opinion/26FIER.html

Doppy

Nov 26, 03, 6:42 pm

Very heartwarming story of two couples and their children, how excited both families are about the ruling, and how they'll benefit from it:

Reason to give Thanks

By Susan Bushey/Staff Writer
Wednesday, November 26, 2003

For at least two Lexington families, Thanksgiving has new meaning this year.

"It protects our family. It means society recognizes us. It means not having to explain who we are to other people," said Elisabeth Sackton, a mother of two Bridge School students - Noah, 10, and Emma, almost 7 - along with her partner, Liz Coolidge. "I was so [happy] once I realized they (the state) couldn't undo it."

"It is stupendous," said Coolidge. Sackton added, "I did not expect to see this in my lifetime. It is the source of a lot of joy."

"We read it and we cried," said Cecilia d'Oliveira, who, along with her partner, Meg Soens, and their four children - Richard and Alice, both 10, and Peter and Sophie, both 7 - have lived on North Hancock Street since 1994. The Oliveira Soens kids attend Estabrook Elementary School.

http://www.townonline.com/lexington/news/local_regional/lex_fealmsamesexpho11262003.htm

Doppy

Dec 2, 03, 3:02 pm

According to this article, the Alliance for Marriage, an anti-same sex marriage group, is allied with a group that is anti-same sex marriage and pro-terrorism:

Queer allies

By Evan Gahr

The little-noticed alliance between gay marriage opponents and alleged terrorist sympathizers

http://www.jewishworldreview.com | The Massachusetts Supreme Court decision to legalize homosexual marriage in the Bay state re-ignited the culture wars. The Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, perhaps the preeminent liberal Jewish organization in Washington, DC, applauded the ruling. Religious-minded conservatives, however, were horrified. They are determined to stop the gay rights movement in its tracks. At what price?

JewishWorldReview.com has discovered that prominent religious conservatives — Jews, Catholics and Evangelical Christians — are allied with a radical Islamic group to stop gay marriage. Pushing a constitutional amendment that would restrict marriage to heterosexuals, they work with the Islamic Society of North America. What is ISNA? According to terrorism expert Steve Emerson, ISNA:

-has held fundraisers for terrorists (e.g., after Hamas leader Musa Marzuk was arrested, it raised money for his defense, claiming he was innocent and not connected to terrorism)

-has condemned US seizure of Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad assets in the United States after 9/11

-has consistently sponsored speakers at their conferences that defend Islamic terrorists. Recently, a leader denied in an interview with an NBC affiliate that ISNA took any Saudi money but that was a brazen lie as evidenced by a recording of an ISNA conference in which it was revealed that money came from Saudi Arabia.

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/1203/marriage_terrorists.php3 

Keeping homosexual families from the protections of marriage, if this story is true, is apparently important enough to the Alliance for Marriage that it's worth teaming up with a pro-terrorism group. Amazing...

d

Analise

Dec 2, 03, 3:06 pm

So what?

Doppy

Dec 2, 03, 3:25 pm

Originally posted by Analise:
So what? 

Well, you don't have to take anything from this.

If the report is true:

I find it problematic that this Alliance for Marriage is working to influence US politics with a group that reportedly provides aid to terrorists.

I also find it problematic that there are people who are so concerned with attacking homosexual families that they'd team up with a group that supports the murder of innocents. Granted, the Alliance's attacks on homosexual families cause harm, but I certainly can see a major difference between attacking families using the law and attacking them with bombs. Apparently these people think that keeping families like the ones mentioned three posts above from getting the protections of marriage is justification to work with terrorism-supporters; I, on the other hand, find that disgusting.

Who knows what else these two groups are working on, or whether the Alliance is providing any support to the ISNA for its other "activities", directly / indirectly / intentionally / unintentionally.

At the very least, the Alliance is building more brand equity for and lending credibility to the ISNA. If the ISNA really is a middle-man for Hamas, does it really seem appropriate for the Alliance for Marriage to be boosting it up? I certainly wouldn't be working in any joint operations that help out Hamas agents.

d

[This message has been edited by Doppy (edited Dec 02, 2003).]

anonplz

Dec 2, 03, 5:02 pm

Well, first of all, before I condemn this just on the face of it, I have a couple questions:

1. Exactly who are these Jewish, Catholic and Evangelical Christian conservatives who have allied themselves with ISNA?

2. The ISNA, to my knowledge, has not been cited by the US State Department as sponsoring terrorism in any way, or aiding and/or abetting it. Additionally, the examples which the article referenced in the OP gives us as examples of where the ISNA is sponsoring terrorism are weak, especially when you consider that Hamas was, until recently, not considered a terrorist organization in Canada.

Nonetheless, if this were true, I certainly wouldn't be surprised. What you have going on is a couple things: religious leaders desperately attempting to assert some kind of authority in secular affairs, even if that means making political bedfellows with strange groups; and a lot of noise created in the immediate backlash of the rulings. It will probably dissipate.

[This message has been edited by anonplz (edited Dec 02, 2003).]

Doppy

Dec 2, 03, 10:24 pm

Very brief summary of some of the genetic theories on homosexuality:

Lovers Under the Skin
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF

Recently I wrote a column arguing that there is growing evidence that homosexuality has a biological basis, and that this is one more reason not to discriminate against people on the basis of whom they love.

The result was a torrent of fire and brimstone from readers who are aghast at gay marriage, and who accuse me of blasphemy for defending vile behavior that they say God is on record as denouncing. Never mind that the Bible also advises that people who work on the Sabbath should be stoned to death (Numbers 15:35) and condones the beating of slaves "since the slave is the owner's property" (Exodus 21:21). Somehow it's only the anti-gay bits that seem engraved in stone.

Yet surprisingly few readers raised the most obvious question: if homosexuality is partly genetic, why are there so many gays?

After all, gays are presumably less likely to engage in heterosexual pairings — the behavior that passes down genes. So if there are genes linked to homosexuality (which is still not proved, but seems increasingly likely), then how have they been passed down to our day?

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/03/opinion/03KRIS.html

anonplz

Dec 3, 03, 5:46 am

From the end of the piece:

...A 1958 poll found that 96 percent of whites disapproved of marriages between blacks and whites (Deuteronomy 7:3 condemns interracial marriages). In 1959 a judge justified Virginia's ban on interracial marriage by declaring that "Almighty God . . . did not intend for the races to mix."

Someday, we will regard opposition to gay marriage as equally obtuse and old-fashioned.

No force is more divine than love, and if some people are encoded to love others of the same sex, how can that be unholy? To me, the blasphemy is not in those who want to share their lives with others of the same sex, but rather in anyone presumptuous enough to vilify that love.

Doppy

Dec 3, 03, 3:38 pm

The Traditionalist Solution:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/comics/images/Toles/20031120.gif

anonplz

Dec 3, 03, 4:36 pm

Originally posted by Doppy:
The Traditionalist Solution:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/comics/images/Toles/20031120.gif

I believe it was Benjamin Franklin who said, "Many a truth is said in jest." http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttravel_forum/biggrin.gif

Doppy

Dec 4, 03, 10:32 am

More on the conservative case for same-sex marriage:

'Til Death Do Us Part

By PATRICK GUERRIERO

Protect individual liberty. Stabilize American families. Protect religious freedom. Guarantee states' rights. These tenets represent basic ingredients in the conservative recipe for a stronger America and have been embraced by the Republican Party for decades. In a telling irony, these tenets also formed the foundation of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court's ruling in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health. Made by a court with nearly all members appointed by Republican governors, it paves the way for civil marriage for all Massachusetts citizens regardless of sexual orientation.

Yes, this ruling adds fuel to the simmering national debate on the full integration of gay and lesbian Americans into all aspects of American life. The court decision was undeniably bold; but it was also firmly based in conservative thought. Which makes the radical right's hysteric opposition to the ruling mistaken and inconsistent. The court wisely deployed the lexicon and values of conservatives to recognize that the Massachusetts Constitution protects matters of personal liberty against unwarranted government intrusion and respects the autonomy of all citizens to choose a life partner. Real conservatives, too, should be protectors of individual liberty, equality under the law and personal autonomy.

The court notes that "the exclusive commitment of two individuals to each other nurtures love and mutual support; it brings stability to our society." This is Family Values 101. Civil marriage will provide basic fairness and equality in benefits for nontraditional families in Massachusetts that do not exist today. But, as importantly, civil recognition of homosexual unions also "imposes weighty legal, financial, and social obligations." So why would self-proclaimed pro-family conservatives work against stable, loving, tax-paying, lifelong homosexual couples? What alternative do they propose for persons whose sexual orientation leads them to love a person of the same sex? True conservatives should encourage exclusive unions that lead to a more stable society.

The decision also makes a powerful conservative argument for the greater protection of children in our society, concluding that "excluding same-sex couples from civil marriages will not make children of opposite-sex marriages more secure, but it does prevent children of same-sex couples from enjoying the immeasurable advantages that flow from the assurance of a stable family structure in which children will be reared…" For decades, committed homosexual couples have been raising children across the nation, many of these children rescued from isolation through adoption. The court astutely argues that these children are better off as part of a recognized family unit. How can conservatives disagree?

http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB107050395472681100,00.html?mod=opinion%5Fmain %5Fcommentaries 

Shouldn't those free-wheeling liberals be the ones against same-sex marriage, or marriage in general? Instead, they're the ones trying to strengthen it, whilst the radical right is trying to destroy marriage by forcing people into non-marriages like domestic partnerships and civil unions, claiming that marriage isn't important for homosexual families.

d

Doppy

Dec 8, 03, 8:54 am

Funny how conservatives claim that a loving homosexual family getting the civil protections of marriage is somehow a problem, yet TV telling us that marriage is a joke is no problem at all.

