Third Party & Independents: Archives

This issue will be debated with religious overtones as it evolves. The christian Right would certainly condemn same sex marriage.

New studies will be a very tough sell due to the biblical “man shall not lay with man and woman shall not lay with woman” reference.

“Much of the conversation around same-sex marriages and whether they should be allowed or not have centered around the inability for same-sex couple to have children.”

It is important to know if in this excerpt from your article your reference to “have” children you mean through birth of a partner or, “have” means to adopt and “raise” a child.

If “have” means that through a miracle of medical science that a child will be conceived and brought into life by a male, the christian world will descend upon your article as if it contained the devil himself.

For every reason or example given in support of same sex unions there will be a hundred offered by the opposition. I think it will be very difficult to keep this discussion in a constructive mode.

Ya’ll can keep bashing the religous all you want for the gay marriage ban, but the truth is that many people are against it, w/ or w/out church.

Traci,

The majority was against equal rights for ‘negroes’ in the 50’s as well. The same arguments made against same sex marriages were used to prevent mixed-race marriages around the same time.

Just because the majority is for something doesn’t make it right or constitutionally legal.

Thank {insert imaginary diety of choice}.

Traci,

I am with you. Totally against the legality and maybe even the acceptability of same sex anything.

Do you really get carded when you buy beer at 30 years old?

Personally, I don’t see why anyone needs to conceive children artifically when you can just adopt a child. Why should people care if there child has the same DNA as them?

Rhinehold, if we ever reach such a potential, people all over will be screaming “PLAYING GOD! YOU’RE PLAYING GOD!”

Bleeding Heart Liberal,

I am among those who adopted a child who has grown to manhood, married and has two children of his own.

There are some women, and rightfully so who are emotionally and maybe even physically driven to experience the joy of pregnancy. I do not think it is as much a DNA thing as it is a glorious experience. I support them 100%.

Steve smith~

Actually I do! I hear that this is a good thing, but my jury is still out on this issue! The last guy I dated was 35 and when we would go out they would card him because of me!!!HAHA

Before we begin, I am not gay or bisexual, but would fight to the death any government, or other organization that tries to deny you or any one else any of the basic human rights as defined by international charter.

Hi All:

Had to stir the pot up in here, you know me:

What business is it of any one’s what goes on in my bedroom at night? How my spouse and I eat crackers is no one’s business, but ours, Agreed?
Same goes with what we read, view, worship, you get my point. What difference does it make to anyone what I do in the privacy of my own bedroom. Those chains hanging from the ceiling are a marital aid for Ethal and I, that’s all you need to know. If we are so wrapped up in what the other people are doing down the road when do we have time to get down to what’s really important….YOU and I. We have used all of our energy worrying about what the neighbors, are doing, or will do that we have no time left for ourselves.
This wasn’t intended to be a bash on or against any one, regardless of: sex, race, creed, color, age, religious preference or political affiliation, or sexual preference. This diatribe was not in any way, shape, form. Influence anyone, but more to let you just how narrow minded WE are.

“Ya’ll can keep bashing the religous all you want for the gay marriage ban, but the truth is that many people are against it, w/ or w/out church.”

Posted by Traci at June 20, 2005 03:51 PM

Traci:
I have no doubt that you would consider yourself a good christian woman, am I correct? That was a rhetorical question.
Ponder this for a moment please.
Would Jesus not show compassion, for a same sex couple walking down the street today? Being harassed at any and all opportunties. Correct me if I’m wrong…But doesn’t it say “judge not and be not judged” and didn’t Jesus also state the following “Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone”?
Point being not once is the word “LOVE” ever mentioned by either side. Sad isn’t it?

I am always amazed that people who value the sanctity of marriage are against gay marriage but are in favor of divorce. It leads me to conclude that they are hypocrites.

I too have no problem with what goes on in someones own bedroom or, any other room in the house. The key is IN THE HOUSE.

This includes man and woman -married or not
Woman and woman
Man and man
Woman and farm animal, endangered species, etc
Man and farm animal, endangered species, etc.

Under no circumstances do I agree with demonstrations of affection (with sexual connotation) in public between other than man and woman.(non pornographic) As well, I am vehemently opposed to same sex marriage and children being raised in a household where same sex couples are living together (where sexual activity takes place) and the image of dual parents is created.

So tell me, Steve Smith. Would you favor the state confiscating children of a mother who divorces and takes on a Lesbian live in partner?

And if so, don’t you see that as police state assault against civil liberties?

Would Jesus not show compassion, for a same sex couple walking down the street today

Actually, all we can go by with what Jesus would do is based on his words and actions. And there is nothing written down anywhere that shows that Jesus ever said anything about homosexuality, pro or con.

