Gay Marriage in SF, and is Chicago Next?

Expect plenty of disagreement. Just keep it civil.
User avatar
Rspaight
Posts: 4386
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2003 10:48 am
Location: The Reality-Based Community
Contact:

Postby Rspaight » Thu Jun 03, 2004 8:50 am

Gay marriage is a blow to traditional morality no matter how you cut it.


Interesting choice of words.

They pooh pooh the slippery slope argument that if we completely legitimize same-sex marriage it will just be a matter of time before we sanction polygamy, bestiality, incest or pedophilia.


OK, here's a can of worms.

Bestiality is just silly. Anyone bringing that up loses credibility immediately.

Pedophilia and some cases of incest are different (as Limbaugh admits) because there are issues of consent. In cases where incest consists of consenting adults, I don't see why that needs to be a legal issue (in the sense of laws banning it a la sodomy laws).

As far as marriage goes, marriage/civil unions between immediate family members have genetic issues, though beyond the immediate family the risks are apparently low. But we already allow people with a known likelihood of genetic defects to get married, even if the state requires a blood test to discover that likelihood. Plus, that gets back to the question of why marriage should be assumed to entail breeding. So does that mean homosexual immediate family marriages should be allowed and heterosexual immediate family marriages banned? Seems like the same double standard that the fundies are applying to straight/gay marriage.

And what exactly is the problem with polygamy? Who gets hurt there?

The more I think about this, the more I'm convinced that government just needs to get out of the marriage business. The government should issue civil unions that apply to tax law, insurance regs, inheritance law and the like (and are backed up by divorce law to prevent them from being used trivially), and issue 'em to whoever wants 'em. The churches, who are the proper keepers of the "morality" that Limbaugh frets about, should decide who can get "married."

Ryan
RQOTW: "I'll make sure that our future is defined not by the letters ACLU, but by the letters USA." -- Mitt Romney

User avatar
Xenu
Sellout
Posts: 2209
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2003 8:15 pm

Postby Xenu » Thu Jun 03, 2004 8:52 am

'cause I'm morally freeeeee....morally free falllllin'.

I wonder if Mr. Limbaugh knows what "postmodern" means. Seriously. Postmodernism isn't relativism in the way he assumes it is; rather, much of THAT area of postmodern theory is based on the idea of a circular "final vocabulary" that makes attempting to *qualify* individual morals futile. It doesn't mean that societal standards don't exist; it's simply about admitting their arbitrary nature to some degree.

But whatever. His argument is incomprehensible, and he can't figure out who he's trying to blame. He's as ridiculous as TSmithPage is CLASSLESS *smirk*.
-------------
"Fuckin' Koreans" - Reno 911

User avatar
lukpac
Top Dog and Sellout
Posts: 4591
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2003 11:51 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Postby lukpac » Thu Jul 01, 2004 3:55 pm

Protests in Virginia against law targeting same-sex marriages
Thursday, July 1, 2004 Posted: 1:41 PM EDT (1741 GMT)

RICHMOND, Virginia (AP) -- Activists rallied in cities across the eastern state of Virginia to protest a new law that critics said could nullify legal contracts between same-sex couples.

The state law, which goes into effect Thursday, prohibits civil unions, partnership contracts or other arrangements "purporting to bestow the privileges or obligations of marriage."

Critics said it could be used to nullify medical directives, wills, joint bank accounts and other agreements between gay and lesbian couples.

"[The law] clearly states that gay and lesbian people in this state should not feel welcome," said Dyana Mason, executive director of Equality Virginia, the state's largest gay rights organization. "It seeks to strip the only tool that gay and lesbian couples have to protect their families."

Mason spoke at a rally in Richmond on Wednesday that drew more than 400 gay and lesbian activists and supporters to the Capitol grounds. Simultaneous rallies were held in Norfolk, Charlottesville, Fredericksburg, Fairfax, Staunton and Roanoke, drawing more than 1,000 people.

Virginia Attorney General Jerry Kilgore has said the law provides a needed safeguard for the institution of marriage, and does not deprive anyone of rights to enter into contracts such as wills or other agreements between homosexual couples.

But Gov. Mark R. Warner, a Democrat, issued a statement condemning the law, which he refused to sign.

