That is not at all what I was saying (I happen to be 'religious'). Most religions seek tolerance and love and understanding. What I meant was that there are those that will point to passages in the Bible (see examples earlier in this thread) and say that the Bible says homosexuality is wrong. It is their religious beliefs, not bigotry, that make many people oppose gay marriage. And it is the strength of their religious beliefs that makes a lot of people want to have a law 'protecting the sanctity of marriage'.
while disappointing, i don't see too much of a contradiction. states regualte marriage so it would be more appropriate there than the US Constitution. also, The current version of the FMA doesn't have any protection for the possibility of civil unions, which Kerry does believe in.
If people have those religious beliefs and that's why they are against gay marriage still makes them prejudiced. If those are their religious beliefs then they don't have to participate in gay marriage. But if they then try and oppose those beliefs on somebody they are either prejudiced because the people have different beliefs or a different sexual orientation. Eitherway it's wrong.
ok..i just want to understand this... if i'm not cool with gay marriages...not on a legal basis...but because of my faith...but i don't support this amendment...and i don't support the state coming in and saying they can't get married.... does that mean i'm prejudiced? a bigot?
It definitely means that are you against institutionalized prejudice. You support equal rights for homosexuals.
You know, the KKK was comprised almost entirely of Christians who perverted messages from the Bible to try to justify their racism. You can point to any passages you like, but as has been discussed, the interpretations regarding homosexuality are just that: interpretations. Just like the interpretations by the KKK, it is still discrimination and it is still wrong. Codifying the discrimination into an amendment to the document that is supposed to GIVE us rights would be even more wrong.
Not to me. You are not cool with the marriage, but you do not support codifying that into law. You are not trying to force your moral beliefs on someone else.
Why did you quote my post? I was talking about people like MadMax, that (in my opinion) are NOT bigots. If I'm not mistaken, he doesn't support gay marriage but he does not want to see this amendment crap. My point on this from the start was that you can oppose gay marriage being put into law, and not be a bigot. WTH is with this KKK stuff?
Nothing Sacred Republicans warn that gay couples will undermine the sanctity of marriage -- unlike straight couples who, of course, show only respect for the institution. By Brett Diresta and Cliff Schecter Web Exclusive: 2.26.04 The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court and state legislature recently gave the Republican Party a gift: the controversy over gay marriage. During the past 25 years, Massachusetts has given Democrats the presidential bids of Ted Kennedy in 1980 and Michael Dukakis in 1988. Now it has successfully pushed an inflammatory issue to the forefront of the presidential race in 2004. In other words, it's safe to say that the Bay State has been to Democratic presidential politics what Paris is to the rest of the Hilton clan (although in fairness, this could change with John Kerry). There is, however, no use crying over spilled milk. The Democratic Party will have now to deal with the fallout of the Massachusetts decision in the form a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriages. While Republicans are pushing the issue, they are taking an interesting tack, ignoring the issue of homosexuality itself and talking solely about marriage. In his State of the Union address, President Bush did not mention homosexuals, but he did say, "Our nation must defend the sanctity of marriage." One might guess that Republicans chose the slogan "Protecting marriage" because "Gay people make us really uncomfortable" didn't fit on a bumper sticker. The reality, however, is that the slogan allows Republicans to send signals to an intolerant base while hiding behind code words that belie the image of "compassionate conservatism" they prefer to beam to the suburbs. But make no mistake: Conservatives never had much to say on the issue of marriage until it offered them the opportunity for the latest in a long line of wedge issues. (Distinguished predecessors include "state's rights," "welfare queens," and another Massachusetts special, "Willie Horton.") Thus, the Republican Party did not offer $1.5 billion in marriage incentives when a Friends episode showed Ross and Rachel getting drunk and waking up the next day as newlyweds. And no constitutional ban was proffered when Brittany Spears used marriage as a publicity stunt. So while the institution of marriage has been under attack for years, most notably through the rising divorce rate, Republicans have done nary a thing. Of course, given the fact that former House Speaker Newt Gingrich is quietly approaching the all-time marriage record set by Liz Taylor (who, as it turns out, was once married to current Republican Senator John Warner), maybe it was wise for the GOP to simply blame homosexuals for the demise of marriage as an institution. But are homosexuals really a threat? A quick look around the Internet shows that heterosexual couples are doing an excellent job of undermining the "sanctity of marriage" on their own. For instance, a couple could head to the Viva Las Vegas wedding chapel and choose from among different Elvis Presley-themed wedding packages. Our personal favorite is the Elvis Blue Hawaii package, featuring lush tropical sets, smoke effects, and theatrical lighting (included are two hula girls dancing to the "Hawaiian Wedding Song"). Or if Elvis is just too sacred, one can wed at the Tunnel of Vows on the Vegas Strip. Since 1992, a couple has been able to tie the knot there without ever leaving the comfort of their own car. For those who are interested, the Tunnel of Vows "has recently been expanded to include a romantic ceiling with cherubs and starlights," according to alittlewhitechapel.com. Given that marriage in an automobile may be a little cramped, why not allow anyone with an address, a pulse, and a dexterous index finger to marry you? All one