Russian government blatantly anti-Jewish... Reporter in Poland about to be jailed for critizising the Pope...
And now, again, here in the land of the free:
quote:Supporters to push same-sex marriage ban Monday, January 24, 2005 Posted: 6:29 PM EST (2329 GMT)
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Senate supporters of a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage said Monday they intend to press for passage in the new Congress, brushing aside mixed signals from the White House on the issue's importance at the start of President Bush's second term.
"Who's to say whether we have enough votes or not," said Sen. Wayne Allard, R-Colorado, noting that the new two-year Congress has just begun.
He said he expects GOP leaders to call for a vote before the 2006 elections and added, "I think it would be foolhardy to back off when we've got a good head of steam coming out of the election." The amendment fell far short of passage a year ago.
The amendment states that marriage "shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman," adding that no state would be required to give legal recognition to same-sex marriages sanctioned by any other state.
Vote counters on both sides of the issue agree that Senate backers of the amendment picked up support in the 2004 elections, and the presence of Sen. John Thune, R-South Dakota at the news conference underscored that. Last fall Thune defeated former Democratic Leader Tom Daschle, who had opposed the amendment.
"There were a lot of races ... where this issue was prominent," Thune said.
Supporters of the amendment mustered only 48 votes last year on a procedural motion needed to keep the proposal alive in the Senate. A two-thirds majority is needed for passage.
Most Democrats signaled their opposition to the measure on the vote, and Bush and others have said it's unlikely there will be much of a change in senatorial sentiment unless there is a court ruling requiring one state to recognize same-sex marriages performed in another.
But Allard said he thought some opponents might reconsider more quickly in the wake of last fall's elections. "I know the Democrats are re-evaluating their position on a number of social issues, and I'll bet this is one of those issues," he said.
There was no immediate evidence of a switch among opponents, though. "The Democratic Party is still opposed to this amendment," said outgoing party chairman Terry McAuliffe. "It is wrong to write discrimination into the U.S. Constitution and it is shameful for Washington Republicans to attack gay and lesbian families for purely political reasons."
In addition to the impact the issue had in congressional campaigns, voters in 13 states approved ballot initiatives last year that were backed by gay marriage opponents.
Bush pushed hard for a vote in both houses of Congress on the amendment during last year's election campaign. This year, he said in a Washington Post interview he will not lobby the Senate to pass the amendment, adding there are not enough supporters to approve the measure. When social conservatives complained, White House communications director Dan Bartlett said Bush was talking about the "legislative reality," and will continue to push for the ban.
Additionally, White House strategist Karl Rove did not mention the issue when he spoke to GOP lawmakers earlier this winter and laid out the president's top priorities.
Nor did the GOP leadership include the measure on its list of top 10 legislative priorities for the next two years, an agenda topped by Bush's call for landmark Social Security legislation and an overhaul of the tax code. Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tennessee, said the measure was omitted because it is an amendment rather than traditional legislation, and said he hoped it would pass.
quote:WASHINGTON — The Human Rights Campaign denounced today’s reintroduction of an amendment that would deny marriage to same-sex couples, emphasizing how out-of-touch Sen. Wayne Allard, R-Colo.; his co-sponsors; President Bush and the extreme right wing are with the American public on the issue of writing discrimination into the Constitution.
“The American people value freedom, not discrimination,” said HRC Political Director Winnie Stachelberg. “Americans want laws that ensure the safety and stability of their neighbors, and that’s what our policymakers should be focused on. Pushing an amendment that would deny protections to millions of Americans is completely out-of-step with our nation’s values.”
According to an article in The Rocky Mountain News, Allard today plans to reintroduce the so-called Marriage Protection Amendment, which would deny marriage to same-sex couples and deny the ability to provide any protections to same-sex couples, such as domestic partnerships and civil unions.
In a Jan. 16 interview with The Washington Post, President Bush acknowledged the lack of congressional support for the amendment and told reporters he “will not press senators to pass a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.” After being pressured by the extreme right wing, the administration backtracked, declaring they would expend political capital to push the discriminatory amendment, despite knowing they lack the votes.
The amendment failed in both the House and Senate last year, by a 227-186 margin in the House in September and a 48-50 vote in the Senate in July.
“Sixty percent of Americans support either marriage or civil unions for same-sex couples,” added Stachelberg. “Same-sex couples are already denied more than 1,100 federal protections that other families take for granted. This amendment would enshrine that discrimination into our nation’s most cherished document of freedom. It would also threaten protections that states have enacted, and on which thousands of American families already rely. It’s wrong. Congress should be spending time protecting Americans, not looking for ways to preserve our peril.”
The Human Rights Campaign is the largest national lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender political organization with members throughout the country. It effectively lobbies Congress, provides campaign support and educates the public to ensure that LGBT Americans can be open, honest and safe at home, at work and in the community.
quote:"It is wrong to write discrimination into the U.S. Constitution and it is shameful for Washington Republicans to attack gay and lesbian families for purely political reasons."
This is absolutely true... These people, like Karl Rove, don't give a damn about gay marriage or families... all they care about is the idea that they can get more power and money feeding on bigotry and ingnorance.
The only good thing (and it's a good thing!) is that it will fail to pass again. They don't have the votes.
[ January 25, 2005, 03:53 AM: Message edited by: Telperion the Silver ]
Posted by Kama (Member # 3022) on :
Huh? Telp, any info on the second one?
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
Which second one darlin'? The quoted sentence? That's from a Democrate in the first article. The second article is from http://www.hrc.org/. As for the vote, this is the second or third time a Congressman/Senator has tried to bring up the vote on changing the Constitution banning gay marriage/unions/etc...
Posted by Kama (Member # 3022) on :
no, the thing about Poland. You know, I only care about MY country
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
AAAhhh.... yes... a Polish reporter has been taken to court because he insulted the Pope in an article. Just heard about it on the BBC.
Posted by Kama (Member # 3022) on :
(sorry for derailing)
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
That's ok babes. Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
While the right-wing Republicans may not really have lost touch too badly with a good number of their base supporters, I think they truly have lost touch with the real meaning of the Constitution.
In 20 years, when today's younger generations take over, the Republicans are going to suffer quite a large blow because they've been building up so much bad karma with tomorrow's voters.
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
When did we, as a people, start to even think that we can just simply re-write or add to the Constitution?
It's the ammendment for this, or changing the term limits or allowing foreign-born citizens to run for president. A few years back, it was going to be a ban on burning the flag.
We've been so lucky, so far, that it really does take a lot of work to change the Constitution. Of course, they may work to change that before long, if this keeps up.
And then our Constitution will be as large and byzantine as our books of federal law.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:These people, like Karl Rove, don't give a damn about gay marriage or families... all they care about is the idea that they can get more power and money feeding on bigotry and ingnorance.
