The politically clever way to get special privileges is to call them "rights"-- especially "equal rights."

Marriage has existed for centuries and, until recent times, it has always meant a union between a man and a woman. Over those centuries, a vast array of laws has grown up, all based on circumstances that arise in unions between a man and a woman.

Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said that law has not been based on logic but on experience. To apply a mountain of laws based specifically on experience with relations between a man and a woman to a different relationship where sex differences are not involved would be like applying the rules of baseball to football.

The argument that current marriage laws "discriminate" against ****sexuals confuses discrimination against people with making distinctions among different kinds of behavior.

All laws distinguish among different kinds of behavior. What other purpose does law have?

While people may be treated the same, all their behaviors are not. Laws that forbid bicycles from being ridden on freeways obviously have a different effect on people who have bicycles but no cars.

But this is not discrimination against a person. The cyclist who gets into a car is just as free to drive on the freeway as anybody else.

The question is not whether gays should be permitted to marry. Many gays have already married people of the opposite sex. Conversely, heterosexuals who might want to marry someone of the same sex in order to make some point will be forbidden to do so, just as gays are.

The real issue is whether marriage should be redefined-- and, if for gays, why not for polygamists? Why not for pedophiles?

Despite heavy television advertising in California for "gay marriage," showing blacks being set upon by police dogs during civil right marches, and implying that ****sexuals face the same discrimination today, the analogy is completely false.

Blacks had to sit in the back of the bus because they were black. They were doing exactly what white people were doing-- riding a bus. That is what made it racial discrimination.

Marriage is not a right but a set of legal obligations imposed because the government has a vested interest in unions that, among other things, have the potential to produce children, which is to say, the future population of the nation.

Gays were on their strongest ground when they said that what they did was nobody else's business. Now they are asserting a right to other people's approval, which is wholly different.

None of us has a right to other people's approval.

Thomas Sowell

No we don't have a right to other people's approval but I don't think its a good thing to try an legislate love between two consenting adults.

The answer is quite simple but it would take some compromise from both sides.

Gay couples should be allowed the same rights as married couples. From health benefits to tax laws to making medical decisions. This does away with some places that allow gay couples that have been together to get health benefits without having to have made a legally binding commitment to each other. Much less opportunity for fraud this way. Also by requiring civil unions (remember this term) you give more work to this countries ever increasing level of divorce lawyers. I think another benefit would be that some people would see that not every gay person is out screwing anything that moves. That there are indeed monogamous gay couples and while they don't have the same sexual appetites you do they aren't complete abominations either.

The other side will need to give up this demand that they be considered "married" Take the civil union and complete rights and protections that married couples have and be done with it. This militant need to have everything will only reinforce and grow the numbers of people that want MARRIAGE to be 1 man and 1 woman. If they want to call it marriage so what... legally and publicly it would be a civil union.

But that would take common sense so I don't think it will ever happen

Personally, I'm not hung up on what it's called even though my preference would be "marriage" which really does denote equality rather than different semantics for different groups.

But on larger scale, change takes time such as it has with the Civil Rights movement. I think it takes several generations, if not more, for people to adjust to change or differing concepts, and I think more people wouldn't push back as hard on marriage equality, if equal rights were granted in the form of a different name. Over time, the word "marriage" can be eased in, years from now, when marriage equality has long been granted by law and becomes a non-threatening reality.

If I'm not mistaken - but don't hold me to it - this actually was the plan by some gay groups, but "marriage" became centerstage by the actions of a few in pursuit of equal rights on their own, rather than in line with a broader, organized approach.

However, true equality on any form won't happen here in America until gay families get same federal rights as straight families. Right now, no matter semantics, whether "marriage" or "civil unions," these are state rights only.

I think you are right. I don't remember there being much resistance to equal status and a civil union title. I think it was when radical gay groups demanded that be called marriage as well that the resistance to any status change began to grow.

quote:

Originally posted by Serapheem:
I think you are right. I don't remember there being much resistance to equal status and a civil union title. I think it was when radical gay groups demanded that be called marriage as well that the resistance to any status change began to grow.

There was plenty resistance to that too, and most of these state constitutional amendments take away rights to civil unions and domestic partnership - in a few places, for straights as well.

