Protest of gay-marriage ban to include Denver
By Tillie Fong, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)
Published November 12, 2008 at 8:41 p.m.
Mary Altaffer © AP
Demonstrators march on a Mormon Temple on Wednesday in New York to speak out against the church's role in the passage of California's anti-gay Proposition 8. Coloradans will join a nationwide rally Saturday in Denver.
Coloradans plan to protest this weekend in Denver against a same-sex-marriage ban passed last week in California as part of a nationwide rally.
"We're not doing this just for the gay community, but for everyone," said Jill Roat of By the People, a group organizing the protest in Denver.
"When you have one group whose rights are being infringed upon, it affects everyone, not only gays and lesbians, but everyone who is affected by equality."
A protest rally is planned for 11:30 a.m. Saturday on the steps of the City and County Building in Denver. Another group is organizing a similar protest at the same time at the Boulder County Courthouse, 1325 Pearl St.
Both rallies are part of a effort being organized to stage protests at the same time Saturday across the country.
Roat, 32, a sociology student at University of Colorado at Denver, said she and a few friends felt very strongly about the passage of Proposition 8 in California, which bans same-sex marriages.
"To say it's only California's problem is to say that 'separate but equal' in the South was only their problem," said Roat.
Since the election, lawsuits have been filed against the California challenging the ban.
Also in the recent election, voters in Florida and Arizona passed measures similar to the California initiative. In Arkansas, voters passed a measure that would bar gays from adopting or fostering children.
Only two states — Massachusetts and Connecticut, allow same-sex marriages.
Roat noted that Colorado already has a same-sex marriage ban in place, when voters passed Amendment 43 in 2006, which defined marriage as being only between a man and woman.
Featured
-
DNC in Denver
Complete coverage of the 2008 Democratic National Convention.
-
The Crevasse
A five-part series that examines one tragic day on Mount Rainier.
-
Deadly denial
Sick nuclear workers applied for government compensation but most haven't seen a dime.
-
Final Salute
The Rocky followed Maj. Steve Beck as he took on the most difficult duty of his career.
-
'Colorado's burning'
Coverage of the state's worst wildfires.
-
Columbine shootings
Coverage of the April 20, 1999, shootings at Littleton's Columbine High School.
-
The Crossing
Colorado's deadliest traffic accident killed 20 children on Dec. 14, 1961.
-
Osveli's journey
Osveli Sales left Guatemala for a better life. Two months later, he came home in a box.
-
Wake for an Indian warrior
Oglala Sioux bestow a tribute to the first tribal fatality in Iraq.
November 12, 2008
9:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
cableboy764 writes:
Uh...Denver is not joining the fight. Just some people from Denver. Your headline is inaccurate and misleading. Imagine that.
November 12, 2008
9:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
ghoax writes:
Get a clue folks, California already has civil unions. This isn't about right, its about power.
Marriage is between a man and a woman. Marriage starts at the wedding where the Groom and Bride exchange their spritual vowes and are legally one.
Whatever you gays want to do, do it, just call it something else its that easy. What is so hard to understand?
Its clear that the gay marriage protests aren't about gay marriage. It's the gays being the foot soldiers for the liberal agenda, attacking Christianity, the family and the basis for all societies. Its about pushing a liberal agenda, recruiting children into the lifestyle, its about criminalizing citizens who speak against it, its about changing society to fit a small groups desires
Its about saying that a marriage is anything you want it to be, its about forcing society to accept same sex partnerships as man and wife or family, which is clearly not the case. If gay was so normal, we wouldn't be here today.
Sooner or later, society will tire of this nonsense, wouldn't surprise me a bit to see good ol fashioned rumble over this one.
Be gay if your want, you don't get to redefine our language or our traditions to fit your desires. You don't have a problem distinguishing yourselves as gay, or on an enlightened plane, etc etc, so what's the problem calling your relationship something else? after all , it is.
November 12, 2008
9:28 p.m.
Suggest removal
Cowboy63 writes:
What's so laughable is the rampant political correctness even in the protests!
The black community supported the ban by a 70-30 margin - That margin alone was enough to make the difference. Yet...
Which churches do the Liberals picket? You got it! Not the Black churches (God forbid!) just the white conservative ones.
Liberals are cowards and hypocrites.
November 12, 2008
9:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
ES writes:
So you are going to protest Denver for something that happened in California. Talk about out of touch and looking for a reason to be angry. This is why nobody really cares about protesters anymore. It usually a bunch of college kids or immature adults (trying to relive the 60's) that have never really worked a day in their lives.
They are going to just complain and protest with no actual and realistic way to solve their problems. Throw out some "i hate bush" signs and any other person they can blame for their problems.
A smarter person would try to solve their own problems in a legal way without insulting everybody that disagrees with them.
By the way,,,protest signs and bumper stickers are a sign of an intellectually immature person. It's a way to force your opinion on somebody else and not letting them argue their point back in an intelligent discussion. It's like debate for cowards.
November 12, 2008
9:37 p.m.
Suggest removal
Colorado127 writes:
No, ghoax, it is not about 'attacking christianity', it's about christianity attacking others. Because it is a religion, it has no role in making laws that govern citizens of this country. I am sure you want to hide behind 'preserving tradition' or 'forcing society' or 'normal' but everyone knows you and your fearful lot want to legislate your religion into our lives. Do you think you are fooling anyone with your charade that it's not about religion? GET YOUR RELIGION OUT OF MY LIFE!!!!
PS: It IS about power, the power for me to decide what I want or don't want, not for YOU to decide what I can or cannot do.
November 12, 2008
9:44 p.m.
Suggest removal
Colorado127 writes:
Cowboy63 says 'liberals are cowards and hypocrites'. Hypocrites I'll give you, everyone is a hypocrite (even you cowboy). Cowards? Hmmm...I'm sure the liberals that fought for a woman's right to vote weren't cowards.....I'm sure that Martin Luther King Jr. and all those people fighting for equal rights weren't cowards....I'm sure that the liberal people who fought against slavery weren't cowards. Oh yea, PLEASE don't do the whole 'Lincoln was a republican' b.s. again. A Lincoln republican and the current incarnation of a conservative republican are light years apart.
November 12, 2008
9:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
Cowboy63 writes:
Looks like it's on to Connecticut. Better yet, the time has come for Congress to pass the "Defense of Marriage Act" and put an end to this same-sex marriage sideshow that is touring the nation. Looks like the voters in Connecticut will have to shoot that one down come next election - if the judges let the people have a say. I hear the polygamists are waiting with baited breath to see how that one turns out.
"Roat noted that Colorado already has a same-sex marriage ban in place, when voters passed Amendment 43 in 2006, which defined marriage as being only between a man and woman."
The people of Colorado have already spoken on this one. Obama says he's not in favor of same-sex marriage either - why don't they protest him?
November 12, 2008
10 p.m.
Suggest removal
Colorado127 writes:
Here is what I love about conservatives. The definition of conservative from dictionary.com is 'disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change'. Yet change is inevitable, required, and necessary for any society. To restrict change is a fruitless act. Every society in history that has not changed with the rest of the world has failed. From the time of the Mesopotamians and Romans to the current days of the USSR and Communist China. They ALL must evolve and adapt. There is no exception. The only societies that prevail and continue to thrive are those that change.
"The only constant in the universe is change." Einstein
November 12, 2008
10:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
jefferson3 writes:
And then you watch dennis miller on bill-o being all homophobic and you wonder why they drag out a guy who couldn't even survive Monday Night Football as their conservative comic hero... lame-o. Liberals have ALWAYS fought for this country, the rest of them stayed inside caves and waited for the status quo.
November 12, 2008
10:15 p.m.
Suggest removal
Amikeb1 writes:
You ever wonder what the hell the people 100 years ago who banned black people and women from voting were thinking.....50 years from now people will same the same thing about gay marriage. Sooner or later the hate will die...
November 12, 2008
10:23 p.m.
Suggest removal
InEssence writes:
Hey 127,
This is not a religious issue, it is a moral issue. Laws have to be based on morality, or before long no one would bother to follow the law - because it wouldn't mean anything.
Morality is built from a center piece of charity. You can't build a moral position from sexual recreation or pleasure. Selfishness is not moral.
If you still want to try, you need to go back more than 2,000 years and outwit Aristotle and the rest of people who loved logic.
To exist for very long, a society must attempt to reward sexual procreation while disdaining sexual recreation. It is the way of life; so sorry.
November 12, 2008
10:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
palequ47 writes:
And people wonder why republicanism and Christianity is on the downturn.
It was only 40 years ago that mixed races were allowed to marry...it'll take time, but gay marriages will be legalized and valued in this society. Love always prevails over hate.
Shrimp eaters beware...you're next on the religious right's road to nowhere campaign. You to you evil cotton poly blend wearers.
November 12, 2008
10:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
WestminsterJ writes:
Colorado127: PS: It IS about power, the power for me to decide what I want or don't want, not for YOU to decide what I can or cannot do.
Simplistic, some? I want to go light some dogs on fire, and it's not for YOU to tell me I can't.
November 12, 2008
10:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
BJG writes:
Marriage is defined as a contractual relationship recognized by law....it has nothing to do with God and religion. It is a civil contract between two consenting adults, regardless of sex. So get over the religious stuff. That's just a sham for discrimination.
If your against same sex marrige...then don't marry someone of the same sex, but remember that's your choice and not necessarily the choice of others. This has nothing to do with morals, this has to do with infringments of rights and discrimination.
November 12, 2008
10:52 p.m.
Suggest removal
Colorado127 writes:
InEssence, you are correct, laws are based on sociatal norms. That is why we have laws against murder, stealing, child molestation and so forth. We ALL agree these things do not perpetuate a civil, just and organized society. Gay marriage, rights, or civil unions is NOT agreed upon by everyone. There are many opinions and guiding principles with this issue. Hundreds of millions, if not billions, of people around the planet think gay people SHOULD be allowed to marry.
Your belief that being gay is about 'sexual recreation, pleasure and selfishness' is just that, a belief. Not a truth nor a moral imperative. This belief comes from your religion or spiritual mindset (I'm sure you will want to disagree again). You should not have the right to legislate your belief system. Would you be happy if I wanted to make laws about you life from my belief system? I think not.
So again I say, KEEP YOUR RELIGION OUT OF MY LIFE! You may substitute religion with belief or morals if you like.
November 12, 2008
10:54 p.m.
Suggest removal
WestminsterJ writes:
>Every society in history that has not changed with the rest of the world has failed. From the time of the Mesopotamians and Romans to the current days of the USSR and Communist China. They ALL must evolve and adapt. There is no exception. The only societies that prevail and continue to thrive are those that change.
Where to begin- the Romans *did* adapt by adopting Christianity, then were conquered by the barbarians. The USSR "adapted", and is arguably in as bad shape as ever. Perhaps China is your model. So should we adapt like it has, and limit family size through forced abortions? No thanks.
November 12, 2008
10:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
Colorado127 writes:
WestminsterJ....thank you for inductively proving my point about the ignorance of conservatives' position.
Of course you shouldn't light dogs on fire. We can all agree that that is something society should make illegal (except for you perhaps). We do NOT all agree that gay marriage is 'bad' or 'wrong'. If you think that we do all agree on this then your ignorance shows even brighter.
November 12, 2008
11:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
WestminsterJ writes:
>That is why we have laws against murder, stealing, child molestation and so forth. We ALL agree these things do not perpetuate a civil, just and organized society.
Wrong. "We" do not "all" agree on those things. There are thousands of NAMBLA members, for example, who disagree on child molestation. Who are we to impose our values on them? (so their argument would go). Charley Manson doesn't agree with laws against murder. How can we impose our values on him?
>Hundreds of millions, if not billions, of people around the planet think gay people SHOULD be allowed to marry.
Don't think so. That's the projection of the attitude of a small minority of people, mostly concentrated in the secularist western countries, upon the rest of the world.
November 12, 2008
11:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
WestminsterJ writes:
Colorado`127: If you think societal norms can be based on "all" having to agree to them, then you are not very bright (which you've pretty much demonstrated anyway). That's why they're called "norms", by the way.
November 12, 2008
11:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
Colorado127 writes:
WestminsterJ, China and the USSR were closed societies. They limited the flow of information in and out, they restricted the people's freedom, they created societies based on conformity. This is not sustainable. As the rest of the world changes and evolves, they do not. This creates internal and external pressures on the society until the closed system must finally collapse or adapt. China IS a prime example of this. They are changing to relieve this pressure before the people revolt. This is the cause or most revolutionary wars, including our own.
If the US were to follow conservative principles and restrict, limit and make people conform, it too will be forced to change in the end.
You are right, the Roman empire was not the best example of this.
November 12, 2008
11:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
Colorado127 writes:
WestminsterJ.....thank you for pointing out my inconsistencies, I am enjoying our debate. I do wish, though, you would present some facts and not just your opinions.
It is also good to know that you think NAMBLA and Charles Manson represent proportions of society large enough to create just legislation.
November 12, 2008
11:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
WestminsterJ writes:
By the way, I'm an Obama supporter. The quickest way to abort any chance for success of his presidency is to make gay marriage a front-burner national issue, especially if he feels obligated to support it. Goodbye to the Obama presidency if that happens.
November 12, 2008
11:22 p.m.
Suggest removal
mdesatx writes:
Here we go again, don't the gays get it, California voted Yes to ban same sex marriage. the people have voted, get over it or move to Canada. It has nothing to do with civil rights with minorities or anyone else. 2% of the population is crying over spilled milk again. Go Away Gays, find a life somewhere else where nobody cares.
November 12, 2008
11:36 p.m.
Suggest removal
Colorado127 writes:
Mdesatx...If we followed your line of thought then black people couldn't vote or have an interracial marriage. Women couldn't own land. Heck, we would probably still have slavery! You don't GET OVER civil rights. Do explain, why do you people always say move away when you don't like something? Why don't you move?
Oh wait, I hear a 'this is my country, love it or leave it' and a rendition of 'God Bless America' coming on!
November 12, 2008
11:38 p.m.
Suggest removal
WestminsterJ writes:
Colorado127: I appreciate the civil words, and I withdraw my earlier insulting remark. I really don't think the factual statements I have made are controversial.
>It is also good to know that you think NAMBLA and Charles Manson represent proportions of society large enough to create just legislation.
Of course I do not think that. You were using "all" in your statements.
November 12, 2008
11:38 p.m.
Suggest removal
Colorado127 writes:
WestminsterJ....Let me help you out with some numbers and statistics.
#1 Estimates of the number of gay people range from 5-10%. No I am not making this up (it's based on research and facts and nor your opinions). Let's assume the lower end, 5%. 6.2 billion people times .05 is 310,000,000 people.
Ouch, 310 million gays?? Run for the hills!!
#2 People who voted against Prop 8 in Cali. numbered 5,470,297 or about 47%. That is not a 'minority' or 'small'. It is actually quite a lot of people! If that percentage were proportional to the rest of the planet (oops, you didn't like that) were proportional to most western countries that would be (approx 1.2 billion times .47) 564,000,000 people. For sake of argument I'll round up to 600 million since those Europeans and Canadians tend to be a bit more progressive in this area.
#3 Oh, I'm exhausted and have to go to bed. You continue your ignorant and religious-borne fears and if possible move to Utah or Idaho. I hear they don't allow them gay-folk there!!
Night
November 12, 2008
11:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
Colorado127 writes:
WestminsterJ...Now I feel bad about my last post. It was probably not proper. I apologize. As a gay guy myself it is VERY frustrating when people who are not gay don't understand what it's like to be constantly put down, dehumanized, criminalized, discriminated against.
I do agree with you on Obama and his first and last term if he pushes a gay marriage bill.
November 12, 2008
11:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
BJG writes:
Let's turn back the clock and take away voting rights for blacks and women. No more black/white marriages... or brown/white marriages or asian/white marriages. Go away mdestx we really don't care what you think about anything cause your.....a hetro and we all know how immoral they are. They just don't matter. Send them to a camp where we can watch over them and if they misbehave we can just "eliminate" the bad ones.
November 12, 2008
11:55 p.m.
Suggest removal
ghoax writes:
Colorado127 writes: " Do you think you are fooling anyone with your charade that it's not about religion? GET YOUR RELIGION OUT OF MY LIFE!!!!
PS: It IS about power, the power for me to decide what I want or don't want, not for YOU to decide what I can or cannot do."
----------
spoken like a true athiest elitist . I am not the one deciding, it is how things are, and as they've always been. Men and women unite and give birth to children as a result of their union. We call this a family. The US Constitution refers to it as our posterity.
This happens because certain things go where they are supposed to. Religion has always had rules to keep society safe or healthy. It's been long recognized that the family structure is the foundation of a healthy moral society.
The decay in morals and rise in liberal thinking (and homosexuality) was part of what brought down the great Roman Empire.
Gays are free to be gay here. Free to do what you want, live together, get your civil union whatever...but you said it, it is about power.
