Constitutional ban on same sex marriages?

[Taxman]

Wow, it was bad enough when Bush stated support for such a thing in his State of the Union address. This (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/24/elec04.prez.bush.marriage/index.html) is just ridiculous. Oh well, not like it'll ever happen.

[Utah]

At least Bush and Co are favoring/following a course of action that follows the law.

As I have said before, I am pro gay marriage. However, I am just disgusted by the actions of many in the gay rights movement. We are a nation of laws and we need to follow those laws. If you want something changed then do it right.

Also, those in the gay rights community are doing tremendous damge to themselves. Too bad, especially given all the progress they have made over the last 15 years or so.

[Taxman]

[ QUOTE ]
We are a nation of laws and we need to follow those laws. If you want something changed then do it right.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is the problem I have with many "pro life" groups. I just think it's absurd to voice support for a constitutional ban. The constitution was not made for determining the morality of things. I disagree with local statutes against gay marriage, but I deal with them. I am apalled however by the idea of taking such things into the constitution.

[stripsqueez]

[ QUOTE ]
At least Bush and Co are favoring/following a course of action that follows the law.

As I have said before, I am pro gay marriage. However, I am just disgusted by the actions of many in the gay rights movement. We are a nation of laws and we need to follow those laws. If you want something changed then do it right.

Also, those in the gay rights community are doing tremendous damge to themselves. Too bad, especially given all the progress they have made over the last 15 years or so.


[/ QUOTE ]

what crap ! - in summary you are pro gay marriage but you think its wrong how gay people go about effecting change - how can that be right ?

why should gay people continue to be discriminated against by the law ? - your saying that they should for as long as it takes for them to convince the very system that is screwing them to change !! - getting discriminatory laws changed is not often done by polite politics

stripsqueez - chickenhawk

[ThaSaltCracka]

well one man forcing his will on an entire city doesn't seem fair either. Its a two way street remember, just because you like what the mayor is doing, that does not mean it is right or legal.

We were talking about the Mass. court a while back, and my main problem was that judges shoudl not be creating laws from the bench. It goes against the checks and balances system of the U.S. government. What the mayor is doing is BREAKING the law, he's not even trying to make one, he's BREAKING it, that is the distinction here, and that is even worse than if the mayor had created a law.

[Taxman]

I don't think the mayor was imposing his will on anyone. His decision doesn't really affect the naysayers except to morally outrage them. Legally speaking what he did was wrong, but a lot of legally questionable things have had to been done to ensure the recognition of the idea that all men are in fact created equal. I am glad he did what he did, but don't mistake me, I can certainly see your point.

[stripsqueez]

[ QUOTE ]
that does not mean it is right or legal

[/ QUOTE ]

its not right that gay people are discriminated against - the rest of what you are talking about is procedural

i understand the rule of law but being a lawyer i also understand that the law often operates in an unfair or capricious way - at the end of the day who is being hurt by gay people taking the action they are ?

stripsqueez - chickenhawk

[ThaSaltCracka]

heres my bottom line /images/graemlins/grin.gif,
I don't know or have heard a singel person who opposes civil unions for gays, IMO civil unions solve all legal aspects associated w/ marriage, or atleast they should.
Most people in America, want the institution of Marriage to be between a man and a woman. You have to atl east respect that opinion.
soooo...... IMO we can kill to birds with one stone, so to speak, annnddd... allow civil unions.

often operates in an unfair or capricious way
I wouldn't say often, on occasion it does, however most times it does in a way that adversley affects people or a group, ie. stiffer drug penalties which adversley affect inner city people.

I will say that I completely understand what you guys are saying that change sometimes comes by a law being broken. Martin Luther King is a great example, however MLK had to take the punishment associated with breaking the law, regardless of how racist or biased that law was. And it was indeed racist.

I will give GWB some credit, atleast he is trying to "solve" this "problem" democratlly via congress, rather then an executive order, which essentially the mayor of SF is doing.

[Taxman]

[ QUOTE ]
atleast he is trying to "solve" this "problem" democratlly via congress, rather then an executive order, which essentially the mayor of SF is doing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah becasuse that would go over really well. I'm with you on the civil union thing. Why should gay couples been seen any differently that hetero couples, in the eyes of the law? The law doesn't care if gay people are immoral, it just cares about who gets the house when the couple breaks up and who has the right to make medical decisions when one person is comatose.

[stripsqueez]

[ QUOTE ]
I will give GWB some credit, atleast he is trying to "solve" this "problem" democratlly via congress, rather then an executive order, which essentially the mayor of SF is doing

[/ QUOTE ]

sigh - george bush was not trying to solve the problem when i heard him talk crap about how there should not be gay marriage - if george bush was trying to solve the problem he would speak the truth not what he figures voters want to hear - he would do what he could to institute change and a decent fair society for all people in the country he is president of

in my country we recognise same sex couples - have done for years - that doesnt solve the problem - in the US you have 2 sorts of legally recognised personal relationships - marriage - not married - the discrimination that same sex couples face as a result of discriminatory laws is much greater and more ingrained than you realise

stripsqueez - chickenhawk

[Utah]

Huh?

Let me get this straight - if you think you are getting discriminated against that screw the law and do what you want? Do is it also hold that you do not need to follow the law if you feel that an injustice has been done to you? Can you willy nilly change the rule of the law if you feel that it is really based on conservative christian doctrine?

Are you saying that the people no longer get to determine what discrimination is? A small group now gets to decide that against the will of the majority?

Why have a democracy under your logic?

[stripsqueez]

[ QUOTE ]
Why have a democracy under your logic?

[/ QUOTE ]

thats a big picture view that i cant argue with - whatever your system of government i am intolerant of the needless oppression of minorities - we can haggle about how gay people go about effecting change or we can talk about whether we think its fair and right that change should occur - i'm choosing the latter

you have 2 choices - either you think the laws that discriminate about gay people are fair and proper or you dont - if you are the latter then you are living in a system that tolerates discrimination and oppression and you should not meekly say "ohhh thats the way it is and there is a process to follow to change it" - you should be offended and seek to have those laws changed or support those who actively do so

there is not a single gay bone in my body but the obvious nonsense that is put forward to support the retention of discriminatory laws against gay people offends me - ignorant inflammatory double speak should offend us all

stripsqueez - chickenhawk

[sam h]

[ QUOTE ]
Most people in America, want the institution of Marriage to be between a man and a woman.

