|
|
Forum: Off Topic
Thread (Discussion): Gay Marriage - Coming soon to America? - Gays dont care
Message 122028
Posted by Silverthorne
on Nov 20, 2003 05:39 PM | Also by Silverthorne
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Arizona,
Country: United States |
I just wondered what everyone thinks of the gay marriage decision by the Massachusettes Supreme Court. It basically states there is nothing in the constitution prohibiting it.
How do people feel about it and why? Also would you be more in favor of civil unions (like Vermont) giving homosexuals the right to have recognized relationships with the legal rights of hetrosexuals without going as far as calling it marriage?
One of the couples in the Massachusettes lawsuit have been together for 32 years. I think they have shown they love one another.
Silverthorne
Forum Home
| Top of Thread
Message 122032 (In Reply to Message 122028)
Labels
Posted by orolan
on Nov 20, 2003 07:10 PM | Also by orolan
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: N/A,
Country: United States |
What is a "marriage"? An act performed in a church, as opposed to one performed in a judge's chambers? An act consecrated by the established religion of the participants, or an act consecrated by two people signing a document in the Clerk of Courts office?
If "marriage" as a legal act involves only acts that occur in church or under Biblical or other religious tenets, the Constitution would prohibit the government from controlling it in any way, under the doctrine of seperation of church and state.
As such, "marriage" laws are in fact governing "civil unions", because that is all they CAN govern. All people who have been legally "married" by going and getting a "license" at the courthouse have executed a "civil union".
So to answer your questions; I agree with and applaud the decision, and I think there should be NO difference in what it is "called" or what rights and priveleges are garnered because of it.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (122028)
Message 122046 (In Reply to Message 122032)
Posted by Silverthorne
on Nov 20, 2003 11:58 PM | Also by Silverthorne
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Arizona,
Country: United States |
I agree Orolan. In fact as I understand it the government isn't supposed to make any law which puts forth a religion. Now the anti-marriage people are using "religious" often in describing the "sanctity of marriage".
Well if a church doesnt want to do a gay marriage they shouldnt have to. Likewise though someone who wants to get married shouldnt be regulated by laws that are passed REPRESENTING a relgious point of view.
Ive seen these anti-marriage people write about the purpose of marriage being procreation and families. Well there are plenty of gay couples with children (good families). Likewise there are plenty of SINGLE HETROSEXUAL PARENTS in the world. Why aren't all these "good Christain folk" adopting all these needy children?
I view the issue like I view abortion. If you don't want it don't do it. But MY religious beliefs (yes I have religious beliefs) should NOT be forced on anyone else.
Did everyone read the story in the papers last week about the Catholic bishops? They were discussing ways to "punish" Catholic lawmakers who voted for laws against Catholic teachings.
Now as I recall a lawmaker represents ALL thier constituents and not just the ones of a particular religion.
THAT is the danger of people passing laws based on their religious beliefs.
Silverthorne
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (122032)
Message 122053 (In Reply to Message 122046)
Posted by orolan
on Nov 21, 2003 01:39 AM | Also by orolan
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: N/A,
Country: United States |
Even the President goes so far as to tout the Biblical definition of marriage, in calling for a Constitutional amendment prohibiting gay marriages.
My sister was "married" in a ceremony at a Unitarian Church in Florida. She has since "divorced", but she recently moved to Pennsylvania so she can adopt one of our brother's granddaughters. Florida would not allow it because she is openly gay, but apparently Pennsylvania will. If she doesn't adopt this baby, who will? Not my brother. He has two of the grandkids with him already. My sister loves that baby, and will be a great mother to her. Sad that society can only think that she has ulterior motives.
I too have religious beliefs, but I believe we all find God in our own way, and with different names and doctrines. I think everybody is believing and worshipping the same Supreme Being, just in a manner more suited to their particular culture. Of course, my Baptist pastor takes an extreme dislike to my philosophy, but he is at least open enough to listen. I think the fact that he is quite young(24) has something to do with it.
Religion will always be a battleground in America. Hopefully it will never escalate to the point such religious disagreements do in other parts of the world, where they start bringing out the guns and bombs.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (122046)
Message 122262 (In Reply to Message 122028)
yep
Posted by poetsdreamscape
on Nov 25, 2003 02:23 AM | Also by poetsdreamscape
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: N/A,
Country: United States |
What do I care if same sex wants to marry. But the reality of it is that it wont happen anytime soon because it would shame all the bible toting idiots when it proves that man and man will survive what man and women have a hard time doing and thats staying togther. Why do you think there are more condemnations in the bible on hetrosexuals then homosexuals?
