4
   

Gay Marriage

 
 
BillW
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Mar, 2004 03:38 pm
Quote:
Sprague won't seek re-election


Wednesday, February 18, 2004

On the day she took the microphone on floor of the Massachusetts House to voice her support for gay marriage Sen. Jo Ann Sprague, R-Walpole, announced she won't seek re-election in November.

In a press release issued last week, Sprague wrote she had said from the beginning that, after three terms in office, she would move on.

"Every two years since 1992, I have asked to be returned to office based on my record as a fiscal conservative and social progressive," Sprague said. "Also, from the beginning, term limits has been a part of my platform. I have given my word that after three terms in office, I would move on and give other qualified candidates the opportunity....


Hardly the voice of a ultra neocon Laughing She's right after my own heart Exclamation
0 Replies
 
fishin
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Mar, 2004 04:35 pm
Umbagog wrote:
Look at what a republican is saying. Can you believe it? There must be a few left floating around after all...


It must drive you just batty that the whole issue of creating a Constitutional Amendment to prohibit same sex marriges here in MA is be pushed by a Legislature that is 85% Democrats. Very Happy
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Mar, 2004 07:39 am
Hello everybody. Here's a piece to keep us all happy...
http://slate.msn.com/id/2097048/
0 Replies
 
Scrat
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Mar, 2004 12:37 pm
Lightwizard wrote:
We're back to the rights of each individual church are being infringed on also -- they should make the decision whether to perform a ceremony or not. The civil union is exactly what heterosexuals do when they are married before a judge. This is a case of swolen semantics.

So let's stop making it about words and recognize that a same-gender civil union carrying identical rights and benefits under the law is sufficient, and stop hanging the "equality" of the union (or lack thereof) on what it is called.
0 Replies
 
Scrat
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Mar, 2004 12:59 pm
Lightwizard wrote:
Ya want to also change Mirriam Webster?

Surely you're not pretending that this is a "traditional" definition of the term "marriage". M-W is perfectly welcome to get out in front on adding a new alternative definition, as they have, but what point do you think it proves?

You may not be aware of it, but M-W was the subject of controversy a year or two back when they knuckled under to PC forces and cleansed their Thesaurus of synonyms they deemed potentially offensive; terms like "queer" which--whether for good or ill are synonyms for "homosexual" were removed because of complaints from the PC crowd. (I just searched M-W's online thesaurus using the word "homosexual" and got this result:

Quote:
No entries found that match homosexual.

Is anybody out there going to argue that there are no synonyms for "homosexual" in use in the English language today? Given a choice between simply reporting on the language, M-W has chosen to take a political stance on the use of language. I think that's wrong. I don't like "murder", but I don't think listing the word means you are a proponent thereof.

My point? M-W has shown itself to be an entity predisposed to toe the PC/liberal line rather than simply act as an accurate register of the true state of the English language today, so while I agree that the word "marriage" is beginning to see use in keeping with the new definition they offer, I don't put too much meaning in anything they (M-W) do these days.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Mar, 2004 01:30 pm
I noticed earier that the online version of the M-W thesaurus either is a 'light version' or ...

('Sexual' and hundreds other get "No entry found ..." as well, Scrat!)
0 Replies
 
Scrat
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Mar, 2004 03:09 pm
Walter - I read specific media coverage of the M-W decision to pull terms like "queer", and personally exchanged correspondence with the staff at M-W about the decision. It was specifically and openly to remove terms they thought people shouldn't use.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Mar, 2004 07:08 pm
I'm deeply behind in my reading here...but that won't stop me from talking.

I'm in accord with Scrat regarding the proper function and content of a dictionary. I don't believe that language creates mental states (briefly, use of 'nigger' doesn't create racism, it reflects or evidences it).

But if Scrat is arguing that 'marriage' is being redefined as a matter of political correctness, then I'm certainly not in accord. It is certainly being 'redefined' as a consequence of societal changes, analogous to the term 'voter'.

In fact, where folks seek to restrict the use of the term 'marriage' to the singular sense of heterosexual unions, then this is itself a rather ironic example of the failing noted in the first paragraph here - the attempt to eradicate a behavior through adjustment of terminology.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Mar, 2004 08:22 pm
blatham, I must agree: we have heard too often how words can hurt more than physical pain. To continue to claim that "marriage" does not hurt gay couples is not only insensitive, but lacking the understanding of words and their impact to some people. Why are they arguing so vehmently on the use of one word if it is not meant to deny equal treatment?
0 Replies
 
Scrat
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Mar, 2004 12:03 pm
blatham wrote:
I'm deeply behind in my reading here...but that won't stop me from talking.

I'm in accord with Scrat regarding the proper function and content of a dictionary. I don't believe that language creates mental states (briefly, use of 'nigger' doesn't create racism, it reflects or evidences it).

But if Scrat is arguing that 'marriage' is being redefined as a matter of political correctness, then I'm certainly not in accord.

