Gay Marriage

[Guest Jules]

yep

[explodo]

I suppose I'll be banned for my comments, because it seems these days the morals/values/beliefs of a good old fashioned hetero are somehow less than those with a "progressive" lifestyle.

 

Your "pride" lies with the democratic leadership, a spine-less governor that talks out of both sides of his mouth (but was extremely willing to line his campaign pockets with the gay lobbey's money), and some hack supreme court justices that believe that they can make law from the bench. The "State" of Iowa still believes that marriage is one man and one woman.

 

Have a nice life.

Everybody that has a problem with this is blatantly ignoring the separation of church and state (a sort of sickening trend several times more harmful than a handful of those crazy homosexuals getting married). I can follow your arguments only in the context of your relationship with a lengthy book written by a bunch of dudes claiming to know the will of god. And even then, it becomes clear you never read the book. You'll probably bake an Easter ham (forbidden), celebrate the holidays with a nice, big Christmas tree (forbidden), marry your brother's widow if they never bear children....okay, so you might not do that one. But your book says you have to. Go get some slaves, too. Trust me, they're cool.

 

Here is the reality: equal rights for every group means equal rights. That is the law. If you don't want them getting civil marriages, then perhaps you should consider lobbying for the government to stay out of the marriage business to begin with and to apply a retroactive civil union tag on all "marriages" issued by the state of Iowa. Then everybody gets what they want and you and your posse can keep hating on the gays each and every Sunday. It's your right.

[Guest Jules]

Everybody that has a problem with this is blatantly ignoring the separation of church and state (a sort of sickening trend several times more harmful than a handful of those crazy homosexuals getting married). I can follow your arguments only in the context of your relationship with a lengthy book written by a bunch of dudes claiming to know the will of god. And even then, it becomes clear you never read the book. You'll probably bake an Easter ham (forbidden), celebrate the holidays with a nice, big Christmas tree (forbidden), marry your brother's widow if they never bear children....okay, so you might not do that one. But your book says you have to. Go get some slaves, too. Trust me, they're cool.

 

Here is the reality: equal rights for every group means equal rights. That is the law. If you don't want them getting civil marriages, then perhaps you should consider lobbying for the government to stay out of the marriage business to begin with and to apply a retroactive civil union tag on all "marriages" issued by the state of Iowa. Then everybody gets what they want and you and your posse can keep hating on the gays each and every Sunday. It's your right.

Where is he "hating on the gays"?

[explodo]

Where is he "hating on the gays"?

Okay, so I got carried away. I just get upset when people display an ignorance of the working judicial process in favor of their own bigotry, insecurity, or faith.

[Good Old Neon]

"Twenty-five, thirty years ago, the barometer of human rights in the United States were black people. That is no longer true. The barometer for judging the character of people in regard to human rights is now those who consider themselves gay, homosexual, or lesbian," - Bayard Rustin, close associate of Martin Luther King, Jr. and organizer of the 1963 March on Washington, 1986.

 

And on the holy-fucking-batshit-crazy side we have:

 

"... the success of the sexual revolution is inversely proportional to the decline in morality; and it is the decline of morality (and the faith that so often under girds it) that is the underlying cause of our modern day epidemic of mass murders," - Robert Peters, President, Morality in Media, in a post titled "Connecting the Dots: The Link Between Gay Marriage and Mass Murders."

[bleedorange]

Everybody that has a problem with this is blatantly ignoring the separation of church and state (a sort of sickening trend several times more harmful than a handful of those crazy homosexuals getting married). I can follow your arguments only in the context of your relationship with a lengthy book written by a bunch of dudes claiming to know the will of god. And even then, it becomes clear you never read the book. You'll probably bake an Easter ham (forbidden), celebrate the holidays with a nice, big Christmas tree (forbidden), marry your brother's widow if they never bear children....okay, so you might not do that one. But your book says you have to. Go get some slaves, too. Trust me, they're cool.

