12-01-04, 04:32 AM #21
Michigan State Rep. Seeks to End Same-Sex Benefits for State Employees
Bradstreet asks for legal opinion, heterosexual domestic partnerships not yet mentioned
The Michigan legislature may soon get another chance to stand up to the bullying of the United States Constitution.
A state representative said today he's working on a measure to oppose health benefits for gay partners of state employees that's in new contracts.
Representative Ken Bradstreet of Gaylord says he's also asking fellow Republican Attorney General Mike Cox to issue a legal opinion on the issue.
Bradstreet wants to know whether it's legal for the state to offer same-sex domestic partner benefits after Michigan voters approved a constitutional amendment limiting marriage to one man and one woman in the election.
WOOD 8 TV
• If homosexual domestic partners get benefits and heterosexuals don't, we have a whole new problem that the traditionalist argument doesn't even touch.So ... help me out, folks. Anyone in Michigan able to fill in that gap?
• If heterosexual domestic partnerships do get benefits, Rep. Bradstreet may be putting Michigan on the fast-track to breaking the traditionalists' legal strategy.
Heterosexual domestic partners (are / are not) entitled to benefits under state-employee contracts and the laws that govern them.
Associated Press. "Rep to introduce measure opposing same-sex benefits for state workers". WOOD 8 TV (WOODTV.com), December 1, 2004. See http://www.woodtv.com/Global/story.asp?S=2625725
12-01-04, 05:34 AM #22
Other (I would have complained if there wasn't an "other" option)
12-01-04, 11:22 PM #23
Source: Washington Post
Title: "Two Networks Bar Religious Commercial"
Date: December 2, 2004
The CBS and NBC television networks have rejected an advertisement for the United Church of Christ that shows two beefy bouncers turning away a gay couple, a Latino woman and a disabled man outside a church.
Officials of the Cleveland-based denomination, which has nearly 6,000 congregations and 1.3 million members, said the 30-second ad is intended to emphasize its inclusiveness. "Jesus didn't turn people away. Neither do we," the ad says.
"Because this commercial touches on the exclusion of gay couples and other minority groups . . . and the fact that the Executive Branch has recently proposed a Constitutional Amendment to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, this spot is unacceptable for broadcast on the Networks," [CBS] said.
ABC's broadcast network refuses all religious advertising under a blanket policy, but their cable network (ABC Family) is among those that will air the advert. Other networks accepting the advert are AMC, BET, Discovery, FOX, Hallmark, Travel, TBS, and TNT.
CBS and NBC officials said the timing of the church's announcement suggest that it is milking the controversy for free publicity. Both networks said they had rejected the commercial nine months ago, though they had entertained appeals from the church until recently.
Both networks noted that they had approved a second commercial emphasizing the UCC's diversity. It shows a little girl playing the hand game of "Here's the church, here's the steeple; open the doors and see all the people."
"If the church wants to say they are inclusive and open, that's a very positive statement that we are very happy to have on the air," said Alan Wurtzel, NBC's head of broadcast standards. "These folks are giving the impression that NBC is anti-church, anti-religion, anti-gay. It has nothing to do with that."
I'm actually trying to recall what advertisements I've seen on NBC or CBS, but I watch them so infrequently that it may well be that safe-sex adverts, church adverts, and others pertaining to subjects of public controversy may well only be on cable stations.
The advert can be viewed online at http://www.stillspeaking.com/default.htm
Cooperman, Alan. "Two Networks Bar Religious Commercial". Washington Post, December 2, 2004; page A08. See http://www.stillspeaking.com/default.htm
12-10-04, 09:21 PM #24
Love, Marriage, and Profit
Trump, Jones weddings demonstrate the sanctity of heterosexual marriage
The old joke about the billionaire who leaves the quarter tip is, that‘s how you get to be a billionaire ....
.... Ask Donald Trump, the man who has now brought OPM into the world of third marriages—OPM, other people‘s merchandise.
“The New York Post” reporting that the wedding ring he will present to Melania Knauss was as free as the prize inside a box of Cracker Jacks.* It is worth between half a million and a million and a half.* But the Graff diamond sellers thought the publicity was word cutting the price.* For you, Donald, how about free?* What kind of publicity?
On the November 11 edition of “The Apprentice,” the winning team earned itself a shopping spree at Graff Diamonds.* You call it corn. *We call it product placement.* In a recent interview, however, Trump had blasted another individual who got a free engagement ring in exchange for TV time.* The individual was Donald Trump Jr.*
Getting your hair the exact color of the red hawk falcon, $300 a week;
13-karat masterpiece wedding wing, $500,000.* Having jewelers give it to you just for the pub, literally, priceless.