More hypocrisy.

SAME-SEX COUPLES TAKE MARRIAGE MORE SERIOUSLY THAN TV DOES
Sat Dec 6, 8:01 PM ET

By Cynthia Tucker

Trista and Ryan are getting married.

If you don't know who they are, you're somehow immune to the contagion of popular culture. Trista Rehn and Ryan Sutter, the fiance she chose in a televised competition, are all over the airwaves as ABC relentlessly promotes their romance-for-ratings. The network has inflated the nuptial into a three-part miniseries, which culminates on Dec. 10 with the vows.

This marriage has about as much chance of survival as the first of these tasteless spectacles, the union of "Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire" groom Rick Rockwell and his bride, Darva Conger. It collapsed within days.

Many conservatives have denounced the prospect of gay marriage because, they say, it would make a mockery of traditional marriage. Nonsense. If the institution has been mocked, the blame should be laid firmly at the feet of heterosexuals, including conservative stalwarts such as Rupert Murdoch, whose Fox network pioneered these freak shows three years ago with the Rockwell-Conger stunt. (Murdoch also divorced his wife of 32 years and married a much younger woman.)

Since then, I've waited to hear the best known among conservative moralizers condemn the Rockwell-Conger clones as loudly as they do the prospect of gay marriage. I've listened for the harrumphs of Bill Bennett and the harangues of James Dobson.

So far, however, there has been little in the way of public opprobrium from the crowd that claims to police "family values." Apparently, those upright moralizers are less threatened by a publicity stunt that flouts the principles marriage is supposed to embody -- a commitment of love and loyalty based on mutual respect and shared values -- than they are by the idea of genuine love and commitment between two members of the same sex.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/uclicktext/20031207/cm_ucas/samesexcouplestakemarriagemoreseriouslythantvdoes

Doppy

Dec 11, 03, 9:25 pm

Mass. Senate to Ask Court If Civil Unions Pass Muster

By Jonathan Finer
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, December 12, 2003; Page A03

BOSTON, Dec. 11 -- The Massachusetts state Senate voted Wednesday to ask the state's highest court whether a bill authorizing civil unions would meet the court's recent ruling that Massachusetts cannot prohibit gay marriages.

State lawmakers here have been grappling with how to deal with the politically sensitive issue since the Supreme Judicial Court ruled Nov. 18 that any prohibition in Massachusetts law on gay marriage is unconstitutional. The court gave the legislature 180 days to bring state statutes into compliance. Unlike most state courts, in Massachusetts the Supreme Judicial Court is required to provide legal advice to lawmakers when they request it on specific proposed legislation rather than waiting to rule on legislation in the context of lawsuits.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A57768-2003Dec11.html 

Well, I think this is a good move. Let's let the court clear things up now, rather than drag this out too much longer, or have a civil unions law go into effect, just to then start a whole new lawsuit.

Putting aside the discussion about whether same-sex couples should be allowed civil marriage, I think it's plainly obvious to everyone that civil unions are not equal to marriage. Hopefully the court will follow through and point out the obvious.

If there really were no difference between civil unions and marriage, why wouldn't we just go for full marriage? If we're really comparing exact equals, then it seems like we should just have on system instead of two. Unless we're not really comparing equals, and we're trying to create a second class system.

Anyway, the latest poll numbers I saw show support for the SJC's decision up to 59%.

d

Guava

Dec 11, 03, 9:43 pm

It's a no-harm-in-trying attempt. In a way, it's a desperate move in trying to see if a compromise would work even though the Senators know far too well that the likelihood of the SJC giving it a o.k. is remote to almost non-existent. The SJC was beyond clear in the ruling, it explicity redefined the definition of marriage as inclusion of any two people to the exclusion of all others. It appears on the same page as where SLC said it concurs with the Court of Appeal of Ontario's remedy (which we all know what it is). Plus, the SJC can simply tell the MA Senate that their bill is not equal because it wouldn't entitle the couples the Federal portion of the rights and benefits. Therefore, it's not just different, it's unequal.

But like the leader of the gay community in MA said in this article, I too don't think the Senators are trying to harm the gays in MA. Rather, it seems him too is in a very difficult position but not out of any ill intented preconceptions.

[This message has been edited by Guava (edited Dec 11, 2003).]

Doppy

Dec 15, 03, 8:36 am

For the traditionalists, this article says that same-sex civil marriage has been traced back to the Roman Empire, at least.

So much for the "I agree with history" argument:

But this is just not true, Governor. You invoke "History" as though it's some source of authority, but you really don't know much about it, do you? "No investigation, no right to speak," I always say, and if you want to talk about homosexual unions in recorded history you should do some study first. First I recommend you read John Boswell's fine book Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality (University of Chicago Press, 1980), in which he documents legally recognized homosexual marriage in ancient Rome extending into the Christian period, and his Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe (Villard Books, 1994), in which he discusses Church-blessed same-sex unions and even an ancient Christian same-sex nuptial liturgy. Then check out my Male Colors: The Construction of Homosexuality in Tokugawa Japan (University of California Press, 1995) in which I describe the "brotherhood-bonds" between samurai males, involving written contracts and sometimes severe punishments for infidelity, in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Check out the literature on the Azande of the southern Sudan, where for centuries warriors bonded, in all legitimacy, with "boy-wives." Or read Marjorie Topley's study of lesbian marriages in Guangdong, China into the early twentieth century. Check out Yale law professor William Eskridge's The Case for Same-Sex Marriage (1996), and other of this scholar's works, replete with many historical examples.

http://www.counterpunch.org/leupp12132003.html 

Also, a new book out:

How have major civilizations of the last two millennia treated people who were attracted to their own sex? In a narrative tour de force, Louis Crompton chronicles the lives and achievements of homosexual men and women alongside a darker history of persecution, as he compares the Christian West with the cultures of ancient Greece and Rome, Arab Spain, imperial China, and pre-Meiji Japan.

Ancient Greek culture celebrated same-sex love in history, literature, and art, making high claims for its moral influence. By contrast, Jewish religious leaders in the sixth century b.c.e. branded male homosexuality as a capital offense and, later, blamed it for the destruction of the biblical city of Sodom. When these two traditions collided in Christian Rome during the late empire, the tragic repercussions were felt throughout Europe and the New World.

Louis Crompton traces Church-inspired mutilation, torture, and burning of "sodomites" in sixth-century Byzantium, medieval France, Renaissance Italy, and in Spain under the Inquisition. But Protestant authorities were equally committed to the execution of homosexuals in the Netherlands, Calvin’s Geneva, and Georgian England. The root cause was religious superstition, abetted by political ambition and sheer greed. Yet from this cauldron of fears and desires, homoerotic themes surfaced in the art of the Renaissance masters—Donatello, Leonardo, Michelangelo, Sodoma, Cellini, and Caravaggio—often intertwined with Christian motifs. Homosexuality also flourished in the court intrigues of Henry III of France, Queen Christina of Sweden, James I and William III of England, Queen Anne, and Frederick the Great.

Anti-homosexual atrocities committed in the West contrast starkly with the more tolerant traditions of pre-modern China and Japan, as revealed in poetry, fiction, and art and in the lives of emperors, shoguns, Buddhist priests, scholars, and actors. In the samurai tradition of Japan, Crompton makes clear, the celebration of same-sex love rivaled that of ancient Greece.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/067401197X/ref%3Dase%5Fhttpwwwandrec-20/002-7322206-9765667

Doppy

Dec 16, 03, 2:29 pm

Rosie Rising
Out of the ashes of a magazine, an activist.

Would the media giant Gruner & Jahr have decided to sue Rosie O’Donnell over the downfall of Rosie magazine if same-sex marriage were legal? Bizarre as it might sound, Rosie believes the answer is no, and her explanation is both fascinating and plausible.

"If you are a heterosexual talk show host and you’re sued by a major corporation, anything you have said to your husband is privileged information," she said in an interview on my radio program on Sirius OutQ last week. She was referring to two rights of marriage that few of us ever think about–until we’re sued for $100 million, or brought to court for something far minor. One is the spousal immunity privilege, which, if you watch enough Law & Order or The Practice, you know means that, in general, a husband cannot be compelled to testify against his wife and vice versa. The other is known as the privilege for marital communications, which protects confidential correspondence between spouses. These are just two of hundreds of rights granted by marriage–rights that gay couples don’t have.

http://www.nypress.com/16/51/news&columns/signorile.cfm

Doppy

Dec 16, 03, 2:30 pm

Marriage an issue in earlier times

By BRUCE LAURIE

Tuesday, December 16, 2003 -- Massachusetts lawmakers are reported to be puzzling over an appropriate response to what the Supreme Judicial Court called the ''marriage ban'' in its recent decision on same-sex marriage.
History may provide a useful guide here, for this is not the first time Bay Staters have grappled with such a problem. They were embroiled in a similar controversy about 160 years ago in 1843 over two 18th-century measures prohibiting marriages between whites and minorities, defined as blacks and mulattos in a 1705 statute and extended to Native Americans in a 1786 amendment.

The controversy over this older marriage ban was part of a civil rights movement initiated in the late 1830s by abolitionists and antislavery activists of both races. They found the marriage ban abhorrent because it was ''inconsistent with every principle of justice,'' in the words of the abolitionist leader William Lloyd Garrison, and because it was a vestige of the days when slavery was legal in the commonwealth.

Bay State abolitionists liked to think of themselves as rather more enlightened than Southerners, and thus were particularly offended by laws that placed them on legal par with a region they came to despise more and more. But they were not the only critics of the marriage ban.

