equality blooms with spring, pt. II

[Irvine511]

"Go forth and multiply," thus sayeth the Lord. Let it always be a blasphemy for a young, perfectly healthy couple to marry and choose to never have children. They shall be stoned, not shunned.

i'm glad you're grasping the ultimate conclusion of those who say that marriage is about children and that therefore gay people cannot marry.

 

[Irvine511]

D.C. Council votes to legalize same-sex marriage
By Tim Craig
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, December 1, 2009 2:56 PM

The D.C. Council voted Tuesday to legalize same-sex marriage in the District, as the city moves quickly to join five states in allowing gay couples to marry.

After months of debate, the council passed the bill 11 to 2. It still must take a second vote in two weeks before the measure can go to Mayor Adrian M. Fenty (D), who has said he will sign it.

If the bill survives a required congressional review period, the District will join New Hampshire, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont and Massachusetts in allowing same-sex marriage.

Council member David A. Catania (I-At Large), one of two openly gay members of the council, said before the vote he thought it was a day that "would never come."

"It really speaks to the long and rich tradition of tolerance and acceptance that does make up the sense of place in the District of Columbia," said Catania, the chief sponsor of the bill.

Council member Phil Mendelson (D-At Large), another key sponsor, said the vote is a culmination of a decades-long struggle by gay rights leaders in the District.

"I don't think it's a giant step; it's a final step," Mendelson said.

Council members Marion Barry (D-Ward 8) and Yvette M. Alexander (D-Ward 7) were the only two members to vote against the bill.

Before casting his vote, Barry gave an impassioned speech noting that he is a longtime supporter of gay rights. But Barry said that his constituents oppose same-sex marriage, and that he believed the council should have authorized a referendum on the issue.

"I stand here today to express in no uncertain terms my strong commitment to the gay and lesbian, bisexual, transgender community on almost every issue except this one," Barry said.

He then went on to plead with gay and lesbian residents not to hold his "no" vote against him.

"It's not fair to make this one issue a litmus test as to one's commitment to human rights, to justice, and I resent those who would make it a litmus test," Barry said.

Private polls show that black voters are far more likely than white voters in the District to oppose same-sex marriage. Both Barry and Alexander represent majority black wards and they also have stated that they were under considerable pressure from African-American ministers in their wards to vote against the bill.

But council member Harry Thomas Jr. (D-Ward 5) said he had no choice but to support the bill, even though many of his constituents oppose same-sex marriage.

"I sit here as a ward member and worry about the consequences but remind everyone . . . we must stand up for the least of those among us" Thomas said.

 

[martha]

see below

 

[martha]

Valid marriage? Of course not.

We should continue the practice of ostracizing couples that marry and cannot have children because of infertility or the husband getting his pecker shot off in Bush's illegal war in Iraq.

Society should continue to distance itself from couples whose children die due to lack of universal health care coverage or rising sea levels.

Older couples whose children have left the nest should continue to be seen as second class marriages. Better that one offspring continue to live at home, preferably in the basement where they can blog for the DailyKos.

"Go forth and multiply," thus sayeth the Lord. Let it always be a blasphemy for a young, perfectly healthy couple to marry and choose to never have children. They shall be stoned, not shunned.

I love this answer. I do. Because as ridiculous as you're trying to be, you made my point. Marriage ISN'T about the children. If it were, you'd have given me a straight answer.

And you're not as funny as you might think. The thread I started about this is apparently too old to search for, but here's the Wiki article about hoe Kanab, Utah took you seriously.

Kanab, Utah - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And the text:

On January 10, 2006, the mayor and city council passed Resolution 1-1-06R, titled The Natural Family: A Vision for the City of Kanab, codifying the definition of a "natural family":
"We envision a local culture that upholds the marriage of a man to a woman, and a woman to a man, as ordained of God... We see our homes as open to a full quiver of children, the source of family continuity and social growth. We envision young women growing into wives, homemakers, and mothers; and we see young men growing into husbands, home-builders, and fathers."[7]
The text of Kanab's Natural Family Resolution is identical to a draft resolution created by the Sutherland Institute, a political think tank based in Utah that works towards public policy reform to reflect its notion of "traditional values". Echoing language from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints The Family: A Proclamation to the World, the Sutherland Institute wrote the resolution and sent it to every city in Utah, hoping to see it adopted in as many places as possible. Kanab was the only city to do so.

