For the life of me, I can't understand why anybody else's state of marriage or living together or sodomy or even ice-cream-eating would be any business of Bill Frist's. Just how does someone else's life style affect him? WASHINGTON -- The Senate majority leader said Sunday he supported a proposed constitutional amendment to ban homosexual marriage in the United States. Sen. Bill Frist, R-Tenn., said the Supreme Court's decision last week on gay sex threatens to make the American home a place where criminality is condoned. (Full text here (http://www.thedailytimes.com/sited/story/html/136050)) Our government may have been founded by Puritans, but history moves on. If two men want to bump uglies in the name of marital bliss, I guess Frist wants them to do it "dutch" style and go to the Netherlands. "I very much feel that marriage is a sacrament, and that sacrament should extend and can extend to that legal entity of a union between -- what is traditionally in our Western values has been defined -- as between a man and a woman. So I would support the amendment." Well, Billy, if marriage is a "sacrament" maybe the government should get it's hands out of it completely--no more supporting it, recognizing it, or regulating it. There is, after all, a separation of church and state. And given that many religions, and therefore people, don't consider marriage to be a sacrament, but rather a civil contract, this oaf is really talking about HIS religion. Hell, even The Church didn't take over marriage until the middle ages, as it took quite a while to stamp out the older, more civilized, practices of "jumping the broomstick" and so on.

The logical next step would be to outlaw marriage-by-contract (civil marriage) and force those of other (or no) religions to get married in Frist's chosen church -- if they don't want their children to be bastards. Maybe while they're at it, we can put in a ban on racially mixed marriages as well.

This is just one more effort to ensure that the State can have access to the most private part of one's life, to have a way to violate your privacy, and to further strangle the Constitution and the Bill of Rights

:m: Peace.

I was just coming on to the forum to post about this exact article. i just read it before coming here.

i like your post, the religious right is very fond of the slippery slope argument and you turned it around nicely.

I would like to point out that homosexual marages are already illigal under the federal governments defence of marage act. but it happened rather quietly, not many people noticed.

the gay rights movement really needs to kick it up a notch. Although peaceful protest alone never gets peoples attention. What we really need to bring the attention of the nation onto gay rights is an armed violent protest group. That way everyone can say "Hey, using violence to protect your rights is WRONG" and the ligitamate peaceful gay rights people can go on TV nodding thier heads and saying "Yes its true, they should be more peaceful... see we are reasonable people, cant we have some rights?"

while Canada (Ontario in particular) is slowly turning into Amsterdam, I see that our friends south of the border still have their brains.

Is it your intent, then, otheadp, to imply that bringing prejudiced religious views, into politics in order to create a situation where we essentially have mob rule dictating that certain people can not have rights which effect no one but themselves simply because the idea of it makes the masses uncomfortable, is something that takes a particularly large amount of brain power?

The idea that an amendment to the constitution in order to both deny homosexuals the right to marry, on top of denying states the right to recognize marriage (which the proposed amendment also does, if I've read correctly) on top of the already established Defense of Marriage Act, could be proposed in our congress just makes me sick. When people start talking about revoking the rights of others, in situations where having such rights does not impact other people in any way is just pissing on our constitution. It's nothing but thugery and mob-rule, this is not what democracy is supposed to be about, this is not what a free nation is supposed to be about.

Though I very much doubt that this proposed amendment will actually gain any legitimacy, or have any hope of a chance of being enacted, I still can't manage to keep the bile rising in my throat at the very idea of it.

I've got to agree with Spymoose on this one, if the religious right is so intent on screwing over innocent people, then eventually someone is going to have to get violent, it is the only recourse left once those in power have abandoned reason, and turned to such petty bullying.

Its religion the state can't dictate that. It will fail.

a marage is a legal entity as well. Gay couples married by churches that alow such things are not legaly recognized. Legal aspects of state recognized marage give things like divorse benifits, factor into custody battles, change how you are taxed, and in the corporate world can change things like insurance coverage. Gay couples who wish to be married are denied all these things.

I should have used Feds. The constitution applies to the federal goverment and not corporations.

