MERGED (yet again): All Gay Marriage Discussion Here Please

[martha]

Thanks for the lecture. I do believe we have the freedom to post articles that may have something to do with the topic. I am sorry if you seem unable to look at it from another angle. Your lecturing of me is quite tiresome as well. Next time, PM me if you have a critique of my posting and my opinions. Otherwisse, feel free to not read what I post.


I believe the court is wrong. I am for gay marriage. As a matter of fact I just cast a vote in my church to support it at an Episcopal Assembly for this Saturday. So much for FEEBLE.

Peace

One last issue...Martha...you have NO clue how close to home this issue is for me and members of my family. Not everyone who comes to FYM decides to block out all other opinions. In fact, sometimes I learn more about my opinion by looking at it from the other view.

No, I don't have any idea what you and your family have experienced regarding this issue. I wouldn't assume to know that.

I don't block out the opinions of others, and I try to listen to what others say. My point was that you post many articles that are against gay marriage, more than other FYM regulars that really are against it. When you post them, you offer very little context for your own thoughts on these articles. Now that you've clarified your wariness of court rulings, I understand that a little more.

No, I can't look at this issue "from another angle." It's about discrimination, pure and simple. People can attempt to cloak their discrimination with religion, with fear of "activist judges," with anything else they can think of. They can deny that equal access is a civil rights issue all they want. It isn't. It's about equal access and equal protection, and to even entertain the idea that it isn't, is explicit support for discrimination.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

Exactly, BVS.

This discussion has gone on for a long time and has mostly gone well. Let's keep up that record. This is an issue that people feel passionately about.

Indeed...considering the fact that some of the threads regarding this topic have been closed before, I think it's pretty good that this one had been going pretty calmly for the most part.

Also, I agree with you that deep wasn't trying to be disrespectful-deep did say, "No offense", after all, and I don't think they were trying to make all of Boston out to be that way.

Angela

 

[Dreadsox]

My point was that you post many articles that are against gay marriage, more than other FYM regulars that really are against it.

Have you ever wondered why people do NOT post their opinions or post more often on unpopular issues? Good Grief, NBC was practically stoned until it was realized he was for the issue.

 

[Dreadsox]

People can attempt to cloak their discrimination with religion, with fear of "activist judges," with anything else they can think of.

I think it is not fair to say people who have religious convictions about this issue are cloaking "discrimination" or are bigots(My words). I also think that activist judges are a problem to be concerned with.

The thing that you and I agree with is your statements about equal protection under the law. That I believe in.

Peace

 

[deep]

Re: HOMOSEXUAL marriage is not a civil rights issue.

Deep: Maybe you want to back up what you're saying about Boston and race relations.

I would not have brought it up if I did not believe Dread put it on the table
with this portion of his post.

[Q]Gay marriage isn't civil rights
This was the editorial in Sunday's Boston Globe. Many in here have made the arguement that this is a Civil Rights issue. I was quite surprised to find this printed in the Globe.

He made the correlation in regards to a Civil Rights? article

and the major Boston* paper.




Some of the worst race riots have been in Boston concerning integration.

 

[Dreadsox]

If you are going to quote ME....please be kind enough NOT to merge the article I quoted with my words. NOWHERE did I say that I agreed that it was NOT a civil rights issue. The way you quote me above, is not FAIR, and portrays me in a manner that I do not appreciate.

It is interesting the the AFRICAN AMERICAN MINISTERS in the Boston area disagree with you as was referenced in the article.

I still say your reference to the racial tensions in Boston have NOTHING to do with the content or points made in the article. My original post was one of SHOCK that the more left newspaper here in Boston printed this edictorial.

 

[nbcrusader]

No, I can't look at this issue "from another angle."

We all need to look at issues from different angles. I think that is the essense of Free Your Mind. It will lead to greater understanding of the world.

 

[martha]

Good Grief, NBC was practically stoned until it was realized he was for the issue.

Now you're putting words in his mouth. He has never stated his support for gay marriage.

Go back and look. You'll see that he's silent either way.


And do you think I should not challenge people? I should nod and smile when they voice an opinion that will result in discrimination? I should let those opinions go unchallenged? Why? If people state things like that, they should be able to back them up.

