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 » Sun Feb 22, 2004 12:35 pm

Ron wrote:Gropenfurher?


One of the many derisive nicknames for Arnold, this one based on his love for fondling unwilling women and alleged admiration of Hitler. Doonesbury uses it, but I believe it originated in blog-land somewhere.

Or are you telling me I spelled it wrong?

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

Ron
Posts: 489
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2003 4:11 am
Location: Far Away From All You Fellas

Postby Ron » Sun Feb 22, 2004 5:40 pm

Well, if Doonesbury uses it then I guess it's cool. I just think, well . . . OK. Here's what my mother used to say to me whenever I didn't meet her expectations: "Ra-an. I expect more from you than *that*."
Dr. Ron :mrgreen:TM "Do it 'till you're sick of it. Do it 'till you can't do it no more." Jesse Winchester

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

Postby Xenu » Sun Feb 22, 2004 8:38 pm

FWIW, I think Arnold's right, at least in a technical sense. It isn't a good precedent to set to just ignore federal/state law, "just" or not. I wish better channels had been followed.
-------------
"Fuckin' Koreans" - Reno 911

User avatar
lukpac
Top Dog and Sellout
Posts: 4592
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2003 11:51 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Postby lukpac » Sun Feb 22, 2004 9:20 pm

Xenu wrote:FWIW, I think Arnold's right, at least in a technical sense. It isn't a good precedent to set to just ignore federal/state law, "just" or not. I wish better channels had been followed.


By the same token, though, if a law is unconstitutional (which is what is being claimed), you *need* something like this to push it into the courts. Or, at least that's my understanding. And I certainly don't see anything progressing in terms of the legislative channels, at least at this point.
"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 » Sun Feb 22, 2004 10:21 pm

Ron wrote:Well, if Doonesbury uses it then I guess it's cool. I just think, well . . . OK. Here's what my mother used to say to me whenever I didn't meet her expectations: "Ra-an. I expect more from you than *that*."


It's in pretty common usage over here, so it was first off my tongue (or fingers, actually).

I guess Gropinator might be better, though.

By the same token, though, if a law is unconstitutional (which is what is being claimed), you *need* something like this to push it into the courts. Or, at least that's my understanding. And I certainly don't see anything progressing in terms of the legislative channels, at least at this point.


I agree. Chances are slim of actual legislators having guts to tackle this, so this sort of civil disobedience (by county clerks, no less) is necessary to force the issue. This is the 00s equivalent of the 60s lunch counter sit-ins.

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 » Mon Feb 23, 2004 1:50 am

Gotcha.
-------------

"Fuckin' Koreans" - Reno 911

BillyBuerger
Posts: 9
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2003 2:37 pm
Location: Somerset, WI
Contact:

Postby BillyBuerger » Mon Feb 23, 2004 2:48 pm

lukpac wrote:And how, exactly, is this going to undermine society? People are going to think it's "cool" to be gay and go and marry someone of the same sex? What? I just don't get it.


How my Marriage was Destroyed by the Homosexual Agenda

:twisted:

User avatar
lukpac
Top Dog and Sellout
Posts: 4592
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2003 11:51 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Postby lukpac » Mon Feb 23, 2004 5:28 pm

Why do I get the feeling that some people actually think like that?
"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

BillyBuerger
Posts: 9
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2003 2:37 pm
Location: Somerset, WI
Contact:

Postby BillyBuerger » Mon Feb 23, 2004 5:35 pm

Yeah, that's the scary part.

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

Postby Rspaight » Tue Feb 24, 2004 12:49 pm

Well, it's official now:

Bush Urges Congress to Pass Gay Marriage Amendment

By Fred Barbash
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, February 24, 2004; 11:30 AM

President Bush today urged Congress to send to the states a proposed constitutional amendment banning same sex marriages throughout the country.

His proposed amendment would define marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

The president said he was acting in accord with the "overwhelming consensus" of Americans. The "voice of the people" must be heard, he said, in the face of "activist judges" and local officials who are allowing gay marriages.

The president has no formal role in the process of amending the Constitution, which is left to the Congress and the states with no requirement for a presidential signature.

Bush said his decision was prompted by the issuance of more than 3,000 licenses in San Francisco for same-sex marriages since the city began allowing the practice Feb. 13 and by an earlier ruling by the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts declaring that state's ban on same sex marriage a violation of the state constitution.

"If we are to prevent the meaning of marriage from being changed forever, our nation must enact a constitutional amendment to protect marriage in America," Bush said in an announcement in the White House Roosevelt Room.