[/ QUOTE ]

Most people in Alabama in the 1950s wanted the institution of voting to be between white men and white women. I don't have to respect that opinion, do I?

Anybody who is really interested in the idea of true equality must support gay marriage. The fact of the matter is that most Americans are homophobic, and this is why this is such a contentious issue. The arguments that try to make it a religious or family-values type issue are just concealing this core reality.

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
The arguments that try to make it a religious or family-values type issue are just concealing this core reality.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sam I do believe you are delusional.

[andyfox]

Bush said that marriage is "the most fundamental institution of civilization."

Why do people take anything he says seriously any more? I'm liking my bet with Utah more and more.

[Utah]

Ah, I didn't see you were an Aussie when I first responded.

Would you not agree that The People in a democrary set the rules that they want to live my? If they set a rule that a certain group doesn't like (rightly or wrongly) is that group free to simply ignore the law? What do you think would happen in a country where the laws did not have to be followed because this or that person thought it was oppressive?

we can talk about whether we think its fair and right that change should occur - i'm choosing the latter
I agree. Lets talk about it. Lets make it an issue and help make people understand. However, lets not simply ignore the law because we don't like it.

not meekly say "ohhh thats the way it is and there is a process to follow to change it"
There is a process and that process needs to be followed. If it is not followed that you no longer have a democracy. please explain how you would erect a system of government based on groups of people ignoring laws that they find oppressive. it is great to hoot and holler but you have offered nothing of substance as an alternative.

but the obvious nonsense that is put forward to support the retention of discriminatory laws against gay people offends me - ignorant inflammatory double speak should offend us all
Unfortunately, there are some pretty good arguments out there for the status quo. I dont agree with them but I certainly can see how a non-bigoted rational person would.

Let me ask you a question - Are you for incestual relationships? Should I be able to marry my brother? My daughter? Should we all scream, "stop the needless and harmful discrimination against the incestous couples who want nothing but to get married like the rest of us?"

Should I be able to have 10 wives?

[Dylan Wade]

[ QUOTE ]
As I have said before, I am pro gay marriage. However, I am just disgusted by the actions of many in the gay rights movement. We are a nation of laws and we need to follow those laws. If you want something changed then do it right.

[/ QUOTE ]
This country was based on the idea of Natural Law. How do you think Founders of our country would react to the idea that "If you want something changed then do it right." To me it's a convoluted statement, because in America, the *right* way to bring change is to protest and fight.

Name one major civil rights change in America that hasn't occured without protest and political defiance.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
I am apalled however by the idea of taking such things into the constitution.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not to worry it won't happen, at least not anytime in the forseeable future.

[adios]

Not much chance of this ever happening IMO. The thing that I find really sad is how hurtful this issue is to so many. Here in New Mexico one of the counties started issuing marriage licences to gay couples and the AG stepped in basically and voided them all. Very painful for those couples who were so happy to have this happen in their lives. I might add without going into a lot of detail that same sex "marriages" that I'm aware of are IMO very solid and exlemporary. I can only imagine how painful this is to them. Irrationality prevails in this debate at the present time. I believe sam_h's point is exactly right, I wish it weren't so. I consider it to be ignorance. Does banning same sex marriages amount to unfair discrimination? Seems like it does to me but I could be convinced otherwise but not easily though.

[stripsqueez]

[ QUOTE ]
Ah, I didn't see you were an Aussie when I first responded

[/ QUOTE ]

we have democracy here too...

a majority of people in some muslim countries probably still believe that its ok for female circumcision to take place - no doubt though that female circumcision is a barbaric act born from a male dominated culture

there are countless other examples - the majority view is not the "right" view all the time - if democracy was supposed to be running the country by referendum a majority would probably vote for the abolition of income tax - or abolition of parking fines - in a democracy we elect people to represent us - we trust them and every so often we review that trust by voting for them or not

i take your point but like i said lets consider whether its right to allow gay marriage not worry ourselves with how such change should be effected or whether the majority agree

gay people are not a small minority - gay people are ordinary in every way in my experience of them - gay people have relationships that exactly mirror my experience of heterosexual relationships - most compelling for me is the thought that who cares ?? - the arguments your politicians have come up with should offend a thinking person - its fine that george has to be a christian to become president - but must he therefore discriminate against gay people because christian dogma is anti gay ?

why cant george do what a decent leader should do - decide whats fair and good for all the people - fundamentalist christians may not like gay marriage but tell me how it hurts them ? - how dare any person oppress another in a circumstance where no person is losing anything other than an offront to thier outdated sensibilities

taking the argument to the extremes of incest and bigamy is again to ignore the substance - but again i take your point - incest is easy because it normally comes with power inbalance - bigamy is fine as far as i'm concerned as long as again no-one is "losing" - "grown ups make what seem like weird choices to me" - from the lips of my 7 year old daughter

stripsqueez - chickenhawk

ps - please see my earlier post below titled "Gay Marriage" for a more detailed examination of the arguments for no gay marriage...

[Clarkmeister]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The arguments that try to make it a religious or family-values type issue are just concealing this core reality.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sam I do believe you are delusional.


[/ QUOTE ]

It seems pretty clear to me that he is right. In fact, I'd love to hear any other rational explaination.

[Mano]

He is a strong advocate of the Nucular family.

[MMMMMM]

Well, Andy, if marriage isn't the most fundamental institution of civilization, I'm rather curious to know what is.

[ACPlayer]

I will give GWB some credit, atleast he is trying to "solve" this "problem" democratlly via congress, rather then an executive order, which essentially the mayor of SF is doing.

\During the last election GWBs position on this subject was that this is a states right issue. Add that to his list of flip flops. The man is less reliable than Clinton on maintaining his pre and post election positions.

[John Cole]

What do you mean by "anymore"?

[stripsqueez]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, Andy, if marriage isn't the most fundamental institution of civilization, I'm rather curious to know what is.

[/ QUOTE ]

marriage is merely an institutionalised form of relationship - i dont wish to be trite though - how about parenthood ?

stripsqueez - chickenhawk

[ComedyLimp]

"but must he therefore discriminate against gay people because christian dogma is anti gay"

That's ok as long as he is consistent -- and since the bit of Leviticus that goes on about "Man shall not lie with man" also outlaws the wearing of mixed fibres Dubya should, if Christian teaching really is his argument, amend the constition to outlaw polycotton shirts as well.