"This law raises serious constitutional issues and it places Virginia outside the mainstream of other states when it comes to respecting individual liberty," he said.

Kent Willis, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia, said his group was working with others to legally challenge the law. He said it was so vaguely worded that it could be used against heterosexuals of the same sex who enter into legal agreements with each other.

Kilgore has vowed to defend the law if challenged.

The conservative Family Foundation said in a statement that gay rights groups are "willing to frighten and mislead their supporters simply to further their own political agenda."

"All the rallies in the world won't change the fact that this law passed with a bipartisan supermajority of the General Assembly," said Victoria Cobb, spokeswoman for the group.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Copyright 2004 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
"I know because it is impossible for a tape to hold the compression levels of these treble boosted MFSL's like Something/Anything. The metal particulate on the tape would shatter and all you'd hear is distortion if even that." - VD

User avatar
Rspaight
Posts: 4386
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2003 10:48 am
Location: The Reality-Based Community
Contact:

Postby Rspaight » Wed Jul 14, 2004 3:09 pm

Good news, but depressing that it even had to come to a vote, albeit a procedural one. And Daschle is a spineless jellyfish: "I voted to kill the amendment but I still hate gays! Vote for me!" Screw him.

Senate scuttles gay marriage ban

Associated Press
July 14, 2004

WASHINGTON -- The Senate dealt an election-year defeat Wednesday to a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, rejecting pleas from President Bush and fellow conservatives that the measure was needed to safeguard an institution that has flourished for thousands of years.

The vote was 48-50, 12 short of the 60 needed to keep the measure alive. Six Republicans joined dozens of Democrats in sealing the amendment's fate.

"I would argue that the future of our country hangs in the balance because the future of marriage hangs in the balance," said Sen. Rick Santorum, a leader in the fight to approve the measure. "Isn't that the ultimate homeland security, standing up and defending marriage?"

But Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle said there was no "urgent need" to amend the Constitution. "Marriage is a sacred union between men and women. That is what the vast majority of Americans believe. It's what virtually all South Dakotans believe. It's what I believe."

"In South Dakota, we've never had a single same sex marriage and we won't have any," he said. "It's prohibited by South Dakota law as it is now in 38 other states. There is no confusion. There is no ambiguity."

Supporters conceded in advance they would fail to win the support needed to advance the measure, and vowed to renew their efforts.

"I don't think it's going away after this vote," Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., said Tuesday on the eve of the test vote. "I think the issue will remain alive," he added.

Whatever its future in Congress, there also were signs that supporters of the amendment intended to use it in the campaign already unfolding.

"The institution of marriage is under fire from extremist groups in Washington, politicians, even judges who have made it clear that they are willing to run over any state law defining marriage," Republican senatorial candidate John Thune says in a radio commercial airing in South Dakota. "They have done it in Massachusetts and they can do it here," adds Thune, who is challenging Daschle for his seat.

"Thune's ad suggests that some are using this amendment more to protect the Republican majority than to protect marriage," said Dan Pfeiffer, a spokesman for Daschle's campaign.

At issue was an amendment providing that marriage within the United States "shall consist only of a man and a woman."

A second sentence said that neither the federal nor any state constitution "shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman." Some critics argue that the effect of that provision would be to ban civil unions, and its inclusion in the amendment complicated efforts by GOP leaders to gain support from wavering Republicans.

Bush urged the Republican-controlled Congress last February to approve a constitutional amendment, saying it was needed to stop judges from changing the definition of the "most enduring human institution."

Bush's fall rival, Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, opposes the amendment, as does his vice presidential running mate, Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina. Both men skipped the vote.

In all, 45 Republicans and three Democrats voted to keep the measure alive. Six Republicans joined 43 Democrats and one independent in opposition.

The odds have never favored passage in the current Congress, in part because many Democrats oppose it, but also because numerous conservatives are hesitant to overrule state prerogatives on the issue.

At the same time, Republican strategists contend the issue could present a difficult political choice to Democrats, who could be pulled in one direction by polls showing that a majority of voters oppose gay marriage, and pulled in the other by homosexual voters and social liberals who support it. An Associated Press-Ipsos poll taken in March showed about four in 10 support a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, and half oppose it.

