Women sue over marriage
Pair challenging voter-backed Amendment 43
By Lynn Bartels, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Chris Schneider / The Rocky/2007
Kate Burns, left, and Sheila Schroeder sit in at the Denver clerk and recorder's office after they were refused a marriage license last year. They are suing to overturn a related law.
A lesbian couple wants to overturn a voter-approved ballot measure that defines marriage in Colorado as the union of one man and one woman.
Kate Burns and Sheila Schroeder, of Englewood, on Monday filed suit in Denver County Court, asking that Amendment 43 be declared unconstitutional. The couple unsuccessfully tried to obtain a marriage license last year.
Their attorney, Mari Newman, said the case reminds her of laws that used to outlaw interracial marriage but were declared unconstitutional.
"The right to marriage is fundamental," Newman said. "The government can't be telling us who we can and cannot marry."
The lawsuit claims Amendment 43, which 56 percent of voters approved in 2006, is unconstitutional on several grounds, including it was "religiously motivated" and has the effect "of establishing religion."
Rep. Kevin Lundberg, R-Berthoud, who helped put the amendment on the ballot, laughed at that argument.
"If that's the case," he said, "we can throw out most of our laws because most are based on some moral perspective, and you could argue that is a religious foundation."
"We could even throw in the Declaration of Independence on those grounds: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights . . . Creator."
He called the suit frivolous.
No hearing date has been set.
"We hope we get a chance to make a case for what is morally and constitutionally right in this state: fair treatment and equality," said Burns, who has been with her partner five years.
"Our minister is happy to marry us, but his hands are tied."
Burns, 44, and Schroeder, 43, are scheduled to appear in Denver County Court this week on trespassing charges stemming from their attempt to get a marriage license. They went to the Denver clerk and recorder on Sept. 24. When they were refused a license, they refused to leave and were arrested.
Newman said she has requested a continuance because their minister had a death in the family and won't be able to testify.
bartels@RockyMountainNews.com or 303-954-5327
February 11, 2008
3:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
PMSXpress writes:
Why would they use a trespassing charge on this?
February 11, 2008
3:20 p.m.
Suggest removal
fiesty writes:
Just wait... we'll have all the "marriage is a right" posters here in a minute, but whose logic suspicially only allows for homosexuals to marry, but not those pesky other groups they don't like.
February 11, 2008
3:21 p.m.
Suggest removal
Spencer writes:
Are lesbians sodomites?
February 11, 2008
3:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
Beauman writes:
It's amazing the level of misinformation that gets leaked and repeated as true. 1st- for all the "Founding Fathers" and Pseudo-"Christians" This country was based on puritanical beliefs that have been completely changed by pervasive politicians. Yet when a PERSON stands up for their beliefs, they are wrong. BTW- Christianity's definition- to be Christ like. Last time I read my bible, he left 2 commandments-look em' up. 2nd- Not sure where "pesky other groups" comes from- but again, last I heard, it was the LGBT community-That would be for LESBIAN, GAY, BISEXUAL & TRANSGENDER- what "pesky other group" did we leave out. Please do not measure the whole community by some who want to seperate. Please, just be informed.
February 11, 2008
3:32 p.m.
Suggest removal
benn writes:
Haha, good point spencer
February 11, 2008
3:36 p.m.
Suggest removal
bookwerm writes:
Ok, it is NOT about what the "majority" of people want, but what is DEFENSIBLE via the constitution. Banning Gays from marrying is NOT defensible, and merely reflects the prejudices of this time and place. I am married, with a kid, totally hetero, so don't think I am writing on here to benefit myself. But basing what is "ok" or legal on the majority? That is NOT how the Bill of Rights work, as if it WERE a simple majority RULES in America (OR other democracies), then it would end up being the TYRANNY of the Many over the few! The Majority of folks back in the early 19th century DID think it ok for Blacks to be second class (called colored then), AND in some areas, Italians, Polocks, Slovaks and the like were CONSIDERED COLORED! Really. And then time moves on, and in hindsight, we see that was not ok.
Same thing for this Gay bashing/ "protecting" the institution of Marriage.. with McCain divorced, Guiliani divorced (2 times?), I have a hard time thinking THEY protected the sanctity of marriage!
So what is the answer? END MARRIAGE by the STATE! Marriage is NOT the business of the STATE!!! The STATE should ONLY provide Civil Unions, male/male, male/female, female/female, and if you want to GET MARRIED DO IT IN A CHRUCH! Marriage is both a civil AND religious institution. Based on the latter, it has NO business being the former!
I think all unions should be permitted.. and if YOUR church won't support Marriage of Gays, FINE! But to make the state prevent it is a heinous crime depriving a whole class of people EQUAL RIGHTS due to YOUR PREJUDICE! What YOU think is wrong is not what I think. So suck it up, get this fixed.
The continuation of treating gays as second class WILL be a continued stain on our country, and one that is all TOO similar to "NO COLORED" and sitting at the back of the bus.
February 11, 2008
3:39 p.m.
Suggest removal
JustSayin writes:
Hmm ... christo left two commandments? After the ten from the old testament (you know, the ones given to Moses - "look 'em up"), what are the other two? Would they be considered the first and second amendments to the Bible?
February 11, 2008
3:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
DenverTea writes:
I think the first one of the things JC said we should do is Love each other.....the second I think is to honor God,, I am not sure on that second one though....I think love means to care about - so I care. The women should be able to get married. Saying they can't is silly patriarchical control freakism.
February 11, 2008
3:49 p.m.
Suggest removal
HolierThanThou writes:
Ever notice how the people making the biggest stink about gays are always a bit queer themselves?
February 11, 2008
4:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
Eli writes:
NotChasB,
The majority of voters approving or disapproving any law has virtually nothing to do with its constitutionality. If Burns and Schroeder want to challenge the constitutionality of Amendment 43, they have every right to do so.
February 11, 2008
4:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
matthew writes:
JustSayin - The old testament has hundreds of commandments, and several groups that can be considered "the ten". If you want to go off of the old testament, I hope you're treating your slaves and wives well; and for heaven's sake, stop wearing that cotton-wool blend!
February 11, 2008
4:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
pwern writes:
No, AirBailey. What's 'really sad' is that my children are slowly being forced into accepting the notion that homosexuality is normal behavior. It's NOT. It's just another bullet point on the list of valueless garbage that the Left is constantly trying to ram down our society's throat in order to further erode the institutions and poke more holes in our social fabric.
When you're finished emoting, why don't you try rationalizing the simple fact that 99% of us AREN'T gay. There is a difference between tolerance and acceptance. Nobody cares what homosexuals do in the privacy of their own homes, but when attempt is made to destroy the single most sacred institution in our culture - marriage - that's where the vast majority of us draw the line. Sorry if that makes you feel so 'really sad', but some of feel there are some values left in our culture that are worth fighting for.