I'm afraid this is generally true of all political figures. I'm sure there are exceptions both in terms of causes and of people, but I have really come to believe this is the general rule... and this amendment, last time around, was just one more example.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: When did we, as a people, start to even think that we can just simply re-write or add to the Constitution?
In all fairness, I think we should be able to simply re-write or add to the Constitution. It's an old document, and isn't always applicable. Most of our updates to it have been fairly important.
It's only since we allowed the federal government to have too much power over our daily lives that we've started trying to write that kind of niggling, legalistic control into the Constitution; that's the problem, not the amendment process itself.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
After looking at the proposal I’ve found that this is a definition of marriage act. Not a homosexual marriage ban act. Big difference. You might say they are one in the same. But one defines what marriage is. The other bans a type of marriage. What is wrong with defining what marriage is?
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
How ironic that the google ads at the bottom both refer to LDS Singles dating sites.
[edit: well they did when I wrote that]
[ January 25, 2005, 09:25 AM: Message edited by: KarlEd ]
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
It's unnessasary. You do not need an amendment that limits people's rights like this.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Jay, you're being as disingenuous as the politicians. You can't seriously expect anyone to believe that this "definition" of marriage isn't being forced into law to specifically BAN homosexual marriages.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I wonder if we passed an amendment defining "voter" as "anyone whose name does not begin with the letter 'J...'"
I mean, it's just a definition, right?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Jay, if you're conservative, then states rights should mean something to you.
If they do, you should oppose this amendment.
Dagonee
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Actually, I think the Republican politicians DO care about this and it's something that bothers me greatly about the Republican party. I think many Democrats would vote for this admendment if they thought they could get away with it and I think many of them will feel justified in doing so based on the last election.
Don't forget, VERY liberal states have passed anti-gay marriage legislation. California and Hawai'i SPRING to mind. If this amendment makes it through congress it's going to have clear sailing to get 35 states. And it will take another 50-100 years to get it repealed, if it ever gets repealed. Not in my lifetime.
Maybe the dems will be able to filibuster this for forever. Some dems might feel they have to vote for this to get re-elected, but if they filibuster they won't HAVE to vote. This will be a real test of the democrats commitment to gay rights. One they failed in '96(?) when Bill Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:Jay, if you're conservative, then states rights should mean something to you.
If they do, you should oppose this amendment.
This is why I oppose it.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Defining marriage is a good thing. That way you can’t go marry sixty people so they could all be on your insurance. You also couldn’t marry your dog. It is a matter of states rights since marriages cross state lines and other states usually have to recognize other states marriages. Since the definition of marriage is being abused it could use defining. What’s wrong with civil unions or roommates? Why does the religious act of marriage have to be defamed? But now a days it doesn’t seem like marriage mean much with the way divorce rates are.
Posted by just_me (Member # 3302) on :
quote: You also couldn’t marry your dog.
You know, just because this is a common phrase used in these discussions doesn't make it any more acceptable or make anyone employing it less of a bigot.
If you're really worried about people marrying 60 other people or marrying their dog, then just define marriage as a union between 2 PEOPLE.
Roomates and civil unions do not afford the rights (hospital visitation etc) that 'marriage' does.
The Government should not be defining marriage. They should define a union in which two people allow certain rights to each other. They can call this whatever they want... 'super special friendship' for all I care, but I think 'civil union' works well. Marriage can be left to be defined by churches who choose to do so, and they don't all have to define it the same way.
If you get hitched in a non-religious ceromony, you have a civil union. If you get hitched in the church you are married in that church, and you also have a civil union.
Couples rights and taxes etc are based on Civil unions, and states are required to recognize unions from other states.
-me
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
quote: It's a religious act. Congress has no authority to define it in the first place.
Please quote to me where this is stated in the Constitution. The current way of defining separation of church and state is so wrong from how the founding fathers meant it to be. First of separation of church and state isn’t in the Constitution. It’s a court opinion.
The 1st amendment says:
quote: 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.
This was meant so the government couldn’t say that such and such is the state religion. Not so we couldn’t make laws that define a legal term that we use everywhere from taxes to benefits to morals.
Posted by Derrell (Member # 6062) on :
The thought of the government messing with the Constitution scares me. Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
quote: specific religion
Muslims marry
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:The thought of the government messing with the Constitution scares me. [Angst]
It was because the government messed with the constitution that we ended up with the Bill of Rights in the first place.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Adam, I think it's violative of the spirit of the First Amendment, but almost certianly not violative of the actual prohibitions on government actions embodied therein. If SCOTUS ever requires gay marriage, it will be under the EP clause of the 14th.
It's just as dangerous to consider unacceptable laws based (edit: solely) on their coinciding with a particular religious belief as it is to propose laws solely because of their coinciding with a particular religious belief.
While I steadfastly believe religious beliefs can legitimately inform support or opposition to laws, especially on the values decision that must inform all legislation, there must be secular reasoning underlying such support and opposition as well.
Dagonee
[ January 25, 2005, 01:29 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:It was because the government messed with the constitution that we ended up with the Bill of Rights in the first place.
And the 14th Amendment.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:It's just as dangerous to consider unacceptable laws based on their coinciding with a particular religious belief as it is to propose laws solely because of their coinciding with a particular religious belief.
Excellent point.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Hmm. To be fair, I think I need a "solely" in the first clause of the comparison as well.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
Sure, but wouldn't it be better not to have a law built on the basis on one religion, in which the beliefs of that religion are forced upon people who don't believe in them? Particularly the law violates the rights of the non-believers rather than the rights of the believers? I mean, we wouldn't want to make a national law defining meat as only non-pork animal flesh, right?
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Who, pray tell, would be on the losing end if people were allowed to add 60 or 70 people to their insurance policies?
Surely we're not suggesting that this would somehow decrease insurance company profits to the point where we'd have to bail them out...
Also, I think the "slippery slope" stuff is also a smoke screen. People marrying their dogs is not a reason to restrictively define marriage.
At the very least, this ammendment should clarify what other arrangements are to be made legally indistiguishable from marriage for the purposes of benefits and privileges. If it is going to be "civil unions" then let's write that into the Constitution while we're at it.
This so called "Defense of Marriage" is not about clarifying anything. It's about throwing a bone to selected religious conservative groups who have thrown their weight behind the GOP.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Particularly the law violates the rights of the non-believers rather than the rights of the believers?
This is the key. If it violates rights, it shouldn't be a law. This calculus doesn't depend on anyones religion.
Dagonee
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
I left out an "if." Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Yes, but I assumed it was there.
I hate noticing my typos when I see myself quoted by others. Then it's permanent.
[ January 25, 2005, 01:39 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
Thanks, Dag...you're a prince!