If you're white, you don't get any benefits reserved for minority groups. Do those people call it hate when they can't get that which they are not due...NO. But gays jump to the hate and bigot mantra any time someone points out that marriage is for a man and woman to engage in.
If you're gay, you don't get a marriage license for a brde and a groom, unless you marry the opposite sex. Bottom line, you'll have to get something else and deal with life just like the rest of us. Why should we allow you to confuse our children and whittle away yet another foundation that made our country great?
The whining is much like a drunk protesting to have the roads cleared so he can drive home wasted.
November 13, 2008
12:04 a.m.
Suggest removal
clyde writes:
I believe the libs say regarding Obama'a election; "You Lost. Deal With It". Same applies here.
November 13, 2008
12:34 a.m.
Suggest removal
barneyrubble writes:
Ironic that the Mormon church was banned from joining the union until they banned plural marriage from their core beliefs. Hypocrisy?
November 13, 2008
3:25 a.m.
Suggest removal
my3pugs writes:
Legal marriage is hardly connected to religious or spiritual marriage. Legal marriage is about rights, duties, and benefits under law. Does expanding legal marriage threaten a spiritual marriage, hard to see how. What some secular law is means nothing to my spiritual beliefs in this case.
One argument that makes no sense to me is that "it's about family and children". I know many people who marry and do not raise children and never intended to either. Are these sham marriages? And I know of gay couples with children in their care who can't be described in any way as other than a family. Yet some in society would wish to disrupt them because of their genitals.
November 13, 2008
6:29 a.m.
Suggest removal
elkman writes:
If the gays and lesbians are given the "right" to marriage does that also mean they have the "right" to commit sod--y? Otherwise, this nation will have to rewrite the law on sod--y. Since when does anyone have the "right" to do what ever they want? I agree with a previous post that asked what is the problem with these people. Call it something else. Just not marriage. Call it a civil union. But no, these people want to shove homosexuality down our throats and make us be happy about it. No thanks.
November 13, 2008
6:31 a.m.
Suggest removal
commonsense07 writes:
"To say it's only California's problem is to say that 'separate but equal' in the South was only their problem,"
That comparison has always irritated me as a black person. I was born with an obviously different pigmentation and one I could not choose how it governed my life. Perhaps one IS born gay or perhaps one 'decides'.....in either case, Gays must make a conscientious and moral decision to 'practice' or 'engage' in this behavior and in Christ's own words, it is immoral.....hence a sin...regardless if they feel it is uncontrollable.
However, before I get some Gay person all upset please understand this point before dismissing my post. The bible also says that no sin is greater than another except for blasphemy of the Holy Spirit (slandering Christ or dismissing the power of his resurrection). Therefore, a sin is a sin and hence immoral. Lying, cheating, adultery, stealing, murder, deceit, etc....so for anyone on the 'religious right' to make being Gay somehow worse than other sins or types of people we see in our society is not correct. It is all sin and Christ died for all of it should you place your faith in him. If you do not....it's for him to judge, not us. It is my place as a believer to share this with you...but it's up to you in what you will do with it...and not for me to condemn or judge that decision...
But please don't lump being Gay with race for it just isn't true. God's word doesn't say being black is a sin, but it absolutely says that 'men fornicating with men and women fornicating with women' is so don't blame me for what the word says. But if you choose not to follow it so be it.....I am called to still love on you and be a good witness....or translating that into today's lingo..we can still grab a Starbucks.
November 13, 2008
6:32 a.m.
Suggest removal
06concept writes:
Marriage is between a man and a women. Keep your gay crap hidden your own home! You have no right to marry! Marriage is sacred and a bond between "man and women and God". Gay is wrong and you all need some help and guidence to see the truth about this.
November 13, 2008
6:53 a.m.
Suggest removal
commonsense07 writes:
yes I agree 06concept, marriage is a sacred bond between man and woman and should be kept that way.
November 13, 2008
7:10 a.m.
Suggest removal
ILoveChipotle writes:
Comparing gay marriage to being black and the civil rights movement is an idiotic comparison - it's not immoral to be black!!!
November 13, 2008
7:19 a.m.
Suggest removal
GK writes:
"Comparing gay marriage to being black and the civil rights movement is an idiotic comparison - it's not immoral to be black!!!"
It's not immoral to be gay.
November 13, 2008
7:31 a.m.
Suggest removal
AllYouNeedIsLove writes:
I have to ask... Those of you that oppose gay people having equal rights, what are you afraid of? Are you afraid that we will then be able to collect social security in the event of our loved ones death? Are you afraid that we will have families? Are you afraid that love will continue to sweep across this country?
November 13, 2008
7:42 a.m.
Suggest removal
Romanesco writes:
"Religion has always had rules to keep society safe or healthy."
Indeed. All the mass killings in the name of a particular religion/god throughout the centuries have been very healthy for society.
November 13, 2008
7:42 a.m.
Suggest removal
ILoveChipotle writes:
Just because you say so, doesn't make it true... Morality and truth is not relative.
November 13, 2008
7:43 a.m.
Suggest removal
ColoradoDave writes:
>>InEssence writes:
If you still want to try, you need to go back more than 2,000 years and outwit Aristotle and the rest of people who loved logic.<<
Um...you do know that Plato and Aristotle were both gay don't you?
November 13, 2008
7:50 a.m.
Suggest removal
LingLingfor_prez writes:
I will keep it simple. We don't have a Proposition 8 here, go back to California. Issues are put on the ballot for good reason. If the people aren't ready for these kinds of changes, they will vote no on them. If you don't like it, move somewhere else.
November 13, 2008
7:58 a.m.
Suggest removal
sundaychild67 writes:
If the Church is going to have this much impact on legislation, it is high time to start TAXING them! Mosques, temples, synogogues, whatever...your tax-exempt days should grind to a halt!
November 13, 2008
8:01 a.m.
Suggest removal
mmmark217 writes:
Well let me say this on the "gay marriage" thing. For the most part I tend to be liberal in my beliefs. However on this issue I disagree. Marriage is between a man and a woman. It should stay that way. Draft legislation for civil unions and equal rights for gays in every way and I'll vote for it. Call it a marriage and I won't.
November 13, 2008
8:05 a.m.
Suggest removal
AllYouNeedIsLove writes:
Why is it that when something needs to be adressed in this country, there's always that one person who cried out, "move somewhere else?" Guess what, my friend? This is my country too! I live here. I contribute. I pay taxes! So why is it that I deserve less rights?
November 13, 2008
8:12 a.m.
Suggest removal
TheDenverB writes:
we need to ban all marriage.
if marriage is such a 'sanctified' thing, and is such a touchy term with religious people...
and you people are in agreement that civil unions are acceptable...
then we need to ban ALL marriage, and EVERYONE should have civil unions. If the term marriage is that steeped in religion to so many people, then it has NO BUSINESS being in our laws.
you can still go get 'married' in your church, or wherever it is you want to get 'married'.
i think people are inadvertently setting this precedent with the laws we pass. All it will take is a savvy lawyer and someone willing to fight this to prove this is CURRENTLY the case.
November 13, 2008
8:15 a.m.
Suggest removal
AllYouNeedIsLove writes:
Always with the bestiality! Grow up! We're advocating equal rights between two loving people not between one person and a separate species. You're obviously out of tangible arguments!
November 13, 2008
8:16 a.m.
Suggest removal
Scott writes:
Too late MrCrush! The eco-terrorists have already placed animals above humans. ;-)
Scott
November 13, 2008
8:17 a.m.
Suggest removal
TheDenverB writes:
"If the gays and lesbians are given the "right" to marriage does that also mean they have the "right" to commit sod**y? Otherwise, this nation will have to rewrite the law on sod**y. Since when does anyone have the "right" to do what ever they want?"
WHAT???
seriously? of course they have the right to commit so**my. and unlike backwards southern states, many states don't have laws against whatever it is people chose to do s*xually in the privacy of their own bedrooms.
"Since when does anyone have the "right" to do what ever they want?""
nice blanket argument that clearly doesn't work here.
again, since when do you have the right to tell two consenting adults what they can and can't do s*xually in the privacy of their own bedroom?
November 13, 2008
8:21 a.m.
Suggest removal
LuvAmerica writes:
"Looks like it's on to Connecticut. Better yet, the time has come for Congress to pass the "Defense of Marriage Act" and put an end to this same-sex marriage sideshow that is touring the nation."
I'll support it if divorce is outlawed, and adultery results in stiff jail time.
It's a sacred institution after all.
November 13, 2008
8:22 a.m.
Suggest removal
ColoNative writes:
In history, those whith a stricter moral code prevailed. When the prevailing society weakened its morals, then they ceased in their leadership, being replaced by a group with moral discipline. Watch out and be checking in your back mirror. Islam is fast approaching. The so called human rights people are offering us riots, protests and persecution of those who fail to agree with them, dividing a once moral people.
November 13, 2008
8:26 a.m.
Suggest removal
ghoax writes:
"ColoradoDave writes: Um...you do know that Plato and Aristotle were both gay don't you?" ---
the leaders of today's lefty agenda...if you ever read "the Republic" you'd know that these so called "philosophers" touted class discrimination, socialism and all of the other ideals the left dreams of...all of which have proven to be complete failures.
By the way, now what was it that happened to the Roman Empire? It caved in on itself because it could not be supported by the liberal feel good policies of that time...sound familiar?
The issue is simple, if it were about rights, there wouldn't be the gay militant parades. 80% of America are against calling the gay couples married, and rightly so, it isn't a union of a man and a woman, no matter what the gays think.
The solution is simple, call whatever document you come up with anything but a marriage license. Once again how hard is that? I'm born a man and don't go to the gynecologist...are my rights being violated? This is really a ridiculous issue.
November 13, 2008
8:27 a.m.
Suggest removal
JB writes:
I will admit that I am deeply invested in the issue on so many levels. I do not understand why any person or organization would go to such great lengths to take away something as fundamental as the right to marry the person you love. You don't need to agree with or understand why gay people love who they do and I wouldn't ask anyone to do that. But, what harm does it do you if a gay person is afforded the 1000+ rights given to married couples not available via domestic partnership or civil unions. What harm does that marriage cause your marriage? Do you somehow love your wife or husband less if gays can marry? Does allowing gays to marry somehow hurt you, take a right or rights away from you? Can you no longer be a Christian, practice or preach your faith because two people of the same sex who love each other are allowed the same rights and responsibilities as those of the opposite?
You see, while I have no desire for hurting you, changing your rights, preventing you from calling the person you love – the person you would die for, who you would move heaven and earth for just to see that person smile; your spouse... your support against gay marriage has hurt me, has stripped away rights, has said that I cannot call the love of my life my spouse.
Why? Why is it so important for you that you would do that? How does doing that somehow make your life better or your faith stronger?
November 13, 2008
8:32 a.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
"Just because you say so, doesn't make it true"
that's right, burrito. and just because the voices in your head (your god) tell you that you need to hold bigoted views against your fellow americans...that's not "truth" either.
if you support discrimination against a fellow human being because of color, gender or sexual orientation, your behavior fits the textbook definition of bigotry, people.
no amount of rationalization is going to change that.
"In history, those whith a stricter moral code prevailed."
exactly...and not being a bigot on this issue is the highest of moral ground.
great point.
November 13, 2008
8:34 a.m.
Suggest removal
AllYouNeedIsLove writes:
Ghoax, Have fun at the Gyno's office! There's no law saying you can't go!
November 13, 2008
8:35 a.m.
Suggest removal
Romanesco writes:
MrCrush writes: "I really don't care what queers do in their own home, but I don't want it discussed, argued, protested and violently promoted in the public where my kids can see and hear it."
'Cause hetero sex certainly isn't discussed, argued, protested, or violently promoted....<sarcasm>
November 13, 2008
8:36 a.m.
Suggest removal
zivo24 writes:
Per ghoax and several others...
Marriage is about what you have between your legs, not what is in your heart.
So forget all this nonsense about marriage being about love and commitment.
It's about penises and vaginas.
November 13, 2008
8:39 a.m.
Suggest removal
zivo24 writes:
cons4evr writes:
I am sick and tired of a small % of the liberal public pushing thier positions on the rest of us. The people have voted! and we're tired of this gay crap! If you don't like it move! God has made his position clear on this topic! You WILL have to answer to him for your ways!
*********************************************************************
And if you want to live in a country ruled by religious doctrine....
MOVE TO IRAN!
November 13, 2008
8:39 a.m.
Suggest removal
ILoveChipotle writes:
JB - it makes society weaker. It affects society as a whole, maybe not the individuals.
November 13, 2008
8:41 a.m.
Suggest removal
Chacmool writes:
California voted for a gay marriage ban. Why is California not labeled "The Hate State". Please explain how what California voted for is any different than Colorado's vote a decade ago, when the Hollywood closed-minded sect labeled us "The Hate State". Why no boycotts of California?
November 13, 2008
8:43 a.m.
Suggest removal
jefferson3 writes:
It's sad to see the continued hatred and bitterness by the religious right supporters regarding love. Ah, well. They are on the way out, they know it and they're grasping at straws.
November 13, 2008
8:48 a.m.
Suggest removal
JB writes:
How Chipotle? How does it make society weaker? And I am not attacking here, I'm just trying to understand your thought process.
I doubt that allowing my "spouse" inherit from me under the same laws straight couples use, will weaken society. Allowing us to file taxes together, making decisions on medical care, exchanging vows to promise to love, honor and cherish each other... I don't see how any of that somehow makes society weaker.
November 13, 2008
8:48 a.m.
Suggest removal
ILoveChipotle writes:
Jaythecommie - I don't support discrimination, I'm saying (and so is most of the country) that they shouldn't be married. I don't harbor any ill will towards gay people, I just don't agree with their actions. I'll say it again - morals & truth are not relevant. They are absolute!
November 13, 2008
8:49 a.m.
Suggest removal
The_Punnisher writes:
The ROMANS ( in the last days ) allowed any kind of union...
Where is the ROMAN EMPIRE today???
November 13, 2008
8:50 a.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
"it makes society weaker"
can you tell us exactly how giving homosexuals equal rights "makes society weaker", burrito?
November 13, 2008
8:51 a.m.
Suggest removal
Cowboy63 writes:
Amikeb1 writes: "You ever wonder what the hell the people 100 years ago who banned black people and women from voting were thinking.....50 years from now people will same the same thing about gay marriage."
Well. Let's vote on it!
That's right... We did... You lost.
November 13, 2008
8:52 a.m.
Suggest removal
AllYouNeedIsLove writes:
Chipotle, Saying we shouldn't be married IS discriminating against us! You are supporting discrimination! You're saying we don't deserve equal rights!
November 13, 2008
8:52 a.m.
Suggest removal
toocool writes:
Ever wonder why both straight and gay's marry 99% of the time in a "CHURCH"? Here @ Camp Pendleton, we have not had any male and female sargents marring male and female Lance Corporals YET....You said no in Colorado in 06, we said no here in California twice, Prop 22 and now this year Prop 8 ...one man, one woman....our kids have enough troubles to face in the future, let's not give them one more....
November 13, 2008
8:53 a.m.
Suggest removal
UNV_ME writes:
Same stale arguments. Don't waste your breath. You can not change my mind nor can I change yours. Fact is, that in time the gay community will have the same rights as everyone else. It is inevitable.
November 13, 2008
8:54 a.m.
Suggest removal
AllYouNeedIsLove writes:
Just wait, Cowboy, government will start taking your rights away...
November 13, 2008
8:54 a.m.
Suggest removal
DJ writes:
Read the First Amendment. If you don’t understand that it is about keeping superstitious belief systems, i.e. religion, out of legislation, you’re simply not reading it. All of these posts against gay marriage are using superstition as their basis. The bible was written by imperfect, greedy, controlling manipulative men who wanted control over the masses. And boy, did it work. That said, if you’re still going to point to the bible, check it again. Find the verse where Jesus said ANYTHING about homosexuality. You won’t find it. Gandhi said, “I like your Christ but I do not like your Christians; they are nothing like your Christ.” If you’re still going to hit me over the head with your bible, read about conducting your life by following your conscience. We all have a conscience regardless of our belief systems. Are you really that close to perfect that you can devote your precious time to trying to “fix” someone else? Does your conscience allow you to look Ann’s son, Troy, in his nine-year-old eyes and tell him that he can’t go to the doctor because your superstitions won’t allow Sara’s insurance to cover him? No, this scenario isn’t far-fetched. Yes, it’s very real and it is Troy and all the others like him that should be weighing on your conscience. Those of you who would disagree with this don’t have a non-superstitious argument on your side. There’s no room in civics for superstition.
