In Defense of the Marriage

[downquark1]

Michael Howard said he would support legalised gay civil unions but not "marriage"

[philip.j.fry]

Originally Posted by Sociable

*Cough* Errr.... I refer the gentlemen to the answer I gave earlier.

I gave a similar argument earlier than you

You're right, however some people haven't just been arguing that in their eyes they don't recognise the marriage, but also that the other/s should not be allowed to use the word marriage. At least that's how it appeared because naughty people kept saying marriage and not clarifying it

Originally Posted by Graham

No, you made a sweeping generalisation which I took exception too. Then, when I pulled you up on it, you seem to decide to resort to outrage and bluster instead of reason.



If you *had* done that, I wouldn't have objected. The fact that you chose to couch it in terms such as " everyone seems to personalise these errr..... discussions (sometimes tirades) down to attacking Russ" was what I objected to, which, you might have realised had you actually bothered to read my response instead of "just giving up reading whatever you have to say because it's too boring to read through your overlong long postings."



Were I to have actually done so, then you would have been right to call me a hypocrite, however since that is something I assiduously attempt to avoid doing, I cannot accept the appelation. (Alliteration actually unintentional!)



Off hand I can't say I know who erol is and, frankly, I don't care who he or she is because I am *not* erol, I do not speak for him/ her, nor does he/she speak for me.

I write my own posts, based on my own opinions. I do not attempt to "change people's minds just by nagging at them" I attempt to do so by pointing out logical flaws in their arguments or assumptions.

If you can't accept that...



And if anyone doesn't like what I have to say about their postings, then *they* can walk away. But I'm not going to stop posting because of that.



I'm sure, then that you haven't bothered to read down this far, but that's not my problem.

Whatever!

Ah, more reasoned debate from Incognitas...

[xaq141175]

the legislative body should leave marriage alone ... completely.

Originally Posted by Graham

Ah, more reasoned debate from Incognitas...

No, simply that Incognitas proves she knows how to walk away from an argument.

Originally Posted by towny

No, simply that Incognitas proves she knows how to walk away from an argument.

No, it proves that neither you nor Incognitas understands that to "walk away from an argument" you *walk away* from it, you do *not* make a snide and dismissive comment in an attempt to get the last word and *then* try to get away.

Originally Posted by Graham

No, it proves that neither you nor Incognitas understands that to "walk away from an argument" you *walk away* from it, you do *not* make a snide and dismissive comment in an attempt to get the last word and *then* try to get away.

[Ramrod]

Earlier (waaaay earlier) in this thread (at least I think it was this thread) someone was arguing that the incidence of homosexuality amongst priests is the same as for the general population. FYI This is not true. Amongst Anglicans at least, it is approx. 30%.

Originally Posted by Graham

Ah, more reasoned debate from Incognitas...

Whatever

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by downquark1

Michael Howard said he would support legalised gay civil unions but not "marriage"

Which is in line with what gay rights organisations are calling for

[Jerrek]

I firmly believe that the legislature (the people) should decide on this topic, not the courts. That said, what is happening?

- In 1996, Bill Clinton passed the Defense of the Marriage Act which allowed states to choose whether they want to recognize gay "marriages," and it also denied recognition by the federal government. This means that no federal benefits will apply to same-sex couples, even if they are "married" in a state that allows for it.

- Early last decade, the Hawaiin Supreme Court decided to allow same-sex marriages. However, the people voted, and the legislature amended the State Constitution to ban same-sex marriages. This is an example of how out-of-touch a court can be with the people.

- Massachusettes's Supreme Court ruled that denying same-sex couples the right to "marry" is against the State's Constitution. Furthermore, it set a date of May this year after which same-sex couples can get "married." The legislature is trying to do something about it. Unfortunately, the earliest a State Constitutional Amendment can get on the ballots is 2006. That leaves the legislature in a bad position. The Governor may counter the court's decision, but it isn't sure that he will do such a thing because it might hurt his future.

- 38 states so far passed laws or amendments refusing to recognize same-sex marriages.

- President Bush is in favor of a Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriages if the courts keep ruling in favor of them (showing how out-of-touch with reality they are).


So what does this mean?

- If you live in Massachusettes and get married, your "marriage" will not be recognized by the federal government or any other state (for now).

- If you do not live in Massachusettes and do get "married" there, the same thing will apply. If you go back home to say, Texas, you will not be considered married.

- If you do get "married" there, you risk having your "marriage" declared null and void in 2006 when the State Constitutional Amendment comes on the ballot. If people vote in favor of such an amendment, you won't be married.

- California is going about it the right way. Instead of having courts make laws, the legislature is trying to get a bill through to legalize same-sex "marriages." But the same as with Massachusettes--your "marriage" won't be recognized elsewhere.

- A Constitutional Amendment requires that 66% of the Senate and 66% of the House approve it. Then the President needs to sign it (if it gets vetoed then it goes back for another run--if it passes again it overrides the presidential veto), and then 75% of the states need to ratify it in their respective legislatures (38 states). This is a long and difficult process, but quite possible. Why? Because:

- In this week's Time Magazine a few interesting statistics:

-- 60% of people are opposed to same-sex marriages. 36% in favor.
-- 48% favor a Constitutional amendment, 47% are against it.
-- 38 states already have laws or amendments banning gay marriages.