Democrats said that Bush and Republicans were using the issue to distract attention from the war in Iraq and the economy.

"The issue is not ripe. It is not needed. It's a waste of our time. We should be dealing with other issues," said Sen. Christopher Dodd of Connecticut.

But Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee said a decision by the Massachusetts Supreme Court had thrust the matter upon the Senate. The ruling opened the way for same sex marriages in the state, and Frist predicted the impact would eventually be far broader.

"Same-sex marriage will be exported to all 50 states. The question is no longer whether the Constitution will be amended. The only question is who will amend it and how will it be amended," he added.

He said the choice was "activist judges" on the one hand and lawmakers on the other.
RQOTW: "I'll make sure that our future is defined not by the letters ACLU, but by the letters USA." -- Mitt Romney

User avatar
lukpac
Top Dog and Sellout
Posts: 4591
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2003 11:51 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Postby lukpac » Wed Jul 14, 2004 3:29 pm

Bill Frist wrote:"Same-sex marriage will be exported to all 50 states."


Good!

"The question is no longer whether the Constitution will be amended. The only question is who will amend it and how will it be amended," he added.

He said the choice was "activist judges" on the one hand and lawmakers on the other.


Last I checked, judges can't amend the constitution.

And here's the full quote, apparently:

"On Friday, the Senate began debating a constitutional amendment to protect marriage as the union of a man and a woman. I expect we'll have a vote on Wednesday morning.

"Many Americans are surprised that we need to have this debate at all. Over and against 5,000 years of recorded human experience, activist judges in Massachusetts have overturned marriage as a covenant between husband and wife. And liberal and conservative legal scholars agree that unless the Congress acts to protect marriage, same-sex marriage will be extended nationwide.

"Children do best with mothers and fathers. We're fooling ourselves if we think children will be held harmless by destroying marriage as the union of a husband and a wife. Marriage and family are the bedrock of society.

"The question is no longer whether the Constitution will be amended. The question is only how it will be amended and by whom -- activist judges or the people.

"My vote is with the people."
"I know because it is impossible for a tape to hold the compression levels of these treble boosted MFSL's like Something/Anything. The metal particulate on the tape would shatter and all you'd hear is distortion if even that." - VD

User avatar
lukpac
Top Dog and Sellout
Posts: 4591
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2003 11:51 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Postby lukpac » Wed Aug 04, 2004 8:45 am

Missouri approves same-sex marriage ban

JEFFERSON CITY, Missouri (AP) -- Missouri voters solidly endorsed a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, a decision that was closely watched by national groups on both sides of the battle.

With nearly all precincts reporting, the amendment had garnered 71 percent of the vote, according to unofficial results for Tuesday's vote.

It was the first such vote since the historic ruling in Massachusetts last year that legalized same-sex weddings there.

Also Tuesday, Missouri voters dumped embattled Gov. Bob Holden in favor of state Auditor Claire McCaskill in the state's Democratic primary. (Full story)

Although the ban was widely expected to pass in conservative Missouri, experts said the campaign served as a key barometer for which strategies work as at least nine other states, and perhaps as many as 12, vote on similar amendments this year.

Missouri and 37 other states already have laws defining marriage as only between a man and a woman. But amendment supporters fear a court could toss aside the state law, and they believe the state would be on firmer legal ground if an outright ban is part of the Constitution.

"I'm very gratified and encouraged and thankful that the people of this state understand our current policy's a wise public policy and they want to see it protected from a legal challenge," said Vicky Hartzler, a spokeswoman for the Coalition to Protect Marriage in Missouri.

Opponents said the amendment was unnecessary and discriminatory, but knew they faced an uphill battle in Missouri.

"We're already reaching out to these other states, sharing with them what we learned, what worked, what didn't work, and we'll move on," said Doug Gray, campaign manager for the Constitution Defense League. "Ultimately we're right and they're simply wrong."

Supporters and opponents of the amendment have used grassroots campaigns, knocking on doors and making phone calls to tell people about the issue. The group fighting the amendment, the Constitution Defense League, raised more than $360,000, largely from national gay-rights groups, and ran a television ad in the final days before the vote.

