Marriage in North Carolina

[Wuptdo]

Ok, it is time again to stick my finger in the air and see which way the wind is blowing on CP. Or......

Ok, it is time to stir the "pot" on CP - let's see which way the feathers fly.

Wuptdo B-)

[Wuptdo]

Ok, this issue is now in Congress.

http://www.allianceformarriage.org/reports/fma/fma.cfm

1) Will it get through Congress this year (requires Super Majority);
2) Do you think that 38 States will ratify in the required seven years;
3) Do you think that this pass in North Carolina;
4) What is your opinion?

Wuptdo B-)

[kellyc]

I think an amendment like that has no place in the constitution, just as the prohibition one had no place in the constitution. I can only hope it will fall flat on its face. I dont necessarily support same-sex marriages, but I dont think its a critical enough issue to be in the constitution.

Kelly

[dhyatt]

Ok, this issue is now in Congress.

http://www.allianceformarriage.org/reports/fma/fma.cfm

1) Will it get through Congress this year (requires Super Majority);
2) Do you think that 38 States will ratify in the required seven years;
3) Do you think that this pass in North Carolina;
4) What is your opinion?

Wuptdo B-)

It will get though Congress and it will be ratified in less than 2 years. 39 states already have legislation limiting marraige to 1 man and 1 woman. North Carolina will be one of the very first states to ratify such an amendment and it seems like it's an unfortunate necessity. The law needs to be consistent across the country and when you have Mayors willing to break the law (as they are doing in CA), there seems to be little choice.

[kellyc]

I just hate to see it in the constitution....

Kelly

[Karen]

I just hate to see it in the constitution....
Kelly

Agreed. I don't think it should be a constitutional amendment either.

Karen

[johnb]

Tough, the hard left should not have been pushing their perversities as they are. An amendment is probably the only way to put a halt to the nonsense going on in Mass and Calif. If those states want funky "civil unions" they can have 'em. The renegade courts in those two states have no right to impose their leftwing insanity on anyone else. Let the people in those two states suffer their own judges.

[Brent]

So, here's a thought: maybe an underlying problem is that government, at some point in the past, got it into their heads that the state gets to define marriage.

I'll leave it up to God to define "holy matrimony", thank you very much, and if the state has other ideas, pshaw to them. Especially if those ideas include the ridiculous idea of same-sex "marriage".

[SteveG]

I just hate to see it in the constitution....

Kelly

Indeed, it seems like an awful waste of time and effort, and a poor match for the intent of the rest of the document.

Let's say it actually gets amended to define marriage. Will that end same-sex union rights? Of course not. The gay union supporters will just lobby to throw the word marriage out of the laws that define partner benefits. Those judges who will continue to be friendly to gay unions will claim that if marriage is defined in a way that discriminates against gays, then the benefit laws that use the term "marriage" violate the 14th amendment by discriminating against gays. And round and round we go.

I think the attempt at using the constitution to define marriage in order to protect the traditional religious implications of the word might accelerate the substitute of "civil union" for "marriage" in American law, given the growing public sentiment that gays who enter such unions deserve some or many of the same government benefits.

I think Bill Maher said it best when he suggested that if conservatives want to use the government to take actions to stop gays from having sex, why not support their marriage?

-Steve

[Wuptdo]

Steve wrote:
I think Bill Maher said it best when he suggested that if conservatives want to use the government to take actions to stop gays from having sex, why not support their marriage?


Steve, ROFL. I spewded coffee all over my screen when I read that. Maher is good. (Note to self: Don't drink coffee or crown royal while reading CP post)

Wuptdo B-)

[kellyc]

Exactly Steve ....and I dont know where I heard it....but it seems applicable...Why should heterosexuals be the only ones to suffer the trials and tribulations of marriage?

Kelly

[dhyatt]

Some of you are missing the point. The point is not about who should be my beneficiary or who I can include as a dependent on my health care insurance. These are things that can be handled just as well via civil union/partner clauses that are already in effect in most parts of of the country. For the record - I don't agree with those either but they are the law of the land in most places and unlike the Mayor of S.F., I have some respect for the law.

The issue of "gay marriage" is one that transcends civil rights and is now migrating towards what I call "social" rights. Gays want to be percieved as mainstream, normal "families", replete with a "marriage" license. They are not mainstream nor are they normal. This doesn't mean they should suffer any prejudicial treatment since the vast majority work as hard and as well as anybody else. Even the flimsiest definition of "normal" has to include the notion of behavior which supports sustaining the species in question. This is not homophobic, it is simply scientific fact.

To follow up on Steve's point, if gays are successful in their quest for public sanctioning of a "marriage", how long before the "traditional" marriages start to incorporate something that makes them special and somehow even more moral!???

Social equivalence at the macro level is something they can not achieve unless, once again, we are collectively willing to lower the bar (or "enlarge the tent" for those that want a positive metaphor) to accomodate them.

When society finally reaches the point where morality is defined solely by whatever group you choose to join, the rules of law will break down and anarchy will reign. Maybe there are people looking forward to that but I'm not one of them.

[Mark]

The renegade courts in those two states have no right to impose their leftwing insanity on anyone else.

Are they? I didn't think they were challenging the DMA, as that was a seperate issue before different courts - though I may be wrong about that.