That won’t stop anyone from saying he did, of course, but they are wrong.

But, let’s not get into a reglious discussion, because this really isn’t about if Christianity is right or a sham created to keep an ignorant society in line. It’s about how we are going to create laws and affect basic rights of individuals to live in this country without fear of having that county turn it’s guns (the police force) on innocent citizens.

No law should ever be in place that is strictly enacted to further anyone’s religious beliefs.

End of story.

Trying to do so makes you little better than the theocrats running middle-eastern societies. Personally, I’d like to avoid that. {/Dick Durban over-the-line rhetoric laced comparison}

Ya’ll can keep bashing the religous all you want for the gay marriage ban, but the truth is that many people are against it, w/ or w/out church.

The truth is also that many people, even church-going people, are for it. Consider me, for example. Religiously, I am opposed to same-sex marriages. Politically, however, I don’t think the government should be making that decision for people.

There’s a big difference between what people should/shouldn’t do and what the government should/shouldn’t allow.

Wayne,

Before we begin, I am not gay or bisexual, but would fight to the death any government, or other organization that tries to deny you or any one else any of the basic human rights as defined by international charter.

“I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend with my life your right to say it.”

:)

“So tell me, Steve Smith. Would you favor the state confiscating children of a mother who divorces and takes on a Lesbian live in partner?”

“And if so, don’t you see that as police state assault against civil liberties?”

David, I would be in favor of intervention by an agency such as the Department of Social Services at least until a determination can be made that weighs the stability of the environment aginst the risk to the child.

I think you jeapordize, if not forfeit your rights as a parent when you provide an environment that fosters what might be catagorized as “cruel and inhuman punishment” for the child outside the home.

Wayne~
No Wayne, I don’t consider myself a “good christian woman”, the last time I went chuch on a consistant basis, Bush Sr. was in office!

Please don’t quote the bible, I hate when people do that, every quotation in the bible can be interpreted differently by different people and I think that is the whole point of its being!

So, tell me what legalizing gay marriage would do in the insance of churches. Would all churches then be forced to perform gay ceremonies? This is a legitimate question and one that needs to be thought about! (Remember the poor boyscouts and the hell they went through because they didn’t want gay scout leaders?).

I am perfectly fine w/ all people having “the same basic human rights”. But for some reason this only applies to the minority groups, because as soon as you give a little they want to force “their” beliefs down others throats.

Also, does accepting and recognizing gay marriages, mean that it will soon be taught in ALL schools?

One other thing…..NO ONE gives a shit what someone does behind closed doors, but when was the last heterosexual parade you’ve seen on TV, or maybe even in your own city. It’s not the leave us alone that bothers people, IT’S THE ACCEPT US OR WE’LL BE IN YOUR FACE TILL YA DO that is a little hard to swallow.

Let me begin by saying that, as a typically penis driven heterosexual male, I find the idea of gay man sex disgusting and lesbian sex as hot.

Having said that:
- It is absolutely none of my, yours, or the gov’ts business to get involved in the sex lives of other consulting adults. And,
- Since love and sex are related, although not always dependent(sex w/o love and love w/o sex do exist), who other people love has absolutely nothing to do with me, you, or the gov’t.

The christian biblical purpose of sex was to have children. The social purpose of marriage is to create a contract that guarantees rights for partners and establishes responsibilities towards each other and offspring/children. It has nothing to do with sex.

Since the gov’t has nothing to do with sex between consenting adults but it does have to do with the legal rights and responsibilities between partners, why not have same sex marriages? By not doing so, you are marginallizing people simply because of who they fall in love with. The church wedding satisfies the religious requirements, churches would not be forced to hold weddings they deemed “unacceptable”. It means nothing to the gov’t. It does nothing to the validity of your marriage.

Steve smith;
I have the pleasure of knowing several same sex couples, all of whom have children and are now happily married. Their families are more stable and beneficial than several heterosexual couples I know. Are you suggesting that “a determination …be made that weighs the stability of the environment aginst the risk to the child” for all families? Or because they’re gay that means it’s a cruel and inhuman world for their kids? Living in a progressive community, I can say that here no one picks on the kids because of their parents are gay.
BTW, we had the recent “pleasure” of being visited by those lovely homophobes from Kansas, the Westboro Baptist Church. You may know them as the “God Hates Fags” people? These people say the USA deserved to be attacked on 9/11 and the people in the towers deserved to die because of our tolerance of homosexuals, et. al. Just thought I’d share that one.

Traci,

Whats wrong with standing up for your right? You do it all the time, why not gay people?