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (122028)
Message 122344 (In Reply to Message 122262)
Posted by Silverthorne
on Nov 25, 2003 08:53 PM | Also by Silverthorne
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Arizona,
Country: United States |
Agreed. I'm personally shocked as an American that they would even consider a constitutional ammendment like they are. It would basically decalre homosexuals "second class citizens". I would be happy to see civil unions allowed and not marriages but some of the more right-wing religious groups are even calling for an ammendment to ban those as well.
Not since slavery and Jim Crow have we seen such shameful conduct. No one can tell me either how letting homosexuals marry will affect THEM anyway? How will THEY be affected if homosexuals are given equal rights. The truth is they wont be. Its all religion and belief in SIN. We don't allow laws based on religion here (supporting religion) thus we clearly shouldn't allow the religious right to force thier belief system on those that don't want it.
Silverthorne
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (122262)
Message 122345 (In Reply to Message 122028)
Related story - HRC
Posted by Silverthorne
on Nov 25, 2003 09:02 PM | Also by Silverthorne
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Arizona,
Country: United States |
www.hrc.org
The Human Rights Campaign is starting an ad campaign in support of gay marraige. I saw they had a big ad in todays (Tuesday) USA Today paper (in the front section) showing a lesbian couple and their three children. It was a very compelling ad.
Heres an article about the ad campaign. Its available on the HRC site as well (mentioned above). When you read about a gay 9/11 partner not getting the same survivor benefits as the other 9/11 victims families and a senior couple worried about death benefits it really makes you wonder WHY? These people are American taxpayers and are expected to live by our laws yet we deny them the most basic human rights.
Silverthorne
ARTICLE:
HRC LAUNCHES NATIONAL AD CAMPAIGN ON SAME-SEX CIVIL MARRIAGE
New Ads Put Human Face on Civil Marriage Issue
WASHINGTON — The Human Rights Campaign Foundation launched a new ad campaign today aimed at educating the public about the fundamental rights and benefits that are granted to couples in this country by obtaining a civil marriage license. Same-sex couples are routinely denied those rights and benefits because they are not allowed to enter into civil marriages.
"This campaign answers the question, 'How does society benefit by providing civil marriage licenses to all committed, loving couples?'" said HRC Executive Director Elizabeth Birch. "Civil marriage licenses, which are wholly separate from the religious institution, ensure that devoted couples can visit each other in the hospital, have the protection of pension, health care and Social Security benefits, and generally allow couples to care for one another and their children. The legal rights, benefits and protections of civil marriage should be provided to all couples, straight and gay."
HRC unveiled a suite of five advertisements at the National Press Club. The ads feature real same-sex couples facing hardships, including the surviving partner of a Sept. 11 victim who was not eligible for the same benefits as other surviving partners, and a senior couple who worry about passing on their pension and retirement savings. Married couples have the safety net of civil marriage and Social Security protections and do not face such hardships.
"These families pay taxes just like every other American family, but do not have the same rights," said Birch. "According to the 2000 Census, same-sex couples are in 99.3 percent of counties in this country. We are your family and friends, your neighbors, your co-workers – when people begin to know and understand gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people, they realize the discrimination we face is wrong and un-American."
Congress is currently considering the Federal Marriage Amendment, which would amend the U.S. Constitution for only the 18th time since the Bill of Rights, to permanently define marriage in this country as being between one man and one woman. It would also deny each state the right to decide family law and relationship recognition for itself. If the amendment were to pass, it would be the first time that the Constitution has been amended to specifically deny rights and protections to a single group of Americans.
"With an uncertain economy and threats to our national security, politicians should be strengthening families, not seeking to permanently deny them critical protections," said Birch. "A constitutional amendment is a rarely used tool that should never be employed to write discrimination into our most cherished document."
According to an ABC News poll, only 20 percent of Americans favor a constitutional ban on civil marriages for same-sex couples; 33 percent oppose such marriages but wouldn't amend the Constitution; and 37 percent would make them legal. Of those who oppose civil marriage equality for gays and lesbians, 60 percent still say it's not worth amending the Constitution.
The Human Rights Campaign is the largest national lesbian and gay political organization with members throughout the country. It effectively lobbies Congress, provides campaign support and educates the public to ensure that lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americans can be open, honest and safe at home, at work and in the community.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (122028)
Message 122888 (In Reply to Message 122053)
Churchies with their undies in a knot.
Posted by marta
on Dec 11, 2003 12:22 AM | Also by marta
| Gender: Female,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: N/A,
Country: United States |
This debate is so irritating to me. The only way that marriage matters to the government is in the legal benefits, civil union kind of way. The Constitution very clearly dictates that the government not discriminate based on sex in it's provision of such benefits, which is what it does when it says that gay couples can not enjoy the legal benefits that heterosexual couples do when they get married. And as the government is not a religious institution, it is not at all clear to me what possible concern it can have outside of the provision of legal benefits.