February 11, 2008
4:20 p.m.
Suggest removal
Beauman writes:
Since someone felt they needed to specifically respond to a post-I'm just saying- JC came to release us from the old laws (i.e. all the rules in old testament books, eating pork and such) So by his standard-not mine- HIS- we have 2 commandements. His only two commandents were 1. love thy god with all your heart, soul and body. 2. Love your neighbor as you would love yourselves. As far as people who act queer themselves. I am and LOVE IT! Another poster was not-yet you still put them into that realm. The being fit enough to judge is God-let him.
February 11, 2008
4:22 p.m.
Suggest removal
Eli writes:
NotChasB,
What truth is that? Why is it wrong for someone to challenge the constitutionality of Amendment 43, or any other law for that matter? The court will either agree or disagree. If the court agrees that Amendment 43 is unconstitutional, opponents of gay marriage have every right to propose a constitutional amendment. This is the way our legal system works. What problem do you have with it?
February 11, 2008
4:25 p.m.
Suggest removal
JustMe writes:
Love is love. Keeping two consenting adults from marrying is discrimination. How are gays asking for "special rights"? Because it seems, to me, they're simply asking for the same rights afforded to their straight brothers and sisters.
Now the religious right and homophobes will start making comparisons to bestiality and child abuse. Disgusting means of furthering fear of gay, lesbian and transgendered folks - who largely just wantvalidation of their two-consensual-adults relationship, validation, legal rights to visit one another in the hospital, etc.
People who claim to be Christian and yet spew nothing but hatred and vitriol toward gay, lesbian and transgendered, are giving Christians everywhere a bad name.
I am a Christian - and it's not my, or anyone else's place to judge, and while my religion may say one thing - it should NOT be used to legislate laws that will affect everyone.
I commend these two women - and I hope they are victorious!
February 11, 2008
4:27 p.m.
Suggest removal
Big_D writes:
I just don’t give a care about controlling other people if they are not hurting anyone. Can somebody please explain how this hurts marriage? I have been married heterosexually for a decade and it doesn’t hurt my marriage for homosexuals to be married. I just wonder if the right wing thinks freedom is only free to do what they dictate. That isn’t freedom to me. I despise organized Christian Churches because I feel they have become nothing more than the money changers Jesus kicked out. Baptists used to believe nobody could interpret the bible for you but now they have a convention to tell people what to believe? My beloved Episcopalian Church has broken apart because some will not forgive homosexuals? What the heck is wrong with religion these days?
February 11, 2008
4:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
Beauman writes:
Yet you can judge NotChasB? Again-god is the only judge-let him.
February 11, 2008
4:32 p.m.
Suggest removal
buffsblg writes:
Really, so much venom and hatred from the alleged christians on here. trying to see how that fits into your moral view. do you really think Christ would be on here calling people "queer"?
As to homosexuality being " unnatural" how do you explain it being common in the animal kingdom. There are gay cows, sheep, chimps etc etc. If you are the hard core christian you claim, you must beleive that "god" made them that way. Or do you think cows choose to be immoral?
These two women want the right to be treated the way others are treated. Maybe the constitution provides for that, maybe not, but all of you on here calling names only show that most of the opposition to this notion comes based upon hate.
February 11, 2008
4:38 p.m.
Suggest removal
O_TRAIN writes:
most sacred institution - yeah right
My parents (hetro/married, 40+ years) are miserable and can't stand each other, but refuse to divorce (because of their religion). What a joke and waste.
I would have loved to have two LOVING parents of any gender - instead of the misery and suffering caused by their religious dogma.
If you don't believe in gay marriage - say no the next time a gay person asks you to get married. Legalized discrimination and bigotry are what make me sick.
February 11, 2008
4:51 p.m.
Suggest removal
SASQUATCH writes:
Would you expect anything less given the recent assent of HRC?
February 11, 2008
5:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
GWM writes:
I am going to do some electrical work this weekend. Anyone know of a pair of dykes I could use?
February 11, 2008
5:32 p.m.
Suggest removal
me2 writes:
pwern, you mention children, are you sure you are doing everything in your power to keep them from choosing to be gay? Are you monitoring all that they do and all their friends? Do you make sure no gay influences touch them?
Be alert, be very alert, gayness can happen to any child.
February 11, 2008
5:55 p.m.
Suggest removal
Jeff writes:
NotChasB wrote:
"What will you misfits and perverts be defending next? Pedophilia(Man marries 8 yr old), beastiality(woman marries her Great Dane) Incest(Brother marries his brother."
And gays are the perverts? For someone throwing around that label, you seem to have some very detailed thoughts in the old dome that raise eyebrows, probably even among homosexuals. (I mean, where on Earth did you come up with the Great Dane scenario? Why that breed?).
February 11, 2008
6:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
mama_mia writes:
NotChasB, your comments are so vile they really don't deserve a response, but since you and others seem to actually see a connection between same-sex marriage and your examples, let me point out the differences to you:
Pedophilia and bestiality lack the key component of consent. Minors and animals are incapable of consenting to commitments such as marriage and sex, while adult homosexuals are every bit as capable as adult heterosexuals. No one (that I know of) is fighting to allow 8year-old homosexuals to marry each other. Why on earth would allowing consenting adult same sex marriage lead to legalized pedophilia when heterosexual marraige has not?
Incest is almost always forced on a minor relative and therefore lacks consent as in pedophilia above. Also, marriage (as far as the state is concerned) is about forming a family. Two unrelated people want a relationship that is legally recognized. Two adult siblings already have that legally recognized relationship. They are already considered acceptable heirs and can make medical decisions on the other's behalf. From the state's perspective, it serves no purpose for them to marry.
Society generally agrees that it's beneficial for children of heterosexuals to have parents in a stable, legally recognized relationship, why are children of homosexuals not worthy of the same benefits? There are thousands of them across the country who have only one legally recognized parent, even though they share their love and their lives with two.
February 11, 2008
6:19 p.m.
Suggest removal
mama_mia writes:
pwern, you are mistaken in your stats. It is commonly agreed by experts that 10% of the population is homosexual, not 1%. Is that a large enough percentage, in your opinion, to deserve equal rights? If not, what is? 15%? 30%? 49%? At what point is a minority large enough to be worthy of the same rights as the majority?
Also, in what way, specifically, would same-sex marriage "destroy" marriage? Gays and lesbians are asking only for the right to marry, they are not trying to ban heterosexual marriage. I am a married, heterosexual Christian, and my marriage isn't affected by what other people do, how is yours?
If same sex marriage could actually "destroy" heterosexual marriages, it'd be happening already. The Unitarian Universalist Church has been marrying gays and lesbians for over 40 years. Even though the government doesn't recognize those marriages, those couples are married. Same sex couples are legally married in Massachusetts as well. And yet, the sky hasn't fallen, marriages are continuing on as they were, some good, some bad.
