equality blooms with spring

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by yolland

He's from my hometown, Marion Barry...he was actually a fairly important figure in the Civil Rights Movement, one of the Freedom Riders and an early chairman of SNCC. Kind of a messed-up later life I know, though I don't really know much about his DC career. But that's probably where the 'I resent the implication of bigotry, as though this legislation represents all of that' is coming from.

from what i hear, which isn't much, but all that crack he smoked in the 80's has seriously damaged his brain. he's often seen wandering around his neighborhood unable to find the front door to his house. the lucidity comes and goes. he's pretty much considered, now, a joke, and a pathetic one, especially because he presided over the city's descent into violence in the 1980s, and he's been followed by a series of increasingly more responsive and talented mayors in the years following his tenure.

[martha]

Wait, Marion Barry "didn't realize what he was voting on"?

I thought he went to rehab?

[yolland]

.

Maine becomes 5th state to allow same-sex marriage

By Glenn Adams, Associated Press, May 6

AUGUSTA, Maine (AP) — Maine's governor signed a freshly passed bill Wednesday approving gay marriage, making it the fifth state to approve the practice and moving New England closer to allowing it throughout the region.

New Hampshire legislators were also poised to send a gay marriage bill to their governor, who hasn't indicated whether he'll sign it. If he does, Rhode Island would be the region's sole holdout.

The Maine Senate voted 21-13, with one absent, for a bill that authorizes marriage between any two people rather than between one man and one woman, as state law currently allows. The House had passed the bill Tuesday. Democratic Gov. John Baldacci, who hadn't previously indicated how he would handle the bill, signed it shortly afterward. In the past, he said he opposed gay marriage but supported civil unions, which provide many benefits of marriage.

Debate was brief. Senate President Elizabeth Mitchell, D-Vassalboro, turned the gavel over to an openly gay member, Sen. Lawrence Bliss, D-South Portland, to preside over the final vote. Republican Sen. Debra Plowman of Hampden argued that the bill was being passed "at the expense of the people of faith. You are making a decision that is not well-founded," warned Plowman. But Senate Majority Leader Philip Bartlett II said the bill does not compel religious institutions to recognize gay marriage. "We respect religious liberties...This is long overdue," said Bartlett, D-Gorham.

Maine is now the fourth state in New England to allow same-sex marriages. Connecticut enacted a bill after being ordered to allow gay marriages by the courts, and Vermont passed a bill over the governor's veto. New Hampshire's House was also expected to vote on a bill Wednesday and send it to Gov. John Lynch, a Democrat. Massachusetts' high court has ordered the state to recognize gay marriages. In Rhode Island, a bill to legalize same-sex marriage has been introduced but is not expected to pass this year.

[randhail]

Starting to fall like dominos - nice work Maniacs!

[A_Wanderer]

Another opinion about good Christian marriage

YouTube - Pat Robertson Gives Relationship Advice About Atheist Fiance

[martha]

I'm now glad I can't get youtube here at school.

[phillyfan26]

Originally Posted by martha

I'm now glad I can't get youtube here at school.

Summary, so people don't have to watch it: a viewer writes to the Christian Broadcast Network where she can find middle ground with her atheist fiance. Pat Robertson says that there is no middle ground: he must become Christian or she must find another man. He is doing the devil's work.

[A_Wanderer]

Atheists generally believe in doing the bidding of Satan.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by A_Wanderer

Another opinion about good Christian marriage

that's shocking.

i can't think of another group that Robertson could slur like that on television, not even the gays.

[A_Wanderer]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

that's shocking.

i can't think of another group that Robertson could slur like that on television, not even the gays.

The luxury of not being an American Atheist, I just pity the poor people who would destroy a relationship over something so petty, although they are probably doing their non-believing partners a favour.

[anitram]

Originally Posted by A_Wanderer

The luxury of not being an American Atheist, I just pity the poor people who would destroy a relationship over something so petty, although they are probably doing their non-believing partners a favour.

My favourite bit was when he said "I don't know what you're doing with each other, I don't know if you're being intimate...."

They've been engaged for 4 years, you dimwit, clearly the satan-lover is getting off.