It put marriages with children first, and stated that marriages like mine were secondary. Unmarried people took a second-class seat as well. So keep laughing INDY. It lets us know what you're really thinking.

 

[martha]

I'll butt in here and ask a question that will be too hard to answer. I have no kids. I have never ever planned to have kids. We got married 20 1/2 years ago with the plan to never have kids. I'm fixed, surgically, to never have kids. They're not happening in this lifetime.

So far, we've had pages of posts about families, fathers, mothers, men, women, biology, philosophy. None of these have addressed the fact that marriages sometimes don't produce children.


The question: Is my marriage still legitimate to those posters who have decided that marriage is only for having children?

AEON, you're the only holdout.

 

[INDY500]

I love this answer. I do. Because as ridiculous as you're trying to be, you made my point. Marriage ISN'T about the children. If it were, you'd have given me a straight answer.

When are you ever interested in straight answers? I told you what I imagined you wanted to hear.

A ridiculous question demands a ridiculous response.

 

[Irvine511]

A ridiculous question demands a ridiculous response.

why are you fine with childless martha being married while you're opposed to possibly-want-to-have-children irvine being expressly forbidden via constitutional amendment?

 

[phillyfan26]

A ridiculous question demands a ridiculous response.

As I pointed out in response to your response. The question she posed is just as ridiculous as the question about gay marriage. Your sarcastic response is the sarcastic response we all would make when asked about gay marriage.

 

[martha]

When are you ever interested in straight answers?

When you're uncomfortable giving them.

 

[martha]

why are you fine with childless martha being married while you're opposed to possibly-want-to-have-children irvine being expressly forbidden via constitutional amendment?

S'pose you'll get an answer?

 

[BVS]

A ridiculous question demands a ridiculous response.

And another point goes flying over someone's head...

 

[Irvine511]

New York Senate Set to Vote on Same-Sex Marriage Bill

By JEREMY W. PETERS
ALBANY — The State Senate debated a bill on Wednesday that would legalize same-sex marriage, but the outcome remained uncertain with people on both sides of the debate conceding they did not know how the vote would play out.

By clearing the path for a vote, Senate Democrats have removed the last remaining obstacle for a debate on the same-sex marriage bill, which has never been put to a vote in the Senate despite repeated efforts by gay rights advocates.

But Democrats, who have a bare, one-seat majority, do not have enough votes to pass the bill without some Republican support.

In a debate that in many instances was cast in unusually personal tones, many senators delivered emotional speeches on the floor of the chamber, equating the struggle for gay rights to the civil rights movement or the battle women have waged for equality.

One of the bill’s sponsors, State Senator Thomas K. Duane of Manhattan, who is gay, said the bill would finally give him something that as a New Yorker he has never enjoyed.

“This legislation would merely provide me and tens of thousands of other New Yorkers with equal rights in New York State," Mr. Duane said. “It would make me equal in every way to everyone else in this chamber.”

Senator Liz Krueger, a Democrat who represents Manhattan’s Upper East Side and another of the bill’s sponsors, said her grandparents came to the United States to escape persecution against Jews. As a Jew and a woman, Ms. Krueger said her decision to support same-sex marriage was easy to make.

But State Senator Rubén Díaz Sr. of the Bronx made an impassioned argument against same-sex marriage, describing his continued opposition as reflecting the broad consensus that marriage should be limited to a union between a man and woman. “Not only the evangelicals, not only the Jews, not only the Muslims, not only the Catholics, but also the people oppose it,” he said.

Senate Republicans said Wednesday morning that they believed their members could provide a few votes for the bill, but it was not certain whether those votes would be enough to offset the handful of Democratic no votes that are anticipated.

“There may be a few, that’s very possible,” said Senator Thomas W. Libous of Binghamton, the deputy Republican leader who said he will vote against the bill. “Everybody’s feeling is get it on the floor and let’s vote it up or down. It’s been talked about enough. Let’s get it done. I think it’s going to be very close.”

Ms. Krueger said before the debate began that she was optimistic the bill would pass, but added, “It depends on whether Republican votes are delivered.”