I try not to edit unless the typo is really egregious, or unless there are no other posts and I have something else I want to add.
Posted by Vána (Member # 6593) on :
I know I'm a little late getting in here, but I don't think anyone's posted this yet. HRC Action Center has an e-mailer set up so that you can easily edit a form letter and they will send it to your senators for you.
Some of you may be interested in doing so.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
It's much better to write your own letter and/or email. Such form letters often get dismissed or discounted by Senators and Representatives.
[ January 25, 2005, 01:51 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:The vast majority of rhetoric in favor of a constitutional ban on gay marriage is religious. Not every religion has problems with gay marriage, so if Congress were to ban it, they would be making a clear preference for a particular religion. Therefore, such an amendment can be opposed on First Amendment grounds.
Not if by opposition you mean legal opposition in court. It just doesn't work that way.
The reproductive aspects of marriage alone probably provide sufficient government interest. What you propose is an absolutely dangerous precedent. The mere act of categorizing reasons as "religious" or "secular" is too frought with difficulty to provide reasonable guidance to a court, as is the difficulty with determining the "reasons" for legislation.
Dagonee
Posted by WheatPuppet (Member # 5142) on :
quote:Muslims marry
You're missing the point. By defining marriage--a religious practice by nature--the federal government is lending its support to certain religious groups, while excluding others. While this isn't the establishment of a state religion, it's giving favor to one set of spiritual beliefs over another. This is one of those dangerous slippery slopes. BTW--why don't we put some salt on those slopes? It would save everyone a lot of grief.
I'm politically opposed to the amendment because it abridges states' rights in a huge way. It's insulting to think that the federal government knows what's best for my state and my neighbors. What arrogance.
[full_disclosure] I'm also morally opposed to the amendment, but I think that's somewhat secondary to my politics.
Posted by Space Opera (Member # 6504) on :
space opera
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
Hey, don't be mad at Space Opera! I rather like her!
[ January 25, 2005, 02:12 PM: Message edited by: Megan ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
True, and in that context I don't really have a disagreement with it. I think you're right that religion is driving this far more than most other motives, although I think there are more secular arguments than you acknowledge.
Edit: The reason I pointed it out is because there are people who don't want to limit the principal as you have.
But I'm still against the amendment and the unequal access.
Dagonee
[ January 25, 2005, 02:32 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by dread pirate romany (Member # 6869) on :
quote: Why does the religious act of marriage have to be defamed?
Allowing gay marriage does not require any religious group to perform marriages for gay couples. I fully support any groups right to choose not to. But that does not mean allowing judges, and those clerics who choose to, to bless gay marriages defames the religious act of others. Marriage is a legal contract, one every couple should have the right to.
Posted by Vána (Member # 6593) on :
Dagonee, I often send edited form letters to my representatives on environmental issues, through the World Wildlife Fund. I almost always get a response.
Yes, in general, I'd say it's better to write and mail your own letter. But sending a form letter or an edited form letter is better than not saying anything at all. I was just offering an option to people who might want to actually contact their representatives but aren't sure how, or don't have a lot of time.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
I have heard numerous times the argument that gay marriage threatens marriage, but then I never see it explained. Usually someone asks "how does two men/two women getting married threaten heterosexual marriage?" And then there is no response to the question.
Anyone care to explain the reasoning there?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Part of the reasoning is that it weakens the institute of marriage. Having gay marriage (among other arrangements) legally recognized can be viewed as an endorsement by society, giving the message of "Traditional marriage is no more valid/important than [insert other social arrangement]."
edited: to clarify
[ January 25, 2005, 06:24 PM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Technically the 14th amendment won't protect anyone from a new constitutional amendment. "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;" So Federal law wouldn't apply I don't think.
I don't think that amendments are bad, if the constitution were so perfect, we wouldn't have needed to amend it 27 times to date. But I'll never go along with a law that limits the rights of other, whether I agree with the morality of it or not.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Huh. So both sides are upset at the idea of the government endorsing something that they feel shouldn't be endorsed. Stamp of approval on same-sex marriage being equal to opposite-sex, as opposed to stamp of approval on certain religious beliefs. Is that right?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Technically the 14th amendment won't protect anyone from a new constitutional amendment. "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;" So Federal law wouldn't apply I don't think.
Technically, no amendment will protect ANYONE from a new constitutional amendment. The only part of the Constitution that the normal amendment process cannot supercede is the number of Senators per state.
This is why I couched my reference to the 14th amendment this way: "If SCOTUS ever requires gay marriage, it will be under the EP clause of the 14th."
Adam's argument about the 1st Amendment speaks to whether the law is an establishment of religion, not whether the 1st Amendment would bar passage, and it is in this context which I answered him.
Dagonee
[ January 25, 2005, 03:19 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Noted
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:This is a circular argument. It boils down to "Gay marriage weakens marriage because it weakens marriage", unless you* explain how it weakens marriage more so than anything else that could be legislated against.
The reasons being touted for allowing gay marriage are generally the package of rights and benefits denied homosexual couples by their lack of access to the civil institution of marriage. This is the reason I favor it, for example.
However, for that to be a compelling reason, an unspoken assumption is required: that this package of rights, responsibilities, and benefits is all that marriage is. It it ths view that is seen as an attack in marriage, not the fact that there are some gay couples getting married.
That's why the rhetorical question "How do two me being married harm your marriage?" doesn't mean anything in this debate. It's not about harm to a particular marriage; it's about harm to Marriage as an idea, an institution.
My solution to the dilemna was a frank look at the state of civil marriage. It is just about those rights, responsibilities, and benefits now. It's a shorthand way to provide a socially and legally useful set of default rules that help integrate natural groupings (families) into the artifical groupings of society.
Civil marriage as it exists today is so far from my understanding of the sacrament of marriage that short of outlawing or somehow burdening it, government can have no effect on it. In a sense, my position results in a surrender of the concept of unity between Marriage and civil marriage. I have come to believe that someone wanting to live up to the ideals of Marriage must necessarily reject at least some of the elements of civil marriage.
It is critical to understand this if you want to change people's minds on the subject. Some people are not willing to make that surrender.
Dagonee
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Well, I've tried to explain some of that to you.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:But the gays in question want to get married in the traditional sense; they want to spend the rest of their lives together in a committed, monogamous relationship.
If this turns into a spitting match, I'm going to drop out, but I'll answer your polite question.
It is impossible for two gays to get married to each other in the traditional sense(or what I view as the traditional) , as a traditional marriage is between one man and one woman.
[ January 25, 2005, 06:57 PM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
So much to say, so little time.
1) Some churches believe that two men or two women in love are recieving the same gift of love from God that a man and a women recieve. They believe that those two men or two women should recieve the sacrament of marriage. If you disagree, fine. But if you make it illegal for that church to have that wedding, then you are discriminating against that church, and setting up your own as one sanctioned by the government.
