Watching the news from my northern california apartment this morning, I saw the governator on the news, stating in an interview, the following:

"In San Francisco, it is license for marriage of same sex. Maybe the next thing is another city that hands out licenses for assault weapons and someone else hands out licenses for selling drugs," Schwarzenegger said Sunday on Meet the Press.

I guess I feel as though this is really an extreme. I think if some dude wants to marry some other dude, then that's his business. Is marriage a sanction between a man and a woman? Is this a religious question? Should we not allow gays the same legal rights of marriage whether or not it's called marriage or a "civil union"? Is church and state really seperate?

dont they give you time in high school social studies to talk about these tired subjects?

wow, you sure got him



(Edited by DigsySlattery at 8:08 pm on Feb. 23, 2004)

Somebody needs to teach Schwarz modern [standard] English.

i was serious

You can't be serious.

(Because I'm the only one who thought of that one.)

It is indeed unfortunate that my social studies class didn't resolve this issue 6 years ago. To this date there have been over 3,000 gay marriages in the San Francisco City hall. I can drive by at night and there will be couples camped out on the side walks waiting. Apparently the city hall is booked with gay marriages all the way up until the end of april. The question still remains though; will these marriages still be legal or will arnold and GW take them away. Some judges are ruling that there is nothing unconstitutional about what is taking place. This could be a huge ground breaking civil rights movement brought on by mayor Newsom.

(Edited by GrungeSlobTearPants at 11:11 pm on Feb. 23, 2004)

i could be wrong, but im pretty sure that gw does not have the power to annul these marriages. i think it is strictly a state issue.
to answer your other questions- all of us agree with same-sex marriages, except for maybe jamiecarroll or keith, but theyre cool, so we dont hold that against them.

(Edited by stopforme at 12:24 am on Feb. 24, 2004)

Actually, I do think that same-sex marriages should be legal. Regardless of my beliefs about homosexuality, I do not think it's the government's place to say that certain consenting adults cannot enter into marriage. I mean, who is it hurting to allow two adults to get married? Why should the government prevent that?

I don't agree with the way that the city of San Francisco is going about things, though. Blatant disregard for the laws BY government officials is a very dangerous road to start down - a "slippery slope," if you will. We need to change things within the framework of our system of government.

word

We've been over this recently, but again: I'm amazed that this can even be an issue. As far as we've gone to promote ourselves as a society where all are equal in the eyes of the law, as much as we've used that as justification for attacking those that we view as unjust, I can't beliueve we have leaders that still try to maintain such a gross inequality.

And I agree JC, when our own goverment officials contradict one another openly and blatantly it can be trouble indeed. But I think this may be what we need to force the issue in this country. Eventually the Supreme Court will have to rule, and I can't imagine they could justify upholding bans.

Will

But think of the message this sends: "If you, as a government offical, want to enact policy change, just disregard the law! Eventually the courts will back you up." I think that's a dangerous message to send, and I think that Schwarzenegger has sent that very message by being so slack in his dealings with this situation. He should have demanded immediately that the city cease and desist. And if the mayor refused, Arnold should have had him arrested.

(Edited by jamiecarroll at 2:52 am on Feb. 24, 2004)

The way I understand it, is that mayor Newsom believes he is actually abiding by the state constitution which outlaws discrimination of any kind. So it's definitly a gray area that needs to be worked out on a higher level. Which will hopefully grant legal equality.

In response to SFM, I'm sure you are are right, Bush cannot annul the marriages by himself, alone. But apparently it is not just a state matter. -- After countless hours of research, Ive come up with this -- There is a federal statue, the Defense of Marriage Act, signed in 1996 by President Clinton, that "protects marriage under federal law as the union of a man and a woman, and declares that one state may not redefine marriage for other states." Remembering back to the big buzz in January, Bush mentioned in his state of the union address how he would support an ammendment to this statue if "activist judges" continue to redefine marriage.

On a similar note, the week before the state of the union address, good ole GW brought forth his "Leave No Bride Behind Act" which will cost us $1.5 billion dollars to protect and promote heterosexual marriage. I can't figure out if this has passed congress yet or not. And yeah, with divorce rate so high in the US it's crazy. But damn, how is that even something that the government should try to get involved with?

(Edited by GrungeSlobTearPants at 2:40 am on Feb. 24, 2004)

Bush is definitely backing a constitutional amendment at this point. He should be smeared with santorum.

