maxg Posted February 27, 2004 Share Posted February 27, 2004 Well I see as one of the headlines on CNN that Rosie has married her girlfriend and is apparently the first Celebrity to do so (same sex marriage that is). A few things strike me immediately: 1. Who is Rosie? I have never heard of her - so however well known she is in the US I dont think Europe has had the benefit... 2. They have 4 kids..no explanation as to how....presumably you all know (tell me - I am fascinated). (actually - as an aside - with 4 kids I would imagine this will be a no sex marriage - judging by the effect Dezzy is having on our wedded bliss - and there is only one of her!) 3. If the law is changed back (as the Pres. seems to want) what happens to the people that are already married? Annulment? Told you it was off-topic...I wonder who gets control of the remote? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3dzapper Posted February 27, 2004 Share Posted February 27, 2004 It's a bad joke! Like most of Rosie's. She is a Bostonian birch that rose to fame with "comic" routines of hollering and birching. A bitter self-centered person who once told an employee who had breast cancer who disagreed with her That's what you get and then you die.(paraphrased) The only people who pay any attention to her are the "beautiful people" and their lapdogs in the press. Rick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klipschfoot Posted February 27, 2004 Share Posted February 27, 2004 ---------------- 3. If the law is changed back (as the Pres. seems to want) what happens to the people that are already married? Annulment? ---------------- The law of the land has never changed from the traditional definition of marriage. Those marriages are invalid. Some rogue judges are seeking to make political hay out of a non-issue in an election year. These marriages are an attempt at stealing benefits, not just at making a statement. A true liberal would eschew the institution of marriage as social conformity. Changing traditional definitions opens a Pandora's box to challenge and attempt to redefine almost anything that segregates lawful from unlawful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mobile homeless Posted February 27, 2004 Share Posted February 27, 2004 That was a bit over the top, Rickus. Actually, Rosie's fans are the great mass of loons that love daytime talkshow prattle. She has a HUUUUGe fan base. As with most comics, she was far more amusing early in her career. I personally wouldnt call her *****y per say but she has made some questionable calls in the past. The media has been on both sides of Rosie, for and against. As for what happens with her marriage, your guess is as good as any. This is such a touchy situation over here and this thread is sure to bring out the Right (Klipsch Speaker owners seem to be dominated by conservatives - or is it Klipsch owners that dabble in forums). The greatest irony of all is the conservatives loathe Govenment involvement in private lives, especially when it comes to money and business, yet are the first to bring the government full scale into decisions for one's personal life, probably about as OPPOSITE of what our country supposedly stands for as you can get. The Christian Right has a lot of influence. I find this currrent run to regulate private life in the constitution to be an astounding setback of individual rights. Just think, not too long ago it was ILLEGAL to have interracial marriages. And public opinion is STILL probably mixed on this! Our country seems to take one step forward and two steps BACK every chance it gets. But why bring this up in here? Do you really want to read the answers? heh... SET vs PP is bad enough! kh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxg Posted February 27, 2004 Author Share Posted February 27, 2004 "But why bring this up in here? Do you really want to read the answers? heh... SET vs PP is bad enough! " Its just the devil in me Kelly - what can I say? But I find it interesting that there is all this fuss over the marriage bit, whilst the fact that they have 4 kids doesnt seem to raise an eyebrow - its mentioned purely in passing on CNN. Frankly I think that if they can have kids then they may was well get married if that is what they want - it is one of the major functions of marriage - to provide a stable environment in which to rear children. Plus the following: 1. It is Friday and I dont have the desire to open the Horns bar (and I dont think anyone will really miss it). 