2) I believe we do need to define Marriage. Is it a religious/mystical combining of two souls? Is it the goal of Love? Or is it a license to produce children?
Too often I have heard that the Man/Woman argument is justified because only a combo of Man and Woman can produce children, and that is what this is all about.
In my wedding vows the words Family or Children were not mentioned. There was sickness and health, and death do us part. Its a good thing it wasn't mentioned. My wife and I can't have children. If we disqualify gay couples because they are ultimately barren, do we disqualify infertile couples?
(Sure we could, and have adopted. But so can gay couples)
What this boils down to is Sex.
Is sex for fun or is it for procreation.
No one who has sex for fun is suggesting that everyone must have sex for fun. However, some who believe that sex is just for procreation are trying to mandate that it should only be used for that.
3) The Republican Political supporters of banning Gay Marriage don't want a constitutional amendment. They want state laws that will get overturned in court, so they can make a case for problems with the present "activist Court system" and so get a mandate from the people to change judges into elected officials, so that these same very gifted politicals can take over that branch of government.
4) I am not afraid of the hype about the Marriage Amendment. I refuse to be afraid any more. I won't let the Democrats or the Republicans, the Liberals or the Conservatives try and scare me into voting for or against them. Scream, shout, level lies or names or accusations. Research will produce the truth.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:1) Some churches believe that two men or two women in love are recieving the same gift of love from God that a man and a women recieve. They believe that those two men or two women should recieve the sacrament of marriage. If you disagree, fine. But if you make it illegal for that church to have that wedding, then you are discriminating against that church, and setting up your own as one sanctioned by the government.
Just because a church believe X doesn't mean that we have to allow it to be legal. Some religious beliefs that are held by some but which are still illegal include polygamy, illegal drug use, and murdering infidels.
quote:Is sex for fun or is it for procreation.
No one who has sex for fun is suggesting that everyone must have sex for fun. However, some who believe that sex is just for procreation are trying to mandate that it should only be used for that.
It is not a binary state, nor are these the only two options. My personal views on sex do not fit into either of those slots.
quote:3) The Republican Political supporters of banning Gay Marriage don't want a constitutional amendment. They want state laws that will get overturned in court, so they can make a case for problems with the present "activist Court system" and so get a mandate from the people to change judges into elected officials, so that these same very gifted politicals can take over that branch of government.
No I don't.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote:My personal views on sex do not fit into either of those slots.
What an apt metaphor.
Hobbes
[ January 25, 2005, 10:48 PM: Message edited by: Hobbes ]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
>_<
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
mr_port...
While we are free to disagree on some issues, I do want to make one thing perfectly clear. The people I labeled "Republican Politicals" do not include you are any person who bases their arguments against Same Sex Marriage on their faith in Jesus, the Bible, or for that matter the Torah, Koran, or any other religion or religious text.
I am refering to those I call Wovles in Shepherds Clothing, those politicians who try to use and possibly abuse people of faith for their own political ends. (And I know they come in both red and blue flavors).
I have a lot of respect for those who have faith and are willing to stand up for it.
I have none for those who abuse the faith of others for their own ends.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Well, since I am republican, and since I am against gay marriage, I naturally assumed that I was a member of "Republican Political supporters of banning Gay Marriage".
But now I understand what you are saying. Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
quote:Just because a church believe X doesn't mean that we have to allow it to be legal. Some religious beliefs that are held by some but which are still illegal include polygamy, illegal drug use, and murdering infidels.
The reasoning for making the murdering of infidels illegal is a secular reason (informed by morality, I suppose).
This makes sense, as the government is a secular body, not a religious one. Your examples are completely separate from the issue at hand because the primary arguments to prevent gays from marrying are religious.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I notice that you ignored my other two examples, because they didn't fit into your refutation.
Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
quote:...include polygamy, illegal drug use, and murdering infidels.
I'm not sure exactly, but I think both polygamous marriages and drug use are illegal for reasons other than morality as well.
Drug use: I can't think of any religious reasons that have been the basis for drug policy. I've always thought of this as a very secular area, as far as government control goes.
Polygamy: I believe Dagonee already mentioned one or two secular reasons for not allowing polygamy. There is some religious basis for this, but I think the secular reasons against polygamy are far stronger than the non-religious reasons to ban homosexual marriage.
Posted by Danzig avoiding landmarks (Member # 6792) on :
Religions generally oppose drugs because they are illegal. They also get quite a few of the former addicts, and see the possible negative effects of use. (Or is that prohibition?) The major exception to this is alcohol, which is one of the oldest and most widespread drugs, as well as one of the hardest. Those without much experience with illicit substances tend to generalize a bit unfairly from the most prominent example. Three quarters of a century ago, religion was a main factor in the Volstead Act and the 18th amendment, but their efforts have been focused on other vices since they lost that battle.
Some religions do use illegal drugs, and at least one is allowed to. Members of the Native American church are allowed to use peyote in a bona fide religious ceremony. Sadly, peyote is endangered due in large part to its illegality. Recently, the Brazil-based O Centro Espirita Beneficiente Uniao do Vegetal, with it US headquarters in Santa Fe, has been fighting a court battle to use ayahuasca as part of their beliefs. The Tenth Circuit Court upheld the injunction against government interference with the church before the case goes to trial. The Supreme Court refused to let the government appeal the injunction. Hopefully they win the trial as well.
As for polygamy, I doubt the LDS or the Muslims liked the ban very much. In Western society, the practice is generally not officially recognized. Why pay alimony to more than one person? Has it ever been legal here? I think most members of American society see it as a fringe behavior no matter what their faith, and go with their gut feelings in condemning, tolerating, or accepting it.
[ January 26, 2005, 03:47 AM: Message edited by: Danzig avoiding landmarks ]
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
quote:In all fairness, I think we should be able to simply re-write or add to the Constitution. It's an old document, and isn't always applicable. Most of our updates to it have been fairly important.
It's only since we allowed the federal government to have too much power over our daily lives that we've started trying to write that kind of niggling, legalistic control into the Constitution; that's the problem, not the amendment process itself.
Exactly.
quote:That's why the rhetorical question "How do two me being married harm your marriage?" doesn't mean anything in this debate. It's not about harm to a particular marriage; it's about harm to Marriage as an idea, an institution.
Correct. A threat to the IDEA of marriage. And of course since marriage is tied up with religious dogma for a government to recognize it would mean another blow to people's faith in that religion. Just like the heliocentric model of the solar system did back in the day. Philosophy that creates rules on behavior becomes a religion. That's part of the problem when religious dogma absorbs a certain observation...because if that observation was wrong then it takes a long and bloody struggle to change it within church doctrin.
quote:My solution to the dilemna was a frank look at the state of civil marriage. It is just about those rights, responsibilities, and benefits now. It's a shorthand way to provide a socially and legally useful set of default rules that help integrate natural groupings (families) into the artifical groupings of society.