If you don’t have a strong marriage, get to the root reason rather than blame your unsuccessful union on Ann and Sara down the street. If you’re children are “confused” about gay marriage, it’s because the small-minded prejudice and short-sighted bigotry you’re verbalizing to them doesn’t jibe with what they see. They see Ann and Sara conducting their lives as functioning, respectful members of the neighborhood and society. They don’t see monsters. Your children’s sexual orientation has already been determined whether you like it or not. You can try to squeeze them into a mold, but ultimately, each child will grow into a unique individual who may or may not share your superstitions.
No less than 10% of the world’s population is gay or bisexual. Read about Kinsey’s research on human sexuality. His research found that most of us are to some degree of bisexual. That’s nature, not superstition.
Change is inevitable and constant. As we become more enlightened and evolve into a better society, our laws will reflect that enlightenment. You can’t unlearn something. We know from history that nobody benefits from keeping civil liberties from a faction of the people. As has been said many times, just a few decades ago interracial marriage wasn’t legal. Guess what? Even though it’s legal now, bigotry still exists and always will. Gay marriage (it doesn’t matter what label is put on it, it’s still gay marriage) will prevail legally and society will continue to evolve
November 13, 2008
9 a.m.
Suggest removal
ILoveChipotle writes:
JB - I'm glad that people can still debate issues without just making personal attacks, thank you for that. I think it makes society weaker when society starts to accept immoral things (just because I think it is immoral doesn't mean I hate gay people, I've done many things in my life that I would consider immoral). If the government were to allow gay marriage and allow benefits, it basically promotes that lifestyle and makes it more of the "norm".
November 13, 2008
9:03 a.m.
Suggest removal
AllYouNeedIsLove writes:
DJ, You're amazing! I hope to see you on Saturday!
November 13, 2008
9:07 a.m.
Suggest removal
snow writes:
Good for the Mormon Church, some one stepping up and protecting the integrity of our countries values, I'am not Mormon but will donate to the church!!!!!!!!!
November 13, 2008
9:07 a.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
sorry, burrito, but your supernatural beliefs about what is "moral" isn't a justification for bigotry.
nice try.
November 13, 2008
9:10 a.m.
Suggest removal
elkman writes:
TheDenverB
You can do whatever perverted things you want in the privacy of your own bedroom. Just don't ram in down my throat and expect me to accept it. I,like so many other posters here today, do not believe that "marriage" should be granted to the gay community. Why do you have such a problem with calling it a "civil union"?
November 13, 2008
9:12 a.m.
Suggest removal
chaka419 writes:
I don't know why people are so hateful ON BOTH SIDES OF THIS ISSUE!!! I don't think it has ever really been proven that homosexuality is choice or not. I feel the only way to make this issue go away is to make gay marriage legal. Then we can move on with our lives. I am not a very religious person and I am not a big suppurter of gay marriage, but I am afraid of how anti-christianity is becoming okay on the liberal side. You can not fight for rights with a straight face while you advocate taking rights from someone else. The left should be very careful about this. There has to be a way to compromise and make sure EVERYBODY'S rights are protected!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
November 13, 2008
9:15 a.m.
Suggest removal
snow writes:
Good for the Mormon Church, someone needs to step up and protect the integrity of our country, I am not Mormon but will donate to the church!!!!
November 13, 2008
9:17 a.m.
Suggest removal
elkman writes:
chaka419
Yea, the compromise would be to call it "civil union". But the gay community are the ones who do not want to compromise. They want their cake and eat it too.
November 13, 2008
9:17 a.m.
Suggest removal
ILoveChipotle writes:
Sorry Jaythecommie, putting quotes around "moral" and "truth" doesn't make them any less true.
November 13, 2008
9:20 a.m.
Suggest removal
douglittleton writes:
JB wrote: "I do not understand why any person or organization would go to such great lengths to take away something as fundamental as the right to marry the person you love."
Marriage is regulated by the state. Some unions are not allowed such as:
1. Siblings marrying siblings.
2. Cousins marrying cousins.
3. Adults marrying children.
If these people truly love each other, should they be allowed to marry?
The state regulates marriage in order to promote the fundamental building block of society, the family. The goal is to promote families with children having the best chance of healthy development. Ideally, children are raised with a mother and a father, who each provide something unique and important to child development.
Of course, the ideal is not always realized, but it is in the state's interest to promote the best for the society and the future.
November 13, 2008
9:21 a.m.
Suggest removal
AllYouNeedIsLove writes:
Civil unions do not offer federal benefits that marriages do
November 13, 2008
9:23 a.m.
Suggest removal
JB writes:
Chipotle-
I think that part of the problem is this idea that being gay is immoral; that when people think of "gay" they think it's about sex. They think it's some sort of perverse choice that someone has made simply to "get their rocks off." I promise you, it is not a choice nor is it about sex.
Yes, maybe younger parts of the community sex is top of mind, but no more so than any younger straight person at the nighclubs or bars trying to pick some one up to "get a piece." But for many, it's the same as for anyone else; we argue about what to watch on TV or what to have for dinner that night. It's "babe, it's your turn to take out the trash" or "really, how hard is it to put your dirty plate in the dishwasher" or "how are we going to pay this bill" or "what should I get your mom for Christmas."
As far as the "choice" aspect, science has made quite a few advances showing biological differences between gay and straight people. Everything from hormone levels, gland sizes and now there is a study looking at differnces in certain bone structures. Homosexuality has been observed in nearly every mammal species.
I promise you, this is not a choice. The hell gay people go through when they are younger knowing that they are different, trying to force themselves to be just like everybody else, the adversity faced by a society where the majority doesn't understand and many just think they are perverts. Even the issue of not being allowed to marry the person you love. Who would choose that? There is a reason why the suicide rate for gays is much much higher than that of the general population. I understand that this might be foreign to you and why shouldn't it be -- you're straight after all. So let me try to put it this way: How does the thought of you kissing a person of the same sex make you feel? I would guess not very good. But this is the exact same feeling a gay person gets at the thought of kissing someone of the opposite sex.
Again, thank you for the civil discussion. I do believe that the best way to overcome what I do believe is injustice, is to communicate and understand the issue from both sides.
November 13, 2008
9:33 a.m.
Suggest removal
GK writes:
McCrush:
"I'm so tired of giving morally corrupt people the same rights as good people get."
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
November 13, 2008
9:34 a.m.
Suggest removal
elkman writes:
AllYouNeedIsLove
I think people would be more in favor of changing the federal law to include benefits, rather than change the law on marriage. Would this not be a fair compromise?
November 13, 2008
9:34 a.m.
Suggest removal
Cowboy63 writes:
Homework: Order a pizza with a Liberal. As soon as you disagree on the toppings, time how long it takes for the Liberal to accuse you of being a HATEFUL BIGOT.
Liberalism: any deviation from the party line means you are a "hateful bigot".
It doesn't work. We voted. You lost. The American People affirm that the term "marriage" refers to one man and one woman. Your juvenile name-calling isn't going to change that.
November 13, 2008
9:40 a.m.
Suggest removal
datbinnurick writes:
Elkman - exactely - I have been asking myself that question over and over... why is the gay community not satisfied with "domestic partnership" or "Civil union" ??? It shows it is not about about the "Rights" but rather winning... making all "conform" or force all to accept something that people should have a right to call immoral!
November 13, 2008
9:42 a.m.
Suggest removal
mrwiizrd writes:
"Ideally, children are raised with a mother and a father, who each provide something unique and important to child development.
Of course, the ideal is not always realized, but it is in the state's interest to promote the best for the society and the future."
And who exactly defines what is "ideal?" This is complete hogwash, by your logic the best way to promote a societal utopia would be to require licenses to have children.
Keep fighting for your moral majority neo-cons, after the trouncing GOP took in the last election the rumblings are already starting in the party rank & file of returning to the conservative platform of individual liberty and conservative fiscal policy.
It's just a matter of time...
November 13, 2008
9:42 a.m.
Suggest removal
NeilT writes:
douglittleton writes: "Marriage is regulated by the state. Some unions are not allowed such as:
1. Siblings marrying siblings.
2. Cousins marrying cousins.
3. Adults marrying children.
If these people truly love each other, should they be allowed to marry?"
No, they shouldn't, because as you stated...
"The goal is to promote families with children having the best chance of healthy development."
Incest is not healthy. I've posted before about my severe special needs barn cats with 7 toes. That gene pool doesn't branch-out, it's more circular. This is a public health and public finance issue. It is a straw man argument, as well.
Children getting married in any society is not healthy for them. Once they are of legal age, then it's fine. I don't even agree with parents "signing-off" for a child to get married. Why can't that same parent sign-off, enabling their child to legally drink alcohol?
Then doug goes on to write: "Ideally, children are raised with a mother and a father, who each provide something unique and important to child development."
I agree, but how is that working out for society, doug? With more than half of all marriages ending in divorce with children being raised by single parents, I'd think you would be SCREAMING about the sanctity of marriage of straight folks. Why the double standard.
For those that want to use ancient Rome as a foundation or comparison for your argument, you really need to brush-up on your history. Rome did not fall due to social engineering. Rome fell for many reasons, most of which we as a nation are dealing with today, but "moral" issues had nothing to do with it. The fall started when Rome "converted" to a Christian empire. Then through Crhistian intolerance, monetary policy, foreign policy and military policy they met their end. I'll happily compare notes with anyone on this subject.
Finally, as I've said on here before...
If being gay is a choice, can you decide to bat for the other team right now? I mean right now! Can you stroll on down to the local gay bar and dive right in?
I couldn't! I'm married to a fine woman and the thought of having sex with another man absolutely disgusts me. It wouldn't be physically possible for me.
I wonder if a homosexual has that same felling I do when it comes to having sex with somebody of the opposite sex. For a gay man, does having sex with a woman disgust him as much as it does for me the thought of having sex with another man?
That would be far from a choice, folks.
November 13, 2008
9:46 a.m.
Suggest removal
JB writes:
Elkman and Dat-
It's quite simple. We as a country decided a long time ago that separate is inherently unequal. Even if a civil union were able to grant the gay community the same 1000+ rights as a married couple, I still can’t call the person I love my spouse. I still can’t proudly beam with joy and pride and introduce my spouse to people I meet. Our relationship, commitment to each other, is still looked at as "not good enough."
November 13, 2008
9:49 a.m.
Suggest removal
Beergut writes:
No special laws for gay people. Let them marry like everybody else. Anything less is bigotry. Period.
November 13, 2008
9:53 a.m.
Suggest removal
elkman writes:
JB
Thanks for making my point. You just don't want to compromise, do you? Its all or nothing. You may end up with nothing.
November 13, 2008
9:55 a.m.
Suggest removal
joggle writes:
Cowboy63: "Liberals are cowards and hypocrites."
Don't forget, liberals are WINNERS!
November 13, 2008
9:56 a.m.
Suggest removal
rg writes:
I sired five; none were born gay. If one or two had been born gay I would really resent their civil rights being abrogated; I resent civil rights being abrogated. I am appalled by Blacks who vote for abrogation considering their ancestors were beaten and lynched for seeking their civil rights; women were imprisoned for attempting to vote; for both the civil rights movement and women's suffrage came into existence. Richard Grimes: deicide, slayer of gods. http://www.geocities.com/r22037/think...
November 13, 2008
10:06 a.m.
Suggest removal
c4l2a0 writes:
Why is it ok for gays and lesbians to sacrifice their lives for this country by serving in the military (shhhh) and yet we try to deny them the same rights afforded to those citizens who they are serving?
Morals have nothing to do with sexuality. Is it immoral to drive your car fast? Is it immoral to smoke marijuana? Is it immoral to not recycle?
Morals are only applied to the treatment of other people and living creatures. You can't apply morals to every aspect of life. Gay marriage has nothing to do with morals. It is a legal issue. It is a societal "norm" issue.
And why is it not an issue for a hetero couple to engage in anal sex, yet people get so worked up about two men who do that. How we treat our own bodies is nobody else's concern.
Is heterosexual prostitution immoral? It's between two consenting adults. Just because it is in exchange for money doesn't make it immoral. I've seen plenty of housewives who are nothing more than a married prostitute. Nice car, nice house, shopping money....don't want to give that up now.
Some of the most immoral people I have come across are married heterosexual people, so why deny anyone the right to marry based on morals? That's a weak arguement.
Who gets to define morals? Your god? The government? What if our so-called morals don't agree? Who wins? The majority?
November 13, 2008
10:09 a.m.
Suggest removal
Cowboy63 writes:
joggle writes: "Cowboy63: "Liberals are cowards and hypocrites."
That was a touch harsh of me - I take it back. I had just seen the video of the little-old lady being stomped on by protesters in front of her church and it struck a nerve with me.
I have some good friends who are extreme liberals and they aren't cowards - they're just WRONG.
November 13, 2008
10:09 a.m.
Suggest removal
ILoveChipotle writes:
JB - I don't doubt that it's hard to be gay - But that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about the negative societal impact it would have if we accept gay marriage as equal to hetero marriage.
November 13, 2008
10:09 a.m.
Suggest removal
WestminsterJ writes:
jay: sorry, burrito, but your supernatural beliefs about what is "moral" isn't a justification for bigotry.
nice try.
See, Jay, that's your problem. Youi really hate religion. You can deny it all you want, but anyone who listens to you for any length of time knows it's true. I'm sorry you met so many bad religious people and hypocrites in your life, and your parents were bad to you, etc., etc. but the fact is most Americans believe in something higher than just what we can see. If you really thought about it, you would realize that "supernatural beliefs" are the only solid foundation for morality and justice and all the other things you supposedly believe in, but your adolescent anger won't let you get that far.
November 13, 2008
10:09 a.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
"putting quotes around "moral" and "truth" doesn't make them any less true."
you mean "true" according to your beliefs in the supernatural, chipotle.
enough said.
cowboy, you're still not getting it.
your beliefs on this issue perfectly fit the textbook definition of bigotry.
that has nothing to do with "liberals" or "commies".
take some responsibility for your own beliefs and behaviors.
November 13, 2008
10:10 a.m.
Suggest removal
GladysKravitz writes:
Isn't it interesting that the religious people who expect, even demand to be included in promoting their faith (example: Golden Colorado/Menorah Mishagas), are the first ones on the forefront to deny Americans of their civil, secular rights when it comes to marraige equality/civil unions.
November 13, 2008
10:12 a.m.
Suggest removal
IRUNMAN writes:
So very very ignorant.
" The People voted. Get over it."
"You don't like it, move to Canada."
Is this America that we live in? Where we have the right to be ourselves and all be recognized equally? Why does a part of my life affect you so much?
If the state of Colorado were to have a proposition on the next ballot, "No divorce. Not allowed. Banished. You marry, you are in it for life." and 51% of Colorado voters approved, 49% of the people would go crazy. Not running out and getting divorces but protesting because they don't have say in the matter. The government and 51% of the people dictate how to live their lives??
Think outside of the box people. Yes, this particular matter involves gays, but while I am protesting on Saturday, I represent AMERICAN FREEDOM AND EQUALITY TO ALL AMERICANS.
November 13, 2008
10:14 a.m.
Suggest removal
elkman writes:
c4l2a0
Excuse me, but morals have everything to do with sexuality. How can you compare driving your car fast, smoking marijuana, and not recycling, to morals, is like comparing day and night. It makes no sence whatsoever. You have very weak comparrisons. To compare housewives to prostitutes...you have to be kidding. Gay marriage has everything to do with morals. Once again, why is the gay community so unwilling to compromise?
November 13, 2008
10:15 a.m.
Suggest removal
vendari01 writes:
If the vote was wrong, in your opinion, take it to the courts. That is the way it is supposed to be done. Don't stand around screaming because the majority, in voting, defeated your bill. It is not, and never has been, a hate crime, to vote in accordance with your beliefs. It's called "Representative Democracy". The majority just is not ready for this one, yet, right or wrong. It will always take time to get the majority to change its point of view on an issue, but, if the time is right, it will happen. Keep working the system, and get the law changed.
November 13, 2008
10:16 a.m.
Suggest removal
SlouchingTowardBoulder writes:
"No, ghoax, it is not about 'attacking christianity', it's about christianity attacking others. Because it is a religion, it has no role in making laws that govern citizens of this country."
Marriage, from a social, religious, cultural and legal viewpoint, has always been between heterosexuals. In the Roman Catholic church, it is a sacrament ordained by God.
Homosexual marriage is abnormal and against God as well as social and cultural views.
Homosexual marriage is an abomination.
November 13, 2008
10:18 a.m.
Suggest removal
ILoveChipotle writes:
Sorry Jay - Truth is Truth. Not according to my beliefs or yours. There are things in this world that have absolute truths; gravity, death, morality, etc...
November 13, 2008
10:23 a.m.
Suggest removal
SlouchingTowardBoulder writes:
Genesis teaches that God instituted and designed marriage between a man and a woman (Genesis 2:18-25). There are a number of reasons why He did so.
The complementary structure of the male and female anatomy is obviously designed for the normal husband-wife relationships. Clearly, design in human biology supports heterosexuality and contradicts homosexuality.