[A_Wanderer]

Atheists are into the sex

[martha]

Originally Posted by phillyfan26

Summary, so people don't have to watch it: a viewer writes to the Christian Broadcast Network where she can find middle ground with her atheist fiance. Pat Robertson says that there is no middle ground: he must become Christian or she must find another man. He is doing the devil's work.

Thank you.

Pat Robertson would indeed know about the devil's work; he's been doing it himself for decades.

[yolland]

I don't see how that's worse than anything Robertson already has said about gays on TV? Or his prior remarks about mainline Protestants, Hindus, Muslims, liberal academics, feminists, and even the State Department for that matter.

The 'devil's work' thing made me roll my eyes, but after the preceding posts I was expecting something far more vicious than what he actually said, IMO.

[Vincent Vega]

Originally Posted by A_Wanderer

Another opinion about good Christian marriage

Sounds to me like heaven and hell in the bedroom.

[Irvine511]

on it's way in New York. the Senate is considered more conservative, though.

N.Y. Assembly Passes Gay Marriage Bill
By JEREMY W. PETERS

ALBANY — The State Assembly approved legislation on Tuesday night that would make New York the sixth state to allow same-sex marriage — a pivotal vote that shifts the debate to the State Senate, where gay rights advocates and conservative groups alike are redoubling their efforts.

In a sign of how opinion in Albany has shifted on the issue, several members of the Assembly who voted against the measure in 2007 voted in favor of it on Tuesday.

The final vote was 89 to 52, including the backing of five Republicans.

Supporters of the bill aggressively sought new votes, particularly from Assembly members whose districts lie within Senate districts where a senator’s vote is believed to be in play. As a matter of strategy, same-sex marriage advocates said that they hoped to use those votes as a way to leverage support from senators who are worried that supporting the measure could cost them politically.

“The margin of victory and the balance of where the people come from who voted for this is broadening,” said Daniel J. O’Donnell, a Democratic assemblyman from the Upper West Side who led the effort in the Assembly to gain support for the bill. “The state is demanding that we provide equality, and that’s the message here.”

As the Assembly prepared to vote on Tuesday, advocates on both sides of the issue were gearing up for campaigns to sway undecided senators.

Gay rights groups, led by the Empire State Pride Agenda, will begin the first phase of a statewide advertising campaign on Wednesday. The first advertisement is a 30-second television spot featuring a woman from Cicero, N.Y., just outside Syracuse. She explains that she would like her two daughters — one who is a lesbian, one who is straight — to be treated equally under the law. It will be broadcast in the Albany, Syracuse and Buffalo areas.

The campaign’s organizers are planning more commercials in other cities across the state in the coming weeks, with an emphasis on areas where senators are believed to be on the fence.

“This is about putting a face on the people who are affected by this,” said Alan Van Capelle, executive director of the pride agenda. “Marriage equality should not be a political issue. It is too important; it affects too many people.”

Conservative religious organizations were mobilizing as well. In the hours leading up to the Assembly vote, lobbyists for New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedoms and the Alliance Defense Fund, an Arizona-based group that has sued the state for recognizing same-sex marriages performed elsewhere, were holding meetings with lawmakers.

“Certainly we want to keep the pressure on,” said the Rev. Jason J. McGuire, legislative director of New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedoms. Mr. McGuire’s organization is planning a rally in Albany for its supporters in June, and he added that he would continue meeting with senators in the hope of persuading them to vote against same-sex marriage.

“We all understand — both sides of the issue — that this fight is going to continue in the State Senate,” he said.

The Conservative Party is also applying pressure: it has threatened to strip its party affiliation and its ballot line from any politician who votes for same-sex marriage.

“We can’t look the other way,” said Michael R. Long, the party’s chairman, who added that he had informed the Republican leaders of the Senate and the Assembly of his threat to take away the Conservative ballot line — which in some elections can mean the difference of thousands of votes — from anyone who votes yes on the bill.

“We’re going to work as hard as we can in the next few weeks,” he said. “We intend to do everything we can possible with phone calls, memos, press releases, having our members call senators.”

Despite the conservative pressure, two Republicans spoke on Tuesday about why they dropped their opposition to granting same-sex couples the right to marry. Three Democrats who voted no in 2007 switched their votes to yes.