On the one hand, what does that tell us about business sense, the capitalist vision, or love in the 21st century?
As Musto put it:
A wedding ring is symbolic.* It should have some integrity.* I think a Cracker Jack ring would have more integrity, because you have it from the box, at least.* But, in this case, the wedding ring has contracts and press releases attached.* And it is from a company called Graft—I mean Graff.* And it‘s tacky all around.*
But Donald is becoming the male Star Jones, AKA Swagzilla, though at least he is marrying a straight person.
"Star was humiliated by Al when she found that only weeks before he went to a Halloween party at a gay-friendly Manhattan club. Al was dressed as a male stripper--wearing a Speedo swimsuit and white bathrobe," a close source told The ENQUIRER ....
.... When Star found out about Al's shenanigans, she quickly set him straight.
"She told him he should have known better than to go to a primarily gay party dressed in a Speedo for crying out loud! She told him to be more responsible.
"Star says she believes Al when he says he's not gay and that he truly loves her. But it just doesn't look right when she leaves town and the next night he's hanging out at a gay-themed party in skimpy clothes.
As to the rest?
The talk queen enlisted 15 bridesmaids--including Vivica A. Fox and Natalie Cole--from both the East and West Coasts. But just like a rapper feud, hostilities erupted between the groups.
"Star had bridal showers on both coasts--and the ladies were asked to coordinate the events to her specifications," a wedding insider told The ENQUIRER. "One of Star's East-Coast bridesmaids told her West-Coast guests not to bring their gifts to the shower but rather just send them to New York.
"Most of the West-Coast shower guests thought that was very tacky, but a coordinator for the East Coast said: 'Get over it and just send the damn gifts!'" ....
.... Star--who took wedding freebies from corporate sponsors and then plugged them on TV--angered some guests with her requests for expensive gifts, said the insider.
"She registered at several locations but also requested very expensive things--including a $10,000 silver serving tray from Tiffany and $1,000 bedding from Frette.
"But no one in her inner circle was willing to buy her a $10,000 serving tray."
And I think Star Jones set that wonderful example, when she actually charged companies for the privilege of putting free gift items in her gift bag for her wedding and wrestled people to the ground if they took a picture, because she had an exclusive deal.
OLBERMANN: .... There are two side elements here, though, that sort of magnify this.* One is that he gets the ring for free, but the fiance has got to model for the diamond company.* Now, we know she can‘t have much in the way of personal standards.* She‘s marrying Donald Trump, for God sakes.* But does this be violate labor laws or something?*
MUSTO:* No.* She‘s legal.* And I don‘t think Melania is complaining, and not just because she doesn‘t speak English.* Kidding.* She‘s actually very smart.*
But, look, they always said Melania is a model.* Now she can finally say, I‘m modeling something.* I‘m a model.* And, also, yes, she is working for the ring a little bit.* And that is appalling, but not as appalling as working for the ring in the bedroom.* You know, best sex I ever had?* I don‘t think so ....
• Trump Sr. blasts son Donald Jr. for trading TV time in exchange for an engagement ring.
• Trump Sr. gets free engagement ring in exchange for TV time.
• Melania, a model, gets to model for Graff in exchange for the ring, apparently her first big gig.
• Star Jones gets upset at groom for attending party and creating identity confusion among the viewers.
• Star Jones' bridesmaids can't even get along for a day.
• Star Jones' wedding was sponsored by corporations in exchange for product placement.
I'm sorry, but where the hell is the so-called "sanctity" of marriage?
Are these sorts of charades what people in eleven states rejected the U.S. Constitution in favor of?
Pardon me if I'm not impressed. Are traditionalists going to "defend marriage" against this kind of crass hollowing? Should we outlaw corporate sponsorship of people's weddings? After all, what business does business have in such a sacred ritual?
It seems love isn't worth as much as we might think. At least, not among heterosexuals.
MSNBC.com. "Countdown With Keith Olbermann". December 9, 2004. See http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6693535/
Shipp, Patricia. "Star Jones Wedding Mayhem". NationalEnquirer.com, November 23, 2004. See http://www.nationalenquirer.com/stor...stanceid=62818
12-10-04, 10:03 PM #25
<i>"Should we outlaw corporate sponsorship of people's weddings? After all, what business does business have in such a sacred ritual?"</i>
Much like Christmas.
12-10-04, 11:20 PM #26
Now there is something we can agree on. Happy day.