Change is slow-going and I really do think it takes several generations to integrate new concepts to those wanting to hang onto the status quo.

It's kind of amusing the history of the gay rights movement and what the opposition put forth as reason not to grant this or that right. Once upon a time the opposition tauted promiscuity as reason to deny equal employment opportunites, fairness in housing, inclusion in hate crimes legislation, teaching tolerance, etc. Now the opposition wants to prevent the polar opposite of promiscuity - committed relationships.

And the opposition's battle against equal opportunity was still the hallmark of their fight - but marriage equality has so upped the ante - and society has moved forward bit by bit - enough that even some opposition are dropping their objections to hospital visitation, insurance protections, etc.

We'll see what happens. As a country, I really wish we'd all try harder to get along and continue to progress. We have enough enemies outside ourselves as it is. We Americans show our greatest unity and coming together in times of crisis - there was no distiction between straight or gay, black or white, Christian, Jew or Muslim, "real" America, vs. not, when so many risked their lives and tirelessly gave of themselves to save and assist others during and after 9/11.

quote:

Marriage is not a right but a set of legal obligations imposed because the government has a vested interest in unions that, among other things, have the potential to produce children, which is to say, the future population of the nation.

Drek. And so then a heterosexual couple who can not have children are not entitled to marriage either. I won't spend time pointing out the myriad of other logical fallacies offered in that one quoted sentence, let alone the rest of the essay.

Based on the faulty and dishonest logic in that post, I have to believe it was merely an outcome driven analysis, rather than an analysis driven outcome.

Whoever wrote that essay was obviously a little gun shy to state the real reason why he opposes gay marriage: Leviticus.

quote:

Whoever wrote that essay was obviously a little gun shy to state the real reason why he opposes gay marriage: Leviticus

very true. It is always scary when religion is used to make laws and in this situation it is the only reason we are talking about this.
Alot of people say that gay marraige will cheapen or make straight marraige less valid. Crazy - i have been married to the same woman for 10 years and whatever two other consenting adults do doesn't in any way cheapen my marraige.
then there is the slippery slope - "if we allow this then what if a man wants to marry a horse or a goat?????" more silliness.

quote:

Originally posted by JamesBond:

quote:

Marriage is not a right but a set of legal obligations imposed because the government has a vested interest in unions that, among other things, have the potential to produce children, which is to say, the future population of the nation.

Drek. And so then a heterosexual couple who can not have children are not entitled to marriage either. I won't spend time pointing out the myriad of other logical fallacies offered in that one quoted sentence, let alone the rest of the essay.

Based on the faulty and dishonest logic in that post, I have to believe it was merely an outcome driven analysis, rather than an analysis driven outcome.

Whoever wrote that essay was obviously a little gun shy to state the real reason why he opposes gay marriage: Leviticus.

You're right, it's drek. It's effort to find rationalization for discrimination in twisted religious and social concepts.


Newt Gingrich, Monday, mouthed off another fear-mongering rant - these people just can't shut up with their efforts to lie and distort and spur the seeds of hate.

On Novemeber 14, on FoxNews - in an interview with Bill O'Reilly, he said this:

"Look, I think there is a gay and secular fascism in this country that wants to impose its will on the rest of us, is prepared to use violence, to use harassment. I think it is prepared to use the government if it can get control of it. I think that it is a very dangerous threat to anybody who believes in traditional religion. And I think if you believe in historic Christianity, you have to confront the fact. And, frank -- for that matter, if you believe in the historic version of Islam or the historic version of Judaism, you have to confront the reality that these secular extremists are determined to impose on you acceptance of a series of values that are antithetical, they're the opposite, of what you're taught in Sunday school."

Leave it to those loving inequality for gays, hating the Equal Protection Clause, the theocracy seekers, to twist actuality on it's head.

The fact that, over and over, and over, they lie, twist and distort the truth in ads, and what they tell their constituents and church members online, in person, in writing, via robocalls - they constantly make things up - just goes to show how disengenuous they are, how they readily acknowledge by word and deed that they must lie to keep the indocrinated, indocrinated in order to foster their own power agenda via the support of an army of blind followers.

And why is it Newt sought to use "Islam" in his comment? Newt doesn't choose his words by accident.