 

Here is the reality: equal rights for every group means equal rights. That is the law. If you don't want them getting civil marriages, then perhaps you should consider lobbying for the government to stay out of the marriage business to begin with and to apply a retroactive civil union tag on all "marriages" issued by the state of Iowa. Then everybody gets what they want and you and your posse can keep hating on the gays each and every Sunday. It's your right.

 

There really isn't a constitutional mandate establishing a separation of church and state, though. Only the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. Defining marriage as between men and women only isn't an establishment of religion or an impairment of the free exercise thereof.

 

Similar to how there is no First Amendment right to write on this forum as alluded to in an earlier post in this thread.

 

Plus, these are state issues anyway (aside from DOMA). I'm not too familiar with the way each state's Constitution is worded and how it treats religion, if at all.

[Good Old Neon]

There really isn't a constitutional mandate establishing a separation of church and state, though. Only the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. Defining marriage as between men and women only isn't an establishment of religion or an impairment of the free exercise thereof.

 

Similar to how there is no First Amendment right to write on this forum as alluded to in an earlier post in this thread.

 

Plus, these are state issues anyway (aside from DOMA). I'm not too familiar with the way each state's Constitution is worded and how it treats religion, if at all.

 

First - not quite - from Atheism.about.com (now, you're free to question the source, and that's fair, but we enter into these sorts of arguments whenever the Constitution is discussed):

 

The absence of this phrase does not mean that it is an invalid concept or that it cannot be used as a legal or judicial principle.

 

There are any number of important legal concepts which do not appear in the Constitution with the exact phrasing people tend to use. Nowhere in the Constitution will you find words like "right to privacy" or even "right to a fair trial." Does this mean that no American citizen has a right to privacy or a fair trial? Does this mean that no judge should ever invoke these rights when reaching a decision?

 

Of course not - the absence of these specific words does not mean that there is also an absence of these ideas. The right to a fair trial, for example, is necessitated by what is in the text because what we do find simply makes no moral or legal sense otherwise. What the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution actually says is:

 

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

 

There is nothing there about a "fair trial," but what should be clear is that this Amendment is setting up the conditions for fair trials: public, speedy, impartial juries, information about the crimes and laws, etc. The Constitution does not specifically say that you have a right to a fair trial, but the rights created only make sense on the premise that a right to a fair trial exists. Thus, if the government found a way to fulfill all of the above obligations while also making a trial unfair, the courts would hold those actions to be unconstitutional.

 

Similarly, courts have found that the principle of a "religious liberty" exists behind in the First Amendment, even if those words are not actually there:

 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

 

The point of such an amendment is twofold. First, it ensures that religious beliefs - private or organized - are removed from attempted government control. This is the reason why the government cannot tell either you or your church what to believe or to teach. Second, it ensures that the government does not get involved with enforcing, mandating, or promoting particular religious doctrines. This is what happens when the government "establishes" a church - and because doing so created so many problems in Europe, the authors of the Constitution wanted to try and prevent the same from happening here.

 

Can anyone deny that the First Amendment guarantees the principle of religious liberty, even though those words do not appear there? Similarly, the First Amendment guarantees the principle of the separation of church and state - by implication, because separating church and state is what allows religious liberty to exist.

 

---end of quoted text---

 

Second - Aren

[bleedorange]

There is no right to privacy in the Constitution. The comparison with the Sixth Amendment is pretty disingenuous, though. A speedy and public trial with an impartial jury is the definition of a fair trial. So using the phrase "right to a fair trial" isn't attempting to twist the language into saying something it doesn't.

 

Second, it ensures that the government does not get involved with enforcing, mandating, or promoting particular religious doctrines.

 

I think it's a bit of a stretch to make the Establishment Clause mean all of this. Especially based on the fact that a lot of law can be based on particular religious doctrines, since it is what makes up a large part of society's moral code and the attempt to legislate it in some way. But in no way does the passage of a law that echoes a religious doctrine establish religion in any way.

 

It also doesn't matter that the intent of the people opposing gay marriage is religious in nature. It still doesn't constitute an establishment of religion.

 

Don't get me wrong...I am on your side of this issue. Gay marriage, civil unions, whatever, should all be legal and not interfered with. I just think the argument should steer closer to equal rights, etc., because I don't think the religion aspect of the argument holds much weight.