What are people so afraid of?
February 11, 2008
6:23 p.m.
Suggest removal
JustMe writes:
I think it's impossible to reason with someone like NotChasB who are clearly so blinded by hatred, ignorance and fear. Like I said, these people always go right to the bestiality and pedophilia arguments. Because they're fears of homosexuality are rooted in ignorance. Pure and simple. OR they're rooted in self-hatred.
I'm heartened to see the amount of positive comment this article has generated, usually I find that articles on this paper generate mostly hateful comments.
February 11, 2008
7:21 p.m.
Suggest removal
HolierThanThou writes:
Dang...
There sure are a lot of closet queers on this board, worrying that their children might be converted to the gay life.
Let me put it this way. I am a man who likes women. Yes, I'm a real sucker for them. I'll fix their cars, do free plumbing for them, scare other men away at the risk of my own neck. You name it. I'm probably dumb enough to do it for a pretty woman. I've often paid a terrible price and suffered disappointment after all these efforts, but I still love women.
Chances are awful good that I can't be converted to loving men the way I love women. That's why, if I meet queer men who like me, they don't bother me in the least. We can laugh and joke. I can even cry on their shoulders about how hard it is loving women who will never understand my simple ways. Why? Because in spite of my tears, I will never be queer no matter how much easier life would seem if I was.
Now you take your religious homophobes like notChasB and SASQUATCH and all the members of New Life Church and those Family Values jackasses. They're scared witless of gays. There's only one reason why they would believe that their own children could be turned gay and that's because they're marginal themselves.
QED
February 11, 2008
7:40 p.m.
Suggest removal
GWM writes:
Dear QueererThanThou, methinks thou doth protest too much. Looked in your closet lately cowboy?
February 11, 2008
7:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
Golden writes:
Bookwerm - you are an idiot. I hope this law is declared unconstitutinal. I am going to marry my dog! Who says I can't. I love my dog. We have been happy together for seven years now (42 dog years). I love her and she loves me. We have always been faithful together. I would never play fetch with another dog. I won't even pet one! My parents wre miserable for 3 1/2 years before they finally got divorced! Who says heterosexuals and the State can define marrage. And if you won't let me marry my dog than I am going to marry my 2 year old next door neighbor. She loves me also, and I love her!
Idiot gay ativists. They only want to be married so people will accept them. It would be so much easier to accept them if they weren't such idiots.
The state didn't define marriage 20,000 years of societal development did.
February 11, 2008
8:36 p.m.
Suggest removal
GWBushwacked writes:
Golden:
Wow, your intelligence speaks volumes. In fact, I think you should become a spokesperson for those opposing gay marriage. Gives us more of your pearls of wisdom. Keep talking, it gives credence to the whole notion that gay marriage is wrong.
<sarcasm> off
February 11, 2008
8:40 p.m.
Suggest removal
glowrock writes:
Golden, you're a freaking idiot. Last time I checked, dogs can't give informed consent...
We're talking about two consenting adults, not kids, not sisters or brothers, not fathers and daughters, not man with sheep, not woman with horse. TWO CONSENTING ADULTS!!!
What the hel* is so difficult to understand here?
February 11, 2008
8:45 p.m.
Suggest removal
ElGordo writes:
Aren't queers human also? I bet everyone here talking badly about our gay friends were the first to believe that Ted Haggard could be "cured". You guys all talk about marriage being so important, then why do we have a high rate of divorce? How many of you judgers have been faithful to your spouse(s) for all this time? Holier than thou, you stole the words right from my mouth.
February 11, 2008
8:58 p.m.
Suggest removal
Golden writes:
How do you know my dog and next door neighbor don't consent? Can you read their minds? No one knows my dog better than me and I say we ae in love. Just because you don't approve doesn't mean you can hate me. I have a right to do what I want without you forcing your morals on me!
How old does one have to be in order to be an adult? Didn't the state define that limt? What right do they have to tell us who is an adult and who is a child? People use to get married at 14 and 15. That would not be considered an adult today. Why? Because the State decded? Because society decided?
So...why can't I marry my dog or my two year old neighbor.
February 12, 2008
6:46 a.m.
Suggest removal
nicolec writes:
As a historian I find many of these writer's notions about the "history" of marriage hilarious. Stop making up history and do a little research. The idea of love marriages didn't become normal until the 1800s. Homosexual and Heterosexual (as words and/or concepts) didn't exist until the 1800s. Take the most masculine culture you can think of pre-1800...Sparta? Men in all these cultures had sex with anyone they wanted to other men, women and children(despite what 300 wants you to believe). Marriage was first about property, then convenience and eventually came to be associated with a way to show one you love them (although some marriages seem to reflect the later two). Interestingly, in Colonial New England the colonist didn't get married in the church but rather at the court house- it was seen as a legal issue not a religious one.
The romantic idea of marriage we have now is relatively new. If you want to be a hate mongering zealot do it without trying to use history to justify it.
February 12, 2008
7:13 a.m.
Suggest removal
PMSXpress writes:
Golden, you're referring to a 2 yr. old child. A two year old is basically still a baby. Are you really a pedophile or just trying to make a sick joke? Go marry your dog. Geezus.
February 12, 2008
7:19 a.m.
Suggest removal
fiesty writes:
I fully agree that people should be free to love whoever they want, without harassment or prejudice. However, there is no such "right" to marry whoever you want, else other "discriminated" groups would have had this right long before now. (Such as polygamists, close relations, or even single people who don't get the tax breaks.)
If this continues to be such an issue, (i.e. homosexuals cannot accept that marriage is going to have restrictions), then as bookwerm says, the government needs to get out of the marriage business and everyone can go through the trouble of doing their wills, getting powers of attorney and such.
February 12, 2008
7:25 a.m.
Suggest removal
Classof80 writes:
First we all live in a FREE COUNTRY and it gives these women the right to question the constitutional basis of the admendment. But when or if it is deemed to be constitutional they need to leave it alone. This is why our soiders defend this nation so that people of ALL types can do what they if is in their best interest.
As for why they were arrested I would guess that their refusal to leave after being asked would constitute trespassing.. So in turn their actions do nothing for their cause. Just make them look like idiots..
February 12, 2008
7:32 a.m.
Suggest removal
Spencer writes:
Didn't the majority oppose inter-racial marriage in the 50's?
February 12, 2008
7:40 a.m.
Suggest removal
fiesty writes:
bookwerm-
I don't agree that this is "discrimination" like you cite. Except for marriage, in the eyes of the law, homosexuals are treated exactly the same as anyone else- they even have added protection under hate crime laws. They are free to pursue their version of happiness without interference or harassment. They are not treated differently at all- they don't ride buses in the back, aren't given different fountains to drink from, can live together and wherever they want, open joint bank accounts, and so on.
