homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Ship's Locker   » Limbo   » Purgatory: Legalization of Gay Marriage (Page 3)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Purgatory: Legalization of Gay Marriage
The Bede's American Successor

Curmudgeon-in-Training
# 5042

 - Posted      Profile for The Bede's American Successor   Author's homepage   Email The Bede's American Successor   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by The Bede's American Successor:
Incidently, as a person that has a stake in this argument, my thoughts are that we are not seeing gay couples trying to act like het couples. Instead, over the past 40-50 years, het couples are acting more and more like gay couples. So, if het couples get benefits and responsibilities under the law, why shouldn't gay couples?

Can you explain what this means?
To simplify, there used to be the Breadwinner and the Homemaker.

Now, both are Breadwinners. (Evidence about sharing the Homemaker part is still out. [Big Grin] ) I know some cases where the wife makes more than the husband. It changes the dynamics quite a bit when there is more financial equality between the partners.

It is amazing what happens when you give women the vote, property rights, and some independent cash. They start acting more like co-partners.

--------------------
This was the iniquity of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride of wealth and food in plenty, comfort and ease, and yet she never helped the poor and the wretched.

—Ezekiel 16.49

Posts: 6079 | From: The banks of Possession Sound | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
And this you equate with gay couples? [Disappointed]

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
The Bede's American Successor

Curmudgeon-in-Training
# 5042

 - Posted      Profile for The Bede's American Successor   Author's homepage   Email The Bede's American Successor   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
And this you equate with gay couples? [Disappointed]

Well, how often do you see a wife afraid to leave her husband based upon finances anymore? It does happen still, but less likely in middle class and affluent families. Compare with marriages in the 1950s and 1960s.

Typically in gay couples have always had two sources of income.

Incidently, there are those in the gay community that do not want to see same-sex marriage because they feel gays should not enter into such a repressive institution (their opinion).

Same-sex marriage

Gay Talk Show Host Opposes Gay Marriage

--------------------
This was the iniquity of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride of wealth and food in plenty, comfort and ease, and yet she never helped the poor and the wretched.

—Ezekiel 16.49

Posts: 6079 | From: The banks of Possession Sound | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by The Bede's American Successor:
Typically in gay couples have always had two sources of income.

What do you base this on?

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Go Anne Go

Amazonian Wonder
# 3519

 - Posted      Profile for Go Anne Go   Author's homepage   Email Go Anne Go   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Geez, one posts a perfectly legitimate question, goes away to mourn being single on yet another Valentine's Day, and come back to find out that despite being warned twice by the hosts, and despite my opening paragraph, we're back to the flogging of equines who have passed into the great beyondo of:
- whether or not it is scripturally right to let gays marry
- Whether or not polygamy is the same as gay marriage (ie, if you allow one, why not 'thuther)
And of course, LFD's world domination by Christians viewpoint of things, which I thought went out of vogue during the Crusades, but have now been thus corrected. Those of you who have participiated in such things, five posting time outs in the corner and no cookies for you. Those of you who HAVE stuck to the topic (including the timely up to date conversation on what's happening in SF), extra stars awarded to all of you. You made the slog through the last 100 posts worthwhile.

It is fascinating to be a lawyer in Massachusetts at the moment, as three days of a Constitutional Amendment debate has gone down to nothing. No one can agree on anything, which of course means that nothing gets done. Ah, politics. The local Catholic priests and Bishop have been holding rallies on the Common in front of the atate house denouncing gay marriage, which many people (Catholics included) are finding a bit rich in the light of years of coverup of local priests messing with young altar boys. People are debating whether to fly to SF at the drop of a hat to get married there, which then raises the legal issues of "If you get married in SF, and it seems to be legal at the time (which my understanding is that it will be until the actions actually get struck down in the courts, which as we all know takes a while), can/should/what would the legal standing be regarding getting married in Massachusetts in May?" Which indeed is part of the interesting legal point of the Consitutional COnvention - the amendment won't come into force for a few years, so what happens then to all these interim fully legal marriages?

For those of you arguing that marriage is a sacrament, the fact is that marriage CAN BE a sacrament if that is how your religion defines it and you in fact follow/believe the tenets of your religion. But linguistically, marriage in common English (and Yankee/Canadian/Kiwi)marriage also means the civil rite as well. And if you go back and re-read my opening paragraph, my question is what are your thoughts on it if your church isn't forced to perform such ceremonies? Civil unions as currently provided for in Vermont don't give all the legal rights and benefits associated with legal civil marriage, which include but are not limited to:
tax benefits
Survivors benefits
Social security benefits
Unemployment allowances
Medicare/medicaid allowances
Inheritance tax preferences

I think there's a decent argument to be made (although not complete enough to be successful) that were the financial benefits to be struck out of marriage at law, you'd find a whole lot less people being quite so passionate about it, sad but true in the commensurate American way.

A lot of analogies are made to the legalizing interracial marriage here. And I think that comes down to whether or not you believe homosexuality is a genetic/organic thing, like race, or if you think it is something you can control, which is often people's predjudices around it. Although even the gay community tends to back off the genetic argument at the moment, because that implies that if it is a "defect" then it can be "cured."