Also, I'm wondering how a court becomes "renegade."

[Mark]

Another thing I was pondering today. I listened to Rush last week go on and on about Mayor Newsome and how he's breaking the law, doesn't have any respect for the law, and is generally a terrible person.

Our reaction to what S.F. is doing, he said, should be the same is we substittued any other illegal activity. He chose heroin use. Which I found both amusing, given Rush's own background, and somewhat offensive - as he was tacitly equating the level of the two crimes. So, he went on, if S.F. started selling heroin at city hall to try and challenge a state law then we would naturally find it repugnant. So should we with gay marriage.

That was about the most asinine thing I've ever heard. I had to stop working for a while laughing when he reached this conclusion. It's lovely, really. I can just hear some good old boy some 50 years ago talking about some uppity blacks breaking the law by sitting a lunch counter. Well, it is the law, they would say, it's the same as if they were openly trying to use heroin. It's what the law says.

It's just beautiful, isn't it, how far we've come.

[SteveG]

Pursuit of social recognition may be the reason why gays dress up for their wedding ceremonies and wear rings, but it's not the reason why they sue for legal recognition. The only benefits of legal recognition from the government are those tangible programs that the government and employers provide to lifetime couples. Gay bashers will surely continue to spout all the anti-gay rhetoric they want regardless of government protection of equal access to programs and benefits.

Gay union supporters believe that homosexuality is genetic, irreversible and non-contagious, and that lifetime unions are the most socially responsible and rewarding choice for homosexuals. Many people in America share this view. Those who oppose legal recognition of gay unions, regardless of the word used to describe them, on the belief that gay unions are immoral will likely have difficulty supporting that position as society becomes more understanding of those homosexuals who are trying to do what they think is both honest and responsible.

The alternative, encouraging homosexuals to hide their sexuality in shame and attempt celibacy, worked so well for the Catholic church that many people find the opposition to gay unions rather laughable by comparison.

[Mark]

Gay union supporters believe that homosexuality is genetic, irreversible and non-contagious...

First I agree with nearly everything you've written here except the above. I've found that you're as likely, if not more, to see people who hold that homosexuality is not genetic - especially homosexuals themselves - supporting civil unions for gays. The question of embracing research, or just speculation, of biological basis for homosexuality is an open and hotly debated one within the community. My view tends to reject any attempt to root homosexuality in genetics as it simply reinforces the focus on the body, and the physical, rather than the emotional or spiritual... and it is a troublesome denial of free will.

[dhyatt]

Pursuit of social recognition may be the reason why gays dress up for their wedding ceremonies and wear rings, but it's not the reason why they sue for legal recognition. The only benefits of legal recognition from the government are those tangible programs that the government and employers provide to lifetime couples. [snip]

Thank you for making my point. If it was only for government benefits then some sort of civil union would suffice. However, at least for the more radical ones, that is, in fact, not sufficient. I reassert they are seeking social recognition and social parity. They may get it eventually but I think that would be bad for society as a whole. Also, don't confuse social parity with personal and/or professional respect. They are two distinctly separate things.

[dhyatt]

"It will get though Congress and it will be ratified in less than 2 years." -dhyatt

Do you have a prediction of your own?

[dhyatt]

With regards to gay marriage and social parity.
This is the first of many...

**************************************************
February 25, 2004

Pastor’s reaction leaves newlywed lesbians in tears
By KURTIS ALEXANDER
Sentinel staff writer

SANTA CRUZ — When Doreen Boxer and Cynthia Zapata heard that "power of love" was the theme of this month’s services at the Santa Cruz Bible Church, the recently married gay couple thought their search for a new place of worship might have been guided by a divine hand.

"What a coincidence — we were honoring our love at a time they were celebrating love’s power," said Boxer. "It seemed like God had sent us to this church."

Little did Boxer and her partner of seven years know that their Feb. 15 attendance at the church on Frederick Street would demonstrate just how emotionally charged the issue of same-sex marriage is on both sides of the debate.

The service would leave the Santa Cruz couple humiliated and the well-intentioned church ministry struggling to respectfully affirm its beliefs.

The couple’s faith-testing experience began when, during the Sunday service, the Bible Church initiated a seemingly harmless Valentine’s week contest to honor the longest-wed couple in attendance as well as the most recently wed couple.

After a husband and wife of more than 50 years of marriage were recognized by the congregation with a dinner for two at Ristorante Italiano, it was time for Boxer and Zapata to enter the newlywed fray and compete for their free dinner.

The bid from the pulpit summoned couples of three years or less to rise to their feet, according to church attendees. Several couples stood until the window of time was dropped and couples began returning to their seats.

Boxer and Zapata, who were married in San Francisco just two days before the church service, were soon the only ones standing. But rather than being greeted with accolades, the couple was met with an uncomfortable pause as the contest moderator proceeded to confer with church leaders on whether to acknowledge a lesbian couple and give them the award, according to parishioners.

"It was so awkward," said Elena Steeves, who has been attending Santa Cruz Bible Church on and off for 15 years. Steeves vows never to return after that Sunday’s events.

"I felt so bad for them, and personally I felt betrayed," she said.

Dixon said the moments she and Zapata were left standing in front of the congregation as the ministry deliberated their fate were among the most hurtful in her life. She went from experiencing the joy of her recent matrimony, she said, to a shame she had never felt before.