 

[DrTeeth]

Words can't describe how pissed off I am about this!!!

BOSTON (Reuters) - Massachusetts lawmakers late on Thursday dealt a blow to same sex couples anxious to marry by moving one step closer to amending the state constitution to bar same-sex marriages but allow same-sex unions.

Responding to a court decision that will allow same-sex couples to wed in Massachusetts starting May 17, legislators delivered emotionally charged speeches for 10 hours, debating if and how to amend the Constitution, the nation's oldest.

In the end, lawmakers agreed in a 127 to 77 vote to accept a compromise amendment that would limit marriage to a union between a man and a woman and grant gays and lesbians the right to enter into civil unions.

In California on Thursday, the State Supreme Court ordered San Francisco to halt same-sex marriages.

The decision, which will be reviewed again in May or June, comes exactly one month after San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom gave the green light to gay marriages, resulting in more than 4,000 homosexual pairings since then. He said he would comply with the ruling.

In its order, the state's top court referred to the California code that defines marriage as a union of man and woman and told San Francisco "to refrain from issuing marriage licenses or certificates not authorized by such provisions."

 

[Dreadsox]

[Q]Gay marriage ban wins preliminary approval, but final support uncertain
By Jennifer Peter, Associated Press, 3/11/2004

BOSTON -- Massachusetts lawmakers gave preliminary approval Thursday to a constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage but legalize civil unions as the state again took center stage in the national debate over the rights of same-sex couples to wed.

The amendment, which would strip gay couples of their court-granted marriage rights, must still weather several additional votes and anticipated legislative maneuvering by opponents, who said the vote was all part of their strategy to ultimately defeat a ban.

The earliest a ban could end up on a statewide ballot is November 2006, more than two years after same-sex couples can start getting married in Massachusetts.[/Q]

http://www.boston.com/news/specials/gay_marriage/articles/2004/03/11/gay_marriage_ban_wins_preliminary_approval_but_final_support_uncertain/

As I was saying the only way to make sure the courts are not interfering is through legislation and amendments.

Unfortunatley this is what the lawmakers come up with.

Crawling FEEBLY back into me hole.

 

[Angela Harlem]

This has already had a warning so I hope we wont end up closing this thread. It has been going so well until the last page or 2.

2 points we might want to consider, Martha, NBC and Dread and anyone else...One is it is easy to leap to incorrect conclusions based on posts on a message board. While we might see it as a natural conclusion, it is never fact until someone states it is in their own words.
The second is, if it is apparent someone is mistaking your beliefs, a reiteration of them put as straight forward and clearly as we can, is only going to help keep everyone abreast of where we are all coming from on an issue. While no one has to state their opinion in black and white and there is no obligation to do so at any time, it can prevent a lot of misunderstanding from both sides.

One more point, Martha on your own admission you stated you cannot see this from another angle, and I'm sure everyone respects that. I'd think that alone though means it is even more unfair to call this an inexplicable support for discrimination. Some people's views are not based on civil aspects, and I think it is not something we would have an understanding of how this thinking works unless we feel that ourselves. You dont, and that is fine. It is also fine for people to view this from which ever perspective they are inclined, too.

We're all open minded enough to welcome other's views, no matter how much we personally disagree with it. It isn't about having the right or wrong opinion, but how we portray it and react to others.

 

[martha]

One more point, Martha on your own admission you stated you cannot see this from another angle, and I'm sure everyone respects that. I'd think that alone though means it is even more unfair to call this an inexplicable support for discrimination. Some people's views are not based on civil aspects, and I think it is not something we would have an understanding of how this thinking works unless we feel that ourselves. You dont, and that is fine. It is also fine for people to view this from which ever perspective they are inclined, too.

Point taken. I understand. I disagree, but I understand.

 

[Liesje]

One more point, Martha on your own admission you stated you cannot see this from another angle, and I'm sure everyone respects that. I'd think that alone though means it is even more unfair to call this an inexplicable support for discrimination. Some people's views are not based on civil aspects, and I think it is not something we would have an understanding of how this thinking works unless we feel that ourselves. You dont, and that is fine. It is also fine for people to view this from which ever perspective they are inclined, too.