2. It is another of those puzzling stories from the US that wafts over our heads here in Europe (although I dont think Gay marriages are allowed in the majority of countries on this side of the pond) it just aint a topic that would generate that much heat. 3. It is the first time I have ever heard of Rosie - which is odd - most celebs - even from US TV hit my radar at some point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Mobley Posted February 27, 2004 Share Posted February 27, 2004 1. you haven't missed anything 2. I think both have had men in their lives previously 3. Who knows? the marriage licenses are blatantly illegal in Cal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KungFuNat Posted February 27, 2004 Share Posted February 27, 2004 i agree rosie is a self-centered retard who likes to make a stink over her "sexuality" basically she likes the attention. as for gay marriage, as of right now 72% of the population of the US is againsed legalizing gay marriage, but its only %55 who support a constitutional amendment. arnold has already declared that the californian courts arent upholding the law, and may void all marriage licenses given in the past few weeks. some states are now saying that they will not honor any same-sex marriages issued by other states(againsed the law). personally i think this is a way to legitimize homosexuality plain and simple. the tax benefits arent the issue here, in most cases you pay more taxes because your tax bracket goes up big time if you both work. i dont really care about civil unions, my beef begins and ends with the word "marriage" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daddy Dee Posted February 27, 2004 Share Posted February 27, 2004 Run Ralph Run! ...sponsored by Heritage owners for Ralph Nader Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnalOg Posted February 27, 2004 Share Posted February 27, 2004 Kelly, I certainly hope your not comparing interracial marriage to gay marriage. I don't want to say more as this is not the place to bring all the issues in at hand. Tom Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigBusa Posted February 27, 2004 Share Posted February 27, 2004 IMO the constitutional amendmant will never happen. It would be the first amendment ever to actually discriminate against a certain section of the population. It'll never happen. The mayors who are performing these same sex marriages are not breaking any laws. They're taking advantage of the way the laws are written. As it is now marriage is not defined as a union between a man and a woman ...it might be assumed that's the definition ....there's the loophole that allows the "marriages" to "legally" occur. Recognizing them is a whole other issue that will have to be addressed. I think same sex marriages will be legal and fully recognized soon. Bush's amendment is going to backfire in his face. Nat is right ...it's not about taxes or marriage or any of that. It's about gays and lesbians demanding to be recognized as equals. Who was that black woman that refuses to move to the back of the bus to the designated "black section"? From that point on everything changed for blacks. The same sex marriage issue will have similar effects. The mayor of new paltz NY will be marrying 10+ gay couples today. That's about 1/2 hour from me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BackBurner Posted February 27, 2004 Share Posted February 27, 2004 All i've got to say is Rosies new treat has a lot of cheese to yak !!!! weight watchers rosie ????? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben. Posted February 27, 2004 Share Posted February 27, 2004 ---------------- On 2/27/2004 1:00:15 PM rf3iicrazy wrote: Kelly, I certainly hope your not comparing interracial marriage to gay marriage. I don't want to say more as this is not the place to bring all the issues in at hand. Tom ---------------- If he doesn't, I will. A bigot is a bigot. If the sheets fit... This ought to be interesting. You know, it's funny how a major criticism that religous conservatives levy towards homosexuals is their perceived promiscuity. Then, those that want to honor their commitment to each other in an official manner have to worry about constitutional law. Hey, Max - why don't we just talk about Cypress? (wink) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sheltie dave Posted February 27, 2004 Share Posted February 27, 2004 Max, if you try to understand the sexual mores and phobias of Americans, then you will able to fathom why we want our national politicians to campaign for president for longer than two years, spending billions in the process. We want gays and homosexuals to disappear. States have differing laws regarding sexual practices. In Missouri, oral and anal sex are illegal. I have friends who will RUN away from overt gays in a bar, restaurant, or shopping mall, because they might be somehow "tainted." These same friends disparage promiscuous gays as spreading AIDS, yet they also oppose gays having access to an institution that precludes promiscuity. It really isn't about insurance benefits, although I think they should have them. Most of California companies already allow benefits for spouse/life partner/significant ither/children, although it seems the cost increases and benefits decrease every day. I had my conservative views distilled in the military - if someone is doing their job, doing it well, and doing it every day without endangering others, good for them. We all have enough problems without needlessly multiplying them! The sad thing is hearing everyone trump the