For both you and Eli-
I believe marriage is a privilege, not a right, else how could it be denied to other minority groups? Polygamists even have an advantage over homosexuals in this matter, since polygamy is required under some religions. Then there are polyandrists, group marriages, related individuals (whether able to conceive or not), etc. Why should homosexuals be given preferential treatment under the law over these other groups? Further, look at the tax advantage to being married- couldn't singles complain about being "discriminated" against?
February 12, 2008
7:42 a.m.
Suggest removal
GWM writes:
Spencer, don't we still?
February 12, 2008
8 a.m.
Suggest removal
fiesty writes:
My 11 year old son is special needs and very affectionate. About two weeks ago, he came home upset because some kids at school called him "gay". We sat down and had a talk. First, I had to explain to him what gay meant, in reference to homosexuals. (He knows what homosexuals are since Uncle "Mick" is.) Next, I told him those other kids used that term because *they* thought it was an insult, based upon their hate towards homosexuals. Lastly, I told him: 1) people may do or say something you don't agree with, but you *should* agree with their right to do it (as long as doesn't hurt anyone), and 2) just because you disagree with them doesn't give you the right to insult them.
This is obviously a lesson NotChasB could learn from. Our country would be so much better if we could drop the hate and prejudice. Why can't folks be more tolerant towards those whose views or lifestyles are different than their own? I've noticed that on every blog where someone else's viewpoint is different than his, NotChasB spews such hate and venom. Let's debate on the issue of homosexual marriage WITHOUT all the hate and bigotry- and that goes for BOTH sides of the issue. I see proponents for gay marriage doing the exact same thing as NotChasB, which makes them not only bigots but hypocrites as well.
February 12, 2008
8:01 a.m.
Suggest removal
Marshdale writes:
I am always amazed at the number of so called Christians who continually quote the Old Testament. The entire reason Jesus message became so poular was the fact that he offered ideas separate from the opressive Old Testament. Read the beatitudes folks. His message was one of forgivness and acceptance into the kingdom of god. I can't seem to find anywhere in the Bible where jesus preached an exclusionary message. Wake up! you so called Christians.
February 12, 2008
8:10 a.m.
Suggest removal
fiesty writes:
Marshdale- hear, hear! This is part of the reason I left organized religion. Jesus' message was love and acceptance, and look what has been done in his name. Crusades, inquisition, forcable conversion of "heathens", burning of suspected witches, formalized bigotry and intolerance, etc...
February 12, 2008
8:19 a.m.
Suggest removal
Spencer writes:
you think inter-racial marriage should be against the law GWM? maybe the majority of people at your cross burnings feel that way but no the general population isn't nearly as ignorant as your group.
February 12, 2008
8:31 a.m.
Suggest removal
GWM writes:
Spencer, I didn't mention the law. No, I do not appose any marriage between a man and a woman (short, of course, in the case of underage or incest).
You said: "Didn't the majority oppose inter-racial marriage in the 50's?"
My comment only intended to say that I believe at least 51% of the population (likely much higher) is still against inter-racial marriage. You and I obviously disagree on this point.
You seem to feel you know all about me from one comment. What an incredible ego you have!
February 12, 2008
8:42 a.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
pwern said: "Nobody cares what homosexuals do in the privacy of their own homes, but when attempt is made to destroy the single most sacred institution in our culture - marriage - that's where the vast majority of us draw the line."
I defy you to come with a lucid, logical explanation of how gays being allowed to marry destroys the institution of marriage.
I also defy you to give a similarly plausible explanation for why you people aren't focusing your energies on insisting instead that divorce - the legal act of ending a marriage - is outlawed.
February 12, 2008
8:45 a.m.
Suggest removal
Marshdale writes:
Where the the hell do people get the idea that majority rule is the way this country is run. If majority rule was what it is all about we would still have separate drinking fountains. Yes it is true that in the House and Senate the majoriy rule does apply. This is why however the president has veto power and when something might be uncontitutional the supreme court steps in. It has never been about majority rule. That is a right wing fantasy.
February 12, 2008
8:51 a.m.
Suggest removal
Spencer writes:
I don't know anyone oppossed to inter-racial marriage GWM. My point was in response to the postings claiming that because the majority thinks so that gay marriage should be outlawed. I have no problems with gays getting married. It will have no effect on my marriage. I believe that as the old die hard hate filled bigots die off it will become legal. Just like the old inter-racial marriage laws.
February 12, 2008
9:03 a.m.
Suggest removal
fiesty writes:
Is the concept of "majority rules" a crude way of referring to democracy? Yes, we DO vote/pass laws where the outcome is determined by the majority of votes. We have to be careful though to ensure that no laws are drafted or passed which are unconstitutional.
February 12, 2008
9:40 a.m.
Suggest removal
jconder45 writes:
All those who want gay marriage sanctioned still seem to want to limit the right to marry to "two consenting adults". Why? Why, in particular, "two"? Why shouldn't plural marriages be allowed? The only reason is the Judeo-Christian tradition, but that tradition also limits marriage to a man and a woman. Something doesn't add up.
February 12, 2008
9:40 a.m.
Suggest removal
PajamaPulitzer writes:
More is never enough. Once we give people the "right" to marry of their same gender someone will next want to marry his sister or brother or even his mother. And we who say no will be branded as the kooks. Our society has given its blessing to marriage between a man and a woman because that is the natural order of things. Homosexuals cannot perpetuate human kind. If all were homosexual the race would cease to exist. Now explain to me how it is that being homosexual is somehow normal.
In the 60's homosexuals claimed that what they did in their bedroom was their business and society granted them that privacy. Now they want the endorsement and approval of the society on what they do in their bedroom. More is never enough.
February 12, 2008
9:41 a.m.
Suggest removal
Charles_B writes:
GWM:
If you want to know the numbers, there's always Google:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/mar...
Note how quickly things change. In 1948 90% of Americans opposed inter-racial marriage. Today they are a small minority.
Same thing will happen with gay marriage. Society will move forward, not backward.
The people on this board who oppose gay marriage will be looked at by future generations as the worst kind of bigots.
NotChasB: I've never seen such a conflicted closet-case as you. Sad really.
February 12, 2008
9:45 a.m.
Suggest removal
fiesty writes:
Charles_B- once again, YOU are showing bigotry, by assuming that all who oppose homosexual marriages *must* be doing so out of bigotry. Do you propose opening up the definition of marriage to include polygamy, polyandry, and group marriages? If not, then YOU are not only a bigot, but also a hypocrite.
February 12, 2008
9:46 a.m.
Suggest removal
fiesty writes:
"The lawsuit claims Amendment 43, which 56 percent of voters approved in 2006, is unconstitutional on several grounds, including it was "religiously motivated" and has the effect "of establishing religion."