Uh, I assume you are kidding stopforme, but just to set the record straight, I completely support gay marriage or civil unions, or whatever label they want to put on it.

So it's a state's rights issue? Because if we did everything that states wanted to, slavery would still be around.

And what if I wanted to marry a couple women, or maybe 50 men and 28 women. Or my sister? Who are you to tell me that's not right? Who is the state or any form of government to tell me that I can't? The homosexuals in California can get almost all the benefits of a married couple already, so what is it about? I'm not sure what the answer to that question is. If it's discrimination, then anything that doesn't harm another person is acceptible? I don't think I believe in passive morality, one that says leave me alone and I'll leave you alone.

And you really can;t throw in the whole 'separation of church and state' because, 1) nowhere is that in the constitution- that was a court ruling (one of the first examples of the courts opposing their will on the people, instead of telling us what the law had to say about it)- all the constitution says is that the govt. can't establish a religion. Which is fine with me. People can believe what they want. Most laws were formed on someone's morality, someone imposing their morality on the people, and most of it did come from the Christian religion. Of course that's where the people come into play, we elect those lawmakers according to what kind of laws or morality we want enacted. Geez, I feel like I'm rambling.

I need to go back to work, hopefully I can get back before the few structured opinions leave my brain.

One more thing, I suppose. When the idiot judge refused to obey the laws that were setup in Alabama(?) when he didn't remove the 10 commandments, the media grilled him on his negligence to obey the laws that were given to him; someone who was supposed to be giving out sentences for people who did the same thing. I agreed. He was totally in the wrong.

Likewise, the people who are in Cali are going about this the wrong way. Pass a law, ammend the Constitution so marriage is redefined, but if they are already breaking a law to get a law passed? That's insane logic.

I'm not sure if I'm against civil unions. But marriage has a definition already.

You're a regular Rick Santorum Foldsfan. Not only is homosexuality akin to bigamy, polygamy, incest, what have you, you're forgetting that it is also akin to bestiality. Or didn't you read his comments on this matter? It's obvious that you think the legalization of homosexual marriage would lead to other more heinous moral perversions or you wouldn't have enumerated them. We all know that those gays engage in all sorts of unsavory activity. We don't want them threatening our 50%+ divorce rate (chances are if you did marry 50 men or 28 women you would divorce over half of them). What's fun is to plug in "interracial couples" where you wrote "homosexuals" like so:

And what if I wanted to marry a couple women, or maybe 50 men and 28 women. Or my sister? Who are you to tell me that's not right? Who is the state or any form of government to tell me that I can't? The "interracial couples" in California can get almost all the benefits of a married couple already, so what is it about? I'm not sure what the answer to that question is. If it's discrimination, then anything that doesn't harm another person is acceptible? I don't think I believe in passive morality, one that says leave me alone and I'll leave you alone.

But maybe I'm just trying to be provocative.

I'm not convinced that you can make the same arguement about interracial couples. It's not about rights, it's about the definition of marriage. Yes, homosexuals are not given the "luxury" of calling their civil union "a marriage". But neither are two siblings (incest), a man and a 5 year old girl (statutory rape or child molestation) or small armies of people (bigamy). Race hasn't a goddamn thing to do with this.

Nah, it's fine. I understand I'm in the minority on this board.

You are almost making a good point in your sarcasm, though it's in my favor. Of course just because someone's a homosexual doesn't mean they're going to engage in bestiality or polygamy or what have you... But that is the next step for the COURTS. Once they redefine marriage just because two people are in love and the govt. can't say what's right or wrong for two adults and cannot 'Discrimnate', then they really cannot be consistent and say that any of those other cases can be discriminated against.

I think if the NATION wants to change the laws or make into law that homosexual marriage, bestiality, polygamy, murder, free ice cream for everyone, whatever they feel as a whole is right, then the majority will vote and put people into Congress or the Presidency or pressure their representatives into making it happen. That's my point..that there is a process. If I'm in the minority on an issue, I still have to abide by the laws, or move to a country where I can do what I want.

I don't understand why everyone is okay with one person, a judge, forcing people to accept his or her opinion, then when the President, someone who is elected tries to push an ammendment through the correct channels, everyone freaks out.

I don't agree completely with you, but you do a very good job of communicating your argument.