(Although come to think about it short-sleeved polycotton shirts are an abomination before God and anyone caught wearing one should quite rightly burn in hell forever).

On the point that is often raised about that same-sex couples should be allowed civil unions equal in law with traditional marriages but shuold not be allowed to call this marriage as this is resevered for unions between a man and a woman, I would refer the reader to the recent Massachusetts ruling which pointed out that "the history of our nation has demonstrated that separate is seldom, if ever, equal" in a clear reference to Brown Vs Board of Education.

Finally, I note that the term "same-sex marriage" is perhaps more accurate than "gay marriage". Not only does the later exclude lesbian realtionships but often a traditional union of a man and woman can be exceptionally gay as this picture shows:

http://theunderweardrawer.homestead.com/files/liza_minelli_wedding.jpg

Matthew

[elwoodblues]

Which part of the actions of those in favor of gay marriage has been following the law? People's biggest complaint seems to be that the Mass. Supreme Court was "legislating from the bench" in that the told the legislature to enact a law (which is seen as legislating from the bench) instead of striking a law down as unconstitutional (which has been a legitimate tool of courts since Marbury v. Madison.)

While this argument makes some sense, it doesn't make sense if you think about the consequences of the two possible actions that the court could have taken. It might not seem so, but the court's decision to require the legislature to enact a law was a practical solution in a difficult situation.

The Mass. Supreme Court was placed in a difficult position. They essentially found that the state's marriage laws were unconstitutional. That left them in a difficult position of either striking down the existing marriage laws (and, thus, nobody in the state could get married) or they could tell the legislature to fix the law (thus, leaving people to freely marry until the legislature chooses to do so). While many might not think so, judges have to use some common sense in their rulings and striking down the marriage law wasn't a common sense solution.

What should the court have done? They had a law which they determined to be unconstitutional (based on the state's constitution) not because of what it did, but because of what it didn't do. The import of the law to the state was enormous (in that without it, nobody in the state could get legally married) yet it was unconstitutional. What they did was, in my mind, the best solution. To illustrate my point, consider the following hypothetical law.

Law: Police services shall be available only to Class A individuals within the state.

Class A individuals is defined to mean black women, white women, and black men between the ages of 4 and 19.


A court looking at the law would find it unconstitutional. They would find the definition of Class A individuals to violate Due Process and Equal Protection in that it exclude many. However, the value of the law on the whole is very high (it is the only law authorizing a police force in the state.) Finding the law unconstitutional, they have two options -- strike it down (and, thus, there will be police service for nobody until the legislature acts) or tell the legislature that it is unconstitutional, tell them why it is unconstitutional, and require that they fix the law so that it passes constitutional muster.

I know that "law" that I suggested is ridiculous, but I think it illustrates the position in which the Mass. Supreme Court found itself.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know or have heard a singel person who opposes civil unions for gays, IMO civil unions solve all legal aspects associated w/ marriage, or atleast they should.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would agree with this with one gigantic caveat --- that the state ONLY has civil unions (i.e. that there aren't two tracks.) Let churches do "marriages" (that have NO legal significance) and the state do "civil unions" (that do not require a "marriage.") That would solve the issues.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
Are you saying that the people no longer get to determine what discrimination is?

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not how it works (and we don't live in a true democracy.) Our legal system is not a simple "majority rules." There are checks on the will of the majority found riddled throughout the Constitution. The Constitutional protections against discrimination (found in the 13th 14th and 15th Amendments) are there to protect minority interests against the tyranny of the majority.

[ QUOTE ]
A small group now gets to decide that against the will of the majority?

[/ QUOTE ]

You act as though this is a new thing. I don't think I'm really going out on a limb when I say that, for example, literally EVERY First Amendment free speech case has the subtext of the minority being able to do something that the majority doesn't like.

[ QUOTE ]
Why have a democracy under your logic?

[/ QUOTE ]

We don't have a democracy. We have a Constitutional Republic in which many of the decisions we make (though not all) are made through a democratic process carried on by our elected officials.

[HDPM]

I think you will be waiting a long time for another explanation.

I say have as many spouses as you desire of whatever gender. Those of you with a spouse will see how self limiting this rule is. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[CCass]

How is the US Gov't (and society in general) discriminating against gays? I am neither arguing that we do or do not, but you have stated that we do, so I would like to know the basis for your belief.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
Let me ask you a question - Are you for incestual relationships? Should I be able to marry my brother? My daughter? Should we all scream, "stop the needless and harmful discrimination against the incestous couples who want nothing but to get married like the rest of us?"

Should I be able to have 10 wives?

[/ QUOTE ]

How about if you wanted to marry a red herring?

Incest, polygamy, and bestiality and any of the other red herrings thrown into the mix are different. They are different for significant reasons.

For reasons of simplification I will discuss federal laws (not individual states even though that is where the decision is/should be made.)

Discrimination laws are written so as to disallow discrimination based on particular characteristics. Generally speaking, those characteristics are the standard ones with which we are all familiar (race, color, religion, sex, and national origin.) In addition, the Constitutional protection found in the 14th Amendment (Due Process and Equal Protection clauses) generally apply more stringently to those in a "protected clases" (again -- race, gender).

Laws that disallow gay marriage discriminate based on sex in the exact same ways that laws banning mixed race marriages discriminated against individuals based on race.
(see below for a simplified version of the arguments in the Loving case disallowing ban against mixed-race marriages).
Black Woman 1 wants to marry White Man 1.
White Woman 1 wants to marry White Man 1.
Black Woman 1 is discriminated against because she cannot do the exact same thing White Woman 1 wants to do ON THE BASIS of her race. Race is a protected class, thus the law is unconstitutional.

Extending that logic to gay marriage:
Woman 1 wants to marry Man 1.
Man 2 wants to marry Man 1.
Man 2 is discriminated against because he cannot do the exact same thing that Woman 1 wants ON THE BASIS of his sex. Sex is a protected class, thus the law is unconstitutional.


That argument does not hold water for Incest, Bestiality, Polygamy (just try to work out the argument).

Unrelated Man 1 wants to marry Unrelated Woman 1
Related Man 2 wants to marry Related Woman 1.
Incest laws discriminate against Man 2 on the basis of...familial relationships??? Familial Relationships ARE NOT a protected class. Therefore, the laws pass Constitutional muster.