Good point! And to expand on that (I'm not directing this at Martha or anyone personally, just my thoughts in general here), when people ask for a non-religious reason why gay marriage should or should not be banned, I can't answer. Why? Because religion is the single most important and influential thing in my life and I can't just ignore it. It's not a variable in my life that I can control and remove from certain situations, it IS my life. Please don't put words into my mouth and assume I'm against gay marriage because I'm not. All I'm saying is that you can't expect a religious person to be able to remove ALL religious bias when it comes to politics and society because for some people, religion is like oxygen and is the basis of all decisions. I can see how if people out there are not religious, this can be hard to understand, and I respect that, but please don't use someone's religious beliefs that you don't understand and assume that they are worthless, discriminitory, and wrong.

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

I can see how if people out there are not religious, this can be hard to understand, and I respect that, but please don't use someone's religious beliefs that you don't understand and assume that they are worthless, discriminitory, and wrong.

It's not that people don't respect opinions that are based on religion, it's that they can't be a basis for laws in a secular society. If a person believes gay marriage is wrong solely because of a religious belief then it's not a good reason for banning gay marriage. Similiary, if a person's only reason for supporting gay marriage was religious, it also wouldn't be a good basis for a law.

 

[Liesje]

it's that they can't be a basis for laws in a secular society.

Oh I completely agree. Regardless of how religious I may or may not be, religion should not influence law and law should not influence religion, period. This is I why I support gay civil marriages. Like I said before, I don't have a good non-religious reason why gay people should not have equal rights to marriage, so there is no reason why they should not be allowed regular civil marriages like anyone else. Religious ceremonies are completely seperate and outside of the law so my religious beliefs are allowed to influence my personal beliefs in these situations, but these are irrelevant to this discussion since religious marriage is not on the agenda.

 

[BVS]

KINGSTON, N.Y. - Two ministers were charged with criminal offenses Monday for marrying 13 gay couples in what is believed to be the first time in the United States that clergy members have been prosecuted for performing same-sex ceremonies.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4533865/

 

[melon]

Ah...you beat me to it.

This is *precisely* why the separation of church and state is necessary! The government is now cracking down on a religious practice that, while the majority of religious groups may not support, it is within the rights of the minority to practice as they wish. After all, secularism is as much necessary to prevent religions from forcing their will on society, as much as it is necessary to protect minority religious views.

The irony, perhaps, is that marriage laws, in general, may be deemed unconstitutional by the sheer reality that government is clearly doing the defining of a religious institution. The best solution, all around, is to get government out of the business of marriage completely. Let government issue civil unions for people of all stripes--and let them have all the legal rights, etc.--while leave marriage to the religions to define as they please, devoid of any legal significance. Some European nations have done this for a long time (even though the civil aspect is still called "marriage," a religious marriage doesn't count; you have to go to a courthouse for a second time) which is probably why many of these same nations have little problem with the idea of same-sex marriage.

Melon

 

[martha]

The irony, perhaps, is that marriage laws, in general, may be deemed unconstitutional by the sheer reality that government is clearly doing the defining of a religious institution. The best solution, all around, is to get government out of the business of marriage completely. Let government issue civil unions for people of all stripes

I would love the delicious irony of this. That those who are the most hysterical about the "sanctity" of their marriage may be the ones who end up not "married" at all. That they all will have civil unions in the eyes of the state. And that gay couples who choose a church that will marry them will be just as married as the straight couples.

 

[melon]

She Served Her Country But Army Vet Can't Get VA Loan Because She's A Lesbian

Posted: March 18, 2004 12:01 a.m. ET

(Racine, Wisconsin) Marilyn Riedel served her country and her president with distinction as an Army Captain in charge of the communications center for the presidential retreat at Camp David.

Throughout her career in the turbulent Cold War of the 1960s she carefully kept her sexuality a secret, and at one point supervised 130 soldiers.

Now 61, a vet, and severely disabled with Parkinson's disease, she depends on her domestic partner for everything.

Riedel is classified as 100 percent disabled and has trouble moving, drinking and eating. It's difficult for her to talk because her worsening Parkinson's disease makes her tongue quiver.

She needs a home that can accommodate her special needs. But, her army pension doesn't go far. Together, Riedel and her partner of eight years Connie Guardino, 58, would be able to carry a small mortgage and Riedel applied for a low-interest VA home loan.