Civil marriage as it exists today is so far from my understanding of the sacrament of marriage that short of outlawing or somehow burdening it, government can have no effect on it. In a sense, my position results in a surrender of the concept of unity between Marriage and civil marriage. I have come to believe that someone wanting to live up to the ideals of Marriage must necessarily reject at least some of the elements of civil marriage.
TOTALLY! The way I look at it is that all marriages today are, in the eyes of the Government, are civil unions. It is the state recognizing a contract. The marriage part is the religious stuff on top of that. And I don't mind the churches and religions keeping that title to themselves. That's cool. I want the contract.
quote:It is impossible for two gays to get married to each other in the traditional sense(or what I view as the traditional) , as a traditional marriage is between one man and one woman.
Then let's not have it "traditional". It wouldn't be traditional anyway. I don't want a priest and a church and a religion telling me it's ok. If they don't want to...that's fine. I'm not part of them anyway. All I want is the state acknologing my contract with my partner.
The problem I think is that people keep thinking that marriage is religious. I don't think it is. It is a fact of life that religion chose to absorb into it's rituals way back when. People create religion, religion re-creates the people (same thing with art or law or whatever).
The arguments against gays comes from thousands of years ago when the key to power and survival was the size of your family/clan/nation, just like in OSC's "Homecoming" series. If you weren't breeding all the time you were not doing your civic duty to the survival and dominance of your people. Thus "be fruitful and multiply" is in the Bible. I'm sure this is still a tactical issue in the modern world (look at Europe with a platue of growth...all this panic about loosing the European gene pool to the Africans or the Arabs or what have you, of course there couldn't be a population explotion in the 3rd world without the support form the 1st world and our technology), but we have 6 BILLION people now. I think we don't have to worry about us dying out. Actually we have to worry about us breeding ourselves into oblivion. So less kids is better at this point.
I think the biggest reason for "average" people to be against gay unions is cognitive dissonance. As I said above...since religions have adobted marriage as part of their dogma, to show that gay marriage might be ok would be shaking the foundation of what so many people hold on to for comfort in a chaotic universe.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
:looks at playing cards:
Hmm. . . I'll give you 'Socially Recognized Union with Benefits' if you give me 'Protection of Unborn Citizens.'
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Deal, Scott. Now how do we make that official?
I'd also like to take this opportunity to point out, once again, that gays already have access to the religious aspect of marriage. There is a growing number of pastors, priests, priestesses, and churches that will sanction marriage between any two committed people, regardless of gender. In fact, I don't think a constitutional ammendment will even be able to stop the growing practice of extending religious marriage to gays.
The battle to protect "traditional marriage" (as if the word really means anything) has already been lost. The idea of one man and one woman joining together for a life-long commitment does not exist in any legal sense, and will not even if alarmists win the day and are able to rob gays of the right to partner civily. The legal sense of marriage has no clause of permanence. It can be disolved fairly easily, regardless of whether there are children involved. Now you may argue that this is a bad thing, and I might even agree with you, but you certainly can't blame gays for the problems marriage faces today.
The fact is, gays can adopt in some situations. Denying them the right to marry in these cases actually harms the children some "traditional marriage" proponents claim to want to protect. Gays can live together. Gays can already get health insurance benefits in many corporations. (Mine grants them and Chris and I enjoy the benefit). Gays can take some legal steps to try to insure visitation rights, and some legal steps to try to insure inheritence rights, (though those can be successfully challenged in many cases). Gays can quietly pledge devotion to one another and vow to live as a couple 'till death do they part, if they so desire. We can own a house together, sit on our front porches together in full view of impressionable children and mortified "traditional" moralists. We can walk down the street holding hands, snuggle at the movies, and proudly shout our love and commitment from the rooftops if we're brave enough to do so. The only reason to deny us the legal benefits of the whole marriage package (call it civil unions or whatever) is so that a small cadre of religious bigots can console themselves in their failure to properly shepherd their flocks by scapegoating homosexuals. "Well, marriage may be failing, but at least we kept the gays out" they can tell themselves.
The hypocrisy of our society is underscored with every vote in favor of a gay-marriage ban.
[ January 26, 2005, 09:05 AM: Message edited by: KarlEd ]
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
A further word about insurance benefits:
I'll use my company as an example, since I'm sure that state and federal laws have shaped these policies. Feel free to provide evidence to show where my example can't be extrapolated to the business world at large.
My company provides healthcare benefits. It does this by subsidizing the cost of health care insurance plans, charging the employee a relatively small fee (compared to other companies I've known) and paying the rest as a benefit. An employee is able to add dependants to this benefits package, but the amount the company subsidizes for dependents is much less than their subsidy for the actual employee. So the employee essentially pays a larger portion of the cost for dependants than he has to pay for his own benefits. Additionally, the employee is taxed on the portion of the cost that the employer pays to subsidize the benefits for dependants. In other words, the cost to the employer to insure a spouse and kids is included in the employee's taxable income figure. In my company, these rules apply regardless of whether the insured dependant is a legal spouse or simply a declared domestic partner.
Therefore, it is highly unlikely that extending marriage benefits to gays is going to make a significant negative impact on employers, health plans, or insurance companies.
And if additional dependants on employer-provided benefits were a significant drain on the economy, you should fear the co-worker with 4 kids much more than the gay co-worker, who on average is less likely to add more than one additional dependant.
And all that said, I think that making a public policy decision based on the assumption that you might have to share the additional costs of a benefit you already enjoy is vile and selfish. I gladly subsidize your (theoretical) children's education. Should gays be exempted from those costs since we're not going to be adding children to the roles?
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
I think that in large part, all laws aimed at preventing homosexual marriage are very heavily influenced by a portion of the population that responds to homosexuality with a visceral, immediate denial that it could ever be acceptable in any way. They then support this feeling with bibilical passages, arguments that traditional marriage and the family are under attack, etc., etc.
I know that some people believe firmly in the supports and not in the underlying visceral response; moreover, I'm not saying that anybody here is necessarily advocating that (though it seems a few of our newer posters may lean in that direction). I just think a lot of people have that immediate reaction and then look for ways to back it up that don't sound like, "But...I don't LIKE it!"
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Religions generally oppose drugs because they are illegal.
Not mine.
quote:
quote: It is impossible for two gays to get married to each other in the traditional sense(or what I view as the traditional) , as a traditional marriage is between one man and one woman.