Rhinehold,

“Would Jesus not show compassion, for a same sex couple walking down the street today”

“Actually, all we can go by with what Jesus would do is based on his words and actions. And there is nothing written down anywhere that shows that Jesus ever said anything about homosexuality, pro or con”

“That won’t stop anyone from saying he did, of course, but they are wrong.”

1. Jesus would show compassion for the same sex
couple because he LOVES everyone. However he
HATES the sin. So he Hates the sin but Loves
the sinner.
2. For biblical reference that homosexuality is
deviate behavior (some of these references are
messages from GOD)
a) Genesis 19:5
b) Leviticus 18:22-23 and 20:13
c) Deuteronomy 23:17
d) Judges 19:22-24
e) 1st Kings 15:12 also 14:24
f) Romans 1:24-27
g) 1st Corinthians 6:9-10
h) 1st Timothy 1:10
i) Revelation 17:5

3. The typical liberal comment stating that
everyone else is wrong is to be expected.

Steve,

Not one single reference above has anything to do with anything Jesus said.

Sorry, we have no way of knowing what Jesus’ view on homosexuality was because he never addressed it. Not according to the Bible anyways.

Only men, who reported to speak for him later (don’t let me get started on ‘Paul’) make the references. Either that or old testament references, and since christianity easily ignores anything in the old testament that it doesn’t agree with saying that Jesus ‘rewrote the rules’ then it’s kind of hard to use it as a reference as well, isn’t it?

That’s all dependant upon your believing the bible was anything more than a good fiction novel that plays loose with some established historical facts.

So, tell me what legalizing gay marriage would do in the insance of churches. Would all churches then be forced to perform gay ceremonies?

Nope. Churches aren’t required to perform marriages now, and they wouldn’t be then.

when was the last heterosexual parade you’ve seen on TV, or maybe even in your own city

I don’t watch parades much, but pretty much any standard parade could be interpreted that way. Whenever a band plays a love song, it’s a straight love song. If NBC stops the parade to let singers perform a love song, it’s a straight love song. The heterosexual subtext of our society is present in parades.

For a more extreme example, homosexuals are prohibited from marching the NYC St. Patrick’s Day parade, making it an event celebrating the heritage of only the straight Irish.

In general, this type of argument always amuses me, whether its for gay rights parades or affirmative action: A minority is underrepresented or not allowed to be present in a mainstream activity. So, the minority sets up alternate means of supporting itself because such means don’t exist within the mainstream. Then, the mainstream objects that they don’t get the same special treatment the minority receives, not recognizing that the “special treatment” wouldn’t have been necessary if the minority had been fully accepted in the first place.

i) Revelation 17:5

Huh? Here’s what that verse says:

And upon her forehead [was] a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.

How on earth does that condemn homosexuality? The only thing I can see is the circular reasoning you condemn gays as abominations and then show that abominations are condemned.

I didn’t look all of the scriptures up, but the others seem to be more relevant than this verse. However, even those are subject to contrary interpretation.

The typical liberal comment stating that everyone else is wrong is to be expected.

Nicely done. You insulate yourself from any contrary evidence or interpretation by pre-emptively implying that any disagreement is just liberal arrogance.

I now declare that any disagreement with my statements here to be Conservative poopyheadness.

There. I won the conversation without having to defend myself any further. Now I can go smoke some pot and hug some trees…

Steve, I just reread Rheinholds post and I don’t see the “everyone eles is wrong” that you seem to.
What I did read was he’s against miscregenation laws and the idea that religious dogma should hold a primary place in American law. Hard to argue with either, unless of course you want the Pope to be president.

Here’s an e-mail thread, perhaps you can elaborate on these, especially item (6):
1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine insists that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can’t I own Canadians?
2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanness - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is, my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them? (And what kind of an air quality permit do I need to apply for at EPA?)
5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2. clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?
6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don’t agree. Can you settle this? Are there ‘degrees’ of abomination?
7. Lev.21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?
8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?
9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn’t we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

Once again many statements of what common sense would indicate but no hard facts.

As a new small buiseness owner (fitness center w/ child care), we started up with a lot of “no one would ever think of doing that” and our child care rules have since grown a mile long! It is amazing what some of our parents have tried to pull.

Once again many statements of what common sense would indicate but no hard facts.

So, tell me what legalizing gay marriage would do in the insance of churches. Would all churches then be forced to perform gay ceremonies?

Nope. Churches aren’t required to perform marriages now, and they wouldn’t be then.

Traci,

Here’s a general description of the marriage process around the country. The main point is that marriage law doesn’t care at all about the church or location of the ceremony. Since the law doesn’t care if the marriage was performed in a church, the law doesn’t require churches to perform weddings, so no church would be forced by the government to perform weddings.