Your concern with Incest and Polygamy follow the same concerns that Justice Antonin Scalia noted in the recent sodomy case. I can understand why a lot of non-lawyers wouldn't see the logical disconnect between the arguments. I can't understand how Justice Scalia would not. Do you think, just maybe, he was being intellectually dishonest to make a political point? Sounds like the wicked "judicial activism" to me.

~elwood

[elwoodblues]

The US government isn't (because it is a state government issue). I posted this in response to Utah's post but will repost the argument here:

Woman 1 wants to marry Man 1.
Man 2 wants to marry Man 1.
Laws banning homosexual marriage discriminate against Man 2 because he cannot do the exact same thing that Woman 1 wants to do on the basis of his sex. State constitutions (and the federal one) prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex. Therefore, laws banning same sex marriage violate the state (and federal) constitutions.

Does that clear it up??

[andyfox]

Well he did win the 2000 election (or I should say, he did "win" the 2000 election).

[andyfox]

Civilization: an advanced state of human society, in which a high level of culture, science, industry, and government has been reached.

What does marriage have to do with any of this?

[imported_Chuck Weinstock]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, Andy, if marriage isn't the most fundamental institution of civilization, I'm rather curious to know what is.

[/ QUOTE ]

The Republican Party? (They wish.)

[ThaSaltCracka]

I see what your trying to say but your example is terrible, that is not descrimination of sex, try orientation

[elwoodblues]

It is based on sex just as laws forbidding inter-racial marriages were held to be discrination based on race (not racial preference).

[ThaSaltCracka]

Most people in Alabama in the 1950s wanted the institution of voting to be between white men and white women. I don't have to respect that opinion, do I?
You can talk about the stupidity of one state if you want to, I will continue to talk about the entire country. You can point out areas in the country that were filled with racism in the past, however they did not represent even half of the country's view on the issue of racism. The issue of Gay marriage is not a North/South issue, it is countrywide(thus maybe we could see states supporting it, some not)

The fact of the matter is that most Americans are homophobic, and this is why this is such a contentious issue. The arguments that try to make it a religious or family-values type issue are just concealing this core reality.

I love this response, thanking you for labeling me a homphobe because I don't agree with someones lifestyle. Can you generalize a little more? You assume that since I don't agree with their lifestyle that I must then hate them or that I am afraid of them. This is total bs. Since when does someone who opposes a stance get labeled a bigot. I am not promoting acts of violence or discrimination against gays, I am simply stating the fact that most people in America want the institution of marriage to be between a man and a women.
I find it amazing that you people who are supposedly so sensitive to peoples feelings and beliefs have absolutely no respect for the other side. Do you guys realize how easily you contradict yourselves?

[ThaSaltCracka]

your going to have a very hard time convincing people this is about sex. This issue is clearly about sexual orientation. Discrimination based on sex would be something more along the lines of Augusta not allowing women members.

If indeed this is really discrimination.....

[elwoodblues]

Of course this is about sexual orientation. But the way in which it manifests itself in the law is discriminatory based on sex. I might have a hard time convincing people (generally) of that, but let me start with you. Assume for a moment that my analysis is correct of the Loving case (interracial marriage). In the Loving case, the court made the argument that disallowing interracial marriages was discrimination based on race (not racial preference).

The court reasoned as follows:
Black man wants to marry black woman.
White man wants to marry same black woman.
The ban on interracial marriages is discriminatory against White man because he cannot do the exact same thing that a black man can because of his race.

Many people make the argument that the ban on gay marriage is not discrimination because gays have the same rights as heterosexuals (they can marry someone of the opposite gender). This is the EXACT argument that the US Supreme Court rejected in the Loving case. The argument there was that the law was not discriminatory because blacks and whites were treated the same (neither could marry outside of their race).

On what basis would you (or should the courts) make the distinction between interracial marriages and same-sex marriages. If the reasoning in the Loving case was correct, I don't see a valid distinction.

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
It seems pretty clear to me that he is right. In fact, I'd love to hear any other rational explaination.

[/ QUOTE ]

Clarkmeister it would seem to me that the same skills required for you to be an exemplary poker player would lend themselves to the logical conclusion that seems so obvious to me.

Christians, generally speaking, do not advocate punishing gays (to includian lesbians), nor do they advocate witholding the title civil unions nor disallowing any of the same rights allowed to married couples. All they seem to be asking is that the title of marriage be restricted to a man and a woman for the express purpose of creating a family.

How you or any other reasonably prudent person can interpret this religious belief to be homophobic with no other explanation is beyond me. Keep in mind I am not religious, do not believe in God so do not care who gets married to whom, whether or not it is sanctioned by a church or not or what type of deviant sexual practices are observed. In fact the more deviant the better! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[ThaSaltCracka]

hmmm... good points.

[ComedyLimp]

"All they seem to be asking is that the title of marriage be restricted to a man and a woman"

The problem with this argument is that it in restricting the title "marriage" to one group and not others then either the title is trivial and meaningless (in which case why prevent same-sex couples from using it) or else it has meaning and status and denying this to same-sex couples on the basis of sexuality is discriminatory and unconstitutional.

If the Christian Church (essentially a private club given the USA's enlightened separation of church and state) wishes to bless unions and give them some special name then that is fine. Such unions could not fairly be called marriages though as this would exclude the term from not only same-sex marriages but also civic marriages, Jewish marriages, etc.

A fair solution to me would be to make all marriages equivalent in law and status. The Christian Church (or any other religous body) would retain the right to restrict their recongnition and blessing to different-sex unions but it would have no status beyond the church.

[HDPM]

One good question is why the state should recognize religious marriages. I don't care if people get married in their church. But why should the government recognize marriages from any church? I know we have always done so, but why? And what if a religion decides that you need to be married to somebody of the same gender to really discover God? What then. Well, we saw what happened with the LDS Church on polygamy. Massive discrimination and reprisals. To the extent marriage has any civil benefits or rights under the law, maybe all maarriages should be civil unions. Simply make rpeople married in a church fill out the civil union form at the same time. There's a modest proposal that should go over well among social conservatives.


But the roots of domestic relations law lie in the ecclesiastical courts. So there is a long history to ignore.

[sam h]

[ QUOTE ]
You can point out areas in the country that were filled with racism in the past, however they did not represent even half of the country's view on the issue of racism. The issue of Gay marriage is not a North/South issue, it is countrywide(thus maybe we could see states supporting it, some not)

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry Cracka, but you're basically completely wrong. For much of American history, most people in this country were against black enfranchisement, and that includes northerners. Geesh, and if you're going to make the issue simple "racism" what kind of delusional world do you live in that you think that most white people in say, Chicago circa 1950, were not racist?