Just out of curiousty, what do ya'll think about allowing polygamy? Do you think it also should be legal? What about marrying one's sister? Should this also be legal?

I'm not saying these things would be issues if homosexual marriage is allowed, but if we say we should allow any consenting adults to marry, we should think about this.

I think it's all a matter of consent, basically, when it comes to sexual relationships.....but that still leaves polygamy and incest open.

It does knock out bestiality and pedophilia, though.

But it doesn't rule out necrophelia. Not if it was in the will.

To quote a rap song (by DMX?) I heard yesterday:

I got blood on my fist
'cause I have no remorse
I got blood on my dick
'cause I fucked a corpse

(Edited by carligula at 6:30 pm on Feb. 24, 2004)

I've decided not to comment on some of the previous replies, as I have no answer to them. I do however agree that there should be some standard / law that protects and defines what marriage is. Bestiality and incest are very extreme in this case. But, the standard we are living under in the present is old / obsolete and in need of change. People, societies, and human relations are evolving quicker than any other time in history. And we are living under "law" that dates back over 2 thousand years ago from the christian bible. This to me is definitely imposing the christian belief system on all of the united states of america.

More importantly, im sticking to the major point of argument which is what is lacking within our constitution, equality. This is a major argument point because by allowing gays and lesbians to marry, they will be gaining the same legal rights of married heterosexual couples. Some of these rights include inheritance laws, medical decision-making, insurance, state pensions and joint filing status on state income tax returns, Social Security survivor and/or spousal benefits, spousal rights in private employers’ pensions under a law known as ERISA, immigration rights, and special treatment under the Federal estate and income tax systems. And the list goes on and on. Being married has many benefits on a financial level.

I guess if someone wants to marry 50 men and 28 women at once, there should something blocking all 79 of them from having legal marriage ties. And a man and a horse, well thats self explanatory. A man and his sister there could be some debate over that, but more than likely those situations would arise less times than more.

By not allowing gays and lesbians to marry or have a "civil union," they are indeed being discriminated against by their state and federal constitutions. This justifies Mayor Newsom's decision.

(Edited by GrungeSlobTearPants at 7:27 pm on Feb. 24, 2004)

Yeah, it's like that stupid Rosa Parks. Couldn't she have just waited for a law to be passed to sit at the front of the bus?

I think times change and society changes. There are still a lot of people out there that think homosexuality is morally wrong, whether it be based on the bible or just personal beliefs, but I think overall, homosexuality has become acceptable in our culture whereas bestiality and the like have not. That's why the government (FCC) will allow shows like "Queer Eye For The Straight Guy" on free TV, but we're not going to see "Who Wants To Marry A Horse-Fucker?" anytime soon. Homosexuality is only going to become more and more acceptable (just like interracial relationships have), so I believe at some point, laws will have to change to reflect this.

Edit: I guess I was writing when GSTP made that last post. Sorry to sort of repeat some of his points.

(Edited by Keith at 8:28 pm on Feb. 24, 2004)

Keith and GSTP have summed up my feelings very well.

I support Gay Unions, marriage, etc. - at the state level, at least. I think religious groups should make their own rulings about which marriages they will perform (of course). I am Catholic, and I believe it will be a long time before the Catholic church sanctions gay marriages, and I am fine with that. The Catholic church still prohibits divorce under most circumstances, and I am fine with that too. Even when I, personally, don't feel the same way as the Church, I can understand where they are coming from. The sole purpose of the church is to guide people in the ways of faith, and I understand how divorce and homosexuality could, potentially, get in the way of Christian faith. However, I also see how faith is possible regardless of sexual preference. As everyone knows, this is an oft debated topic.

In the eyes of the government, I believe that gay and straight marriages should be treated equally. This has obviously become enough of an issue in our society to necessitate such action. When the numbers of adults consenting to polygamy and such reach such numbers, then we should also consider them. I still think that, for the most part, most individuals would not desire to enter into a marriage contract, covenant, pact, etc. with a sibling, many people, or an animal.

My freshmen are actually doing a persuasive essay on this right now. We have had some fun discussions. I love playing devil's advocate.

(Edited by Token at 8:28 pm on Feb. 24, 2004)

okay. that settles it, cool people do not protest. end of conversation.

That's not a valid comparison. Rosa Parks broke the law as a citizen. I see no problem with individual citizens breaking the law in protest, if that's what they want to do. The situation that we have in San Francisco is one of GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS breaking the law in protest. I think there's a huge difference.

