MERGED (yet again): All Gay Marriage Discussion Here Please - Page 29 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 03-07-2004, 09:38 PM   #421
War Child
 
najeena's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: an island paradise
Posts: 995
Local Time: 10:42 AM
Without taking the time to read all 419 replies (in case I'm repeating something already mentioned), I'll recount something interesting I heard yesterday about a man who wasn't against gay marriage as much as he was against using the word marriage in that context. He suggested 'pairriage' as a term for same sex unions.
__________________

__________________
najeena is offline  
Old 03-07-2004, 10:00 PM   #422
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 05:42 AM
You know, none of this will stop gay marriage. Any number of religions will marry homosexuals, whether or not it is legally binding. All these other names are, of course, to rip out any religious significance to same-sex unions, but that is not your right to pass judgment.

I, for one, will never accept any other word than "marriage" to describe any union I will get in the future, and if I have to shun American bigotry for a Canadian marriage someday, then I will.

Melon
__________________

__________________
melon is offline  
Old 03-07-2004, 10:12 PM   #423
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,338
Local Time: 02:42 AM
Let me know, and I'll drink a toast to you, mel.
__________________
martha is offline  
Old 03-07-2004, 10:46 PM   #424
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 05:42 AM
"Democracy's not just about majority rule it is about protecting minority rights."

L. Paul Bremer, civilian administrator of Iraq, said this in response to the Shi'ite majority's derailing of the interim Constitution signing, due to reservations that the Kurdish minority in the North could veto any permanent constitution. Lest he knew, though, that the American version of "Shi'ites" are ready to put discrimination into the Constitution themselves.

Hypocrites abound...

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 03-07-2004, 10:50 PM   #425
Blue Crack Addict
 
Moonlit_Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In a dimension known as the Twilight Zone...do de doo doo, do de doo doo...
Posts: 19,271
Local Time: 04:42 AM
Ugh, really, no kidding, melon...

Quote:
Originally posted by martha
Let me know, and I'll drink a toast to you, mel.
.

Angela
__________________
Moonlit_Angel is offline  
Old 03-09-2004, 01:32 AM   #426
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 05:42 AM
HOMOSEXUAL marriage is not a civil rights issue.

[Q]Gay marriage isn't civil rights
By Jeff Jacoby, 3/7/2004

HOMOSEXUAL marriage is not a civil rights issue. But that hasn't stopped the advocates of same-sex marriage from draping themselves in the glory of the civil rights movement -- and smearing the defenders of traditional marriage as the moral equal of segregationists.

In The New York Times last Sunday, cultural critic Frank Rich, quoting a "civil rights lawyer," beatified the gay and lesbian couples lining up to receive illegal marriage licenses from San Francisco's new mayor, Gavin Newsom:

"An act as unremarkable as getting a wedding license has been transformed by the people embracing it, much as the unremarkable act of sitting at a Formica lunch counter was transformed by an act of civil disobedience at a Woolworth's in North Carolina 44 years ago this month." Nearby, the Times ran a photograph of a smiling lesbian couple in matching wedding veils -- and an even larger photograph of a 1960 lunch counter sit-in.

Rich's essay -- "The Joy of Gay Marriage" -- went on to cast the supporters of traditional marriage as hateful zealots. They are "eager to foment the bloodiest culture war possible," he charged. "They are gladly donning the roles played by Lester Maddox and George Wallace in the civil rights era."

But it is the marriage radicals like Rich and Newsom who are doing their best to inflame a culture war. And as is so often the case in wartime, truth -- in this case, historical truth -- has been an early casualty.

For contrary to what Rich seems to believe, when Ezell Blair Jr., David Richmond, Joseph McNeil, and Franklin McCain approached the lunch counter of the Elm Street Woolworth's in Greensboro, N.C., on Feb. 1, 1960, all they asked for was a bite to eat. The four North Carolina Agricultural & Technical College students only wanted what any white customer might want, and on precisely the same terms -- the same food at the same counter at the same price.

Those first four sit-in strikers, like the thousands of others who would emulate them at lunch counters across the South, weren't demanding that Woolworth's prepare or serve their food in ways it had never been prepared or served before. They weren't trying to do something that had never been lawful in any state of the union. They weren't bent on forcing a revolutionary change upon a timeless social institution.

All they were seeking was what should already have been theirs under the law of the land. The 14th Amendment had declared that blacks no less than whites were entitled to equal protection of the law. The Civil Rights Act of 1875 had barred discrimination in public accommodations.

But the Supreme Court had gutted those protections with shameful decisions in 1883 and 1896. The court's betrayal of black Americans was the reason why, more than six decades later, segregation still polluted so much of the nation. To restore the 14th Amendment to its original purpose, to re-create the Civil Rights Act, to return to black citizens the equality that had been stolen from them -- that was the great cause of civil rights.

The marriage radicals, on the other hand, seek to restore nothing. They have not been deprived of the right to marry -- only of the right to insist that a single-sex union is a "marriage." They cloak their demands in the language of civil rights because it sounds so much better than the truth: They don't want to accept or reject marriage on the same terms that it is available to everyone else. They want it on entirely new terms. They want it to be given a meaning it has never before had, and they prefer that it be done undemocratically -- by judicial fiat, for example, or by mayors flouting the law. Whatever else that may be, it isn't civil rights. But dare to speak against it, and you are no better than Bull Connor.