I do believe a Constitutional Amendment is the way to go. Leave it up to the individual states to decide whether they want to recognize civil unions. And, give other states the right to refuse to recognize civil unions from other states.



Now what else is happening? There seems to be a little bit of a panic regarding this Massachusettes thing. A lot of states may now hurry to enforce a gay marriage ban. Time Magazine speculates that a major backlash may come against gay marriage. And this is in an election year. 48% of people surveyed stated that they would be less likely to vote for a candidate that supports gay marriage. Unfortunately for the Democrats, they have a major nominee meeting in Massachusettes (Kerry's home state). You can bet your left nut gay marriages will be brought up, and it will be carried by the media. After Kerry gets the nomination, the Republicans will start the war. They managed to make Gore look like a liberal. Just think of what a feast they will have with Kerry, the liberal Senator from Massachusettes, a state that ruled gay marriages is legal!

It is going to be an interesting year.

[Shaun]

Originally Posted by Jerrek

I firmly believe that the legislature (the people) should decide on this topic, not the courts. That said, what is happening?

- In 1996, Bill Clinton passed the Defense of the Marriage Act which allowed states to choose whether they want to recognize gay "marriages," and it also denied recognition by the federal government. This means that no federal benefits will apply to same-sex couples, even if they are "married" in a state that allows for it.

- Early last decade, the Hawaiin Supreme Court decided to allow same-sex marriages. However, the people voted, and the legislature amended the State Constitution to ban same-sex marriages. This is an example of how out-of-touch a court can be with the people.

- Massachusettes's Supreme Court ruled that denying same-sex couples the right to "marry" is against the State's Constitution. Furthermore, it set a date of May this year after which same-sex couples can get "married." The legislature is trying to do something about it. Unfortunately, the earliest a State Constitutional Amendment can get on the ballots is 2006. That leaves the legislature in a bad position. The Governor may counter the court's decision, but it isn't sure that he will do such a thing because it might hurt his future.

- 38 states so far passed laws or amendments refusing to recognize same-sex marriages.

- President Bush is in favor of a Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriages if the courts keep ruling in favor of them (showing how out-of-touch with reality they are).


So what does this mean?

- If you live in Massachusettes and get married, your "marriage" will not be recognized by the federal government or any other state (for now).

- If you do not live in Massachusettes and do get "married" there, the same thing will apply. If you go back home to say, Texas, you will not be considered married.

- If you do get "married" there, you risk having your "marriage" declared null and void in 2006 when the State Constitutional Amendment comes on the ballot. If people vote in favor of such an amendment, you won't be married.

- California is going about it the right way. Instead of having courts make laws, the legislature is trying to get a bill through to legalize same-sex "marriages." But the same as with Massachusettes--your "marriage" won't be recognized elsewhere.

- A Constitutional Amendment requires that 66% of the Senate and 66% of the House approve it. Then the President needs to sign it (if it gets vetoed then it goes back for another run--if it passes again it overrides the presidential veto), and then 75% of the states need to ratify it in their respective legislatures (38 states). This is a long and difficult process, but quite possible. Why? Because:

- In this week's Time Magazine a few interesting statistics:

-- 60% of people are opposed to same-sex marriages. 36% in favor.
-- 48% favor a Constitutional amendment, 47% are against it.
-- 38 states already have laws or amendments banning gay marriages.


I do believe a Constitutional Amendment is the way to go. Leave it up to the individual states to decide whether they want to recognize civil unions. And, give other states the right to refuse to recognize civil unions from other states.



Now what else is happening? There seems to be a little bit of a panic regarding this Massachusettes thing. A lot of states may now hurry to enforce a gay marriage ban. Time Magazine speculates that a major backlash may come against gay marriage. And this is in an election year. 48% of people surveyed stated that they would be less likely to vote for a candidate that supports gay marriage. Unfortunately for the Democrats, they have a major nominee meeting in Massachusettes (Kerry's home state). You can bet your left nut gay marriages will be brought up, and it will be carried by the media. After Kerry gets the nomination, the Republicans will start the war. They managed to make Gore look like a liberal. Just think of what a feast they will have with Kerry, the liberal Senator from Massachusettes, a state that ruled gay marriages is legal!

It is going to be an interesting year.

Early last decade, the Hawaiin Supreme Court decided to allow same-sex marriages. However, the people voted, and the legislature amended the State Constitution to ban same-sex marriages. This is an example of how out-of-touch a court can be with the people.

You're the joke

[Jerrek]

You basically repeated what I said, and then...? What the f?

Originally Posted by Jerrek

- Early last decade, the Hawaiin Supreme Court decided to allow same-sex marriages. However, the people voted, and the legislature amended the State Constitution to ban same-sex marriages. This is an example of how out-of-touch a court can be with the people.

What you actually mean is, "how dare the courts interfere with my bigotry." I don`t think it is a case of the courts being out of touch with the people. The average man on the street bases their opinion on rhetoric force-fed to them by the media and religion. The court bases its opinion on a careful examination of the facts in hand. If you want to describe it as being "out of touch" that is your right, but personally I see that as a good thing if that means being "out of touch" with spoon-fed opinions.