Last thing - we're talking Newt Gringrich the thrice divorced traditional values "family man," the one who divorced his dying wife for another woman.

quote:

Originally posted by mookie1:

quote:

Whoever wrote that essay was obviously a little gun shy to state the real reason why he opposes gay marriage: Leviticus

very true. It is always scary when religion is used to make laws and in this situation it is the only reason we are talking about this.
Alot of people say that gay marraige will cheapen or make straight marraige less valid. Crazy - i have been married to the same woman for 10 years and whatever two other consenting adults do doesn't in any way cheapen my marraige.
then there is the slippery slope - "if we allow this then what if a man wants to marry a horse or a goat?????" more silliness.

They will stop at nothing. This is their history and on, and on, and on.

Back in 1992, Colorado passed Prop 2 - which barred gays from entering into contractual arrangements with their partners.

Took four years, but the Supreme Court overturned it.

I found it interesting that the Mormon church put 20 MILLION into stopping gay marriage.
Mormons are well known as people who believe marriage is between ONE man and as many children as that one man can marry.
The "sanctity" of marriage people usually are in their 2nd or 3rd marriage.

quote:

between ONE man and as many children as that one man can marry.

They don't believe in marrying their children. Is that something you might like getting young children. They believe in more than one wife.

quote:

Originally posted by Tolerance:

quote:

Originally posted by JamesBond:

quote:

Marriage is not a right but a set of legal obligations imposed because the government has a vested interest in unions that, among other things, have the potential to produce children, which is to say, the future population of the nation.

Drek. And so then a heterosexual couple who can not have children are not entitled to marriage either. I won't spend time pointing out the myriad of other logical fallacies offered in that one quoted sentence, let alone the rest of the essay.

Based on the faulty and dishonest logic in that post, I have to believe it was merely an outcome driven analysis, rather than an analysis driven outcome.

Whoever wrote that essay was obviously a little gun shy to state the real reason why he opposes gay marriage: Leviticus.

You're right, it's drek. It's effort to find rationalization for discrimination in twisted religious and social concepts.


Newt Gingrich, Monday, mouthed off another fear-mongering rant - these people just can't shut up with their efforts to lie and distort and spur the seeds of hate.

On Novemeber 14, on FoxNews - in an interview with Bill O'Reilly, he said this:

"Look, I think there is a gay and secular fascism in this country that wants to impose its will on the rest of us, is prepared to use violence, to use harassment. I think it is prepared to use the government if it can get control of it. I think that it is a very dangerous threat to anybody who believes in traditional religion. And I think if you believe in historic Christianity, you have to confront the fact. And, frank -- for that matter, if you believe in the historic version of Islam or the historic version of Judaism, you have to confront the reality that these secular extremists are determined to impose on you acceptance of a series of values that are antithetical, they're the opposite, of what you're taught in Sunday school."

Leave it to those loving inequality for gays, hating the Equal Protection Clause, the theocracy seekers, to twist actuality on it's head.

The fact that, over and over, and over, they lie, twist and distort the truth in ads, and what they tell their constituents and church members online, in person, in writing, via robocalls - they constantly make things up - just goes to show how disengenuous they are, how they readily acknowledge by word and deed that they must lie to keep the indocrinated, indocrinated in order to foster their own power agenda via the support of an army of blind followers.

And why is it Newt sought to use "Islam" in his comment? Newt doesn't choose his words by accident.

Last thing - we're talking Newt Gringrich the thrice divorced traditional values "family man," the one who divorced his dying wife for another woman.

Tolerance, this is just a silly mutation of the Southern Strategy. Since dividing us along racial lines alone is no longer a viable GOP strategy to win elections, they must find new red meat to get back their precious "Joe Sixpack" vote.

There are few things that Joe Sixpack likes less than gays.

My philosophy is that I never support any change of the Constitution to take rights away from us. I will only change the Constitution to give us more rights.

Just a couple of questions to get the lay of the land here

How many husbands or wives should a person be able to be married to at one time?

How young of a person should be allowed to get married?

If a teenage minor can get an abortion without parental consent should they also be able to get married without it once they reach puberty?

Once gay marriage is part of the constitution, you open a can of worms.