Last month, as Massachusetts lawmakers prepared to debate a constitutional amendment on the meaning of marriage, the state's leading black clergy came out strongly in support of the age-old definition: the union of a man and a woman. They were promptly tarred as enemies of civil rights. "Martin Luther King," one left-wing legislator barked, "is rolling over in his grave at a statement like this."

But if anything has King spinning in his grave, it is the indecency of exploiting his name for a cause he never supported. The civil rights movement for which he lived and died was grounded in a fundamental truth: All God's children are created equal. The same-sex marriage movement, by contrast, is grounded in the denial of a fundamental truth: The Creator who made us equal made us male and female. That duality has always and everywhere been the starting point for marriage. To claim that marriage can ignore that duality is akin to the claim, back when lunch counters were segregated, that America was a land of liberty and justice for all.[/Q]

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. It is the first time I have seen an argument against homosexual marriage laid out in the paper in this manner, directly attacking the Civil Rights aspect of the issue. I think the author is missing the fact that Mrs. King has said that she believes it IS a Civil Rights issue and that in her opinion MLK would have supported the cause.

ANy thoughts?
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 03-09-2004, 03:19 AM   #427
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
theSoulfulMofo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 4,490
Local Time: 03:42 AM
I agree that gay rights is not a civil rights issue. But I also believe that the "all men are created equal" ideal should be a cornerstone of what makes America (as well as international human rights). I say, let gays get married. It should be an inherent right of freedom as any other citizen or human being, and the law should not make footnote exceptions for anyone.

Live and let live.
__________________
theSoulfulMofo is offline  
Old 03-09-2004, 08:16 AM   #428
pax
ONE
love, blood, life
 
pax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Ewen's new American home
Posts: 11,412
Local Time: 06:42 AM
This should be in the gay marriage thread.
__________________
and you hunger for the time
time to heal, desire, time


Join Amnesty.
pax is offline  
Old 03-09-2004, 08:22 AM   #429
pax
ONE
love, blood, life
 
pax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Ewen's new American home
Posts: 11,412
Local Time: 06:42 AM
And by the way, the column is built on a fallacy: in that part of the country where the lunch counter protests took place, black people had never been allowed to sit in the white sections. True, they only wanted the same lunch. But they were not seeking a "restoration" of their rights; they had never had them before. One cannot restore what has never been there to begin with. The civil rights movement for blacks was downright revolutionary.

And so is the struggle for gay marriage, I believe, because it is not just about marriage: it is about the "legal incidents thereof" which have long been denied gay partners and have always been extended to straight ones, no matter how dubious the nature of the straight union or meritorious the gay one.
__________________
and you hunger for the time
time to heal, desire, time


Join Amnesty.
pax is offline  
Old 03-09-2004, 09:15 AM   #430
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 05:42 AM
I beg to differ. There was a Law on the Books that had been violated. That is the difference. There was a Civil Rights Law from 1875 that provided the legal grounds for equal treatment. In this case, as the author points out, the civil rights movement was indeed seeking a restoration of rights under the existing law.

There is NO existing law in this case. The point that I agree with the author on is the characterization of people opposed to Homosexual Marriage as being the moral equivalent of segregationists. This has happened in this forum as well as in the article mentioned by the author.

The ending of segregation by the court WAS legal because there was an existing law. In this case, there being no existing law, the court does not have the legal right to legislate or order the legislature to do something as it has done in MA. That is the problem that I have with the situation.

Are we going to extend powers to the court to legislate. These are new powers. Maybe it will not matter to some of you on this issue because you support it. However, I am concerned with the precident being set here.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

THIS IS WHY I DID NOT THINK IT SHOULD BE IN THIS THREAD. It is a deeper issue than Homosexual Marriage. Of course, this is not my sandbox. It is a shame, because this discussion quite possibly will be ignored because the thread has become so large that some probably do not visit it anymore.

Of course, it would be nice to see all of the UN RESOLUTION threads merged too.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 03-09-2004, 09:57 AM   #431
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 05:42 AM
Mr. Jacoby is just trying to justify his hatred like any good bigot would.

It IS a civil rights issue--just as "the Creator" created male and female, we are just as "male and female" as everyone else, except we were created to love differently--and everytime religious bigots like him talk, they just make our case stronger. If I am not permitted to marry someday, then I will, frankly, take my talents elsewhere.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 03-09-2004, 09:58 AM   #432
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 05:42 AM


Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 03-09-2004, 10:46 AM   #433
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,338
Local Time: 02:42 AM
Dread, you're protesting WAY too much. You keep posting anti-gay marriage articles, then feebly protesting that you don't agree with them. Then you express your "fears" that various court judgments "go to far."



If you support it, then support it. If not, don't. But these attempts to play both sides are getting old and tiresome.
__________________
martha is offline  
Old 03-09-2004, 10:58 AM   #434
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 05:42 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by martha
Dread, you're protesting WAY too much. You keep posting anti-gay marriage articles, then feebly protesting that you don't agree with them. Then you express your "fears" that various court judgments "go to far."



If you support it, then support it. If not, don't. But these attempts to play both sides are getting old and tiresome.
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.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 03-09-2004, 11:04 AM   #435
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 04:42 AM
Remind me of something, maybe my mind is a little hazy from the cough medicine. Bush says he wants to make an ammendment to define marriage as a union between man and woman. So where are the laws of marriage defined right now? What is the wording?
__________________

__________________
BVS is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:42 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com