(And no, that's not sarcastic.)
12-13-04, 07:36 AM #27
("He's simple, he's dumb, he's the pilot")
Source: Washington Post
Title: "Marriage Rites and Wrongs"
Date: December 13, 2004
C.S. Lewis, the British essayist, author and cleric, died 41 years ago, so he wasn't writing about same-sex marriage in America. No, his subject in his book "Mere Christianity" was divorce. Still, his observations may shed some light on our "values" controversy today.
"I should like to distinguish two things which are very often confused," he wrote. "The Christian conception of marriage is one: the other is the quite different question -- how far Christians, if they are voters or Members of Parliament, ought to try to force their views of marriage on the rest of the community by embodying them in the divorce laws.
"A great many people seem to think that if you are a Christian yourself you should try to make divorce difficult for every one. I do not think that. At least I know I should be very angry if the Mohammedans tried to prevent the rest of us from drinking wine. . . .
"There ought to be two distinct kinds of marriage: one governed by the State with rules enforced on all citizens, the other governed by the Church with rules enforced by her on her own members. The distinction ought to be quite sharp, so that a man knows which couples are married in a Christian sense and which are not."
How times have changed.
Even since the advent of Sciforums (Exosci), we've seen arguments from the flock that look to C.S. Lewis, yet here where Lewis' ideas are inconvenient to contemporary sentiment, they are ignored. That suggests something about the paucity and insincerity of the Christian-derived traditionalist argument.
Or so says me. William Raspberry considers Lewis' words in his December 13 column:
But marriage isn't only sacrament. It is also the basis on which we decide who may inherit in the absence of a will, who may make life-or-death decisions for loved ones, or who is eligible for the advantages of joint tax returns. And because it has these secular implications, the state has a legitimate role in determining who is married and who isn't.
The church has no interest in joint filings, and the state no interest in declarations of love or religious affiliation. To the one, marriage is a sacred rite; to the other, it is the sanctioning of a contractual relationship. The church may care whether he is a philanderer or she a gold-digger, or whether there's too great a gap in their ages. The state's interests run to the validity of the contract ....
.... Maybe if we can get past such churchly considerations as God's will as expressed in Leviticus, we can make peace with the bifurcation Lewis urged in his 1952 book: Let the church handle the sacrament, the state the contract.
If we could get there, we might even calm down long enough to ask ourselves what would really be the risk in same-sex marriages .... We believe it's a good thing for heterosexual couples to commit to fidelity. Do we think it's a bad thing for homosexual couples to do so?
The difficulty that arises then often comes because liberals, given to compassion, recognize that they owe their neighbors' frustrations fair consideration. Since the 1990s, however, liberals have been trying to keep up with the hyperactive tantrums of conservative talk radio and contempt for American people and institutions.
I understand that someone who believes God will hurt or reject them if they allow people in love to get married would want to meddle in other people's lives, but that's just the point. Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, for this American Caesar (e.g. the Constitution) also renders unto you what is yours. The government can't, at least as I see it, force churches to honor and endorse what they call adulterous (e.g. homosexual) marriages any more than it can force churches to not honor and endorse what they call adulterous (e.g. second marriage of divorcees) marriage.
However, neither can a church force its policy on the political public. The citizens of the United States are governed by the Supreme Law of the United States Constitution. The churches answer to the Supreme Law of God. While I won't go so far as to call these assailants of the Constitution traitors, I would wonder why they would seek to obliterate the social institutions that protect their deviant, defiant, Biblically-violative religion.
What's so offensive to Christians about marital fidelity, anyway? As Raspberry noted, is it really a bad thing for gays to be committed to one another?
Additionally, is it really so offensive that people should receive equal protection under the law?
It would seem that the answer on both counts is yes: The traditionalists argue that fidelity is bad and equal protection is violative.
Rather than advising, "Love it or leave it," I'll simply receive these Christians with hope:
• Welcome to America. Get to know it.
My question to the traditionalists: "Why is equality of gender so damnably offensive to you that you would reject the U.S. Constitution?"
Osama bin Laden is at least decent enough to admit he wants to wreck America. In that respect, he's one up on the traditionalists.
Come on, traditionalists, stand up and be counted. Be proud of your hatred. Sure, I'll still hold you in contempt for that, but at least the charge of "cheap, hypocritical, liars" will come off the list.
Traditionalists are shown to be charlatans.