The combination of male and female enables man (and the animals) to produce and nurture offspring as commanded in Genesis 1:28 “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth.” This command is repeated to Noah after the Flood (Genesis 8:15-17). But procreation is not the only reason God made humans as sexual beings. The BUWA report affirms “that sexual intimacy between husband and wife is good, and is intended by God for bonding, pleasure and procreation.”7
Thirdly, God gave man and woman complementary roles in order to strengthen the family unit. Woman was to be the helper that man needed (Genesis 2:18). However, the woman's role as the helpmate is certainly not an inferior one.
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig...
November 13, 2008
10:23 a.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
"President Barrack Hussein BOUGHT the win"
nope.
completely incorrect.
when did the folks on the right throw accountability out of their toolboxes?
you lost the election because you did a horrible job running the country for 8 years and insisted that the country continue down the same failed path for another 4 years.
hillary would have beated mcsame just as badly.
November 13, 2008
10:25 a.m.
Suggest removal
IRUNMAN writes:
SlouchingTowardBoulder-
I don't care what your God says.
I don't believe in your God.
Your God doesn't exist in a lot of peoples lives.
Stop trying to shove your religious agenda down my throat.
November 13, 2008
10:26 a.m.
Suggest removal
JB writes:
Chipolte-
But how? How would it have a negative impact on society? Specifically? This is the part I don't understand. How would society at all be adversly impacted.
Jay-
Please, please, please. I appreciate that you are passionate about this and thank you for that. This is a very emotional issue for a lot of us. But please understand that the basis of bigotry is lack of understanding. Rather than shouting from the rooftops about who's a bigot and who's God is right or wrong, please try to foster understanding by trying to understand where the other side is coming from as well. One's spirituality is VERY important to them and debasing it won't make anyone desire to find common ground.
November 13, 2008
10:27 a.m.
Suggest removal
BJG writes:
If your going to do the religious thing about marriage then anything after your first one is considered adultry and your kids are bas%ards...so better make it right the first time cause you ain't got a second chance according to religion. Marriage is NOT a christian thing. Oh my God....Adam and Eve didn't have their sexual reltionship sanctioned by the church....that means we are all bas.....
November 13, 2008
10:29 a.m.
Suggest removal
c4l2a0 writes:
elkman: I stated that morals can only be applied to the treatment of other people and living creatures. I am not comparing smoking marijuana to morals, I am saying that you cannot say that smoking marijuana is moral or not, the same goes for the legal definition of marriage. The religious definition of marriage is different.
And I'm not comparing housewives to prostitutes, I said that there are a lot of "married prostitutes", women who are married but don't love their spouse, they love the money and lifestyle and aren't willing to give it up. The biggest threat to marriage isn't the "gay agenda", it's divorce.
November 13, 2008
10:29 a.m.
Suggest removal
COLibertarian writes:
"I don't want to be married. I'm very happy with a civil partnership. If gay people want to get married, or get together, they should have a civil partnership," John says. "The word 'marriage,' I think, puts a lot of people off.
"You get the same equal rights that we do when we have a civil partnership. Heterosexual people get married. We can have civil partnerships."
Sounds like a compromise and calm headed approach to me.
Personally, I really dont care. If someone wants to get married, they can definately step in front of line frome me :-)
November 13, 2008
10:33 a.m.
Suggest removal
c4l2a0 writes:
I guess marriage should be reserved for those who are truly moral.....Ted Haggard is my poster boy. He is a true man of god.
November 13, 2008
10:34 a.m.
Suggest removal
Jack_Ryan writes:
In CA:
6.7 million people voted for Obama
4.1 million people voted for McCain
5.7 million voted yes on Prop 8
5.2 million voted no on Prop 8
That's 1.6 (5.7 - 4.1) million more people who voted yes on Prop 8 then voted for McCain. And 1.1 (5.2 - 4.1) million more people voted no on Prop 8 then voted for McCain. Yet there were nearly the same number of people who cast a vote for both President and Prop 8.
There are slightly more than 5.4 million registered Republicans in CA. And 7.5 millions registered Democrats.
You can't blame the McCain voters here, this measure passed because a significant number of Obama voters voted yes too. The people of California are against same sex marriage. Just like Obama and Biden...
November 13, 2008
10:41 a.m.
Suggest removal
COLibertarian writes:
Jack Ryan
If you take those numbers a bit further and look at exit polls based upon those numbers, people will find some of the breakouts of voting preferences. California nor the Democrats want to touch it at all. It is easier to reach out to other states and religions to place the blame.
Personally, I like the quote I posted above as a resolution. If push came to shove, I would have voted against Prop8.
Just hate the blame game and not looking at what really happened here to try and fix or come to a civil resolution.
November 13, 2008
10:45 a.m.
Suggest removal
Kjohnsen98 writes:
Remember that California is only 1 of 30 states that has passed an amendment to the state constitution defining marriage as only between a man and a woman. The only reason that the vote is California was somewhat close is due to the fact the Jerry Brown (California Attorney General) changed the wording of the propostition to say that it "eliminates rights of same-sex couples to marry". Had this verbage not been on the ballot, prop 8 would have won by a large margin. By the way, a large portion of the people who voted in favor of prop 8 was the latino and blacks populations.
November 13, 2008
10:46 a.m.
Suggest removal
IRUNMAN writes:
"Go back to Mississippi, go back to Alabama, go back to South Carolina, go back to Georgia, go back to Louisiana, go back to the slums and ghettos of our northern cities, knowing that somehow this situation can and will be changed. Let us not wallow in the valley of despair.
I say to you today, my friends, so even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream.
I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal."
MLK Jr.
November 13, 2008
10:49 a.m.
Suggest removal
HankReardon writes:
It's not about marriage. It's about Personhood. When will we treat everyone as a person? Just because I don't believe in a god, doesn't mean I will persecute those that do. I find god to be an abomination of nature, but I am willing to accept it.
Your turn...
November 13, 2008
10:50 a.m.
Suggest removal
COLibertarian writes:
IRUNMAN
No doubt a great quote. I think you should make sure the people that voted for Prop 8 in CA get it. They are the ones that voted for it not us.
November 13, 2008
10:51 a.m.
Suggest removal
GladysKravitz writes:
Get married in your house of worship. This is about CIVIL, CIVIC, SECULAR private liberties! When we look at the role religion has played in the civil rights movement it took clergy like Rabbi AJ Heschel and Rev. ML King who applied scripture to INCLUDE Americans in the tapestry of civil liberties and equality as opposed to denying them.
Civil Marriage is just that...CIVIL. It is not a religious matter at all. And that is the trap the all religious extremists get themselves into every time and ultimately they will lose.
Marriage has been redefined throughout time and history. Henry VII did it. Most all secular cultures misogynistic laws no longer imply that a spouse is property. Racist laws denying marriage between blacks and whites, as early as 40 years ago in 16 states, have been wiped out. Thus, civil marriage laws and society has changed for centuries and guess what, all those religious institutions have weathered it rather well.
So to all the orhtodox religious folks out there clamoring, relax, the govt isn’t knocking on your door forcing you to perform a same-sex wedding rite, and I will be the first to defend your church’s’ right not to do so and practice your faith as you wish. Just keep your religion to yourself and out of my private life, thank you very much.
November 13, 2008
10:51 a.m.
Suggest removal
davies writes:
Thanks JB, nicely said.
Here's what I don't get: If "marriage" is to be redefined to include same-sex couples, why is that the only extent of the redefinition? Why can't any number of consenting adults enter into the same type of partnership, for the purpose of sharing the privileges and responsibilites of the "family", for whatever reasons those consenting adults may have?
I especially ask this of all the people throwing around the word "bigot" here, just because you support marriage for gay couples and others don't. On what basis do you unbigoted people limit your definition of marriage to be only between two people, and/or only two people who seem to be compatible for sexual intercourse?
November 13, 2008
10:54 a.m.
Suggest removal
silverJ writes:
if it's a civil union it would have passed. Doesn't sound like bigotry to me...
November 13, 2008
10:56 a.m.
Suggest removal
NeilT writes:
Kjohnsen98 writes: "By the way, a large portion of the people who voted in favor of prop 8 was the latino and blacks populations."
Don't think the Republican party hasn't taken note of this. They have. This will further divide the party, but that's okay. Their "new base" will more than make-up for losing you. How will the true conservatives feel when the Republican party grants citizenship to over 25 million illegals because their Catholic values resonate with the conservative Christian views?
What quicker and easier way to rocket back to power?
November 13, 2008
10:56 a.m.
Suggest removal
seeker writes:
If we had allowed the “people” to decide the civil rights movement in the south, we might still have blatant and cruel segregation in America. The "people" were not ready for integration. The people should not be allowed to decide this issue.
The founding fathers knew long ago that the people could not be trusted to make the right decisions regarding all of the issues that we would face and so they gave us the U.S. Constitution.
Just like black citizens from long ago, gay citizens need to be established as a minority and protected by the Constitution. Then, the issue of marriage can be addressed, as it was when the ridiculous laws that forbade whites from marrying blacks were thrown out.
Marriage is a legal contract between parties. Man made it a religious union, not the law.
What do you care if two people want a shared bond, a contract between themselves, that other people have the right to enjoy? What do you care? What does it take away from you?
The Mormon Church operates as a non-profit entity. They need to stay out of active solicitation of government laws and amendments lest they lose this exemption. The current administration has investigations on going of churches whose ministers and priests spoke out from the pulpit against the Iraq war. It is a fine line and it seems to me that the Mormons have crossed it.
November 13, 2008
11:01 a.m.
Suggest removal
freemarketworks writes:
Perception is everything in this issue. When I open my paper, turn on the news or look at my computer; I see gay and lesbian extremists prancing about in the streets disrupting the lives and businesses of peaceful people. Likewise, this morning, there was news of burning Bibles and the Book of Mormon on the steps of LDS Churches.
These actions simply further and re-confirm those stereotypes that many hold toward the homosexual community. Parades of guys dressed in tights and lingerie kissing each other, or “Dykes-on-Bikes” do nothing to make most Americans feel good about supporting a “Right-to-Marriage” law. Before lashing out at someone for not accepting your life-style, maybe it’s better to do a little soul searching and ask “why?”
November 13, 2008
11:02 a.m.
Suggest removal
davies writes:
seeker writes:
"What do you care if two people want a shared bond, a contract between themselves, that other people have the right to enjoy? What do you care? What does it take away from you?"
OK then, what do you care if three people want a shared bond, a contract between themselves?
November 13, 2008
11:03 a.m.
Suggest removal
c4l2a0 writes:
If I disagree with the KKK mentality and refer to them as bigots, does that make me a bigot? No, it makes me a person who is intolerant of intolerance.
The KKK has a right to their beliefs without being considered bigots, don't they?
All of those who are against gay marriage are bigots, you can't hide behind "it's just my opinion".
I do not like or trust religious people, does that make me a bigot? It is just my harmless little opinion afterall....
November 13, 2008
11:04 a.m.
Suggest removal
MBR693 writes:
Colorado127 writes:
"There are many opinions and guiding principles with this issue. Hundreds of millions, if not billions, of people around the planet think gay people SHOULD be allowed to marry."
They think? So that's a belief.
"Your belief that being gay is about 'sexual recreation, pleasure and selfishness' is just that, a belief. Not a truth nor a moral imperative."
Nope. InEssence is right one. Strictly speaking of sex and pleasure, societies based upon hedonism cannot last for long.
palequ47 writes:
"And people wonder why republicanism and Christianity is on the downturn."
Actually, we don't wonder. Christianity is based upon moral absolutes and republicanism is based upon rule of law. Neither can be tolerated in a pluralistic and morally relativistic society. For the record, for all the talk on this forum, being opposed to gay marriage does not equate to hating gays.
November 13, 2008
11:05 a.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
"the basis of bigotry is lack of understanding"
you're absolutely right, jb....which is very nice way of saying that the basis of bigotry is ignorance. always has been and i dare say always will be.
you have the patience of an oak. i applaud your efforts to try to educate those who discriminate against their fellow americans because of ignorance. at some point in history, we'll look back upon these people with the same disdain as we do know for those who once opposed interracial marriage for the same reasons.
i hope you will keep up the good work and wish you the best in your efforts. i hope that you achieve some success in changing peoples' minds. i think it is an extremely difficult task considering the nature of said ignorance stems from beliefs in the supernatural.
how do you get around that?
there's no logic to begin with in that equation, so it is a daunting task to try to fill that vacuum with factual info when such data is shunned with frenzied loyalty. too many times i've witnessed folks of this persuasion break their knuckles upon the altar of willful ignorance.
at some point, i've given up on a few special cases and now just make sure that i take an opportunity to point out that because of their superstitious, logicless beliefs, they fit the textbook definition of bigots and will be viewed by future generations as much.
please forgive me if i am at times a little overzealous in that pursuit.
by the way, it doesn't matter how many times a majority of americans vote to take away or refuse to grant equal rights to a minority, courts will continue to find such actions unconstitutional....so good luck with that.
November 13, 2008
11:07 a.m.
Suggest removal
NeilT writes:
Davies,
We've already danced this dance. I stated before that society will decide when, and if, your issue will be decided. Until then, your issue is a non-issue, otherwise known as a straw man argument.
If the time comes when millions upon millions of U.S. citizens are voting in favor of, or protesting for, polygamy then we'll have to look at it from a legal point of view. Polygamy wouldn't be nearly as close a vote today as same sex marriage. Someday it may, but it's not now. Stop with this, already.
Ironically, I imagine the Mormons would spearhead the cause.
November 13, 2008
11:12 a.m.
Suggest removal
NeilT writes:
Surprisingly, I absolutely agree with freemarketworks post at 11:01 am.
November 13, 2008
11:12 a.m.
Suggest removal
c4l2a0 writes:
I'm not racist, I just don't believe that people of a different race than me are deserving of the same rights in this society. That's just my opinion, I'm not a bigot. We can agree to disagree.
November 13, 2008
11:15 a.m.
Suggest removal
The_Punnisher writes:
I stand by my comments. I do my own research into history, not the REVISIONIST crap you get in schools nowadays.
Rome fell because of a certain pattern of behavior. Christianity had nothing to do with it.
This pattern appears over and over in history. Smart people know about what patterns repeat and the cycle's final ending.
" Those that do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it "
I guess that MANY people do not learn their history...
November 13, 2008
11:16 a.m.
Suggest removal
c4l2a0 writes:
When all of you religious zealots are attending service on Sunday to make yourselves feel like a better Christian, Catholic.....send someone to go keep an eye on the alter boy in the back room, the man of god may be having his way with him.
November 13, 2008
11:16 a.m.
Suggest removal
davies writes:
NeilT writes:
"Davies, We've already danced this dance. I stated before that society will decide when, and if, your issue will be decided. Until then, your issue is a non-issue, otherwise known as a straw man argument."
But you don't accept the vote of "society". So civil rights is a question of having a very sizable minority, but not a majority. Great moral argument.
November 13, 2008
11:18 a.m.
Suggest removal
c4l2a0 writes:
Was Ted Haggerd preaching about the sins of homosexuality in his church, say 5 years ago?
Just curious....
November 13, 2008
11:20 a.m.
Suggest removal
c4l2a0 writes:
Amen pastor Haggerd! Homosexuality is a sin. Do you know where I could find some meth after my man-on-man "massage"?
November 13, 2008
11:20 a.m.
Suggest removal
Heidi writes:
davies,
I feel the same way you do about this. I don't think you will ever get an answer to your questions.
November 13, 2008
11:23 a.m.
Suggest removal
NeilT writes:
Davies,
I realize you might see a slight contradiction in my statement, but yeah, a "very sizable minority" does change things.
This is not the case, currently, in the two states in the union that recognize same-sex marriage. Oh no! Yet another contradiction in our republic!
November 13, 2008
11:25 a.m.
Suggest removal
c4l2a0 writes:
I'm glad the Pope finally condemned all of the rampant homosexual child molestation going on in the Catholic church. Wouldn't want to look like a hypocritical organization.
November 13, 2008
11:30 a.m.
Suggest removal
BJG writes:
Hey, Colorado had 29,200 marriages in 2007 and 21,178 divorces, you sure do look like a state that honors the holy union of marriage....NOT
November 13, 2008
11:35 a.m.
Suggest removal
RUKidding writes:
These articles always bring out the worst in people. Sad to see there is so much prejudice and hate still in the world today.
November 13, 2008
11:36 a.m.
Suggest removal
Heidi writes:
BJG,
Out of curiosity, do you have statistics on how many of those "holy" unions of marriage ending in divorce started with vows exchanged in a church? Because those would be the only marriages that fall under your claim of holy unions.
November 13, 2008
11:36 a.m.
Suggest removal
NeilT writes:
Lets get back to that subject of marrying your mother, Davies.
If you wanted to pursue this, do you think you would get enough signatures to get the "Mommas Special Boy Act" on the ballot?