The Wisconsin Department of Veterans Affairs rejected her because the state won't allow anyone but a spouse to be a co-applicant.

"A spouse is an individual who enters a valid marriage contract. Unless the law is changed, there is no way that we can change that," said Andrew Schuster, spokesman for the Wisconsin VA. "We go directly by the statutes. We don't have any authority to vary that."

Riedel can't understand the difference. Because of her medication condition she depends on Guardino for everything.

"This is a civil rights issue," said Guardino. "What's the difference?"

Melon

 

[Kate1]

I find it discusting!

 

[BVS]

I find it discusting!

I find a lot of things discusting, but I think hatred and intolerance rank as the two highest on my list.

 

[Angela Harlem]

Are de-facto relationships void in situations like the one posted?
Just to make an already unfair scenario worse.

Kate1, which do you find disgusting, out of curiosity? The idea of homosexual marriage, or the article showing the discrimination?

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

There goes the spelling again. You mean "disgusting" and I'm inclined to agree with BVS about hatred and intolerance. Do you have any form of coherent argument as to why you think homosexuality is wrong? Or are you just making un-educated, bigoted remarks for the sake of it?

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

I find a lot of things discusting, but I think hatred and intolerance rank as the two highest on my list.

.

Angela

 

[Dreadsox]

As someone who is typing challenged and who suffers from difficulty spelling when suffering from my frequent headaches....since when is it acceptable to pick on others for their typos. I have seen Angela ask posters to not do that as it detracts from the points being made. There is no need to stoop to that level.

By the way....Kate...What do you mean? Please explain yourself because it seems that you have an issue with homosexuals.

 

[Dreadsox]

I find it discusting!

I find it incredibly wrong of you to type this response to melon. There are people who come to this forum who are homosexual and deserve to be treated with respect, just as you or I do.

I find this post to be disgusting and disrespectful towards a member of this forum.

 

[melon]

Please explain yourself because it seems that you have an issue with homosexuals.

I'm sure it has to do with the "ick" factor. If only I could ban everyone that I found to be "icky"...

Bigotry never has a rational explanation, so why even try?

Melon

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

As someone who is typing challenged and who suffers from difficulty spelling when suffering from my frequent headaches....since when is it acceptable to pick on others for their typos. I have seen Angela ask posters to not do that as it detracts from the points being made. There is no need to stoop to that level.

By the way....Kate...What do you mean? Please explain yourself because it seems that you have an issue with homosexuals.

Dread,
I know this is will come across the wrong way because we disagreed in another thread yesterday, but what I want to say here has nothing to do with any of that, it's just a response to this thread alone.

I hardly ever criticise people's spelling either. I probably make enough of my own spelling errors and besides, it's the internet and nobody cares about the occassional typo as long as the post is still readable.

But you know what? If someone isn't well-informed enough to even spell "holy book" correctly then chances are they're also not well-informed enough to comment on contents of said book. Chances are if someone hasn't yet learned to spell "digusting" then they also haven't learned why it's both wrong and insulting to describe gay people as such.

I know it's stooping to their level, but I really don't see why when someone posts such an ignorant and insulting comment, people should be suprised that I respond with criticism.

Meh. I hate these stupid discussions more than anyone can imagine. (Referring to Kate's comments, not yours Dread.)

 

[Dreadsox]

I think it would be better to discuss the comment rather than the spelling, and I know it has been pointed out before.

I alos noticed according to her profile that Katie is 15. relatively short in the life experience area. I would think that focusing on her spelling rather than the issue, is not going to help her understand your point of view or mine.

I agree you that the comments are prettty insulting. I do not think we are going to change any minds with the spelling comments.

 

[BrownEyedBoy]

May I pose a hypotethical situation? What if...in some strange psychological cataclism(highly unlikely but bear with me here) EVERYONE and I mean absolutely everyone decided to turn gay and get married? How would the species carry on? Everyone would be married to people of the same sex so reproduction would be out of the question...

If this occurred would you even think about encouraging same-sex marriage?

(BTW, I just wanted to see what you thought...I don't agree with same sex marriages but that will never give me the right to try to enforce other people to think like me.)

Cheers