When I got married, the pastor explicitly stated that he would not marry us if he felt uncomfortable performing the wedding. My wife was a member of the church, so there wasn’t much risk of refusal, but he was covering himself. Additionally, he told us that there have been times that he’s declined to perform the wedding because of the relationship (and no one from the government cared).

So, there’s nothing that compels a church to perform a wedding now, and I’ve never heard anything to suggest this would ever be changed.

LawnBoy and Dave,

LawnBoy, great response to my Biblical scripture references.

Dave, Yours were brilliant beyond any reasonable expectation.

I am very pleased that you both feel so strongly regarding the separation of church and state and, that you make excellent points about what may or may not be interpreted as right and wrong on religious grounds is different that legal grounds.

Good article and fascinating links, Rhinehold.
Have to say though, I kind of hope that type of human reproduction is way far-off in the future, because even though I try to keep an open mind, I have to admit this totally creeps me out!

Traci:
“So, tell me what legalizing gay marriage would do in the insance of churches. Would all churches then be forced to perform gay ceremonies? This is a legitimate question and one that needs to be thought about!”

No Traci, it actually doesn’t need to be thought about.
America has a secular government — and our separation of church and state was designed to keep the government from telling churches what they may do, and to keep the churches from telling the government what it may do.

Only if we did away with that separation would we have to start worrying whether our citizenry might somehow be forced to do things against their will when it comes to religion.

No one advocating for the legalization of gay marriage (I am one such person) because we believe those people should be able to hold the exact same legal distinctions in our society as straight people are allowed, wants that designation to interfere with the doctrines of any religious group.
No doubt you’ve noticed that people on the right in this blog have been trashing the ACLU for days, but the truth is (when and if legalization of gay marriage occurs) if religious institutions began being pressured to perform gay marriages, the ACLU would immediately step in to defend them. Their entire purpose is to protect the Rights given to us by the Constitution, and telling religious institutions that they must perform legal marriages for gay couples would automatically mean that the first amendment rights of the people within those congregations would be violated.

Marriage in this country is a legal distinction over and above a religious one. This is why whenever a marriage service is performed, the person conducting the service (whether a religious person or not) has to be legally registered to do so in that state. They also have to have a piece of signed legal paper before they get to announce that “by the power vested in me by the state of _____…” Only then can that marriage be legally recognized by our government.
This is why witholding marriage from gay people seems arbitrary and based upon nothing but prejudice to so many of us. After all, our reasoning minds tell us that gay people have to pay taxes, live by the country’s rules of law, and jump through all the same legal hoops in every aspect of their lives as all other American’s do, so why should this particular legal distinction — this protection — be kept from them?

If you really think about it, there really is no GOOD reason, is there? It is only hidebound intolerance, rather than a belief in Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness which seeks to give their unions (not to mention their love for each other) an unfairly outlawed status.

steve,

Now you’ve lost me. Are you saying that I’m not allowed to argue scriptural interpretation if I believe in the separation of church and state? What if I believe both that religious interpretations shouldn’t be the basis of law AND that the interpretations are flawed to begin with? Am I subject to ridicule from you if I choose the grounds of disagreement other than the one you expected?

I can only assume that your 12:10 PM message was sarcastic, but it doesn’t make much sense either way.

LawnBoy,

I don’t think my 12:10 post could have been any clearer. My posts are never intended to ridicule.

What I am saying is that arguing an issue like gay marriage which is a legal issue with quotes as I did from scripture, is not effective or relevant.

Then why did you argue with scripture? I agree that interpretations of Christianity should be beside the point when deciding civil law, so I feel a bit like I was lead down a trap, particularly when neither Dan nor I brought up separation of church and state.

Thanks Adrienne, I was hoping to spur a little bit of discussion with an off-key post but you stated basically what I was hoping to get across.

Steve, then thank you. I certainly try to recognize valid points from the other aisle, hope I can do so as graciously. I especially liked the “brilliant” part.

To add: Most people against gay marriage seem to express one or both of two reasons: “It’s wrong and it’s bad for society” This response is based on either or both of two learned behaviors. Either from a formal religious “it is a sin” or the school year informal “ewww, lets pick on the pansies/fags/{insert differnce here}”.
Sin is not a universal constant and middle school behaviors are not good examples from which to make laws. This is supossed to be a free society. There is no evidence that real homosexuality is a learned or publicly harmful behavior (but I’m sure there’s contention here). Therefore, let them be free and get married. (BTW Gay weddings are a lot of fun, talk about interesting characters…)
You can say “I told you so” once the divorces start (oh, wait, they already have!)