[ QUOTE ]
I am not promoting acts of violence or discrimination against gays, I am simply stating the fact that most people in America want the institution of marriage to be between a man and a women.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you are against gay marriage, then you are promoting discrimination against gays. It's that simple.

One reason we have rights enshrined in the constitution is to protect people against the opinions of the majority. Who cares if most people in America want the institution of marriage to be between a man and a woman? As I stated before, most people in America are homophobes. That's a simple fact that's been confirmed over and over by polling data.

[sam h]

[ QUOTE ]
All they seem to be asking is that the title of marriage be restricted to a man and a woman for the express purpose of creating a family.

[/ QUOTE ]

The church is free to do what it pleases regarding gay marriage. The state, however, is a separate entity and its sanctioning of marriage should have nothing to do with what the church does or does not desire.

When you say that Christians do not "advocate punishing gays," this means in this world right? Because I'm pretty sure I've read somewhere in the bible that those gays are burning for eternity in the next.

Anyway, I think most gay people would like to go a bit beyond not being punished and actually be respectfully treated as equals under the law.

[ThaSaltCracka]

I love your generalizatons... I wonder why blacks moved to the north... couldn't have been because they wanted to leave the hugely racist south, because aparently everyone was racist, so they most have moved for other reasons... you are aware of the huge movement of blacks from the south to the north in early 20th century America.
I will agree with you, Racism has and will continue to be prevalent in America. I think part of this comes from the U.S. being filled with Immigrants, I mean, all Americans staretd out as immigrants, so whatever was ingrained in the culture was brought over here. Irish Catholics dealt with terrible "racism" when they first came to America, as did Italians, Japanese and Chinese. Everyone has dealt with it, [censored] even white people have dealt with it before /images/graemlins/shocked.gif. My point though was during the 1950's the racism you saw in the south was atrocious, that type of racism was ingrained in the whites in the south for hundreds of years. Their views on blacks were definitely not the same as the view whites in the north had, and I don't know how you can argue that.

anyways, thank you for calling me a homphobe again. I will have to let the next gay person I meet know that I am scared of him and hate him because I don't support gay marriage. Or should I just walk around with a sign around my neck saying "watch out for the homophobe". Sam, you definitely should not throw that word around lightly.

[ThaSaltCracka]

When you say that Christians do not "advocate punishing gays," this means in this world right? Because I'm pretty sure I've read somewhere in the bible that those gays are burning for eternity in the next.
first of all I don't think it says that. but..... even if it does, so what the bible has a bunch of stupid [censored] in it.

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
The church is free to do what it pleases regarding gay marriage. The state, however, is a separate entity and its sanctioning of marriage should have nothing to do with what the church does or does not desire.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is not quite that simple nor that seperate. After all on the back of our currency it is printed In God We Trust. This seems to contradict your position.

[ QUOTE ]
When you say that Christians do not "advocate punishing gays," this means in this world right? Because I'm pretty sure I've read somewhere in the bible that those gays are burning for eternity in the next.

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe I mentioned I do not believe in God so it stands to reason I do not believe in eternal damnation. For those that do believe in such it is God's word if what you say is correct not the believers.


[ QUOTE ]
Anyway, I think most gay people would like to go a bit beyond not being punished and actually be respectfully treated as equals under the law.

[/ QUOTE ]

That was what my explanation entailed. Would you prefer they be allowed to marry yet not receive all the customary bebefits? Of course not and neither do I and insofar as I can tell neither do the Christians who object to a marriage between 2 men or 2 women object to a civil union granting all the accompanying rights of marriage.

Keep in mind this is not my position, I say let em all get married, gays, lesbians, uncles and nieces, aunts and nephews, ad infinitum.

[adios]

A couple of years ago I had a long and very heated arguement with my wife and daughter over gay marriage. They assured me that there were no excess costs to society when I pointed out insurance costs etc. Well apparently someone disagrees with them. The following excerpt is from a WSJ op ed piece today written by Mary Ann Glendon a Learned Hand Professor of Law at Harvard.

The Canadian government, which is considering same-sex marriage legislation, has just realized that retroactive social-security survivor benefits alone would cost its taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars.There is a real problem of distributive justice here. How can one justify treating same-sex households like married couples when such benefits are denied to all the people in our society who are caring for elderly or disabled relatives whom they cannot claim as family members for tax or insurance purposes? Shouldn't citizens have a chance to vote on whether they want to give homosexual unions, most of which are childless, the same benefits that society gives to married couples, most of whom have raised or are raising children?

This op ed piece provides a compeletely different yet rational perspective than what is commonly advised by proponents of gay marriage. Looks like to me that Utah's statements are inline with what this legal scholar is stating.

For Better or for Worse? (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110004735)

AT LAW

For Better or for Worse?
The federal marriage amendment would strike a blow for freedom.

BY MARY ANN GLENDON
Wednesday, February 25, 2004 12:01 a.m. EST

CAMBRIDGE, Mass.--President Bush's endorsement of a constitutional amendment to protect the institution of marriage should be welcomed by all Americans who are concerned about equality and preserving democratic decision-making. "After more than two centuries of American jurisprudence and millennia of human experience," he explained, "a few judges and local authorities are presuming to change the most fundamental institution of civilization."

Those judges are here in Massachusetts, of course, where the state is cutting back on programs to aid the elderly, the disabled, and children in poor families. Yet a four-judge majority has ruled in favor of special benefits for a group of relatively affluent households, most of which have two earners and are not raising children. What same-sex marriage advocates have tried to present as a civil rights issue is really a bid for special preferences of the type our society gives to married couples for the very good reason that most of them are raising or have raised children. Now, in the wake of the Massachusetts case, local officials in other parts of the nation have begun to issue marriage licenses to homosexual couples in defiance of state law.

A common initial reaction to these local measures has been: "Why should I care whether same-sex couples can get married?" "How will that affect me or my family?" "Why not just live and let live?" But as people began to take stock of the implications of granting special treatment to one group of citizens, the need for a federal marriage amendment has become increasingly clear. As President Bush said yesterday, "The voice of the people must be heard."