"Today I call for the Congress to promptly pass and send to the states for ratification an amendment to our Constitution defining and protecting marriage as a union of a man and woman, as husband and wife."

The states should be left free to construct institutions as alternatives to marriages, he said, but should not be permitted to redefine marriage itself.

There are two ways spelled out in the Constitution for amendments. Both have proven extremely difficult to achieve.

The first method is for a bill to pass both houses of Congress by a two-thirds majority in each. Once the bill has passed both houses, it requires the approval of three fourths of the states, either through their legislatures or in conventions. This is the route taken by all current amendments.

The second method is for a Constitutional Convention to be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the states, and for that convention to propose one or more amendments. These amendments are then sent to the states. This route has never been taken.

The majority of states have passed laws defining marriage as between a man and a woman, and a coalition of conservative organizations has begun a push to amend the U.S. Constitution for a similar definition of marriage.

In San Francisco, more same sex marriages are expected even as Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) Friday directed California's attorney general to take legal action to stop them as soon as possible.

Mayors in cities as large as Chicago and as small as Plattsburgh, N.Y., have said they have do not oppose marriage for same-sex couples. And gay couples have begun to test the laws about marriage and seek licenses.

"Unless action is taken," Bush said, "we can expect more arbitrary court decisions, more litigation, more defiance of the law by local officials, all of which adds to uncertainty.

"After more than two centuries of American jurisprudence and millennia of human experience, a few judges and local authorities are presuming to change the most fundamental institution of civilization. Their actions have created confusion on an issue that requires clarity.

"On a matter of such importance," he said, "the voice of the people must be heard. Activist courts have left the people with one recourse. If we're to prevent the meaning of marriage from being changed forever, our nation must enact a constitutional amendment to protect marriage in America. Decisive and democratic action is needed because attempts to redefine marriage in a single state or city could have serious consequences throughout the country.

"The Constitution says that full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts and records and judicial proceedings of every other state. Those who want to change the meaning of marriage will claim that this provision requires all states and cities to recognize same-sex marriages performed anywhere in America," Bush said.

"Congress attempted to address this problem in the Defense of Marriage Act by declaring that no state must accept another state's definition of marriage. My administration will vigorously defend this act of Congress.

"Yet there is no assurance," he said, "that the Defense of Marriage Act will not itself be struck down by activist courts. In that event, every state would be forced to recognize any relationship that judges in Boston or officials in San Francisco choose to call a marriage.

"Furthermore, even if the Defense of Marriage Act is upheld, the law does not protect marriage within any state or city.

"For all these reasons," he said, "the defense of marriage requires a constitutional amendment.

"An amendment to the Constitution is never to be undertaken lightly. The amendment process has addressed many serious matters of national concern, and the preservation of marriage rises to this level of national importance.

"The union of a man and woman," the president said, "is the most enduring human institution, honored and encouraged in all cultures and by every religious faith. Ages of experience have taught humanity that the commitment of a husband and wife to love and to serve one another promotes the welfare of children and the stability of society. Marriage cannot be severed from its cultural, religious and natural roots without weakening the good influence of society."
RQOTW: "I'll make sure that our future is defined not by the letters ACLU, but by the letters USA." -- Mitt Romney

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

Postby Rspaight » Tue Feb 24, 2004 5:07 pm

And here's my NoExtraWords(TM) version:

seated
President Clinton
Defense of Marriage Act
defined marriage
legal union
one man and one woman
husband and wife
defense-of-marriage laws
overwhelming consensus
protecting the institution of marriage
activist judges and local officials
aggressive
redefine marriage
judges
order
applicants of the same gender
San Francisco
people of the same gender
California Family Code
defines marriage
union of a man and a woman
approved overwhelmingly
applicants of the same gender
arbitrary
litigation
defiance
uncertainty
two centuries
millennia of human experience
few judges and local authorities
presuming
fundamental institution of civilization
confusion
importance
voice of the people
Activist courts
the people
one recourse
prevent
meaning of marriage
changed forever
constitutional amendment
protect marriage
Decisive
democratic
redefine marriage
serious consequences
Constitution
change the meaning of marriage
same-sex marriages
Defense of Marriage Act
definition of marriage
vigorously defend
Defense of Marriage Act
activist courts
any relationship
judges in Boston
San Francisco
choose to call a marriage
Defense of Marriage Act
law
protect marriage
defense of marriage
constitutional amendment
amendment to the Constitution
preservation of marriage
rises
national importance
union of a man and woman
the most enduring human institution
honored
encouraged
all cultures
religious
Ages
husband and wife
love and to serve
welfare
children
stability of society
Marriage
severed
religious
natural roots
good influence of society
protecting marriage
amendment to our Constitution
protecting marriage
union of a man and woman
husband and wife
fully protect marriage
America's a free society
one of our most basic social institutions
protect the institution of marriage
bitterness
anger
strong convictions

And finally:

while leaving the state legislatures free to make their own choices in defining legal arrangements other than marriage


is a plain and simple lie based on the wording of the currently proposed amendment (emphasis mine):

Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman.

Neither this constitution or the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.


Can somebody please explain to me how that can be interpreted in any way *other* than precluding any sort of "civil union"?

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: 4592
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2003 11:51 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Postby lukpac » Tue Feb 24, 2004 5:26 pm

Jesus.
"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: 4592
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2003 11:51 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Postby lukpac » Tue Feb 24, 2004 7:52 pm

This was written before Bush's decision, FWIW...:

Couples: State of Our Unions

If marriage is in trouble, don't blame gays. Straights changed the rules

By Barbara Kantrowitz
Newsweek

March 1 issue - Amber Settle, a 35-year-old associate professor of computer science at DePaul University in Chicago, is eight months pregnant and unmarried. Not so long ago, that would have been downright scandalous. But Settle and Andre Berthiaume, 35, also an associate professor at DePaul, feel no pressure to make their eight-year relationship official, despite the imminent arrival of their baby. Instead, they've drawn up powers of attorney and custody, and child-support agreements in case of a breakup. They also plan to update their wills. A marriage license? Not any time soon. More important than that "piece of paper," says Settle, "is that we make sure our relationship is strong ... We will be Mom and Dad in every way that's important."

While critics contend that same-sex weddings will destroy the "sanctity" of traditional unions, researchers say that it's actually heterosexual couples like Settle and Berthiaume who are redefining marriage—not only in this country but throughout the Western world. Over the past few decades, they've made walking down the aisle just another lifestyle choice. The old model—marriage and then kids—has given way to a dizzying array of family arrangements that reflect more lenient attitudes about cohabitation, divorce and children born out of wedlock. In fact, says University of Chicago sociologist Linda Waite, author of "The Case for Marriage," gay couples are "really swimming against the tide. What they want is something that maybe heterosexual couples take for granted: the social, religious and legal recognition of a union—to be able to say to the clerk at the grocery store, 'My husband is right behind me. He has the money'."

This increasingly diverse family album could be a reason why gay marriage has struck a nerve. The institution of marriage is so battered that many consider gay unions the last straw, says Princeton historian Hendrik Hartog, author of "Man and Wife in America." "They see gay marriage as a boundary case"; in other words, a line too far. But if the past is a guide, that line is going to keep moving no matter who objects.

Scholars say the evolution of marriage is nothing new; it's an institution in constant flux, always responding to the particular needs of each era. "Throughout much of history, if you acted like you were married, then you were treated like you were married," says Stephanie Coontz of Evergreen State University, a historian of marriage. Religion, a major part of the current defense of traditional marriage in this country, didn't even enter the picture, Coontz says, until the ninth century, and then only to prevent European aristocrats from marrying close relatives. The goal was not to stop incest but to make sure noble families didn't consolidate too much power. (Commoners could still hook up with anyone they fancied.)

Even a century ago, a time that many people might look upon with nostalgia, marriage was hardly the stuff of hearts and flowers. In this country, women were essentially the property of their husbands, with few rights. If an American woman married a foreigner, she automatically lost her citizenship; a man who did the same kept his. Until the 1970s, there was no concept of marital rape because husbands "owned" their wives' sexuality. Interracial marriages and birth control were illegal in many states until the late 1960s.

To see what the future holds, Americans could look to Europe, where marriage rates are plummeting and illegitimate births are the norm—prompting widespread concern about how to promote family stability, especially for children. "We've moved from de jure to de facto marriage," says Kathleen Kiernan of the London School of Economics. She estimates that 50 percent of 25- to 34-year-olds in Europe are cohabiting. The numbers are highest, perhaps 70 percent, in Scandinavia, especially Sweden. The Swedes have even created their own term for someone who cohabits: "sambo," a word that appears on official forms besides the options "married" and "single." Another new word, "sarbo," refers to people who consider themselves a couple but live apart.

Europeans lead the way on gay marriage as well. The Netherlands became the first country to legalize same-sex marriages, in 2001; Belgium followed a year ago. Many countries, including Norway, Sweden, Denmark and its province Greenland, have registered partnership laws for heterosexual couples that extend some benefits to gays. Germany has quietly expanded rights for cohabiting couples, while in 1998, France approved the Pacte Civil de Solidarite—a kind of intermediate step between casual cohabitation and formal marriage that provides tax and health benefits.

In this country, marriage still remains the ideal for most people, although a lifetime with one person is increasingly elusive. Marriage is a symbol, says sociologist Andrew Cherlin of Johns Hopkins University, "that you have created a good personal life." It's also good for a family's wealth and emotional health. Married couples have more assets, says Evelyn Lehrer, a professor of economics at the University of Illinois at Chicago. It's also a hedge. "There's a pooling of risks," Lehrer says. "If one spouse becomes unemployed, the other can respond and increase the level of work." Married couples also live longer and are better adjusted. Having someone around to watch out for you helps, Lehrer says. There's also considerable research showing that children reared in stable, two-parent families thrive; having kids is still a big reason many people ultimately head down the aisle.

Although there are no national statistics on how many people marry in religious ceremonies today, most experts believe that the number is steadily declining, as fewer Americans describe themselves as affiliated with a religion. But religion can keep couples together. Studies show that people who marry within a religious community are somewhat more likely to stay married than people with no affiliation. Marrying someone of the same or similar religion also improves the odds of staying together, says Lehrer, even if one partner converts. Drawing on research on Roman Catholics and Protestants, she says, "couples [from] the same religion through conversion are at least as stable as when they're raised in the same faith."

While popular shows like "The Bachelor" make a fetish of courtship rituals, most people say what they're really looking for is a partner who can share life's burdens. Educated women used to be the least likely to get married; now they're the most likely because of their earning power. "Marriage today is less of an ego trip and more of an economic bargain for men," says Cherlin. Women with low levels of education are the least likely to find a spouse—a troubling situation since they are also most in need of the financial support that a husband could provide. A big problem is that the men most available to them as partners tend to be of the same educational level and therefore have limited earning potential, which also makes them less desirable husband material.

Even for people from nontraditional backgrounds, the romantic ideal of marriage endures. Hillary Gross, 24, grew up with four unmarried parents. Her biological parents divorced when she was a year old and quickly entered into new relationships that have endured for decades. Still, she longs to marry. "I'd really like to have one person that I give my all to," she says. She was recently in a long-term relationship that she thought might end in a wedding. It didn't, and she's readjusting her dream. Same plot, with a new leading man—and maybe even a happy ending.

With Pat Wingert, Karen Springen, Julie Scelfo, Joan Raymond and bureau reports
© 2004 Newsweek, Inc.
"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: 4592
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2003 11:51 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Postby lukpac » Tue Feb 24, 2004 7:54 pm

"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 » Tue Feb 24, 2004 9:08 pm

Here's a dandy idea:

Lawmakers supporting Federal Marriage Amendment asked to sign Fidelity Pledge

Challenge to elected officials who claim to be protecting marriage on whether conduct is consistent with rhetoric

DENVER : A press conference requesting state and federal lawmakers who support the Federal Marriage Amendment take a pledge of fidelity was held today at the State Capitol by concerned citizens including Rabbi Joel R. Schwartzman, Reverand Bill Kirton of the Interfaith Alliance of Colorado, and representatives of the Rocky Mountain Progressive Network.

Now that conservatives have chosen to make other individuals' private relationships a public issue, citizens want to know that their conduct is consistent with their rhetoric, stated Michael Huttner, Executive Director of the Rocky Mountain Progressive Network.

As Focus on the Family has said, infidelity is a top threat to the institution of marriage,stated Huttner. In September 2002, James Dobson, President of Focus on the Family, cited a study by the University of Oklahoma that included infidelity as a major threat to the institution of marriage.

A Fidelity Pledge was distributed to each of Colorado's state and federal lawmakers who publicly support the Federal Marriage Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The pledge is modeled on the Marriage Protection Pledge produced by the Family Research Council.

"We are making a statement: it should not be the business of government to legislate morality and snoop through other people's bedrooms," noted Rabbi Schwartzman. "People are sick and tired of lawmakers co-opting the Bible for their personal crusades when there are more important issues on which to focus," Schwartzman added.

"It is not the governments role to dictate to religious institutions what they should or should not allow," noted Reverand Kirton.

"We call on these conservative lawmakers who feel it's appropriate to restrict the private rights of individuals in the name of protecting the institution of marriage to lead by example and quickly sign and demonstrate that they uphold fidelity in their own lives. We look forward to receiving their pledge," added Huttner.

The name of each lawmaker who has or has not returned the pledge will be posted on the Rocky Mountain Progressive Network website at:

http://www.rmpn.org/content/index.cfm?f ... 2&navID=50
RQOTW: "I'll make sure that our future is defined not by the letters ACLU, but by the letters USA." -- Mitt Romney