I wasn't so keen on an amendment last week, but I do think the judges have tried to move on the gay marriage issue too fast and the American public nees an opportunity to make its voice heard, for or against. So I think we all know what each other thinks of gay marriage itself, what about the legalities of democracy? Should the public just be forced to accept progress? Could it ever become ready if things didn't move so quickly? I tend to think no on the latter.
Has the democratic party overplayed its hand? Has the gay lobby done the same thing to the rest of the minorities in the party that Nader is doing? (i.e. betraying the progressive agenda to it's own advancement).
[ February 24, 2004, 04:55 PM: Message edited by: pooka ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
You know what? Give them the amendment, provided it also secures Constitutionally that people shall not be discriminated against on the basis of sexuality.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I guess it all depends on how people rank their values. Fairness to those different from you usually comes after well being of your own family. I think the speed of the legislating is causing people to fear more than they need to that the well being of their families might be threatened.
I think those spearheading the gay marriage effort have misjudged the prudence of making a move at this time.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
My questions: The new amendment states something like, "Marriage shall be a state reserved for one man and one woman."
What of hermorphadites? Will they never be allowed to legally marry?
What of people who have sex change operations. Will we legally allow them to change their sex?
Actually, the cop-out that congress is suggesting states that all such decisions will be made on a state by state procedure. Hence they can wipe their hands of the mess, and the state reps get to be labeled gay-haters or queer lovers.
If each state has its own rules of what is and is not marriage, does this mean that insurance companies will only have to cover your dependents when you are considered married in that state?
If one state considers two women marriageable, but another state considers sex between two women as a crime, do those women run the risk of being arrested traveling through that state? That city?
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
What configurations of chromosomes would be considered a man in one place and a woman in another? I think folks with any Y's are one way and folks with XXX are another.
Then there are the testosterone insensitive XYs. I don't know anyone who would say these are men.
I think this amendment would actually force all states to eventually adopt civil union definitions.
If a minor and an adult marry and travel to a state where that is not legal, they are not subject to legal action.
[ February 24, 2004, 05:28 PM: Message edited by: pooka ]
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
quote: If a minor and an adult marry and travel to a state where that is not legal, they are not subject to legal action.
No, they are protected by the clause in the constitution this amendment would make illegible for marriages. I can't think of the name of it at the moment.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
It's called the Full Faith and Credit clause and it is not a foregone conclusion it will protect MA's homosexual marriages in other states.
Dagonee
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Well, we know it's the insurance companies that have been buring the midnight oil to rewrite their policies to exclude homosexual marriage. "Homosexual marriage" is now in a legal gray area, akin to "Partial Birth Abortion" which pro-choice advocates say doesn't exist.
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
fugu, the problem with that is how you define sexuality....pedophiles shouldn't be discriminated against because they like sex with children?
That said, I think the amendment is pointless and does no more than up the ante.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
jeni -- pedophiles aren't being discriminated against on the basis of their sexuality, they're being discriminated against on the basis of their coercion (it is not possible for a child under illegal age to consent to sex, legally, though a child's desire to consent to sex may influence sentencing), and of their support of coercion (meaning possessing pornographic pictures of children).
A pedophile is legally free to have sex with a young person who has reached the appropriate age of consent.
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
quote: What of hermorphadites? Will they never be allowed to legally marry?
What of people who have sex change operations. Will we legally allow them to change their sex?
I can't wait till Stephen Lynch tackles this subject.
(Bless all of you who are on point with this reference. )
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
quote: So I think we all know what each other thinks of gay marriage itself
I've never told anyone my opinion of gay marriage. Ever.
People often assume it from my opinion of America's military involvement around the world, and my opinion of Bush as a military leader.
I don't see how these are related, but whatever works.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
The amendment signifies a major shift in conservative thinking, that this is not just about morality, it is about the power of the judiciary. Which is a bigger deal for conservatives given the filibustering.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
If it really is news, please share odouls.
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
quote: If it really is news
Not even a little bit.
To be perfectly honest, it's very likely that the reason I haven't yet shouted my opinion from the rooftops, like I do everything else that pops into my little hamster in a wheel brain, is the fact that I have yet to form one.
I haven't really given that issue much thought at all. I myself am not gay. I have few gay friends, none of whom are near marriage. I'm not overtly religious, nor politically correct. I truly, truly, have very little at stake here. My only reason for paying attention to it is that I have a desire to enter politics later in life.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Hmm. Well I don't get the Stephen Lynch reference, but since you aren't religious, I guess I'm not waiting in line for a blessing Posted by JonnyNotSoBravo (Member # 5715) on :
quote:Has the democratic party overplayed its hand?
From a civil rights point of view, it shouldn't matter. When LBJ pushed his civil rights act ahead, it turned the south, which had been Democratic, Republican over night. LBJ knew it would, had qualms about it, but did it anyway because he knew it was the right thing to do.
If you agree that the gay marriage issue is about civil rights, then it should be done now. It will become legitimized, kids growing up will see it as normal, and the older people who are against it will eventually either get used to it or teach their kids to dislike it. Change is tough.
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
quote:Fairness to those different from you usually comes after well being of your own family.
This may or may not be true, depending on how each person prioritizes his or her moral values. But I really don't understand what it has to do with the discussion at hand.
How does letting two men or two women who love each other get married affect my family's well-being? In fact, how does letting two men or two women get married who are just doing it to flaunt their sexuality, or who are doing it on a whim, or a dare, or for any other bad reason affect my family's well-being?
I know it may sound combative, but I really do want to understand this.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
But Johnson was the president. And he did that to squash the southern governors. Bush is acting as the executive branch in balance to the judiciary, seeking a democratic solution.
Sexual orientation is neither race nor religion, so I'm told.
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
quote: but since you aren't religious, I guess I'm not waiting in line for a blessing
Touche'
(sp?)
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Saxon- I don't see it as affecting mine, but others might. It depends on how many people wonder if their spouse might not be recruitable to the gay side (even though we are told you have to be born that way- not everyone believes this. As I've pointed out before, this is new policy in the last 15-20 years). Or if they worry about recruitment of their children.
I have some very liberal friends who were shocked to learn their son was gay. Hard for him that it was hard for them. Other than Madonna, I've never heard a heterosexual say they would prefer a homosexual child.
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
odouls, it's spelled right, but you need an accent aigu: touché ... that's holding down ALT and typing 0-2-3-3 on the numeric keypad Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
You aré such a nérd.
Thanks for the tip though. Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
odouls - so it was you that stole all my tidy whities!
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Wonder if it'll follow the path of the last amendment for social change, the 18th?
Make it illegal, suddenly it's even more attractive, millions who would never have considered it suddenly want to try it, abuse and addiction becomes even more rampant, crime syndicates organize to offer it, and another amendment repealing it comes too late to reverse the ill effects.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Plessy vs. Fergason (Sp) comes to mind Then Brown vs the Board of Education.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I'm not sure how organized crime would get involved, Chris, but I think it's been getting less forbidden all the time.
I thought it was weird on News Hour the "con" debaters kept saying Bush was playing politics, when it is the gay marriage activists who have forced the timing on this. They said things like "this isn't important like abortion".
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)