Indeed, the American people should have the opportunity to deliberate the economic and social costs of this radical social experiment. Astonishingly, in the media coverage of this issue, next to nothing has been said about what this new special preference would cost the rest of society in terms of taxes and insurance premiums.
The Canadian government, which is considering same-sex marriage legislation, has just realized that retroactive social-security survivor benefits alone would cost its taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars. There is a real problem of distributive justice here. How can one justify treating same-sex households like married couples when such benefits are denied to all the people in our society who are caring for elderly or disabled relatives whom they cannot claim as family members for tax or insurance purposes? Shouldn't citizens have a chance to vote on whether they want to give homosexual unions, most of which are childless, the same benefits that society gives to married couples, most of whom have raised or are raising children?

If these social experiments go forward, moreover, the rights of children will be impaired. Same-sex marriage will constitute a public, official endorsement of the following extraordinary claims made by the Massachusetts judges in the Goodridge case: that marriage is mainly an arrangement for the benefit of adults; that children do not need both a mother and a father; and that alternative family forms are just as good as a husband and wife raising kids together. It would be tragic if, just when the country is beginning to take stock of the havoc those erroneous ideas have already wrought in the lives of American children, we should now freeze them into constitutional law. That philosophy of marriage, moreover, is what our children and grandchildren will be taught in school. They will be required to discuss marriage in those terms. Ordinary words like husband and wife will be replaced by partner and spouse. In marriage-preparation and sex-education classes, children will have to be taught about homosexual sex. Parents who complain will be branded as homophobes and their children will suffer.

Religious freedom, too, is at stake. As much as one may wish to live and let live, the experience in other countries reveals that once these arrangements become law, there will be no live-and-let-live policy for those who differ. Gay-marriage proponents use the language of openness, tolerance and diversity, yet one foreseeable effect of their success will be to usher in an era of intolerance and discrimination the likes of which we have rarely seen before. Every person and every religion that disagrees will be labeled as bigoted and openly discriminated against. The ax will fall most heavily on religious persons and groups that don't go along. Religious institutions will be hit with lawsuits if they refuse to compromise their principles.





Finally, there is the flagrant disregard shown by judges and local officials for the rights of citizens to have a say in setting the conditions under which we live, work and raise our children. Many Americans--however they feel about same-sex marriage--are rightly alarmed that local officials are defying state law, and that four judges in one state took it upon themselves to make the kind of decision that our Constitution says belongs to us, the people, and to our elected representatives. As one State House wag in Massachusetts put it, "We used to have government of the people, by the people and for the people, now we're getting government by four people!"
Whether one is for, against or undecided about same-sex marriage, a decision this important ought to be made in the ordinary democratic way--through full public deliberation in the light of day, not by four people behind closed doors. That deliberation can and must be conducted, as President Bush stated, "in a manner worthy of our country--without bitterness or anger."

Ms. Glendon is Learned Hand Professor of Law at Harvard.

[ComedyLimp]

The quoted article contains several serious errors:

1. It talks about same-sex unions having "special benefits" when the entire point is that same-sex couples willing to make a long term commitment are simply seeking the equivalent benefits that other couples already enjoy.

2. It conflates many unrelated issues to make its point. If benefits are given to married couples on the basis of having children then the benefits should be related to having children and not getting married. The point about caring for elderly relatives is entierly specious.

3. It attempts to reduce the argument to one of financial benefits and ignores other non-financial elements (visiting rights to sick spouse in hospital, write to next-of-kin status, etc) and the idea of natural justice and protection from discrimination that your constitution (rightly) affords you. It's like saying we shouldn't have had civil rights because it would cost money to take all those "Whites Only" signs.

[HDPM]

Agree. The article is ridiculous.


As for "social costs" - this is an illusory concept. There is an easy way to reduce the "social costs". Simply eliminate the welfare programs. No problem. Gratuitous communist benefits should not be a reason to deny people equal rights.

[Utah]

You make an interesting argument

Justice Stewart concurred in the Loving Case saying, "it is simply not possible for a state law to be valid under our Constitution which makes the criminality of an act depend upon the RACE of the actor." emphasis added

How is this statement fundementally different than, ""it is simply not possible for a state law to be valid under our Constitution which makes the criminality of an act depend upon the SEX of the actor."

However, under the Loving Case should I then not be able to walk into a womens locker room? (connoct your own argument that would be in direct violation of the Loving reasoning - its easy).

I would be curious as to how the anti-gay crowd has responded to Loving (as I am sure they have).

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
1. It talks about same-sex unions having "special benefits" when the entire point is that same-sex couples willing to make a long term commitment are simply seeking the equivalent benefits that other couples already enjoy.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think the point was that government benifits intended for married couples were bestowed with the idea in mind that married couples for the most part would be having children and raising families. Of course this isn't necessarily true. Point duly noted and well taken.

[ QUOTE ]
2. It conflates many unrelated issues to make its point. If benefits are given to married couples on the basis of having children then the benefits should be related to having children and not getting married. The point about caring for elderly relatives is entierly specious.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again point duly noted and well taken. I think the point was that it's something that could be abused.

[ QUOTE ]
3. It attempts to reduce the argument to one of financial benefits and ignores other non-financial elements (visiting rights to sick spouse in hospital, write to next-of-kin status, etc) and the idea of natural justice and protection from discrimination that your constitution (rightly) affords you. It's like saying we shouldn't have had civil rights because it would cost money to take all those "Whites Only" signs.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think so. I think the point was that what is being proposed by Bush is perfectly rational and that more public debate should be allowed to happen. To wit from the article:

Indeed, the American people should have the opportunity to deliberate the economic and social costs of this radical social experiment.

I think this portion was merely pointing out potential unforseen problems:

Astonishingly, in the media coverage of this issue, next to nothing has been said about what this new special preference would cost the rest of society in terms of taxes and insurance premiums.

as well as the aspects of the possibility of a new conciousness about being politically correct:

It would be tragic if, just when the country is beginning to take stock of the havoc those erroneous ideas have already wrought in the lives of American children, we should now freeze them into constitutional law. That philosophy of marriage, moreover, is what our children and grandchildren will be taught in school. They will be required to discuss marriage in those terms. Ordinary words like husband and wife will be replaced by partner and spouse. In marriage-preparation and sex-education classes, children will have to be taught about homosexual sex. Parents who complain will be branded as homophobes and their children will suffer.

Whether or not this will come to pass is open to debate but worth considering IMO. As are your points which I appreciate and respect.