November 13, 2008
11:39 a.m.
Suggest removal
NeilT writes:
Heidi,
But the argument, at least on these posts, is that ALL marriages are "holy" unions.
November 13, 2008
11:39 a.m.
Suggest removal
JB writes:
Davies-
To your point of Polyigamy. Marriage in the US, outside of religion, is a civil contract between two consenting adults, granting those two adults certain financial benifits and responsibilities, along with other rights. Under the Constitution, the government has the right to limit the number of people included in said contract recieving special consideration in tax code, etc... It does not have the right to limit which adults can comprise those two entering the contract. Just like the Government can allow for certain tax deductions like your mortgage interest but not your electric bill. BUT, it cannot say that only brown haired people can write-off their mortgage interest.
I realize that's a bit of a convoluted example, but I am NOT a tax law expert or contracts expert, but I think it makes clear my point. AND, that totally leaves out the simple human element of the thing. If the government were allowing one group of people to practice polyigamy, but not another... yes I would TOTALLY object. It's about fairness and equality.
Jay-
Thanks you, and again I appreciate your passion. As far as my patience, you are off the mark there as anyone who knows me would tell you! BUT, I have found it far more effective to engage in dialog than to yell. Dialog has shown me results, I have yet to see a single positive result by calling someone a bigot.
The civil rights movement was not just won in the courts or by a vote, if it had been I promise you that we would not have a black president-elect. No, it was, over time, won in the hearts and minds of people across the country watching the movement; seeing men beaten because they sat at a lunch counter, seeing fire hoses turned on children, seeing armed gaurds in Little Rock just so people could get an equal education.
The same will happen here. The more understanding that is created, the closer we will move toward equality. If I understand why someone doesn't understand me, I can better help them to understand.
November 13, 2008
11:41 a.m.
Suggest removal
c4l2a0 writes:
Let the church define marriage, let the state define civil union.
November 13, 2008
11:41 a.m.
Suggest removal
TheRundown writes:
I always find it amusing (but not in a "ha ha" kind of way) that the ones shouting the loudest for "tolerance" and "equal rights" are the first ones to rail against followers of Christ and lump us all in with Dobson and the rest of the far right
A lot people who aren't Christians assume we all have a King James Bible, a bumper sticker that says something about "In case of rapture this car will be...:fill in the blank (my personal favorite is "this car will swerve while my mother in law grabs the wheel")
And there a lot of Christians who think people who are gay go to the gym three times a day, listen to Cher and wear nothing but sequins
Of course both of these are ridiculous assumptions, but many chose to buy in.
I'm a Bible believing Christian, and honestly could not care less if gay marriage is legalized in this country. Why? Because my marriage is not about tax breaks or medical benefits, my marriage is a sacred covenant between me, my wife, and my God. If the state chooses to recognize same sex unions, fine. It's not what I believe is right, but it's hard to legislate the hearts of two consenting adults.
And if the health care system is what it SHOULD be in this country...everyone would have the health care that they need, this issue would be far less heated. Hopefully last week we took a step towards fixing that.
It's hard when you see so much hatred and venom on both sides of this, I have next door neighbors who are in a committed same sex relationship, best neighbors ever! They know where I stand on the issue, but somehow it doesn't compromise our relationship, because they don't have the same beliefs that I do, and that's okay, because we love each other for who we are.
Who knows where we will wind up on this issue, but protesting and shouting at the top of our lungs on either side is a longshot to provide a solution. Everyone is all for the democratic process until it produces results that they don't like, then they scream and shout that they have been wronged, Roe v. Wade, proposition 8, take your pick.
My hope would be that everyone could disagree without being hateful, and calling others beliefs things like "illogical" "bigot" "idiotic" or what have you, just state your opinions without the venom please.
November 13, 2008
11:44 a.m.
Suggest removal
davies writes:
Heidi: I'm a marriage traditionalist, ergo a "bigot" to many advocates for gay marriage. But when one logically attempts to expand the definition of marriage beyond what THEY are willing to accept, they recoil.
Maybe someday I'll accept the eventual solution that marriage is a non-legally binding union recognized by churches and traditionalists, whereas civil unions will be our society's legal recognition of personal partnerships, with the attendant privileges and responsibilities.
I just wish our society could show that it values responsible parenthood above partnership issues.
November 13, 2008
11:45 a.m.
Suggest removal
c4l2a0 writes:
A protest rally is planned for 11:30 a.m. Saturday on the steps of the City and County Building in Denver.
I'll be at the NW corner of Colfax and Broadway, come by and say hi!
November 13, 2008
11:47 a.m.
Suggest removal
c4l2a0 writes:
Davies said "I just wish our society could show that it values responsible parenthood above partnership issues."
I agree. What church did the Harris and Klebold family go to?
November 13, 2008
11:49 a.m.
Suggest removal
BJG writes:
No I don't Heidi. However, the arguement made by the hetro bigots is that "all" straight marriages are holy unions regardless of where performed. Don't start knit picking about church marriages vs civil marriages cause that starts digging another hole. And you may just end up losing the whole marriage arguement or trying to change the law that says only church marriages are legal. However, if people did a little research and maybe read a little, they woud find that marriage was set up as a civil ceremony not a religious one, but the govt allows for ministers to perform this civil function, not the other way around. By the way in europe, one must have a "civil" marriage in order to be legally recognized as married, then if one wants a religious service it is optional.
November 13, 2008
11:49 a.m.
Suggest removal
NeilT writes:
davies writes: "I just wish our society could show that it values responsible parenthood above partnership issues."
Something you and I can definitely stand side-by-side on, Davies. So how do you feel about Arkansas voting to deny same-sex couples the ability to adopt children? Can they not be responsible parents?
November 13, 2008
11:55 a.m.
Suggest removal
Heidi writes:
NeilT writes:
Heidi,
"But the argument, at least on these posts, is that ALL marriages are "holy" unions."
I would like to see the stats broken down as to how many were marriages recognized by a church and how many were only legally recognized. I'm sure they exist and I could probably find that information.
I'm sure most of us agree that not all marriages are holy, coming to that conclusion using very different viewpoints. Why can't civil unions be between any two consenting adults? It would greatly benefit "single" people as well in times of illness and death.
November 13, 2008
11:55 a.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
"I just wish our society could show that it values responsible parenthood above partnership issues."
and what do homosexuals have to do with this? we have gay neighbors that adopted a child...should i keep my eye on them davies? are they less responsible parents than my wife and i will be shortly?
"I'm a marriage traditionalist, ergo a "bigot" to many advocates for gay marriage."
if the shoe fits. we saw the same arguments from the folks opposed to interracial marriage. if you're unsure, see merriam-webster if you need help deciding where you stand.
November 13, 2008
12:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
Heidi writes:
BJG writes:
"Don't start knit picking about church marriages vs civil marriages cause that starts digging another hole. And you may just end up losing the whole marriage arguement or trying to change the law that says only church marriages are legal"
I don't want to change that. Non-religious people should have a right to be married, or whatever the majority wants to call it.
November 13, 2008
12:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
davies writes:
JB: Thanks for another thoughtful post. My point isn't so much about polygamy, it's about resorting to calling someone a bigot for having a different and yes, more focused or restrictive opinion of what marriage should be. So I understand when you say that:
"Marriage in the US, outside of religion, is a civil contract between two consenting adults, granting those two adults certain financial benifits and responsibilities, along with other rights. Under the Constitution, the government has the right to limit the number of people included in said contract recieving special consideration in tax code, etc... It does not have the right to limit which adults can comprise those two entering the contract."
But people are making a moral argument here about what people's civil rights should be, not the other way around. So what is the moral argument for limiting said legal, civil rights to only two consenting adults?
November 13, 2008
12:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
Cowboy63 writes:
Kjohnsen98 writes: "By the way, a large portion of the people who voted in favor of prop 8 was the latino and blacks populations."
Yes, but you don't get a lot of sympathetic press coverage if you protest black and latino churches - better to blame everything on "The Man". Truth is, I doubt they could even FIND a black or latino church if they wanted to - the Limousine Liberals just dont "do" that part of town (too few Starbucks).
Besides. It would be funny to see the gay community telling the black community "we are just as oppressed as you" (except for the slavery thing).
November 13, 2008
12:15 p.m.
Suggest removal
ILoveChipotle writes:
JB - "But how? How would it have a negative impact on society? Specifically? This is the part I don't understand. How would society at all be adversly impacted."
Like I posted above, I believe homosexuality is immoral. When the people accept and promote immoral things, society can only suffer.
November 13, 2008
12:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
"My point isn't so much about polygamy, it's about resorting to calling someone a bigot for having a different and yes, more focused or restrictive opinion of what marriage should be. "
again, davies, i don't want to harp on this point, but it seems you're going to do the willful ignorance dance once again.
if you choose to discriminate against a fellow american because of gener, race or sexual orientation, that behavior and belief perfectly fits the textbook definition of bigotry.
furthermore...as gov ahnold said the other day...this issue is the same as the interracial marriage ban of yesteryear.
finally, because 2 out of 3 voters under 30 voted no on this amendment, it is only a matter of time before this too goes the way of the racism your counterparts so brazenly displayed in decades past.
believe it or not, i don't mind reminding some of you regulars of these facts from time to time.
either your behavior and beliefs fit the definition of bigotry or they don't. it has nothing to do with me. i'm just pointing out a fact.
man up and take some responsibility for your own beliefs for crying out loud.
November 13, 2008
12:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
davies writes:
NeilT writes:
"davies writes: "I just wish our society could show that it values responsible parenthood above partnership issues."
"Something you and I can definitely stand side-by-side on, Davies. So how do you feel about Arkansas voting to deny same-sex couples the ability to adopt children? Can they not be responsible parents?"
Well NeilT, how do you feel about three or more loving adults adopting and raising children? Can they not be responsible parents? Could there even be a parenting synergy that is superior to just two adults?
November 13, 2008
12:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
"Could there even be a parenting synergy that is superior to just two adults?"
we're talking about two adults, davies. they just happen to be of the same gender.
the polygamy talking points have been debunked so many times i can't believe anyone is desperate enough to rationalize discrimination against americans to still be using them.
November 13, 2008
12:32 p.m.
Suggest removal
JB writes:
Jay!!! Seriously...
"if you choose to discriminate against a fellow american because of gener, race or sexual orientation, that behavior and belief perfectly fits the textbook definition of bigotry...." Actually, the Federal Hate Crimes legislation includes religion... tread carefully here. I am going to reitterate here the importance of fostering understanding. Davies and I obviously disagree, yet we are having a dialog and it's a dialog that at the very least I bet will help each one of us understand the other better.
Davies-
The moral argument is simple. The government does not recognize the "civil contract of marriage" for more than 2 people. But it does recognize the contract for 2 people. There is no one group getting a 3,4 or 5 five person marriage contract while other groups are being told no. But there are groups getting a 2 person contract while another group is being told no. And again, that is just the legal aspect. The emotional aspect goes so much deeper. How would you feel if you weren't allowed to marry the person you love with your whole heart?
November 13, 2008
12:37 p.m.
Suggest removal
seeker writes:
• davies writes:
“OK then, what do you care if three people want a shared bond, a contract between themselves?”
The issue at hand is the marriage of 2 people. Let's deal with one issue at a time. The Mormons have enough problems with polygamy as it is. Glass houses....
I care because these basic rights are being denied to this specific group just as they were denied to couples of mixed race. Blacks and whites could not marry as little as 40 years ago in 38 states. Excluding a specific group of American citizens from the rights of all other Americans is wrong.
If we allow these people’s rights to be denied, who’s next? People with MS? People with brown eyes? There is always the next group that will fall out of favor. Will it be the Catholics? The Jews again? The Mormons?
My question is what does their right to marry take away from anyone else’s right to marry? Are the opposers not still married in their holy, religious, spiritual union? So what does it matter to the people who oppose it? I just don’t get it. Why do we have to deny this right to these people while we protect it for the rest?
November 13, 2008
12:38 p.m.
Suggest removal
ILoveChipotle writes:
You're wasting your time JB, Jay just spouts insults and hate without ever offering a rational thought.
November 13, 2008
12:44 p.m.
Suggest removal
JB writes:
Chipotle-
No, I think Jay is passionate and it's probably an emotional issue for him as it is me. I know his approach isn't the best, but please do try to understand the very deep and painful implications of this issue for many of us. Yes, it does draw out anger, frustration, sadness... very intense feelings. Just please don't think that everyone on the "pro" side hates you just because their frustration is directed toward you. No more than I will assume that you hate me because Fred Phleps also disagrees with gay marriage.
November 13, 2008
1:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
COLibertarian writes:
Looking specifically at Prop8 in California and the results, and exiting polls of this Prop8, are we sure that the root cause of the failing of this Prop are directly attributed to Religion alone?
Yes religion has and is 1 of the most vocal components of this issue. But is it the only issue?
November 13, 2008
1:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
NeilT writes:
I'm sorry to say, Davies, but I think we're done here. I've responded to your questions, yet you respond to my question with a question. A question that is clearly off point.
Adult ADD is for real.
November 13, 2008
1:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
LuvAmerica writes:
"We want to reduce abortion! We want kids in loving homes! We want strong families!"
You just don't actually want to do anything that leads to that.
November 13, 2008
1:19 p.m.
Suggest removal
davies writes:
JB writes: Davies-
"The moral argument is simple. The government does not recognize the "civil contract of marriage" for more than 2 people. But it does recognize the contract for 2 people..."
Yes, but this whole debate is about whether or not we as a society, CHANGE the government's legal definition of marriage, to make it gender-blind. You are starting with the legal definition, to make your moral case. But if we can also change the legal definition to other than two people, then what is the moral case for not doing so?
I submit for your consideration, that it is your preconceived notion that marriage should be between two people, and little else. No one that I have seen here yet has had the courage to say "I object to polygamy because..." You're all just denying that it applies here. But it's the very same issue - our democratically governed society's definition of marriage.
"How would you feel if you weren't allowed to marry the person you love with your whole heart?" - Well that happened a long time ago. Maybe that's why I'm such a bitter old curmudgeon ;-)
November 13, 2008
1:25 p.m.
Suggest removal
campesino60 writes:
Homosexuals should have every right to marry and experience the same misery some married hetrosexuals experience.
November 13, 2008
1:27 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
"Actually, the Federal Hate Crimes legislation includes religion... tread carefully here"
i'm right there with you, jb. i would never consider supporting discrimination against people because of their religious beliefs.
and that's an honest fact.
it is also a fact, chipotle, that i haven't insulted you or anyone else here.
pointing out examples of behavior that fit the textbook definition of bigotry isn't an "insult", it is a fact.
if you don't want to be associated with the kind of folks who once opposed interracial marriage, then change your beliefs/behavior.
until that time, however, i and many others will continue to point out politically or theologically inconvenient facts.
i guess you could pass your time spouting debunked talking points about polygamy if you get bored...
November 13, 2008
1:36 p.m.
Suggest removal
JB writes:
Davies-
No, it's not at all the same issue, nor am I arguing the morality of denying same-sex couples the right to marry. If you see my posts above, it is very much a legal issue -- about what the constitution says. The only place in Federal Law where marriage is defined as man and woman is the DOMA, which I believe in and of itself violates both the 1st and 14th Amendment. What I am arguing is EQUAL treatment: if the law allows 2 opposite sex people to marry, it needs to allow 2 same-sex people the same right. If it allows 3 of group X, then it needs to allow 3 of group Y and so forth. Comparing to Polygamy is an apples to oranges comparison because the root of the issue isn't about marriage per se, but about equal application of the law.
As far as the broken heart thing you mention. Yes, I think we have all faced that before. It doesn't hurt any less to have your heart broken just because the person you loved is of the same sex. And as you said, "maybe that's why I'm such a bitter old curmudgeon..." So you obviously know how horribly bad it hurts to have a broken heart... so why knowingly inflict that on others? Trust me, yes it does hurt that bad knowing you can't marry the person you love... at least in your situation there was the possibility...the hope...
November 13, 2008
1:41 p.m.
Suggest removal
COskibuminCS writes:
Since what is so important here is your commitment to God and the sanctity of marriage being between one man and one woman, then you don't need your state marriage license, get a legal divorce. You don't need the state to sanctify your marriage.
The gays do not want to remove your religious freedoms t to have a one man one woman marriage, they only want the state to treat all its citizens the same with respect to civil marriage. It is unfortunate that the states have called their licenses "marriage" licenses when they are truly a civil license granted by the state. The church should have protested long ago that the states were using the religious term marriage in handing out licenses. But we are stuck with it now and that is why the gays want their "marriage" licenses. Blame the church not the gays for letting the states use the term marriage.
In California the court ruled that gays were equal under the law based on the constitution to get married. No special rights were given to gays to get married, they had them all along. With the passage of Prop 8 the rights of gays were taken away because religious people said that the court was redefining marriage. The court ruling said nothing about the church being forced to accept or even perform gay marriage because I believe that the court thought that would would have infringed on the first amendment right of freedom of religion.