No, that wasn't my argument. I think we're in agreement here. My only point in bringing up what I did was to show why I don't put too much credence in what M-W does these days. I do think updating the dictionary definition of "marriage" to show that it is now being used in the context of "same-sex marriage" is perfectly valid. Dictionaries should evolve to show the current state of the language. No problem there.

The problem with LW's choice to share that definition here is not that it exists but rather what he thinks we should infer from its existence.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Mar, 2004 05:46 am
Quote:
Those states that found interracial marriages offensive to their public policies were not required to recognize such marriages performed elsewhere, though sometimes they did, but as a matter of choice rather than constitutional compulsion. That experience is instructive, legal scholars say, about what is likely to happen when Massachusetts starts performing gay marriages in May...
There is a second reason same-sex marriages in Massachusetts are likely to have a more limited effect than the president suggested. An obscure 1913 law in that state makes void all marriages performed there where the couple is not eligible to be married in their home state. That law, too, was born in part from an effort to prohibit interracial marriages.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/17/national/17MARR.html
0 Replies
 
hobitbob
 
  0  
Reply Wed 17 Mar, 2004 04:31 pm
Ashcroft would smile
Quote:
Tenn. County Wants to Charge Homosexuals

Associated Press

DAYTON, Tenn. - The county that was the site of the Scopes "Monkey Trial" over the teaching of evolution is asking lawmakers to amend state law so the county can charge homosexuals with crimes against nature.

The Rhea County commissioners approved the request 8-0 Tuesday.

Commissioner J.C. Fugate, who introduced the measure, also asked the county attorney to find a way to enact an ordinance banning homosexuals from living in the county.

"We need to keep them out of here," Fugate said.

The vote was denounced by Matt Nevels, president of the Chattanooga chapter of Parents, Family and Friends of Lesbians and Gays.

"That is the most farfetched idea put forth by any kind of public official," Nevels said. "I'm outraged."

Last year, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Texas' sodomy laws as a violation of adults' privacy.

Rhea County is one of the most conservative counties in Tennessee. It holds an annual festival commemorating the 1925 trial at which John T. Scopes was convicted of teaching evolution. The verdict was thrown out on a technicality. The trial became the subject of the play and movie "Inherit the Wind."

In 2002, a federal judge ruled unconstitutional the teaching of a Bible class in the public schools.

http://channels.netscape.com/fotosrch/2/20040311BOS03D.jpg
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Mar, 2004 11:56 am
Same-sex marriage is legal: Quebec's top court
Same-sex marriage is legal: Quebec's top court
Last Updated Fri, 19 Mar 2004 12:44:44

MONTREAL - Quebec homosexuals have the right to marry and the traditional definition of marriage is discriminatory and unjustified, the province's top court said Friday.

The Quebec Court of Appeal upheld a lower-court ruling in 2002 that same-sex marriage should be legal.

The ruling follows similar decisions in Ontario and British Columbia.

The Quebec case centred on Michael Hendricks and Rene Leboeuf, who wanted to marry after being together for 30 years.

In 2002, the Quebec Superior Court ruled that restricting marriage to a union between a man and a woman was unjustified under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms

Religious groups appealed the decision.
------------------------------------

Written by CBC News Online staff
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Mar, 2004 12:11 pm
Thanks BBB, I hadn't seen that item yet.

For a bit more than twenty years, my home has been right smack in the middle of the Vancouver's gay community. That's been nothing but a good experience for myself and for my daughter. If a great divide emerges between Canadian law and US law such that immigration to Canada were a consequence, we would gain greatly.

This bigotry, and the unfortunate fact that it is evidenced up to the presidency there, is an example of the worst of America.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Mar, 2004 12:37 pm
blatham, All we can hope for now is to rid this administration from our landscape forever - and ever. bigotry and discrimination has no place in a country we call "free and democratic."
0 Replies
 
Scrat
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Mar, 2004 12:42 pm
Re: Same-sex marriage is legal: Quebec's top court
Quote:
... the traditional definition of marriage is discriminatory and unjustified...

I wonder whether we'll soon see a high court decision ruling that the traditional definition of coitus is likewise "discriminatory and unjustified". Confused

Quote:
Coitus

n : Sexual union between a male and a female involving insertion of the penis into the vagina.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Coitus
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Mar, 2004 12:51 pm
Is coitus reglementated by law and/or religion like marriage in the US? (I thought, it was a term more used in medicine/biology)
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Mar, 2004 12:55 pm
Walter, It seems some people can't see the difference.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Mar, 2004 01:12 pm
Scrat

The Rhea County 8-0 vote really does point directly to a strain of bigotry which is more pervasive than just that county.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Mar, 2004 01:24 pm
blatham, the first vote (to criminalize homosexuality) was a vote of 7 to 1 for. The next day vote to rescind prior vote was 8 to 0. If it matters.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Gay Marriage
  3. » Page 33
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/25/2019 at 12:07:40