And again, I say "don't ask whether or not it it theologically right" - that's not what this thread is about. I want to know whether if the church is taken out of it, you can support it. Because as we all know, never ever confuse God with the church. The church, whatever church, has been corrupting the kingdom of heaven since the start of religion. Because of course we are but human, and as such fallible, and as such we shall know the kingdom of heaven when we enter it, and not until. If you're gay and you get married, even if not in church, God's still gonna know about it.

--------------------
Go Anne Go, you is the bestest shipmate evah - Kelly Alveswww.goannego.com

Posts: 2227 | From: Home of the 2004 World Series Champion Red Sox | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
RuthW

liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13

 - Posted      Profile for RuthW     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Go Anne Go:
I want to know whether if the church is taken out of it, you can support it.

Absolutely. If I never voted strategically, this would probably be my political litmus test. Not allowing gay men and lesbians to marry denies them equal protection under the law, and to do this is to deny their humanity. That is the fundamental issue here for me.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Faithful Sheepdog
Shipmate
# 2305

 - Posted      Profile for Faithful Sheepdog   Email Faithful Sheepdog   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Not allowing gay men and lesbians to marry denies them equal protection under the law, and to do this is to deny their humanity. That is the fundamental issue here for me.

This just begs the question as to what marriage is. Gay men and lesbians have as much right as you or I to marry a person of the opposite sex. That they may not wish to do so is immaterial - the right is there, fully enshrined in law. I cannot see how this is failing to give them "equal protection under the law" or "denying their humanity".

The last comment almost seems to imply that marriage is essential to a fully human identity. I think the life of Christ in the gospels has something to say about that.

Neil

--------------------
"Random mutation/natural selection works great in folks’ imaginations, but it’s a bust in the real world." ~ Michael J. Behe

Posts: 1097 | From: Scotland | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365

 - Posted      Profile for Freddy   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Faithful Sheepdog,

I think you are right.

--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg

Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
M Marie M
Apprentice
# 5444

 - Posted      Profile for M Marie M   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I have a question, there are countries where gay marriage is legal (Netherlands). Why don't I hear about those places that have already made the change in these arguements?
Posts: 19 | From: Gentrified Washington, DC | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Lurker McLurker™

Ship's stowaway
# 1384

 - Posted      Profile for Lurker McLurker™     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Faithful Sheepdog:
This just begs the question as to what marriage is. Gay men and lesbians have as much right as you or I to marry a person of the opposite sex. That they may not wish to do so is immaterial

I think gay people's feelings on marrying a member of the opposite sex are a bit stronger than not wishing to do so. You make it sound like not having a taste for anchovies.

--------------------
Just War Theory- a perversion of morality?

Posts: 5661 | From: Raxacoricofallapatorius | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252

 - Posted      Profile for Divine Outlaw   Author's homepage   Email Divine Outlaw   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I tend to think that the State should keep its nose out of relationships full stop - no marriage, straight or gay should be recognised. When we married it was because it was important to us as Christians to celebrate our relationship as a sacrament, nothing whatsoever to do with a desire for State recognition. If humanists want some sort of secular relationship ceremony then good luck to them, I just fail to see why it is any concern of the State.

--------------------
insert amusing sig. here

Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Go Anne Go

Amazonian Wonder
# 3519

 - Posted      Profile for Go Anne Go   Author's homepage   Email Go Anne Go   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
DOD, are you then prepared to give up the legal benefits that go along with marriage?

And all this "we as Christians" recognizing it as a sacrament seems to overlook the fact that all other religions to my knowledge also have marriage rites.

--------------------
Go Anne Go, you is the bestest shipmate evah - Kelly Alveswww.goannego.com

Posts: 2227 | From: Home of the 2004 World Series Champion Red Sox | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Go Anne Go

Amazonian Wonder
# 3519

 - Posted      Profile for Go Anne Go   Author's homepage   Email Go Anne Go   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Oh, and one other thing. For those arguing that homosexuals already have the freedom to marry any person of the opposite sex (assuming legally free to marry), your rights too will be expanded by granting gays, or really anyone, the right to marry. You'll be able to marry anyone of the same gender as well as the opposite one! One at a time, of course, but we're not going there.

Just because you would choose not to exercise that right has almost as much bearing on the argument as to whether or not you would choose to marry the person of the opposite gender or not. We're not asking your reasons why *you* wouldn't do it.

To me it just keeps coming down to this: if you're not free to marry the person you love (again, assuming both are legally free to do so, which means not already married, of minimum age and ability to consent), then you're being discrminatd against by the state. If the state is going to award benefits based on marriage, then they should be available to everyone.

The majority of postings here seem to be in favor of civil marriage for homosexuals, stemming from (I would argue) a basis of Christian love for others. The meek, the poor, the oppressed, etc. So why are we as Christians not taking more of a stand? Is this where we let our fellow man down?

--------------------
Go Anne Go, you is the bestest shipmate evah - Kelly Alveswww.goannego.com

Posts: 2227 | From: Home of the 2004 World Series Champion Red Sox | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252

 - Posted      Profile for Divine Outlaw   Author's homepage   Email Divine Outlaw   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Go Anne Go:
DOD, are you then prepared to give up the legal benefits that go along with marriage?

And all this "we as Christians" recognizing it as a sacrament seems to overlook the fact that all other religions to my knowledge also have marriage rites.