The group favoring the amendment, the Coalition to Protect Marriage in Missouri, spread the word through churches and community events, raising just a few thousand dollars but saying public sentiment in Missouri was on their side.

Louisiana residents are to vote on a marriage amendment September 18. Then Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, Montana, Oklahoma, Oregon and Utah are to vote on the issue November 2. Initiatives are pending in Michigan, North Dakota and Ohio.

Four states -- Alaska, Hawaii, Nebraska and Nevada -- already have similar amendments in their constitutions.

Copyright 2004 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
"I know because it is impossible for a tape to hold the compression levels of these treble boosted MFSL's like Something/Anything. The metal particulate on the tape would shatter and all you'd hear is distortion if even that." - VD

User avatar
Rspaight
Posts: 4386
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2003 10:48 am
Location: The Reality-Based Community
Contact:

Postby Rspaight » Wed Aug 04, 2004 9:18 am

I don't even have to wonder which way it'll go here in Kentucky.

Ryan
RQOTW: "I'll make sure that our future is defined not by the letters ACLU, but by the letters USA." -- Mitt Romney

User avatar
Patrick M
Posts: 1714
Joined: Sun Apr 06, 2003 6:33 pm
Location: LukPac Land

Postby Patrick M » Wed Aug 25, 2004 5:04 pm

Cheney disappoints conservatives, says same-sex 'marriage' should be states issue
Aug 25, 2004
By Michael Foust

DAVENPORT, Iowa (BP)--Distancing himself from President Bush and disappointing social conservatives, Vice President Dick Cheney said Aug. 24 that he personally believes the issue of same-sex "marriage" should be decided by the states.

Cheney's answer in response to a question puts him at odds with Bush, who supports an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would protect the traditional definition of marriage. Cheney did, though, explain Bush's position and say that the "president makes basic policy for the administration."

During the campaign appearance, Cheney, who has a lesbian daughter, was asked by an audience member, "I would like to know, sir, from your heart -- I don't want to know what your advisers say, or even what your top adviser thinks -- but I need to know what do you think about homosexual marriages."

Acknowledging his daughter is homosexual, Cheney said that same-sex "marriage" is "an issue that our family is very familiar with."

"The question that comes up with respect to the issue of marriage is what kind of official sanction, or approval, is going to be granted by government ... to particular relationships," he said, according to a White House transcript.

"Historically, that's been a relationship that has been handled by the states. The states have made that basic fundamental decision in terms of defining what constitutes a marriage. I made clear four years ago when I ran and this question came up in the debate I had with Joe Lieberman that my view was that that's appropriately a matter for the states to decide, that that's how it ought to best be handled."

Cheney subsequently said that "my own preference is as I've stated."

Cheney then explained Bush's position, saying that in supporting an amendment the president was reacting to events in Massachusetts and that judges were "beginning to change" the definition of marriage "without allowing the people to be involved."

"[T]he President makes basic policy for the administration," Cheney said. "And he's made it clear that he does, in fact, support a constitutional amendment on this issue."

Cheney also said that the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act –- which gives states the option of not recognizing another state's same-sex "marriages" -- "may be sufficient to resolve this issue." The law is being challenged in federal court. If overturned, then every state presumably would be forced to recognize Massachusetts' same-sex "marriages."

Cheney's remarks drew criticism from amendment supporters, who praised Bush in February when he publicly announced his position on the issue.

Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, said Cheney's position is a "flawed strategy" because it fails to recognize the threat that courts pose. Federal courts can strike down state laws against same-sex "marriage," Land noted.

"I am fearful that Mr. Cheney's position will be completely eroded and undone by the courts, because my prediction is that unless there is a Federal Marriage Amendment [passed] within the next 18 months, a federal district court will begin the process of striking down the federal Defense of Marriage Act."

Land said Cheney has made his position known in the past.

"Politically, this is not that big of a deal because this is not any different than what Dick Cheney's been saying," Land said. "It's just that he's publicly distancing himself from the president's position."

Bush's position is what matters most, Land said.

"The president's position is strongly supportive of the Federal Marriage Amendment, which is the only position that counts," Land said. "If this were reversed, and Cheney were president and Bush were vice president ... it would guarantee the defeat of the Republican ticket."

Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, said he is "left to wonder why the vice president is allowed to depart from this position when the top of the ticket is unified on all other issues."

"I find it hard to believe the vice president would stray from the administration's position on defense policy or tax policy," Perkins said in a statement. "For many pro-family voters, protecting traditional marriage ranks ahead of the economy and job creation as a campaign issue.

"... If the vice president perceives the problem of activist judges and their actions, as he stated in his remarks, then how can he not endorse the same solution the president and his pro-family allies have proposed? We urge Vice President Cheney to support President Bush and a constitutional amendment on marriage."

Cheryl Jacques, president of the Human Rights Campaign -- the largest homosexual activist group in America -- said in a statement that Bush "must be feeling the heat."

“Millions of Republican families, like the Cheneys, have gay friends and family members and are offended by President Bush’s efforts to put discrimination in the Constitution," she said. "As Vice President Cheney makes clear, this is a personal issue that affects hard-working, tax-paying Americans. The Bush administration can’t have it both ways.”

In the past few months, Cheney has said he supports Bush on the marriage amendment. But in those instances Cheney did not give his personal opinion.

"The president's taken the clear position that he supports a constitutional amendment," the vice president told MSNBC in March. "I support him."

Cheney made a similar comment during a March interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer. Asked by Blitzer if he supported Bush's stance on a marriage amendment, Cheney said, "I support the president."

Polls consistently show that Americans oppose same-sex "marriage" by a margin of 2-to-1. A Pew Research Center poll released Aug. 24 showed that 60 percent of Americans oppose homosexual "marriage," 29 percent support it.

Although polling on the marriage amendment varies depending on how the question is phrased, a CBS News poll this year showed that 60 percent also support an amendment.
--30--
Following is a transcript of Cheney's remarks, provided by the White House:

Question: "We have a battle here on this land, as well. And I would like to know, sir, from your heart -- I don't want to know what your advisors say, or even what your top advisor thinks -- but I need to know what do you think about homosexual marriages."

Cheney: "Well, the question has come up obviously in the past with respect to the question of gay marriage. Lynne and I have a gay daughter, so it's an issue that our family is very familiar with. We have two daughters, and we have enormous pride in both of them. They're both fine young women. They do a superb job, frankly, of supporting us. And we are blessed with both our daughters.
With respect to the question of relationships, my general view is that freedom means freedom for everyone. People ought to be able to free -- ought to be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to.

"The question that comes up with respect to the issue of marriage is what kind of official sanction, or approval is going to be granted by government, if you will, to particular relationships. Historically, that's been a relationship that has been handled by the states. The states have made that basic fundamental decision in terms of defining what constitutes a marriage. I made clear four years ago when I ran and this question came up in the debate I had with Joe Lieberman that my view was that that's appropriately a matter for the states to decide, that that's how it ought to best be handled.

"The President has, as result of the decisions that have been made in Massachusetts this year by judges, felt that he wanted to support the constitutional amendment to define -- at the federal level to define what constitutes marriage, that I think his perception was that the courts, in effect, were beginning to change -- without allowing the people to be involved, without their being part of the political process -- that the courts, in that particular case, the state court in Massachusetts, were making the judgment or the decision for the entire country. And he disagreed with that.

"So where we're at, at this point is he has come out in support of a federal constitutional amendment. And I don't think -- well, so far it hasn't had the votes to pass. Most states have addressed this. There is on the books the federal statute Defense of Marriage Act passed in 1996. And to date it has not been successfully challenged in the courts, and that may be sufficient to resolve the issue. But at this point, say, my own preference is as I've stated. But the President makes basic policy for the administration. And he's made it clear that he does, in fact, support a constitutional amendment on this issue."

-- For more information about the national debate over same-sex "marriage," visit http://www.bpnews.net/samesexmarriage

User avatar
Rspaight
Posts: 4386
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2003 10:48 am
Location: The Reality-Based Community
Contact:

Postby Rspaight » Wed Aug 25, 2004 7:48 pm

Somehow, I knew it was from a right-wing site when I saw "marriage" in quotes.