Why is bestiality even in this discussion at all? First of all, bestiality is a term that implies sexual relations, not marital relations. No one is seriously talking about marrying animals. Second of all, even if people were demanding the right to marry animals, human-animal marriages would never be seriously considered because an animal cannot enter into a binding contract (which is what marriage is). So bestiality has nothing to do with this discussion.

We're talking about the right of consenting adults to enter into marriage. So pedophilia is not part of the issue here either.

But polygamy and the marriage of immediate relatives are an issue within the context of this discussion. I would be interested in hearing more people's opinions on these. Even if you say those things aren't an issue for very many people, they are still an issue for SOME people, and while we're in the process of "defining marriage," shouldn't we go ahead and be completely fair to everyone?

I had a lot of great open-minded stuff written until I started to think about a real definition of marriage. If marriage is a union that is recognized by a religion, then I guess they would have to find a religion that allowed all of these taboo things (polygamy, homosexuality, an incestuous relationship). I don't really know enough about what specific religions will and will not allow in regards to marriage. Nor do I know enough about the specifics of a civil union.

In regards to those entering into a "union"...

The only foreseeable problem with allowing immediate relatives to unionize is that (based on a very limited biology background) certain "bad" genetic characteristics could arise in their children, due to the alignment of recessive genes from the parents. (Carl, feel free to debunk anything that I have said that is incorrect) (though, even people from different families can combine and produce offspring with "bad" genes) Of course, who is to say that the individuals would ever have children. They may not want to have kids. Regardless, I think that they should be allowed to join together if they want. The same goes for would-be polygamists and homosexuals. I think that people have the right to make that decision for themselves. I do not think that any of these things would make society worse off. It would show people that adults are allowed to freely make their own decisions that do not harm the liberties of another person.

Laws pertaining to these issues should reflect unbiased views. The emphasis placed on marriage should instead be placed on a "union". Marriage should fall under an umbrella of "unions" (as a whole, endorsed by the government). Under "unions" would be marriage (recognized by the religious definition) and civil unions. Maybe that's the way that it is now and I'm unaware of it.

If I fit into any of these categories (polygamists, etc), I probably would not want to get "married", because I would not believe in a religion that has followers who exclude me. I would want a civil union. But, it is a person's right to get married if they believe in that religion. After all, a sin is a sin...supposedly. People knowingly sin all of the time (in some way or another), so I can't say that it would be wrong to marry the individuals just because they are knowingly committing a sin that just so happens to be taboo, instead of committing one that is not so taboo anymore (premarital sex).

(Edited by richarddawson at 2:04 am on Feb. 25, 2004)

I guess I assumed Foldsfan was referring to the people who were actually getting married, but I don't really have a problem with a mayor (who doesn't have the power to ammend a state/federal constitution) using civil disobedience, especially if he/she has the support of the people he/she represents. Sometimes making progress means busting through the red tape.

Edit: I should qualify the above statement by saying that while I don't mind the idea of government officials skipping past the beurocracy, it doesn't always mean their cause is worthy. For instance, Bush ignoring the UN and invading Iraq (am I opening up a whole new debate here?).

(Edited by Keith at 5:02 am on Feb. 25, 2004)

I just realised how horribly, horribly biased I am. I have no problem with the mayor breaking the law and allowing the marriages to take place, but I had a real beef with the guy in Alabama who put up the Ten Commandments in the courthouse (also breaking the law to make a point). By the way, Bush got that guy another job.

First of all, it is a valid comparison. There's a long history of civil disobedience in this country and it's part of what makes us who we are, regardless of being performed by government officials, civilians or otherwise. Related to Keith's above statement, it's very interesting that people who supported Bush skirting the U.N. to do whatever the hell he wanted in the face of international law are saying that Newsom is out of line for doing something that flies in the face of national law. I guess this is contingent on whether or not you place any validity in the authority of the U.N., and many don't. More to the point, what I'm trying to say is that people who want unchecked autonomy for the U.S. in its international pursuits are calling on individual states to answer to a higher power and I see some inconsistency there.

Now, the reason bestiality was brought into this equation is because many months ago when this debate first entered the national conversation, the (surprise, surprise) conservative Senator Rick Santorum made statements comparing homosexuality to polygamy, bigamy and (you guessed it) bestiality. I wasn't just throwing that in there to be clever. This was brought into the conversation by a GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL. I'll scout around and see if I can find an exact transcription of his statements.