sanctity of marraige, when we are looking at close to half of all new marraiges ending in divorce. HMMM I'll even stir the pot a little more, Max. In Missouri right now, we have a catastrophic unfunded mandate passed by the state Legislature - a concealed gun law that was last rejected by popular vote three years ago by almost a 2 to 1 ratio. The statewide sheriff's departments estimate it will cost about 12 million to implement, while I have to pay $30 a day out of pocket to have public transport for my sister in law to make it to her day program. The state had to cut 20 million from state funded disabled programs in a losing attempt to balance the state budget. At the horns bar, there will be plenty of beer and conversation going over these vipers' nests! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigBusa Posted February 27, 2004 Share Posted February 27, 2004 I feel that the gay marriage issue will be one of the major foucses of the candidates in the upcoming presidential election. That will will help to bring it to the forefront even more than it already is and it will help fast forward the resolution of the issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Painful Reality Posted February 27, 2004 Share Posted February 27, 2004 I guess this will be a long battle, either in Canada or in the US. I think the conservative Christians will see this a their last stand against the "moral depravation" brought on this earth these "sinful sodomites". I think they are suffering enough from a "somewhat general recognition" that you can actually be gay or lesbian and not being stone to death. Personally, I really don't see why they they couldn't get married if they wish. For me a marriage is a contract between to person that want to spend their life together. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodog Posted February 27, 2004 Share Posted February 27, 2004 The actions taken by some Anglican Churches regarding gay marriage are an affront to Christians everywhere. I am just thankful that the church's founder, Henry VIII, and his wife Catherine of Aragon, and his wife Anne Boleyn, and his wife Jane Seymour, and his wife Anne of Cleves, and his wife Katherine Howard, and his wife Catherine Parr are no longer here to suffer through this assault on traditional Christian marriage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fini Posted February 27, 2004 Share Posted February 27, 2004 If you don't like gay marriage, don't have one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fini Posted February 27, 2004 Share Posted February 27, 2004 ---------------- On 2/27/2004 1:57:31 PM mdeneen wrote: It's a hard circle to square. mdeneen ---------------- I'll file that one away. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Robinson Posted February 27, 2004 Share Posted February 27, 2004 I think what WILL be interesting to watch is the coming fight between the Roman Catholic Church and US Courts. If the term "marriage" is formally determined to be inclusive of homosexual marriage, and the Catholic Church defines homosexual behavior as sinful, it will be inevitable that the Catholic Church will formally refuse to marry homosexual couples. I can honestly see a scenario where the Catholic Church (or any church) is brought up on civilian or criminal charges. Furthermore, if marriage is widened to include homosexuals, then wouldn't any comdemnation of gay marriage by the church be construed as hate speech? This might get very interesting if you follow the logic chain. I'm very sympathetic to the gay movement for my own reasons (I'm definitely hetero though) and I tend to think that "separate but equal" rights probably isn't going to cut it for them (civil unions), although I think there are moderates in the gay population who would settle for that. I think the movement's drive for nothing short of equality under marriage may polarize this nation so badly that it will get voted on in most, if not all states, and the result may not be what the gay population either wants or expects. I hope they're doing their calculus on this problem very carefully. Big, I was under the impression that CA specifically voted on a resolution defining marriage as being between one man and one woman. I may be wrong. But if it is so, then wouldn't the mayor of S.F. be in violation of the law by marrying all these gay folks? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fish Posted February 27, 2004 Share Posted February 27, 2004 Yea,Rosie sucks,no matter WHAT orientation.I got a question,If a bisexual loves a man and woman can they all get married?If not,why not,since they are all in love and it makes them happy.Does anyone have the right to tell them NO?Who would they be hurtin?If they want to throw in a goat who are we to say NO?I submit the answer is,it has to be a man and woman,anything else is or can be some kind of union.Nothin' against gays,I want ALL people to have their rights protected,I don't see this as a rights issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.