Ryan
RQOTW: "I'll make sure that our future is defined not by the letters ACLU, but by the letters USA." -- Mitt Romney

User avatar
lukpac
Top Dog and Sellout
Posts: 4591
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2003 11:51 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Postby lukpac » Thu Sep 09, 2004 3:08 pm

Now I guess even "something kind of like marriage but not quite and using a different name" will destroy the moral fabric of our great nation as well.

Domestic partner law upheld
Benefits and responsibilities of married spouses

SAN FRANCISCO, California (AP) -- A Superior Court judge in Sacramento upheld a new state law Wednesday that is poised to give gay couples who register as domestic partners nearly all the legal benefits and responsibilities of married spouses.

Dismissing arguments of two groups that sued to have the law struck down before it takes effect January 1, Judge Loren E. McMaster ruled that assigning privileges such as alimony and parental status to same-sex couples does not violate a voter-approved measure that holds California can recognize only marriages between a man and a woman.

"The parties' obvious fundamental dispute is whether a domestic partnership under the new statute constitutes a marriage. The court concludes that it does not," McMaster wrote. "In the end, although the two relationships now share many, if not most, of the same functional attributes they are inherently distinct."

Former Gov. Gray Davis signed the California Defense of Marriage Act last year.

Randy Thomasson, executive director of Campaign for California Families, said his group would appeal Wednesday's ruling.

"McMaster has trashed the vote of the people who said they want everything about marriage to stay for a man and a woman," Thomasson said. "The clear and plain reading of these marriage-attacking bills was to create homosexual marriage by another name."


Gay rights advocates applauded the ruling, saying the statute's implementation would herald a new era of legal protection and participation for gay couples who beginning next year will have access to family courts for dividing their assets if they split up and be able to take extended leave from work to care for a partner.

The law, in fact, gives same-sex couples all the duties and privileges of marriage available under state law except the ability to file joint income taxes.

"Domestic partnership is a really important step forward for the gay community," said Jon Davidson of the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, which helped defend the law.

In upholding the new law, the judge largely adopted the reasoning advanced by the state attorney general and lawyers for Equality California, the state's largest gay rights lobbying group, that the institution of marriage is much more than a collection of state-sanctioned duties and rights. As such, it can't be undermined when those duties and rights are changed or expanded to other groups, he said.

"A marriage is no less or more a marriage when government adds or subtracts yet another restriction, duty or benefit exclusive to the marital relationship," he said. "The relationship remains a 'marriage,' in name and nature, nonetheless."

Meanwhile, the city of San Francisco and a coalition of gay rights groups have sued the state to have California's one man, one woman marriage laws overturned on grounds that they violate the constitutional rights of gays and lesbians.

Although his opinion is not binding in those cases, McMaster seemed to hint that it won't be long before California follows Massachusetts in legalizing marriage for same-sex partners.

"It is questionable, in light of recent statutes and court decisions, whether the state may articulate a rational basis to deny rights to same-sex couples that are granted to persons who are married," he said.

Copyright 2004 The Associated Press.
"I know because it is impossible for a tape to hold the compression levels of these treble boosted MFSL's like Something/Anything. The metal particulate on the tape would shatter and all you'd hear is distortion if even that." - VD

Gee Oh Are Tea
Posts: 440
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 5:54 pm
Location: Fallujah, Ontario

Postby Gee Oh Are Tea » Thu Sep 09, 2004 3:48 pm

I've been watching this whole same-sex marriage debate in the US with great interest. We've had legal same-sex marriage here in Ontario (one of three provinces in Canada that allow it) for about 15 months now. People haven't even raised an eyebrow for about 14 1/2 of those 15 months. I'm a heterosexual father of one. I could care less who you want to marry. Many gays engage in more committed relationships than straights. Our annual Pride Day parade attracts a million people to the streets of Toronto - of which about 900,000 are likely straight. People need to get over it and just worry about their own marriages.

Cliff

User avatar
Grant
Posts: 486
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2003 1:53 pm
Location: Arizona

Postby Grant » Sun Sep 12, 2004 11:07 am

Well, there is a large, very vocal block of conservative christians in this country that try to force their views through legislative means. hey also think that God will not bless this country if we allow gays to wed. It's the same kind of mentality that once prevented interracial marriages based on some interpreted scripture in the Bible.