Do you not see that it makes a big difference who is using civil disobedience? In our system of government, the executive branch's PRIMARY PURPOSE is to ENFORCE the law - NOT to create the law and NOT to judge the constitutionality of the law. If the very people whose job it is to enforce the laws of the land are publicly breaking them, then the very structure of our government is being dismantled. And I guess that's a good thing for a person who doesn't like our system of government and wants it changed. But in any other case, we should be concerned. I realize that the U.S. is not going to fall into a state of anarchy because of this, but it's the PRINCIPLE of the thing.

Well, then the Senator was mistaken. It's not the first time a GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL was wrong, and it won't be the last. He was probably making that comparison out of hate. There is alot of hateful rhetoric about homosexuality coming from conservatives. It's sad.

(Edited by jamiecarroll at 11:52 am on Feb. 25, 2004)

Here we are lovelies. This blog contains conservative Senator Rick Santorum's comments. Obviously there is a bit of opinion mixed in here, but just pay close attention to his actual quotes and you'll see why things like bestiality, et. al. have found there way into the conversation.

As a result of these comments Onion sex columnist Dan Savage (a loose cannon of a homosexual if there's ever been one) conducted a survey to conflate the senator's name with an unspeakable sexual practice or byproduct. Henceforth, the name Santorum has been used to refer to "the frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex." The website Spreading Santorum has had so many hits that it is now the first thing that comes up on Google when the Senator's name is entered. This is great fucking comedy and karmic justice.

All I'm saying is that social change takes more than the token rallies, marches and whatnot. It requires brave people operating inside the government to make things happen. But I too am biased. I thought the Ten Commandments judge in Alabama was way out of line. Maybe I'm a hypocrite.

That's understandable. The goal of that civil disobedience was regressive. In the current situation, the goal is progressive. As people of the liberal persuasion, it makes sense that we would tend to be supportive of the situation in California and not of the one in Alabama. But the basic principle is the same in each case.

I think that legalizing homosexual marriage in the U.S. will happen during our lifetime. It's just a matter of time, as younger, more progressive voters replace the older, more conservative ones.

I'm going to go look up the Santorum speech. I'd like to know exactly what he said, but it may have been misconstrued or lead in a way that he was not implying, like my comments.

Sorry, neuboy, I got sidetracked and took a while to hit the 'post' button, I didn't see that you had already found it.

(Edited by foldsfan at 12:27 pm on Feb. 25, 2004)

Here's more.

I think you are on to something. But you are also missing something from your equation. The beauty of our government is that there are checks and balances. It is not completely up to the Litigators to change the law. The beauty of what is happening is that all future decisions will have to pass other branches. Bush's ammendment will have to pass congress, and could eventually be taken to court. Newsom's decisions will be declared constitutional or unconstitutional in court. If we wait on the litigators to always make the right decisions, well we could be waiting awhile. And also, what if we have a real nut case in charge. A bush, or a Hitler (extreme case). How do we overthrow these people? Someone has to stand up for what is right. And gay rights is definitly worth standing up for.

I think RD is on to something. On Larry King Live yesterday that was a very valid argument. It should just be about "civil unions" to the government. The government needs to grant the same civil union rights to everyone gay, straight, black, white, indian, etc. and to whichever religion they choose to be a part of. There should be a standard law that defines "civil unions" that suits the current situation within humanity. But to this date, bestiality, and polygamy should not enter the equation, Gay unions should. Marriage should be left up to state law and churches, not the federal government. But also, I'll reiterate, societies change, standards within law should change to suit the times. If in 100 years a man and a robot need to have equal union rights, then the law should change to suit the times. Social change isn't as scarey as conservatives want to make it out to be. Opening the door to gay marriage does not degrade the sanctity of marriage.

(Edited by GrungeSlobTearPants at 12:08 pm on Feb. 25, 2004)

That is all pretty much true. Very well put, RD! I was actually going to offer the same information (and an almost identical opinion on the implications of the government outlawing incest). Despite the increased risk of genetic defects, I can't see how the government can have the right to outlaw this. They don't outlaw women over 40 from getting married, despite the fact that the risk of having a baby with Downs Syndrome raises exponentially with a mother's age.