Originally posted by otheadp
while Canada (Ontario in particular) is slowly turning into Amsterdam, I see that our friends south of the border still have their brains. Agreed. Would someone please shoot that fucked up Prime Minister we have?

Conservatism is fear.

Originally posted by SpyMoose
a marage is a legal entity as well. Gay couples married by churches that alow such things are not legaly recognized. Legal aspects of state recognized marage give things like divorse benifits, factor into custody battles, change how you are taxed, and in the corporate world can change things like insurance coverage. Gay couples who wish to be married are denied all these things.
In my home state(Vermont) gay marriage is not legally recognized, but gay couples can get all the legal benefits of marriage by getting a "civil union". I believe there are other states with similiar laws.
I wonder if the language of this proposed amendment only applies if the name marriage is used or if it would outlaw giving gay people rights in general.

*edit*
Neither this Constitution nor the constitution of any state under state or federal law shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.'' (italics mine)

I guess its the latter :rolleyes:

The sodomy laws were just overturned on a basis of being unconstitutional right? This means gays can now have their fun and not get in legal trouble for it. Now they are trying to make gay marrige constitutionaly illegal. Those are the facts as I understand them. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Now my immediate train of thought when I heard this went something like: Christains think sex outside of marrige is wrong. Gay sex is legal. Now they want to outlaw marrige. Does this mean they are willing to accept the sex outside of marrige, or will this new ammendment put the sodomy laws back into affect?
Somebody clear this up for me please.
-Belle

Originally posted by Munchmausen
Conservatism is fear.Yes. People who rail against homosexuality like it was contagious get all uptight and snotty when they are labeled homophobic. They say phobia is fear and fear is not what they feel. They're lying. Fear is often at the root of hatred. If you want to manipulate people into hating something, it's easier if you convince them to be afraid of it first. Politicians and priests all know that and they use it to work us.

W00t, luckily for you I'm not homophobic, hence no fear.

Originally posted by Belle
I'm confused
as well you should be. somebody explain when religious people have ever made sense. the church and state have never been separate except to deny those of us who went to private school anything we might possibly need to get an education but that's an entirely different rant. it's time the christian conservatives get their hands out of politics all together. religion has no place in a reasonable society. the worst part is that it supports a single religion. there are plenty of religions that happily support gay marriages and perform the ceremonies. the puritans (pure as they were) left england to get away from an official religion. now they seek to make it the official religion here. it makes becoming a professional sniper sound like a pretty good idea.

all we need to do is find another evil that they can scapegoat for the "Delcine of civilization" ... maybe we can get some people on the psudoscience board to help us out here. If we can make the christian right believe that UFOs are threatening "traditional values" then i bet its going to be ET's that cant marry instead of homosexual couples.

I'm guessing the power of religion in this country is too strong for the gay movement to succeed in making gay marriage legal.

If they do, well, kudos to them.

It'll happen eventualy. We just happen to be hearing so damn much from the religious right lately because they are starting to see that their influence is finally waning in America. They can see their own end comming and just want to make a lot of noise before it's upon them, as if that's going to help their cause.

Well, it would be so cool to see marriage counseling books for lesbian marriages :bugeye: :D

Originally posted by Zero
Well, it would be so cool to see marriage counseling books for lesbian marriages :bugeye: :D

Until you turn about 16 and maybe suddenly just stop giggling at the thought of it.

Zero:[while in the self help section of a book store] *Giggle giggle titter snort!* this book is about girlies who like girlies! OMG!