I am for same sex marriage however i dont like the thought of children being raised in an envirement with homosexual displays of affection

Pearl,

I hope we can all agree that a personal “Don’t like” should not translate into a law. Actually, must not.

LawnBoy,

I argued with scripture in my initial response to Rhinehold who said there was nothing in scripture attributed to Jesus that addressed homosexuality.

steve,

Well, strictly speaking, Rhinehold claimed that Jesus never said anything about homosexuality, which wasn’t contradicted by any of the verses you mentioned. Unless, of course, you believe that everything in the Bible is the devinely inspired word of God, and that Jesus is God, so it follows that Jesus said everything in the Bible.

Anyway, thanks for clarifying.

Is it safe to say that laws are made to reflect public opinion and standard?

The point is that it was put to a vote and it lost.

If your not sure how that works here’s a brief description: They put out this little booth that registered citizens go to and check little boxes hence reflecting the overall public opinion on the matter at hand.

It cracks me up when the left says that the right is out of touch w/ the American people.
You can throw as many news articles as you want at us but the truth lies in the voting!

I am so sorry that you all disagree w/ the verdict, but just say that then…..”WE DISAGREE”, not “YA”LL ARE JUST OUT OF TOUCH”!

Traci,
{started to write this, before your last post}
Not strictly, that would be more akin to mob rule. The laws of the United States are founded on the Constitution and English civil law. There is an undeniable influence by contemporary standards but with a large and diverse nation, such laws would be difficult to implement justly. Especially when those laws would solely impact a minority. More so if it were an “unpopular” minority.
{after your last post}
What “verdict”?

Traci,

When you are directly referring to a specific comment, please include a bit of the comment to which you are responding. One good way is to wrap the quote in <blockquote>tags</blockquote>. I ask this because I’m not sure what you mean by The point is that it was put to a vote and it lost. What point? I just can’t follow without a little help. Thanks.

Lawnboy~
Thanx for the pointer.:)
But I was referring to my point I was not responding to a certain post.

I am for same sex marriage however i dont like the thought of children being raised in an envirement with homosexual displays of affection

Pearls, I don’t mean to pick on you specifically, but I have heard variations of this statement many times and I would seriously like someone to finally explain it to me. It sounds to me like you are essentially saying you find nothing wrong with homosexuality, since you are in favor of homosexual marriages, but children shouldn’t be exposed to homosexuality. If nothing is wrong with homosexuality itself, exactly what is wrong about children witnessing homosexual displays of affection rather than heterosexual ones?

Jarin

To awnswer your question i don’t have anything against homosexual people yet at the same time i dont think homosexuality should be unnessarly encoraged.

I’m actually have mixed feelings about the issue of homo sexual parents raising children.

Lawnboy~

This is running under the assumption that all minority groups hold the same beliefs. This never happens in the human world, and is very apparent w/in these posts.
For example, I know many gays/lesbians that either:
A. could care less, or
B. do not wish to make it a law
Those who scream the loudest do not always represent everyone in said group.(I know this also from dating a black man for 3 years).

Also in response to your post about parades:

Most of these groups are marching for “gay pride” w/ no mention what-so-ever of “gay rights”, but either way I do not view parades as the forum for this type of debate, take it to congress or your own private forum. I feel this way about any group marching for any reason.

This went w/ what I was referring to at the top of my post to Lawnboy….I don’t know why it didn’t paste the first time:)

Crap….Here it goes again:

“Especially when those laws would solely impact a minority. More so if it were an “unpopular” minority.”

I’m still a beginner and not quite sure how to do a link, but right now there is an interesting article on USATODAY.COM that is referring to an aspect of one of the things to consider before jumping head first into any decisions.

It is entitled: “Kids in legal gray area when gay couples split”

Traci said

Crap….Here it goes again:
“Especially when those laws would solely impact a minority. More so if it were an “unpopular” minority.”

Just my two cents on this issue:

BTW…Hi All:

If the children are being raised in a loving home, being raised to respect those around him/her what does the sexual orientation of the parents matter?
I am asking this because we all know heterosexual couples who should be put in jail because they do not have the slightest clue about raising kids! Agreed? If Monkies were doing a better job raising kids, than the crackwhore around the corner whose deadbeat husband is still looking at the long end of a 10 year stint at Folsom. I think I’d be inclined to leave the children with the Monkies. If the family were excellent parents, who provide an excellent homelife every thing about this family was perfect, but they are devout Hindi and clearly the finest choice what do you do? No one takes the widow’s children when she takes a new boyfriend, although he’s a twice convicted arsonist. But let a Gay/Lesbian couple attempt to get married and we scream blood murder. If two people love and are devoted to each other does it matter if they are Dick & Jane, Dick & Dick, or Jane & Jane? Shouldn’t the real worry be that the parents set forth a fine example. Do you really think that they are going to try and convert you, your spouse or recruit your kids.
I mean get a grip, are you that vane?