They were joined by libertarians in the Democratic Party who had no use for African Americans or interracial marriage but who objected to state intervention in a private matter, in an affair of the heart. It was no business of government, they said, to tell citizens who they could or could not marry.

No one on this side of the debate expected an outburst of interracial unions or any such unions at all. They stood on what they imagined to be the principle of justice. Far different in a sense was the response of the other side. Proponents of the marriage ban consisted of a small group of conservative Democrats and a larger one of conservative Whigs, the state's leading party, who gave vent to wild racist fantasies.

Cartoonists in their press depicted an orgy of interracial marriage between loose white women and lascivious black men. Editors carried on this spirit. One expressed ''surprise'' when a bill repealing the marriage ban easily passed the House, causing him great alarm.

In a series of columns he insisted that repeal would invite calamity starting with the abomination of interracial marriage. Such unions would not only attract great numbers of black men looking for white wives; they would shorten the life-span because blacks were said to die sooner, and reduce the intelligence of survivors because blacks were assumed to be intellectually deficient.

But he relied in the end on scripture, lecturing lawmakers that repealing the laws in question risked undoing what ''God has forbidden.'' So here, too, it came down to principle, and in the larger debate, to competing principles of justice versus morality derived from Christianity.

http://www.gazettenet.com/story.cfm?id_no=12160038

Doppy

Dec 16, 03, 2:45 pm

Originally posted by Doppy:
According to this article, the Alliance for Marriage, an anti-same sex marriage group, is allied with a group that is anti-same sex marriage and pro-terrorism:

Follow-up to the article I posted above:

One less fellow traveler. 'God Squad' rabbi bolts Queer Alliance. Is 'Lieberman's rabbi' next?

By Evan Gahr

JewishWorldReview.com readers take to the web, talk radio to declare 'you can't make a deal with the devil to do the Divine's work'

http://www.jewishworldreview.com | Gellman's out. Freundel, Lapin, Neuhaus and Schonfeld remain. Mouw is on the sidelines.

It sounds like the roster for an inter-religious basketball game designed to foster Jewish-Christian understanding, perhaps, but it's not. The issue is how conservatives choose allies. Are they willing to work with a reputed terrorist-friendly Muslim to pre-empt gay marriage?

Rabbi Marc Gellman is not. Roughly two weeks since JewishWorldReview.com reported that Gellman and other prominent religious conservatives were part of an anti-gay marriage coalition that includes a reputed terrorist-friendly Muslim group, Gellman bolted from this queer alliance.

JewishWorldReview.com has learned that Gellman, perhaps America's best known rabbi because of his frequent television appearances as the Jewish half of the two man "God Squad", quietly resigned late last week from the advisory board to the Alliance for Marriage because it includes the Islamic Society of North America.

What is ISNA?

The AFM contends that ISNA is a legitimate, mainstream Islamic group. The "proof" is that ISNA is not on the State Department's list of terrorist front groups.

But that rationale doesn't impress terrorist expert Steve Emerson. True, he explains, "you will not find ISNA on any formal list of terrorist front groups. (And the government does not publicly reveal who its investigating.) And its unlikely that ISNA will be designated as such given the way it is structured and financially organized (it does not hold any assets but shifts them to a corporate subsidary — very complex situation.) But if you look at ISNA's involvement with terrorist groups, its hosting of actual terrorist leaders. Its ideological support for Islamic terrorist groups, you will find that it serves as an umbrella group for the Muslim Brotherhood."

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/1203/marriage_terrorists3.php3

Doppy

Dec 18, 03, 9:06 am

Public Ambivalence on Gay Unions

I am a convert to accepting gay marriages. But as a political issue it's a time bomb for both sides.

This is evident in this week's Wall Street Journal/NBC News national survey. Americans are evenly split on the question of civil unions, or granting spousal benefits to gay and lesbian partners; but solidly against gay marriages. Only marginally, however, does the public support a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriages.

There is evidence to suggest that both the intensity of feeling and the demographics of the electorate favor the pro-gay side on this explosive issue; demagoguing against it could backfire. But it's clear that an increasingly tolerant public wants to move cautiously.

Bob Teeter, who conducts the poll with Peter Hart, believes gay unions is "becoming the number-one social issue in the country" with "fascinating" cross-currents: "The country and young people especially are becoming much more tolerant of gays. However much of the country also is religious and considers marriage a sacrament. . . . My instinct is the public will stay divided for awhile."

I used to be a skeptical agnostic on gay marriage, not outrightly opposed yet uncomfortable. But times are changing. When I asked my seventeen-year-old son if he supported gay marriage he shrugged and replied, "Sure. What's the big deal?"

The WSJ/NBC News poll shows that younger voters -- 18 to 34-year-olds -- by an overwhelming 68% support civil unions, and a majority even supports gay marriages. As was also true during the drive for civil rights a generation or two ago, younger Americans are not encumbered with many of the hang-ups and prejudices of their elders; the tide is with change.

Another is the transparent phoniness of much of the anti-gay case: It will destroy the institution, ignores the centrality of procreation to marriage and will afflict a moral depravity on children.

Destroy marriage? How about the 50% divorce rate, more than double what it was in 1960, or the one-third of children born to single mothers, more than triple the number in 1960? If the social right really is concerned with marriage, how about some serious efforts, and resources, to address these far more fundamental threats?

Was procreation the purpose of all wedding vows? I wouldn't trade my three kids -- most days -- for anything; yet other couples are different, some intentionally, some without choice. We have a number of childless married friends, including a few prominent conservatives. They chose not to procreate or to adopt. Should this carry a penalty? Annul their vows, or get slapped with a childless-marriage penalty tax?

Conservatives complain that gay adoptions have an insidious effect on the kids. Yet studies suggest that adopted children of gay and lesbian parents are no different from adopted children of heterosexual couples. Virtually every body of experts -- starting with the American Academy of Pediatricians, whose members actually deal with kids in the real world -- agrees. Gay and lesbian couples adopt a disproportionate number of mentally and physically challenged kids, the most unadoptable. Right-wing critics would let these children rot in foster homes instead.

A recurring, but specious, argument is that if gay marriages are not precluded, that opens the door to polygamy or incestuous relationships. The reality: A central tenet of marriage is to promote stability, far more likely in two-way relationships than in multiple relationships; and the risk of birth defects in children of close relatives is a powerful reason to prohibit such marriages. Further, gay marriage doesn't undermine religious institutions; any church, temple or synagogue is free to perform, recognize or prohibit such unions.

There is a very persuasive positive case. Marriage, whatever its imperfections, is a stabilizing structure encouraging commitment, caring and responsibility. What rational society tells 5% of its population that they are banned from such an institution? (Most experts now believe that sexual orientation is biological.) Moreover, how can we assail gay men and lesbian women for promiscuity and then deny them the right to an arrangement that promotes monogamy?

http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB107170597635394000,00.html?mod=op inion%5Fmain%5Ffeatured%5Fstories%5Fhs (http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB107170597635394000,00.html?mod=opinion%5Fmain %5Ffeatured%5Fstories%5Fhs) 

[This message has been edited by Doppy (edited Dec 18, 2003).]

Doppy

Dec 30, 03, 3:10 pm

This is kind of funny.

The same people who complained that the high court in Massachusetts doesn't have the right to tell the legislature what to do (when it ruled the ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional and asked the legislature to make the marriage law constitutional) are the same people who were petitioning the high court to force the legislature to take action on their proposed Constitutional amendment:

State's high court upholds ruling on gay marriage ballot question
By Associated Press, 12/30/2003

BOSTON -- The state's highest court on Tuesday upheld that the state Legislature was within its rights to adjourn last year without voting on a constitutional amendment that would have outlawed gay marriage in Massachusetts.

The lawsuit filed by Massachusetts Citizens for Marriage claimed that the Legislature violated the state Constitution by failing to vote on the initiative, which sought to put the question of gay marriage to voters in a ballot referendum.
{snip}
In its ruling Tuesday, the high court reiterated a ruling it made in another case in 1992, when it said the state Constitution does not give the judiciary any power to order the state Legislature to act.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2003/12/30/states_high_court_upholds_ruling_on_gay_marriage_b allot_question/

Doppy

Jan 8, 04, 2:02 pm

Gay-marriage plaintiffs take case to new arena
By Jennifer Peter, Associated Press Writer, 1/8/2004

BOSTON -- The lead plaintiffs in Massachusetts' landmark gay marriage lawsuit took their battle to a new arena Thursday: rallying a crowd of more than a thousand to fight against a proposed constitutional amendment banning same-sex unions.

"This spring I will be able to marry the love of my life and take care of her in sickness and in health until death do we part," said Julie Goodridge, standing beside Hillary Goodridge, her partner of 16 years.

"That's why we'll win," Hillary Goodridge said. "Because love always prevails."

Lines snaked out the door of the Statehouse and into the freezing temperatures as gay rights advocates lined up to attend the rally, which filled one of the building's major halls and overflowed to the staircases and balconies above.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2004/01/08/gay_marriage_plaintiffs_take_case_to_new_arena/ 

A rally to attack families headed by same-sex couples was held yesterday, attracting about 200 people.

In related news, New Jersey's legislature approved a domestic partnership plan today offering limited benefits to same-sex couples. The governor is expected to sign it.