Mystech: you're gay.

ok, some more 2-cents:

"marriage" is a religious ceremony/union.
"civil union" is what it is... a civil union with no religion in it.
let gays have their rights re: inheritance, divorce (i'm giggling), alamony (i'm rotf) cause after, the US (and canadian) gov'ts are secular so religion shouldn't play part in it.

but to call it "marriage" ? :eek: :bugeye:
... :mad:
i say "fuck off" to dem gay ppl. let them make up their own millenia-old religious tradition and then change it as they please. thank you very much.

info passed along by my good friend who's going into social work:

lesbian couples have the best track record. have longest relationships. most equal within the marriage in terms of salary and household duties. unfortunately have the least sex.

gay male couples have the most sex. close to equal within the marriage but whoever makes the least amount of money usually ends up taking on most of the housework.

hetero couples have the worst equality breakdown. woman takes on most or all of housework regardless of who makes the most money. sex is slightly above rate for lesbian couples. relationships last the shortest amount of time.


marriage most certainly is not religious. there's no way in hell i'm getting married in a church by any religious official.
if you still insist that it's religious, i'd like to point out that many religions willingly sanctify the marriages of gay couples. jews started doing this a couple of years ago. there were blocks full of churches and synogauges who marched in the gay pride parade to show their support (and advertise that gay marriages will be performed in their church) including several evangelical and catholic churches in the new york area.

"marriage most certainly is not religious"
it is, my friend. just cause religion has been pissed on in the last decade or 2 doesn't change the fact.
you can get married under water or while climbing trees or whatever, but that's totally new and reformed weddings.
the traditional, thousand-year-old marriage is completely religious.

"jews started doing this a couple of years ago. "
yea...the reformist synagogues in the US. a bunch of fuck faces.
they're changing the rules as they please, make up some..... they're putting Women Rabbis (:bugeye: ). i have nothing against women...power to the ppl and all that, but it's not how judaism goes, u know?

"there were blocks full of churches and synogauges who marched in the gay pride parade to show their support (and advertise that gay marriages will be performed in their church) including several evangelical and catholic churches in the new york area."

as far as i'm concerned, they're blaspheming. i'm not catholic or evangelical or whatever, but when i hear of a priest "marrying" 2 gays in a church, it just makes me wanna vomit.

all religions are pretty specific about gays. just because in our secular society gay people can get the legal benifits of "marriage" it doesn't automatically qualify them to be married "under God".

"OtheadP", what you are saying is for the most part true, in that marriage has typically been held as a religious institution, but Civil and religious marriage are two separate institutions. Civil marriage binds a couple in a legal contract consisting of obligations and benefits. While some religions provide ceremonial services for same-sex couples, these unions do not receive legal recognition. Legalizing same-sex civil marriage will not require any religion to perform or recognize these marriages.
And, it is almost inevitable that eventually gay couples will be granted the right to marry, for as far as the state and society is concerned, it is a necessary part of life:
1. If a couple is not married, they are looked down on by the rest of society as dirty and unprincipled, even if they do not have sex outside of the relationship. ( A study showed recently that 71% of Lesbians are in committed relationships)
2. Marriage is seen, for those unsure, as extra insurance that the partner will not have extramarital relations. This is especially important in the gay community, as AIDS is very prevalent, and they need the extra insurace.
3. Without the legal right to marry, same-sex couples do not have rights like family health coverage, medical and bereavement leave, child custody, tax benefits and pension plans.

And not to mention, below is a printing of the 14th amendment:
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.
Marriage is most certainly a privelege, and Gays and Lesbians are most certainly citizens, as defined by the first part of the amendment. This is VERY clearly unconstitutional, and it is religion once again getting in the way of governing what is supposed to be a secular nation. This is very clearly put in the first amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ."
This is also very clearly a law "respecting" the Christian faith. And also, "OtheadP", imagine if it were the other way around. Imagine for a moment that a gay couple denied you the rights of marriage, the right to have a union with the person you love. They could very well use the same arguments Frist is using to justify their actions. So this proposed new amendment is clearly unconstitutional, plain and simple, and anyone who thinks otherwise should actually read the constitution. There's some good stuff in there.

Originally posted by otheadp
but when i hear of a priest "marrying" 2 gays in a church, it just makes me wanna vomit.

that's because you're sick, but anyway......