As Always,
Wayne

Dave~

READ ALL THE POSTS!!!
Don’t just jump on and read parts and come to conclusions. These were all in responce to Lawnboy as part of OUR dialect! If you had actually read all the post you would see that the quote was actually his that I was trying to post unsuccesfully! Maybe things sound derrogatory to you because you only listen to tidbits?

Wayne,

What in the world are you doing up at 2:49 am?

We agree on many things. This Gay/Lesbian marriage thing (with or without raising children involved)is more than I can buy into.

Even though I am a right wing guy I generally will accept almost anything (unless it gets too far away from my religious beliefs) as long as it is consistent with Federal Law.

To the best of my knowledge, same sex marriage is not legal by Federal Law. (I think some states have made it legal or tried to).

IMO being gay is a choice not a condition of birth as many are wont to claim. I believe that a choice to engage in that lifestyle is an incorrect one.

Even though I am a right wing guy I generally will accept almost anything (unless it gets too far away from my religious beliefs) as long as it is consistent with Federal Law. To the best of my knowledge, same sex marriage is not legal by Federal Law.

What if Federal Law recognized gay marriage. Would you accept it then?

Steve,

Marriage is the responsibility of each state.
MA has legalized gay marriage.
Therefore, it is now legal. That is why Bush43 wanted the constitutional ammendment.
Sorry, need to add the partisan doody here: Another example of errosion of states rights for short term political gain and religious intrusion into otherwise private affairs.

Dave,

Yes, I thought there was one state where it still was legal. Thanks.

There were several more, California being one I believe that legalized it and the law barely lasted long enough for two marriages before it (the law) was repealed.

Leave it to good old MA home state of :

Joseph Kennedy - Democrat
Ambassador- declared personna non grata and recalled. Embarrassed his country.

John F. Kennedy - Democrat
President-Philanderer

Robert Kennedy-Democrat
Attorney General-Philanderer
Wasted life chasing Jimmy Hoffa

Ted Kennedy-Democrat
Senator-Philanderer
Person of interest in Chappaquidick Death

I also had to throw in political stuff to suggest that the liberalism of the people of MA to have gay marriage legal could be a reflection of how much they adored a few of their favorite sons. A truly great legacy.

So, steve, besides the fact that you hate the Kennedys, was I supposed to learn something from that comment?

Do you have a dishonor role for all states?

“What if Federal Law recognized gay marriage. Would you accept it then?”

“So, steve, besides the fact that you hate the Kennedys, was I supposed to learn something from that comment?”

“Do you have a dishonor role for all states?”

LawnBoy,

If Federal Law established gay marriage as legal I would certainly recognize it. As would I recognize marijuana it it were legalized Federally.

Aside from a strong dislike for the Kennedy’s I could not think of a group of more permissive, liberally thinking politicians who represented the only state in the union which has legalized gay marriage. I wonder BTW if legalizing it in MA was really to increase the tourist and travel business.

Having recognized the gay marriage and marijuana
legality (if it becomes so) I would campaign for it’s repeal as the liberals are campaigning for it’s legalization.

I don’t have a dishonor role compiled for all states but I am considering working on it.

steve smith:

Glad to see someone (besides my brothers’ family) looking out for my welfare..ie “What in the world are you doing up at 2:49 am?” Well, I think it was about midnight, when I finally posted and turned in, I live in Los Angeles and the server is located somewhere on the Eastern Seaboard, though I do not know where. How about it “Watchblog”, where are your servers located?

I don’t promote a gay lifestyle either please do not think I do. I am just asking for more tolerance than is shown now. Picture this, your son or daughter(over 19) comes home and describes the perfect mate. The person he/she describes is kind, faithful, loyal, good looking, everything you would want for him/her and he/she wants to bring him/her home to meet the family you agree.
You and your mate are truely pleased that your son/daughter has finally met the man or woman of their dreams. You can’t hold your joy inside, you
call your Aunt Tillie, from out of state to share in your absolute bliss you invite the happy couple for the following weekend….There is a “knock” at door, “Come in” someone calls out, the whole family is on the edge of their seats as the door swings open, the whole room Gasps as you enter the room with the most perfect vision of beauty they have ever seen, You see they were waiting on the edge of their seats to see if they were right or wrong? Just so they could look at someone, point a finger, poke them in the gut/cheek, Then sliing the proverbial “See, I told you so”. Then Aunt Tillie from out of “no where” looks at the happiest couple in the world, and says “Oh My God”, Would you look at this says “See, I told you so,” pointing her spindly fingers at everyone in the room, “I told you that a Gay/Lesbian (insert as appropriate) couple could raise a ‘Normal” Child”.