Then let's not have it "traditional". [Smile] It wouldn't be traditional anyway. I don't want a priest and a church and a religion telling me it's ok. If they don't want to...that's fine. I'm not part of them anyway. All I want is the state acknologing my contract with my partner. [Smile]
If you look back at the context of when I said that, I was replying to the statment that gay marriage would be traditional marriage.
quote:The arguments against gays comes from thousands of years ago when the key to power and survival was the size of your family/clan/nation, just like in OSC's "Homecoming" series. If you weren't breeding all the time you were not doing your civic duty to the survival and dominance of your people. Thus "be fruitful and multiply" is in the Bible.
Some of us believe that it is there because that's what God said. Some of believe he has never rescinded that command.
quote:I think the biggest reason for "average" people to be against gay unions is cognitive dissonance.
There is truth to that.
quote:The battle to protect "traditional marriage" (as if the word really means anything) has already been lost.
I am afraid that you are right, but I am not willing to surrender yet.
I would not be surprised if in 50 years people view the idea of denying marriage rights to same-sex couples the way most people now view Prohibition -- that it's an out-moded idea that was a bad idea in it's day.
I personally think that prohibition was a good thing, and would support it if I could. But it appears that that fight is over (for now), so I have pretty much given up.
The day very well might come where I give up on the topic of same-sex marriage. But that day is not today.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote: I am afraid that you are right, but I am not willing to surrender yet.
. . .
The day very well might come where I give up on the topic of same-sex marriage. But that day is not today.
My point in saying that the fight to save "traditional" marriage has already been lost was to underscore that it didn't lose the fight to gay rights. The problems with marriage today are the fault of the participants in it, namely heterosexuals. I, personally hope you don't give up the fight to fix the problems that plague marriage. I, myself, am a defender of marriage and family. It's one of the great ironies of the debate that gays are fighting for marriage as the great and desirable institution it should be, yet are being denied it while so many heterosexuals treat it as no more than a civil contract while decrying gays as a threat to its sanctity.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Great posts KarlEd!
Posted by Olivetta (Member # 6456) on :
Gay marriage, civil unions, whatever... these are not the things that waeken the Idea of marriage.
Heterosexuals getting drunk off their @$$es and marrying at 3am in front of Elvis impersonaters, the very fact that phrases like "Baby-daddy" and "starter marriage" have entered popular language, and romance novels with idiotic "they effed happily ever after" endings, now THOSE things weaken the Idea of marriage as a stable, loving bond between two people committed to staying together throughthick and thin, caring for each other.
I think the contoversy has more to do with the more visceral "EW!" factor that most people seem to have about [certain non-reproductive sex acts which can honestly be part of a hetero relationship, too] sex. There. I said it. Feel freee to ignore me.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Don't forget drive thru marriages in Vegas. But yeah, I agree with you entirely.
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
I wonder, sometimes, where our priorities went astray. Why is it that we cannot hold our beliefs as sacred, without trying to inflict them on others.
The issue of "gay marriage" shouldn't even be an issue. Honestly, folks, what are we afraid of? If gay marriage is legalized, will there be a mass-migration, so to speak, of formerly hetero-sexual married couples converting to the new hedonistic "gay marriage"? Are your marriages so fragile that this is a concern? Or can you truly say that your religious convictions are so strong that they should be applied to every citizen of our free country?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Are your marriages so fragile that this is a concern?
Maybe not my personal marriage, but, I do believe that the marriage as an institution has been steadily weakened for decades.
[ January 26, 2005, 02:51 PM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Heterosexuals getting drunk off their @$$es and marrying at 3am in front of Elvis impersonaters, the very fact that phrases like "Baby-daddy" and "starter marriage" have entered popular language, and romance novels with idiotic "they effed happily ever after" endings, now THOSE things weaken the Idea of marriage as a stable, loving bond between two people committed to staying together throughthick and thin, caring for each other.
I think that you're preaching to the choir on this one.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
THT, I honestly am not all that concerned about gay marriage becoming legal. I am far more concerned about the bigger issues--high rates of divorce, abuse, and children born out of wedlock being very high on that list.
But I do fear that as homosexuality becomes more supported by society as "good" and "right" more of the rising generations will choose to follow their own same-sex attractions. Gay marriage becoming legal is only part of that general shift in society. (The request to have gay marriage legal is only now coming to a head. Why not in years past?) The shift has been happening for a long time. And while I think that ridding ourselves of prejudice, violent, and otherwise unkind behavior is a good thing, I still do not like the idea of a society that would encourage my children to experiement with homosexual desires--considering I believe most people to possess such desires to some extent. (Of course I like far less that this society already encourages our youth to experiment with promiscuous sexuality to begin with.) This, of course, is based on my religious beliefs, which as someone so aptly stated, are as intrigal and intimate a part of me as gender-attraction.
But this is why I have my reservations about gay marriage. But I figure it is a losing battle and things are going to continue shifting whether I like it or not. I will do what I can in my small scale of influence.
[ January 26, 2005, 02:57 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
Is the gradual degradation of marriage as an institution over the past four decades being caused by some super-secret gay agenda? Or is it that as our culture evolves (or devolves depending on your view) the institution of marriage is no longer as important to people? How do you save something when the people who would be getting married have no desire to get married at all?
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: Is the gradual degradation of marriage as an institution over the past four decades being caused by some super-secret gay agenda?
No. That is just silly. If it was anyone's "super-secret-agenda", it was that of rock stars and movie makers.
quote: Or is it that as our culture evolves (or devolves depending on your view) the institution of marriage is no longer as important to people?
Something like that. Culture is definitely evolving, and marriage certainly isn't as valued in society now as it once was. Neither is having chilren.
quote: How do you save something when the people who would be getting married have no desire to get married at all?
:/ Sorry, I don't understand the question.
[ January 26, 2005, 02:59 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Is the gradual degradation of marriage as an institution over the past four decades being caused by some super-secret gay agenda?
Nobody has said or impied this.
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
Beverly, I'll try to be clearer
If saving marriage is the rallying cry, who is marriage being saved for? Many of my friends will probably never be married. They much prefer their semi-permanent relationships. Not suprisingly, even the most religious of my friends have no problem with gay-marriage. The general sentiment seems to be 'let them get married if they want to, because I sure don't want to'.
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
Porteiro_Head, I was being facetious.
Of course there is no super-secret gay agenda. It's actually the Super-super-mostly-secret-homosexual-plan (The SSMSHP)
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: If saving marriage is the rallying cry, who is marriage being saved for? Many of my friends will probably never be married. They much prefer their semi-permanent relationships. Not suprisingly, even the most religious of my friends have no problem with gay-marriage. The general sentiment seems to be 'let them get married if they want to, because I sure don't want to'.