Now, THIS is ridiculous. We can start over-turning laws because we "think" we know a "motivation" for it?? Wow!
February 12, 2008
9:48 a.m.
Suggest removal
robert29b writes:
Does it change the feelings homosexuals have for each other if they are married vs. having a civil union? Does it change the fact that laws are already in effect that cover financial and legal issues for gays? The answer is NO. Gays who are in love are going to love each other no matter what. I have gay friends and I love them to death, but I still don't believe that the law should be changed just for them.
P.S. Animals don't have gay sex. Two dogs humping each other is a dominance thing, not a sexual act.
P.S.S. If you check the laws still on the books in many states, oral sex is still illegal as well as anal sex (even between a man and a women). But if you ask any person you know, they will disagree that it is illegal. Just goes to show that laws are still enacted based on the views of society, not just a small percentage of people.
February 12, 2008
9:50 a.m.
Suggest removal
PajamaPulitzer writes:
fiesty:
Right on the money! And what about the Sharia brand of arranged marriage? Or female circumcision? Are we bigoted against Muslims if we reject those ideals? Just how much tolerance is enough?
February 12, 2008
10:16 a.m.
Suggest removal
Charles_B writes:
fiesty asked:
"Charles_B- once again, YOU are showing bigotry, by assuming that all who oppose homosexual marriages *must* be doing so out of bigotry. Do you propose opening up the definition of marriage to include polygamy, polyandry, and group marriages?"
Yes.
So I'm not a bigot and hypocrite right?
February 12, 2008
10:17 a.m.
Suggest removal
titancain writes:
Didn't Bill Owne sdestry the sancity of marraige? You're all a bunch og hipocrates.
February 12, 2008
10:21 a.m.
Suggest removal
Charles_B writes:
PajamaPulitzer:
"Right on the money! And what about the Sharia brand of arranged marriage? Or female circumcision? Are we bigoted against Muslims if we reject those ideals?"
No, because those "ideals" are not involving consenting adults. If an adult female wants to be circumcised then she can. If adults want to consent to an arranged marriage they can.
"Just how much tolerance is enough?"
When consenting adults are free to do whatever they want as long as no harm comes to others, then we will have achieved "enough" tolerance.
February 12, 2008
10:23 a.m.
Suggest removal
PajamaPulitzer writes:
Charles_B:
Based on your answer it sounds like you're a Hedonist and/or an Anarchist. America is still a moral society. Although, because of folks like you it probably won't be for long. Perhaps you would be happier living in Amsterdam.
February 12, 2008
10:26 a.m.
Suggest removal
me2 writes:
Nicola, nice history lesson, one of my professors said the primary purpose of marriage, where ever and when ever, was to let the community know "Who had sexual access to whom". That makes a lot of sense, as women usually were compelled to dress differently after marriage. They wore their hair up instead of loose, wore rings, and had completely different clothing. No more looking like a little available girl once a man had her as property.
February 12, 2008
10:28 a.m.
Suggest removal
fiesty writes:
Charles_B: I'm glad to see your answer, since most advocating "equal rights" are doing so solely for gay marriage.
The question becomes then, not gay marriage, but marriage for all. In that scenario, where ALL are truly equal, I don't see folks going for it. I think government needs to get out of the marriage business, since it's not a right that needs to be regulated, and let the churches handle it.
February 12, 2008
10:33 a.m.
Suggest removal
joggle writes:
robert29b: You're wrong about animals not having gay sex. Several species of apes are known to have gay sex as well as other species.
There are tons of laws on the books that are archaic and are no longer enforced (if they ever were). Heck, there's dozens of joke books that list nothing but various states' archaic laws that are often still in the books and could technically be enforced.
fiesty: Saying an individual is doing something out of bigotry does not make the accuser a bigot. If he's wrong, he's wrong nothing more. If you disagree, look up the definition of 'bigot' because yours is not the one the rest of us are using.
jconder45: "Why shouldn't plural marriages be allowed? The only reason is the Judeo-Christian tradition, but that tradition also limits marriage to a man and a woman. Something doesn't add up."
There are specific reasons against each of these:
plural marriages (as far as I know, always multiple women to one man): Tend to place the man in a superior part of the relationship. The women usually have much lower property rights than the man and the question of divorce proceedings get really dicey. Various other issues could be listed as well but these are the main ones I think.
As for other possible relationships others have talked about:
beastiality: For one, animals have absolutely no property rights. As nicolec notes marriage was originally about property distribution. To this day that is an important role of marriage--the rights of the married people to their combined property. Unless you are doing anything that would be considered animal cruelty you can already do whatever you want with your animals so marrying it wouldn't confer either of you any legal rights you don't already have so it's a stupid idea regardless.
marrying parents/siblings: This obviously is psychologically harmful as various studies have shown (about fathers sexually abusing their daughters, etc.). Also, unlike being gay, there is no known occurrence of an Oedipus syndrome where one would want to marry their mother or sibling. A recent case of a brother marrying a sister occurred recently in the UK I think but it was purely accidental as they were separated at birth and adopted by separate families. They didn't find out they were siblings until after being married though (I'd presume they divorced but I don't know). I'm not even sure if this is illegal--if they had known they were siblings before getting married.
Gay people marrying each other will strengthen their relationships just as marrying often strengthen heterosexual relationships. It provides certain legal rights that they would otherwise not have in addition to its symbolic importance. How this can weaken some other heterosexual relationship is beyond me.
February 12, 2008
10:34 a.m.
Suggest removal
titancain writes:
I see Gay White Male is at it again.
February 12, 2008
10:35 a.m.
Suggest removal
fiesty writes:
"plural marriages (as far as I know, always multiple women to one man)"
Not true. Polygamy is where one man has multiple wives. Polyandry is where one woman has multiple husbands. Group/plural marriages is when there are multiple men and multiple women.
February 12, 2008
10:38 a.m.
Suggest removal
Charles_B writes:
PajamaPulitzer:
"Based on your answer it sounds like you're a Hedonist and/or an Anarchist. America is still a moral society."
We are still a relatively *free* society and one persons morality is not another's.
Don't like plural marriage? Don't join into one.
You can have your version of morality as long as it doesn't infringe on my *freedom* to do the same.
February 12, 2008
10:39 a.m.
Suggest removal
Charles_B writes:
fiesty:
I agree. The State should either let consenting adults marry in whatever combination they want or get out of the business.
February 12, 2008
10:42 a.m.
Suggest removal
JTTAAB writes:
If you are lucky enough to find someone to love in this day and age.. why not?
February 12, 2008
10:58 a.m.
Suggest removal
robert29b writes:
Joggle: You are right and wrong
Sex is used not simply for pleasure, he says, but also to encourage peaceful interactions between competing bonobo groups and to quell the violent urges of males. Infanticide, common among apes, is virtually unheard of among bonobos. "Sex for the bonobo is as much affectional as it is genital," he says. "They have adapted sexual relations to soothe tensions, encourage cooperation, and ensure their survival as a species."