I am not really religious in any way, shape or form. I was confirmed a Presbiterian in the 9th grade, but can count on 1 hand the number of services I have attended, since(I just turned 42). So you can see it really isn’t important to me. Yes, we do celebrate Christmas, Not really for us, but more for the kids, (all in elementary school) when they go back to school, they do not feel out of touch or strange. But, you ask anyone of them what & why we are celebrating, they can tell you in very adult terms all about Jesus, the Virgin Birth, The Lighting of the Menorah, Even about Kwanza and they also know about Ramadan. Not because we have force fed it to them, but because they have friends from their Public School, who celebrate these and other unique holidays. Oh, and before you get the wrong idea, these kids learned these things because they wanted to learn. This knowledge was not provided to them as part of any “Liberal Project”, They learned all of this knowledge doing what kids should be doing, Playing and inter-acting with other kids. What a concept, Dont cha think? I guess we could celebrate any of the of the holidays I have mentioned here, but Christmas is what we know best.
I have this question for you:

steve smith:

Glad to see someone (besides my brothers’ family) looking out for my welfare..ie “What in the world are you doing up at 2:49 am?” Well, I think it was about midnight, when I finally posted and turned in, I live in Los Angeles and the server is located somewhere on the Eastern Seaboard, though I do not know where. How about it “Watchblog”, where are your servers located?

I don’t promote a gay lifestyle either please do not think I do. I am just asking for more tolerance than is shown now. Picture this, your son or daughter(over 19) comes home and describes the perfect mate. The person he/she describes is kind, faithful, loyal, good looking, everything you would want for him/her and he/she wants to bring him/her home to meet the family you agree.
You and your mate are truely pleased that your son/daughter has finally met the man or woman of their dreams. You can’t hold your joy inside, you
call your Aunt Tillie, from out of state to share in your absolute bliss you invite the happy couple for the following weekend….There is a “knock” at door, “Come in” someone calls out, the whole family is on the edge of their seats as the door swings open, the whole room Gasps as you enter the room with the most perfect vision of beauty they have ever seen, You see they were waiting on the edge of their seats to see if they were right or wrong? Just so they could look at someone, point a finger, poke them in the gut/cheek, Then sliing the proverbial “See, I told you so”. Then Aunt Tillie from out of “no where” looks at the happiest couple in the world, and says “Oh My God”, Would you look at this says “See, I told you so,” pointing her spindly fingers at everyone in the room, “I told you that a Gay/Lesbian (insert as appropriate) couple could raise a ‘Normal” Child”.

I am not really religious in any way, shape or form. I was confirmed a Presbiterian in the 9th grade, but can count on 1 hand the number of services I have attended, since(I just turned 42). So you can see it really isn’t important to me. Yes, we do celebrate Christmas, Not really for us, but more for the kids, (all in elementary school) when they go back to school, they do not feel out of touch or strange. But, you ask anyone of them what & why we are celebrating, they can tell you in very adult terms all about Jesus, the Virgin Birth, The Lighting of the Menorah, Even about Kwanza and they also know about Ramadan. Not because we have force fed it to them, but because they have friends from their Public School, who celebrate these and other unique holidays. Oh, and before you get the wrong idea, these kids learned these things because they wanted to learn. This knowledge was not provided to them as part of any “Liberal Project”, They learned all of this knowledge doing what kids should be doing, Playing and inter-acting with other kids. What a concept, Dont cha think? I guess we could celebrate any of the of the holidays I have mentioned here, but Christmas is what we know best.
As Always,
Wayne

A very verbous Wayne At that

Wayne,

A very good post, however it does not change my previously stated position on gay marriage.

Discretion being the better part of valor, I respectfully choose not to respond.

I hope you are feeling well.

I wonder BTW if legalizing it in MA was really to increase the tourist and travel business.

Homosexuals who live in states that prohibit their marriage of the person they love are also prohibited from marrying in MA. We have a 1913 law banning marriage between people who’s state of origin bans their marriage.