Can anyone enlighten us on the difference between "marriage" and "civil unions" in the eyes of the government? GSTP offered an impressive list of marriage benefits. Do those all not apply to civil unions?

FROM the CNN.com article:

Okay, so his comments were in reference to sodomy laws, not in reference to gay marriage. But you know what? That's even more disturbing on his part. How can anyone, in 2004, be in support of sodomy laws? Trying to mandate what sexual acts can and cannot take place between adults in the privacy of their own home is nothing short of ludicrous. How did this guy get elected?

(Edited by jamiecarroll at 12:50 pm on Feb. 25, 2004)

Well, to my understanding here is the difference between "civil unions" and marriage.

A civil union is state government's way of equalizing the equation. It offers similar legal benefits of a heterosexual marriage. I dont believe that it offers ALL benefits. It is not recognized as anything under federal law, and may not be legally recognized in many states.

Marriage is of course recognized on all levels and receives all spousal benefits.

Gays were happy about the civil union expansions in some states, but not completely satisfied. Even if they can receive all the same legal benefits as marriage, they are still being told that they are second class citizens. That they are "like" being married. But not.


(Damn, ive learned alot about gay stuff living in northern CA. I still love the ladies though)

(Edited by GrungeSlobTearPants at 11:57 am on Feb. 25, 2004)

This one's for you Fold's Fan. This is an undedited excerpt from the Associated Press interview in which Santorum made his comments. Notice how disturbed the interviewer seems to be towards the end.

Outrageous!

(Edited by jamiecarroll at 1:02 pm on Feb. 25, 2004)

There are many federal benefits given to married couples that are not accorded to those in civil unions. Civil unions are the separate but "equal" response to this problem---render gay men and lesbians second class citizens by establishing separate institutions/solutions for "their thing."

It's about time you weighed in.

Sadly my response at this point in the debates is just to say marriage is a strange concept, one that I'm increasingly made uncomfortable by.

Health care and social security for everyone! But how will I give up the gift registry? Can the constitution be amended so that every citizen may demand that his or her friends and relatives spend copious amounts of money at Williams-Sonoma or Pottery Barn? At this point that sounds more reasonable to me than trying to define and render transcendent/trans-historical something as fluctuating and unstable as "marriage."



(Edited by etcetera at 12:30 pm on Feb. 25, 2004)

Keep it coming.

Ah man, I wish that I had seen that.

I agree with that. Totally agree. I never thought that I would see the day. I'm with Norris, keep them coming.

Oh, come on. After hearing how some of you were interpreting Santorum's speech, I thought I would never agree with what he was saying. But the truth is, in context, he is saying exactly what myself, Edwards, Bush, Clinton, and Kerry have been saying... which is the control needs to be in the hands of the states. (which is odd, because whenever a republican brings up the rightsof the states, aka states' rights, everyone goes crazy with the racism card.)

Plus, what is the big problem with people not agreeing with someone's actions? That does not make someone a hate-mongerer at all. It makes him have a different belief system than those of who he disagrees with. The majority of Americans are still Christians, who do believe that homosexuality is a sin, along with adultery, etc. He makes that apparent and includes many actions that, in his words, destroy the family. That's what his point is.

i have a problems with taking the rights away from the people, but the rights are given to the people by the states through their elected officials blah blah blah. I won't insult your intelligience by explaining the obvious govt. process. Anyway, at the beginning I was a little unsettled by his talk about right to privacy, but at the end of it, he's got a problem with the courts, just as I've said.

According to the De Novo Dahl website, 8 people believe most of the stuff in the bible (which includes things about sinning) and 8 do not. The rest of America is indifferent. Thus, 50/50.

(Edited by richarddawson at 2:51 pm on Feb. 25, 2004)

I don't want to misinterpret your argument, foldsfan, but do you think it's okay that the civil rights given to someone in one state can be completely null and void in another?

For example, let's say my partner and I have a state-sanctioned civil union (or marriage) in Vermont and then she is diagnosed with terminal cancer and we seek stellar treatment from a hot-shot doctor in another state. We relocate to this state, say Ohio, where all our rights as partners are not recognized, including my right to visit my dying lover on her hospital bed (because I am not a spouse). I know that may seem like a dramatic, far-fetched scenario but this is one that occurs and affects the lives of many real people. It happened frequently during the AIDS epidemic during the 1980s. And it is just one of many problematic scenarios that can occur if states can decide on their own what is to be done. It is an issue of rights portability. Gay men and women deserve just as much freedom of mobility as other citizens.