This sexual utopia apparently is made possible by the prominence of females in bonobo society. Because females camouflage their reproductive cycle, they are able to keep males off-balance and have a larger say in their choice of sex partners than females of other ape species. Males have learned to moderate their behavior to curry favor among females, who can just as easily turn to other females for companionship and erotic gratification. In a section of de Waal's book titled "Make Love, Not War," the author describes observing a female bonobo defuse a potentially dangerous standoff between two camps by rubbing her clitoris on an aggressive male. Shortly thereafter the animals were resting together peacefully.
That model of social interaction does not necessarily apply to humans, admits de Waal. "We have other ways of reducing aggression, including verbally and through nonsexual bodily contact. The reason we have sexual moral restraints--not all of them good--is that our society is based on the nuclear family, with males invested in just their own offspring. To increase paternity certainty among humans, we require monogamy. Bonobo females have successfully countered the danger of males' attacking the infants of other male bonobos by making it difficult for males to determine their own offspring."
This study shows that there are major reasons for the gay interactions for apes and other animals that don't apply to humans!
February 12, 2008
11:18 a.m.
Suggest removal
my3pugs writes:
bookwerm makes a very good point that the state should not be in the business of defining marriage. Only in defining the benefits and obligations of civil union. There are benefits and obligations. Benefits such as medical decision making, inheritance preference, insurance coverage, shielding of assets, joint titling, protection from incriminating testimony. Obligations such as support during and after the union, presumption of parental definition, the care of children. Adoption of children from other unions, and the like.
Children? Yes, quite a bit of present marriage law applies to children specifically. And same sex unions will have children, either from previous unions, adoption, or donor sperm.
February 12, 2008
11:22 a.m.
Suggest removal
WindWalker writes:
It rarely fails....someone makes reference to Scripture and is accused of spewing hate and venom.
I haven't yet seen where Jesus preached tolerance. In fact, for one example, he was particularly intolerant of hypocrisy.
To be sure he preached a gospel of love - the love God has for us but not for what we do. That doesn't equate to tolerance. He was clear about that fact that he didn't come to discard the law but to fulfill every single bit of it. Jesus did NOT tell anyone that what they did in the privacy of their homes was peachy if it flew in the face God's expectations. He confronted the woman at the well - he told her to stop sinning. And while He forgave her sin, He did not say it was perfectly OK for her to continue sinning.
Loving the Lord your God is not accomplished by refusing to honor Him and refusing keeping His commandments.
Love and tolerance are not equivalent concepts.
God made it perfectly clear that certain behavior is abhorent to him - homosexual acts, bestiality, etc. And Jesus confirmed that when He said that, from the beginning, God's plan was for a man and woman to join together.
Now, let's see how long it takes for a poster to accuse me of spewing venom or hate, of ignorance, etc.
February 12, 2008
11:22 a.m.
Suggest removal
joggle writes:
robert29b: How am I wrong? You originally said no animals have gay sex, I stated some species of apes do, and then you respond that bonobos have gay sex. Umm, doesn't that mean I'm right? I didn't go any further than that as far as talking about other animals having gay sex and why they do it or why that would justify people being gay.
fiesty: Do you want me to go through every possible scenario? That could take a while. I discussed polygamy because that's the only form that has ever been legal or practiced by a significant population anywhere in the US. Succinctly, plural marriages in the US have the main two legal problems of property distribution and child custody if the relationship breaks up. The laws simply aren't designed for 'partial' divorces and distributing property among a group of people (except for dealing with estates). And child custody would really be troublesome.
Two gay people, from a legal standpoint, can easily be treated as two straight people and all standing laws can easily be applied for dealing with property and child custody. Laws reflect society and tend to only contentious laws only get changed when there's a significant movement desiring the change. The odds of that happening for all of these other scenarios are basically zero so it's really a red herring regardless.
February 12, 2008
11:31 a.m.
Suggest removal
joggle writes:
WindWalker: I think that's a fairly accurate interpretation. However, it seems to me that the individuals involved in the acts are responsible for themselves. If they want to have a legal marriage then let them. How does that make any of the rest of us responsible? And I refer you to nicolec's post at 6:46am for the recent history of marriage and its purposes.
February 12, 2008
11:40 a.m.
Suggest removal
Charles_B writes:
WindWalker:
Who cares what the Bible says or Jesus said. We live in a secular republic where mythology and superstitions should be irrelevant.
Can you make your argument based on something besides your religious beliefs?
February 12, 2008
11:41 a.m.
Suggest removal
PajamaPulitzer writes:
Charles_B:
Why is it so important to you to have society endorse your morality by marriage recognition?
February 12, 2008
11:54 a.m.
Suggest removal
PajamaPulitzer writes:
Charles_B:
Our laws and constitution are largely based on biblical laws. You are free to hate that truth all you want. But your hating it does not change it.
February 12, 2008
11:54 a.m.
Suggest removal
WindWalker writes:
Thank you joggle.
Nicolec's posting is irrelevant to me. What mankind has chosen to make of marriage and it's "purposes" is simply a reflection of mankind's self-chosen priorities. God's plan and purposes for marriage have not, nor will they, ever change.
Responsibility? I believe I'm responsible for honoring God by speaking His truths. HOPEFULLY, I do it in a more life-giving manner than spewing hate and venom! And it's highly unlikely you'll ever see me on a soapbox on a street corner.
As a society we have the right, and the responsibility, to create a framework of expected behavior.....and, as often as not, consequences for choices made in defiance of that behavior. If the two involved don't like that framework, that very framework provides a means by which to attempt to change that framework. Under the current framework, they cannot have a legal marriage. And those who want same-sex marriages will likely call that unfair, intolerant, etc., while those who do not want to see same-sex marriages within the framework of their society will have a completely opposite view.
Wasn't it Cain who howled about accepting responsibility for his brother? That position left a very fractured relationship.
We don't break God's laws.....we just dash outselves to pieces against them. And then we wonder why our lives our painful and our actions and choices sometimes have uncomfortable consequences. We don't live in a vacuum - our choices affect others, sometimes in ways that aren't immediately evident.
February 12, 2008
12:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
WindWalker writes:
Charles_B:
Who cares? I care. I care about what is written in the Bible and I care, deeply, about what Jesus said. And those truths are completely relevant, perhaps more so today than ever before.
Yes, I could draw in other arguments and positions - others have already done so. But rather than clutter my stand, I'll just focus on what's fundamental.
February 12, 2008
12:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
PajamaPulitzer writes:
WindWalker: Hear, hear! Beautifully stated.