Sorry, what in my post overlooked that? I take it as read that those of all religions and none can celebrate partnership any way they want.

No I don't think that there should be tax incentives to get married - it seems to me to encourage marriage for the 'wrong' reasons and to discriminate against people who choose not to marry. I think that people should be able to choose who their 'next of kin' is - after all, I know several people who have close non-sexual friendships, who wouldn't fit into any kind of 'marriage' legislation, gay-friendly or otherwise.

--------------------
insert amusing sig. here

Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Kyralessa
Shipmate
# 4568

 - Posted      Profile for Kyralessa   Email Kyralessa   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Go Anne Go:
Geez, one posts a perfectly legitimate question, goes away to mourn being single on yet another Valentine's Day, and come back to find out that despite being warned twice by the hosts, and despite my opening paragraph, we're back to the flogging of equines who have passed into the great beyondo of:
- whether or not it is scripturally right to let gays marry
- Whether or not polygamy is the same as gay marriage (ie, if you allow one, why not 'thuther)
And of course, LFD's world domination by Christians viewpoint of things, which I thought went out of vogue during the Crusades, but have now been thus corrected. Those of you who have participiated in such things, five posting time outs in the corner and no cookies for you. Those of you who HAVE stuck to the topic (including the timely up to date conversation on what's happening in SF), extra stars awarded to all of you. You made the slog through the last 100 posts worthwhile.

...And again, I say "don't ask whether or not it it theologically right" - that's not what this thread is about.

...You'll be able to marry anyone of the same gender as well as the opposite one! One at a time, of course, but we're not going there.

There sure is a lot of stuff in here about what we are and aren't allowed to talk about on this thread. How long have you been a host, Go Anne Go? I missed the announcement.

--------------------
In Orthodoxy, a child is considered an icon of the parents' love for each other.

I'm just glad all my other icons don't cry, crap, and spit up this much.

Posts: 1597 | From: St. Louis, MO | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Go Anne Go

Amazonian Wonder
# 3519

 - Posted      Profile for Go Anne Go   Author's homepage   Email Go Anne Go   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
At the risk of spitting the dummy here:
1) The purgatory host intervened TWICE to keep people on topic, so i don't think a little reminder was out of hand, seeing as people were ignoring the host anyway, and
2)It was my topic, and my OP, and my question. You want your own questions and topic, go start your own thread.

I think i missed the announcement that you were me.

--------------------
Go Anne Go, you is the bestest shipmate evah - Kelly Alveswww.goannego.com

Posts: 2227 | From: Home of the 2004 World Series Champion Red Sox | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Go Anne Go

Amazonian Wonder
# 3519

 - Posted      Profile for Go Anne Go   Author's homepage   Email Go Anne Go   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
More than half the posts were off topic, and we were warned about this by the hosts. 100 e-mails is a lot for anyone to wade through, and if people want to go through those dead horses entrails, then they have an appropriate place to go on the boards.

--------------------
Go Anne Go, you is the bestest shipmate evah - Kelly Alveswww.goannego.com

Posts: 2227 | From: Home of the 2004 World Series Champion Red Sox | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
The Undiscovered Country
Shipmate
# 4811

 - Posted      Profile for The Undiscovered Country   Email The Undiscovered Country   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by The Coot:
quote:
Originally posted by Kyralessa:
quote:
Originally posted by The Coot:
Affirm civil unions between gay people.
Do not affirm civil unions between polygamists.

Reason: Legally too difficult and too expensive to administer. Super, pensions etc are set up to have 1 beneficiary. Income support (welfare payments) too difficult to administer and may result in inequity.

Not convincing. Plenty of other things we do in society are expensive: trials-by-jury, for instance. Pensions could be split more than one way; it might take modifying a database, but that's hardly an insurmountable barrier. As for income inequity, obviously people shouldn't enter into a polygamous marriage if they can't afford it--just like people shouldn't enter into a monogamous marriage if they can't afford it.

And as you mentioned the "morality" reason is irrelevant to the matter of polygamous unions in civil society.

What you say about only people who can afford it should do it, is not relevant to my society. We can't legally sanction such a civil union and say 'But you have to fund yourself, if you get sick or disabled or unemployed you won't have the same rights as other Australians'. We have a social security system and everyone must have equal access to it.

Regarding the inequity. And this is more relevant in places like Oz and the UK which have a comprehensive Social Security safety net compared to the US - take for example, unemployment payments: at present one member of the couple claims and they each receive the half married rate. The whole married rate is not simply 2x the single rate; but is calculated on what it costs a couple to live (ie. it is cheaper for 2 ppl to live than one). For a group marriage - what would be the appropriate rate for all the non-working partners? A simple half married rate to all members of the marriage would disadvantage couples - is it cheaper for 4 people to live than 2? Too hard to work out - and anyway, is it fair that with one partner registered for unemployment payments the rest aren't required to look for work? Then if not, is it fair that all the other partners should have to look for work when the the single partner of a person doesn't have to?

It's a bureaucratic nightmare

UK Social Security law actually contains page after page of how to calculate benefits in polygamous marrriages. When I was a Welfare Rights Officer, I used to wish that someone in a polygamous relationship would come in for advice becuase dealing with that part of the legislation looked like an interesting challenge! Sadly, none ever did!