"all religions are pretty specific about gays. just because in our secular society gay people can get the legal benifits of "marriage" it doesn't automatically qualify them to be married "under God"."

no, no they are not. you must be referring to christian religions which most certainly is not 'all religions'. wicca is extremely inviting to it. even if you meant just the christian religions, you'd still be wrong. what exactly do you know about what god considers a marriage? i suppose he's told you personally.

religious sects are constantly updating and changing to fit the current need. i see nothing wrong with bringing old religions into the here and now. the catholic church has a reputation of being antiquiated and strict. it overhauled a hell of a lot during it's two vatican counsils. i've sat through many a homily preaching compassion and love towards gays. most of the dominant religions are pretty ancient and so reflect the time they were born in. just because you have your own notion of how judaism goes does not mean it should always go that way. it's high time they threw out that prayer that men say to thank god for not being born a woman too.

if marriage ever was religious (i have my doubts it even started out as religious in the first place), it is long forgotten. it is now a legal institution.

swordfish, natman:

reread my posts. as i said before, legally, they should have the right to receive equal benifits. this legal commitment is enough to put them in the "faithful" mode. i.e, they won't cheat.

if they please, they can throw a ceremony and exchange vows. who's stopping them?

but to be "married" in a church or mosque or synagogue is blatant sacrilige. i'm not religious but i respect religious people and their traditions and ceremonies. to see 2 gays in a church, turning a religious ceremony into a farce, -and that's exactly what it is, even tho they are serious and act as if this is nothing out of the ordinary- just hurts my eyes.

"If a couple is not married, they are looked down on by the rest of society as dirty and unprincipled"
gay life is looked down on as dirty and unprincipled. doesn't sound good, but is true. i know lots of gay guys. even older ones that should be past the stage of partying around. and u know what, they are complete sluts (their own description of themselves) so i'm not talking without knowing.

and people marry in all kinds of places besides church, and they're considered "partners for life" by society.

"religious sects are constantly updating and changing to fit the current need"
yep. that's why religion's influence and role in our society has declined severely in the past decade or 2.
when Hulk Hogen was young he used to tell his audience to "say your prayers before bed time"
he's still wrestling but if he was to say it now he'd be the laughing stock.

why has it been declining? because people keep changing the rules as they see fit.
if God's word keeps being changed all the time, as it has been changed many times lately, it's really hard to believe, let alone practice religion wholeheartedly.

OtheadP, the word "marriage" uniquely conveys the nature and legitimacy of the relationship. When one says to another that this is my husband or wife, the listener understands immediately the love, commitment and legal ties that exist. Gays and lesbians should not be denied this form of communication. If someone were to introduce their would-be spouse as their "legally designated life partner" or something to that effect, it would not produce the same reaction. And this whole idea of a ceremony other than marriage reminds me vaguely of the "separate but equal" idea that was used to segregate southern schools. Why shouldn't they be able to? It makes them think that they are second-class citizens, unworthy of being on the same "higher plain" as the "normal" people who have spouses of the opposite sex. And as to your ideas about God:
if God's word keeps being changed all the time, as it has been changed many times lately, it's really hard to believe, let alone practice religion wholeheartedly. you are very directly saying that you know personally what God's word is. You are very directly saying that you are right, and anyone who thinks differently is wrong. This is the exact same rationale that killers have used throughout history. This is the reason that so many wars have been fought, why so many millions have died. Because people have been so sure that their interpretation was the right one. I've got several quotes for you:
I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Creator. By fighting off the Jews, I am doing the Lord's work.
Any guesses as to who said that? If you said Adolf Hitler, you're absolutely right! He thought he was doing the Lord's work. This just goes to show you that anyone can read anything out of the Bible, and claim that it is what God originally intended when He "wrote" it. His claim seems ludacrous on the surface, but he no doubt found some portion of the Bible to justify his thinking. Easily, i might add. And what about slavery? reading I Timothy 6:1-5 will show you that the Bible very clearly endorses it:
all who are under the yoke of slavery ... who have believing masters ... must serve all the better since those who benefit by their service are believers and beloved. Teach and urge these duties. If any one teaches otherwise ... he is puffed up with conceit, he knows nothing; he has a morbid craving for controversy..., which produce envy, dissension, slander, base suspicions, and wrangling among men who are depraved in mind... So is having slaves OK? God says it is, right there. OtheadP, this whole thing is to get you to think twice before you say that you are doing what you are because God wants you to. Remember that this is quite possibly the most dangerous statement that has ever been made, in the history of the world.

