Gay Marriage

Agreed! The wall between church and state must stay in place and the rights of the individual citizen should be equal.

dys

Yes, it does matter. I didn't see any mention this morning when I did my regular reading of other than the first vote.

What is your point? That anti-gay bigotry is widespread? I don't deny that. It's a shame, but it is also true that things have been improving at an amazing rate.

And of course, I had made no comment about Rhea County, so why bring it up to me?

It's amazing to me that it doesn't seem to be enough to support equal rights for homosexuals, you are asked to suspend reason and logic for them as well. Does anyone, ANYONE, doubt for a second that the "traditional definitions" of the words "man" and "woman" are discriminatory? To discriminate is to treat differently or recognize differences.

Marriage has traditionally been a union of a man and a woman. That's simply a reality. I'm fine with allowing that definition to evolve, but arguing that the traditional definition is "discriminatory and unjustified" is pandering to the masses. Of course it is "discriminatory" in that TRADITIONALLY it recognized the difference between pairing off to set up a home and have and raise children and pairing off for any other purpose. Nobody crafted the definition of marriage to achieve a goal, the definition of "marriage" (both the linguistic and the legal definitions, CI) flowed from the reality of what marriage was, historically and traditionally. "Unjustified"? Do history and reality count for nothing?

What is the legal "justification" for the terms "man" and "woman"? How soon does a court rule that they have to be abandoned? Can't we just acknowledge that there are differences between men and women, but that the LAW must strive to treat us the same anyway? And since that is in fact what we already do, can't we likewise call opposite-gender unions and same-gender unions by different terms and strive to treat them identically under the law???

Or is that too simple?

Again, I don't care whether the definition of marriage evolves naturally to include same-gender unions or does not. I simply abhor the twisting of logic and the absurd machinations that are being used to force the issue. The word "marriage" should be a triviality, not the center of the debate. Pass laws creating a legal contract for same-gender unions and simply write it to confer the exact rights and privileges conferred by marriage, and then line up boys and girls. Is that really so difficult?

A "Right' is something that is not legislated, lawed, adjudicated, forced to happen, etc. It just is.....

It is the actions of the people that keep it from happening; therefore, it has to have all the above to protect that fact, that it is real from being.

If this President gets his way he will have (in one more way) suppressed freedom - he would have made discrimination a part of the Constitution - That is a shame!

Currently, on another front, the freedom of speech is being attacked - this President has got to go..................

scrat

I'm afraid I really do not believe that tradition is the sticking point. If I thought that was all it was, a sort of book-keeping matter, I wouldn't have started the thread.

What I do believe is that the lady who initiated the bill towards a constitutional ammendment, and the large marjority of folks who will support such a bill, are motivated instead by the same disgust with homosexuals which we see evidenced in Rhea County. And I believe that response is identical to the earlier example of mixed race marriage, or of allowing blacks into the same swimming pools as whites.

I'm not smart enough to know if Barny Franks is correct in his notion that this present activism (marriages in SF) will likely cause enough trouble to slow the ongoing integration and acceptance of gays into the community. Perhaps the push is too much too soon.

But to me, this sort of exclusion or downgrading or demonizing of some segment of our populations is a social tendency which must be actively fought against. I think it is the same tendency which led to jews being equated with rats. I think it represents the worst of us.

blatham, From my observations of humanity during my short life on this planet, and learning about human history of most cultures, it seems the need to feel superior to some other group is as strong as the attraction for religion. There is something innate in the human psyche that requires people to have some one-uppance on another group to feel some superiority of some kind. I'm better than them, because _________. People just can't accept the fact that we are all the same. We belong to the animal kingdom, but the human intellect still struggles with the fundamentals of equality and wars for the dumbest reasons.

ci

Yup. We's our own enemies. And often our enemies are really really dumb.

Uh oh.

I know what you're saying here!!!

The devil made me post this one.
****************************


( A scene at City Hall in San Francisco )



"Next."

Good morning. We want to apply for a marriage license."

""Names?"

"Tim and Jim Jones."

"Jones? Are you related? I see a resemblance."

"Yes, we're brothers."

"Brothers? You can't get married."

"Why not? Aren't you giving marriage licenses to same gender couples?"

"Yes, thousands. But we haven't had any siblings. That's incest!"

"Incest?" No, we are not gay."

"Not gay? Then why do you want to get married?"

"For the financial benefits, of course. And we do love each other.

Besides, we don't have any other prospects."

"But we're issuing marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples who've

been denied equal protection under the law. If you are not gay, you

can get married to a woman."


"Wait a minute. A gay man has the same right to marry a woman as I

have. But just because I'm straight doesn't mean I want to marry a

woman. I want to marry Jim."

"And I want to marry Tim, Are you going to discriminate against us

just because we are not gay?"



"All right, all right. I'll give you your license. Next."



"Hi. We are here to get married."

"Names?"



"John Smith, Jane James, Robert Green, and June Johnson."



"Who wants to marry whom?"

"We all want to marry each other."

"But there are four of you!"

"That's right. You see, we're all bisexual. I love Jane and Robert,

Jane loves me and June, June loves Robert and Jane, and Robert loves
June

and me. All of us getting married together is the only way that we can

express our sexual preferences in a marital relationship."



"But we've only been granting licenses to gay and lesbian couples."



"So you're discriminating against bisexuals!"



"No, it's just that, well, the traditional idea of marriage is that

it's just for couples."



"Since when are you standing on tradition?"

"Well, I mean, you have to draw the line somewhere."

"Who says? There's no logical reason to limit marriage to couples.

The more the better. Besides, we demand our rights! The mayor says the

constitution guarantees equal protection under the law. Give us a

marriage license!"



"All right, all right. Next."



"Hello, I'd like a marriage license."

"In what names?"

"David Deets."

"And the other man?"

"That's all. I want to marry myself."



"Marry yourself? What do you mean?"

"Well, my psychiatrist says I have a dual personality, so I want to

marry the two together. Maybe I can file a joint income-tax return."



"That does it! I quit!! You people are making a mockery of marriage!!"

You can argue that man--in his natural state--has a "right" to do anything and everything he desires... copulate, kill, steal, marry... and that government functions only to limit man's rights so that we can live together in an orderly society. If that's your argument, fine, but then the complaint that government shouldn't be limiting people's rights becomes a non-starter.

Of course, "right" isn't exactly the right word. What we really mean is "freedom". I think you need to differentiate between "rights" and "freedoms". Freedoms are not legislated. Rights are. We should be very careful which rights we deny people and why, but to cry out against the general notion of denying rights is to say nothing. I lack the "right" to kill people, and I doubt you would argue that the government is wrong to deny me that right.

I personally don't want to mimic anyone. I just want the same freedom to walk hand in hand down the street that straight couples enjoy. (without dodging beer bottles)

Thanks for resuscitating this thread; I re-read what I wrote in 2004, and got a good laugh from it.

I just have a question. Namely, me and my girlfriend are looking for a gay guy or a gay couple to help each others legalize the immigration status in US. I have a green card but my gf is illegally here. Maybe u know someone or a gay couple where one guy need a green card too?

I must say, while I am a supporter of gay marriage, I couldn't support a sham marriage simply in order to legalize someone. I don't think the thing you are trying to do is honorable.

Cycloptichorn

no to mention illegal