Steve;
The “legalization” was based on a Mass Supreme Court decision that decided, based on a suit by a gay couple, that the state could not discriminate against gays by precluding them from the rights of marriage (I’m sure there are people who could describe the desision more accurately).
So, no law was passed, it was those ‘activist’ judges again.
Immediately, the state legislature tried to pass several laws aimed at trying to overturn but all were summarily dismissed as counter to the decision. They then, along with the Governor, have proposed ammending the state constitution to overturn the descision. Also, I believe that 1913 law was ruled invalid since it was originally passed as part of the miscregination fiascos and as such has largely been ignored for 60 years.
Finally, you say Kennedy the same way I say Bush. Interesting difference in perspectives.

Dave,

True, we appear to have diverse perspectives on a few things.

I seriously do not know the answer to this question but is MA 1/50th of the states allowing gay marriages.

Hi Steve:

Why not start your dishonor roll with the Senators of each state.
That would give you 100 right off the bat, and I don’t think you’d find much disagreement from the residents or citizenry
Thanks for your support, even if at times we disagree. Cheers!

As Always,
Wayne

Steve,

I don’t know if other states allow gay marriage but I would rather live in the 1 of the 50 states that do (MASSACHUSETTS) than the 1 in 50 states that until November 2000 had laws “prohibiting blacks and whites from mixing blood” (ALABAMA).

We all have a choice; we can either hate, hurt, and impede other peoples, or not.

Dave,

Thanks for answering my 1/50th question.

You mean you would rather live in Massachusetts than Alabama? We have identified yet another area of disagreement.

Warren P.,

So MA does have at least one good law on the books. Let’s hear it for 1913.

Steve,

I was trying to point out that it was until 5 years ago that Alabama had a law making it illegal for a white person to marry a black person. In the 2000 referendum 40% of Alabamans voted to keep the law.
1) Do you really believe a 92 year old law passed to prevent people of different races getting married is a good law? (BTW I believe it’s been ruled invalid)
2) You would still really rather live in Alabama?

Dave,

I am a bit more perceptive than I appear to be. I actually knew the point that you were making about the Alabama law.

Is the law still on the books or invalid.?

No matter, yes I would still rather live in Alabama than in Massachusetts.

It is well known that I am a right wing conservative in principle. That does not mean that I share every single view/position attributed to that group.

Also well known from a multitude of posts on all subjects is that if it is LAW I support it, personal opinion aside. If it is not a LAW I am generally against it, personal feelings aside.

Example A - I am against marijuana in any way shape or form for anybody and everybody because it is unlawful.

Example B - I am against flag burning although it is lawful as an extension of free speech.

My personal opinions on issues such as this may differ.

Steve,

I’m glad to hear you’re a law abiding man. But, you seem too intelligent to think every current law should be a permanent law, good or bad. You also seem a little too open minded to live in a state where nearly half the people still think slavery was a good and moral tool for economic delevopment.

The Alabama miscegenation law was overturned in a referendum in 2000. 40% voted to keep it on the books even though it was invalidated by the Supreme Court in 1967.

Dave,

“You also seem a little too open minded to live in a state where nearly half the people still think slavery was a good and moral tool for economic delevopment.”

The issue that we were discussing had no relation to slavery. The 40% of the voters exercised their right to opinion that they felt
inter-racial marriages were worth keeping on the books.

If you think 40% of Alabamans have misplaced priorities you should live in Mississippi. I lived there for a while.

My home is in Virginia BTW.

Steve,

You’re right of course. But to a lily livered bleeding heart liberal such as myself it’s not much of a step.

To paraphrase WC Fields (I think)”I spent a year in Biloxi one week”

Dave,

40% of people in Alabama voted to keep such a law? See, this is the bad thing about Watchblog, you sometimes learn things that you really didn’t want to know. I’ve visited Alabama a couple of times and drove through there last month. God, I feel dirty…

I’ve made this argument several times in the past, so I’ll do it again…

If they legalize/decriminalize homosexual marriage they should also legalize/decriminalize polygamy. All of the arguments for homosexual marriage apply to polygamy. Some of the arguments, such as raising children, are even more compelling since the support system is amplified by having more parents. What’s the difference if a child has two mothers and a biological father in a lesbian family or two mothers and a father in a polygamist family? I have yet to see a legitimate, fact based argument decoupling (no pun intended) the plight of the homosexuals and the plight of the polygamists.

Frankly is amazes and embarasses me when seemingly educated people in this discussion use the civil rights movement as an analogy for the gay marriage movement, then these same people totally reject parallels to polygamist rights. This is not a case of discrimination, as the civil rights movement was. The homosexual community is not a “race” or “nationality” of people. Gays are very well integrated into society today compared to blacks during the civil rights movement. Government recognized marriage is the only thing they are denied today. There aren’t volumes of anti-gay legislation on the books like there was segregationist legislation. It’s apples and oranges.