“There’s that little voice inside of you that tells you when you’ve done something right, and when you’ve done something wrong,” said Fred W. Thiele Jr., a Republican who represents the Hamptons. “That vote just never felt right to me. That little voice kept gnawing away at me.”

Mr. Thiele’s district overlaps with the Senate district of Kenneth P. LaValle, whom gay rights advocates consider to be among the half-dozen or so Republicans open to a yes vote.

Assemblywoman Janet L. Duprey said a lesbian couple who live on her street helped change her mind.

“They are asking only for equal protection under the law,” said Ms. Duprey, a Republican whose district along the Canadian border in the North Country overlaps with the Senate district of Elizabeth Little, another Republican who gay rights supporters believe is within reach.

“They deserve no less than to have the same rights and ability to share their love,” Ms. Duprey added.

Bob Reilly, a Democratic assemblyman whose district includes parts of Saratoga and Albany Counties, apologized to colleagues for voting no in 2007 before voting yes on Tuesday.

Opponents of the bill condemned same-sex marriage as a moral outrage and an affront to religious institutions in New York. Some, like James N. Tedisco, a Republican whose district includes Schenectady and Saratoga Springs, drew comparisons to polygamy.

“I think you can see the kind of slippery slope we’re going down here,” he said. “What I see here is individuals trying to change the definition of a longstanding institution called marriage to fit into their agenda.”

Some supporters insisted the bill was, in fact, nothing earth-shattering.

“We do nothing revolutionary or extraordinary today,” said Richard L. Brodsky, a Democrat from Westchester County.

The electronic display in the Assembly chamber that listed the bill number and a brief description suggested as much. It said, “Relates to individuals ability to marry.”

[deep]

“We do nothing revolutionary or extraordinary today,” said Richard L. Brodsky, a Democrat from Westchester County.

The electronic display in the Assembly chamber that listed the bill, “Relates to individuals ability to marry.”

for there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so

[yolland]

On the topic of formal changes to the definition of 'family' and their effects...

There's currently a slew of articles out there about the latest CDC data showing that some 40% of US births are now to unmarried women. An article in the Times had an interesting comment:

Out-of-wedlock births are also rising in much of the industrialized world: in Iceland, 66% of children are born to unmarried mothers; in Sweden, the share is 55%. (In other societies, though, the phenomenon remains rare—just 2% in Japan, for example.) But experts say the increases in the United States are of greater concern because couples in many other countries tend to be more stable and government support for children is often higher. “In Sweden, you see very little variation in the outcome of children based on marital status. Everybody does fairly well,” said Wendy Manning, a professor of sociology at Bowling Green State University in Ohio. “In the U.S., there’s much more disparity.”

We've discussed it before, but it's such an irony, that the aspirations of many gay and lesbian couples to form stable households based on the commitments of marriage get framed as a "threat" to marriage and become the focus of the self-appointed "defenders of marriage," while meanwhile a manifestly far larger number of heterosexual parents don't even consider marriage-based families important to theirs or their children's lives to begin with. Wake up--people who clearly share your regard for the value of committed marital relationships to society, to children, and to couples are NOT your enemy. I'm not sure all these unmarried parents actually intend any disrespect to marriage either, but if you're looking for a fire to fight, may I suggest that you've been looking the wrong way altogether.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by yolland

Wake up--people who clearly share your regard for the value of committed marital relationships to society, to children, and to couples are NOT your enemy. I'm not sure all these unmarried parents actually intend any disrespect to marriage either, but if you're looking for a fire to fight, may I suggest that you've been looking the wrong way altogether.

but that would involve acknowledging the fact that heterosexuals and their relationships are not innately superior and of greater worth to homosexuals.

[yolland]

It involves acknowledging that mutual commitment, maturity, and discipline are what actually make stable relationships and families work. I'm not an innately superior parent or partner or citizen, I'm not Premium Grade Select anything; I've organized my life around certain priorities and commitments to specific individuals and I intend to honor them, that's all. That won't magically follow from mystical masculine-feminine yin-yang alchemy any more than it will from starry-eyed infatuation or a fairytale wedding ceremony.