[adios]

No social costs incurred in allowing unfair discrimination to flourish?

[HDPM]

I think there are. But what I was attacking is the illusory concept of welfare cost regarding something or another. What we are seeing now is that the government doles out enough welfare that do gooder authoritarians want to ban everything under the guise of social [read:welfare] cost. That's all. For instance, my state legislature is braying now about fat people. They want to ban fat people. This in a state that produces (a) potatoes and (b) dairy products. Some skinny blond nurse legislator is in charge of that. And they want to go further in banning smoking. I am sick of totalitarian nut jobs caring about us. Their hook is medical costs. I say don't tax me to pay for other people's stuff. Then I can be a big fat pig smoker and people can leave me alone. I am thinking of starting to smoke again just to make these people mad. Kinda wish I hadn't quit. I have the fat pig part down, but I figure they should hate me as much as possible. All I want if I get cancer is a big load of painless death injected anyway. Give me the Kevorkian shot and be done with me. Cost of shot, $10. Telling a bunch of nosey soccer mom do-gooders to FO- priceless. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[bernie]

i think christians should be questioning alot more things about their leaders than something as useless as who gets to trademark the word. why are we wasting taxpayer money on semantics.

but then again, most christians only pick and choose what they want from whatever novel they're reading and believing in and think putting money in a collection plate will cover the rest.

really, it's 2004. who the hell even cares.

b

[bernie]

the northerners didnt have slaves. no. they had indentured servants. much better PC term for back then.

b

[ThaSaltCracka]

oh they had indentured servents in the 1950's???? what a revelation!!!! Thank you for address exactly the time frame we were talking about

[sam h]

[ QUOTE ]
I wonder why blacks moved to the north... couldn't have been because they wanted to leave the hugely racist south, because aparently everyone was racist, so they most have moved for other reasons... you are aware of the huge movement of blacks from the south to the north in early 20th century America.

[/ QUOTE ]

The biggest reason for black migration to the north, at least in the first half of the 20th century when the bulk of that migration occurred, was economic. They moved for manufacturing jobs. The prejudicial Jim Crow south certainly was a factor as well, but don't let that dissuade you from thinking that blacks weren't still treated as second-class citizens in the north.

[ QUOTE ]
anyways, thank you for calling me a homphobe again. I will have to let the next gay person I meet know that I am scared of him and hate him because I don't support gay marriage. Or should I just walk around with a sign around my neck saying "watch out for the homophobe". Sam, you definitely should not throw that word around lightly.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't throw that word around lightly, but I do throw it around often. This is because, like racism, homophobia is something that most people - including myself - are somewhat susceptible to because of the culture that we live in. If we want to make more progress in stamping out these types of discrimination and prejudice, then we have to be honest about these things. I really feel that one of the impediments to this type of progress is that so many people will say "No way. I'm no racist. I'm no homophobe" when that is basically just not true on a subconscious level.

But I also feel that there are certain places where a firm line needs to be drawn. In my opinion, gay marriage is one. I think people should understand that saying you don't have anything against homosexuals but opposing gay marriage is not analytically distinct from saying you have nothing against Jews, you just don't want them in your country club or you have nothing against blacks, you just want them to use a different water fountain.

So, in sum, in my opinion we're both homophobes, but you're probably a bigger one. What's worse, you're in denial about it.

[John Cole]

M,

I think it was Oscar Wilde who said that marriage is a great institution, but who wants to live in an institution?

[ThaSaltCracka]

I think people should understand that saying you don't have anything against homosexuals but opposing gay marriage is not analytically distinct from saying you have nothing against Jews, you just don't want them in your country club or you have nothing against blacks, you just want them to use a different water fountain
the fact you make this comparison is shocking to me. You equate having seperate water fountains for whites and blacks, the same as not allowing gays to marry. Now thats a stretch.
BTW again, thank you for calling me a homophobe, although this time it is one in denial, so i guess thats better. So apparently I hate all gay people subconsiously. Well that must explain why I would hang out with(no pun intended) any gay person any time, or that must also explain why I would gladly talk to or become friends with a gay person.
Well atleast for the gay persons sake, I am a subconsious Homphobe, so they'll never know.

This entire gay marriage thing completely perplexes me on one main point. Gays want to be alowed to marry because they want the rights associated with marriage, right? Most people oppose Gay marriage, however they are for Civil Unions which allow all the rights of marriage. So why does the gay community, and its advocates continue to press for marriage and marriage only? I have heard very few people in the gay community come out and say, "civil unions. yeah that'll work, sounds good", can someone explain this to me?
Is there some other agenda I am missing? whether it be a subconsious agenda or a consious one /images/graemlins/wink.gif.

[MMMMMM]

Good point;-)

By the way, I've posted before that I think gays should be allowed to marry, although I'd probably draw the line at polygamy, marrying one's dog, or any communal marriage arrangements involving Ray Zee's sheep.

I do have some concerns regarding just how such laws are created (perhaps caveat judicial activism in some instances), but I don't think that gay marriage is something to get all worked up about, nor do I see a need to expressly forbid it in a Constitutional Amendment.

[bernie]

it was a joke about the civil war and how the north justified their 'workers'.

now back to the regularly scheduled pointless argument.

b

[sam h]

[ QUOTE ]
So apparently I hate all gay people subconsiously. Well that must explain why I would hang out with(no pun intended) any gay person any time, or that must also explain why I would gladly talk to or become friends with a gay person.

[/ QUOTE ]

To be a homophobe, at least the way the word is commonly used, does not imply a hatred of gay people any more than being a racist implies a hatred of black people.

The reason you cannot understand this issue is that you are hung up on this idea that as long you don't hate people, or want to beat them up, or consciously fear them, then you must not be someone who discriminates against them. You are only examining the most obvious, blatant forms of prejudice.

[ QUOTE ]
This entire gay marriage thing completely perplexes me on one main point. Gays want to be alowed to marry because they want the rights associated with marriage, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

I do not think the issue is all about rights, or at least not legal rights. Equality under the law is important in and of itself to many gay people.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Oh well, not like it'll ever happen.

Really? I think it's a slam dunk. For a Constitutional amendment, you need 2/3 of both the House & the Senate and ratification by 3/4 of the States (38).

DOMA passed both houses by about 85% and 38 States already have laws on the books that define marriage as being heterosexual.

What has changed recently that will change those figures?