playing the religion card is so tired ::yawn:: (not directed towards nat)

geez man, you must be old and beyond any ability to change. even the holy mother church changes and it's spent hundreds of years the same. they've had to change their zipped mouth/protection of priests policy because they were raping kids! in the past, the people of the church were exactly like any other people of any other church or no church at all: ignorant and biased. strategic murder of jews in spain who refused to convert, policy of noninvolvement in the holocaust, portugese missionary murders of native peoples, monks warring upon arab merchants, condonation of slavery. the list goes on and on and on and on. they are slowly but surely correcting their sexism against women. i'm proud to say i was in the first group of girls initiated into the alter service when the pope decreed that girls could enter it. now there is much favorable talk about female priests. i sincerely doubt changing their position on slavery or murder of innocent people has led to the downfall of society. it is building it up.

Weather or not one religion or another will perform a wedding ceremony for a homosexual couple really isn't the core issue here. For the most part, when people talk about allowing homosexual marriage, I think that the foremost issue is the government allowing it, affording the same rights and protection to homosexuals as is given to heterosexuals.

It’s a very sad thing that some people continue to retreat back to their antiquated and hateful beliefs in order to justify why they think certain people should be treated like shit, but they are free to believe whatever they like, and so long as they chose to create an “Us” vs “Them” mentality in regards to religious practices, well that’s also their right, it’s ugly, but I don’t think anyone can really tell them different, it’d be unjustly denying them their rights. But the fact that the government endorses such discriminatory behavior is really quite sad. It’s not a happy thing to watch a government which is supposedly for the people, decide to work against them, and even more so when it’s for religious reasons despite the illusion of being secular.

This amendment enshrines in the Constitution the bigotry of DOMA (thanks Mr. Clinton), and the ability of gay/lesbian citizens to seek equality through the courts using a rationale based on Constitutional grounds. The amendment clearly states its goal of eliminating access by gay/lesbian citizens to any of the legal rights granted to married people through the courts. The Constitution is supposed to, in part, protect people from the tyranny of the majority. If this Amendment is adopted, gay and lesbian citizens will have no such protection.Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution nor the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried coupled or groups. (H.J. Res. 93) This is not, however, just about the definition of "marital status".

In several threads and conversations I have seen and heard in the past several weeks, people like to point out that the US is a terribly puritanical nation, compared to other industrialized countries, because of the people who founded it over two hundred years ago. The News-Journal received a one-line letter from a reader upset at the way the paper headlined the ruling: "I hope," the reader wrote, "your child or children all ask you what Sodomy is when they see your front page today." The word did appear in a point size big enough to make the Gomorrah Chamber of Commerce jealous. But the ruling wasn't about lollipops. And euphemisms about sex have a Jane Austen dullness to them that would, if used in a 21st century newspaper, send our readers lunging for Geraldo. Had my 9-year-old daughter asked (disappointingly, she didn't), I'd have answered no differently than if she'd asked why lovers French-kiss in public or why New Yorkers cuss like Corsicans: It's what people do, and who are we to demand otherwise? (Full text here (http://www.news-journalonline.com/03ColEssays.htm))Excellent answer, IMHO. American society constantly contradicts itself about sex. I've yet to meet any person who is against sodomy who actually knows the full definition. Most state sodomy laws list it as the crime of oral or anal sexual contact or penetration between persons or of sexual intercourse between a person and an animal. There is nothing to prevent a government agency from applying these laws to you for going down on your boyfriend or girlfriend. I’ll say it again: it’s an issue of privacy.

From the same article: Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, a devout Catholic, gave voice in his dissent from the sodomy decision to a common fear that the ruling would open the door to legalized “bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity.”Mr. Scalia does not masturbate? Maybe that’s his problem. :bugeye:


America as a whole is at a place where "patriotism" and "Puritanical mumbo-jumbo" go hand in hand. We are not a puritanical nation, we only pretend to be.

:m; Peace.