February 12, 2008
12:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
JustMe writes:
Charles_B:
"Who cares what the Bible says or Jesus said. We live in a secular republic where mythology and superstitions should be irrelevant.
Can you make your argument based on something besides your religious beliefs?"
And clearly - she cannot make an argument based on something other than religious beliefs. Why? There is no logical reason beyond religion.
Ok - so WindWalker - you do realize that not everyone is Christian, right? Or that, believe it or not, people interpret the Bible differently (it was written by men in power positions and has been so grossly diluted, I don't take it literally)?
Why should the whole of society be expected to uphold your Christian ideals? Because you're so sure you are "Right?"
February 12, 2008
12:21 p.m.
Suggest removal
junglegymco writes:
"There is no tyranny worse than that of a majority." Thankfully the courts exist in order to help eliminate the bigotry and prejudice of the majority and allow ALL AMERICANS the right to equality, not just the "Special Rights" granted to heterosexual couples.
And the "Slippery Slope" argument is lame. We're talking about two adult, non-related, tax paying members of society. If it's slippery slopes you're concerned about, I'd worry more about when the Evangelicals are going to start burning Muslim babies in the name of "The Crusades". History is rife with religious violence and not so much legalized bestiality.
February 12, 2008
12:23 p.m.
Suggest removal
LoFat writes:
It is amazing how Jesus and Christianity is always brought in to these arguments. Homosexuality, lesbianism, pedophilia, bestiality, voyeurism, and other perversions at a result of NURTURE not NATURE. And please do not try quoting the bogus junk science studies to justify such behavior.
If you have CHOSEN one of these lifestyles, so be it. Enjoy. This is your right to self-indulgence. Quit trying to force acceptance of these perverse acts on others. THERE IS NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT OF MARRIAGE GRANTED TO SAME-SEX COUPLES.
Anti-semitism, racial hatred, bigotry, and xenophobia are also the result of nurture and not nature. Would you defend them also as a persons constitutional right ?
February 12, 2008
12:25 p.m.
Suggest removal
PajamaPulitzer writes:
JustMe:
Why should the whole of society be expected to uphold your immoral ideals?
WindWalker:
2 Timothy 4:1-5. Peace be with you.
February 12, 2008
12:25 p.m.
Suggest removal
WindWalker writes:
JustMe:
Well, yes, I CAN make an argument based on something other than religious beliefs. I chose not to and I briefly said why and, I thought, clearly enough to be evident. Perhaps not.
It sounds as if you do not share my beliefs.....and that's perfectly fine. My beliefs do not require you, or anyone else, to share mine.
I believe that there is perfect logic behind God's wisdom and it does not require interpretation but simply to be read within context.
Indeed, it has occurred to me that not everyone is Christian or, if they are, that they still don't share all of the same views. Again, my beliefs do not require them to. I wrote nothing that suggests I expect the whole of society to uphold my ideals, Christian or otherwise.
NONE OF THAT IS RELEVANT TO THE NEWS STORY
At a minimum, I expect the whole of society to uphold the framework of laws and expectation that the whole of society has put in place. I happen to be glad the framework has some basis in morals and values I consider to be Godly.
At this point in time, and in this State of Colorado, society has determined what a marriage is to be and what is not considered to be a marriage.
I may not be right. But I am utterly convinced God is.
(F.Y.I., WindWalker has an "X" chromosome and is, therefore, not suitably referred to as "she".)
February 12, 2008
12:27 p.m.
Suggest removal
blacksho89 writes:
You want unfair? I'll show you unfair!
I have a dog. Dogs are required-REQUIRED!- to be licensed, yet pet turtles are not!!
I'm going to sue to make my Dog a Turtle.
If two men, or two women, want to live together, love one another, that is their choice. It does not hurt me. But it is not a marriage, anymore than my dog is a turtle. The definition of marriage has been agreed upon by SECULAR society for thousands of years, to be one man and one woman in a consenting relationship, just as the definitions of dogs and turtles have been agreed upon.
February 12, 2008
12:28 p.m.
Suggest removal
JustMe writes:
LoFat:
So when did you CHOOSE to be heterosexual?
Lame. Homosexuality is NOT in the same league as pedophilia, bestiality and other "perversions". Can't cite any science at ya - because clearly it'll be "junk science". But the fact that there are people out there like you who believe what you've stated is frightening. And it shows a great deal of what is wrong with society today.
February 12, 2008
12:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
WindWalker writes:
PajamaPulitzer:
SWEET, and VERY relevant, scripture.
A thousand thanks for that encouragement.
February 12, 2008
12:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
fiesty writes:
joggle- red herring my butt. It's directly applicable if you're claiming "equal rights". It's not equal rights if you're only trying for one group! junglegymco says he wants it for "all" americans, but what he probably means is just all the Americans *he* supports.
So unless you are truly advocating "equal" rights for "all", not just gay marriage, then quit using that as your basis.
And I'm with LoFat- marriage is NOT a right, it is simply a legally recognized state with benefits, mostly tax-related, that is already "discrimatory".
February 12, 2008
12:33 p.m.
Suggest removal
PajamaPulitzer writes:
WindWalker:
A thousand "your welcomes"! It makes the noise a lot less noisy, yes?
February 12, 2008
12:34 p.m.
Suggest removal
Fresh writes:
It is only a matter of time until Homosexuality is determined to be a brain disourder. The shortly after it will be a correctable disorder that parents will CHOOSE to have fixed.
February 12, 2008
12:42 p.m.
Suggest removal
LoFat writes:
Justme
The norm in the animal kingdom is heterosexuality, therefore I am normal. All life is hard-wired to procreate. Yes, all of the "perversions", deviations from the norm, are all in the same category as they all involve abnormal sexual practices.
I'm not sorry if I gored your sacred cow. So, how long have you been out of the closet?
February 12, 2008
12:42 p.m.
Suggest removal
junglegymco writes:
Hey Fiesty - Please don't try and put words in my mouth. I support equality even for those who would want to deny it to others. And let's be clear about who were talking about - two adult, non-related, tax paying members of society.
It just doesn't make sense to deny equal access to benefits that state-sanctioned marriage provides to some, but not others.
February 12, 2008
12:45 p.m.
Suggest removal
JustMe writes:
Homosexuality did used to be considered a mental disorder. Until SCIENCE determined that it was not.
Disorders can often-times be cured, a link, source or cause can be found,that is not the case with homosexuality. More and more (reliable) studies are finding that it is something that one is born with. It's genetic.
It's clear that most of the hate-mongers, anti-gay folks, or folks who choose to demonize homosexuals are doing so out of ignorance and fear. One only need look at some of the ridiculous comments made on this board, the ones linking homosexuality to pedophilia and other actual mental disorders that have nothing to do with genetics.
But me and others who are using actual rational discussion will be simply talking to brick walls. Either way - society will move forward and one day gay citizens will be granted the same rights as everyone else.
