|
Post by Seany-D on Feb 7, 2004 12:38:06 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by ebonywnd on Feb 7, 2004 13:59:20 GMT -5
That is so fucking stupid! It is the same arguement that has been going on for weeks. Why the FUCK do they care whether gay people get married or not? They don't want businesses to pay for the health care benefits? Then why not ban ALL marriages? Jesus H. Christ, these people need to be taken out behind a barn and put down like the freakin' rabid dogs they are.
-Laura "is now pissed off" McIntosh
|
|
|
Post by Ravenlock on Feb 7, 2004 14:26:22 GMT -5
Our lawmakers worry about slinging their personal theistically-laden agenda and not about the economy, healthcare, or crime. Nice. *shudders* Urge to kill... rising. ~Roger
|
|
|
Post by FishBait on Feb 7, 2004 18:05:17 GMT -5
actually it would solve all problems if there were really no such thing as a marriage in the context of the law, i mean now all it really means to be married in the eyes of the law is a tax break or something like that, it's pointless, i mean you don't have to change the custom of getting married just take away any laws dealing with it, and make everybody equal
|
|
|
Post by FishBait on Feb 7, 2004 18:05:54 GMT -5
i probably didn't explain that very well but it makes sense in my head
|
|
|
Post by Ravenlock on Feb 7, 2004 18:20:54 GMT -5
i probably didn't explain that very well but it makes sense in my head I think I see what you're getting at. Just make everyone have the same thing, a civil union. Then it would be up to their respective churches to make it a "marriage." All I care is that everyone is equal in the eyes of the law. Same name, same benefits, same detractions. I'm angry that most of the candidates are all "I'm for civil unions with equal rights, but don't call it marriage." ~Roger
|
|
|
Post by Seany-D on Feb 14, 2004 10:53:11 GMT -5
I thought that these letters in the Baltimore Sun were rather thoughtfully written. I'll be the first to acknowledge that it's one-sided -- The Sun didn't publish any con-letters -- but in Baltimore, that doesn't surprise me. www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/letters/bal-ed.le.gaymarriage14feb14,0,409642.story?coll=bal-opinion-letters Sean "it'll be a gay affair" Davis
|
|
|
Post by Ravenlock on Feb 14, 2004 12:28:05 GMT -5
There's supposed to be a big section devoted to reader comment on this issue in the LSJ tomorrow - I'm interested to see it.
~Roger
|
|
|
Post by Seany-D on Mar 9, 2004 15:06:48 GMT -5
here's an op-ed concerning the current circumvention of state law that some politicians are doing to conduct homosexual marriages. I think the editorial is well-written. www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bal-op.chapman09mar09,0,3970379.story?coll=bal-oped-headlines Sean "I wonder what the 'queer eye' guys think" Davis
|
|
|
Post by Ravenlock on Mar 10, 2004 9:39:30 GMT -5
Well, I can see a bit of the problem in that what Newsom et all are doing to be technically illegal. I can't disagree that it will cause problems down the road. I think the gay community is embracing it because they're confident this will create more positives than negatives in the long run.
And that thing about Roy Moore? Heard that one before. Roy Moore was defying the single most important amendment of the highest document of law in our nation. Newsom and Moore may both be breaking the law, but in terms of civil disregard it's like comparing shoplifting to murder. Moore never had a single leg to stand on. Newsom at least has some precedents and policies that can prop him up a bit.
~Roger
|
|
|
Post by Seany-D on Mar 10, 2004 10:30:20 GMT -5
I think the gay community is embracing it because they are getting a chance to do what they have wanted to do for quite some time, be it legal or illegal. The point that I found most interesting in Chapman's op-ed was the fact that he draws a distinction between the civil disobedience of the civil rights movement and these recent acts. That's the point I would be interested in pursuing. I am not sure if I agree with him or not, but it is a more valid argument than anything I have read elsewhere.
And then you lost me on the Moore discussion. Sounds as if you're arguing that some laws are more important than others. While I would agree that some laws on the books are bad, and others are good, wanton disregard for the rule of the law is a slippery slope. I would argue that Moore had no more or no less ground to stand on than Newsom in regards to breaking the law of the land, personal feelings aside. In a common-sense sort of way, I see where you're coming from, but philosophically, I don't think your argument holds water.
Sean "not fond of people named Moore, it seems" Davis
|
|
|
Post by Susan at work on Mar 10, 2004 13:35:03 GMT -5
I suppose the argument comparing Moore with Newsom is best argued in the sense that Newsom's actions were to circumvent the disenfranchisement of a minority group through laws made by a majority who have no real justification in making those kinds of laws (as heteros are not affected in any way by gay marriage). Moore, on the other hand, had no similar justification of his own. No one, including Moore himself, was disenfranchised by the constitutional ban on overly religious monuments and displays (despite the numerous claims to the contrary). This obviously isn't a be-all-end-all kind of argument, but I think it at least demonstrates some kind of difference in the two actions. Not that I think that necessarily absolves one or the other man of their actions in defiance of governmental duty.
As for the distinction between the gay rights movement and the civil rights movement of the 60's, I would have to both agree and disagree with the op-ed author. African-Americans were technically allowed to vote and participate in the political process after the 15th amendment, though obviously that did not happen in practice through the use of bogus means like poll taxes and voter quizzes. Gays, while able and allowed to vote, are not protected by law even in theory. Sexual orientation is still not listed in major federal anti-discrimination legislation, as is age, race, religion, and other categories. Still, gays are able to wield a greater amount of influence within the political system than African-Americans during the 60's. The general point made by the author stands, though I think the difference is less extreme and clear than what he makes it to be.
|
|
|
Post by Valvilis on Mar 10, 2004 13:40:34 GMT -5
I was just having this conversation with a gay friend today. Gay couples don't want to get "united" they want to get married, like everyone else. Frankly, I don't care who gets what, as long as everyone gets to have it (or everyone is equally denied it). I don't see what all the fuss is about, marriage is a religious activity with little to no bearing in the secular world. The state should say, "whatever," and then whichever church decides to marry homosexuals could do so and those that don't wouldn't - how fricken' hard is that?
|
|
|
Post by the anti-myrmidon on Mar 10, 2004 14:27:12 GMT -5
Jason, quit making sense. You'll have Ashcroft stalking you before you can say "Patriot Act."
|
|
|
Post by Seany-D on Mar 10, 2004 15:35:02 GMT -5
I guess it still comes down to a difference in the usage of the word "marriage", i.e., do you mean marriage in the religious sense, or marriage in the legal sense. Essentially, a civil union and a marriage should be the same in the legal sense. Xtians are playing up the use of marriage in the religious sense, automagically assuming that the rest of the world is compelled to operate under he same assumptions, while homosexuals are more interested in the legal (yet still committed) sense. If the two camps used different words, I doubt that the furor would be so pronounced.
Sean "marriage ... icky!" Davis
|
|