[bjorn_skurj]

Is that a sex thing?

I am not really in that frame of mind these days, but I would do him.

[Good Old Neon]

It also doesn't matter that the intent of the people opposing gay marriage is religious in nature. It still doesn't constitute an establishment of religion.

 

It attempts to establish the definition of marriage based entirely on religious grounds

[Guest Speed Racer]

I suppose I'll be banned for my comments, because it seems these days the morals/values/beliefs of a good old fashioned hetero are somehow less than those with a "progressive" lifestyle.

 

Your "pride" lies with the democratic leadership, a spine-less governor that talks out of both sides of his mouth (but was extremely willing to line his campaign pockets with the gay lobbey's money), and some hack supreme court justices that believe that they can make law from the bench. The "State" of Iowa still believes that marriage is one man and one woman.

 

Have a nice life.

 

Thanks!

 

Here's my "progressive" lifestyle, btw:

 

* Up at 5:30ish to run/swim/bike - whichever is on the schedule for the day;

* Bike to work (with helmet, full/complete stops at all required signage, hand signals, reflective vest);

* 8am to 5pm, sit at a desk and probably talk to you or someone quite similar about good old-fashioned paperwork;

* Dinner! Usually chili, btw, I've been on a kick lately. I watch Friends while I eat most nights, or read;

* 7pm+ I read, have some ice cream, and god-willing I'm in bed by 10, if not earlier.

 

Saturdays I clean the bathroom, Sundays I clean my bedroom; every other weekend I clean the rest of the rooms on Saturday also, except in the fall and spring when officiate at track and cross country meets, then I clean the other rooms every other Sunday. I go out to breakfast with friends once a week, and we usually have a game night on weekends. On rare occasions, we go to the bar and stay out way past 11pm!

 

Did you even finish reading all that?

 

I am probably the most boring person in the world. Seriously. I'm not proud at all, and I'm not even too tied up in all of this because it's so damned obvious at this point that neo-cons (and not classic conservatives, who should totally be okay with gay marriage) are trying to put toothpaste back in the tube. And I'm sick of neo-cons and moral-cons (mor-ons?) trying to imply that I'm some sort of uber-social, hipster, promiscuous cool kid. I'm way so totally not. I identify as a daughter, sister, friend, neighbor, co-worker, runner and cyclist well before I even think to label myself by my sexuality.

 

Someday, though, some totally hot babe is going to think me and my boring life are pretty cool (and btw, she's going to be the kind of babe who doesn't go for guys like you), and I'll think she's awesome too. And you know what? By the time some totally hot babe thinks that about me, I'll be able to legally marry her. There's not a damned thing you can do, but do you know what the best part is?

 

You won't even notice.

[bjorn_skurj]

I am all for gay marriage, and I hope we have it in New York soon.

[Good Old Neon]

Thanks!

 

Here's my "progressive" lifestyle, btw:

 

* Up at 5:30ish to run/swim/bike - whichever is on the schedule for the day;

* Bike to work (with helmet, full/complete stops at all required signage, hand signals, reflective vest);

* 8am to 5pm, sit at a desk and probably talk to you or someone quite similar about good old-fashioned paperwork;

* Dinner! Usually chili, btw, I've been on a kick lately. I watch Friends while I eat most nights, or read;

* 7pm+ I read, have some ice cream, and god-willing I'm in bed by 10, if not earlier.

 

Saturdays I clean the bathroom, Sundays I clean my bedroom; every other weekend I clean the rest of the rooms on Saturday also, except in the fall and spring when officiate at track and cross country meets, then I clean the other rooms every other Sunday. I go out to breakfast with friends once a week, and we usually have a game night on weekends. On rare occasions, we go to the bar and stay out way past 11pm!

 

Did you even finish reading all that?