"By the end of the service, we were both in tears," Dixon said.

David Gschwend, executive pastor, said the experience was trying for him, too.

"Our position is that we don’t support gay marriage, but at the same time I didn’t want to make a scene. ... I didn’t want to hurt them," he said.

After the private consultation among church leaders, which Dixon said went on for what seemed like three minutes, she and Zapata were awarded the dinner certificate. But not without qualification.

Gschwend rose before the congregation and condemned gay marriage.

"By some people in our church, (the award) was misinterpreted," he said, explaining that he needed to make clear where the church stood on the issue.

The teary-eyed Dixon and Zapata left the church that day, pledging never to return but seemingly unfazed in their religious conviction.

"I prayed to God to take away my anger and my hurt feelings, and He’s done that," Dixon said.

Gschwend has since extended an invitation to meet with the couple, and, if not offer an apology, find some level of understanding between them.

"At least I want to look them in the eye and tell them they have value and dignity," he said.

Dixon, who said she and Zapata intend to take advantage of the church’s dinner offer when they get some free time, said the pastor is unlikely to get that opportunity.

"We know where each of us stands. It seems like there’s really nothing left to say."

Kurtis Alexander is the Sunday editor. Contact him at kalexander@santacruzsentinel.com.

[johnb]

This has nothing to do with the declared goals, insurance and such matters, and everything to do with homosexuals and other extremists attacking the institution that is the backbone of the society and culture they hate so very much. Period. Any attempted justification which deviates from that is simply not truthful.

There is no need for a pair of homosexuals to have a marriage license to achieve the material goals they claim to want. The only reason to demand a marriage license is to demean and destroy the classic definition of marriage.

Steve and I have gone over this before and he lost, male homosexuals are deliberately and notoriously anti-monogamous. Study after study has demonstrated that point. We can go through it again if you wish Steve, but the end result will be the same. 'Marriage' for homosexual men has nothing to do with sexual monogamy or fidelity. Too many of you are willing to give in on that point because you don't want to be yelled at by some shrieking drag queen calling you "intolerant".

Come now Eminently Reasonable Steve, saying a dog has five legs does not change it's tail into a leg.

[Mark]

This has nothing to do with the declared goals, insurance and such matters, and everything to do with homosexuals and other extremists attacking the institution that is the backbone of the society and culture they hate so very much. Period. Any attempted justification which deviates from that is simply not truthful.

This is an example of buying into one's own rhetoric a bit to heavily, as John can say things like this an not recognize that it's fallcy ridden and generally unsupported.

I reject as stated that the issue has nothing to do with the declared goals, as they've been presented in this thread, and everything to do with what you think.

I reject as stated that there are only extremists doing the attacking. Though, I'm sure, by your definition anyone who supports homosexual marriage is a priori an extremist.

I reject as stated that marriage is the backbone of society and culture. One could just as easily say, as do many social contractists, that the political state is the foundation of all society. You'd have to account for societies that function without family units as we know them. You'd have to explain how so much of what is culturally relevant in nearly all societies today have scarcely little to do with marriage or family.

I reject as stated that those extremists, but also by extenstion anyone who supports homosexual marriage, hates marriage. That seems absurd to me, they it so badly because they hate it? Or did you mean that they hate society and culture? I really don't need to go into that, do I?

So, be careful all, any attempted justification which deviates, questions, or fails to support John's calvalcade of unsupported opinion is simply not truthful.

When is it my turn to become the ultimate arbiter of truth... sounds like a good gig if you can get it.

And this is even before he breaks out crap like "male homosexuals are deliberately and notoriously anti-monogamous." Study after study? I'll take just three. And, while we're at it, so are basketball players, all professional atheletes really, study after study proves it - let's deny them the right to marry too...even to have sex... they're obviosly causing many broken homes.

[dhyatt]

I reject as stated that marriage is the backbone of society and culture. One could just as easily say, as do many social contractists, that the political state is the foundation of all society. You'd have to account for societies that function without family units as we know them. You'd have to explain how so much of what is culturally relevant in nearly all societies today have scarcely little to do with marriage or family.

[snip]

I think you're completely wrong rejecting the notion that marriage is the backbone of society and culture. However, I'm willing to learn. Please tell me about any society that is fourishing without having "family units" as the basis of their culture.

[SteveG]

This has nothing to do with the declared goals, insurance and such matters, and everything to do with homosexuals and other extremists attacking the institution that is the backbone of the society and culture they hate so very much. Period. Any attempted justification which deviates from that is simply not truthful.

There is no need for a pair of homosexuals to have a marriage license to achieve the material goals they claim to want. The only reason to demand a marriage license is to demean and destroy the classic definition of marriage.

Steve and I have gone over this before and he lost, male homosexuals are deliberately and notoriously anti-monogamous. Study after study has demonstrated that point. We can go through it again if you wish Steve, but the end result will be the same. 'Marriage' for homosexual men has nothing to do with sexual monogamy or fidelity. Too many of you are willing to give in on that point because you don't want to be yelled at by some shrieking drag queen calling you "intolerant".

Come now Eminently Reasonable Steve, saying a dog has five legs does not change it's tail into a leg.