User avatar
lukpac
Top Dog and Sellout
Posts: 4591
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2003 11:51 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Postby lukpac » Thu Sep 30, 2004 9:41 pm

Anti-Gay Marriage Amendment Fails in House
Thu Sep 30, 2004 08:19 PM ET

By Thomas Ferraro

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. House of Representatives failed on Thursday to muster the two-thirds majority needed to pass a proposed constitutional amendment backed by President Bush to ban gay marriage.

The largely party-line vote in the Republican-led House was 227-186, 49 votes short of what was required for approval.

In July, Democratic-led foes blocked a similar measure in the 100-member Senate where proponents failed to get even a simple majority to lift a procedural hurdle against it.

Backers of the proposed amendment said the twin setbacks helped showcase the issue for the Nov. 2 congressional and presidential elections.

"I welcome the important debate underway across America," Bush said in a brief statement after the House vote.

"This is going to be huge," said House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, a Texas Republican, promising to bring the proposal back up for a vote next year.

Democrats charged that Republicans have pushed the measure, along with other proposals which had little chance of passing, merely to divide voters and rally social conservatives.

"This is a partisan exercise to distract the American people from the Republicans' record of failure," said House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, a California Democrat.

"This amendment is malicious," Pelosi said. "It is motivated by an animus toward lesbians and gays. It is a sad moment that those clinging to power want to use that to divide the American people for what they perceive to be an electoral advantage."

Polls show most Americans oppose gay marriage but are split on whether a constitutional amendment is needed. Surveys also find voters consider many other issues far more important.

For a proposed constitutional amendment to become law, it must be approved by two-thirds of the House and Senate and then ratified by 38 of the 50 states.

LEAVE IT TO STATES

Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry and his vice presidential running mate, Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina, oppose gay marriage. Yet like most fellow Democrats in Congress, they favor leaving the matter to individual states.

Vice President Dick Cheney, who has a lesbian daughter, has said he also believes states should decide whether to sanction same-sex marriages, but that Bush sets the administration's positions.

Bush and other proponents of a constitutional amendment argue that gay marriages devalue traditional marriages, and should be banned for the sake of children.

They also contend that a constitutional amendment would prevent "activist" judges and local officials from defying the will of the people by permitting same-sex marriages.

Bush in February called on Congress to approve an amendment to outlaw gay marriage after Massachusetts' highest court ruled gay couples had a right to wed and San Francisco began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

This helped trigger a wave of lawsuits, some challenging the right of one state to refuse to recognize a same-sex marriage that was licensed in another.

(Additional reporting by Susan Cornwell and Anna Willard)

© Copyright Reuters 2004. All rights reserved.
"I know because it is impossible for a tape to hold the compression levels of these treble boosted MFSL's like Something/Anything. The metal particulate on the tape would shatter and all you'd hear is distortion if even that." - VD

User avatar
lukpac
Top Dog and Sellout
Posts: 4591
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2003 11:51 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Postby lukpac » Tue Oct 05, 2004 3:03 pm

Damn activist judges.

La. Judge Throws Out Gay Marriage Ban
Constitutional Amendment Was Approved by Voters Sept. 18

By Adam Nossiter
The Associated Press
Tuesday, October 5, 2004; 3:03 PM

BATON ROUGE, La. -- A state judge Tuesday threw out a Louisiana constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage that was overwhelmingly approved by voters Sept. 18.

Judge William Morvant said the amendment was flawed because it had more than one purpose -- banning not only same-sex marriage but also civil unions.

State courts had rejected a similar argument before the election, saying it was premature.

Some 78 percent of those voting favored the constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, and its related prohibition against state recognition of same- and opposite-sex civil unions. The vote was part of a national groundswell against gay marriage, which followed last year's Massachusetts Supreme Court recognition of gay marriage.

The Louisiana Legislature pushed through the proposed ban in its session this spring; the proponents argued that unless it was put in the state constitution, a Louisiana court could, in theory, one day follow the Massachussetts example.

The legislators pushing the ban argued that state law establishing marriage as between a man and a woman wasn't enough. Christian conservatives in the state launched a vigorous grassroots campaign to ensure passage, though it hardly seemed necessary, given the high level of support the measure enjoyed anyway.