[ 15. February 2004, 18:31: Message edited by: Jeff Featherstone ]

--------------------
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world. The unreasonable man adapts the world to himself. Therefore all hope of progress rests with the unreasonable man.

Posts: 1216 | From: Belfast | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
RuthW

liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13

 - Posted      Profile for RuthW     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Faithful Sheepdog:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Not allowing gay men and lesbians to marry denies them equal protection under the law, and to do this is to deny their humanity. That is the fundamental issue here for me.

This just begs the question as to what marriage is. Gay men and lesbians have as much right as you or I to marry a person of the opposite sex. That they may not wish to do so is immaterial - the right is there, fully enshrined in law. I cannot see how this is failing to give them "equal protection under the law" or "denying their humanity".

The last comment almost seems to imply that marriage is essential to a fully human identity. I think the life of Christ in the gospels has something to say about that.

You're right, it is about how we define marriage. Should marriage in the eyes of the state (not the church, mind you, because we're talking about everyone, and not everyone is a Christian) be between one man and one woman or should it be between two people? As there are people in our societies whose innate sexual orientation is toward people of the same sex, the state should define marriage as a civil union between two people. To define marriage more narrowly is to deny gay people the rights and benefits that straight people have. All the business about gay people's right to marry straights is entirely beside the point.

The equal protection clause in the US Constitution is all about people's humanity:

quote:
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
If you're a person, a human being, you enjoy the same protection of the law as everyone else; note the change in language from "citizen" to "person." If we deny equal protection to any group of people or any individual, we are essentially saying that they aren't persons.

[left a word out]

[ 15. February 2004, 19:35: Message edited by: RuthW ]

Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
RuthW

liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13

 - Posted      Profile for RuthW     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Afterthought: FS, as I see you're in Scotland, I'll add that the 14th amendment became part of the Constitution in 1868, just after the US Civil War, in order to settle the question of whether freed slaves were citizens and in order to guarantee their rights under law. It really is about who counts as a human being.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Kyralessa
Shipmate
# 4568

 - Posted      Profile for Kyralessa   Email Kyralessa   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
2)It was my topic, and my OP, and my question. You want your own questions and topic, go start your own thread.
Hosts have often pointed out in the past that you can point out what you'd prefer to talk about on a thread, but you can't restrict what people actually do talk about. I haven't heard that this rule has changed.

quote:
100 e-mails is a lot for anyone to wade through
You can turn that option off, you know.

--------------------
In Orthodoxy, a child is considered an icon of the parents' love for each other.

I'm just glad all my other icons don't cry, crap, and spit up this much.

Posts: 1597 | From: St. Louis, MO | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Duo Seraphim*
Sea lawyer
# 3251

 - Posted      Profile for Duo Seraphim*   Email Duo Seraphim*       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Hosting

Take that catfight to Hell, Go Anne Go and Kyralessa.

Despite two warnings about the various Dead Horse topics from Tortuf, this thread has strayed back into Dead Horse territory and/or bickering. This thread was closed for a little while. It's back on probation. Any further excursions into Dead Horse territory will lead to its permanent closure.

Any complaints - well, you know where the Styx is.

Duo Seraphim
Purgatory Host

[ 16. February 2004, 00:23: Message edited by: Duo Seraphim ]

--------------------
2^8, eight bits to a byte

Posts: 3967 | From: Sydney Australia | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28

 - Posted      Profile for Nicolemr   Author's homepage   Email Nicolemr   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
This just begs the question as to what marriage is. Gay men and lesbians have as much right as you or I to marry a person of the opposite sex. That they may not wish to do so is immaterial - the right is there, fully enshrined in law. I cannot see how this is failing to give them "equal protection under the law" or "denying their humanity".

fs, at this point its an interesting point to consider the question of intertacial marriage.

after all, ever since the end of slavery times, a black person in america had the right to marry, same as a white person. just not to marry a white person. and of course, a white person could marry whomever they wished... as long as it wasn't a black person (interestingly, i think that intermattiage was legal between other racial pairings, just not black/white. but thats another matter). so do you think that there is anything wrong with bans on intertacial marriage?

--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!

Posts: 11803 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28

 - Posted      Profile for Nicolemr   Author's homepage   Email Nicolemr   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
sorry, my train of thought got interupted there and i didn't finish what i ment.

i am assuming that fs has nothing against interacial marriage, and that therefore he will see that it is just as spurious an arguement to say that "laws that forbid a black person to marry a white person are not unfair because the black person can marry any one they like as long as they aren't white" as it is to say "its not unfair to say that a man can marry anyone he likes as long as its not another man".

--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!

Posts: 11803 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
The Bede's American Successor

Curmudgeon-in-Training
# 5042

 - Posted      Profile for The Bede's American Successor   Author's homepage   Email The Bede's American Successor   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by The Bede's American Successor:
Typically in gay couples have always had two sources of income.

What do you base this on?
Personal experience, so I could be wrong. Even so, its not like I've only met same-sex couples in the Seattle area. I do read. I have yet to see a long-term gay couple without both people working, provided both could work or weren't retired.