Another question worth asking is, "What respect do traditionalists think they deserve?" After all, as they strive to reduce people to second-class citizens based on their gender, I don't have a whole lot of respect for them. However, that doesn't trouble me as it does in other cases. This lack of respect is exactly what they ask. After all, we gotta be fair, right?
So as traditionalists continue to compare people to rapists and dogs in order to carry out their assault on the Constitutional core of American equality, what general respect are they owed? They are neither rational nor even civilized.
"Separate but equal" does offer a solution. Christians should vote on their church affairs that pertain to the Supreme Law they choose to answer to, and leave the Supreme Law of the Land in America to the people who choose to answer to it. Separate, sure, but equal, and reflective of an affirmation of the social contract.
After all, reality requires a rational approach lest the species opt out of life. Let rationality prevail in this life, and traditionalists can be secure believing they'll be rewarded with all the irrationality they could dream of and more in the next life.
Christians used to look up to C.S. Lewis. What happened?
Raspberry, William. "Marriage Rites and Wrongs". Washington Post, December 13, 2004; page A21. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Dec12.html
Last edited by Tiassa; 12-13-04 at 07:37 AM. Reason: Because
12-16-04, 06:59 AM #28
Source: Washington Post
Title: "D.C. GOP Chooses a Gay Chairman"
Date: December 16, 2004
D.C. Republicans last week selected a former leader of the Log Cabin Republicans to guide them into citywide elections in 2006, choosing an openly gay chairman at a time when the national party has been accused of displaying hostility toward gays.
With the Dec. 6 vote, lawyer Robert J. Kabel becomes the first openly gay person in the nation to chair a state Republican committee. His election was hailed by gay-rights activists and local Republican leaders as a historic event and a refreshing counterpoint to the divisiveness of the recent presidential campaign.
Kabel chaired the Log Cabin Republicans, the nation's largest organization of gay conservatives, from 1993 to 1999. He later chaired its think-tank arm, the Liberty Education Forum. For the past four years, he has served as vice chairman of the D.C. GOP, leading the subcommittee that last June wrote the party's first platform. It is the only state GOP platform in the nation that explicitly opposes the passage of a federal constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.
Kabel defeated W. Ronald Evans, the chairman of the National Capital Revitalization Corp., for the top party post ....
.... "It's clear to anybody we don't have two parties in the city. We really have one party," Kabel said. "We need to do a lot of outreach and find ways to be persuasive for people to register Republican, to explain what the party stands for."
Good luck to Mr. Kabel; if he can insert some common sense into the GOP, we all benefit.
Montgomery, Lori. "D.C. GOP Chooses a Gay Chairman". Washington Post, December 16, 2002; page DZ02. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Dec15.html
12-31-04, 10:01 PM #29
The Latest Greatest
Notes from the Gay Fray
The Southern Baptist Convention notes a legal battle under way in California:
The court battle to legalize same-sex "marriage" in California got its start Dec. 22-23, when lawyers for both the city of San Francisco and homosexual activist groups asked a judge to throw out the state's marriage laws.
"The assertion that marriage is inherently heterosexual can no longer be maintained now that there are a number of jurisdictions that allow same-sex couples to marry," Shannon Minter of the National Center for Lesbian Rights argued, according to the Associated Press. Minter mentioned Massachusetts, Canada and Belgium as places that have same-sex "marriage."
Judge Richard Kramer heard arguments for two days and said he would rule after mid-January. Whatever he decides, the case is expected to end up before the California Supreme Court.
The Washington state Supreme Court will hear a same-sex "marriage" case in March. The New Jersey appeals court heard a similar case in December. Pro-family leaders aren't optimistic about the outcome in either state.
But California -- with its large population and vast influence -- would be the biggest victory yet for homosexual activists. The state legislature also is considering a bill that would legalize same-sex "marriage."
Lawyers for the city of San Francisco and for homosexual groups asserted that the marriage laws should be struck down in much the same way that laws banning interracial marriage were overturned decades ago.
"[Homosexual couples] can't perform the basic functions of marriage," Lindevaldsen said, according to The San Francisco Chronicle. "There is a basic difference between opposite-sex and same-sex couples … the ability to procreate and, therefore, insure the existence and survival of our species."
BPNews• • •
The San Francisco Chronicle reports that the judge who will decide on the constitutionality of California's ban on same-sex marriage has denied San Francisco the opportunity to submit expert studies to counter traditionalists' claims that homosexuality is a mental disorder and that homosexuals can be cured.
SF Deputy City Attorney Kathleen Morris was discouraged that the city would not be allowed to respond to the argument, but Judge Richard Kramer said he intends to base his ruling on legal arguments and not factual disputes, which some perceive might be a sign that the statements already submitted don't need any refutation.