This is my opinion: We are saving it for our future generations and the general pattern of society. There are those of us that believe that the pattern of traditional family values is an optimal pattern for society and are loathe to see that pattern degrading. So many people I talk to of this generation don't want to get married or have kids because their family life SUCKED.
Would so many family's have sucked this last generation if things weren't already degrading? My opinion: No.
There will always be "bad eggs". But I think that there don't need to be near so many as there are--and there wouldn't be--if traditional values were, well, more widely valued.
I cannot prove any of this. But I do believe it.
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
Beverly-
Please describe for me what traditional values are. Where do these values begin and end? Who decides when today's traditional values become yesterday's archaic views? My understanding of values in general is that they change from generation to generation, with each generation lamenting the loss of their "traditional" values as new values replace them. The notion that civilization will crumble without our "traditional" values and current social structures can be disproven just by reviewing history. The act and sanctity of marriage in particular has taken some interesting twists and turns througout history, and yet we managed to survive, living on so that we can debate values with strangers on a message board.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Whether one calls them traditional values or "archaic views" depends on whether or not they agree with them. It is as subjective as defining what an extreme liberal or conservative is.
quote: The act and sanctity of marriage in particular has taken some interesting twists and turns througout history, and yet we managed to survive, living on so that we can debate values with strangers on a message board.
I would hope that as a society and as individuals we would strive for nobler goals that simply "survival". I do think that when we abandon traditional values, the quality of life suffers because of it. I believe some of this is easily demonstratable, while other aspects are not. I believe some of the effects are spiritual in nature and not to be understood without the religious aspect.
I'm sure you could pull out many historical practices that *I* would label "archaic views" rather than traditional values. Why? Because I believe the practices were not good for those societies. They may not have led to their downfall, but they could easily effect the quality of life without us knowing one way or the other. How do you gather statistics on a historical people? Do you know what percentage of the people in ancient Rome rated their lives satisfactorally? And do you know all the factors that went into it? Can you even know all the factors that go into our own daily satisfaction? Impossible. These things are far too complicated for science to measure. I don't see how you can possibly argue that my perspective is "wrong". Feel free to disagree with me, though.
After all the facts, incomplete as they are, are given and analyzed, we all have to come to our own conclusions based on our beliefs, whether we are religious or not.
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
Beverly, I'm not insisting that you're wrong, or even questioning your perceptions and views. However, you've made part of my point for me. Tranditional values only apply at the moment they're invoked. I bet that if you asked 100 people what traditional values are, you would get 100 different answers. Ask the same 100 people in five years what traditional values are, and you would probably get a different set of answers. I understand that you can't remove your religious views from your value-set, but you also can't apply your traditionalist value set to other people.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: but you also can't apply your traditionalist value set to other people.
I don't know what you mean by this.
edit: 5000 posts. w00t!
[ January 26, 2005, 04:31 PM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
My point is just this: we all have ideas about what we think is good for society. We work to bring those ideas about. People will disagree with us. It is a subjective issue. I simply explained how it looks to *me*. That is all.
Edit: I lied. That is not all.
People talk about this gay marriage issue saying that we are taking away something unspeakably horrible from those who seek gay marriage, but that their getting married has no negative effects on others whatsoever.
While I really am not all that concerned about gay marriage being legal, it gets my hackles up when people imply that gay marriage will not negatively impact others *at all*. I have stated how I think it will negatively impact *me*. It is not a direct impact, but the impact is still there.
Is the hurt to gays (not being legally allowed to marry) greater than the hurt to others (if it were legalized here)? I cannot judge this very well from what little I know. I have remained ambivalent about it. I just want people to be aware that the issue is not as simple as they tend to think it is.
[ January 26, 2005, 04:41 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
BookWyrm, that comment is not productive unless you are trying to insult others and shut down communication. Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Opponents of gay marriage trouble me because they are not addressing the real problems facing families these days. Things like abuse, divorce, parents staying together for the sake of the children, but practically wanting to kill each other, poverty, people not being able to make ends meet, domestic violence. Why don't they address these things? If there's any reason why many people don't want to get married or have children it's because their own families have been so screwed up that perhaps they are afraid of passing it on to another generation. Which reminds me of a line from a book I read that destressed me.
MPH, That was a reality of marriage in the past... It really hasn't been sunshine and romance, there's no reason to end it though, but it's something to think of.
[ January 26, 2005, 04:44 PM: Message edited by: Synesthesia ]
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
Beverly, We both believe that there are values that are important to us. I guess the only way we disagree is in how those values should be interpreted and shared with others. I believe that you should try to instill your values in your children, and that's it. Leave adults to their own values and morality. If that means letting two men live together in a loving, committed relationship, then that's their business.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: Opponents of gay marriage trouble me because they are not addressing the real problems facing families these days.
They aren't? Are you *sure*? 'Cause I don't buy that at all.
quote: MPH, That was a reality of marriage in the past... It really hasn't been sunshine and romance, there's no reason to end it though, but it's something to think of.
Interesting. I remember taking some academic test a long time ago and one of the reading comprehension essays left a big impression on me. It talked about how the ideal of romantic love has existed far back into written history, especially among cultures where arranged marriages were common. We were asked to draw a conclusion from this. The conclusion was that these people believed that romantic love could be found within arranged marriages.
I personally don't have much problem with arranged marriages. I wouldn't arrange them for my kids or anything, but I remember being young and single and finding a certain romantic element to it--assuming both participants came from a culture where that was the expected norm and they both approached the marriage with a desire in their hearts to do their best to be good to each other. I think our current ideas of romantic love rather silly, actually. If we believe the movies, we must find our perfect soul mate. If your relationship seems mediocre, leave your lover! Find someone exciting and new! I think this is a very dangerous value for our society to be developing.
Sooo... Bookwyrm asked what sort of traditional marriage I speak of. I speak of the tradition of a man and woman coming together with the intent to stay together and build something that would stand for as long as they two live. *That* is the part that is dying most of all. For whatever changes marriage customs may have seen over time, the majority of them approached marriage with the idea of life-long commitment.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: Beverly, We both believe that there are values that are important to us. I guess the only way we disagree is in how those values should be interpreted and shared with others. I believe that you should try to instill your values in your children, and that's it. Leave adults to their own values and morality. If that means letting two men live together in a loving, committed relationship, then that's their business.
So you don't believe that there are certain values that if adopted by society at large the world would be a better place?
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
quote:No, I asked that as a multipart question. Don't presume to know my motives unless you can read my mind. I have a direction in mind for asking such a leading question.
EDIT: Are you implying that that was NOT the tradition of marriage at one point?
quote:MPH, That was a reality of marriage in the past... It really hasn't been sunshine and romance, there's no reason to end it though, but it's something to think of.
Those who favor a return to traditional values are not advocating a return to All Things Past.