I'll have to base my opinions on my direct experiences, and not John's stereotypes.

I don't know a lot of gay people, but I have a lot of respect for the ones I do know. One, a good friend, is a conservative Republican and a Baptist plagued with guilt about his sexual orientation (too bad he was raised Baptist), who cares deeply about morality and family values. He would like nothing more than to settle down with one person for the rest of his life. Meanwhile, he's a 40-year-old virgin waiting for his Prince Charming. Sex before marriage? He's not that kind of girl.

I know a lesbian couple that wants to put one member of the family on the other's insurance benefits. They cannot do that because the law requires a legal marriage. So, they want to obtain a legal marriage because that's the only way they can get the benefit. No desire to overthrow American culture, just a desire for specific benefits.

If John believes that homosexuals (he always uses gay men in his examples) are more promiscuous or less monogamous than heterosexuals, this begs the question of why this would be so. Is it because males are inherently promiscuous without a social contract to ensure monogamy? Would this then be less applicable to female homosexuals? Is it the lack of children to care for? Why then are childless couples afforded marriage benefits? Wouldn't a social contract or even legal obligation for fidelity reduce promiscuity by gay men?

In any case, the gays I know who promote equal recognition of their unions under law are not interested in making waves or hurting peole; they just want to improve their lives. I am unable to condemn them for that.

Steve Goodridge

[Mark]

First, a note of decorum here. John asserted, I questioned. The burden is on him to make his case, not for me to disprove it. But I'll entertain you.

Please tell me about any society that is fourishing without having "family units" as the basis of their culture.

What does that even mean? Like John, you're assuming too much from the start. What is culture here? What is society? There is a host of thinkers, including the providers of the basis for the U.S. constitution, who would vociferously argue that prior to a political community or state, we could speak of no society whatsoever. That most societies do now indeed include some sort of family structure may be as meaningful as saying that all societies rely on oxgyen for their survival. All have families, all need air but what is either to do specifically with the start of "society."

Marriage as the backbone of culture is even more absurd. What about French high art, or contintenal philosophy relies on marriage? What about the western business climate or the zeitgeist of college campuses presupooses and necessitates marriage? But, one might say, what about all those other more mundane aspects of life that are so centered around the family. Fine, but one is then obliged to account for similar behavior or "culture" in unmarried people, in people without much or any family, and such a person would risk simply defining culture as those things associated with whatever X they believe the "backbone" of it to be. A popular version of question begging.

Also, you need to recall John's claim. It's marriage first, and perhaps famliy second (though he may jump in to claim otherwise) that homosexuals are attacking - and its that institution that is the backbone. So really, to make that case, we have to be absolutely sure that to have a family one has to be married. Which is obviously not true, a fact which few will dispute.

Anyway, to get back to your question more specifically. Surely we'd all agree that human societies do not require marriage. Marriage didn't exsist as a pervasive convention until quite late in human evolution. Humans had lived in some family unit - males with either one or some small number of females (sometimes vice versa) and their offspring, long before anyone conceived of such a thing as marriage. That happened even before there was much, if any of a concept of family. The decision to have a "family" wasn't a spirtual or moral one, it was an economic one. Humans require a tremendous investment of energy to be raised to an age of self survival. If one's resources are limited, and one has an interest in reproductive fitness, then it follows that you invest your time in known, and discrete, individuals. So, anyway, I'd offer that human society itself flourished without marriage. And, since we haven't defined culture yet, I'll just pick one aspect - healthcare - and illustrate that scandinavian countries have show remarkable declines in marriage rates while increasing healthcare access and quality. High culture, low marriage.

And, slightly off topic, my prediction is that it doesn't even get out to the states - and it dies a long death if it does.

[dhyatt]

First, a note of decorum here. John asserted, I questioned. The burden is on him to make his case, not for me to disprove it. But I'll entertain you.

Please tell me about any society that is fourishing without having "family units" as the basis of their culture.

[snip]

So, anyway, I'd offer that human society itself flourished without marriage. And, since we haven't defined culture yet, I'll just pick one aspect - healthcare - and illustrate that scandinavian countries have show remarkable declines in marriage rates while increasing healthcare access and quality. High culture, low marriage.

And, slightly off topic, my prediction is that it doesn't even get out to the states - and it dies a long death if it does.

Scandinavian countires are a predictable but poor choice on your part since their suicide and childhood mental illness rates are among the highest in the world. Many researchers attribute this to a breakdown of the traditional "family unit" leading to higher incidences (from a 1995 Canadian study) of "...sexual and emotional abuse, stress, unplanned pregnancy, problems concerning sexual preference, unemployment, imprisonment, and running away from home."

Individuals and small groups with or without marriage and families do great things all the time. That's not the subject of our discussion. Rather, where is general acceptance of "alternative" lifestyles taking us (if indeed, there ever is general acceptance) as a society? It obviously makes life nicer for Rosie and her new wife but at what cost to the rest of us? As far as I'm concerned, it's one more step towards anything goes and eventual anarchy. The only good part is observing the backlash...

[Mark]

I found your claims to be somewhat out of step with what I was thinking. The numbers I found for suicide rates (a ranking out of 79 countries) for the U.S. was 39 and 31 for females and males, respectively. Norway, 28 and 36, Sweden 23 and 29, and Denmark 13 and 23. And, not only are their suicide rates better, even if they weren't, life expectancy is still significantly higher.