As for the churchies, let them marry gay people if they want, and not if they don't. But the option to go to the courthouse is Constitutionally protected for everyone. We all just have to wait until the Supreme Court acknowledges that this is true.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (122053)
Message 122907 (In Reply to Message 122888)
Marta - and all - reply
Posted by Silverthorne
on Dec 11, 2003 02:45 AM | Also by Silverthorne
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Arizona,
Country: United States |
Last Sundays Arizona Republic had a FANTASTIC article (commentary) written by Alan Dershowitz (famous person). It was fantastic. I'll post it below I thought it was great. I also think you'll never see it here. But its 100% TRUE.
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-oe-dersh3dec03,1,3811758.story
STORY:
COMMENTARY
To Fix Gay Dilemma, Government Should Quit the Marriage Business
Times Headlines
COMMENTARY
By Alan M. Dershowitz,
Alan M. Dershowitz is a law professor at Harvard University.
The decision of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court declaring that gays have a constitutional right to marry could become a powerful wedge issue in American politics. There is, however, a way to avoid that.
Those who oppose gay marriage believe deeply that marriage is sacreda divine, a blessed sacrament between man and woman as ordained in the Bible. If they are right, then the entire concept of marriage has no place in our civil society, which recognizes the separation between the sacred and the secular, between church and state.
The state is, of course, concerned with the secular rights and responsibilities that are currently associated with the sacrament of marriage: the financial consequences of divorce, the custody of children, Social Security and hospital benefits, etc.
The solution is to unlink the religious institution of marriage — as distinguished from the secular institution of civil union — from the state. Under this proposal, any couple could register for civil union, recognized by the state, with all its rights and responsibilities.
Religious couples could then go to the church, synagogue, mosque or other sacred institution of their choice in order to be married. These religious institutions would have total decision-making authority over which marriages to recognize. Catholic churches would not recognize gay marriages. Orthodox Jewish synagogues would not recognize a marriage between a Jew and a non-Jew who did not wish to convert to Judaism. And those religious institutions that chose to recognize gay marriages could do so. It would be entirely a religious decision beyond the scope of the state.
Under this new arrangement, marriage would remain a sacrament, as ordained by the Bible and as interpreted by each individual church. No secular consequences would flow from marriage, only from civil union.
In this way, gay couples would win exactly the same rights as heterosexual couples in relationship to the state. They would still have to persuade individual churches of their point of view, but that is not the concern of the secular state.
Not only would this solution be good for gays and for those who oppose gay marriage on religious grounds, it would also strengthen the wall of separation between church and state by placing a sacred institution entirely in the hands of the church while placing a secular institution under state control.
Although this proposal may sound radical, it does not differ fundamentally — except for labels — from the situation that exists in many states today. Throughout the United States, couples have the option of being married civilly by going to town halls or to a justice of the peace and simply signing a marriage certificate. They also have the option of going to a church, synagogue or mosque and being married in a religious ceremony. So most Americans already have the choice between a sacrament and a secular agreement ratified by the state.
All that would be different would be the name we give the secular agreement. The word "marriage" would be reserved for those who chose the religious sacrament.
Though some traditionalists would be certain to balk at an explicit division between marriage and civil union, a majority of Americans already agree that gay couples should be allowed to join in secular unions with the rights and responsibilities that generally accompany marriage.
So let each couple decide whether they want to receive the sacrament of marriage or the secular status of civil union. And let the state get out of the business of determining who should receive holy sacraments.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (122888)
Message 122927 (In Reply to Message 122907)
A Biblical response that's supportive?
Posted by lj
on Dec 11, 2003 10:26 AM | Also by lj
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: California,
Country: United States |
Quote from the article:
"And let the state get out of the business of determining who should receive holy sacraments."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also, how about letting the Church get out of the business of expecting those outside of the Church to abide by Christian values when it comes to their views on such subjects as gay marriage.
Without sounding "preachy", in 1 Cor. 5:12, the Apostle Paul basically states that it's not up to him and other Christians to judge those who are outside of their faith. Those outside of the Christian faith are not bound by the pronouncements within the faith. In essence then, if gays want to marry using a secular agreement for a civil union, it's not a Church issue to worry about.
So, it's not quite as radical as Mr. Dershowitz contends--as the idea has been around for quite some time now.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (122907)
Message 122929 (In Reply to Message 122927)
A Corrolllory
Posted by tryingtosurvive
on Dec 11, 2003 03:22 PM | Also by tryingtosurvive
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: N/A,
Country: Australia |
At the outset let me firmly endorse the rights of homos etc wanting to get the right square on thier deal ..... they may be what I call "uphill gardeners " poofters or what ever .... they definitely have a right to be treated to a fair deal and given respect for who they are and what they want . Anything less barbaric .