But that doesn't necessarily mean that Kramer or an appellate court will disregard the declarations. A lawyer for opponents of same-sex marriage said the purpose of the sworn statements was not to establish facts about marriage or families but to show Kramer that there were possible rational grounds for the marriage law.
If the judge agrees with the legal test urged by defenders of the state law, "the city would have to show that all possible bases for the marriage laws were irrational,'' said Byron Babione, senior legal counsel with the Alliance Defense Fund. The ADF represents the Proposition 22 Legal Defense and Education Fund, one of two organizations joining the state in defense of the law.
SFGate.com• • •
Also from California, via the AP:
Willow Glen residents Clark Williams and Jim Moore will soon assume many of the benefits conferred to married couples.
Whatever they've acquired together -- including debts and income -- becomes community property. If things don't work out, the man who earns less has a right to spousal support.
And any children born during their union -- including adopted daughter Caroline -- are automatically the legal responsibility of both parties.
The changes become effective Jan. 1 because of a sweeping expansion of the state's domestic partnership law. But AB 205, the Domestic Partners Rights and Responsibilities Act, is not a de facto victory for same-sex couples who want to wed.
Same-sex couples will still not enjoy hundreds of legal rights afforded married couples.
San Jose Mercury News
• • •
Meanwhile in Montana, unmarried same-sex partners have won health benefits comparable to unmarried heterosexual partners:
The gay and lesbian partners of Montana university system employees have the same right to health insurance benefits as their heterosexual colleagues, the Montana Supreme Court ruled Thursday.
To deny gays and lesbians the same benefits available to unmarried heterosexual employees of the university system violates the equal protection clause of the Montana Constitution, Justice Jim Regnier wrote in the 4-3 majority opinion overturning a lower court decision ....
.... The ruling applies to any employers that offer benefits to unmarried heterosexual couples.
Foust, Michael. "MARRIAGE DIGEST: Same-sex 'marriage' legal battle begins in Calif.; Newfoundland, too?; Democrat wins in Washington state". BPNews.com, December 31, 2004. See http://www.sbcbaptistpress.org/bpnews.asp?ID=19818
Egelko, Bob. "S.F. can't challenge 'mental disorder' argument". SFGate.com, December 28, 2004. See http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...AGT0AHU9B1.DTL
Wronge, Yomi S. "New benefits for gay couples". MercuryNews.com, December 30, 2004. See http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercu...y/10528798.htm
Farrell, Allison. "Court rules for same-sex benefits". Missoulian.com, December 31, 2004. See http://www.missoulian.com/articles/2...top/news01.txt
01-02-05, 08:35 PM #30
Questions for Homosexuals
Modern questions for the modern era
(1) Will you wait 'til you're married, as the old heterosexual myth of virtue suggests?
(2) Will you get married just to have sex, as many heterosexuals--according to myth--do?
(3) Will you worry when your son or daughter takes a lover 20 years their senior?
(4) What will you say when your son calls you a hypocrite because "you did it when you were young"?
(5) Will you reprimand and/or punish your child for wearing white shoes after Labor Day?
(6) Will you be disturbed by your son's choice of wardrobe--e.g. baggy jeans to show off a satin thong?
(7) Will you tell your son he can't go out in a skirt that short?
(8) Is it really that you don't want your daughter marrying that particular man, or is it an "everyman" thing?
(9) Will you let your son get nailed under your roof, where you might have to hear it?
(10) Will you complain that, "No daughter of mine will have hair that long, it's indecent!"?
• • •
I must take a moment here to remind my homosexual neighbors to consider carefully the challenging issues facing heterosexual marriage, and ask again if this is really, really worth it.
Certainly, the assertion is that homosexuals can be just as good of parents as heterosexuals, but can they be just as bad, too? And can they pull it off the same?
Heterosexuals: remember what it was like to be young in America. Remember the days of crossing a state line so it wasn't statutory rape? Think carefully the institution you're trying to respect with fences.
01-14-05, 10:26 AM #31
The Problem, As Such
Virginians, afraid of "liberal" judges, move to secure their bigotry
Voters in Virginia will have a chance to amend the commonwealth's constitution to ban same-sex marriages. The vote, which won't happen before 2006, promises a furious prelude as gay-rights activists prepare for an uphill battle. Virginia has already installed a law known as the Affirmation of Marriage Act, and homophobes fear that the courts will not allow the law to stand without constitutional backing.