has to do is go to the Universal Life Church's Web site and you can become instantly ordained. Your ability to marry friends is just a few clicks away. How undeniably sanctified! But if Elvis or an Internet-ordained minister is a bit too religious for you, how about just declaring yourself married minus a ceremony? Well, 11 states and the District of Columbia have laws that allow you to become married without actually taking vows. These are what are known as common-law marriages: By living together for a significant period of time and filing joint tax returns (along with some other minor points), you can claim to be married. While we mean no disrespect to those couples who chose to get married in any of the aforementioned manners, it may be a stretch to call any of these unions "sacred." Yet the government extends marital benefits to those couples, with equal rights given to those men and women who get married in a church or a synagogue. If the president and the Republicans really wanted to protect the institution of marriage, they would have been active on these fronts a long time ago. Instead, they gallantly waited until election time so that they could gain electorally from trying to provide scary images of unchecked but wedded homosexuals roaming the country, marriage licenses in hand. Forget the fact that we lied about the reasons for starting a war; two men might decide to start a family! The American public ought to have a debate about government recognition of the homosexual lifestyle. It is not a change that should be made lightly or without serious consideration. Such a nationwide discussion will never occur, however, if Republicans keep pretending this fight has anything to do with protecting marriage. Sadly, there is no real reason to believe that Karl Rove and Co. will be interested in having this discussion and risk losing their hot new divisive issue. http://www.prospect.org/webfeatures/2004/02/diresta-b-02-26.html
There's definitely some creepy stuff in the Old Testament, here's one of my favorites: If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; and they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear. Deuteronomy 21:18-21
I know this is simplistic and probably will have every theologian freaking out, but I think the Old T is meant for the youth of humanity in a way parental instruction for little kids goes "Never cross the street without an adult." The New T is more of a guide for teenagers... "It's OK to cross the street by yourself if you look both ways beforehand." In other words, the New T makes you think and evaluate things and prepares humanity to go forward into the world. The teachings of Christ are most commonly delivered in parables, which can be applied on a number of different levels, but they are done so that the essential message can be carried across time and cultures. Parables also require a certain intellectual development, in contrast to the declaratives of the Old T. Setting it up this way, I'm definitely a New T kind of guy and I refuse to believe that God would give us the magnificent gift of a brain and then say, no, you can't use it to figure out the world because I have these absolute rules that must be followed. We now know that it's pretty conclusive that homosexuality is biologically driven and isn't that the realm of God? Would he create humans that were automatically not part of the Kingdom by virtue of their birth? My God wouldn't. Even if you think homosexuality is not biologically driven, you have to agree that it is much more complex than a "choice" and that complexity has to be part of God's design.
i heard mara liasson (NPR- Fox) talking tonight. she said the musgrave amendment is designed to preserve the idea of civil unions. musgrave is apparently on record as saying that if constitutional scholars feel the amendment as worded would ban civil unions she would change the wording to avoid that. so, ultimately, how is the president's position any different form JFK's? kerry wants an state amendment that would accomplish exactly the same thing, yet voted against the DMA which was designed to do exactly what he wants the state amendment to do. the proposed federal amendment would merely cement the idea that civil unions are fine. what's wrong with that?
then why bother with the term "legal incidents thereof" in the FMA wording? Take that out first and then we can talk. Till then I don't trust her/them to stand by their word. am I happy Kerry supports a state amendment? no. Do I think that position is politically motivated? yes. this is just like 96 when dole/lott/gingrich tried to use this issue for political gain.
At this point this appears to be a dead issue. It's not getting past the Senate. Unless we have a Constitutional convention, then stuff gets really exciting.
her interpretation is that the 'legal incidents" language is consistent with allowing civil unions. she's said however, if it's the consensus of constitutional scholars that that language would forbid CUs, she'll change it. give the scholars a chance to go over it, and her a chance to change it before you dismiss her motives out of hand.
I think any way that it is worded, any attempt at a "separate but equal"- type solution will be challenged in court. The question is whether the courts will let that stand or allow it. Who do you think will be the next gay/lesbian celebrity to head to San Fran?
I won't post it all here, but some of you may enjoy a transcript of Larry King's show about gay marriage. The congresswoman is there, as is mayor Gavin Newsome, and I think it's a pretty interesting read. I didn't see the show. Larry King: the only marriage he never tried... From her remarks, the congresswoman does state she is in opposition to civil unions and she would fight them in her state. That said, she would honor the wishes of other states.
Interesting read B-Bob. It sounds like the definition of civil union depends upon with whom one speaks. Musgrave is against it, but is in favor of recognizing a limited form in order to get the amendment passed. The guys quoting from the bible don't help their case much, are we supposed to have a constitutional amendment against masturbation? Then the unnatural argument rises again - how about one man and many women? That's a historical trend that will propagate DNA. Or one woman and many men?