To make myself clearer on the type of relationship I'm talking about, let's rule out the type I'm not talking about. You will find cases of some young golddiggers living off of their daddies, but those relationships seem never to last all that long. Somebody always tires of the other person for some reason.

In a same-sex partnership there is still the possibility of being dumped without the benefit of divorce. While one party may be able to force the other party split the property in some cases (see the Washington state case links above), I haven't heard of a court awarding palimony yet (although anything is possible). Therefore, it is advisable for both parties to work.

You may know of a couple where one of the parties doesn't work. Do you? Is one of them independently wealthy?

Even so, I think we are back to the point I was trying to make that case law is currently being built in this area because statutes are missing. There is already a working arrangement between two adults with possible children defined by statute: marriage. Is it wise to re-invent the wheel using case law?

--------------------
This was the iniquity of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride of wealth and food in plenty, comfort and ease, and yet she never helped the poor and the wretched.

—Ezekiel 16.49

Posts: 6079 | From: The banks of Possession Sound | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged
Josephine

Orthodox Belle
# 3899

 - Posted      Profile for Josephine   Author's homepage   Email Josephine   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by The Bede's American Successor:
You may know of a couple where one of the parties doesn't work. Do you? Is one of them independently wealthy?

Yes, and no.

Both are engineers. They both worked when that was necessary for them both to have medical insurance. As soon as one employer began to offer benefits to domestic partners, they signed the required affidavits, then one of them quit to be home full time.

--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!

Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Alt Wally

Cardinal Ximinez
# 3245

 - Posted      Profile for Alt Wally     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
My wife left work when we had our first kid, we aren't independently wealthy by any stretch of the imagination. Most of the people I know with kids have made the same choice.

I don't think this is necessarily pertinent to this debate though.

Posts: 3684 | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
M Marie M
Apprentice
# 5444

 - Posted      Profile for M Marie M   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by nicolemrw:
after all, ever since the end of slavery times, a black person in america had the right to marry, same as a white person. just not to marry a white person. and of course, a white person could marry whomever they wished... as long as it wasn't a black person (interestingly, i think that intermattiage was legal between other racial pairings, just not black/white. but thats another matter). so do you think that there is anything wrong with bans on intertacial marriage?

Correction. Laws regarding interracial marriage were local ones. Southern states, such as Viriginia (see the Loving case)went out of their way make interracial marriage and any other interracial Black/White pairing illeagal. But one example I can throw out is Black abolitionsist Frederick Douglass' 2nd wife Helen Pitts, who was White. The US also had some very nasty local laws descriminating against other ethinic groups (Chinese, Native Americans) which may have made any interacial marriage difficult, but I haven't studied that part of history.

Sorry but on various boards folks have been using Black History badly in their arguements for gay marriage, figured since it is Black History month in the US I need to correct some blanket statements.

Carry on with your arguements, but get your history right. Also in the case of us ethinics we are identified as that ethinic from the time of birth so any descrimination we can encounter early. Homosexuals might not encounter it until they have identified themselves as such, so I find the race/orientation comparisons shallow.

Posts: 19 | From: Gentrified Washington, DC | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Faithful Sheepdog
Shipmate
# 2305

 - Posted      Profile for Faithful Sheepdog   Email Faithful Sheepdog   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by nicolemrw:
fs, at this point its an interesting point to consider the question of intertacial marriage.

after all, ever since the end of slavery times, a black person in america had the right to marry, same as a white person. just not to marry a white person. and of course, a white person could marry whomever they wished... as long as it wasn't a black person (interestingly, i think that intermattiage was legal between other racial pairings, just not black/white. but thats another matter). so do you think that there is anything wrong with bans on intertacial marriage?

M Marie M has answered this beter than I could, since I was going to ask how universal the interracial marriage laws were in the USA. From what I know of them, I find them utterly indefensible. The UK certainly has its racial problems, but to my knowledge, we've never had a law against interracial marriage.

For a comprehensive examination of the alleged parallel between the 20th century civil rights stuggle for black people, and the present struggles over homosexuality, see this article by an American Lutheran professor at a European seminary.

Neil

--------------------
"Random mutation/natural selection works great in folks’ imaginations, but it’s a bust in the real world." ~ Michael J. Behe

Posts: 1097 | From: Scotland | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
HenryT

Canadian Anglican
# 3722

 - Posted      Profile for HenryT   Author's homepage   Email HenryT   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Alt Wally:
... I haven't heard anybody say government should get out of the marriage business and I think it's unlikely that will happen.

Exactly that was floated as an option in Canada - Discussion Paper - scroll down about a third.

IIRC, in Canada, 300+ separate references to spouse in the laws would need to be amended.

Present situation in Canada - Ontario and British Columbia have gay marriage by court order. The Federal Government has sent draft legislation to the Supreme Court, in a reference process, which essentially invites the court to comment before the bill is introduced, to keep it clear of the legal reefs and shoals of the existing decisions.

--------------------
"Perhaps an invincible attachment to the dearest rights of man may, in these refined, enlightened days, be deemed old-fashioned" P. Henry, 1788

Posts: 7231 | From: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Josephine

Orthodox Belle
# 3899

 - Posted      Profile for Josephine   Author's homepage   Email Josephine   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Alt Wally:
My wife left work when we had our first kid, we aren't independently wealthy by any stretch of the imagination. Most of the people I know with kids have made the same choice.