Let me ask this question. If the majority of people voted to change the constitution to take away your right to practice your religion, would you not be upset? Would you sit back and say "oh we lost or freedom of religion, time to tear down our churches" or would you rise up and protest the passage of that amendment to your constitution?
November 13, 2008
1:45 p.m.
Suggest removal
JB writes:
Oh and for the record Davies. I honestly don't have a problem if someone wants to practice Polygamy and all of those involved are willing adults. It happens all the time in Utah as it is with the FLDS and possibly some LDS members, just not legally. It doesn't hurt me, it doesn't make my love less true. As far as the monetary rights associated with marriage under federal law (taxes, etc..)...take them and divide by the number of people in the marriage so as not to damage the tax base and fine by me. I'm not here to judge.
In fact, I'm am surprised the LDS has not fought this as a first amendment right to the Supreme Court... I think they would win faster than gay marriage right now.
November 13, 2008
1:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
IowaBroncoFan writes:
Why is it that the majority has voted down gay marriage proposals in multiple states--even in some of those states considered to be liberal (e.g. California)? Its because the majority opposes it--much the same as the majority rules on polygamy, marrying family members, murder, theft, assault, blackmailing, etc--thus why we have laws to govern our society. The majority voted over a week ago and we have a new president, its our country, if you don't like how it works, go somewhere else.
A civil union is akin gay marriage, only a legal version of it rather than the traditional religious version of marriage--defined in our society as the union of two souls as one in the eyes of God. Civil unions offer the same legal/financial benefits of traditional marriage between a man and a woman. Why is a civil union not satisfactory? Again, if you don't like it, go somewhere else.
Lastly, what does the rest of the world see when they see people picketing in the streets for their 'right to gay marriage'--when many parts of the world are starving, being sexually mutilated at puberty, having their belongings stolen by their Govt, etc? Seems pretty trivial and makes us look like a selfish bunch of idiots thinking that your personal preference and how its labeled is that important....what a joke.
November 13, 2008
1:49 p.m.
Suggest removal
lakewood4031 writes:
Colorado127, I am a Christian and I want to agree with you on one very important point. The fact that the Religious mind-set that condemns you has no place in our country.
Religion is a man made concept, by witch religious people follow the rules they see fit and make their own way of salvation. Religious people often hold there noses up in the air while pointing the finger at others telling them how evil and wicked they are. Religion is what nailed my Lord and Savior to the cross because he broke the commandment, the Law of Moses, by healing people (working) on the Sabbath.
This is no true Christianity; Jesus called the religious leaders (the Pharisees & Sadducees) hypocrites. Today we have far too many modern day Pharisees claiming to be Christians. That is not the role of the Church, we are to love our God and love others (regardless of who they are), and proclaim the good news of the Love of Jesus. I’m glad I don’t have religion; I have a relationship by what Jesus Christ did for me. And because I have a relationship, I can be changed without being condemned for my imperfections.
Now as a Christian, this doesn’t mean I can compromise with your views in my own life. I use to be a drug addict and be bi-sexual until I finally got to the lowest point of my life and surrendered my life to Jesus. It was at that point that he changed me and I was instantly delivered never to want or desire the old lifestyle at all. I don’t even know what the appeal of the old life style was. That’s Christianity, the fact that Jesus can take anyone, love them for who they are, and change them in such a radical way.
November 13, 2008
1:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
FCCG writes:
Many of the posts here are quite good. Not simply the spouting of trite talking points you see some other places.
My two cents:
Gay folks should be entitled to each and every single right that a straight person is entitled to. That being said, the current candor of the same-sex marriage debate goes well beyond this point. As far as I am aware the difference between same sex marriages and civil unions is negligible as far as legal rights go(anyone choosing to disagree should provide examples), and so the insistence for gay marriage becomes not about rights but about acceptance. Acceptance takes time and should be the natural product of people being convinced by the arguments, not by the law, which seems to be the current strategy of pro-same sex marriage crowd. This method dangerously borders on a type of thought control. When you force "marriage" down a person's throat in the name of equality despite already having it, you are telling them what it is okay for to and to not believe. So where does it stop? Many here have said it is bound to happen...then let it happen on its own time. For now if you're gay, and you want to get married, get your civil union, and if you like go down to one of the numerous Protestant churches that have been marrying gay folks for years. If Jim wants to introduce me to his husband Bob it is merely common courtesy for me to respect that identification.
One aside. Not that I disagree with many of the conclusions, but I think that the standard argument that homosexuals use need to be rethought. In line with what some have alluded to, if love is the only thing required for a family why should we not allow polygamy? Most of them seem to love each other. And if one should be accepted because that's they way they are, why shouldn't we accept pedophiles (most of the research I am aware of suggest that they don't have a choice in the matter either)? There must be better arguments.
Another aside. For those of you who say that voters who vote based on religious ideals are violated the first amendment (or something along those lines), I suggest you read up on the historical context of the late eighteenth century and before then regarding religious conflict. Note that even today it is prohibited by law to have a Catholic be in line (or married to someone in line) for the British throne. And please don't deride a religious person as being "superstitious" it is as off putting as I'm sure it feels to be called a f*gg*t
November 13, 2008
2:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
HankReardon writes:
Hey,
Why don't you come into my bedroom and tell me what to do as well. Tell me who to pray to, who to love and who to vote for. Ah, America!
November 13, 2008
2:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
JB writes:
Iowa-
Actually, there are two problems with your argument. The first is that civil unions offer the same rights and benifits. This is not true. There are over 1000 rights and responsibilities not afforded couples in civil unions that are granted under marriage. In fact, only a handful of states even recognize civil unions (there is no federal recognition of them) and for the most part that recognition isn't recognized by other states, so if that couple moves to another state for a great job opportunity or to be closer to family... bye bye rights and responsibilities.
The second problem with your argument is the "majority said so" part. The US Constitution and Bill of Rights were written in such a way that the majority CANNOT vote to revoke the rights of the minority. The Founders recognized what was call the "Tyranny of the Majority" and drafted the Constitution specifically to prevent against this.
November 13, 2008
2:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
lakewood4031 writes:
I can't tell you anything you won't accept, it completely your choice. As for me and my house...
November 13, 2008
2:24 p.m.
Suggest removal
davies writes:
JB: It looks like you know a lot more about constitutional law than I, but I still think you are hiding behind the legal aspect somewhat.
Regardless of whether it takes a constitutional amendment or a state referendum, it appears to me that most supporters of gay marriage or civil unions ultimately rely on the argument that the government has no valid interest in withholding the same legal status from gay partnerships between two consenting adults that it grants to hetero couples. But if one asks why the government should withhold this legal status from polygamists, people recoil, then they dispute that the circumstances are comparable, or the argument is valid.
And why is legal recognition of romantic sexual love so important to you? It does not strike me as necessarily being tragic that two people cannot marry in all circumstances. They still have their love, they can usually still build a life together. Some people never find such love, married or not. That can be tragic too.
Anyway, your 1:45 was much more satisfying for me than your 1:36 response, and I thank you as the only one among so many for at least acknowledging some logical merit for considering that the re-definition of marriage could be expanded beyond what they themselves have contemplated. There's nothing magic about the number two; it's just a prevailing standard.
November 13, 2008
2:33 p.m.
Suggest removal
Heidi writes:
davies,
'Cause one is the loneliest number
That you'll ever do
One is the loneliest number or would it be two
November 13, 2008
2:44 p.m.
Suggest removal
JB writes:
Davies-
"And why is legal recognition of romantic sexual love so important to you? It does not strike me as necessarily being tragic that two people cannot marry in all circumstances...."
I would argue that it's very easy to say that when the option is open to you. I would argue that, when you're not paying taxes on the health insurance for your spouse, when you can inherit from them without paying insane taxes on it, when you can look at the person you love 10, 15, 20 years later and simply say, "I'd marry you all over again..." -- that it's easy to say.
People who don't have to live with the "can't" do take even the possibility for granted. You might have to worry if you'll ever find "the one" so do gay people. The difference is, if you do... you know that one day, if all goes well, you can get married. Gay people don't even have that to hope for and yes, that DOES put a huge strain on relationships... it can and does even end them.
November 13, 2008
2:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
JB writes:
mxRider-
YES! Absolutley! It's not like the gay community wants the right without the responsibility! Bring on both!
November 13, 2008
4:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
davies writes:
Well JB, you sound like a romantic. Hmmm, there are gays that desperately want to get married, and their are heteros that seem to avoid commitment with equal desperation. Seems almost like a "grass is greener on the other side" issue for many. I question whether governmental recognition of a relationship is really that affirmative. Something more to ponder.
Heidi. One is the loneliest number eh? Well I suppose so, with the possible exception of spending an afternoon with my ex-father-in-law. "Two can be as bad as one; it's the loneliest number since the number one."
November 13, 2008
4:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
AllYouNeedIsLove writes:
mxRider-
I've lost more in breakups before! Maybe if my partner and I were legally married and (heaven forbid) we got divorced, I wouldn't lose so much, because I'd be entitled to half!
November 13, 2008
4:27 p.m.
Suggest removal
JB writes:
Well Davies, I am about to log off, go home and drink a cold beer. Hopefully you at least saw a bit more of why this means so much to some people. Nice discussing.
November 13, 2008
4:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
Heidi writes:
davies,
Two can be worse than one. Oh well.
AllYouNeedIsLove,
You may be entitled to half, but you wouldn't get much after you pay your divorce attorney!
November 13, 2008
4:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
Heidi writes:
JB,
Have a good one!
November 13, 2008
4:36 p.m.
Suggest removal
AllYouNeedIsLove writes:
And I would be willing to pay that divorce attorney! Just like any other married person. That's all we want. I would take the bad with the good, because it would mean that I was viewed as equal.
November 13, 2008
4:41 p.m.
Suggest removal
davies writes:
FCCG: Missed your thoughtful post before I wrote my last one. Thank you very much, worth the two cents. Looks like all the finger-wagging ranters have gone at last.
November 13, 2008
5:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
"As far as I am aware the difference between same sex marriages and civil unions is negligible as far as legal rights go(anyone choosing to disagree should provide examples), and so the insistence for gay marriage becomes not about rights but about acceptance."
nope.
it's just about equal rights.
many folks have posted numerous examples of why this argument isn't valid above.
please do some reading on the subject.
i still find it highly interesting that the same debunked talking points about polygamy we see today from those who discriminate against homosexuals are the same weak arguments we saw from those who opposed interracial marriage.
coincidence?
i think not.
November 13, 2008
5:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
ColoGal1234 writes:
I am gay and a Christian and a republican (go figure!). I am a respectable member of society, I pay my taxes, I volunteer, I help people. If you met me walking down the street, you'd probably never know about my lifestyle. I have been with my partner almost 13 years (more than almost ALL of my hetro friends and family). Call it what you want, marriage, civil union, whatever, but give us the same rights as hetro couples. Let us file our taxes together (federal and state), let both of us claim the house that we both pay the mortgage on, let us make health care decisions for each other without jumping through hoops. The hate you are all spewing is so sad.
November 13, 2008
5:38 p.m.
Suggest removal
Heidi writes:
AllYouNeedIsLove,
I wasn't trying to discourage you. I hope you find peace and happiness, because you need those as well.
November 13, 2008
5:59 p.m.
Suggest removal
AllYouNeedIsLove writes:
Heidi-
I'm not discouraged. And I do have peace and happiness in my life as well. I'm just trying to see where you stand on this.
So to make it fair, let me tell you where I sit before I tell you where I stand: I am a lesbian. I have been with my partner for 3 years now. We plan to buy a house, and at some point start a family. In order to do all of those things, we must jump through hoops. Lots of hoops, the kind they light on fire. If I die, my partner will not collect on my social security. If she dies I can't plan her funeral. If I give birth, she must apply for adoption of our child.
November 13, 2008
6:36 p.m.
Suggest removal
JB writes:
I just couldn't resist checking this when I got home!
FCCG-
I too missed your post. I will echo what Jay said simply by referring you to my post at 2:03. You can visit http://www.hrc.org/about_us/7055.htm and download the PDF if you would like more info.
To your point on "thought control." I do not need you to understand why I love who I do or even accept it, although it would be nice if people did or even made the effort to. All anyone wants is for people to understand is that just because you don't understand or accept, you should not use that in order to give us less rights. All anyone wants are the same rights and responsibilities that straight people take for granted... and yes that includes the bad such as divorce and tax penalties as well.
ColoGal-
Congrats on what I'm sure is an amazing relationship. I am sure that in 13 years it is at times a strain when you want but can't say your "I dos" and yes, I know how that is. Don't give up and just keep talking. I bet a lot of people who know you never thought they would accept gay marriage but have thought twice because you and your partner are in their lives.
AllYouNeed-
Same to you too! Congrats on the house! All I can say from the people I've known in the same situation is CONTRACTS...lot's and lots of very expensive contracts! It's not right seeing as a lot of those contracts are available to straight couples for the cost of a marriage license... but until the day comes, it is what you'll have to do.
November 13, 2008
6:40 p.m.
Suggest removal
AllYouNeedIsLove writes:
JB- Thank you for the advice! I hope you will make it on Saturday!
November 13, 2008
7 p.m.
Suggest removal
NeilT writes:
davies writes: "Looks like all the finger-wagging ranters have gone at last."
I can forgive the arrogance and maybe even the ignorance.
Can you find it in your heart to forgive a guy that lacks the patients of JB. I honestly don't have a dog directly in this fight. I'm a happily married man that despises the hypocrisy and injustice of your position. If I were gay, I might better tolerate a divorced old man crying about the sanctity of marriage while making the crazy comparisons between same-sex marriage and polygamy/incest.
You'd benefit from studying morality and society.
May I suggest:
Which Rights Should Be Universal - Oxford University Press
Specifically chapter 3 - Cultural Relativism About Human Rights
I may not want to spell this out for you any longer, davies, but I'd be happy to send you a copy of this text.
November 13, 2008
8:32 p.m.
Suggest removal
Heidi writes:
AllYouNeed:
First of all I would like to say that I believe everyone deserves the same rights. One part of me says marriage is only between a man and a woman because I always thought of it as a religious sacrament. I attended Catholic schools for 10 years in the midwest, but I don't remember ever discussing homosexuality and I didn't ever see that, as far as I know. It wasn't until I was an adult that people became more open about it or maybe that I just noticed it. In my early 20's I had a good friend who is a lesbian and I began to understand it better.
I recently watched a documentary about Matthew Shepard and it made me feel horrible about what happened to him. The ignorance the people of Wyoming displayed as they were being interviewed made me reflect back to the years I was growing up. So many of the people I knew then are probably the same way today. In fact, there are other viewpoints those people hold that I don't agree with and as the years go by, the less and less I want to go back and visit. Of course, I still have a lot of family there and I love them, but some of them are very narrow minded about a lot of things.
I could go on but I think you can see what I am trying to say. I can understand how some people truly feel that the term marriage should only be used for a man and woman relationship, but it doesn't really affect me. That's why I, along with others, think we should just do away with the state recognized term "marriage" and just call it a civil union, with the same benefits. That way, possibly more people would vote in favor of it. Would that be unacceptable to you? I'm really not trying to offend anyone here, but wouldn't that be the best way to make it happen?
By the way, I am a recovering Catholic.
November 13, 2008
8:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
diggtbks writes:
I'd like to say to the folks who don't bother anyone work hard, raise their families, built this country, have their own beliefs in the religion of their choice that is guaranteed by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
Protect your church, as you would your home. Its that simple.
Don't let these unbalanced, sick people push you around.
They are trying to include sexual orientation with gender and race. They are already protected like everyone else due to their race and gender but they want more! They want us all to accept their perversions. Refuse them.
Wake up and confront their lies! Don't be pushed around!
November 13, 2008
8:59 p.m.
Suggest removal
AllYouNeedIsLove writes:
Heidi,
The problem with doing away with the term, "marriage" is that no one wants to give up the term. Can I ask, are you yourself married? If you are you probably wouldn't want to give up that title.
The only problem with civil unions is that it was a term made up to appease the gay community. It was "like" having equal rights but not. Most of the problems with not being able to marry actually falls on a federal level. It's federal benefits that may fall short if we are not able to get married.
I'd like to thank you for opening up in the manner that if we realize the people we are talking to are just that, people, we are less likely to say harsh things.
November 13, 2008
9:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
AllYouNeedIsLove writes:
digg, Might I ask your gender, age, race, and marital status?
November 13, 2008
9:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
JB writes:
AllYouNeed-
I am still debating on going Saturday. As I'm sure you can see from my "many" posts above...I am not sure that a bunch of hurt, emotional and angry people standing around carrying signs and yelling are going to make much difference. I am thinking that it would be more effective to go to lunch with my neighbors who, although they think I am great, are still on the fence on the issue. Have a conversation and see what goes from there. I could be wrong, but letting people see the everyday human side of the issue has proven more effective.