I found no comparable statistics for mental health in my quick survey though I have no doubt that the U.S. has more children on psychiatric medication per capita than does any other state.

We'll disagree where the general acceptance of fairly normal lifestyles are taking this country, and I can respect that and not badger you further on it. I thought, however, that this part of the discussion was about John's ridiculous claim that marriage is the backbone of society and culture. Families are no doubt important, but not essential. But marriage has precious little to offer as a way of interpreting or appreciating the cultural milieu in which all people, in society, operate.

[dhyatt]

I found your claims to be somewhat out of step with what I was thinking. The numbers I found for suicide rates (a ranking out of 79 countries) for the U.S. was 39 and 31 for females and males, respectively. Norway, 28 and 36, Sweden 23 and 29, and Denmark 13 and 23. And, not only are their suicide rates better, even if they weren't, life expectancy is still significantly higher.

I found no comparable statistics for mental health in my quick survey though I have no doubt that the U.S. has more children on psychiatric medication per capita than does any other state.

We'll disagree where the general acceptance of fairly normal lifestyles are taking this country, and I can respect that and not badger you further on it. I thought, however, that this part of the discussion was about John's ridiculous claim that marriage is the backbone of society and culture. Families are no doubt important, but not essential. But marriage has precious little to offer as a way of interpreting or appreciating the cultural milieu in which all people, in society, operate.

Curious - where did your data come from? The first several pages of results from using Google to search - "suicide rates" scandinavia - are loaded with stuff documenting and questioning the why of higher suicide rates. Several note success in bringing it "under control" in Sweden through vigorous use of anti-depressents. I'm a firm believer in the fact that you can always find statistics to back up claims if you look hard enough but I didn't look that hard. Most of the stuff I saw was dated '94-'99 so it would be interesting to know whether you have different sources (or perhaps newer?) that would account for the disparity.

Technically, I think John's right about marriage being the backbone of society but it's not the backbone of culture since they're two different things. Society is simply "human beings collectively." Marriage and stable families tend to support a "society." Culture, on the other hand, is the behavior patterns, beliefs, arts etc... of the individuals that make up said society. The two are inextricably linked though when we consider that culture vis-a-vis behavior patterns can challenge the stability of society. That seems to be the central issue we're dealing with here.

[Mark]

nationmaster.com

Fun site to poke around, you can spend a lot of time there.

An amendment to the the constitution is the only way to stop the madness.
The Left in this country do not recognize laws they disagree with. This includes half the Courts in this country.

[kellyc]

The Left in this country do not recognize laws they disagree with

What about the Righty Rush Limbaugh? Doesnt seem that he recognized the drug laws of this country. Do we need an ammendment on drugs too?

Kelly

[Mark]

Shhh Kelly, we're not supposed to talk about that. He said he's sorry and it's over. Ok?

[Anonymous]

Technically, I think John's right about marriage being the backbone of society but it's not the backbone of culture since they're two different things. Society is simply "human beings collectively." Marriage and stable families tend to support a "society." Culture, on the other hand, is the behavior patterns, beliefs, arts etc... of the individuals that make up said society. The two are inextricably linked though when we consider that culture vis-a-vis behavior patterns can challenge the stability of society. That seems to be the central issue we're dealing with here.

I think that monogamous couples forming a family unit are indeed an integral component of western society. It appears to me, so do some homosexuals. Whether one interprets the efforts of homosexuals to gain access to government benefits and protection of such family units as an effort to destroy families or an effort to promote families probably depends on whether or not one fears homosexuals as a class. Much of the talk about homosexuals purportedly being out to destroy families by wanting to be treated as families reminds me of the claims of some country club members that accepting blacks as members would destroy the country clubs.

If a homosexual person (1) believes that their sexual orientation is irreversible and non-contagious, and (2) believes that the best thing for them and for society is for them to pursue a lifelong commitment to another person as part of a family unit, it seems quite logical to me that they would want to (1) make their coupling as official as possible, and (2) want to enjoy the perks of family membership.

I think it's reasonable to distinguish between religious marriage and government recognition of family unions, for the sake of not offending the church. However, the language of law using the term "marriage" when assigning benefits makes this difficult. The only way homosexuals will be able to gain access to those benefits without calling themselves married will be to get the laws and policies re-written to remove the term "marriage". This will probably be accelerated by the constitutional marriage amendment, because the amendment will allow those judges who are friendly to homosexual rights to declare any law providing benefits to married people unconstitutional, on the grounds that they violate the 14th amendment by excluding gays. The only way to prevent judges from doing this is to modify the 14th amendment to include the language "except homosexuals."

-Steve Goodridge

[Wuptdo]

Though this is not following the current pattern on this thread, it does represent another "problem" as we continue down the "slippy-slope!"

http://nationalreview.com/murdock/murdock200402270920.asp

As the stomach turns -

Wuptdo :evil:

[SteveG]

Shhh Kelly, we're not supposed to talk about that. He said he's sorry and it's over. Ok?

Besides, saying no to drugs isn't easy as changing one's sexual orientation, right? Being gay or not is just another everyday decision we all make, but drugs, boy, those things really mess with your head.....