"There's a pretty strong movement at the grass-roots level. People are saying other states have amended their constitutions and Virginia should, too," said Sen. William C. Wampler Jr. (R-Bristol).
Chesapeake Republican John Cosgrove summed it up: "Any liberal judge right now can usurp our current policy."
And this seems to be the conservative fear, though it's all for naught. Is Sandra Day O'Connor, who declared of a potential Al Gore presidency that it could not be allowed to happen--and then sat on the bench and helped make sure it didn't--a liberal judge? Yet she concurred with four other judges (on equal protection grounds) in the Lawrence decision banning antisodomy laws.
• O'Connor: Appointed by Reagan
• Breyer: Appointed by Clinton
• Souter:: Appointed by GHW Bush
• Ginsburg: Appointed by Clinton
• Stevens: Appointed by Ford
One need not be a liberal judge to hold, as O'Connor did, with equal protection under the law.
Perceptions are problematic; Virginia looks to the momentum set by eleven states passing traditionalist-marriage laws and thinks it should do the same. When these laws come up against the U.S. Constitution, will liberals be blamed because unconstitutional laws can't stand? Introducing intentionally-discriminatory legislation to challenge equal protection is a losing cause.
There seems something sinister, then, about the idea of undertaking a lost cause just for the sake of hurting people. If conservatives ever wonder why they're depicted as evil, they need look no farther.
Alexandria Democratic Sen. Patricia Ticer pointed out the flip-side, that it's not evil itself but mere cowardice: "I think there are a lot of people on the [Republican] side who know it's not a good thing, but they're afraid not to vote for it ... It's another form of discrimination against a category of people because of who they are."
Then again, usurping one's right to hurt another merely for who they are is one of those "liberal elitist" things that gets the Democrats creamed at the ballot box. Which must be why Virginia Dems are planning to point out the excess of a constitutional amendment instead of appealing to the Constitution that supersedes all others in this country: the Supreme Law of the Land, the United States Constitution.
Pray for atheism, Virginia. Pray for atheism. Obviously, you are unwilling to render unto Caesar. And obviously, you would hurt the least of His brethren. So let's be clear: this isn't about morals, but about cruelty. Oh, heaven help the political conservatives: they're afraid the courts won't let them be cruel. Yet all they'll accomplish is a displacement of the argument to federal court, which accelerates the demise of their institutional bigotry.
And yet the bigots would cast themselves and their cruelty as victims. And, as usual, they blame liberals.
Jenkins, Chris L. and Rosalind S. Helderman. "Stage Set for Battle Over Gay Marriage". Washington Post, January 14, 2005; page B01. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2005Jan13.html
01-16-05, 02:51 AM #32
I must take a moment here to remind my homosexual neighbors to consider carefully the challenging issues facing heterosexual marriage, and ask again if this is really, really worth it.
Personally, I'd rather have marriage abolished with altogether. Allowing same-sex marriage won't solve the problem, it'll just allow the next type of person to be ridiculed and denied the chance of marriage. So just get rid of marriage and everyone can continue to live the lives they live. Straight people can continue to live and mate with the opposite sex and the same for gays. Polygamous people can have many mates without it all of a sudden being against the law too. So forget marriage. What ever happened to wills anyways?
Idiotic assholes just need to get the whole "live and let live" mentality drilled into their brains. Until then, people are gonna have lots of problems with most any subject. People just need to quit telling others how to live.
01-16-05, 05:18 AM #33
While I wouldn't object to the end of state recognition of the marital contract, discriminating against gay marriage is discriminating against gender, which is illegal. Discriminating against polygamists? That's just discriminating against numbers, and there's nothing illegal about that. I mean, why not sue the golf course to have six people recognized as a foursome?
01-16-05, 05:26 AM #34
Could you please link to where you make the point that descrimination of gay marriage is gender descrimination (if you have made that point elsewhere), or, if it isn't too much trouble, sum it up here?
I don't recall seeing that, and I'm curious how you make the connection.
01-16-05, 03:39 PM #35
Start with this post (#645196), from earlier in this topic, which is the first time I recall making the assertion with any examples. In fact, if memory serves it is the post in which I first came to the conclusion that yes, there was a legitimate gender complaint.
Beyond that ... well, we can always go through it again. At some point I'm going to start beating gay activists. Although it won't be a hate crime; my motivation will be, "Do I really have to spend two years reconstructing my undergrad work and another two years finishing, beg my way into law school, get a degree, get on the bar, and file the damn case myself?"
Besides, if I just spank them .... "Oooh, Jesus. Jesus Christ!"