Heidi-
You are talking about something I have asked about for years. The seperation of the religious idea of marriage from the civil version. Although it is great in theory, the problem, as AllYouNeed states, is that no one wants to give it up, which is understandable. They really are two different things, but most have a hard time seperating them. It's actually ironic that I can go to a number of Christian churches that will happily marry me, yet the government won't recognize it...and we are still debating the religious aspects. AllYouNeed is 100% right, the federal recognition is the biggest issue.
November 13, 2008
9:33 p.m.
Suggest removal
Heidi writes:
AllYouNeed,
No, I am not married. I suppose the non-religious people who aren't married in a church probably wouldn't want to give up that title. But even if it's not an official title, why can't you still call it that? I'm just one not to worry about specific titles and place more value on feelings and actions. But I do realize many people don't think like I do.
November 13, 2008
9:40 p.m.
Suggest removal
Heidi writes:
JB,
I think you are right about the protests being not very effective. I think it makes those opposed even more opposed.
November 13, 2008
9:41 p.m.
Suggest removal
AllYouNeedIsLove writes:
JB,
I can understand your point in not screaming with signs. I suppose as being an openly gay hairdresser and student, everyday I plant one more seed that we are actually just like everyone else.
But I feel as though the Christian Right, Mormons, and other organizations that have been holding us back, know that we will just keep taking it. Too often we've been complacent. Every time another state loses rights, we sit at home and say, "that's too bad." I'm tired of watching equality slip further from us.
On Saturday, I'm not marching to talk people into my way of thinking. I'm marching to let the country know that we will no longer be complacent. I'm marching to let all the groups know that we will no longer cower at home. I'm marching, because I will no longer accept being bullied.
November 13, 2008
9:50 p.m.
Suggest removal
AllYouNeedIsLove writes:
Heidi,
The power we staple to titles is not something easily shaken. When the government came to us with the title "civil union" I thought we were being tricked. And we were.
Let's think of it this way... Say you want cake. You want a specific cake that everyone else is having. (Just bare with me) Someone gives you a muffin and tells you it's just like cake. You know, and I know, that muffin is not cake. But because you're different you're told that's all you can have and it's "like" cake. Everyone around you has cake, and you get a lousey muffin! Don't you want cake now?
November 13, 2008
9:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
Heidi writes:
I'd probably make my own cake. But that's just me.
November 13, 2008
9:58 p.m.
Suggest removal
JB writes:
AllYouNeed-
Amen sister! lol jk! But seriously. I know what you are saying and that is why I am still debating. I am the LAST person to sit quietly about ANYTHING I disagree with...as, those who reluctantly know me, will tell you ;)
I don't know. I see the damage caused by Pride Parades on public perception, I see the damage caused by marching on religious institutions, I see the opportunity lost when we could talk rather than yell... and I just don't know. A part of me wants to cry about the injustice, a part of me wants to yell and scream, a part of me wants to find someone to blame and a part of me want to make people understand. As you know there is so much emotion involved and they cannot all coexist for a single cause.
My ex used to yell at me that I didn't care enough about equality because as he said, "you have amazing talents to persuade people... why aren't you protesting, why aren't you using those brains to shoot down the stupid arguments..." And I used to explain to him that I was, just in a different way. I used to tell him that, "being gay isn't who I am, it's a very small part of who I am...and that's what I want people to see...that we aren't much different than they are..."
Anyhow, so you can see my dillema. I'm just trying to do the right thing without my emotions clouding my judgement.
November 13, 2008
10:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
Heidi writes:
Hey, you two, I am calling it a night. I guess you need to do what you need to do.
Good night and good luck.
November 13, 2008
10:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
AllYouNeedIsLove writes:
Good night Heidi! Sweet dreams. And good luck to you in everything you do.
November 13, 2008
10:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
davies writes:
Heidi, that's the longest post I've ever seen from you. You are always reaching out to people who show the slightest interest in acknowledging someone else's viewpoint. Someday maybe you'll reach out to Catholics too. (I could tell you a story or two about Father Donohue and my catechism.)
I wonder if GWM was posting in here. That stood for Gay White Male didn't it? Back when I first started commenting, it was on some issue where I called the Jeuden-guy something or another, and GWM came back on me with some kind of homophobic teasing. I really resented it, but I had to admit (to myself) that it was kind of witty too.
Well, it's been a good conversation with some peeps like JB. In my last post I mentioned the impression that I think many of these folks who yearn for marriage seem to be victims of the "grass is greener" fallacy, and that impression remains. But I can't blame them I guess; marriage is so romanticized and idealized.
On the other hand, you can have jay and diggtbks and NeilT and the other moral absolutists.
November 13, 2008
10:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
AllYouNeedIsLove writes:
JB,
I've been where you are. I fact I wrote a blog about how Pride was started in 1969 to tell people that we are here and we are not so different. I know it's become a drunk three ring circus.
I also know that if blacks would have sat at home in 1955, we would not have Obama in the White House. But you see... This can't all be done one way. We're not all the same person. We all react in our own way. I'm don't usually cause a big noise. But I will this time.
And when I have children, and maybe grandchildren they'll ask about 2008, and I don't want to tell them I wasn't out fighting to marry the one I love.
I can see where you're torn. I also canh see you have a good head on your shoulders and you'll do what you can in your own way. Just never accept no for an answer.
November 13, 2008
10:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
ColoGal1234 writes:
Thanks JB for what you said, it has been an amazing relationship so far with the same ups and downs that hetro couples go through, probably harder because of the prejudice we have to deal with. Who cares who you love???????
November 13, 2008
10:25 p.m.
Suggest removal
JB writes:
Ok time for bed! I should probably get some work done tomorrow rather than blogging all day!
AllYouNeed-
Yes, you are right. And no, I will NEVER take no for an answer. I will fight, in which ever way I decide is right, with my dying breath to ensure that equality is reached...even if gay marriage is allowed tomorrow, there is plenty of injustice left. And regardless of who it affects I know morally I am not one to sit by and accept it. I'm young and idealistic maybe, but that is the way my mind works.
Davies-
Thank you for the good conversation. No, I don't think the grass is greener, but I'd like the chance to decide for myself. We might not agree but I think we came closer to a common ground.
Heidi-
Your blogs always make me laugh (yes, even the totally innappropriate ones) and I do thank you as well for a good discussion without loaded words and insults.
Ok...time to sleep!
November 13, 2008
10:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
AllYouNeedIsLove writes:
Good night JB. Keep that fire burning, sometimes it's all we have...
November 13, 2008
10:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
jefferson3 writes:
diiggybites,
In 50 years your ignorance will be taught to children on how not to be... so I guess you're kind of famous. Any law that prevents an American freedom has, and will ALWAYS be turned around and the idiots who don't get it get left in the dust of history.
November 13, 2008
10:42 p.m.
Suggest removal
Equalitynow writes:
If we want to really hold up the "Traditional Family Values" Please tell me why Murderers, rapists, and child molesters are allowed to get married AFTER they are convicted? Those are not moral people and they are still afforded marriage rights. If you want to keep on quoting the bible about how god said only a man and a woman can get married.... please explain to me how my Athiest co-worker was allowed to get married in a courthouse. She laughs at the religious aspect of marriage. She is allowed to get married, but yet does not even believe in your god or your bible that you use to discriminate. I would like to call for a constitutional vote to end divorce after marriage, afterall, there is nothing worse than a child to have to suffer through his parents divorcing. I would like to have a constitutional vote on eveyone that has committed adultery to be imprisoned. Afterall, that is also in the the bible as an abomination, right along up there with eating shellfish, races not mixing, and cursing at your parents. I say we revert back to the early 60's when it was illegal for blacks to marry, afterall its in the bible. But it seems that in today's society we get to pick and choose which bible verses to quote to spew out bigotry and hate. And to all you people saying that gays should just be happy with civil unions...remember thats what the jim crow laws were for, blacks could still drink out of a water fountain but it had to be for colored-people only, and so on with every other ridiculous law to make blacks feel seperate but equal. Its not the same. Out of all of my comments I would love for someone to explain to me why athiest are allowed to get married? I have never gotten a response on this...thank you
November 13, 2008
10:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
Equalitynow writes:
One more thing.... I would also like to point out that gays are not aliens from another planet, by getting married they cannot "convert" you or your child from being straight. Gays and lesbians, to name a few are doctors, lawyers, preachers, teachers, police officers, firefighters, actors, athletes, judges, mothers, fathers, grandparents, congressmen and women, etc... I hope many of you who need help one day dont ask a gay or lesbian to help you out when you need it. Lord forbid the people you hate and tell to leave the country ever need to come to help you. But maybe that is what it would take. Open your eyes people!!! We are all human and we all have the innate desire to be loved, love and be equal.
November 13, 2008
11:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
AllYouNeedIsLove writes:
Alright friends, It's time to go to bed! Eqalitynow you make a strong point. But I really hope that's sarcasm behind taking all those steps back. Have a good night! And don't forget to come on Saturday!
November 13, 2008
11:52 p.m.
Suggest removal
GladysKravitz writes:
The CEO of Cinemark, Alan Stock, donated $9,999 to the Yes on 8 Campaign. While this most likely is a personal donation, as required by law, Alan took the time to indicate his Employer and his Occupation on his donation form.
If you are inclined you can boycott the Cinemark chain. Their two theatres in Denver are the Century Aurora and Century Bel Mar in Lakewood.
Companies and people that work for/represent companies that supported Yes on 8 don't deserve our patronage.
Think about this the next time you spend your hard earned dollars on a company that employs a high ranking official who supported Yes on 8.
And before anyone gets thier undies a bunch...don't forget that the Baptist Convention had an almost 10 year boycott of the Disney Company because of it's welcoming of the Gay Community.
November 14, 2008
12:12 a.m.
Suggest removal
NeilT writes:
Geezus, davies!
My entire point contradicts that little box you're trying to put me in.
Morality is NOT absolute! It is not a personal attribute either. Morality is "decided" by each unique culture, not an individual person. Many different cultures make up a society. Once enough cultures "accept" an "issue" then that "issue" ceases to be an "issue" with the majority of society. The only absolute about morality is that it changes with the times.
Same-sex "issues" are a part of many mainstream cultures. This is a rising tide that will not subside, like many similar "issues" of times past. Society will soon accept this. Anytime throughout history there has been a cultural movement similar to gay rights it has been granted acceptance by the majority of society.
I don't see a critical mass advocating for polygamy, incest, pedophilia or any other whack-job of a straw man comparison you make. It is a non-issue. Not because I say so, but because the lack of a cultural movement for any of those says so.
Since you don't want to read a book on the subject I'll give you an entire semester at Yale, free of charge. Click lesson 15 then play the Flash video for the lecture.
http://oyc.yale.edu/psychology/introd...
November 14, 2008
1:03 a.m.
Suggest removal
FCCG writes:
JB-
I am a bit of a night owl, so I'll go ahead and answer your response, if you're still out there in computer land. First and foremost, I read your link, and you are right, that is not right, but it still does not address my point especially concerning CA. Not once in the entire paper is there any mention made of a disparity between marriage and civil unions or in the case of CA, domestic partnerships. A quick perusal of the About.com's section on lesbian life seems to validate my earlier assertion. It states that the domestic partnership law in CA affords gay couples most of the same protections and benefits that married heterosexual couples enjoy.
In regards to your response to my "thought control" idea. I fear I was previously unclear. My point was not about the understanding of love, after all who really understands the relationship of anyone else, gay or straight? My point was about the government (by way of the law) either taking an explicit or implicit stance on an idea. If one chooses based on sincerely held religious belief (or for any other reason), that there should be a difference between marriage and civil unions (or domestic partnerships) then the government saying otherwise is essentially saying, "Your moral position is wrong." Now if that decision is made through the ballot box, well then that is democracy. Se La Vie. But if it is the courts (Which it has been in all cases) the government through the judges is saying that a moral position is wrong. This gives it the precedence to make moral claims. And so I ask, "Where does it stop?" Do we really want to give the government that kind of power. For the record, this is exactly my objection to hate crime legislation. On a lighter note the end of the South Park episode "Cartman's hate crime" is in my opinion spot on (a savage hypocrisy).
An aside: For all those who keep bringing up that blacks couldn't marry until the Loving decision. There are a few problems with that anaylsis. First there was never anything approaching a civil union status for biracial couples in those days. And Second as long as we're going to bring in legal precedence, the courts (and society for that matter) have always recognized that there are differences in legal questions regarding issues of race and gender. It's the difference between strict and intermediate scrutiny.
JB, I think you have to delve into the realm of philosophy and morals to win this fight.
Sorry if I rambled too much.
November 14, 2008
7:39 a.m.
Suggest removal
Heidi writes:
davies writes:
"You are always reaching out to people who show the slightest interest in acknowledging someone else's viewpoint. Someday maybe you'll reach out to Catholics too. (I could tell you a story or two about Father Donohue and my catechism.)"
I suppose I only try to engage in conversation with those I don't think are going to lash out at me and call me names. I don't like to argue with anyone. I would like to hear about Fr Donohue!
"I wonder if GWM was posting in here. That stood for Gay White Male didn't it?"
I remember him saying that it was just his initials.
JB:
"Heidi-
Your blogs always make me laugh (yes, even the totally innappropriate ones)"
Have you been spying on me? ;)
November 14, 2008
11:03 a.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
"you can have jay and diggtbks and NeilT and the other moral absolutists."
as i've said many times, davies, either your beliefs fits the textbook definition of bigotry or it doesn't.
leave me out of it.
take some accountability for your own actions.
FCCG, there have been several threads about this issue over the last week or two and there have been MANY posts about the huge legal differences between civil unions and marriages.
i fear at this point that you're actively running from such information because it does such damage to your position.
there is no excuse to be uninformed...the information is out there...i hope you give yourself the chance to assimilate it into your way of thinking.
the bottom line here folks is that i'm lucky enough to have married the person i love. we enjoy all benefits that come from being married (again...not the same as civil unions).
i am just appalled at those who would refuse any of my fellow americans equal rights based upon personal prejudice based on beliefs in the supernatural.
i think we're better than that.
i hope one day you feel the same way.
November 14, 2008
1:34 p.m.
Suggest removal
FCCG writes:
Jay,
You said, "FCCG, there have been several threads about this issue over the last week or two and there have been MANY posts about the huge legal differences between civil unions and marriages.
i fear at this point that you're actively running from such information because it does such damage to your position."
First, first I have claimed (from admittedly imperfect knowledge) that the legal differences regarding rights between civil unions/domestic partnerships were negligible, at least on a state level. I asked for some one to correct me with a specific example, namely marriage offers x civil unions offer y or at least not x. This was not done. JB directed me to a publication which I read that detailed the difference in rights between marriage and no other arrangement. His piece did not even mention civil unions. I have read all of the 200+ posts on this thread and as far as I could tell, no one has cited specific examples. So, after I read JB's piece I did a little research on my own. After about 15 minutes (I admit this was not an exhaustive search) I could only find information that claimed that domestic partnerships wand marriage are essentially the same, at least on the state level. Obviously partisan cites were claiming that these arrangements are huge leap on the road to homosexual equality. So in the absence of specific examples I maintain my prior point. If these examples have been so numerous in these discussions, I'm sure you can pick out one easily.
November 14, 2008
1:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
FCCG writes:
Second, neither you nor anyone who has judged my position has even correctly characterized it, so your assumption that I am running from evidence that might damage my position is just false.
Here is my position:
To the proponents of gay-marriage, I actually agree with about 90% of your goals. However I totally disagree with the means that the majority of you seem to be using to obtain your ends. I think there are fundamental problems with the philosophy you folks employ, and you tend to either ignore the logical conclusions of your arguments or just dismiss them rather hypocritically. To say the love justifies legalization of marriage rights does actually mean that you must either accept polygamy or explain why it is different. You decry the person who says that marriage is for a man and a woman. Polygamists decay the person who says marriage is for two people. This is simply not a straw man argument, it is a logical conclusion of the philosophy commonly employed be the pro-gay marriage crowd. As a matter of fact, that's what convinced me that polygamy should be legal. Besides, marriage for me is only ever going to be what my church says it is. Also, there is a problem when this lobby puts on civil union-esque ballot measures in various states (I think it was Ref. i here in '06) and then the very same lobby questions the very validity of the referendum system when they lose corresponding measures.
All I am asking for is consistency.
November 14, 2008
1:54 p.m.
Suggest removal
BigSky182 writes:
I only support gay marriage when both chicks are HAWT!!!
The Government needs to mind its own Business. Who I marry and/or who I sleep with is none of their business.
Provided that both parties are legal, consenting adult humans.