[Don]

Though this is not following the current pattern on this thread, it does represent another "problem" as we continue down the "slippy-slope!"

http://nationalreview.com/murdock/murdock200402270920.asp

As the stomach turns -

Wuptdo :evil:

Thank you for that literary garbage Wup. Just another reason everyone in this country shouls cease support of the ACLU, and maybe even put them in a rubbermaid container filled with cement. Just a thought.

[Anonymous]

JB wrote:

“homosexuals and other extremists [are] attacking the institution that is the backbone of the society and culture they hate so very much. Period. Any attempted justification which deviates from that is simply not truthful….

The only reason to demand a marriage license is to demean and destroy the classic definition of marriage.”

Wow! And we all thought JB’s core value was individual freedom and live and let live.


JB also claims to be a deacon in the church of the real world with its not always attractive realities. So as you all discuss this institution and its role in society less sanctimony and more honesty is in order. As JB might say, follow the power.

Historically the institution of marriage has been about consolidating power (economic and political) and for procreation to create legitimate heirs for the same. Get it and keep it, that’s the goal.

The legal definition of marriage evolved to support the goals of the powerful and the wealthy.

Marriages have been and are often still arranged by others for the new marriage partners. Yes, even in our enlightened age. It is about power and who will get it and how they will keep it.

As a practical matter marriage, “the institution”, has depended more on subjugation than love and respect to produce the desired results. While legalized subjugation is under attack in the courts and legislative bodies, many mainstream religious groups are still actively pushing for wifely subjugation to the will of her husband.

The “classic” marriage partnership has been, and in many cases is still about economic and physical security. Many choose to find love outside the marriage.

Of course family groups and tribal relationships are critical to a working society. They establish the power structure.

Kelly, Rush may have broken the law in Fld. and is being investigated. The problem in San Fran is that the law is being broken and the States Attorney and the courts are not enforcing the law. There is a right way and a wrong way to do things in this country. I don't like alot of the laws in this country but I follow them.

[Brent]

Historically the institution of marriage has been about consolidating power (economic and political) and for procreation to create legitimate heirs for the same. Get it and keep it, that’s the goal.

The legal definition of marriage evolved to support the goals of the powerful and the wealthy.

Marriages have been and are often still arranged by others for the new marriage partners. Yes, even in our enlightened age. It is about power and who will get it and how they will keep it.


Hyatt, this site's popularity is clearly increasing, reaching a broader audience. After all, either John Kerry or Melinda Gates (I'm not sure which) just posted here, masquerading as "Guest"!

[kellyc]

Why not just let God decide what's right and wrong with that stuff? Why does the goverment need to decide who gets married and who doesnt. If it really is against the bible, wont he take care of it all onhis own?

Kelly

[SteveG]

Why not just let God decide what's right and wrong with that stuff? Why does the goverment need to decide who gets married and who doesnt. If it really is against the bible, wont he take care of it all onhis own?
Kelly

People want the government to get involved on matters of morality in order to affect other people's actions. Those actions may harm innocent people, or they may challenge some power structure in which there is a vested interest. Simply waiting until somebody meets their maker to be judged for their sins doesn't prevent them from doing harm to innocent people or challenging an existing power structure.

Locking up pedophiles prevents pedophiles from doing potentially irreversible harm to innocent children who are incapable of giving consent. Virtually everyone supports that, especially gays who resent persecution by people who confuse homosexuality with pedophilia and/or abuse of minors. On the other hand, a lot of Americans have difficulty understanding what harm results from consenting adult life partners of the same sex filing jointly on their taxes or sharing a health care plan....perhaps that issue is more about protecting power structures and keeping favorite scapegoats open for attack....

-Steve Goodridge

[Mark]

On the other hand, a lot of Americans have difficulty understanding what harm results from consenting adult life partners of the same sex filing jointly on their taxes or sharing a health care plan....perhaps that issue is more about protecting power structures and keeping favorite scapegoats open for attack....

Someone buy this man a beer.

I was thinking more about this today at work. The chronology of marriage isn't really in dispute. Humans associate with small groups for economic and procreative efficiency. Humans over time develop an increased sense of spiritual calling. Churches of all varieties saction what are more or less marriages, conferring benefit of reproductive rights on those who are married. Political states, run by religious men, having a legitimate interest in promoting the rearing of children begin to legally recognize the religious rites of marriage. Political states, to promote the same and the ensure viability of families, begin tailoring their laws so that married couples receive more support from the state.

That part is clear. It's on the next step that the flaw of the anti-gay marriage crowd is exposed. States, having realized that non religiously affiliated men and women desired to have children, and that the states interest in promoting stable families remained, political associations began performing marriages themselves, a legal marriage, and extended to those people the host of economic and social priveleges that came with marriage.

If the same rationale doesn't apply to homosexuals then it isn't because the state has suddenly lost its interest in promoting families. It must be something about homosexuals - often their inability to procreate is cited as the only differentiating characteristic. This is specious, for no requirement is made of heterosexual marriages that they procreate, and it easy enough for gay couples to adopt, or have children by artificial means. It must then be something else, and that something is always just under the surface and hardly ever owned by people who tend to be against gay marriage. Gays are bad. They're morally wrong because God says so and, while we're at it, they're lifestyle is just strange. Or, you can get the more absurd claims, like gay men shouldn't be allowed to marry because they're allegedly promiscuous... as if that too is a requirement for heterosexuals.