02-04-05, 04:23 PM #36
New York: No Gay-Marriage Ban
Court: prohibition violates state constitution
A judge declared Friday that a law banning same-sex marriage violates the state constitution, a first-of-its-kind ruling in New York that would clear the way for gay couples to wed if it survives on appeal ....
..... State Supreme Court Justice Doris Ling-Cohan ruled that the New York City clerk could not deny a license to any couple solely on the ground that the two are of the same sex.
The city Law Department issued a statement saying only, "We are reviewing the decision thoroughly and considering our options" ....
.... The judge noted that one plaintiff, Curtis Woolbright, is the son of an interracial couple who moved to California in 1966 to marry. She said California then was the only state whose courts had ruled that interracial marriage prohibitions were unconstitutional.
Or perhaps they'll just turn up the heat on President Bush to make gender discrimination a part of our U.S. Constitution.
Maull, Samuel. "N.Y. Court Strikes Down Ban on Same-Sex Marriage". WashingtonPost.com. February 4, 2005. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2005Feb4.html
02-04-05, 07:35 PM #37
tiassa how does a referendum work in the US?
here for state constitutions the state parliment desides and for fedral (like the republic debate) there needs to be a majority vote in a majority of states, which is a compleate pain. Except for making this country a republic the constitution really doesnt matter here because all our rights are LAWS not writen into the constitution. Well mostly they arnt, some laws are still demed unconstitiutonal but mostly they are ruled in conflict with some other law or laws
02-04-05, 09:47 PM #38
We have no national referendum system. Referenda, initiatives, and measures are put forth through various similar processes established by the states.
In the meantime, USConstitution.net explains the process for amending the U.S. Constitution.
State constitutions can be amended by voters. Voters do not touch the U.S. Constitution directly. Another discussion of process at the same website notes, "the Supreme Court has ruled that a popular referendum is not a substitute for either the legislature nor a convention, nor can a referendum approve of or disapprove of the legislature's or a convention's decision on an amendment".
At the state level, the people can give direct orders to the legislature. In Oregon, most measures were phrased to either amend the state constitution directly according to the text of the measure, or else instruct the legislature to pass this or that law. In some cases--e.g. campaign finance reform--the legislators simply refused to follow the people's instructions. A Republican from the coast said of one measure in Oregon, "I don't think the people knew what it was they were voting for." The campaign-contribution limits instructed by the people were never enacted, nor even drafted as far as I can recall.
(Strange, then, that public officials in Oregon following the law should be called by social conservatives a usurpation of law, process, and democracy. I guess it comes down to what's important to diverse people. And yes, there's some irony in that, all things considered.)
Additionally, the states have means by which the legislature can screw up the state constitution at will.
(An irrelevant side note: this is, in fact, part of why Americans seem ignorant of what goes on in their country. Understanding even the basics of law and society involves understanding fifty-one or -two separate legal codes (e.g. the fifty states, the District of Columbia, and the federal scheme. That still doesn't excuse the malaise affecting studies of history and geography, though.)
02-12-05, 03:04 AM #39
Once More 'Round The Block
For third time in a row, Washington legislature considers gay rights
Talk about a fight for the ages:
The state House passed a gay civil rights bill on Friday, for the third year in a row, and once again it faces an uncertain future in the state Senate.
The bill would ban discrimination against gays and lesbians in jobs, housing and insurance. It was first introduced 29 years ago ....
.... The bill would add to a state law that already bans discrimination based on race, gender, age, disability, religion, marital status and other factors. Fifteen other states have anti-discrimination protection for gays and lesbians on the books ....
.... The House has passed this bill five times before, but it's been killed in the Senate by both Democrats and Republicans.
Rep. Newhouse suggested the bill would solve no problems. Furthermore, he suggested that inclusion equaled alienation: "By setting apart one group from the rest, don't we actually draw more attention to our differences and less to out similarities? To me that runs contrary to the idea of treating all people equally."
In other words, to make sure people are treated equally runs contrary to his idea of treating people equally.
During the committee hearing on the House bill, Pastor Ken Hutcherson of Antioch Bible Church in Redmond said that as a black man he was "appalled" by the bill because he does not believe gays and lesbians have suffered the same prejudice black Americans have.
On the House floor, Pettigrew, who is also black, he felt exactly the opposite way.
"I support this legislation because I know discrimination," Pettigrew said. "When you discriminate against one of us, you discriminate against all of us. This is not just about people who are gay or lesbian, this is about each and every one of us."