I don't think this is necessarily pertinent to this debate though.

I thought, from the context, that the question applied to gay couples, not to straight. I think we all know a lot of straight couples where only one partner works, but fewer gay couples.

--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!

Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Go Anne Go

Amazonian Wonder
# 3519

 - Posted      Profile for Go Anne Go   Author's homepage   Email Go Anne Go   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
But again does it truly merit an enquiry as to whether or not both parties, or only one party, or even if either party are going to work in order for a marriage license to be issued? Does it actually impact whether or not a marriage license should be recognized?

The thing is, everyone will know an example of a this where it worked and a that where it didn't. The longest lasting relationship in any of the multiply married and divorced branches of my family is my half-brother's interracial homosexual relationship. (And interpolitical - John's a lefty democrat, Franklin's a W Republican.) I know other gay couples I'd have paid good money for a restraining order to keep them apart, and have other pro or con examples for almost any viewpoint as to why someone should or shouldn't be allowed to get married.

All of which I think only highlights what it is all about - when you deny someone a legal benefit (and since this is a legal fight, legal benefit is what it is all about)categorically, the goverenment has to demonstrate in the US a *compelling* interest and reason for so doing. And so far, they've not come up with one yet, and I think that is why this effort to legalize gay marriage is going to succeed. Particularly when put into context of Canada's recent legalization of same, and our arch-Conservative Supreme Court's recognition that state laws against homosexual acts between consenting adults are unConstitutional. It is going to happen, and amazingly I think it is going to happen quickly.

The revolution will be legalized. How will Christians respond? With loving arms and grace, or with mass condemnation? Which makes us better Christians in the end?

--------------------
Go Anne Go, you is the bestest shipmate evah - Kelly Alveswww.goannego.com

Posts: 2227 | From: Home of the 2004 World Series Champion Red Sox | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
The Bede's American Successor

Curmudgeon-in-Training
# 5042

 - Posted      Profile for The Bede's American Successor   Author's homepage   Email The Bede's American Successor   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
quote:
Originally posted by Alt Wally:
My wife left work when we had our first kid, we aren't independently wealthy by any stretch of the imagination. Most of the people I know with kids have made the same choice.

I don't think this is necessarily pertinent to this debate though.

I thought, from the context, that the question applied to gay couples, not to straight. I think we all know a lot of straight couples where only one partner works, but fewer gay couples.
Where this came from was my personal observation that over the past 40-50 years het marriages were becoming more and more like gay partnerships. That is, from a time when the wife was a homemaker that did not earn a paycheck (although she added plenty to the marriage and family), to a situation where both partners tend to have some ability to earn their own paycheck. Even when a wife stays home for a while to care for a child, she probably worked before having the child, and knows she could go back to work afterwards.

As more and more gay couples raise children and own property together, the distinctions between the two types of families are disappearing rapidly. That is, there are two paychecks--or the potential for two paychecks, property, and children.

Therefore, the rush to demand "gay marriage" is probably more of a result of not seeing any appreciable difference between the types of partnership. I have a feeling (but no stats to prove) that many judges and child protection workers wished this was all worked out.

Because of this, there is a growing body of case law that is defining the type of relationship I have with my partner. This means gay partnershps become an issue of letting the courts to define in a piece-by-piece manner, or it becomes something tackled through legislation. There is no practical option of "none of the above."

The logical thing would be to take the existing relationship (marriage) and extend it to same-sex couples, as the differences between het and gay partnerships have essentially disappeared. Legislation and case law already exists on how to handle various situations. If gay couples are given some separate-but-equal standing, society will have to re-create the wheel, and it is going to be de facto marriage, anyway.

This is an important issue, as there is more at stake than who gets the Waterford. There can be children and other familial issues.

--------------------
This was the iniquity of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride of wealth and food in plenty, comfort and ease, and yet she never helped the poor and the wretched.

—Ezekiel 16.49

Posts: 6079 | From: The banks of Possession Sound | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged
La Sal
Shipmate
# 4195

 - Posted      Profile for La Sal   Email La Sal   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Go Anne Go:

quote:
...and that is why this effort to legalize gay marriage is going to succeed.
From your lips to God's...err...the court's ears!

--------------------
Formerly Molly Brown

Posts: 175 | From: sonoran desert | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Duo Seraphim*
Sea lawyer
# 3251

 - Posted      Profile for Duo Seraphim*   Email Duo Seraphim*       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Welcome to the Ship, M Marie M - and to Purgatory in particular. Do have a look at the other boards and get the general feel of the place. Please also have a look at the 10 Commandments (the general posting rules of the Ship, found in the blue sidebar to the left of your screen.)

Pleasant voyage!

Duo Seraphim
Purgatory Host

[ 17. February 2004, 03:38: Message edited by: Duo Seraphim ]

--------------------
2^8, eight bits to a byte

Posts: 3967 | From: Sydney Australia | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
RuthW

liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13

 - Posted      Profile for RuthW     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by M Marie M:
Correction. Laws regarding interracial marriage were local ones. Southern states, such as Viriginia (see the Loving case)went out of their way make interracial marriage and any other interracial Black/White pairing illeagal.