The suit by amendment opponents also cited the New Orleans election-day problems, when voting machines were delivered late in many precincts, and the argument that it should not have been on the ballot on a day when there was no statewide election.

The opponents also said they believed the amendment would affect private agreements between gay partners; the proponents dismissed those fears, saying private contracts would not be affected.

© 2004 The Associated Press
"I know because it is impossible for a tape to hold the compression levels of these treble boosted MFSL's like Something/Anything. The metal particulate on the tape would shatter and all you'd hear is distortion if even that." - VD

User avatar
lukpac
Top Dog and Sellout
Posts: 4591
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2003 11:51 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Postby lukpac » Thu Dec 02, 2004 2:41 pm

Heights officials, colleges take 'sue me' stance on marriage law
Thursday, December 02, 2004
Sandy Theis and Barb Galbincea
Plain Dealer Bureau

Columbus - A state constitutional amendment that bans gay marriage, civil unions and other arrangements that "approximate" marriage takes effect today, but the ban won't have a noticeable impact - at least for now.

Most public colleges that offer domestic partner benefits - even to same-sex couples - will continue doing so.

And Cleveland Heights will proceed with its domestic partner registry.

University and city officials won't say so directly, but their message is clear: Sue us, and we'll take our chances in court.

Those for and against the amendment agree that the registry, not the university benefits, will prompt the first lawsuit.

"It's abundantly clear that the domestic partner registry is exactly what is prohibited by the constitutional amendment," said David Langdon, a Cincinnati lawyer who helped write the amendment, approved by voters on Nov. 2 as Issue 1.

The measure states that only marriages between "one man and one woman" are constitu- tional and prevents state and local governments from recognizing "a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance or effect of marriage."

The registry, Langdon said, "is clearly designed to mimic marriage."

Earlier this year, he failed to persuade a common pleas judge to toss out the registry on the grounds that it exceeded the city's home-rule powers and violated the state's Defense of Marriage Act.

The case is on appeal, and Langdon argues that the amendment gives him new ammunition.

Cleveland Heights Law Director John Gibbon disagreed.

"The registry conveys no legal status whatsoever on the people signing it," he said. "If other people want to recognize it and say they are willing to create some kind of legal obligation, such as agreeing to give health benefits because of it, that's fine with us."

The American Civil Liberties Union, which will hold anti-Issue 1 protests around the state today, said it will help defeat efforts by Langdon or others who argue "that Issue 1 does anything other than restrict marriage."

Langdon isn't sure when he will file the new challenge but doesn't expect it to be soon.

"I know when we do, it will be tied up in litigation for two or three years, so what's two, three weeks, even months going to matter," he said.

He said he could not comment on the universities' decision until he learned more about their individual benefit packages.

During the campaign, university officials warned that Issue 1's passage could end the benefits but stopped short of predicting it would ban them.

Today, colleges are signaling a willingness to let the courts sort things out.

In a written statement issued Wednesday, Ohio State University said it will continue to offer the benefits "absent a judicial ruling" that orders it to stop.

Ohio University and Miami University agreed, saying they are prepared to defend their decisions in court, if necessary.

At Cleveland State, President Michael Schwartz said he expects a final decision today after conferring with the attorney general's office.

OSU law Professor Ruth Colker said the universities' posture allows them to avoid initiating costly and potentially unsuccessful litigation, while making a good-faith argument for continuing the benefits they view as a valuable recruiting tool.

"Given the vagueness of the language of Issue 1, it's hard for anyone to know what it really means," Colker said in an interview. "The best and clearest reading is that it bans gay marriage and civil unions and nothing else. Since we don't have gay marriage and civil unions in the state of Ohio right now, it really doesn't have any effect."

Five of Ohio's public colleges offer the domestic partner benefits to gay and straight, unmarried couples: CSU, Miami, OU, Youngstown State and OSU.

To reach this Plain Dealer reporter:

stheis@plaind.com, 1-800-228-8272
"I know because it is impossible for a tape to hold the compression levels of these treble boosted MFSL's like Something/Anything. The metal particulate on the tape would shatter and all you'd hear is distortion if even that." - VD