All of this could have been avoided if political states hadn't used the word marriage in the first place. But, they did, and, I'd contend, they've lost the chance to take it back. If states can marry at all, they must marry all. The reasons states choose to do so are precisely the same whether the couple be hetero or homosexual.

[Wuptdo]

This thread has certainly gotten heavy duty. Another wedge in American society; I wonder how Sen. Edwards defines this issue as "two America's."
Anyway, look at this site as sort of a commerical:

http://www.bettydodson.com/agenda.htm

The site itself is one of the most ....I can't even describe it (don't open with kids around).

Public service message brought to you by:

Wuptdo B-)

[Don]

I would have to agree with those who are opposed to calling same sex unions marriage. Making "marriage" between a man and a man, or a woman and a woman legal forces the notion that homosexuality is "ok". While I personally do not care what anyone does in the privacy of their own home, forcing the majority of America, who disagree with the statement that homosexuality is socially acceptable, be required to accept such philosophy, is wrong.

How many of you have children? Would any of you be "ok" with your son or daughter coming home from middle school to find out they studied homosexual relationships and marriage in class? What would be taught in "sex-ed."? I learned my hee-hee goes in the ho-ho of a WOMAN. Since homosexuality would in essence be socially acceptable because they could marry like heterosexual couples, would schools begin to teach that the hee-hee of a man, can go in the poop shoot of a man? Sex education was designed to teach children that sex is for married couples with the desire to have children. Do we now teach that sex is just sex and anyone can do it? Even gays whose sex would never result in procreation?

I do not care if two men or two women wish to have a union or not. I do not care if they have one partner or 50. I DO care when government forces me or my family to "honor" it by calling it marriage. Call it a union, partnership, call it love, I don't care. Do not call it marriage please.

[Don]

Why not just let God decide what's right and wrong with that stuff? Why does the goverment need to decide who gets married and who doesnt. If it really is against the bible, wont he take care of it all onhis own?
Kelly

People want the government to get involved on matters of morality in order to affect other people's actions. Those actions may harm innocent people, or they may challenge some power structure in which there is a vested interest. Simply waiting until somebody meets their maker to be judged for their sins doesn't prevent them from doing harm to innocent people or challenging an existing power structure.

Locking up pedophiles prevents pedophiles from doing potentially irreversible harm to innocent children who are incapable of giving consent. Virtually everyone supports that, especially gays who resent persecution by people who confuse homosexuality with pedophilia and/or abuse of minors. On the other hand, a lot of Americans have difficulty understanding what harm results from consenting adult life partners of the same sex filing jointly on their taxes or sharing a health care plan....perhaps that issue is more about protecting power structures and keeping favorite scapegoats open for attack....

-Steve Goodridge

I don't care if they file jointly on their taxes or qualify for other benefits. I believe calling it marriage is just wrong. Call it a union or something else. Add the word union to legal documents that include the word married or something. Let them get a union certificate. Have union announcements in the newspaper. Just don't call it marriage.

[Don]

My little Websters dictionary here (that I had to buy because I couldn't understand half of what some of you were saying) has over 35,000 different words in it.

Invent, or use a another word for the legal union between same sex couples.

Marriage is defined as the union between a husband and wife. To me, and I am sure the majority of this country, marriage is just that. The union between a husband (man) and wife (woman).

Unionization maybe?

[Cathy]

Why not just let God decide what's right and wrong with that stuff? Why does the goverment need to decide who gets married and who doesnt. If it really is against the bible, wont he take care of it all onhis own?

Kelly

Once again, we are in agreement, Kelly

Cathy

[Cathy]

My little Websters dictionary here (that I had to buy because I couldn't understand half of what some of you were saying) has over 35,000 different words in it.

Invent, or use a another word for the legal union between same sex couples.

Marriage is defined as the union between a husband and wife. To me, and I am sure the majority of this country, marriage is just that. The union between a husband (man) and wife (woman).

Unionization maybe?

It seems like the best answer to me. If it's marriage, let a religious denomination decide that. If the government performs the union, call it something else, gay or straight.

[dhyatt]

My little Websters dictionary here (that I had to buy because I couldn't understand half of what some of you were saying) has over 35,000 different words in it.

Invent, or use a another word for the legal union between same sex couples.

Marriage is defined as the union between a husband and wife. To me, and I am sure the majority of this country, marriage is just that. The union between a husband (man) and wife (woman).

Unionization maybe?

It seems like the best answer to me. If it's marriage, let a religious denomination decide that. If the government performs the union, call it something else, gay or straight.

I have no problem with that but it won't satisfy the majority of the gay community who are seeking social validation as well as legal equality.

[SteveG]

If it's marriage, let a religious denomination decide that. If the government performs the union, call it something else, gay or straight.

This is what I expect will happen. Government will probably phase out the use of the term "marriage" in favor of another term when determining benefits, rights, and duties, due to pressure to treat all domestic couples equally and avoid religious implications.

Meanwhile the public at large will probably continue to call gay couples "married" out of habit. Kind of like the way they call all facial tissue brands "Kleenex" and all gelatin brands "Jello".

