|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Legalization of Gay Marriage
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by GoAnneGo
So in that case, call everything which isn't a church wedding sacrament a civil union. Which I believe is currently being proposed in Canadia. The rights and benefits come from the civil union, whether you are same sex or different, and the churches can marry or refuse you as they see fit.
I'd vote for that, G.A.G.
[ 27. February 2004, 03:49: Message edited by: Mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
CorgiGreta
Shipmate
# 443
|
Posted
So would I, but I'm afraid we would be outvoted by a landslide even in our three respective (and relatively liberal) states.
Greta
Posts: 3677 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
I'd vote for it, if people insist on not adopting my anarchistic alternative!
Wonder how long it is until we have this debate in the UK?
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28
|
Posted
just as an item of interest, the mayor of the small town of new paltz here in new york has just started offering marriage lisences to gay couples. way to go!
--------------------
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
|
|
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
From the first link above:
quote:
"As conservative Republicans, we are outraged that any Republican—particularly the leader of our party and this nation—would support any effort to use our sacred United States Constitution as a way of scoring political points in an election year,” Guerriero said.
Interesting that the Log Cabin Republicans' Executive Director is using the "sacred Constitution" rhetoric. This is something I ordinarily associate with the far right, not the moderate right.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28
|
Posted
ruth, i am quite sure that the speaker knows his audience. if you have an audience that thinks gay marriage should be illegal, but that has a high reverence for the constitution, then tell 'em that such an amendment would be an insult to the constitution (which it would be), don't waste time trying to convince them that gay marriage is acceptable. its exactly the rhetoric i would use in that situation.
besides, why should a high opinon of the constitution be considered a right-wing position? i'd be a bit leery of using the word "sacred" about the constitution, but i'd come pretty close. especially about the bill of rights.
--------------------
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
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
I think that deserves its own thread. Off I go ...
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Xavierite
Shipmate
# 2575
|
Posted
Given the thread's previous excursion into cartooning, I thought it might be interesting to note that Josh Ferrin, this year's John Locher Memorial Award winner (for best college editorial cartoonist) has managed to kick up a bit of controversy with his two recent cartoons on homosexual unions: here and here.
Some not wholly positive responses can be read on Daryl Cagle's blog here.
Posts: 2307 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sine Nomine*
Ship's backstabbing bastard
# 3631
|
Posted
I would so love to ask Dubya why, if he wants to defend marriage, he doesn't propose a constitutional amendment to make divorce illegal unless the life of the husband or wife is at risk.
...if he wants to stand by his principles and all.
Posts: 10696 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ReginaShoe
Shipmate
# 4076
|
Posted
Hear, hear, Sine.
Speaking as a woman who has been married to the same man for 14 years, I do not feel the slightest bit threatened or undermined by same-sex couples getting married. On the contrary, I feel this institution to which I am so committed being quite validated.
You know what really makes me feel like maybe I'm some kind of loser for staying in a relationship and sticking it out? Freakin' Britney Spears acting like going through a marriage ceremony is just a party stunt, or God knows how many (hetero!) celebrity marriages that don't last as long as a jug of milk.
Well, OK, maybe they don't make me feel like a loser, but they certainly make me want to tell my kids "Don't Do That!" Which is not the reaction I have to a same-sex wedding. (Now, if said wedding resulted in a divorce within the week, I would be just as disgusted as I am with Ms. Britney.)
--------------------
"If you have any poo, fling it now." - Mason the chimp
Posts: 598 | From: Colorado | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Donne
Renaissance Man
# 220
|
Posted
I thought I would offer this online journal entry as an example of how people at the coalface are experiencing and responding to gay marriage and the possible amendments.
It is a response to the comment: "So what's the big deal with this whole gay marriage amendment thing anyway? I don't get why the gays think it's such a big deal." Quite emotive but still interesting for those who would like an insight into the human element I think.
The last para seemed like not a bad rule of thumb regarding constitutional amendment:
quote:
I really liked what Ted Kenneday said about this, he said that as a nation we should be really, really careful enacting any amendment which would be designed expressly to take rights and freedoms away from Americans rather than give them more.
