rowooo Posted February 27, 2004 Share Posted February 27, 2004 With the incomprehensible, and rather unfortunate likelihood that Kerry and Clinton will reign over all of us for what could be a period of sixteen years, gay marriage should be the least of our concerns! Hold on! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3dzapper Posted February 27, 2004 Share Posted February 27, 2004 Henry VIII founded the church of England because he was excommunicated from the Catholic church for remarrying. To Catholics marrage is a religious sacrement such as baptism and confermation. I agree that a solution must be found so that same sex parteners can make medical decisions for each other in time of crisis and similiar injustices. But, the "marrage" issue is just another "I'm gay and I'm in your face" issue. It causes the majority to revolt at the thought and, as stated above so aptly, is likely to backfire. Homosexual men and women have contributed vastly to our society, but the "In your face" movement is alienating a whole lot of people who theretofore were not concerned with the issue. People who had had an it's their life attitude previously. Rick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fini Posted February 27, 2004 Share Posted February 27, 2004 Hmmm. I wouldn't consider the Roman Catholic Church to be the "moral high ground" when it comes to things sexual. Or legal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigBusa Posted February 27, 2004 Share Posted February 27, 2004 fish I'm watching this gay marriage debate closely because if that goes through then I know eventually I'll be able to marry my goat legally. Isn't that what this is really about ...the ability for humans to marry farm animals? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ka7niq Posted February 27, 2004 Share Posted February 27, 2004 The Constitution of the United States provides for "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" For ALL Americans, even Queers. While I am straight, and cant stand Ms Rosie O Donnell, she is an American, and entitled to her pursuit of happiness. She pays taxes too, and should be afforded equal rights to social security survivor benefits, etc, as any married couple should. Sometimes, I wish i wasnt so ultra right wing ? While I personally hate Rosie, I hate even more my government putting its business into peoples private life. What two people do is between them, and its nobodys business to legislate them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whell Posted February 27, 2004 Share Posted February 27, 2004 I'm not so sure that this is an issue of the government poking into people's private lives. The issue is whether or not the insitition of marriage is going to be redefined. There is nothing stopping two people of whatever sex to cohabitate, to carry on however they wish within their own four walls. I'm all for that. However, marriage as a legal insitution has a very specific definition, and a very specific intent. It creates obligations financial, personal, moral and legal. It creates a structure within which children can come into the world within a family unit. I'm quite comfortable with the status quo, and don't care to have this insititution redefined be an apparently vocal minority. I also don't care for the apparent willingness of judges to set asside the will of the citizens of any state as was done in the state of MA on this issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garymd Posted February 27, 2004 Share Posted February 27, 2004 ---------------- On 2/27/2004 3:02:13 PM fini wrote: Hmmm. I wouldn't consider the Roman Catholic Church to be the "moral high ground" when it comes to things sexual. Or legal. ---------------- Its not just the Roman Catholics we're speaking of here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben. Posted February 27, 2004 Share Posted February 27, 2004 Whell- Who defined the institution of marraige to exclude gays in the first place? The obligations and structure you speak of are just as much a part of gay life as straight. Judges are not expected to consider the will of the people. Their duty is to interpret the law as written, and to ensure that written law does contravert a superior law. The will of the people should be served by legislators and executive public servants. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Painful Reality Posted February 27, 2004 Share Posted February 27, 2004 Judges are not expected to consider the will of the people. Their duty is to interpret the law as written, and to ensure that written law does contravert a superior law. The will of the people should be served by legislators and executive public servants. ---------------- I sometime feel that allowing people only to vote at American Idol (or Canadian Idol, Star Académie, you name it...) wouldn't be actually in their best interest... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben. Posted February 27, 2004 Share Posted February 27, 2004 At least they count all the votes for American Idol. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Robinson Posted February 27, 2004 Share Posted February 27, 2004 ---------------- On 2/27/2004 3:55:43 PM bclarke421 wrote: Judges are not expected to consider the will of the people. Their duty is to interpret the law as written, and to ensure that written law does contravert a superior law. The will of the people should be served by legislators and executive public servants. ---------------- Ben, I think this is a point of debate. The SJC here in MA ruled and then dictated to the legislature, precluding a popular vote. The back story in this town (Boston) is not so much about gay unions as much as it is about the people being robbed of the right to vote on the issue. The legislature will meet next month to discuss what to do about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sheltie dave Posted February 27, 2004 Share Posted February 27, 2004 fini, in St. Louis among the young lion parish families, we look at the Roman Catholic hierarch in the St. Louis diocese as having slightly less moral standing than ambulance chasing personal injury lawyers(apologies to the honest p.i. lawyers on the forum). Five priests have been defrocked for sexual misconduct of various sorts in the past year, including the director of formation. Ouch, ouch, ouch (and substitute stronger language!) Keep in mind that many that are flocking to San Fran to get "married" are doing such at great personal cost, unkown legality, and without attempting to make any political, societal, or public statement, other than simply getting "married." Maybe a good portion of these marriages actually want to be just that. Something to ruminate... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben. Posted February 27, 2004 Share Posted February 27, 2004 My perception of the situation in Mass, was that the court ruled that same-sex unions wouldn't go far enough to satisfy equal protection as set out currently in Mass constitution. That is why it went back to debate in the legislature in the context of an amendment. Those constitutional requirements would have to be changed by a directly elected body in order for the courts to rule differently. Right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j-malotky Posted February 27, 2004 Share Posted February 27, 2004 I saw a good bumper sticker last week. It read something like.... If you blame guns for kill people then you must blame a spoon for making Rosie Odonnell FAT. JM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KungFuNat Posted February 27, 2004 Share Posted February 27, 2004 so whats next? incest? pedophilia? poligamy? hell as long as all parties consent whats the harm? this country was founded on christian-jewish ethics. those ethics are the basis of our legal system, and provide an element of social control. whos to say that robbing a bank is wrong? its covered by insurance, theres no harm done... personally i dont care about the marriages that much, but this is gonna open up a whole new can of worms that this country isnt ready to tackle yet. as mentioned in this thread, this whole push is going to backfire on homosexuals in a big way. the problem is that the courts are trying to bypass the will of the people on what is a legally ambiguous question. is homosexual marriage legal or not legal? in california its definately illegal. the courts really have no buisness ruling on this matter, it should be up to the people. believe me, if it was put to a popular vote right now, it would be crushed.. this needs to be voted on in a public refferendum. then well see what happens. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mobile homeless Posted February 27, 2004 Share Posted February 27, 2004 Natgun, have you heard of the fallacy called "Slippery Slope"? You do it justice in your two posts. kh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Mobley Posted February 27, 2004 Share Posted February 27, 2004 a polygamist in Utah is already using a court decision in Vermont or someplace in the NE to justify his multiple marriages. One of the "marriages" involves a 14 year old girl. If any small handfull of people can redine marriage I can already imagine the freakazoids lining up with their dogs, cats, whatever. How about a marriage between two adult male pedophiles and a teenaged boy? If marriage can be redefined by anybody who wants to what about the age of consent? Why would it mean anything? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Mobley Posted February 27, 2004 Share Posted February 27, 2004 jsut because a slippery slope fallacy exists doesn't mean real slippery slopes don't. How 'bout setting up a straw man and knocking him down? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3dzapper Posted February 27, 2004 Share Posted February 27, 2004 The state where this conrtoversy is strongest today, California, has already voted on this issue. The Ca Constitution was ammended to define marrage. The mayor of San Franscisco on his own started this fiasco and should be removed from public office for violation of his oath to obey the laws and constitution. Massachusetts will get a vote on this too. If their legislature is too cowardly to tackle the issue, which it seems it is, there will be a citizen initiative for a Constitutional amendment. Some of us, like those of us in RI, in addition to a weak kneed bleeding heart corrupt legislature, do not have initiative rights and will be hard pressed to do anything. Rick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KungFuNat Posted February 27, 2004 Share Posted February 27, 2004 mobile, my point wasnt that if you allow homosexual marriage, then you have to allow all kinds of other morally questionable activities the "slippery slope" you refer to. it was to emphasise my point: this is a legally ambiguous question that the courts have no buisness forcing upon this country one way or another. this should be up to the people of each individual state, and should be voted on. the arguement of "equal rights" doesnt apply here. if you want equal rights then civil unions should suffice, its this push for "marriage" where the fault lies. i simply do not agree with the courts trying to re-define the institutions of society because they think its "protected" under poorly written law. 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.