The corrollory which mebbe none of you may find intereseting .. is this ; I have horrible rape charges againt me and my beloved has boring Family Court stuff going against her ... I will not bore the board with the legal ramificvations of a civil unioun ...
I love my lady and meld to her for better and for worse .... basicly what I am saying is that we might consider running this promise before a Catholic priest for guidance ..... but we have lost all faith with any civil endevour
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (122927)
Message 122953 (In Reply to Message 122046)
the church
Posted by myoung
on Dec 11, 2003 08:55 PM | Also by myoung
| Gender: N/A,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Pennsylvania,
Country: United States |
I think we need to leave the church out of the marriage business. If it were only about religion in a union of two people then a judge or a captain, etc. couldn't marry a couple (which of course they can). I think the governent needs to recognize unions not "marriages". I think the whole idea of gay marriages falls under my "it's about freakin' time" file. This was a ridiculous prohibition in the first place. Where in the constitution does it say anything about it being necessary that a union has to be between a man and a woman? Article [I.] (See Note 13)
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Just never understood where the argument lay in the first place. I just skimmed through the constitution on line and could not find anywhere that this issue was addressed. Live and let live for pete's sake!! Why is it anyone's business who someone is dating unless of course you are married to that person...hehe!! Maybe people need to spend more time concentrating on their own personal lives and not those of others with respect to their gender preference of parnters. There is a gay couple that live in a big beautiful house down the street from me and they have been together for more than thirty years. Both professionals with a great deal of money. Any child would be very lucky to have them as parents. Why shouldn't they be able to stand in front of the God they believe in and pledge their eternal love for each other!? It just isn't anyone's business if they do. They should also be provided the same spousal rights as hetero couples with regard to death benefits, health benefits, tax benefits, adoption,etc. There is not one thing that makes them different from any hetero person with the exception of who they sleep with.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (122046)
Message 122960 (In Reply to Message 122953)
Posted by orolan
on Dec 11, 2003 11:31 PM | Also by orolan
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: N/A,
Country: United States |
With two siblings involved in serious, long-term gay relationships, I have to agree. Well said.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (122953)
Message 122966 (In Reply to Message 122927)
Bravo LJ
Posted by Silverthorne
on Dec 12, 2003 12:05 AM | Also by Silverthorne
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Arizona,
Country: United States |
"Also, how about letting the Church get out of the business of expecting those outside of the Church to abide by Christian values when it comes to their views on such subjects as gay marriage. "
Bravo LJ !!!!
Silverthorne
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (122927)
Message 122967 (In Reply to Message 122953)
Gays dont care
Posted by Silverthorne
on Dec 12, 2003 12:07 AM | Also by Silverthorne
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Arizona,
Country: United States |
Most gays dont seem to care about the "holy" part anyway. They want the rights and benefits of hetro married couples.
Survivor rights, hospital visitation, inheritance, property, adoption, on and on there are over 1000 rights granted to MARRIED (ie-hetrosexual) couples that homosexual couples cant have.
One of the couples in the Massachusettes case was a lesbian couple that had been together for something like 32 years. I think they're "in love" and dedicated.
Silverthorne
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (122953)
Thread
122028, Silverthorne, Nov 20, 2003 05:39 PM
122032, orolan, Nov 20, 2003 07:10 PM [Labels]
122046, Silverthorne, Nov 20, 2003 11:58 PM
122053, orolan, Nov 21, 2003 01:39 AM
122888, marta, Dec 11, 2003 12:22 AM [Churchies with their undies in a knot.]
122907, Silverthorne, Dec 11, 2003 02:45 AM [Marta - and all - reply]
122927, lj, Dec 11, 2003 10:26 AM [A Biblical response that's supportive?]
122929, tryingtosurvive, Dec 11, 2003 03:22 PM [A Corrolllory]
122966, Silverthorne, Dec 12, 2003 12:05 AM [Bravo LJ]
122953, myoung, Dec 11, 2003 08:55 PM [the church]
122960, orolan, Dec 11, 2003 11:31 PM
122967, Silverthorne, Dec 12, 2003 12:07 AM [Gays dont care]
122262, poetsdreamscape, Nov 25, 2003 02:23 AM [yep]
122344, Silverthorne, Nov 25, 2003 08:53 PM
122345, Silverthorne, Nov 25, 2003 09:02 PM [Related story - HRC]
Forum Home
| Top of Thread
|
|
|