Posts: 13667 | From: Perth, W.A. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
I'm still wondering ....
In those jurisdictions that propose to limit marriage by law (or constitutional amendment) to "a man and a woman," will an intersexual person be permitted to marry?
If so, how will it be determined, for purposes of the law, whom they are permitted to marry?
What if they didn't discover their intersexual status until after they married?
Inquiring minds want to know....
--------------------
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
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
I would so love to ask Dubya why, if he wants to defend marriage, he doesn't propose a constitutional amendment to make divorce illegal unless the life of the husband or wife is at risk.
...if he wants to stand by his principles and all.
Because it would hit home with many members of Congress, and financial backers, and--oh, yes--voters.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Divorce is an Us thing. Gay marriage is a Them thing. Beside W's personal views, he can unite Us (majority) against Them (minority).
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zeke
Ship's Inquirer
# 3271
|
Posted
In Arizona the state leg (who apparently think they have nothing better to do with their time) passed some kind of a resolution last week to send to Washington, calling for the proposed amendment. The whole thing was a little hard for me to fathom, but I was amused by some proposed "amendments" to the resolution by one of the gay leg members, which included the requirement that anyone wishing to be married provide physical proof of sexual identity, and ensured annulment of any marriage that did not produce issue within 5 years. Couples who were not physically capable of reproducing would not be issued marriage licenses. Don't remember the others.
--------------------
No longer the Bishop of Durham
-----------
If men are so wicked with religion, what would they be without it? --Benjamin Franklin
Posts: 5259 | From: Deep in the American desert | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
So it's not just our state legislature that can't find productive ways to fill its time. ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
J. J. Ramsey
Shipmate
# 1174
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zeke:
The whole thing was a little hard for me to fathom, but I was amused by some proposed "amendments" to the resolution by one of the gay leg members, which included the requirement that anyone wishing to be married provide physical proof of sexual identity, and ensured annulment of any marriage that did not produce issue within 5 years. Couples who were not physically capable of reproducing would not be issued marriage licenses.
Doesn't seem hard for me to fathom at all. Looks like the gay members of the legislature took a few pages from Jonathan Swift's playbook and send some "modest proposals" to Congress.
--------------------
I am a rationalist. Unfortunately, this doesn't actually make me rational.
Posts: 1490 | From: Tallmadge, OH | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
HenryT
Canadian Anglican
# 3722
|
Posted
I came across The Ontario Court Decision while looking at something related.
It's worth reading on how the court treated your favorite argument ... lots of them are in there.
quote:
Summary:
(1) the existing common law definition of marriage is “the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others”; ...
and
quote:
Remedy:
(1) declare the existing common law definition of marriage to be invalid to the extent that it refers to “one man and one woman”;
(2) reformulate the common law definition of marriage as “the voluntary union for life of two persons to the exclusion of all others”;
(3) order the declaration of invalidity in (1) and the reformulated definition in (2) to have immediate effect; ...
I find it noteworthy that the prior definition was "common law" - case law, not legislated.
I also find it noteworthy that the Court did not specify "natural persons", leaving the theoretical possibility of two corporations marrying.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Go Anne Go
Amazonian Wonder
# 3519
|
Posted
I was cruising through the massequality.org website, and came across a handy dandy chart showing the difference between marriage, shacking up and civil unions. You can find it here: The benefits of marriage versus civil unions
What struck me was something I had not thought of before - if there is same sex marriage or civil union, a partner who abandons a child can be gone after for child support or prosecuted criminally for child abandonment. So same sex marriage is BETTER for children!
I love it.
[Edited for link UBB.]
[ 02. March 2004, 17:48: Message edited by: Tortuf ]
--------------------
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
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Henry Troup:
I also find it noteworthy that the Court did not specify "natural persons", leaving the theoretical possibility of two corporations marrying.
It would give a new meaning to the term "corporate incest".
--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]
Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view