 

I am probably the most boring person in the world. Seriously. I'm not proud at all, and I'm not even too tied up in all of this because it's so damned obvious at this point that neo-cons (and not classic conservatives, who should totally be okay with gay marriage) are trying to put toothpaste back in the tube. And I'm sick of neo-cons and moral-cons (mor-ons?) trying to imply that I'm some sort of uber-social, hipster, promiscuous cool kid. I'm way so totally not. I identify as a daughter, sister, friend, neighbor, co-worker, runner and cyclist well before I even think to label myself by my sexuality.

 

Someday, though, some totally hot babe is going to think me and my boring life are pretty cool (and btw, she's going to be the kind of babe who doesn't go for guys like you), and I'll think she's awesome too. And you know what? By the time some totally hot babe thinks that about me, I'll be able to legally marry her. There's not a damned thing you can do, but do you know what the best part is?

 

You won't even notice.

 

That.

 

Was.

 

Awesome!!!

 

Post of the week (and look, it's only Thursday).

[ikol]

If my state (or its court) ever legalizes gay marriage, I hope they also decide to let me buy beer on Sundays and order beer in the mail while they're at it. Those are the religious laws that really matter.

[myboyblue]

If my state (or its court) ever legalizes gay marriage, I hope they also decide to let me buy beer on Sundays and order beer in the mail while they're at it. Those are the religious laws that really matter.

 

Heathen.

[ikol]

Heathen.

 

I worship the holy trinity: hops, barley, and yeast.

[Sly like a Foxwell]

it took a while , but this thread really took off.

 

I have seen 2 men that were legally prohibited from being married express more love for each other than probably 75% of the legally married heterosexual couples i know.

 

love is love, and thst should be all that matters

 

I worship the holy trinity: hops, barley, and yeast.

 

can i join this church?

[gogo]

trying to put toothpaste back in the tube

This is the crux of it, for me. It's going to happen. All the opposition is doing is slowing down the process, but it will happen.

 

Has everyone seen Milk? It was staggering to me how Harvey Milk's strategy for beating the Briggs Initiative (a California state proposition which would have banned anyone

[M. (hristine]

This thread has been terrific reading tonight.

[M. (hristine]

The following reader reply was posted on Andrew Sullivan

[ikol]

Two adult human beings should be allowed by law to cosign a civil contract with one another. Any other way of seeing it seems patently absurd.

Let the churches/synagogues/monasteries sort out the spiritual/relational issues, each in it's way.

 

QFT

[myboyblue]

Two adult human beings should be allowed by law to cosign a civil contract with one another. Any other way of seeing it seems patently absurd.

Let the churches/synagogues/monasteries sort out the spiritual/relational issues, each in it's way.

 

I agree with this completely...unless you are talking about the gays!! Or people that find it appropriate to purchase beer on Sunday. Otherwise, dead on.

[austrya]

I am probably the most boring person in the world.

 

For what it's worth, you're way more exciting than I am!

[Kim Bodnia]

 

Support same-sex marriage

Published: March 23, 2013 

 

I was raised in Belleville and still happily reside in Illinois. Over the last few decades, I've had the good fortune as a member of the band Wilco to play music in every state in the union and in countless other countries. In my travels, I've witnessed firsthand that gay and lesbian couples want to marry for the same reasons all of us do -- to share a lifetime of commitment. I feel very strongly that everyone should be able to marry the person he or she loves and enjoy the dignity and respect that comes with that commitment.

 

By excluding same-sex couples from marriage, our state saddles them, their children and itself with second-class status. That is wrong, and it hurts Illinois families and businesses.

 

Nine other states have already extended the freedom to marry to gay and lesbian couples. I work and have friends in all those states, and I can say assuredly that it's time for Illinois to join them. Waiting and sending the signal that we're not open to and supportive of that community is a big mistake. The time is now.

 

I hope you'll join me in calling on the Illinois General Assembly to give same-sex couples the freedom to marry by supporting SB 10.

 

Jeff Tweedy

 

Chicago

 

Read more here: http://www.bnd.com/2013/03/23/2547361/support-same-sex-marriage.html#storylink=cpy

[LouieB]

Thanks for posting this. I hear the sound of a few more right wing fans loosing their shit.

 

LouieB