Also, could you please explain this "racism card" argument? It sounds like you're trying to suggest that racism is some esoteric extreme that existed far in the past and has no place in these conversations about...civil rights? equality? equal protection under the laws?

Man, sometimes it's so hard to tell if someone is joking when it's in print.

RD, do you seriously believe that the De Novo Dahl message board is a representative sample of the U.S. population? Please tell me you're joking.

I think that he's referring to the fact that when Republicans and Dixie-crats use the term "state's rights" it's seen as a way for them to get around national civil rights policies, whether that be the case or not.

(Edited by deathscythe257 at 3:43 pm on Feb. 25, 2004)

The courts have ruled over and over again that it is implicit in the constitution. It is their job to interpret the law, and over the years they have interpreted the constitution in regards to the seperation of church and state in the same manner over and over again.

For oyez.org-

The "Establishment Clause" would be the first ammendment.

(Edited by deathscythe257 at 3:57 pm on Feb. 25, 2004)

This is stepping away from the argument a little bit. But I believe that gay rights will be acknowledged eventually. But it probably wont happen on a wide scale until a majority of america and the world truly believe that being gay is natural. That (and this is making an assumption) being gay is usually a genetic disposition rather then a choice. It is a lifestyle rather than a christian sin. Just as being black or asian or anything is a genetic disposition, not a choice, or a punishment from a god. Old ways of thinking will change, but it may take a scientific breakthrough to change the views of so many who don't understand and accept it.

I don't feel that they in any way have anything to do with this debate, honestly.

Polygamy has legal ramifications that would be impossible to sort out.
Incest has societal ramifications that would create actual and detectable harm.
And neither of the implications for those two actions have anything to do with homosexual marriage.

(Edited by deathscythe257 at 3:58 pm on Feb. 25, 2004)

I'm sorry if I'm sounding uncompassionate or irrational. I really am thinking about what you guys are saying, and questioning why I'm having trouble fully accepting this.

As to rights from state to state, that's a tough one. There are plenty of examples of laws differing as it is, so it isn't uncommon at all. But it is a different issue because it involves a contractual agreement between two people (marriage). I suppose to your first question, I would say 'yes'. I do think it is fair and within the process for one state to accept gay marriage, and one state to reject the idea. Likewise, I would like to add that I think it is within the people of a state's rights to reject or accept legislation regarding anything they deem worthy or necessary to legislate, even morality.

the 'racism card'...I don't really feel like restating what I said, I was quite obviously a tactic that liberals pull to pull conservatives out of power. One of the worst things you can do in these times we're living in is to call someone a racist. It's a very debasing, wreckless device that is used to gain power. That's what I was talking about. Racism or any type of bigotry is not okay in my book.

I was most definitely joking

youre right, we should try to think of racists feelings in the future. theyre people too!

no no no. I'm sorry sorry sorry. What I was saying was that that is how people really damage a person's credibility these days... calling them a racist. A "tactic". It is often times baseless. People will pick one sentence out of context and put that in a soundbite to feed to the public. That's what I meant by "worst".

I was not saying that it's not right to call a spade a spade, or a racist a racist.

I realize that post was nearly indiscernable. I was having a hard time going between work and trying to post; plus one of my stupid coworkers closed out a long paragraph I had already written.

Congratulations, Rosie. May your marriage be happy and lasting.

Even though I am completely in favor of her marriage, she just seems so...evil. I guess it's all in considering that she was once the "nicest person on TV" and now she is an activist, so it takes a while to get used to her making slanderous (albeit mostly called for) statements. I remember when she and Tom Selleck got into it over guns on her show. I was not all about how she did that. Not at all. It wasn't cool. She's been different ever since.

Nonetheless, congratulations. And thanks for fixing your hair.

(Edited by richarddawson at 7:38 am on Feb. 27, 2004)

I'm not a huge fan or anything, I just wish her well. For the sake of the respectability of gay marriages everywhere, I really hope that her marriage lasts at least 5 years. If it were to end in a quick divorce, that would only fuel the fire against the movement, even as erroneous as such thinking would be (Heterosexual marriages will not be criticized because of Britney's little debacle).

(Edited by Token at 5:14 pm on Feb. 28, 2004)

Here is the best article I've read on the gay marriage issue so far.