If the legislation passes, New York would become the sixth state where marriage between same-sex couples is legal or will soon be permitted. If it fails, New York would become the latest state where gay rights advocates have made considerable progress only to see their hopes dashed.

Last month Maine became the 31st state to block same-sex marriage through a referendum. The Maine State Legislature had voted to legalize same-sex unions earlier this year, but opponents of gay rights gathered enough signatures to put the measure on the ballot.

Last year, California voters repealed same-sex marriage after the State Supreme Court said that gay couples had the right to marry.

Unlike in Maine, however, New York does not have a referendum process that allows voters to overturn an act of the Legislature.

If the measure passes on Wednesday, it would probably become law quickly and would be nearly impossible to reverse.

The State Assembly has already approved the legislation, and Gov. David A. Paterson has said he will immediately sign the bill once it makes it to his desk.

Shortly after midnight on Wednesday, the Assembly voted 88 to 51 to allow same-sex marriage. Though the Assembly has already passed the bill twice, a quirk in New York’s legislative code required the Assembly to pass the bill again before the governor can sign it.

As the vote approached — Senate officials said they expected it to take place in the afternoon — advocates on both sides of the debate were pushing ahead with a last-minute effort to shore up support.

“We’re working it as hard as we can,” said Senator Eric T. Schneiderman, a Democrat who represents the Upper West Side and who supports same-sex marriage. “It feels very good right now. It feels like its going to happen. But this is an issue where some people don’t want to declare themselves until the last minute. And I think, believe it or not, I think there are one or two people who are really still torn.”

Demonstrators on both sides of the issue were relatively scarce in the Capitol on Wednesday. A small group of Orthodox Jews gathered outside the Senate chamber, one of them holding a sign that read “Gay Union/A Rebellion Against the Almighty.”

Rabbi Yisroel Dovid Weiss of Monsey, N.Y., said he traveled to Albany to remind the Senate “that the world belongs to the Almighty, and they have to reckon with his rules and his law.”

As John L. Sampson, the Senate Democratic leader, walked into his office on Wednesday morning, he flashed a thumbs-up to same-sex marriage supporters standing a few feet from the protesters. But Mr. Sampson acknowledged he did not know how the vote would turn out.

“I’ve got my work cut out for me,” he said.

if something doesn't happen soon, these people might get the idea that they're a real family.

 

[INDY500]

What does that remind me of? Oh yeah...

 

[Irvine511]

you're the people he was mocking.

 

[diamond]

Martha,

Your marriage is legitimate based on you and your husband's gender, that's an automatic qualifer-no getting around it.

That I support GCUs, they too could become married only after one elected to a have sex change operation.

<>

 

[Irvine511]

and the NY State Senate rejected the measure 24-38. bummer.

 

[Irvine511]

Your marriage is legitimate based on you and your husband's gender, that's an automatic qualifer-no getting around it.

but if they have no children, why does their gender matter?

 

[INDY500]

you're the people he was mocking.

Hollywood... mock traditional values? I refuse to believe that.

 

[Irvine511]

Hollywood... mock traditional values? I refuse to believe that.

are there some traditional values that should be mocked?

 

[INDY500]

are there some traditional values that should be mocked?

are there some traditional values that should be defended?

 

[Irvine511]

are there some traditional values that should be defended?

are you answering my question with a question?

 

[INDY500]

are you answering my question with a question?

are you opposed to Socratic questioning?

 

[Irvine511]

are you opposed to Socratic questioning?

why do you avoid the direct questions presented to you?

 

[diamond]

but if they have no children, why does their gender matter?

Because marriage is based on the uniting of 2 opposite genders.

<>

 

[Irvine511]

Because marriage is based on the uniting of 2 opposite genders.

<>

why?

 

[BVS]

What does that remind me of? Oh yeah...

Wow, twice in one page...

 

[INDY500]

why do you avoid the direct questions presented to you?

why do you consider a contradictory answer to be avoiding the question?

 

[BVS]

Because marriage is based on the uniting of 2 opposite genders.

<>

Has this not changed? The dictionary argument is weak...

 

[diamond]

Has this not changed? ..

maybe in your head, but not to most people.

<>

 

[phillyfan26]

maybe in your head, but not to most people.

<>

Right, but changing the definition doesn't do anything to heterosexual couples. They're still married, they still all have the rights they had when they were married.