Cook, Rebecca. "Gay rights bill passes House, faces test in Senate". SeattlePI.com. February 11, 2005. See http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/...20Gay%20Rights
Washington State Legislature. "House Bill 1515". See http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/2...Bills/1515.htm
02-13-05, 05:06 PM #40
Washington State Braces For Gay Fray Showdown
Anti-discrimination bill, pro-discrimination bills, and the state Supreme Court
On the anti-discrimination front, the Washington state House of Representatives approved on Friday a bill to ban discrimination based on sexual orientation. As the Seattle Times notes, "While some form of the measure has failed in each of the past 28 years, supporters hope that with Democrats controlling the Legislature this session, this year will be different."
On the pro-discrimination front, conservative legislators hope to ask voters to institute state-sponsored discrimination, banning gay marriages and barring labor benefits to gay partners. Sen. Val Stevens (R-Arlington), a sponsor of one of the two resolutions, said that she wanted to be prepared with a potential constitutional amendment in case the state Supreme Court says discrimination against gays is unconstitutional. Her resolution, SJR 8210, would not only ban gay marriage, but prohibit civil unions or other recognition of human partnerships.
Sen. Dan Swecker (R-Rochester) seeks in SJR 8209 to uphold existing discrimination, and to prevent voters from considering the issue in the future. The bill would also eliminate the use of public money for healthcare and other benefits extended to unmarried partners.
The decision feared by Sen. Stevens is due in early March. The state Supreme Court is scheduled to consider an appeal of King and Thurston county rulings striking down gender-discriminatory marriage restrictions. Despite preparing SJR 8210 just in case, Stevens said, "We have every confidence that the court will rule in defense of existing state law".
Despite Swecker's hope to remove such issues from the voters, pro-discrimination activist Rev. Joseph Fuiten, of Washington Evangelicals for Responsible Government, said that marriage should be defined by voters, although he was arguing against the idea of a court decision, and not Swecker's hope to ask voters to give over a portion of their authority to politicians.
• • •
Bearing in mind that Washington state falls in the Ninth District, conservatives hope to see the issue end in the state and not reach federal court. Florida may celebrate the rape culture, but such things are less likely to fly with the Ninth. And it may not fly with our state Supreme Court. After all, unlike Virginia, we do not presume homosexuals to be breaking the law.
• • •
It's a mass of contradictions. A preacher who thinks the people should decide supports the idea that voters should choose to not be allowed to decide. A Senator who has every confidence that her position will be upheld by the court prepares a constitutional amendment, just in case she's wrong.
• • •
Still absent from the debate is any evidence that homosexuality is unnatural, either in its performance or mere presence. Rather, scientific evidence suggests that sexual orientation is determined, at least in part, before birth.
We must also remember that in 1967, the Supreme Court struck down anti-miscegenation laws in rejecting a Virginia statute; unless it can be shown that no homosexual is the result of nature--e.g. shown that homosexuality is an arbitrary choice--it is easy to see why conservatives fear the courts. The equal protection clause extended the ruling against the Virginia statute to other states. One fall down, all fall down.
In June 1958, two residents of Virginia, Mildred Jeter, a Negro woman, and Richard Loving, a white man, were married in the District of Columbia pursuant to its laws. Shortly after their marriage, the Lovings returned to Virginia and established their marital abode in Caroline County. At the October Term, 1958, of the Circuit Court [388 U.S. 1, 3] * of Caroline County, a grand jury issued an indictment charging the Lovings with violating Virginia's ban on interracial marriages. On January 6, 1959, the Lovings pleaded guilty to the charge and were sentenced to one year in jail; however, the trial judge suspended the sentence for a period of 25 years on the condition that the Lovings leave the State and not return to Virginia together for 25 years. He stated in an opinion that:
"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."
Loving v. Virginia, 388 US 1 (1967)
Perhaps most disgusting about all of this is that conservatives can't possibly be unaware that they're arguing their opinions against fact. At some point, these bigots need to be held accountable for their wrongs.
Turnbull, Lornet. "Legislators target gay marriage". SeattleTimes.com. February 13, 2005. See http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...gayban13m.html
U.S. Supreme Court. Loving v. Virginia. FindLaw.com. June 12, 1967. See http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...ol=388&invol=1
See Also -
Associated Press. "Federal anti-gay marriage law upheld". MSNBC.com. January 19, 2005. See http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6845356/
Bradley, Paul. "Gay man takes custody fight across state line". TimesDispatch.com. February 13, 2005. See http://www.timesdispatch.com/servlet...=1045855934842