They were state laws, not local laws, and 40 of the 48 states had them at various different times. The California state supreme court struck down California's law against interracial marriage in 1948, as it was unconstitutional; it was the first state court to do so. This was by no means a purely southern thing.

For a summary of legal cases thought by Marriage Equality California to be relevant to same-sex marriage, see here.

quote:
Also in the case of us ethinics we are identified as that ethinic from the time of birth so any descrimination we can encounter early. Homosexuals might not encounter it until they have identified themselves as such, so I find the race/orientation comparisons shallow.
There are of course differences between being discriminated against on the basis of race and being discriminated against on the basis of sexual orientation. Many black people and other people of color will probably have their first experience of discrimination while they are still children. Gays and lesbians may not experience overt discrimination until they've come out, but many of them are made to feel that there's something wrong with them from an early age because there are so many unthinking expressions of dislike of gay people in our society. They may be rejected by their own families because of their sexual orientation, while people of color generally don't get tossed out of the house because of their race. (Though the recent discussion of Essie May Washington-Williams' experiences may be relevant here.)

The article Faithful Sheepdog refers to makes an interesting point:

quote:
Skin color and sexual desire are not, in fact, simply analogous human characteristics, since sexual desires, like many other sorts of desire and unlike skin color or bone structure, are necessarily the subject of moral evaluation in any ethical system.
But it goes from there to evaluate desire for a person of the same sex as morally wanting on biblical grounds. What we're talking about on this thread is what the state can and should do. The state really has no basis for or interest in defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman. This is not to say that the state does not make moral evaluations of behaviors; it certainly does, and rightly so. But it does so on the basis of societal consensus.

The article also goes on to argue:

quote:
While [Martin Luther] King's struggle was for the purification of moral discourse, purging it of an alien element that distorted it, the homosexual rights movement is an attack on moral discourse itself, making any evaluation of behavior or character logically impossible.
and

quote:
The whole point of the homosexual rights movement, however, is to rule the moral question out of bounds ahead of time. Homosexual desire is a part of one's identity and any moral examination of that desire that does not automatically affirm it as morally good is a personal attack on one's identity. The result is the end of the dialogue, especially moral dialogue. Confrontation and violence (verbal and otherwise) become the order of the day.
This is simply not true. The homosexual rights movement does not rule out moral evaluation of homosexual behavior. It challenges those who would judge homosexuality or homosexual behavior to be wrong to give their criteria and evidence for such a judgement, a challenge which is met with spluttering, Bible-thumping, and the unsupported claim that allowing same-sex couples the legal protections of marriage threatens the institution of marriage.

When the state regulates behavior, it has to have a compelling interest to do so - it's got to be for the good of society as a whole. The fact is, society stands to benefit from allowing same-sex couples to marry legally. According to the Institute for American Values,

quote:
Because marriage is a shared norm, and not just a private relationship, Americans have a shared understanding of what marriage means, including "settling down," acting responsibly, and assuming adult roles. ... Cohabitors, for the most part, do not reap the same health benefits as the married do, because there are no shared social norms about how cohabitors "should" behave, and because cohabitors typically have not made a permanent lifelong commitment to be responsible for and responsible to another adult.
(For those keeping score at home, yes, this is the first time I've ever used a quote from the Institute for American Values to support an argument. [Big Grin] )
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208

 - Posted      Profile for Zach82     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
While I technically remain unresolved on the issue of gay marriage, I did notice that this schmoe in San Francisco that took it upon himself to issue marriage licenses to gays is as much a greasy bastard who is grandstanding his single issue, as that schmoe judge down south that took it upon himself to erect the ten commandments in his courthouse. [Mad]

Zach

--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice

Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
RuthW

liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13

 - Posted      Profile for RuthW     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I think that "schmoe" in San Francisco is a hero. Go read "Civil Disobedience," Zeke.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Ruth, I had to read your post 3 times before I realized you weren't giving the SF definitin of the word "schmoe" but rather praising hizzoner. [Hot and Hormonal]

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716

 - Posted      Profile for ChastMastr   Author's homepage   Email ChastMastr   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
I think the surest way to preserve my rights to live my life as I see fit, and to worship my God as I see fit, is to protect the rights of others, when the government intrudes on them.

If that makes me a secularist, so be it. I've been called worse.

[Overused] God [Overused] bless [Overused] you [Overused]

David
"When they came for the X, I didn't speak up, when they came for the Y, etc., then they came for me and no one was left, etc."

--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity

Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208

 - Posted      Profile for Zach82     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
I think that "schmoe" in San Francisco is a hero. Go read "Civil Disobedience," Zeke.
You meant "Zach," right?

Do you think it wise to allow judges to deliberately misinterpret the law to grandstand their issues? I happen to believe that judges should be vanguards of the law, not extremists twisting the law around to suit their own particular political beliefs. Judges, of all people, should know how the system works.

Zach

[ 17. February 2004, 20:53: Message edited by: Zach82 ]

--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice

Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Louise
Shipmate
# 30

 - Posted      Profile for Louise   Email Louise   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Gavin Newsom who made the decision is the newly-elected mayor of San Francisco not a judge.

The only judges involved have temporarily delayed ruling on the matter for legal reasons and will rule later in the week.