-Steve (who guarantees that the government's term to replace marriage will have at least twice as many syllables)

[Cathy]

But just think, even if the distinction is made between a religious or civil ceremony, there are still so many ways that this issue will remain a completely unresolvable MESS.

What would this change do to the status of heterosexual couples who do not marry within a church ?
What about a church that sanctions homosexual unions?
Would 'civil' vs 'religious' be enough to satisfy the 'gay rights' lobby?
Is it a matter of equal rights to benefits, or is it more a matter of pushing for social/moral sanction via the government?

Cathy

[Brent]

My little Websters dictionary here (that I had to buy because I couldn't understand half of what some of you were saying) has over 35,000 different words in it.

Invent, or use a another word for the legal union between same sex couples.

Marriage is defined as the union between a husband and wife. To me, and I am sure the majority of this country, marriage is just that. The union between a husband (man) and wife (woman).

Unionization maybe?

It seems like the best answer to me. If it's marriage, let a religious denomination decide that. If the government performs the union, call it something else, gay or straight.

Agreed. This was the gist of my previous post. God defines "holy matrimony". The state can define some legally recognized thing if they want, but it ain't "marriage". "Unionization" is OK, how about "Pairage"?

[SteveG]

But just think, even if the distinction is made between a religious or civil ceremony, there are still so many ways that this issue will remain a completely unresolvable MESS.

What would this change do to the status of heterosexual couples who do not marry within a church ?
What about a church that sanctions homosexual unions?
Would 'civil' vs 'religious' be enough to satisfy the 'gay rights' lobby?
Is it a matter of equal rights to benefits, or is it more a matter of pushing for social/moral sanction via the government?
Cathy

The mess that still exists would be left outside of the realm of government. Heterosexual couples that are given civil unions by the government outside of a church will not be legally "married" because the churches insist that marriage is a religious concept, and US states would not perform religious ceremonies. These heterosexual couples will, however, enjoy all the government benefits of civil unions, which will replace the government benefits that were once assigned to "married" couples.

If the gays still have a beef with their churches, they can pursue the issue of religous recognition with the churches while leaving the government out of it. The government will have given civil-union homosexuals full legal rights, and there will be no issue left for them to challenge the government.

The most likely alternative to the elimination of marriage from legal procedures is for the public to adopt a non-religious definition for marriage, and for the government to define legal marriage as including homosexual civil unions. (Legal definitions are often different from everyday use, for example, according to the State vehicle code a cul-de-sac meets the definition of public highway, but the public things of a highway as something much more intense.) This is the more efficient approach for government than re-writing all of its laws pertaning to marriage. But it will take some time for the majority of the public to grow to accept such a definition (I expect it inevitably will). Meanwhile we will get to watch the amendment fiasco as religious conservatives try to justify using the constitution to discriminate against gays without saying outright that the government should discriminate against them because homosexuality is evil, sick, and unAmerican.

-Steve (whose conservative republican gay friend just announced he won't be voting for Bush in the next election as a result of Bush's endorsement of the constitution amendment)

[dhyatt]

[snip]

-Steve (whose conservative republican gay friend just announced he won't be voting for Bush in the next election as a result of Bush's endorsement of the constitution amendment)

Perhaps your friend should read this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/01/politics/01LETT.html?hp

If needed, you can use dhyatt/dhyatt to get through the "free registration required"

[dhyatt]

The U.S. Senate will voting on a proposed contitutional amendment to define marriage as being between one man and one woman. Use the following link to email our Senators and express your support:

http://capwiz.com/afanet/states/compose6007136_nc.html

[Anonymous]

Done. My full text read,

"I request that you support President Bush in his efforts to pass the Federal Marriage Amendment in the Senate.

I believe that if the bill is passed and the issue somehow makes it to the states that it will be there so resoundingly defeated that it will aid in the election of Democratic presidents for years to come.

So, please, vote for this asinine bill. Allow it to fail miserably across the nation. It will be a spectacle I look forward to watching."

[dhyatt]

From WRAL -

Bill Banning Same-Sex Marriage Will Not Appear On N.C. Ballot

POSTED: 12:24 pm EDT June 30, 2004
UPDATED: 1:09 pm EDT June 30, 2004

RALEIGH, N.C. -- A constitutional amendment banning gay marriage in North Carolina will not appear on the November ballot. State Senate Republicans are two signatures short of forcing a vote that would send the bill to the Senate floor.

Two Durham men had sued for the right to get a marriage license.

Last month, District Judge Craig Brown dismissed a suit filed by Richard Mullinax and Perry Pike. The couple sued after the Durham County clerk's office denied them a marriage license.

Last week, they decided not to pursue the lawsuit right now because of financial reasons.

Anyone know who (or how to find out who) signed to force the vote?

[Cathy]

Go to the General Assembly website, Search the Bill # in the Search box, look at the status of the Bill. See which Committee reviewed it last where they couldn't get the needed votes.

Once you know the Committee that the Bill stalled in, look at the Senate Committee membership roster and see who is the Chair. Call that Senators office and ask the assistant for a copy of the meeting minutes, but you could probably just ask the assistant for the vote tally.

The Senate Bill 1057 is Sponsored by James Forrester.(715-3050)
His assistant might be able to give you the information you want.