[sam h]

[ QUOTE ]
insofar as I can tell neither do the Christians who object to a marriage between 2 men or 2 women object to a civil union granting all the accompanying rights of marriage.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why object to segregated schools as long as they are equally funded?

It is a question of equal treatment under the law. And "separate but equal" has a bad history in this country as a rationale.

Wake, I never meant to imply that you were against gay marriage or - even worse - a Christian. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

I understand you're just presenting the point of view of others. I just think that point of view is hopelessly contradictory.

[ThaSaltCracka]

directly from Dictionary.com

ho·mo·pho·bi·a ( P ) Pronunciation Key (hm-fb-)
n.
Fear of or contempt for lesbians and gay men.
Behavior based on such a feeling.

anyways I don't want to debate this anymore, Sam can we let that part of the discussion die?

I do not think the issue is all about rights, or at least not legal rights. Equality under the law is important in and of itself to many gay people
unless I am mistaken you just contradicted yourself here. I only point it out because I would like a little bit of elaboration(hehe I think I may have just made up a word) here from you. Do they want the legal rights that marriage allows? or do they simply want it to be called marriage?

[sam h]

Well, the cost is something to think about but I'm not sure we want to put a price on equality in this respect. To say X shouldn't get equal treatment under the law because its too costly to make the system fair seems like fundamentally a dubious rationale. Plus, we've both looked at the SS and deficit numbers enough to know that the "hundreds of millions" she refers to is basically chump change in the larger fiscal scheme of things.

I don't understand why she thinks gay childless couples will receive benefits straight childless couples will not. That's completely unclear. Nor do I understand this retroactive survivor thing. Nobody is going to be getting retroactively married to their dead gay lover. At least I assume not.

"In marriage-preparation and sex-education classes, children will have to be taught about homosexual sex."

Oh no! It's ok that kids are smoking weed and sleeping with each other at 14, but exposing them to the existence of gay sex is way too much. That might corrupt them. Or - cue especially scary music - maybe even turn them gay...

[stripsqueez]

[ QUOTE ]
How is the US Gov't (and society in general) discriminating against gays? I am neither arguing that we do or do not, but you have stated that we do, so I would like to know the basis for your belief.

[/ QUOTE ]

unfortunately i'm a tall white anglo saxon male living in a wealthy western country working in a professional occupation - spotting discrimination doesnt come so easy

as it happens i have had some small understanding/involvement in changing laws in my state (i cant comment in any detail about the US) to abolish all discrimination against same sex couples - our legislature changed 52 acts

how about superannuation rules - retirement funds are usually heavily regulated animals - if you have been in a same sex relationship for say 25 years and your partner who is still working suddenly dies thier retirement fund doesnt go to you - it goes to thier next of kin - it may be that your partner should of specified you as the beneficiary although in some jurisdictions i'm told that is not possible - in any event the default position should not discriminate against same sex couples

how about organising changes to your phone account - the main carrier here is primarily government owned - to have a joint account you have to be in a married or in a "marriage type" relationship - too bad the latter is not possible if you are the same sex

stripsqueez - chickenhawk

[stripsqueez]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't throw that word around lightly, but I do throw it around often. This is because, like racism, homophobia is something that most people - including myself - are somewhat susceptible to because of the culture that we live in. If we want to make more progress in stamping out these types of discrimination and prejudice, then we have to be honest about these things. I really feel that one of the impediments to this type of progress is that so many people will say "No way. I'm no racist. I'm no homophobe" when that is basically just not true on a subconscious level

[/ QUOTE ]

so right - there is a big flashing neon sign above my bottom that says NO ENTRY - i'm definately a homophobe - i have a gay freind at work who knows my sense of discomfort about the homosexual sex act - when i see him on a monday and ask how his weekend was he has often said "phil, it was so good i cant tell you"

stripsqueez - chickenhawk

[KJS]

TSC

I don't know what color eyes you have, but for the sake of argument, let's assume green.

If I (a blue eyed person) started a movement whereby everyone without green eyes could be married, and everyone with green eyes could only have a civil union, how would you feel? Would you be content with this "separate but equal" (heard that before) arrangement? Or would you perhaps join together with other green eyed people to press for "marriage and marriage only", not an alternative decided upon by non-green eyed people.

If you chose the latter I would think you were acting on a very sound principal--that people of your eye color should not be denied marriage based on your eye color. Same goes for gays who eschew the separate but equal alternatives given them by straight people.

There is an agenda, and its the same agenda as every other civil rights movement in this country: be treated like everyone else.

KJS

[KJS]

"Indeed, the American people should have the opportunity to deliberate the economic and social costs of this radical social experiment."

Good thing Lincoln never had this thought.

KJS

[sam h]

[ QUOTE ]
Do they want the legal rights that marriage allows? or do they simply want it to be called marriage?

[/ QUOTE ]

They want both.

Being able to marry their loved ones is more important to them than just the sum of the legal rights that marriage confers.

[HDPM]

Why ban polygamy? I don't see the problem. What if someone wants a gay marriage and a straight marriage? If all their spouses consent who cares? I just don't see why people get worked up. Of course, I don't want to pay for their kids through welfare if they have 10 wives and 80 kids. That's all I care about.


Banning bestiality is constitutional tho. That's where I draw the line (that and kids of course) The issue there is really a consent issue. Different rules for consenting adults. The only problem with bestiality being illegal is that I hear about some of the cases (the few that are caught) in court. Some nasty stuff goes on. /images/graemlins/ooo.gif


P.S. If some aliens come do you think there will be any bestiality issues for inter-species goings on? Perhaps humans would be the beasts. That one would get interesting, although all the hot alien chicks on Star Trek have changed the attitudes I think.

[ThaSaltCracka]

Gay Marriage (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2004/02/25/state1549EST0122.DTL)
this is an article I just read from the San Francisco News paper, I'm not really trying to prove anything with it, however there is one thing I found interesting, and you guys may want to check it out.
It seems that the gay rights advocates are giving the Dem. candidates a pass for their views on the issue. I found that very odd.
thoughts?

[elwoodblues]

The difference is that DOMA was an act, and what Bush et. al. are proposing is an amendment to the constitution. I think politicians will be much less likely to make the Amendment to the Constitution than they were to vote for DOMA. Additionally, the amendment process is a slow one (which might be part of the reason the President supports it) so many of the passions on the issue will die down by the time it finally comes to a vote.