(There is reported to be a law in Tennesee prohibiting a man from marrying his horse... I'd have to support that law)
November 14, 2008
2:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
i don't know what to tell you, fccg.
no one here is going to do your research for you, particularly when it is a simple process that you seem to be willfully avoiding.
i would hope that you'd be intellectually honest enough to inform yourself on the details of this issue before commenting on it.
for instance, you seem to be using a strawman argument here:
"To say the love justifies legalization of marriage rights does actually mean that you must either accept polygamy or explain why it is different."
no one is saying that "love" justifies equal rights for all americans, regardless of gender, race or sexual orientation.
i guess i'm just flabbergasted at folks like you who are either woefully misinformed on an issue upon which there is a readily available plethora of information, or, worse, you simply refuse to acknowledge the tenants of the oppositions positions and cling to debunked talking points about polygamy's imaginary impact on this matter.
i think it speaks volumes that the folks who opposed interracial marriage used your exact kind of "logic" and talking points about polygamy, etc.
regardless...i think your statement that "marriage for me is only ever going to be what my church says it is" is all that really needs to be said.
remember kids, beliefs in the supernatural are never justifiable reasons to discriminate against your fellow americans because of race, gender or sexual orientation.
November 14, 2008
2:40 p.m.
Suggest removal
ColoGal1234 writes:
Unfortunately until gay marriage is legalized on a national level, we will continue to not have the same "financial" rights as hetros. MA and other STATES can legalize marriage but I have to go back to my original point of how frustrating it is that we have been in a monogamous relationship for 13 years, yet we cannot file our federal taxes together, we cannot claim our house that we both pay the mortgage on together, unless we have a lawyer draw up papers, we cannot make medical decisions for each other, if we decide to have a child we have to jump through all kinds of hoops that others don't for the other to adopt, etc. I know that life isn't fair, but COME ON!
November 14, 2008
2:55 p.m.
Suggest removal
Dyce13 writes:
Ghoax, and whomever else wishes to make this into an attack on Christianity and "family", you are so fundamentally short-sighted and naive that it hurts me to even read your ridiculous words. No one is forcing you to accept anything but the fact that the world is a little more complicated than you would like to think. Why do you care so much about restricting civil liberties? You should have no say in my rights (since equality is, hm how do you say, AMERICAN), my spirituality, what benefits I get, and especially whom I love. Marriage shouldn't even be defined by our government at all. My guess is, if you are so passionately opposed to gay marriage, a very simple extension of current legislative verbage, you have some inner turmoil to deal with...so maybe you should do some personal reflection before you go taking your guilt and anger out on the rest of us.
Oh and p.s. the protest is a national effort, organized to encourage awareness and discussion regarding current inequalities. It's peaceful, and a key component of how this country works. "Land of the Free" does not mean, "Land of Straight, Christian" people.
And if gayness WEREN'T so normal, a national outcry wouldn't be possible. Sorry sweetheart but your bigotry makes you look borderline idiotic.
November 14, 2008
3:39 p.m.
Suggest removal
FCCG writes:
Goodness.
Jay, once again you have completely ignored my point. My first post requested that someone give me an example of a disparity between gay marriage and civil unions, I was asking for guidance from people who might know better. There is nothing intellectually dishonest about that. My last post, which was actually two posts, detailed the research I have done in the last 24 hours. I found nothing. And still you can not, or will not, give one, just one example of a disparity. I conceded that I might just not be aware, but now I think you're the one who's running from the facts. If you can give me one example, I'll back down.
Furthermore, you are trying to alter the definition of a social institution, which in our system and in systems of our cultural predecessors has virtually remained unchanged for centuries. Not to beleaguer the point, but if you do that, you open the door to other alternate definitions. That is not necessarily a bad thing, just own up to it. Remember I am the only on this thread who says that polygamy might not be such a bad thing. You seem to say that it is, and your insistence that we not discriminate doesn't seem to extend to the FLDS crowd. Hypocrisy perhaps? And yes a significant number of people who argue in favor of gay marriage do so by saying that "love makes a family" and so on. How many times have we heard the testimonials of people talking about how unfair it is that they can't marry the person they love? Also thanks for implying that I'm a bigot regarding inter-racial marriage. Very adult.
And way to go in totally misinterpreting my statement about my church. What I meant: I am Catholic. The Pope (put simplistically) decides what marriage for Catholics is. As a catholic my definition of marriage is not hurt, changed or at all influenced by what you or anyone else (who is not the Pope) thinks. In short other opinions don't affect me, therefore as long as they are sound, go for it.
I am just looking for consistency...still
November 14, 2008
3:41 p.m.
Suggest removal
JB writes:
FCCG-
Sorry for the late reply. Been very busy today and unhappy about the snow. Thinking about jumping a plane to San Diego!
ANyhow, the below links are directly to the Government Accountability Office's report on which statutes are affected by marriage status. It's important to not that NONE of these are available to folks in Civil Unions. The first link is to the initial report created after the passage of the DOMA. The second is to the follow up in 2003 adressing the additional 100+ laws passed affected by marriage status. These are PDFs and long, but should put to rest your questions.
http://www.gao.gov/archive/1997/og970...
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04353r.pdf
November 14, 2008
3:59 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
"if you do that, you open the door to other alternate definitions"
nope. this isn't any more relevant on this issue than it was years ago when those who tried to opposed interracial marriage tried this tact.
nice try.
as i've said before, fccg...we've had several threads on the gay marriage issues since the election.
the ridiculous polygamy talking point has been debunked a number of times.
i truly hope that you get the education you so apparently need on this subject.
i suggest starting with jb's links and then typing "differences between marriage and civil unions" in a google search page.
again...i think you're running for this readily available information because it completely invalidates your weak position on this issue.
November 14, 2008
4:40 p.m.
Suggest removal
FCCG writes:
JB,
San Diego is indeed quite nice. Thanks for the information. I will read it and post my reaction when I can.
Jay,
Your last post offers absolutley nothing new. You are trying to simply rest on the laurels of others concerning these "debunked polygamy myths". I would much rather hear why you think the example is wrong. And I can't just go into the all the discussions your talking about, I only joined this cite yesterday because some of the discussion impressed me so much. Additionally, you really need to get your history straight. The prohibition on Bi-racial marriage was an arrangement that was particular only to the American south, only for a certain time. In no other time or place in western history, that I am aware of, was there such a prohibition. There are however many examples of interracial couples, married couples. It may have been frowned on, but it wasn't illegal except under Jim Crow and perhaps a bit before. So those who put the prohibition there were changing the order of things, not the other way round. To say that my polygamy question is irrelevant because it was during the discussion of Loving v. VA, is not only side-stepping the issue, it ignores the historical reality of both Jim Crow and marriage in general.
Please say something new, what you think, or don't bother.
November 14, 2008
5:20 p.m.
Suggest removal
rickg19611 writes:
FCCG,
Good luck. Jay can act like a poodle with a bone at times. Once he gets fixated on a point, it's impossible to get him to think about anything other than just repeating the same lines over and over and over and over.
By the way, you're spot on 100% correct on the interracial marriage laws in the US.
November 14, 2008
6 p.m.
Suggest removal
EdwardGRobinson writes:
The majority of posters on this topic appear to be consistent with the official California vote. Those protesters like Jay who add token slogans only serve to defeat their own cause. A while back 'DJ' claimed that Ameica was becoming 'enlightened' Jay is convinced they are on the same track as women's suffrage or interracial marriage, but street protests, angry name calling and in-your-face rants do more to hurt that cause than win friends.
November 14, 2008
6:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
EdwardGRobinson writes:
As for DJ's claim of Enlightenment, that is what caused the French revolution to collapse even when they copied our example.
Would our soldiers say their sacrifice far from home is to protect our way of life, or is it to defend the Declaration of Independence, or is it to uphold the Constitution? I think their oath of allegiance is strictly to the constitution. …
Jefferson’s words in the Declaration of Independence state [1] God created [2]“all men equal”. OK, but no judge on earth can determine what equality means. Further, that God-given rights are [3] life, [4] liberty, and [5] the pursuit of happiness. To Jefferson’s dismay, the French took his words to an extreme. Worse, I think they got it backwards, putting their pursuit of Happiness above all other rights. Then of course, they demanded unrestrained Liberty to pursue their idea of happiness. This led them to deny the very right to Life for whoever disagreed with them . “Off with their heads!” quite literally meant that the leaders of the storming of the Bastille later were guillotined by the same mob. By starting with 5, they abused 4 (liberty), devalued 3 (life), tried to define and vote on how equal [2] they were to their neighbors, but apart from a standard set by God [1]. Pure Democracy quickly turned to anarchy. (Footnote: Today SOME -not all- dollar coins are printed “in God We Trust” around the rim, but on the rims of French Coins was simply the wording, “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity: German coins said Freedom, Unity and Rights. Both God-neutral humanistic slogans)
Jefferson, appointed by Washington to replace Franklin as ambassador to France, was eyewitness to the enlightened excesses of atheistic humanism. But being abroad, he could only suggest ideas to the 3rd(?) Constitutional Congress, unavailable to draft the Constitution as he did the Declaration. He warned Adams and Madison not to reverse his words, making sure of our system of checks and balances confirming not only that men are created equal, but that they are all sinners- equally corrupt . Four score and seven years (1-1/2 generations) later, Lincoln pointed out that the founding fathers were not interested in their personal pursuit of happiness apart from God’s blessing– if they were, the country would have fallen apart like France did. Abe followed that up by asking for God’s blessings to continue for more generations: “that this nation … shall not perish from the earth” I really believe that means you, me, and our children & grandchildren!!
November 14, 2008
6:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
"You are trying to simply rest on the laurels of others concerning these "debunked polygamy myths"."
not at all.
i'm simply pointing out the fact that such myths have been debunked numerous times, not only in the last two weeks, but in the last couple of years. i apologize if you're new to this blog. as i said before, i encourage you to educate yourself on some of the details involving the issues about which you post. i find that it saves time and we get a higher quality discussion.
that said, if you're uncomfortable when people point out that you're spouting the same kind of debunked talking points that were heard from those who opposed interracial marriage, i would hope that you'd take some personal responsbility for your beliefs and welcome a truly color/gender/sexual orientation viewpoint of the world.
until then, you may just have to learn to live with being uncomfortable when folks inevitably make you aware of these things.
finally, i'll give you a word of advice. sticking your fingers in your ears and refusing to acknowledge politically or theologically inconvenient facts is no way to build credibility here, fccg. you may also think about taking some time to do your own research on issues about which you apparently are a little underinformed.
rickybobby, don't pout.
i won't repeat things if you won't do the willful ignorance shuffle.
deal?
November 14, 2008
6:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
rickg19611 writes:
Dyce13 writes:
"No one is forcing you to accept anything but the fact that the world is a little more complicated than you would like to think. Why do you care so much about restricting civil liberties? "
Do you condemn gays who restrict the civil liberties of those who don't comply with their demands?
"Oh and p.s. the protest is a national effort, organized to encourage awareness and discussion regarding current inequalities. It's peaceful..."
Peaceful? How does vandalism and shouting down others get called "peaceful"? Do you think the KKK were "peaceful" when they burned a cross on the lawn of African American citizens?
"And if gayness WEREN'T so normal, a national outcry wouldn't be possible. "
So "normal" that gay marriage keeps getting rejected by Americans. Repeatedly, in state after state. You might be able to drum up 1/100th of 1% of the population to join your "protesting" but that 1/100th of 1% is fewer than the number of people that will watch an episode of The Simpsons on TV tonight.
November 15, 2008
1:16 a.m.
Suggest removal
FCCG writes:
Dear JB,
Thanks for the information, I have been reading the pdfs, and I just wanted to ask you about some of my thoughts. Unfortunately, I think we may have been talking past each other for the past few posts. I was aware of DOMA and that marriage definitions apply to federal law. But, all this time I was actually asking about state law in specifically CA (as that was the original topic of discussion).
First, lets just take the issue on the federal level. Keeping in mind that I am not a lawyer, my analysis is as follows: Statues on the federal level which have some bearing on marital status, define marriage as it is defined in the state of the citizen concerned. I take this to primarily be meant to encompass the various levels of involvement required for a common law marriage in addition to the obvious cases. However, any state law which allows for same-sex marriages would be void for the purposes of federal law due to the provisions of DOMA. That was my impression. Although I did find it interesting that families in some cases could mean elderly disabled persons in the same house regardless of marital status. I thought of a couple of spinster sisters, or even the golden girls. Never the less I agree that this is a crap deal for the segments of society not allowed to legally marry.
Now lets take the issue of state law. I still have been unable to find disparity between situations of gay marriage, straight marriage and domestic partnerships in any state law, specifically CA. While granted, marriage status is probably not as big of a deal regarding state law as opposed federal, the lack of disparity (and actually even if there were a disparity) leads to the thrust of my argument. In case you missed some of my earlier back and forth with Jay, my question is not primarily what, but how and why. I believe that you and I agree that your goal is valid, but as a straight guy, I have to question the strategy and methods of the same-sex marriage folks.
November 15, 2008
1:17 a.m.
Suggest removal
FCCG writes:
So, JB, I ask you: As to the how...What does all the ruckus over CA accomplish? Given that the situation for gay people in CA doesn't seem to have changed all the much with respect to rights considering that a domestic partnership law still exists, wouldn't efforts on the federal level be far more productive, and actually the only way of bettering the legal situation? Would it be acceptable to you if DOMA were revised to extend all right and responsibilities in a civil union fashion, or does DOMA have to go? As to the why... is this about rights or acceptance? Can gays only be totally accepted into society once they have marriage rights? I have already expressed my opposition to acceptance being connected to the law, but if you think "acceptance through the bench or legislature" is valid, I would like to know for sake of curiosity. That is an entirely different argument (one which I would be willing to have should the occasion arise).
Anywho, I believe that your posts have been well thought out and welcome your comments. I hope I haven't been to much of a pain in the butt.
However, Jay,
You desperately need to have someone instruct you in the ways of debate. Claims need to have evidence, or at least a logical flow. Repeating yourself over and over and over does not make you thought any more valid than the first time you said it. Never have I encountered someone who took so much time to say so little so often.
November 15, 2008
4:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
Dyce13 writes:
RickyG, honey, I know this is hard for you to understand, so I will try not to use big words.
Just because the majority thinks something is right, does not mean it is. This is a major theme throughout world and American history. In fact, you ironically alluded to just such an example in your pitiful rebuttal (and forgive me, but I am failing to see the parallels between KKK cross-burnings and gay community protests, but maybe I'm just not as sharp as you). Was it right to treat African-Americans like second-class citizens just because there were fewer of them? No, it obviously was not right, but the majority allowed that to happen for years. And if your response to that is: race and sexual orientation are not the same thing...I seriously beg to differ. For most people, their sexual orientation is not a choice, they are the way they are because they were born that way. Very much like having blue eyes or brown skin. So, if you are going to deny me of my rights as an American citizen (tax breaks, adoption rights, healthcare benefits, etc.) based on the fact that I love someone who happens to be the same sex as me, then you are essentially undermining the basic principals of equality. How un-American of you...
As far as the protests, I seriously doubt that any were truly violent, and if they were, it was most certainly wrong. Peaceful expression of an opposing opinion is well within every citizen's right, but no one (especially me) is condoning vandalism and aggression. My guess is that if the protesters got that heated, they probably had someone aggressive and screaming right back at them from the opposing side.
In any case, my opinion is small potatoes, and I'm pretty sure I have very little chance of penetrating any of the thick skulls on this posting site, but here's a quote that seems to ring true here (from someone much more credible than me)...
"Dissent is patriotic" - Thomas Jefferson
November 15, 2008
6:41 p.m.
Suggest removal
JB writes:
FCCG-
Sorry, very short reply here if you're even still looking. Maybe I'll set up a blog for those interested in continuing the discussion. Stay tuned...anyhow, off to dinner in a second, so very short.
You might be right that the state benifits are similar, but those are negligible. It's the Federal benifits and responsibilities that are of primary concern. Even if not for those, seperate is NOT equal. All any of us want are the same rights. As to your question about the DOMA... yes, it needs to go. It writes discrimination into law, much like don't ask don't tell. I would argue that it actually violates the Constitution on both the 1st and 14th Amendment. Anyhow, I know this isn't my usual thought out post, but am running out the door. Stay tuned for a link to a possible blog. Thanks for taking the time to read those PDF's.
November 15, 2008
10:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
FCCG writes:
Will do JB.
November 16, 2008
1:26 a.m.
Suggest removal
Equal writes:
What I'm curious about is what are you afraid of? Why if you are straight and are in loving relationships, you're so afraid to see others have the same rights? Do you think somehow this will affect your livelihood, your safekeeping? You simply want to disagree with something you know nothing about. To fight against something you think keeps you better or ahead of the rest. Either way you'll go back to your job, kiss your wife, husband, kids or your pillow in the morning and feel better about yourself. And be naive knowing you still have to pay taxes and be responsible for no one, but yourself.