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/ny-bc-nj-xgr--domesticpartn0108jan08,0,5592666.story?coll=ny-ap-regional-wire

d

Doppy

Jan 9, 04, 9:06 am

I thought it was a little suspicious that these anti-family activists refused to release the full 20-something questions of the poll, opting, instead, to release only a handful of the question results that came out in their favor:

Opposition leader says he 'misspoke' on poll findings
By Raphael Lewis, Globe Staff, 1/9/2004

A poll touted by gay marriage opponents Wednesday as showing clear public support for their position actually showed Massachusetts voters deeply divided on whether to ban same-sex marriage.

Ronald A. Crews, a spokesman for the Coalition for Marriage, acknowledged that his group did not release the full survey results and apologized for downplaying the omitted questions as irrelevant.

"I want to apologize," Crews, a former Georgia state lawmaker, told a Globe reporter yesterday. "I misspoke. I mispoke primarily out of ignorance, but that does not excuse misspeaking. There were other questions, and we are in a press release today going to release those other questions."

During a press conference Wednesday, the Coalition for Marriage released the wording and summary of responses to seven questions in the poll it commissioned from Zogby International Inc. But there were 20 questions posed to the 601 likely Massachusetts voters surveyed. The Globe obtained a copy of the poll from Zogby International, which is based in Utica, N.Y.

When first asked Wednesday, Crews said that the seven questions he released were the only ones with valuable polling data and that the others were demographic in nature. He also pointed to the released data as definitive, especially results that showed that 69 percent of those polled said Massachusetts voters should have the opportunity to weigh in at the ballot box on a proposed constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. Another question he released that day showed that 52 percent said that "only marriage between one man and one woman should be legal," with 42 percent disagreeing.

But the full survey paints something of a different picture. Among the questions Crews's group did not release: The poll found that Massachusetts voters surveyed were virtually evenly divided when asked about the primary goal of the Coalition for Marriage, amending the constitution to ban same-sex marriage. Forty-eight percent of those polled agreed with the idea that "marriage is such an important institution that it should be defined in our constitution as the union of a man and a woman." Forty-nine percent disagreed.

That level of opposition was similar to a Globe/WBZ-TV poll taken after the court ruling, which found 53 percent of those polled in opposition to "an amendment to the state constitution that would establish marriage solely as the union of a man and a woman, effectively banning gay marriage." Support for the amendment in that poll, however, rested at 36 percent. A Boston Herald poll taken at the same time found that 54 percent of respondents opposed a constitutional ban on gay marriage, with 36 percent in support.

Another question that Crews's group did not release, on whether lawmakers should take action to prevent the Supreme Judicial Court's landmark ruling from going into effect in May, also found voters evenly divided. Forty-six percent felt that lawmakers should prevent the ruling, while 48 percent disagreed. Six percent were unsure.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2004/01/09/opposition_leader_says_he_misspoke_on_poll_finding s/ 

So, rather than having "blockbuster" results (as the press release claimed), instead, it shows that Mass. residents are pretty evenly split.

Nice try Crews; I guess you think any means are justified when the ends (attacking families and children) are so noble. http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttravel_forum/rolleyes.gif

d

amanuensis

Jan 9, 04, 10:15 am

The fact that Massachusetts, one of the most liberal states, has its residents evenly split on the issue of a Constitutional Amendment to me implies that the residents of most states would support it, and thus put heat on their legislatures to support it. (And when it comes to states, 3/4 is all that is needed; populous liberal states such as California have no more weight than North Dakota or Delaware.)

If a state wants to allow gay civil unions in its state, they can do so. But, in football terms, gay activists are saying we don't have to settle for a field goal, we can get a touchdown. To me, the above quoted articles further support my belief that by going for 7 points, the gay activists may end up with 0 points -- not even civil gay unions.

Doppy

Jan 9, 04, 10:43 am

Originally posted by amanuensis:
But, in football terms, gay activists are saying we don't have to settle for a field goal, we can get a touchdown. To me, the above quoted articles further support my belief that by going for 7 points, the gay activists may end up with 0 points -- not even civil gay unions.

It's certainly possible that an amendment to the Constitution could pass, but I don't think it's likely. Even such amendments as the flag burning amendment had support as high as 85% and never went anywhere.

Some polls show a small majority in favor of the marriage amendment, others show a minority. Granted, this debate is likely to have more sticking power than the flag burning thing, which saw its support drop by about 20-30% in 3 years, as it wasn't actively being pushed, like the opponents of same-sex marriage are pushing.

It also remains to be seen as to whether the GOP really wants to take the amendment up as a serious issue. I have no doubt they want to use it as a wedge, but I do doubt whether or not they really want to bring it for a vote in Congress.

I think timing is also important. The more states that legalize some kind of benefits (e.g. NJ's recent domestic partnership plan), the more difficult the marriage amendment sell will be. If same-sex marriage is legalized in May in Mass., it's going to be a lot harder of a sell to try to ban those unions, as you're essentially asking the public to support (1) taking away rights that people already have and (2) forcibly divorcing couples and splitting up families.

Put former Mass. state senator Cheryl Jacques up on stage with her partner and her two young twin sons bursting out in tears about how the "pro-family" groups are trying to force the government to hire lawyers and forcibly break apart their families, and you're going to win a lot of sympathy.

Unlike the abortion debate (where you can post pictures of fetuses), there's no good poster available to the opponents of same-sex marriage.

Time will tell. It's going to be a big fight.

d

anonplz

Jan 9, 04, 10:43 am

Originally posted by amanuensis:
To me, the above quoted articles further support my belief that by going for 7 points, the gay activists may end up with 0 points -- not even civil gay unions.

That will be true if those who are 1. unreasonable and 2. dedicated to the destruction of the separate of church and state succeed in their homophobic campaign.

As it stands now, I have yet to hear a persuasive argument which supports opposition to same-sex marriage, and all we seem to hear is, then people will want to marry their sheep http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttravel_forum/mad.gif , or, well, that's the way it's always been done so it must be working, or no same-sex marriage because I said so/my church said so.

So much for vigorous debate.

Doppy

Jan 12, 04, 10:44 am

According to this article, gay couples with kids are more likely to have a stay-at-home parent than opposite-sex couples or lesbian couples.

Two Fathers, With One Happy to Stay at Home
By GINIA BELLAFANTE

Published: January 12, 2004

MINNEAPOLIS — Right before Christmas, Jamie McConnell arrived at the Lake Country School here, as he does most days of the week, to pick up his son, Ben, 3. Hardly short on spunk, Ben made his way out to the snowy playground, and Mr. McConnell, as parents have done since the dawn of swings and monkey bars, trailed behind.

Mr. McConnell had plenty of time to watch Ben romp and to invite one of his classmates and his mother home for peanut butter and jelly sandwiches.

For years, Mr. McConnell ate very different lunches. He was a corporate litigator at Dorsey & Whitney, among the country's most prestigious law firms. But since he and Dr. Bill Atmore, an anesthesiologist, adopted Ben as an infant, taking care of the child has been his full-time job. Dr. Atmore, his partner of eight years, works full time.

In assuming those roles, demographers say, the two are part of an emerging population of gay men who are not only raising children but are also committed to the idea that one parent should leave the workplace to do it. Of 9,328 same-sex couples with children whose census returns were randomly selected for analysis by the Census Bureau, 26 percent of the male couples included a stay-at-home parent, said Gary Gates, a demographer with the Urban Institute, a nonpartisan research organization in Washington. That figure is one percentage point more than for married couples with children and four percentage points higher than for female couples, said Mr. Gates, who performed the analysis for this article.

The percentage of men who stay at home is significantly smaller among married heterosexual couples, Mr. Gates said.

The obstacles of finding surrogate mothers and of discriminatory adoption laws that favor heterosexual couples have led some gay men to pursue parenthood with fervor.

"Being a planned gay father is such a project in itself," said Judith Stacey, a professor of sociology at New York University and a senior scholar at the Council on Contemporary Families, a research organization. Often, Professor Stacey said, gay fathers or those aspiring to be "remain very judgmental of parents who don't stay home."

To some gay men, the idea of entrusting the care of a hard-won child to someone else seems to defeat the purpose of parenthood.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/12/national/12DADS.html

Doppy

Feb 3, 04, 2:51 pm

FRC begins its campaign of fear mongering:

FRC Action Targets Boston Airwaves with Protect 'Marriage' Ad Campaign

60-second ads will run on Boston stations up to the pivotal February 11th vote.

WASHINGTON, D.C. – FRC Action, the legislative action arm of Family Research Council, today launched a radio ad campaign in the greater Boston, Massachusetts area, encouraging the public to call their state legislators and vote "yes" on the Marriage Affirmation and Protection Amendment. The amendment is an attempt to counter the state’s Supreme Judicial Court, which recently decided 4-3 in favor of same-sex "marriage."

"Have you thought about where same-sex marriage may lead?" the ad's narrator asks. "Certainly teachers would have to teach that marriage has more than one option – but how many? What other marital relationships might be swept along with this tide?

http://www.frcaction.org/ 

MassEquality brings together over 20 state and national groups in support of equality, strong families and a positive message:

http://www.massequality.org

d

Doppy

Mar 8, 04, 3:28 pm

Mass. will take up a constitutional amendment again on Thursday:

Travaglini: Enough support today for compromise gay marriage plan
By Steve Leblanc, Associated Press, 3/8/2004 16:44

BOSTON (AP) A majority of lawmakers would approve a compromise gay marriage constitutional amendment defining marriage as a union of a man and woman but providing civil union benefits to same-sex couples if a vote was taken today, Senate President Robert Travaglini said Monday.

However, Travaglini, one of the sponsors of the compromise along with House Speaker Thomas Finneran, warned that the situation was still in flux and votes could change before Thursday, when the House and Senate are scheduled to meet in another joint session of the constitutional convention.

The two branches failed to pass three earlier versions of a gay marriage amendment during two days of debate last month.

In the interim, the gay marriage issue has erupted across the country, with rogue public officials around the country performing same-sex marriages. But all eyes are sure to return again to Massachusetts, where the state's highest court ruled last year that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry.

''There are conversations that happened over the weekend and continue to happen today that give me confidence that we can reach consensus by Thursday,'' said Travaglini. ''This situation is rather fluid. What (votes) I have today may not be what I have on Thursday.''

http://www.boston.com/dailynews/068/region/Travaglini_Enough_support_toda:.shtml 

Interestingly, a poll a couple weeks ago found that this "compromise" amendment was less popular among the voters (losing by about 20%) than an amendment which would ban marriage and probably civil unions (statistical dead heat).

More info / oppose the amendment:

http://www.massequality.org

Guava

Mar 11, 04, 7:38 pm

Update (http://www.boston.com/news/specials/gay_marriage/articles/2004/03/11/gay_marriage_ban_wins_second_preliminary_approval/)

Today, the MA Legislature reconvened for the Constitutional Convention. They approved a preliminary proposal in the late afternoon before breaking it for dinner. I lost the exact number but it was something like 126 in favor and 69 against. While most outsiders jump in and call it as a setback for gay marriage proponents, they didn't realize that in order to pass the 2003~2004 Convention Process, this same Amendment must be supported through 3 more readings. That is this proposal must be approved by at least 4 times this year to make it for the year 2003~2004.

The complexity of this process not only caught many outsiders such as the mass media off guard, it also played against the creativity-challenged opponents of gay marriage. I must admit, after the first vote, I was puzzled as to what strategy the matriacht (leader of gay marriage suporters) was using. I figure out that whatever tactics they are using, it must be top secret so reasonably, I had no clue. The intriguing part is that the 126 votes in favor of the proposal - such a wide margin, caught both House and Senate leaders off guard (privately) is actually the result of vocal supporters of gay marriage. It immediately triggered speculations that they will vote against in the final round to derail it. But the matriacht finally explained the rationale after the vote was approved a second time tonight, to the horror of some religious zealots like Travis... Looks like the creativity-challegned zealots have been cooked again...ROFL Read the article as linked above, and you will find out why...

Guava

Mar 11, 04, 8:52 pm

FYI - How to amend the Massachusetts Constitution

THE PROCESS: Any amendment to the state constitution must be approved by a majority of lawmakers during two successive two-year legislative sessions. If approved by the end of the 2003-2004 session, which ends in December, the gay marriage amendment would have to be approved again during the 2005-2006 session before going on the ballot in November 2006.

------

THE VOTES:

During the constitutional convention, a joint session of the House and Senate -- currently a total of 199 lawmakers, with one vacancy -- will have to take several votes.

The first two votes would replace underlying amendments with compromise language proposed by joint leadership.

The third vote is critical, as it would send the amendment to a third reading. It must be approved by a majority of members who are present and voting. All bills are given three readings, and sending a bill to a third reading is an initial step toward final passage.

The subsequent action, to give the amendment final approval and send it on for further consideration during the 2005-2006 legislative session, must be approved by 101 members. This would be the threshold regardless of how many people are in the chamber or voting at the time.

This action could not be taken on the same day as the first unless four-fifths of lawmakers agreed to waive the rules of the constitutional convention.

------

AMENDING THE AMENDMENT:

If lawmakers want to amend the amendment, it could be done before the vote sending it to a third reading, or before the final vote. That would take a simple majority of those present and voting in the chamber.

------

Source: Senate Clerk's Office

There you have it, the amendment has passed two readings already. If they want to turn back the horse, it is too late - not unless they abort the process completely and write off the session year 2003~2004 completely. Here is the exact language of the proposal:

<<It being the public policy of this Commonwealth to protect the unique relationship of marriage, only the union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Massachusetts. Two persons of the same sex shall have the right to form a civil union, if they meet the requirements set forth by law for marriage.

"Civil unions for same sex couples are established hereunder and shall provide entirely the same benefits, protections, rights and responsibilities that are afforded to couples married under Massachusetts law. All laws applicable to marriage shall also apply to civil unions.

"This article is self-executing, but the General Court may enact laws not inconsistent with anything herein contained to carry out the purpose of this article.">>

The likelihood of this language be written into the Constitution is really...neligeable. People would have a hard time wanting to write 'gay rights' into a Constitution even those who support Civil Unions. You can forget about religious zealots, they will cry and scream against any recognition of gay rights, let alone 'sanctify it with the Constitution'. The general population who follows this only when it's hot or read this for the first time when they actually vote will find it so confusing that they probably just won't get it. Naturally, the hard core gay rights supporters will reject it - in which case the current MA Constitution will stand. In any case, in the scenario that this actually makes it through to the ballot in 2006, it will take 'Divine Intervention' for this kind of language to be approved by the voters.

On the other hand, putting up a smoke screen through this amendment would leave the political card open with the like of Senate Leader who just needs an excuse to go the public and fake it that the Legislature has acted - to make it through the election year. Then of course, next year, this can just be swept under the carpet, good-bye, thank you very much, see you next time. Using this cover, many polticians could openly vote for the amendment, while privately supporting status quo (that is, let the current Constitution stand) - just to make it through this year.

Congratulations to the matriacht for this stunning and absolutely brilliant strategy, who has once again proved that she can protect and lead the people safe from the attacks of religious zealots.

[This message has been edited by Guava (edited Mar 11, 2004).]

Guava

Mar 11, 04, 8:58 pm

It will be interesting to watch now that the zealots realized they have been tricked, how they will react in the 3rd reading - which is the vote to decide whether to send this to a final approval or not for the year 2003~2004. They are like hanging on to a cliff now, it's both inappropriate to go ahead (certain death) but there is no way back either.

Anyway, this will be interesting to watch.

Doppy

Mar 11, 04, 9:26 pm

One thing you haven't taken into account, Guava, is that the language can still be changed in between the most recent vote (sending it for a third reading) and the next and final vote (sending it to the next legislative session).

It seems unlikely that changing the language would happen, but it could.

d

Doppy

Mar 11, 04, 9:41 pm

Still no resolution; the Con Con is in recess until Monday, 3/29 at 10AM.

I, for one, am tired of all of this waiting.

d

Guava

Mar 11, 04, 9:48 pm

Originally posted by Doppy:
One thing you haven't taken into account, Guava, is that the language can still be changed in between the most recent vote (sending it for a third reading) and the next and final vote (sending it to the next legislative session).

It seems unlikely that changing the language would happen, but it could.

d

Doppy, you worry too much, it will turn you grey very quikcly http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttravel_forum/smile.gif, see this: Ready for the Final Fight (http://www.boston.com/news/specials/gay_marriage/articles/2004/03/11/gay_marriage_ban_one_vote_from_victory/)

With some odd bed-fellows I might add, this will be fun!

[This message has been edited by Guava (edited Mar 11, 2004).]

Guava

Mar 11, 04, 9:52 pm

At this juncture, I think the procedure wouly only permit semantic corrections, but not debate on the substance of the amendment. In other words, either you take this or you leave. We'll see. But I am already discounting the fact that it will pass, and into the Political Option. Arline hopes to kill it on the Final vote, that would be great but she is right, it will be close.

Doppy

Mar 11, 04, 10:46 pm

Originally posted by Guava:
At this juncture, I think the procedure wouly only permit semantic corrections, but not debate on the substance of the amendment.

I think you are wrong about that, but I can't seem to find the page I'm thinking about, which explains the process.

Regardless, I think it's unlikely that a motion to change the language would pass at this point.

d

Guava

Mar 11, 04, 10:55 pm

Originally posted by Doppy:
I think you are wrong about that, but I can't seem to find the page I'm thinking about, which explains the process.

Regardless, I think it's unlikely that a motion to change the language would pass at this point.

d

Educate me then, Doppy, find it! http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttravel_forum/smile.gif

Doppy

Mar 12, 04, 8:50 am

Gay-marriage ban backed, but uncertainty remains
Compromise proposal needs one more vote
By Rick Klein, Globe Staff, 3/12/2004

The Massachusetts Legislature voted three times yesterday to ban gay marriage and establish civil unions, but maneuvers by both opponents and supporters of gay marriage left it unclear whether the constitutional amendment would ever get to the voters. The House and Senate will resume their Constitutional Convention March 29, and other proposals may be considered then.

Meeting in a Constitutional Convention for the second time in a month, lawmakers spent nearly 10 hours debating the proposed compromise that would overturn the Supreme Judicial Court's landmark ruling establishing the right of gay couples to marry. It would also give same-sex couples rights and benefits under state law that would approximate marriage, though under a different legal designation. But the amendment cleared only three of the four votes it needed for final passage before the session recessed at about 11:40 p.m. While the margins were comfortable on all of the votes taken, many of those supporting the measure were doing so for strategic reasons rather than genuine support, in the hopes of winning a different outcome later.

Supporters of gay marriage plotted to derail the compromise amendment and leave the SJC ruling standing. Opponents of gay marriage and civil unions said they still would have the opportunity to present voters with a ballot initiative that would ban same sex marriage.

"Keep your scorecards ready," Representative George N. Peterson Jr. of Grafton, the House's third-ranking Republican, said in describing the various scenarios being envisioned. "This Constitutional Convention is fairly well split down the middle, as we've seen in vote after vote."

Any amendment approved by the Legislature this year would also have to clear the 2005-2006 Legislature before going to the voters in November 2006. Lawmakers have blocked out March 29, 30, and 31 for constitutional business.

Through all the shifting loyalties and furious lobbying, one certainty loomed yesterday: Under the SJC ruling, gay couples will be allowed to wed starting May 17, unless Governor Mitt Romney or the Legislature tries another maneuver to stop them.

The amendment voted on yesterday, offered by House Speaker Thomas M. Finneran and Senate President Robert E. Travaglini, would preserve marriage as only the union of one man and one woman. But it would establish civil unions for same-sex couples that carry entirely the same benefits, protections, rights, and responsibilities that are afforded to couples married under Massachusetts law.

The measure won initial approval with relative ease, 129-69, after only three hours of debate, as thousands of protesters gathered outside and inside the State House. A second question also sailed through the Legislature last night, 136-62.

In both of those votes, the supporters included approximately three dozen socially liberal lawmakers. They opposed the measure on its substance, but voted for it in a procedural gambit designed to stop what they viewed as more onerous measures.

Those lawmakers, who wore special pagers during the debate to coordinate strategy, planned to oppose the measure when it was considered later in the process, in hope of keeping anything from going to voters. If successful, that strategy would have left the SJC ruling intact, allowing gay couples to marry.

With that in mind, the liberals switched their votes from yes to no on yesterday's third vote. But, alarmed at the possibility of no measure reaching the ballot, socially conservative House members, led by 22 House Republicans, switched their votes as well, from no to yes.

"This vote kept it alive," said Representative Robert S. Hargraves, a Groton Republican. "It was either this or we were done."

Those switched votes allowed the measure to stay afloat, passing 121-77. That kept the possibility of other amendments alive. When the constitutional convention reconvenes later this month, lawmakers will be able to vote on a number of amendments that would substitute for the one approved yesterday. If the compromise amendment had been defeated, it would almost certainly have kept any gay-marriage measures off the ballot.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2004/03/12/gay_marriage_ban_gains_but_jockeying_continues/

Guava

Mar 12, 04, 9:03 am

Very Good Summary of March 11, 2004 (http://www.boston.com/news/specials/gay_marriage/articles/2004/03/12/legislators_strategy_was_a_leap_of_faith/)

Without a doubt, the odds are against the supporters of freedom and justice. When they reconvene on March 29th, we'll see the faith of session 2003~2004 determined then. This waiting period between now and 29th is good thing, only because it allows both sides to think it through and decide what steps to take. Would the Republican bloc continue to support this version of the Amendment as they did in the 3rd reading just to keep this alive (http://www.boston.com/news/specials/gay_marriage/articles/2004/03/12/vote_switches_key_to_the_day/)? Or would they find it so difficult to justify to their constituency that they rather let this go... How would the moderate legislators vote in the final round when it really counts? It's one thing to support the procedural matter, it's something else entirely when it comes to the substance of the resolution...

What's ironic is that zealots like Travis spoke passionately against this Amendment ended up voting for it, fearing losing everything. On the other hand, they also know if they go ahead with this, it might not even make it through to the 2006 ballot because the language is so broad and will sanctify Civil Unions into the Constitution. So, it appears the opponents of justice prefer to send something to the voters no matter how controversial or badly written the Amendment is, just so that they can hide under an irrlevant excuse - "I didn't let the Court dictate the course! http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttravel_forum/rolleyes.gif " But I wonder how their constituents will take this. The religious conservatives aren't going to be happy, all of sudden, they have been forced to vote in favor of sanctify Civil Unions into the Constitution just to keep the debate alive or face total setback as shown by the switch in the Republican bloc and zealots like Travis...

No matter what's the ultimate outcome this year, I feel confident that justice will prevail at the end. At a minimum, the outcome could not possibly be worse than winning the Constitutional rights of equal rights. Before yesterday, the zealots were talking about stripping away all rights - now because of the good play, they are forced to support equal rights, how ironic is that! LOL Keep the heads up and the spirit high!

Guava

Mar 13, 04, 8:29 am

Accord said to lack firm majority (http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2004/03/13/accord_said_to_lack_firm_majority/)

Basically, just to recap what we have discussed all along, the fate of March 29th, "The Final Fight", is still much up in the air. This article sums up very, very well the discussions, facts and analysis that happened here on March 11. Suffice to say, the final vote would not be anywhere as wide margin as the March 11 vote - that's about the only sure thing. Other than that, I hope this 2 and half week waiting period allows both sides to think through their next step simply because Thursday night happened way too quickly, the rapid exchanges of 'fire' has rapidly pushed the case towards a finality for this year. But much of the result were split-second decisions, which caused a lot of switch in positions. For the proponents of equal rights and justice, they would have to the time to make sure the strategy used remain sound and to plan for a few more contingency plans in light of how the opponents are likely to react. At this point, it would be hard to pick up any more people to their side as pretty much everyone has made up their mind one way or the other. The only thing that isn't sure is how they will vote but they know what they want. As for the opponents, I think they are the ones having the most difficulty now because their camp is not unified. Some don't want gay marriage but civil unions is fine by them, some say o.k., but not in the Constitution and some want nothing at all for gays because they should be 2nd class citizens in their view. Any attempt to float competing amendment or different language would seem create further division within this camp that it may end up be their own undoing. It would seem the best bet at this time for them is to pass this along to 2005~2006 as an amendment is better than nothing at all.

It would be the best, for former camp to defeat this amendment right here and now as it eliminates the uncertainty. Nevertheless, this is a long journey and the readiness for a long-term engagement is necessary if the ultimate victory is sought.

Doppy

Mar 13, 04, 10:06 am

The question here is what the group of about 30 or so people who are against marriage and civil unions would do.

I'm willing to bet that they'll side with Romney and support the leadership amendment, despite the fact that it creates a constitutional right to civil unions.

Although, I tend to think that amendment could be stuck down by a federal court. Could it be any more obvious that the intention is to create a system of segregation?

I also think that it would be (and will be, if the amendment passes) fun to challenge the amendment using straight couples who want "civil unions," as well as gay couples who want marriage.

d

anonplz

Mar 13, 04, 10:24 am

Originally posted by Doppy:
I also think that it would be ... fun to challenge the amendment using straight couples who want "civil unions" ...

Not just fun, but really powerful and effective.

As a matter of fact, I can't find it now (of course, when I want to link to it), but I recently read an article about a heterosexual couple in suburban Chicago who either held off on or refused outright to getting married legally (they DID have a regligious ceremony) as a means of protesting that gays were being denied marriage.

Doppy

Mar 13, 04, 10:55 am

Originally posted by anonplz:
As a matter of fact, I can't find it now (of course, when I want to link to it), but I recently read an article about a heterosexual couple in suburban Chicago who either held off on or refused outright to getting married legally (they DID have a regligious ceremony) as a means of protesting that gays were being denied marriage.

There was an article about the same thing in the Village Voice a couple months ago.

It's also interesting to note that the social conservatives complain about less straight people getting "married" and more people opting for other arrangements like cohabitation.

Another thing that straight people are doing is taking advantage of domestic partnership registries and the like. In NYC, 70% of the couples registered with the city are straight.

Social conservatives who are worried about the downfall of marriage as an institution should stop telling everyone that marriage isn't important, while simultaneously giving people a buffet of options like domestic partnership registries and civil unions.

Granted, they're only telling gay couples and their children they don't need marriage, but clearly the message is gaining traction with the straight families as well.

Anyway, the obvious outcome that one could reasonable expect to occur is -- fewer straight people think marriage is important, and fewer are willing to make the big committment when they have an less serious option available, like a common law marriage or a domestic partnership registry.

Social conservatives blame this on the gays, but they're really the ones at fault.

d

anonplz

Mar 13, 04, 11:07 am

Originally posted by Doppy:
There was an article about the same thing in the Village Voice a couple months ago.

It's also interesting to note that the social conservatives complain about less straight people getting "married" and more people opting for other arrangements like cohabitation.

Another thing that straight people are doing is taking advantage of domestic partnership registries and the like. In NYC, 70% of the couples registered with the city are straight.

Social conservatives who are worried about the downfall of marriage as an institution should stop telling everyone that marriage isn't important, while simultaneously giving people a buffet of options like domestic partnership registries and civil unions.

Granted, they're only telling gay couples and their children they don't need marriage, but clearly the message is gaining traction with the straight families as well.

Anyway, the obvious outcome that one could reasonable expect to occur is -- fewer straight people think marriage is important, and fewer are willing to make the big committment when they have an less serious option available, like a common law marriage or a domestic partnership registry.

Social conservatives blame this on the gays, but they're really the ones at fault.

d

True, and you forgot no-fault divorce laws.

But of course, as we've seen, this whole debate is not really about strengthening marriage; it's about continuing a system of making gays fly economy while heterosexuals fly first-class even though everyone is paying the same fare, i.e., keeping discrimination legit.

Guava

Mar 14, 04, 6:51 am

Just to provide another article, food for thoughts: Why this Amendment pleases no one? (http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2004/03/14/marriage_measure_a_shaky_solution/)

This is exactly the 'back-up' plan we discussed on March 11. Of course, the mass media wouldn't know about, so busy in portraying that as a defeat for gay marriage proponents and picturing couples crying outside the Statehouse...well, wait till you read this: Don't believe the hype: gays won a huge victory yesterday (http://www.bostonphoenix.com/boston/news_features/other_stories/documents/03677128.asp)

One setence: I told you so, you read here first, in Flyertalk. http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttravel_forum/smile.gif

<<Senator Stan Rosenberg of Northampton, who supports civil-marriage rights for same-sex couples, had walked out of the House chamber and over toward the dozens of gay-rights activists singing patriotic songs across the hallway. Rosenberg told the crowd, "Don’t tell anybody, but we had a great day today.">>

Doppy

Mar 16, 04, 2:47 pm

Intersting stats in Mass:

Coalition members frequently talk about the power and wealth of the gay lobby. In fact, a review of income statements shows that the annual income of the "Coalition for Marriage" exceeds that of organizations advocating for equal marriage rights in Massachusetts by a margin of six to one ($168 million to $25 million).

http://www.ngltf.org/news/release.cfm?releaseID=647 

Considering the coalition against same-sex marriage is spending $168 million fighting us, I'd say we're making pretty good progress on a pretty meager budget.

d

Doppy

Mar 21, 04, 10:46 am

GAY-MARRIAGE FOES AIM FOR DOUBLE BAN ON '08 BALLOT
Author(s): Yvonne Abraham, Globe Staff Date: March 20, 2004 Page: B1 Section: Metro/Region
Gay-marriage opponents have filed a petition to put on the 2008 ballot a ban on both same-sex marriage and civil unions, opening a new front in the debate over the divisive issue with which lawmakers will continue to grapple later this month.

The petition was filed by a Wakefield minister who is concerned that lawmakers will send voters a proposed constitutional amendment for a 2006 ballot that would ban gay marriage but allow civil unions. The minister opposes civil unions as well as gay marriage. "In the event the Legislature either fails to act or passes a proposed amendment that includes civil unions, that is incremental ism, and I just can't agree with that," said the Rev. Michael Carl of Greenwood Union Church in Wakefield. "We will wait to see what the Legislature does, and what [Governor Mitt] Romney does. If the governer doesn't act - I don't want to make it sound like this is an ultimatum - then I will go ahead with my petition."

Carl, a native of Texas, has been a resident of Massachusetts for three years. He heads the Heritage Alliance, a political action committee he recently formed to field candidates to run against legislators who support gay marriage. He filed his pe tition with the state attorney general's office Feb. 27.

His proposal would amend the state constitution to read, in part: "Marriage . . . shall henceforth be defined in the Commonwealth as the voluntary, consensual union between one man and one woman. All statutes and laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts shall henceforth conform thereto."
{snip}
The 2008 question could provide an out for legislators, many of them Republican, who oppose civil unions but who voted for the Finneran-Travaglini version of the amendment on March 11 to keep some kind of gay-marriage ban alive. House minority leader Bradley H. Jones did not return calls yesterday.

http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_action=doc&p_docid=10174B9B35C0D637&p_docnum=1 

This is not much of a surprise. Hopefully, this will help us get no amendment passed at all during this constitutional convention.

This amendment would be pretty punitive, if you ask me, taking away people's marriage rights and forcibly divorcing them after they've been married for four and a half years. That's pretty hateful, if you ask me.

But I think it has zero chance of passing. Three national polls this month have found support for civil unions (which this amendment would ban) above 50% and on the rise, and four years from now, I think the situation is going to look even better.

A second petition filed with the attorney general's office March 15 calls for a constitutional amendment to force the Legislature to call every year for a federal Constitutional Convention to consider a national ban on gay marriage.

A federal amendment requires approval by two-thirds of the House and the Senate, and approval in 38 states before it takes effect.

The petition was filed by Stephanie W. Morris, a Nebraska native and Needham resident who has lived in Massachusetts for two years, and is part of an organization called Families for America, which was formed to fight for the federal amendment.

This is just lunacy. An amendment that requires the legislature to call for a federal constitutional convention?

Even putting the marriage issue aside, I'm a little weary of having a federal constitutional convention. Once one of those things starts up, ANY amendment for ANY purpose can be purposed. Does anyone really want to risk having the federal constitution be radically altered, after debate lasting days, or even as short as hours? Who knows what rights we might lose in the process.

At least the regular process of going through Congress is long and drawn out.

d

anonplz

Mar 21, 04, 11:07 am

I was recently reading a thread on another board about Republicans/conservatives who reject the religious fundamentalist Christians, and will not vote GOP this coming election because of their undue and unhealthy influence in Republican politics. People are saying that if the Republicans want to continue winning, they are going to have to purge the Christian fundamentalist liberals from their ranks. And frankly, I agree that they are a big liability to the GOP. I would not be averse to voting GOP generally, since on a lot of issues I'm conservative, but leading Republicans today are anything BUT conservative as it is traditionally understood to mean. Rather, they stand for hate, anger, race resentment, not what I want to vote for.

Exceptions are people like McCain, for whom I'd vote in a heartbeat.

amanuensis

Mar 21, 04, 7:25 pm

Originally posted by anonplz:
[B... leading Republicans today are anything BUT conservative as it is traditionally understood to mean. Rather, they stand for hate, anger, race resentment, not what I want to vote for.
[/B]

I am NOT a Republican, and I am sure they can speak for themselves, but I getting VERY TIRED of people thinking that I stand for hate just because I am opposed to gay marriage. There IS a slippery slope -- see these recent articles:


And you thought gay marriage would shake things up.
Imagine what would happen if wedding bells began ringing for husband and wife and wife and wife. How would insurance benefits be divided in a legal plural marriage? Who would be first in line for the pension? And what would happen to the already strained Social Security system?
America has matrimony on its mind as the debate over gay marriage rages and talk swirls that polygamous unions could become part of the battle.
http://www.sltrib.com/2004/Mar/03212004/utah/149779.asp

 Young Man Marries Own Grandmother
Fri Mar 19, 2004 07:27 AM ET
By Kamil Zaheer
PANCHPARA, India (Reuters) - A 25-year-old Indian man has married his 80-year-old grandmother ... the grandmother, her back bent with age, says she is "happy" with her young husband whom she married in a traditional Hindu ceremony near Panchpara, a village 100 miles west of Calcutta. Her first husband died more than 30 years ago.

"I helped bring him up with my own hands and now he looks after me. He is a good husband and ensures I get my meals on time," said Premodas Biswas, a red vermilion streak on her forehead, the mark of a married Hindu woman....Last June, a nine-year-old Indian girl was married to a dog near Calcutta after a priest told her parents the wedding would ward off evil.
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=oddlyEnoughNews&storyID=4605337

SeAAttle

Mar 21, 04, 7:37 pm

quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Young Man Marries Own Grandmother
Fri Mar 19, 2004 07:27 AM ET
By Kamil Zaheer
PANCHPARA, India (Reuters) - A 25-year-old Indian man has married his 80-year-old grandmother ... the grandmother, her back bent with age, says she is "happy" with her young husband whom she married in a traditional Hindu ceremony near Panchpara, a village 100 miles west of Calcutta. Her first husband died more than 30 years ago.

"I helped bring him up with my own hands and now he looks after me. He is a good husband and ensures I get my meals on time," said Premodas Biswas, a red vermilion streak on her forehead, the mark of a married Hindu woman....Last June, a nine-year-old Indian girl was married to a dog near Calcutta after a priest told her parents the wedding would ward off evil.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Perhaps you could explain to us how the FMA would prevent this young man marrying his grandmother. Disregard the fact that this happened in India.

amanuensis

Mar 21, 04, 7:44 pm

The fact that it happened ANYWHERE is my point. Many posters in the various Gay marriage threads poo-poo the idea that anyone would ever think of marrying a pet or a close relative, yet the article SeAAtle refers to mentions both events happening. Basically, there will always be people out there who are pushing the envelope. I think drawing the line at civil unions will make it more difficult down the line for a person to claim it is okay to marry their 12-year old first cousin or their Golden Retriever.

anonplz

Mar 21, 04, 8:13 pm

Originally posted by amanuensis:
Originally posted by anonplz:
... leading Republicans today are anything BUT conservative as it is traditionally understood to mean. Rather, they stand for hate, anger, race resentment, not what I want to vote for.
--------------------------
I am NOT a Republican, and I am sure they can speak for themselves, but I getting VERY TIRED of people thinking that I stand for hate just because I am opposed to gay marriage. There IS a slippery slope -- see these recent articles...

First of all, you are personalizing remarks that were made in the impersonal, so stop it! http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttravel_forum/mad.gif http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttravel_forum/smile.gif

Second, taking Americans, dividing them into two separate groups, and assigning second-class status to one of them can't be motivated by many things, and one of the biggest is simple hatred. Those who hate gays and lesbians are sure to be enthusiastic about 43's calls for an FMA. As a matter of fact, his calls for it are clearly designed to appeal to the bigots and haters within the Republican Party as a means of getting out the vote.

Third, polygamy and incest are issues separate from same-sex marriage - personally, I don't even really have a strong opinion about either issue, though I know neither type of arrangement is for me. Aside from my personal opinion, if there is a way in which legalizing same-sex marriage will lead inevitably to those other arrangements, the burden of proof is on those out there who are suggesting that it WILL lead to these arrangements, not for SSM advocates to DISPROVE unproven allegations. As a matter of fact, it doesn't even make sense to me that SSM would lead to anything more than SSM. Presumably, the same underlying principles which are used to justify laws against polygamy and incest will continue to exist independent of any changes to laws prohibiting SSM.

anonplz

Mar 21, 04, 8:21 pm

And, not trying to help the Forces of Darkness here, but perhaps if you could demonstrate how legalizing same-sex marriage has led to legalized polygamy or legalized incest in countries which have legalized SSM - like the Netherlands or Belgium or the Scandinavian countries or Canada - how those types of arrangements have harmed those societies, your scary allegations would carry more weight. But I haven't seen any such data/studies of any kind. The things I have seen - like the fact that Southern Baptists get divorced at the highest rate among religious Americans or that no-fault divorce laws have led indisputably to higher divorce rates - those are things the Forces of Darkness wish not to talk about. Probably because those types of legal issues reflect a high degree of personal freedom for heterosexuals involved in marriage, and who wants less freedom for themselves? Refusing to get pulled into discussions about those issues helps keep the fundamentalists' hypocrisy from reaching the light of day.

Doppy

Mar 21, 04, 9:13 pm

Originally posted by amanuensis:
Many posters in the various Gay marriage threads poo-poo the idea that anyone would ever think of marrying a pet or a close relative, yet the article SeAAtle refers to mentions both events happening.

But what's the problem, so long as they're opposite sex, right?

If you're allowing op-sex marriage, why not op-sex pet marriage? (ignoring the fact that animals can't enter into contracts)

I think drawing the line at civil unions will make it more difficult down the line for a person to claim it is okay to marry their 12-year old first cousin or their Golden Retriever.

Why? If you're allowing marriage in everything but name, why would that stop people from trying to marry close relatives or pets?

Your argument would be stronger, though still not very strong if you ask me, if you were in favor of no benefits for families headed by same-sex couples. But since you've said you're in favor of benefits, I don't follow how you're arguing that this supposed slippery slope to animal marriage is any less likely.

d

Doppy

Mar 22, 04, 6:16 pm

Jesse "The Body" Ventura settles the issue:

Tough guys Ventura and DeNucci support gay marriage

Michael C. Levenson / STATE HOUSE NEWS SERVICE

BOSTON, MARCH 22, 2004…Former Minnesota Gov. Jesse "The Body" Ventura and state Auditor Joseph DeNucci, a former top-ranked boxer, came to the State House Monday to lend their political muscle and unassailable tough-guy credentials to the fight for gay marriage.

The two political heavyweights, meeting for the first time, appeared to relish the opportunity to showcase their macho, shoot-from-the-hip personas in support of same-sex marriage and against a pending Constitutional amendment that would define marriage as an exclusively heterosexual union.

The event, staged before a small audience of aides, reporters and activists in the Nurses Hall of the State House, was organized by gay rights activists in advance of a possible March 29 vote on the amendment.

Both men poked fun at their images as icons of hardnosed politics, but said they hoped they could help sway centrist public opinion in the pitched battle over gay marriage. They sparked laughter, applause and whoops of support from the aides and activists.

I'm a tough guy, you know, I chew on cigars, I live to the fullest, but I don't like it when I see human rights violated," Ventura said in his trademark basso. While DeNucci wore a suit, Ventura, a fellow through mid-April at Harvard's Institute of Politics, sported a beard, jeans, and tight-fitting Navy SEALS T-shirt.

"We're not the Hetero States of America," he said. "America should be inclusive and should not be separated. We should accept our diversity and accept it with zeal and pride."

"This issue is a human rights issue. That's what it's about - human rights," Ventura said.

http://massequality.org/hot_shns_3_22.php

Guava

Mar 22, 04, 6:27 pm

amanuensis, I have a present for you:

Assimilated Mormons (http://www.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/Movies/03/10/latter.days/index.html)

The voice...of darkness and evil...is calling you...do not resist...you will soon...join those Mormons...before you... http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttravel_forum/wink.gif http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttravel_forum/tongue.gif

Now, Doppy, as for the so called double ballot in 2008, it has the sign of desperation written all over it. The religious zealots are basically saying: "We have no faith in the March 29 ConCon." I am sure they realize by now even if there is an Amendment to vote on, it would be such a poison pill that it is designed to fail. What the zealots have forgotten is that they aren't the only ones who can submit amendment proposition the way they intend to. They like amendments, let's play then. How about the proponents of equal rights also submit Constitution Amendment that will force a complete and unequivoque separation between the Church and State into the MA constitution or say strip any religious organization inconsistent with the Commonwealth's policy of their non for profit status just like how the State of Connecticut has reclassified Boys Scout for their bigotry? They want to submit one amendment? That's too few don't you think. Let's get 10 or 100 questisons on the ballot for 2008 and I am sure the MA residents will be fed up and sick and tire of those that none of them would want to hear anything about it. That's what is like to play around with the Constitution, just a taste of their own medicines, nothing more.

Besides, what makes them think the ballot question would be relevant anyway by then? There is a possibility that the U.S. Supreme Court could have ruled on the validity of gay marriage and the bunch of DOMAs + State Constitution Amendments before then. Nebraska's Constitutional Amendment against gay marriage is about to 'collapse' as per its Attorney General who said that ACLU and gay activists' assault on it is about to brought it down through a Federal Court. This will sure work its way up to the U.S. Supreme Court, and then there is a good chance that those Constitutional Amendments will be invalidated and discarded. By then there will be no need for a MA ballot because it then becomes irrelevant. So the critical thing here is to safeguard the U.S. Constitution. So long as the FMA cannot pass, it is only a matter of time.

Doppy

Apr 30, 04, 9:51 am

This is an interesting bit of history:

But that changed after the passage of the federal Defense of Marriage Act in 1996. Massachusetts was granted “a two-year grace period” before Isaacson and her allies had to defeat various state DOMA bills. Isaacson and the caucus were successful, defeating DOMA measures in 1998, 1999 and 2000.

Facing defeat in the legislature, conservatives launched petition drives to force a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage onto a statewide ballot.

Isaacson and her supporters responded by training volunteers to stand next to signature gatherers to monitor the process and also to politely ask people not to sign the petition. Before the measure could be considered by the legislature, proponents of the initiative needed to gather 65,825 signatures.

While Isaacson’s tactic did not prevent opponents from collecting the necessary signatures it did expose “massive fraud” in the signature gathering process that “proved invaluable” when the petition went to the legislature.

“We were able to say, ‘Hey, the signature gatherers were tricking voters into signing the petition,’” Isaacson said. “Our opponents were gathering signatures on three different issues. While they were trying to stop gay marriage, they were also trying to save horses from needless slaughter. So, they would call people over to their tables and say, ‘save the horses.’ Once we uncovered the fraud, we set up a special Web site where we listed everyone who signed the petition and then we invited people to go to the Web site and look for their names.

“We received hundreds of calls complaining that was not the petition they signed. While we couldn’t take their names off the petition — they were victims of fraud — we were able to use that information to our advantage in the legislature.”

The approach was successful and the former Senate president abruptly adjourned the state’s annual constitutional convention before the petition could be considered. The move angered and mobilized opponents who were determined to get the legislature to consider the measure.

http://www.washblade.com/2004/4-30/news/national/deja.cfm

Doppy

May 10, 04, 9:06 am

That same day, the senior minister of Arlington Street Church, a 275-year-old congregation whose members previously agitated on behalf of the emancipation of slaves and women's suffrage, plans to perform the wedding of another of the plaintiff couples, David Wilson and Robert Compton, on a live broadcast of ABC's "Nightline."

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2004/05/10/unitarians_prepare_to_marry_gays/

They're getting married live on Nightline? :confused:

Anyway, this marriage will really tick off the haters. Not only is it two men getting married (which is worse than two women), but it's also an interracial couple.

Boy, that's going to sting a lot of people.

Guava

May 10, 04, 12:54 pm

After winning the 2004 World Hockey Championships, Canada showed the world a new definition of family and the religious zealots from Massachussets express horror in seeing: The Happy Family (http://www.canoe.ca/)

Canada wins World Championship

Canada's new world champions Steve Staios and Ryan Smyth, from left, carry their children during the ceremony after the winning the final match 5-3 over Sweden.

More Info (http://www.canoe.ca/Slam040510/col_jones-sun.html)

The Sky is Falling! :D

P.S. This is comic relief using a 'coincidental' picture

Doppy

May 10, 04, 1:14 pm

Marriage opponents take case to federal court to stop May 17 weddings
By Associated Press, 5/10/2004 12:40

BOSTON (AP) Conservative groups filed a motion in U.S. District Court Monday to block the legalization of gay marriage next week, arguing that the state's highest court violated the U.S. Constitution with its landmark November ruling.

After unsuccessful attempts to overturn the case in state court, this marks the first time the Massachusetts gay marriage case has been brought into federal court.

The motion argues that the court usurped the constitutional powers of the Legislature and the governor when it changed the state's marriage laws. This, in turn, violated the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees a uniform separation of power in all of the states, the motion argues.

Liberty Counsel, a Florida-based nonprofit, and several other conservative groups filed the case on behalf of Robert Largess, of Boston, vice president of the Catholic Action League.

A similar motion in state court, filed by 13 state lawmakers, was rejected by the Supreme Judicial Court last week.

Mat Staver, president and general counsel of Liberty Counsel, issued a statement Monday saying ''the federal courts are obligated to step in to ensure that Massachusetts is following the basic principle of separation of powers that is vital to our very system of law and government.''

Liberty Counsel is a nonprofit organization that provides legal assistance in cases involving religious rights, abortion and family issues, according to its Web site.

Legal expert Shari Levitan, an attorney with Holland & Knight of Boston, called the latest motion a ''Hail Mary pass.''

''When the laws that are made violate the state Constitution, it is the court's purview to say yes or no,'' Levitan said. ''I think the significance of this is not the case itself but that it highlights such strong emotions. People are willing to go to the mat with any argument to push their claim.''

http://www.boston.com/dailynews/131/region/Marriage_opponents_take_case_t:.shtml

anonplz

May 10, 04, 1:36 pm

Nice. Attacking the court itself when it does its job. :rolleyes:

How long before we start hearing calls to secede? ;) I'm sure Saudi Arabia would admit them as guest workers, if they're so unhappy with life in the United States...