And no, they currently are not. Until very recently one could be fired simply for being gay in Colorado. Can you be fired for being straight? NO!
And people who are trying to use history and nature as examples against same-sex marriage have failed miserably and only shown their ignorance in history and nature. No amount of message board talking is going to chance anyone's mind.
I guess the only thing for me, and others, to do is stand up for these women and continue to work for the cause they support.
FYI, I'm a straight, Christian woman who believes that all consenting adults should be afforded equal rights. I also believe that gay marriage will, in no way, harm my, my parents, my siblings or friends marriages. If you think gay marriage will affect your own, then it seems you have problems that go deeper - perhaps you should look inward.
February 12, 2008
12:50 p.m.
Suggest removal
JustMe writes:
"LoFat:
The norm in the animal kingdom is heterosexuality, therefore I am normal. All life is hard-wired to procreate. Yes, all of the "perversions", deviations from the norm, are all in the same category as they all involve abnormal sexual practices.
I'm not sorry if I gored your sacred cow. So, how long have you been out of the closet?"
You did nothing to my "sacred cow". Your comment is laughable at best, because it's completely untrue. We've been over the animal component. Yes, there are gay animals. Penguins, hens, primates (human and not). Homosexuality is seen in the animal kingdom - and it's been around before there even was a Bible.
I'm not out of any closet. I'm simply somebody who is secure in my own sexuality and wants to see my gay brothers and sister treated with the respect and dignity.
I also have seen, in my experience, that those most opposed to homosexuality are those who harbor homosexual feelings themselves. Sad but true.
February 12, 2008
12:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
joggle writes:
fiesty: "It's not equal rights if you're only trying for one group!"
OK, tell that to the abolitionists who 'only' tried to get voting rights to the male African Americans rather than for all adults. Or to the suffragists who 'only' tried to get voting rights for women rather than for all people, including children.
Individual problems are addressed one at a time. It's unreasonable (and illogical) to expect to change marriage in all aspects at once to be the only fair way to allow gay marriage to be acceptable. And there's obvious limits to when a law should not be applied and when it should. Children do not have voting rights because they are not mature nor independent. Various forms of 'marriage' wouldn't make sense in our system because, for one thing, they are too incompatible. The Saudi system of marriage would not be legal here because women have property and custody rights here whereas they do not under the Saudi system. There are basic legal incompatibilities that I've listed (and you've ignored) that prevent virtually any other kind of marriage that you would morally oppose. However, that is not the case for gay marriage and I challenge you to find a single, legal reason why two, consenting adults cannot get married, share their property and share custody of their children.
February 12, 2008
1 p.m.
Suggest removal
Charles_B writes:
PajamaPulitzer:
"Why is it so important to you to have society endorse your morality by marriage recognition?"
It isn't. I'm married and receive the benefits of being so from the state. I'm arguing that others should have the same rights and benefit in the same way. "Morality" has nothing to do with it except for the fact that it is immoral, in my view, to discriminate based on sexual preference.
February 12, 2008
1:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
Charles_B writes:
WindWalker:
"I care about what is written in the Bible and I care, deeply, about what Jesus said. And those truths are completely relevant, perhaps more so today than ever before."
Right, but can you make a case that your religious views should be considered when discussing the role of the state in marriage in a *secular* republic?
It's fine to make a religious argument, but without a congruent *secular* argument your views should be ignored by those writing and interpreting laws.
February 12, 2008
1:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
Charles_B writes:
LoFat:
Your name obviously doesn't refer to your cranial region.
"THERE IS NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT OF MARRIAGE GRANTED TO SAME-SEX COUPLES."
Or heterosexual couples...
February 12, 2008
1:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
my3pugs writes:
There is no mention of marriage in the Constitution at all, same sex or otherwise. Amendment 14, however states:
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Marriage laws provides protection to those who are married. And other laws provide for special treatment for those who are married. These constitute "privileges and immunities" "protection of the laws" that are abridged by restricting marriage without a good reason. Religious reasons are particularly not relevant to "due process of law" since the law is supposed to be religiously neutral.
Extending marriage to same sex persons able to freely make that choice does not mean that bestiality or group marriages or incestuous marriages must be recognized as well. Animals cannot give consent, neither can children or the mentally defective. Group marriages may one day achieve legal status, but for now, public policy states there is good reason to limit marriage to couples only.
February 12, 2008
1:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
my3pugs writes:
Charles_B: Your personal attacks don't help. It weakens the impact of what you are trying to convey.
February 12, 2008
1:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
PajamaPulitzer writes:
Charles_B:
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals has a credo. It goes; A cow, is a pig, is a dog, is a boy. In other words PETA holds a moral equivalence between people and animals which a huge majority of folks would say is silly. Are you going to support people who in the future want to marry an animal and claim constitutional and tax and employment benefits for that animal? In other words, what would it take to make you, Charles_B, say "enough"? And when you finally say "enough" won't you then be immorally intolerant?
Please don't accuse me of comparing homosexuals to animals because I am not. The point is that we have a definition of marriage in this society. If you won't defend the current definition then what definition will you defend?
February 12, 2008
1:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
Fresh writes:
My bad, a genetic disorder that someday will be correctable.
who wants to bet that any parent would choose to not have it corrected when the find this out ??
February 12, 2008
1:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
Charles_B writes:
my3pugs:
I didn't note your concern for all the other personal attacks on this thread. Mine was fairly benign by comparison wouldn't you say? Your inconsistency weakens the impact of what you're trying to convey.
February 12, 2008
1:21 p.m.
Suggest removal
Charles_B writes:
Pajama_Pulitzer
"...what would it take to make you, Charles_B, say "enough"? And when you finally say "enough" won't you then be immorally intolerant?"
When a minor is involved or somebody is forced to do something without their consent- including animals, who are incapable of consent just like minors are according to the law.
February 12, 2008
1:28 p.m.
Suggest removal
my3pugs writes:
blacksho89: Since you don't mind that same sex couples are part of society, what exactly are you losing if they avail themselves of the privileges and protections that are only available to married partners? Is it just "don't call it marriage" but it can be the very same thing? Fine, go with that. Marriage is a legal state, and for some, a spiritual and religious state as well. The state should only concern itself with the legal aspect and not any other. If I start a church that champions multiperson group marriage as the best way to bring up children in a stable home, the state has no obligation to recognize all the members of my marriage. The state can choose to recognize that I have one and only one spouse who gets the legal benefits of marriage under the law. I cam, if I choose, be married spiritually to as many as I wish, and the state cannot deny me that. It can deny me the ability to assert marriage rights to anyone other than with whom I am legally registered married to.
February 12, 2008
1:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
my3pugs writes:
Okay, to all who make personal attacks, you're all stupid. That better?
February 12, 2008
1:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
PajamaPulitzer writ