It's really easy to combat "traditional" ideas by equating them with 1950's appliance commercials or victorian corsets or medieval princesses being sold to abusive barons. "The past" is no more cut-and-dried than the present. No one wants to go back to "the way things were."
There are, however, differences in the happiness of family life that we can chart in recent years. Our grandparents' generation, with which we have direct contact, illustrates the consequences of living by more traditional values. There is less poverty, less abandonment and less heartache among our grandparents than there is among our parents, who had corresponding increases of immorality and family breakdown to deal with. By pointing this out, I'm not saying we should go back to the 1940s and start segregating the water fountains again. That generation did have problems that we've overcome. I don't think those problems are related to the higher societal acceptance of moral values.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Annie, agreed.
Bookwyrm: What is the significant difference between Commitment and Devotion? I think all three of those words are closely tied together. And I do think that our society's current ideas of Love are flawed.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Sounds like Devotion covers the other two.
I think that Devotion has always been a traditional value, but that that doesn't mean it has been practiced. Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
I have answered your question. I defined what *I* am talking about: the commitment to a family unit that lasts as long as the parents live. This is the tradition. Love, Commitment, and Devotion are ideals that have often not been reached in the reality of living the tradition. But I think those things were still "valued".
The tradition of life-long commitment to a family unit has been followed well by most historical societies I am aware of. I'm sure there are exceptions, but I don't know of any historical society abandoning the idea of lifelong commitment to a family unit to the extent of the society in which we live. Do you have information that states otherwise?
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
quote: I think the contoversy has more to do with the more visceral "EW!" factor that most people seem to have about [certain non-reproductive sex acts which can honestly be part of a hetero relationship, too] sex. There. I said it. Feel freee to ignore me.
Olivetta, I totally agree. I said the same thing; I'm wondering if it's just something people aren't willing to address.
Oh, and MPH...congrats on your 5k! Dare we expect a landmark soon? Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Bookwyrm, I really don't have a problem with anything you said there. But again, I feel that my point was not acknowledged in all that.
You know, honestly the idea of gays being allowed to marry appeals to me on several levels. That doesn't mean I don't have issues with it.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote:It has been proven that children suffer no more harm being raised by Gays than those raised by Heteros.
It hasn't even been proven to the standard of social sciences.
quote:Gay marriages have been happening in Mass
en masse
[ January 26, 2005, 06:25 PM: Message edited by: Lady Jane ]
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Or in Massechussetts? Posted by Lady Jane (Member # 7249) on :
*laugh* Okay, maybe that's what he meant. It looked like a catholic reference.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Oh, and MPH...congrats on your 5k! Dare we expect a landmark soon?
Well, I don't have anything to give you except for the essay I wrote for my aikido shodan test, no.
Thanks for asking, though.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
No problem I live to serve! Or serf. Or something.
Posted by Olivetta (Member # 6456) on :
Thanks, Megan. Glad I'm not the only one who saw that particular elephant in the room.
Bev- My family life was fairly sucky. The best thing that ever happened to me was my parent's divorce, and my mother's re-marriage to a man who knew how to be a husband and a father.
Traditionally, that wouldn't have happened, because divorce used to be taboo.
My marriage is healthy, 12 years and two boys (7 and 5), and I'm still a hottie. Life is good.
But I also know a couple who have been together almost as long as we have. They both work, take turns cooking and so forth. They can't have children. They can't adopt, either. As a matter of fact, they can't visit each other in the hospital if either one is in ICU. They can't inherit from each other without costly legal acrobatics (which could be contested by 'real' family anyway).
They are a family. A better family than many more traditional ones I know. But they can't even share health insurance.
That makes me sad.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Olivetta, you touch on many of the levels on which it *does* appeal to me.
I wonder, what percentage of children are glad that their parents divorce? Certainly some are glad, and I believe that some divorces are the best choice--particularly when there is abuse involved. But what about divorces that happen because the parents "aren't in love" anymore? And are most children glad when their parents divorce?
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I guess it depends. Some people are casual about divorce, others need it desparately so that their kids don't have to listen to them fight. To say that no one should be allowed to get a divorce just causes a lot of misery to those who really aren't meant to be together.
Posted by Olivetta (Member # 6456) on :
The question is irrelevant, unless you plan make divorce illegal. You only point out the many ways in which marriage has been shat upon by heterosexuals. Entered into lightly, and so forth.
Though I have personally known many people who were similarly glad of ttheir parents' divorce, and many who are totally effed-up by being forced to live with two parents who should not have been entrusted with HOUSECATS, much less children.
But, I admit, it's irrelevant.
quote: Olivetta, you touch on many of the levels on which it *does* appeal to me.
When I read that, I thought you were referring to the 'elephant' mentioned above. Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote: It has been proven that children suffer no more harm being raised by Gays than those raised by Heteros.
Hobbes is right, of course. Nothing like this can be proven.
However, thinking logically: If children can be raised in a monastery or a nunnery, and suffer no harm, if children can be raised by a single parents, or two elderly aunts or uncles or cousins living together, if children can be raised in a multiple adult community, in an orphanage, in a single-sex boarding school, an a community made up of no adults but only older children, if children can grow up in any of these common and loving environments two males or two females living together should have no problems. Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I was raised by my grandmother and I think I turned out ok.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Yeah, except that you're a flaming liberal! Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Flaming liberal
I think my grandmother was rather conservative though... Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
Yay! It failed to pass!
Here is a letter our Senator sent out:
quote:
January 27, 2005
Thank you for contacting me to share your opposition to the federal marriage amendment to the Constitution. I share your concerns. On July 14, 2004, the Senate considered a procedural vote related to the proposed Constitutional Amendment. I voted against this measure, and it failed by a vote of 48-50.
This is an emotional issue for many people whose diverse opinions reflect their strong convictions. The United States Constitution has acted as a safeguard for our liberties since 1787. It is my belief that this celebrated document should only be amended in extraordinary circumstances. This is not such an occasion. I believe that we must respect the rights of those in committed relationships - rights most of us take for granted, like visiting a critically-ill loved one in the hospital or shared property protections.
Traditionally, it has been the responsibility of individual states to govern the legal requirements for marriage. I believe the legal aspects of marriage should continue to be a state responsibility and that it is not necessary to change our Constitution.
Again, thank you for contacting me about this issue. Please continue to keep me informed about issues of concern to you.
Sincerely, Debbie Stabenow United States Senator
"Make your voices heard. Silence = Death"
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
umm.. is that the most recent one? it says the vote was taken in july of last year.
Wasn't it just re-introduced? =(
Pix
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
I think she was just reminding people about the previous vote last year...
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Group Hug]](graemlins/grouphug.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
Flaming liberal![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Party]](graemlins/party.gif)