As I understand it, the mayor challenged state law as contrary to the US constitution. Whether he's right on that or not will be decided by the courts.


L.

--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.

Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208

 - Posted      Profile for Zach82     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Drat, how did I get it into my mind a judge was involved?

Anyway, it doesn't change the problematic nature of politicians ignoring the law and the process of law to grandstand their single political issue of choice.

Zach

[ 17. February 2004, 21:42: Message edited by: Zach82 ]

--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice

Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
RuthW

liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13

 - Posted      Profile for RuthW     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
My apologies, I did mean "Zach."

It's not grandstanding, Zach. There's a good chance he's actually sacrificing the future of his political career for what he thinks is right, because this sort of thing is not going to play well statewide; he won't be able to get past being mayor of San Francisco.

Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
The Bede's American Successor

Curmudgeon-in-Training
# 5042

 - Posted      Profile for The Bede's American Successor   Author's homepage   Email The Bede's American Successor   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
I think that "schmoe" in San Francisco is a hero. Go read "Civil Disobedience," Zeke.
You meant "Zach," right?

Do you think it wise to allow judges to deliberately misinterpret the law to grandstand their issues? I happen to believe that judges should be vanguards of the law, not extremists twisting the law around to suit their own particular political beliefs. Judges, of all people, should know how the system works.

Zach

First, it was the mayor, not a judge.

Second, the mayor's decision is based upon the California state constitution, which trumps any state law.

Third, a case could be made from the US constitution, which trumps state law and constitution. As someone quoted above:

quote:
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. (emphasis added)
Yes, the mayor's decision is based politics. And, "politics is local."

There is a history of civil disobedience in the US to force a point. Sometimes you win doing this; sometimes you lose. But, sometimes this becomes the only way to force consideration of a point when those that aren't affected are dragging their heals, and not reading their constitutions.

Besides, case law is being built right now on how to handle same-sex partnerships. Same-sex partners own property. Same-sex partners have children. Either we continue to create something new from scratch, or use the existing laws.

--------------------
This was the iniquity of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride of wealth and food in plenty, comfort and ease, and yet she never helped the poor and the wretched.

—Ezekiel 16.49

Posts: 6079 | From: The banks of Possession Sound | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208

 - Posted      Profile for Zach82     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
it should be obvious to a mayor, Bede, that constitutional law is not only the constitution itself, but also the volumes and volumes of law written ~on~ the constitution.

We have a democratic means of sorting these things out. And when a politician ignores that democratic process, it all seems so.... undemocratic.

I, for one, am not willing to sacrifice the democratic process for my political issues.

Zach

--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice

Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Lou Poulain
Shipmate
# 1587

 - Posted      Profile for Lou Poulain   Email Lou Poulain   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Constitutional law is case law. All these issues were decided adjudicating cases. I think the strategy is very deliberate, to force a court decision in order to thereby get the case into the appellate system. The basic question is whether the equal protection clause in the California State Constitution applies to the issue of marriage of same-sex partners. Also at play is separation of church and state, since much of the motivation to fight same-sex marriage is based on religious argument. When the president says that marriage is "sacred," he is making a value judgement couched in religious language. There is nothing in state or national law about the "sacredness" of marriage. There is alot, however, in the law about economics and rights and priveleges.

I agree with another poster that Gaven Newsome's political career outside the city limits of "The City" is now dust. But I don't think that he cares so very much.

It interests me that so many have participated in this very symbolic gesture. I do know that if I were gay and partnered, I would have found a way to be in The City this weekend getting married.

Lou

Posts: 526 | From: Sunnyvale CA USA | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
basso

Ship’s Crypt Keeper
# 4228

 - Posted      Profile for basso   Email basso   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Has it occurred to any of the ECUSAns on the board that the weddings in San Francisco bear a strong resemblance to the Philadelphia Ordinations in 1974?

I don't know if the courts are going to accept Mayor Newsom's fait accompli as readily as General Convention did the unlawful ordinations, but I admire him for taking the step.

b.

Posts: 4358 | From: Bay Area, Calif | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Go Anne Go

Amazonian Wonder
# 3519

 - Posted      Profile for Go Anne Go   Author's homepage   Email Go Anne Go   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Ah, but the democratic means to sort these things out isn't necessarily just the voting of the people (which is good, because we have such a low voter turnout anyway). If there was a popular vote on this, it would probably lose. But that doesn't make the marriages wrong. It makes them unpopular. As one lawmaker in Massachusetts was quoted as saying during the constitutional amendment debates here last week "If we put giving prisoners only one meal a day of bread and water, it would pass. But that's unconsitutional as well." I think he's got a really valid point.

None of the great social changes of their times, such as giving women rights, giving different races the same rights, and now giving homosexuals rights were popular, and some of them still aren't. But they're fair and equal under the law. The law isn't a popularity contest.

--------------------
Go Anne Go, you is the bestest shipmate evah - Kelly Alveswww.goannego.com

Posts: 2227 | From: Home of the 2004 World Series Champion Red Sox | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208

 - Posted      Profile for Zach82     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
It's the lawfulness of that mayor's actions that are in question, Anne, not their popularity. He is going to lose the appeal to a higher court, and everyone knows it.

Zach

--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice

Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools