Doesn't this post qualify?
"You are simply a disgusting slime of a human"
How allowing gay marriages devalues straight ones?
No-one ever has done that and I think some of our leading lights (from both sides of the aisle) might be good at doing so-
I hate hearing how gay marriages are NOT the same as a straight marriage.
I have noticed that more gay people are much happier than straight, have good values and morales and stay with gays.
I am in a relationship with a gay woman. She has gotten her share of beatings, harrassment and name calling for years. ALL BECAUSE SHE IS GAY. I admire her for sticking up for herself.
NO one assumes that I am with a woman when I go out with friends, but when I am with her we get the stares, glares and name calling..oh and DYKE must be my favorite.
It bothers me..yes, we aren't in public hugging and kissing, we still have to live in shadows. We came out of the closet, but we can't come out of the house (hope you know what I mean.)
Marriage is marriage...who says that people are NOT allowed to be gay.
Anti-gays (including Church and Government) are the ones saying that GOD will have his way..that being gay isn't the right way.
First off, GOD is loving. He is NOT going to punish us for our feelings.
I am bi..very proud of it. I love woman just as much as men. Its not about sex. Its about how people make me feel.
I hope the gays and lesbians of the world stand up. Don't be ashamed..ITS YOU...don't hide anymore....
Shaye
You are correct in that it does not.
My proposal is that the state, meaning all governments, do not allow any marriage. That is a religious term. Have the state grant civil unions to any two people to recognize their legal connection. Have the church, if it so chooses grant a marriage for a religious connection.
The civil unions would allow for the legal issues related to the passing on of property, going to the hospital, determining parentage etc. None of these have anything to do with a religious marriage.
Civil unions for both gay and straight. If the state is involved, separate but equal isn't right, isn't American, and isn't constitutional.
Religions can take care of marriages.
SP
All secular govt. sanctioned couplings should be civil unions
And all religious couplings ought to be called marriages.
The one thing that I'd add is that the govt would need to issue a civil commitment certificate for ALL marriages, as well as civil unions. The reason being that THIS would be the govt. sanctioning to which any LEGAL rights and responsibilities attach. Anyone would be free to marry or not at will, but they only get the LEGAL status with the civil commitment certificate. And the SAME civil certificate would be issued to same-sex partners who seek it.
Dude run for office, that is a great point. I never consider it that way myself.
My 2 cents this is america and americans need to say out of each other bed-rooms, homes, and life and what ever else pisses some one off about somebody else, as long as they are not doing anything to your person.
Mind you, I'm not sure I believe in the position...
Extending the institution of marriage to homosexuals doesn't devalue any individual marriage, it devalues the institution itself.
Marriage, from ancient times, has been an obligation we pay to society. It exsists for the purpose of rearing children, and socializing them into 'normalcy'. In ancient Greece, it wasn't only normal for men to have homosexual relationships - it was expected. But it was also expected that men do their duty, marry a woman, and raise the next generation of 'hoplights'.
Further, for us to allow this institution to be extended to homosexual relationships marks a continued evolution of homosexuality from an activity into a lifestyle. 150 years ago, no man would have identified himself as 'gay' by definition. He would have said, "I'm a man, who happens to enjoy the comapany of other men". His 'gayness' was something he did, not something he was.
Gay marriage is a contentious issue because of these societal shifts.
At least, that's how it seems to me.
If gays do as well in maintaining stable homelives as straights do, and raise children while doing so, how is the institution harmed? Seems to me it is harmed far more by those who bear children with one partner and them leave them for another.
d_d
But, one thing I'd like to see down the road: statistics.
So, let's say the hetero divorce rate is 60%; what do you think the divorce rate among Gays might/will be?
Something tells me it would be less..I don't know why..
The problem is with your premise, i.e., that the argument against gay so-called "marriage" is that it devalues marriage.
The problem with gay so-called "marriage" is that it is indicative of the nihilism of the far Left. That is, the far Left seeks to destroy every institution of society in order to replace it with the State. The word "marriage" is fairly simple to understand, yet the far Left wants to destroy the word by calling something that is not a "marriage" a "marriage."
And that speaks not at all to the issue of civil unions, or any other legal recognition of homosexual relationships (which I would oppose, as well, but it's a different argument). It is a rather simple concept: that words have meanings and the State cannot arbitrarily change those meanings. It might as well call a cat a bird and expect that it will be able to fly.
your answer also lacks something-
How is gay marriage not marriage? Two people choose to forsake others and make a family, possibly to raise kids. How is that fundementally different from two straight people doing so?
Since marriage has also incorporated many other concepts- polygamy, concubinage, blended families, widows marrying their bro in laws, etc over the ages what is so earht shattering about two people of the same sex.
BTW- I am only interested in answers that don't use religion as a crutch, since religion can be used as an explanation for anything.
Uhhhh, because it doesn't involve one man and one woman. Your answer demonstrates my point: that the far Left wants to define marriage as something else. And I speak as someone who was once very suspicious of "family" activists.
BTW, "possibly to raise kids" demonstrates the utter dishonesty of the gay so-called "marriage" advocates. Such unnatural relationships cannot produce kids, and therefore have little to do with the historically civilizing function of marriage.
There, no religion. Why do you fear it so?
how does one man one woman figure into the marriage issue.
For years it was one man many women. And at other times other factors.
Nowadays, ANYONE can have kids. Personally, I think two gay guys who are committed and younger than 40 are way better choices for parents than one of these ladies who has kids at 65! At least they'll be around!
STILL looking for an explanation. J86 gets only partial points...
yet. Two years after the first homosexual marriage someone will try to implant an embryo conceived in vitro on the wall of a mans intestine. Three years after that, San Francisco employees will be entitled to the procedure at taxpayer expense.
There are religious concepts of marriage and state ones. They are not, and have never been, the same. They certainly can coexist, and as such, each has a role. There is no problem if the religious view of marriage cannot accommodate same-sex marriage. That is, and has always beem the perview of religion
The religous concept is the one that involves spirituality, morality, and the religiously defined concept of a family. It very well might exclude gay couples, and that's perfectly OK.
But the state's interest is in providing equal protection under the law, and encouraging stable, committed relationships that provide one tier of the social safety net, so as to create an ordered structure to society. There is no place within the state's interest for excluding same-sex couples who seek equal protection under the law.
Frankly, I'd be perfectly OK if the state ONLY issued commitment licenses, NOT marriage licenses. Marriage, under such a system, was COMPLETELY the purview of ANY organization that cared to issue such a declaration, and the couple (or threesome, or foursome, or WHATEVER) that chose to engage in it, and it had NO additional legal rights associated with it whatsoever. ALL incremental LEGAL priveliges would accrue from the state's commitment license. I honestly believe that this is the ONLY solution.
EVERY church could then go on marrying people however it saw fit, but the term ONLY had a religious and spiritual significance, NO legal significance. Meanwhile, the state could then issue commitment licenses to any couple of consenting adults that agreed to the legal responsibilities, and thus obtained the legal rights and privileges of such a government-sanctioned commitment.
Bold talk from someone who probably believes that the Constitution protects abortion and affirmative action.
When you can demonstrate to me that the Framers believed their work to protect vile and unnatural sex acts, then you can make the constitutional argument. 'Til then, what your talking about is simply unelected judges reading their own political preferences into the Constitution.
Our framers made absolutely NO judgement about what is "vile" or "unnatural".
The Constitution recognizes the rights of all citizens to the "blessings of Liberty". Which the Declaration of Independence further defined to include "The Pursuit of Happiness".
The Constitution also, in the 4th Amendment and the 9th Amendment, provides a right to privacy, and retains for the PEOPLE, any right not specifically ascribed to either the federal government or the states. And since in no case has the Constitution either set aside for itself, NOR given to the states, any right to abridge the privacy of the citizens without a REASON, the Constitution does in fact protect the rights of Consenting adults to carry out whatever behavior that they wish to which does not impinge on the rights of other citizens, nor contravene a LEGITIMATE interest of the state.
Including sticking their dicks in each other's asses when they consent to it. Which, if you think about it, is not any LESS natural than sticking your dick in someone's mouth. And it isn't any LESS natural, or more "vile" in a LEGAL sense, if that person who's mouth you stick your dick in is a male, than if they are a female. Now this is not MY cup of tea, nor possibly is it yours (but then, only you know this for certain, and I apologize for assuming you don't enjoy blow jobs from guys). But the point is, there is nothing more "VILE" from a Constitutional perspective, in two gay guys going at it, than there is in you getting a blow job from a lady. So be VERY thankful that you live in a country where these types of PRIVATE FREEDOMS ARE CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED.
-- Modified on 2/19/2004 3:33:36 PM
Actually, they did. Every original colony had laws against unnatural sex acts; only an idiot would suggest that the Framers intended their work to make them all illegal in one fell swoop. Likewise, every colony followed Blackstone's injunction against abortion, from the common law.
Second, your history has the earmarks of your usual logic; the Constitution's reference to "securing the blessings of Liberty" is in the legally insignificant (but quite poetic) Preamble, and the Declaration of Independence didn't "further define" anything in the Constitution, which was written thirteen years AFTER the Declaration.
Third, the "pursuit of Happiness" to which the Declaration referred is also a merely more poetic rendering of "property" from Locke's "life, liberty, and property"; I defy you to point to a single writing of any Founder which equates "pursuit of Happiness" with sexual license (or more accurately, licentiousness).
The point is, the Constitution doesn't address them, and therefore, they are not constitutionally protected, and state legislatures have ever right and power (under the Tenth Amendment) to legislate. Your reference to penumbras and emanations is as absurd as the Supreme Court decisions from which they are taken. There is no "right of privacy" in the Constitution; that is not to say that privacy interests are not protected (two fags going at it behind closed doors are protected by the Fourth Amendment). What the homo lobby wants, and what civilized society is and should be denying them, is approval. Unfortunately, to quote Mona Charen, "What used to be the love that dare not speak its name is now the love that will not shut its mouth."
You advocate an extreme libertarian view which is neither constitutionally based, nor particularly wise.
Which is that these rights derive from the 4th and 9th Amendments to the Constitution, a.k.a the Bill of Rights.
The Preamble and the Declaration of Independence only serve to provide a general guideline of the INTENT of the framers, the actual substance is in the articles themselves, including the specific amendments that I cited. It doesn't MATTER that several of the colonies had unconstitutional laws on the books at the time. The fact is, the Supreme Court, which has the legal power to do interpret the Constitution, has determined that there is a right to Privacy that is spelled out in the 4th Amendment, and that within this Privacy right, the 9th Amendment further articulates that no government can abridge the rights of consenting adults to do whatever they want with each other, absent a legitimate interest and capability that has been codified elsewhere in the Constitution. And no such interest HAS been codified elsewhere in the Constitution.
Even Scalia would agree that once the Supreme Court has found that privacy rights read by the Court in the Constitution preclude sanctions against sodomy, then there is no legal way that same sex couples can be denied marriage rights under the equal protection clause. Now Scalia would also contend that there IS NO right to privacy in the Constitution. But legally, under the actual rulings of the Court, he is WRONG, simply by virtue of being in the minority, and he admits as much.
...Look at the south and the status of blacks.
Gay relationships exist and they should be treated in a fair way. Fair (to me) means that we don't make a class of people second class citizens. I think that is what the defense of marriage laws do today. Marriage is a religious concept that the state can support. In as much as it makes sense, the state should support gay Marriage. If churches don't want to marry Gay people then that is their right. If we support Defense of Marriage laws then we aren't separating church and state as well as we should.
My opinion.
-- Modified on 2/17/2004 1:27:00 PM
Another post with premise problems.
Marriage is not the State supporting religion; it is the State treating with respect that which pre-exists the State. The reason the far Left is so bent on destroying it is precisely for that reason, since preexisting relationships independent of the State threaten the power of a State that the far Left views as omnipotent.
Pre-exist the state?
Render unto Caesar ?
The state or the polity has been around AT LEAST as long as organised superstitions!
And why is the left to blame? The far right has often gone after institutions, too.
Or are you trying to goad one of us into calling you names?
I STILL don't get why any people who want to start a family with a public proclamation can't do so.
Or does sucking dick make a guy incapable of fatherhood somehow? And I know eating muff does not make ladies lesser parents!
This seems to me just like racism- e.g. blacks can't vote they are lesser animals. I thought we proved that was bullshit a while ago!
It's too bad you pulled out the racism card. But to answer your question, I would posit that fags and lesbians are lesser parents, lacking any more imperative other than "If it feels good, do it," which, I concede, may be the motivating factor for this Board.
Racism isn't acceptable because it's discriminates based upon an immutable characteristic. Unlike race, homosexuality is about nothing but behavior. Humans, unlike animals, have choices.
BTW, I'm probably one of the few readers who can also use "polity" in a sentence. Points for that.
The fact is, you have no evidence of "fags" being lesser parents than the average heterosexual couple, other than your preconcieved biases.
In reality, gay parents tend to be above average parents, just as MOST ADOPTIVE PARENTS of all ilks are. This is because adoption is a self-selecting bias toward caring and loving, and WANTING to be parents. And it is also a positive-selecting-bias in that ALL adoptive couples must demonstrate both the means and the temperament toward being caring parents to the satisfaction of trained professionals in the field at the time of the adoption. In NATURE, the strongest self selection toward becoming a parent is for horniness and fertility.
As for your other assertion that being homosexual is ONLY about behavior, the science doesn't back you up on this. Most of the present scholarship on the subject is that there are biological pre-determinants toward homosexuality that cannot simply be CHOSEN away. This is not yet conclusive, but there is starting to be a preponderance of evidence toward this.
And, as Michael Jackson seems to want to prove, being born black may not be so immutable either.
So, sexual practice is not about choice, it's about biology. Humans are no better than animals, and we should fence off this one area of behavior and keep laws away from it.
Your premise leads inevitably to repeal of laws against pedophilia, rape, and any other sexual act, including bestiality. So NAMBLA and the Rene Guyon Society (Motto: "Sex before eight, or else it's too late") are right, if your premise is accepted.
'Fact is, we choose how we behave. And homosexuals have a choice, the same choice that we illegalize with laws on the age of consent, pedophilia, and rape. No way to get around that, really, which explains why there is such a desperate effort among the radical Left to try to explain a behavior away as "biology." But "biology" favors propagation of the species ... something homos can never do without the intervention of science.
And you are still wrong about the science.
And if your entire rationale is that biology favors propagation, does that mean that birth control should also be outlawed, or simply ANY consensual sex that USES birth control? Or any wedding between non-fertile couples?
If you base your rationale for marriage on the need to propagate, there are HUGE classes of people who are now allowed to wed that we must now preclude from those rights. The fact is, marriage is NOT in any way exclusively about propagation.
You cannot make ANY argument that allows an infertile heterosexual couple to wed, but not a gay couple, that isn't based strictly on either religion or bigotry. And in either case, that's a Constitutional problem.
I'll put my constitutional credentials up against yours any time.
As for science, simply because sdstud, Leftwinger par mediocre, asserts it does not make it true.
I would assert that birth control COULD BE outlawed, not that it should be, and that legislatures should be able to make those decisions. Griswold v. Connecticut was about an uncommonly silly law, to quote Potter Stewart, and it was an uncommonly silly decision. But then again, you compare apples with oranges, as is your wont.
And I don't "base [my] rationale for marriage on the need to propagate." I base my rationale for treating "marriage" as "marriage" in the fact that Orwellian left wingers are attempting to rewrite the language to make the unacceptable acceptable, and to have their relationships invested by judicial fiat that which they have never had: legitimacy.
Although, fortunately, I also have the recent rulings of the Supreme Court to back me up. They might also be wrong. But they are in fact, the law of the land.
Which is why all you Right Wing Whackos are now trying to amend the Constitution. Because WITHOUT a Constitutional Amendment, even Scalia acknowledges that the current Court has set the path where there is NO AVOIDING the awarding of at least civil union recognition to same-sex couples that want it under the equal protection clause.
If you were in fact right, you clowns wouldn't NEED a Constitutional Amendment. It's because the Constitution DOESN'T say what you WISH it did, that you want to change it.
Well personally, I think that The Constitution has been a pretty decent document these past 210+ years, and I would let it stand as it does on this issue, without mutilating and desecrating it in favor of descrimination.
-- Modified on 2/19/2004 3:52:33 PM
Don't try to curry favor with me by convenient appeals to conservative principles. And I don't disagree that Scalia recognizes the absurdity of the "logic" of some of his colleagues. That's one reason why he's got the finest mind on the Court.
As a conservative, I generally disfavor constitutional amendments. When it's demonstrated to me that there are people as brilliant as Madison, Franklin, Hamilton, and Jay walking around, perhaps I'll reconsider that general preference.
Sadly, amendment is the only course left to true constitutionalists when certain Supreme Court justices --- lacking the courage of their convictions and attempting to amend it through legitimate processes --- have chosen to read their own political preferences into a fairly simple document.
A Court that, BTW, has 7 of it's 9 appointees from Republican presidents. People like Anthony Kennedy, who is a conservative Jurist by ANY rational measure, who wrote the Texas Sodomy decision. This merely proves how far out in right field you actually are on this issue.
BTW, nobody ever said that Scalia didn't have a brilliant mind. We wouldn't ever confuse him for Clarence Thomas on that score. It's Scalia's situational ethics that more people are troubled with. For example, his willingness to go against ALL of his own long-held legal principles about precedent to find for Bush in the election, while ADMITTING within the opinion that it should not be used as a judicial precedent, and his recent duck-hunting adventure using Air Force Two, and refusal to recuse from a case where Dick Cheney is a party.
Marriage doesn't preexist the state. Talk to some anthropologists or historians and get yourself an education. You can learn about "marriage" in the middle ages and in the south under slavery.
And quit identifying people you disagree with as being on the far left. Maybe that is how you and Muffy and Father Henderson feel, but that does not take into account large groups of people in the US.
Many people in the US (a majority) don't want to support Gay Marriage. However, many people in the US (a majority) don't think it is right that Gay's should be subject to discrimination in most areas of public policy. So, the trick is HOW YOU FRAME THE QUESTION about Gay Marriage. As people understand that Gays are losing rights and money because of defense of marriage laws, the laws will gradually change. You can count on it.
You won't have to worry. Your opinion will change along with evereyone else's and you will claim that you supported it all along.
All the best...Harry.
James was simply stating a perspective. No need to attack him personally. Chill out.
Thanks, OB.
Yours,
SlightlyYoungerBoner
Don't give me orders. 'Fact is, most supporters of homo "marriage" are on the far Left (one notable exception being Andrew Sullivan). Your historical and anthropological references are as ridiculous as they are non-specific, and therefore, not disprovable.
Equally imbecile is the suggestion that homos are "losing rights." Homos have the same rights as anyone else. No homo is prevented from marrying, so long as he or she marries a member of the opposite sex. How they are losing money is equally mysterious, since homos, as a discrete contingent are quite a bit wealthier than those of us who can produce children from our relationships.
And no, my opinion won't change, nor would I misrepresent my past opinions if it were to do so. I'm not the kind of intellectual dilettante that you (perhaps rightly, sadly) take most Americans for.
Interesting how a clear, concise argument can be cast away so easily by those who just want what they want!
Great job! You are the MAN!
I especially enjoyed HL's "Talk to some anthropologists or historians and get yourself an education. You can learn about "marriage" in the middle ages and in the south under slavery." Just what the fuck is that about?
The race thing is quite ridiculous, if I recall, our black brothers were at one time considered on 3/5 human! I would like to hear Sully and HL discuss the similarities with a professor of Black Studies at any American University. I believe they would get an earful!
One other thing, being married myself, I lose money to the Marriage Penalty every year to the IRS. I would like HL or any other poster to enlighten me as to how "Gays are losing rights and money because of defense of marriage laws"? Which I mentioned in another post was signed into law Sept. 21, 1996 by that bastion of conservative thinking, Bill Clinton.
Most people in europe in the middle ages were never married. Marriage was about property rights and most people never had property. Slaves did not marry in the south because they had no property and it made it more convenient to sell them individually. Marriage as an institution evolved as a legal idea, then as a religious idea. Religions, as allies of the state, expanded the idea of what it met -- this was a good thing since the state didn't spend much time dealing with legal issues for it's citizens.
What governments make, they can modify. Your churches will eventually come around and justify it, and you will be persuaided to agree with them (maybe it will be your children that will agree and consider you "quaint").
BTW, there is a good chance that some of the women you guys are seeing are probably "homos" under your definition. How do you think that makes them feel? Or do you permit yourself to be turned on by two ladies going at each other?
The war is over guys -- all that is left is the mopping up. It may take a generation, but the war is over. Gay marriage won't affect your marriages. Giving them the same protections and responsibilities as male-female marriages will make things fair for everybody.
My olive branch...Harry
Where do you get this information? Certainly not from any history professor who has ever studied the middle ages. Not even really working that hard I have tracked my Irish heritage back to the 13th century and they were ALL married and NEVER land owners! My great grandmother didn't sell her wedding ring for passage to America because they were kicking ass economically! They were 19th century serfs to British landlords.
Europeans in the middle ages were almost all Roman Catholic. Under the heavy hand of that church almost everyone was married. The only part of your post on the middle ages that is believable is that most did not have property under feudal rule. The serfs had nothing except their hopes in their Christian faith and back to the topic, the Church in Rome did press the institution of marriage. (One man and one woman)
As for slavery, since the law considered blacks as only 3/5's human, and of course that was as moronic as slavery was wrong, breeding was breeding. I'll probably get flamed for that statement, but, since the institution of slavery was brutal and inhumane, it was as it was!
I think the American people might be at the point where bending becomes breaking. The current push to throw out our nations long held and loved traditions by the Politically Correct crowd is in my opinion nearing the "we're fed up with this horseshit stage" and the backlash is just around the corner. If so many people agree with your stance, why did only 14 senators vote against the Defense of Marriage Act and why did a liberal president sign it into law? The answer is to do otherwise would have been disastrous to their political futures. You might also ask yourself if so many people are ready for these changes why the majority of our Governors are Republican as are both houses of the Congress. Something the Republicans couldn't have done without this Politically Correct crowd hijacking the Democratic party adgenda during the 1990's!
And just what is this "same protections" stuff you continue to bring up?
That's a pretty fantastic history lesson. Completely mythological, of course. But then again, it is consistent with the extreme positivist view of the law that underlies your argument.
And, of course, you're changing the subject. Calling whatever contractual relationships homos enter into "marriage" is about controlling the language. Rather Orwellian, too.
Whether we (meaning, the State) grant legitimacy to homosexual relationships (which I would oppose) is a different issue. But don't call it "marriage."
What this is about is homosexual efforts at "acceptance." It's not tolerance --- so long as they don't throw it in my face, I don't care what vile and unnatural sex acts anyone engages in --- it's about "acceptance." And the vast majority of us are entitled to judge people based upon their behavior.
What is really pathetic is that there is such a vocal contingent in our society which wants to be defined by little more than what they do in bed. Get a life, homos!
One small dispute --- the 3/5 thing is something cited by the grievance lobby to say that the Constitution was racist.
There was never an assertion that Blacks were 3/5 human. In fact, it was a political compromise to treat unemancipated slaves by that ratio in order to boost Southern representation in the House.
Emancipated slaves had, in Northern states, at least, the same rights as any other white male property owner.
I didn't mean to imply that our Consitution included it. I agree with your correction.
As people understand that Gays are losing rights and money because of defense of marriage laws, the laws will gradually change. You can count on it.
You won't have to worry. Your opinion will change along with evereyone else's and you will claim that you supported it all along.
I as a single man I also suffer from those same losses of rights that gays do. Why should they be given an exception?
Sad comment on how his "opinion" will change. Nothing worse than your subtle pressure to conformity...
Would you care to enlighten us as to what exactly you mean by "those same losses of rights that gays do"?
It most likely won't be much of a topic during this years political debates.
The Defense of Marriage Act was signed into law by President William Jefferson Clinton on September 21, 1996. This Act is important because it will allow a state to choose not to recognize a same-sex "marriage" performed in another state.
In California, Proposition 22 passed in March of 2003 the following law (the entire text is in quotation marks):
"Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."
The voters of California agreed by over 61%, in 53 of California's 58 counties. 42 states have exercised their right to define marriage as the union of a man and a woman as of July 2003.
San Francisco's Mayor is in direct breech of this state law and I would imagine that Govenor Schwarzenegger is under some pressure to enforce the current law of the land.
Just the facts!
I can't see how this text is relative to Sully's question.
Same topic, but other than that...
Just a fact.
Bribite, your statement was correct in the mid-90's[1][2] up to the year 2000.[5] However, since then public opposition to gay marriage has eroded significantly and support for gay marriage has been increasing. Since 2000, the majority of adult Americans now seem to be evenly split concerning the issue of gay marriage.[3] Most noteworthy in these polls is the significant support for gay marriage coming from young adults (ages 18-29), baby boomers, and professional women who are increasing in numbers by a factor of 10-fold over the past generation[4] suggesting that this demographic shift in opinion will not be transient and is "red-shifting" away from the anti-gay marriage position.
And if you ask different question - i.e. should gay couples be able to form civil unions and obtain some of the legal rights of married couples? Should homosexual couples have the same legal rights at heterosexual couples regarding health care and social security? - public opinion is much more favorable to the gay position than on the issue of gay marriage only.[6]
Also remember that the current public opinion opposition to same-sex marriages is WELL BELOW the 1967 public opinion opposition to mixed-race marriages in 1967 when state miscegenation laws were ruled unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court.
Unfortunately, what the polls have also shown is that even though public opinion concerning gay marriages is fairly evenly split, voters remain hostile to politicians who support gay marriage. This may explain why we are not witnessing many politicians who privately support gay marrage (including the dem front runner for pres) "voting their conscience" on this issue!
---------------------------------------
References:
[1] March 1996 - Gallup poll found 68% of American adults opposed gay marriage; 27% of adults were in favor.
[2] June 1996 - An American public opinion poll taken by ICR Survey Research Group of Media, PA Results (validated correct within 3 percentage points, 19 times out of 20) found that overall 57% of respondents opposed gay marriage with 30% in favor. However, women and people under 35 years of age were evenly divided on the issue
[3] Newsweek magazine, 1998-AUG-17, Pages 50-52.
[4] Women in Technology International (WITI) 80% of WITI members support gay marriage and only 18% oppose gay marriage (1996 figures)
[5] 2000-FEB: U.S. data: A Harris Poll released in early 2000-FEB:
-57% oppose marriage by a gay couple; 15% approve.
-55% oppose marriage by a lesbian couple; 16% approve.
[6]"Six out of 10 Americans Say Homosexual Relations Should Be Recognized as Legal But Americans are evenly divided on issue of legal civil unions between homosexuals giving them the legal rights of married couples," The Gallup Organization, 2003-MAY-15, at: http://www.gallup.com/poll/releases/
Prop 22 passed in Califonria in March of 2002 by over 68% of the vote. I guess those polls didn't contact too many people in what is considered a pretty liberal state.
Actually, I am enjoying what the Mayor San Francisco is doing, he has rammed this issue right down the throat of his party and it will be an important issue come November. How will the dems deal with it? With so much money coming from "economically deprived" gays, will they turn their back on them? You can bet your balls that they will!
If it comes to a constitutional amendment, both of the leading dems will be faced with a very difficult choice, but the votes will have it. Kerry has always done that which is most expedient to his career. Edwards, don't know, but he is a politician. He might be able to smile his way through opposing an amendment.
Smart thing for Bush to do right now would be to push for an Amendment, bring the issue into the national debate, make Kerry or Edwards take a stand. Either way the dems lose support. It's a no lose for Bush.
While you personally may be one of that small percentage, you certainly haven't CHANGED your vote because of this issue. In fact, almost NOBODY is CHANGING toward voting Republican on this issue. Everyone that actually cares enough to make this a defining issue was either already 100% in the camp of Bush, or 100% in the Anyone BUT Bush camp.
I truly would LOVE the Republicans to be focused on this, while the Democrats will address their campaign on Jobs and the Economy, on Bush's getting many hundreds of brave Aericans killed and maimed without just cause in Iraq, and on personal character and courage. You Republicans can have the homophobe vote - it's all yours. We'll just take the rest.
What are you going to say when Cash&Kerry votes for a Pro Marriage Amendment! Oh, he didn't really mean it? Probably so, its just so pathetic!
How you and every other leftist can go directly to hate is just hysterical! I mean hysterical in the sense you loose your ability to reason. How being opposed to gay marriage takes someone all the way to hatred is really idiotic!
Get some help! You're so full of hatred (and yourself) is just reeks from you!
I'm not bothering with your posts, but when you respond with such blabbering bullshit to one of mine (once again in the headline), I do bother to read it. And once again, you have continued to lower my ever lowering expectations of any real debate with your closed, leftist and rather smallish brain.
So if some of my posts to you seem simplistic, it's because I'm trying not to overload your capacity with the replies.
Overall, one of the better postings[imo]. For the "far left" folks: 1) there is no left, far or otherwise; 2) the Lincoln Brigade ; 3) The Bush admin has done more to abrogate civil liberties and amass power to the feds than any administration in recent history.
The suggetion to separate civil unions [for all] from religious ceremonies is a great idea. In fact, I know one clergy person [main stream denomination] who refuses to do "marriages" becuse they are so intertwined with civl authorities, but will do a blessinf service for those civilly "married" or otherwise.
Before any of you implode, or any of your heads explode with the question Im about to ask, read the entire post as the logic of my question in not meant to be insulting or demeaning to anyone. It simply is meant to make you think.
What is wrong with people over 40, men or women, marrying 11,12, or 13 year old boys and girls?? How does that devalue marriage or society??
All of you who support gay marriages and have children of that age, what would you say if someone over the age of 40 came up to you and asked to marry your 11, 12, or 13 year old. All of you would be horrified and immediately call the police to have that person arrested.
Hypothetically, there is a group trying to get over turned the pedophilia laws because who is a govt to judge or regulate love. Why can't a 40 year old be in love with a 11 year old?? All of you are "PEDOPHILOPHOBIC" and just don't understand love.
Who the hell are you to make us pedophiles feel like second class citizens?? We pay taxes, are good citizens, would fight for our country then why the hell are we condemned as 2nd class citizens??
Am I trying to compare gays to pedophiles?? NO!! The point is that all of you who support gay marriages and yell and scream at the top of your lungs about the evil far right, would turn around and shoot or have that 40 year old arrested for asking to marry your 11 year old. Does that make you intolerant, backward, ignorant pedophile haters who are close minded lunatics. NO!!
In fact I could use the exact logic all of you use do defend gay marriages and do a better job at it.
What the f!@#$ is my point?? There is a reason all of you gay marriage supporters may all the sudden cringe with disgust at the thought of 40 year olds wanting to marry your 11 year olds. You are not evil hateful people for it. So before you start ranting about how people are automatically close minded, unprogressive, evil, and ignorant for not agreeing with you on gay marriages remember that pedophile is going to use the same argument against you.
Everything is relative and every thing has a consequence. We may not want or agree with the long term consequences of gay marriages on society and we are not far right loonies for it. There is a reason we believe the way we do and there is a legitimate reason you believe the way you do!!
I don't agree with you emeraldvodka, but I like the way you stated your opinion. I am sick of being considered a far left maniac who is trying to destroy morality in this country. We all believe things for different reasons and we should do more to have healthy debates without namecaling. A lot of people on this board, including myself, can learn a lot from you.
This lunatic extremist commie liberal immoral socialist garbage is just as wrong, petty, immature, and fundamentally contradictory with the spirit of our democracy as the far right, evil, religious fanatics and loonies, warmonger insults.
Perspective is born of history, environment, beliefs, convictions, experiences, and a 1000 other complex filters of human understanding. Since the 60's there has been a growing rift of ideologies which has essentially become the identity of our 2 political parties. Those rifts have become so rigid, unwavering and intense that our political climates have become proportionately as poisonous, vile, and bitter. That is not good for this country and is putting a tremenduous strain on the stability of our nation as each side sees the other only in the context of enemity. There is no longer debate of principle and ideas in a rational manner, but only a debate of slogans and catch phrases that betray the greatness of our capacity as citizens of a free and educated society.
Instead of calling Bush and republicans the poodles and puppets of the oil industry, try explaining in a rational, logical, and thoughtful manner the true national security threats or reliance on middle east oil, the foreign policy implications, the tremenduous benefits our economy would reap from using reneuwable sources of energy, and how science has definitavely made it possible to achieve this goal and actually creating thousands if not millions of jobs from those new technologies.
Instead of calling Democrats commie socialists, try explaining the principle of limited govt in a thoughtful and rational manner, and all the pitfalls and negative consequences of big govt. Explain the pitfalls of over taxation and how it burdens and constricts society as a whole.
The other sides might see your points of view a lot more clearly and be more open scruitinizing their own thoughts based on that instead of just liberal commie socialist and far right wing lunatic homophobe.
The vile rhetoric just doesn't work, and is more suitable for the likes of the taliban and not the citizens of this nation!!
You've put forth a very well stated post that I agree with completely. If I could convey my thoughts in writing half as well as you do, I'd be good to go.
RLTW
dude- already used that argument
Hey if someone had a lot of information that Nambla stuff was OK- whatever. BUT WE HAVE LOTS OF PROOF THAT KIDS ARE TOO YOUNG FOR SEX AND THAT IT MESSES THEM UP. Not so for gays.
This is more like not allowing smokers to marry or not allowing blacks to marry.
BTW- they can ask-- till they are blue in the face.
I say "YOU Guys ARE JUST AS WRONG ON THIS AS YOU WERE ON THAT BLACKS ARE INFERIOR STUFF YOU WERE SELLING ME LAST CENTURY!"
Sully,
History proves your last statement wrong!! In the far eastern Asian cultures kids as young as 12 and 13 not only got married but started bearing children immediately. Those were different times and so the times we live in currently!!
My point was to reveal the underlying intellectual hypocrisy of calling anyone on the left or right liberal commies and religious fanatics respectively.
Again you assume that I as a 26 year old was trying to cram down your throat that blacks are inferior. You correlation that anyone who doesn't support gay marriages is also the mental descendant of the slave owners is simply unacceptable. You guys are just as wrong on this?? Explain to me exactly how you concluded that we are the same people.
Sen. Joe Lieberman, who marched with Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. during the 60's also opposes gay marriage based on his beliefs and convictions. Here is a man who marched for a noble cause with a man who was truly the Gandhi of this nation. Had you not know that Sen. Lieberman marched with such a great man would you have assumed that because he opposes gay marriage he would automatically have supported the blacks are inferior sentiment.
Both sides are too quick to pass judgements about what the other would do or have done. It ain't that simple!!
Had you not know that Sen. Lieberman marched with Dr. King, would you automatically have assumed that Sen. Lieberman would have supported the blacks are inferior sentiment??
No I actually knew alot about Sen. Lieberman
But I meant it in a rhetorical way -not a direct attack on people claiming they are racist- rather that they need to re-evaluate their position realising that it is analogous to the race issue
You want me to re-evaluate my position and realize that this is analogous to the race issue!! No problem, I certainly do respect your opinion and you correlation to the race issue. Here we go, I am re-evaluating!!
1. Blacks-- were treated as worthless goods and sold and auctioned on markets as servants.
Gays—I simply can’t seem to find that country or countries that is selling and auctioning gays as human servants.
2. Blacks—Couldn’t attend the same schools, couldn’t vote, couldn’t stay at the same hotels as whites, couldn’t even drink from the same water fountains, had to sit in the back of buses.
Gays—I simply still can’t seem to find that country or countries where gays can’t attend the same schools, stay at hotels they want, have their separate water fountains, etc….
3. Blacks—Beaten and whipped by their slave owners. Couldn’t own property, and lived in something similar to dog houses on slave plantations. Had fire hoses and dogs on unleashed on them during civil rights marches.
Gays—Funny I can’t seem to find anywhere where dogs and fire hoses were unleashed during gay rights marches. Don’t remember where gays have to live in dog houses on plantations.
Maybe I’m the blind, unprogressive, close-minded, backward fanatic who doesn’t see the correlation between what happened to African-Americans and what is happening to gays. Gays can openly declare on TV their affiliation, have their own TV shows, march, vote, and etc…..Do you not remember what a fragile old lady named Rosa Parks had to do just to earn the right to sit in the front of a bus as an African-American woman?? Are you REALLY equating the struggle for gay marriage with that of the struggle of African-Americans fight for equal rights?? Given the history of both movements, you will excuse me if I don't re-evaluate and see an analogous relationship between gay marriages and the racism that was practised on African-Americans!!
And he is undoubtedly NOT the only one.
Don't get me wrong - I don't believe that the state has any business supporting anything beyond civil unions. But that holds for both STRAIGHT and gay couples. The state should provide a civil certificate of commitment, that confirs all of the legal rights and privileges and responsibilities on a couple that the state has any reason to be involved with.
As for marriage, I accept the argument that it is a religious/spiritual construct. As such, the state really has NO BUSINESS getting involved in it AT ALL, except for the societal interests that are EQUALLY served in getting same-sex couples to commit to one-another. Separate a marriage from a civil union for EVERYONE. That way, each religion is free to deal with Marriage as it sees fit, without interference from the state. But NO LEGAL RIGHTS and PRIVILEGES accrue to the married couple. Those all come from the civil certificate, which of course, any married couple would be free to obtain, just as any un-married, but committed hetero couple (for example, those of different faiths or those lacking strong religious affilliation), or any committed same-sex couple would be free to obtain upon swearing a commitment.
Incidentally, that's the pure Libertarian position, although the Libertarian Party probably won't endorse it as such, because it's politically incorrect. It also would fundamentally ALLOW polygamy as a religious marriage, but the state civil commitment certificate and the legal rights that accrue would still only be available for couples, because that is the only relationship that properly serves the state interest.
My recollection, past the media hype and sympathizing, was that Matthew Shepard had the snot kicked out of him because he was making a pass at straight guys (good enough reason to beat him, though not kill him, IMHO). It didn't justify murder, but it certainly doesn't justify passage of Hate/Thought Crimes laws, either.
And why did so many in the media who hyped Shepard's torture and murder ignore the torture and murder of 12-year-old Jesse Dirkhising by two Arkansas fags?
Incidentally, it's refreshing to see a rational argument (one with which I disagree, but rational nonetheless) in lieu of your typical BushHating, sdstud.
and hung up and left to die on a fence post. It most assuredly DID warrant a toughening of the legal sanctions against those who would perpetrate a similar crime. Sorry, but if someone you are not attracted to makes a pass at you, I didn't see where that gives you the right to torture and kill them SYMBOLICALLY.
And, I am quite certain tht the crime committed against Jesse Dirkhising to was already eligible to be punished by the death penalty, so there is no reason to toughen any sanctions in that case.
As for whether my argument in this case is rational, where my others are not, I would suggest that your inability to follow the logic of my arguments does not mean that it wasn't there, but rather, that your ability to follow a logical train of thought is limited.
For example: on a post several threads farther down, you make a case for tax evasion, while in numerous places elsewhere, you defend the policies of Bush, who has spent more wantonly than any President in HISTORY. That is patently ILLOGICAL. Either defend his spending, AND BE WILLING TO PAY FOR IT, or else defend the cutting of taxes, but NOT the Wanton spending. You can't LOGICALLY support both - it will destroy the economy of this country in short order. So what is it?
You are strung way too tight!
Get over yourself!
The witnesses said that Shepard went way beyond just making a pass at the guys, And one of the jerks mother identified herself as a lesbian. Truly a tragedy, but to bring it up as anything other than an extremely rare event is imbecilic.
I think you better inform yourself as to what crucifixion really is! Here's a link!
Words mean things, your continuous over reactions are really boring!
I read your link That basically IS what was done to Sheppard, except that a fence post and fence was used, rather than a standalone wooden cross. I'm not saying he was Christ, for Christ-sakes. Lot's of other folks endured the same punishment in those biblical days, and it was the same thing that Matthew Sheppard endured. The fact is, it's a brutally agonizing way to be killed, and that IS how Matthew Sheppard was killed.
There was nothing inaccurate about my language.
I don't agree with anything you've said thus far, but I support you writing and trying to justify your beliefs. However, the use of the derogatory word you used to describe gay men in this last post is unexcusable. Some of us here have gay brothers, sisters, friends, children and parents. It is not acceptable to use that word no matter how passionate you are about a topic. I'm not asking you to change your views, but a little sensitivity would do ya good
And go outside and enjoy some sunshine while you're at it. It's a beautiful world. It really is, married gay people and all.
-- Modified on 2/18/2004 12:58:23 PM
"I'm queer and I'm here"! They use all the terminology in describing themselves!
What? Only a fag can refer to himself as a fag?
REminds me of a line from college
You're only a fag if you kiss
and
One Time philosopher
Two Times? Fag!
It's no different than the N-word as used in racial discussions.
When the group refers to themselves in that manner, it de-stigmatizes it. But when a non-member of the group refers to themselves in that manner, it is inherently a malicious slur.
And if you don't believe it, why don't you sidle up to a group of black folks in a social situation, who are joking and talking amongst themselves. Then one one of them calls another a nigger, why don't you take that as your cue and start calling them niggers as well, and see how it is responded to.
This is no different.
At which point, I don't think you'll be in any condition to reply to posts on this board
I don't often click on them anymore. Just what test are you referrring to?
I see a huge difference in referring to anyone as to their skin color, physical disfigurement, etc. things that are physical matters in a derogatory manner. But fagism is a behavior, much like liberalism is a vile behavior, not a physical attribute.
What you see, as far as your right to discriminate, is, fortunately, not the law of the land. But, no problem. I am pleased that you are so open about being a hateful bigot. It discredits your arguments more thoroughly than I could hope to on my own.
What fudgepackers do in the privacy of their own homes is none of any of our business. But when they/you shove it in my face it becomes my business.
I "feel" homosexuality if vile behavior. Now that I have used one of your key words, doesn't that make you "feel" better? It's the same argument that they use!
I am very glad to at least see that you acknowledge the right to private behavior between consenting adults. Now, those same consenting adults are seeking to be treated equally under the equal protection clause of the Constitution, irrespective of that private behavior.
The fact is, there is NO LEGAL BASIS to deny them that equal protection under the Constitution that does not have it's basis in either bigotry or religion. And as such, the legal right exists. The Massachussetts Court has so found, and even Antonin Scalia acknowledged that the last Supreme Court case on the subject concerning the elimination of Sodomy laws in Texas actually removed ANY basis precluding the Supreme Court to so find, short of reversing that prior case.
How about the Defense of Marriage Act, signed into law by Bill Clinton on 9/21/96? Which gives states the right to decide, which California did with Prop. 22 in March of 2002 with 68% of the voters agreeing that California would not acknowledge marriage as anthing but between one man and one woman.
And the majority of States have similar laws.
So the law of the nation is that it is a states right to decide and many/most have. So if your point is following the law, it becomes moot.
Which is the reason that Dumbya and all the Right Wing nut-jobs want to amend the Constitution. Because WITHOUT a Constitutional Amendment, none of these discriminatory laws will hold up under the equal protections clause. No less than Antonin Scalia was making that clear in his dissent in the recent Supreme Court decision that threw out the Texas sanctions against sodomy.
-- Modified on 2/19/2004 5:16:42 PM
You'd know that if you actually read any of these posts before responding to them
-- Modified on 2/19/2004 4:39:30 PM
Awww, my heart bleeds.
I will not apologize for using derogatory terms to describe those who engage in vile and unnatural behavior and, in fact, define themselves by it (pretty pathetically, IMHO).
I judge people by their behavior. And if fags don't want to be judged by their behavior, then they should keep it private.
And just as I reject anything from any organization which describes itself as "concerned," I can't take seriously anyone who wants more "sensitivity."
It's pretty sad that we've gone from "Cogito, ergo sum" ("I think, therefore I am") to "I feel, therefore I am."
So I take it that in your case, it's: "I CAN'T Think, therefore I'm not".
I appreciate the fact that you acknowledge that your views are driven by hatred and bigotry toward this group of people. That's fine, but your right to hate and discriminate is not legally protected. And it gives us secure grounds to ignore or otherwise sanction you.
I saw previously that you despise Hate Crime legislation. Obviously, this is because you desire the right to hate a class of people. Fortunately, the law recognizes that you don't have the right to do anything about it.
-- Modified on 2/19/2004 11:14:31 AM
Oh, foresooth, sdstud is going to discriminate against me!
Anyone who disagrees with him, and particularly conservatives who judge people based upon their behavior, is "driven by hatred and bigotry," and he arrogates unto himself the right to ignore me.
Maybe next he'll apply his Hate/Thought Crime legislation against anybody who's not a pinko, Commie, bedwetting, bleeding heart fool like himself.
But he's right about one thing. I do despise Hate Crime legislation. I despise anything which vilifies ideas. Of course, he apparently hates anything which vilifies any behavior of which he approves, like homo buggery.
Last time I checked, "hypocrisy" meant advocating one course, and then arrogating unto one's self the authority to take another.
Please, oh please, do us all a favor, and fulfill your promise/"threat" to ignore me.
dude-
Get thee to a history book post haste.
Stonewall Riots? White Night? Plenty of reactionary stuf against gays. Oscar Wilde on trial?
BTW- slavery is a different issue from racism. Related, sure. but not the same.
Actually, we have a lot of proof that gay sex (particularly gay male sex) "messes them up." Ever hear of AIDS, still mostly a gay male disease? Gay Bowel Syndrome? Plenty of other nasty little diseases discussed by Michael Fumento in "The Myth of Heterosexual AIDS"?
And you just couldn't keep from equating opposition to the homo agenda with racism, could you? 'Cept there is a difference between judging someone based upon behavior with judging someone based upon an immutable characteristic (Michael Jackson to the contrary notwithstanding).
What you DON'T have is the right to discriminate against other people in the legal sense because of it.
Even if your views on AIDS were TRUE, rather than only partially true and slanted to justify an agenda of hatred, the facts would STILL BE that Gay Marriage is as much in the state's interest as Heterosexual Marriage is. Because MARRIAGE is designed to lessen promiscuity and support STABLE relationships. In EITHER the gay or the straight case, MARRIAGE is better than promiscuity for the purpose of LESSENNING Disease, and helping to build a social safety net that is NOT dependent on the public dole. I should think that this would be a good thing for Conservatives - promote COMMITTED LONG TERM relationships rather than promiscuity and risky behavior that encourages the spread of diseases, and gets them OFF of public funding.
But, as I've already shown several times, there is no logical consistency in ANY of your views, with the exception of the thread of hate and bigotry that weaves its way through all of them.
-- Modified on 2/19/2004 12:25:54 PM
It's really pathetic that sdstud so lacks the ability to engage in rational discussion that he has to name call with the misnomer "homophobic."
No, sdstud, I don't fear homosexuals. I feel pity for them; I wish that they would see the perversion of their ways; I loathe their behavior. But I don't fear them.
Belittlement is a wonderful refuge for homos and their apologists. It's too bad that they use one which is so demonstrably false.
And yes, I do have the right to discriminate based upon behavior. And the State does, too. Just like it discriminates against racists behavior, criminal behavior, and polluting behavior. "Discrimination" means being able to distinguish between that which is good and valuable, and that which is evil and worthless. It's too bad that you lost that ability some time back.
The state would have to demonstrate a compelling interest, that is sufficient to over-ride the right to privacy in the 4th Amendment. And that compelling interest would have to be applied in a non-discriminatory fashion. And in fact, you are living in the past, because gay sex between consenting adults has already been ruled to be Constitutionally protected behavior this extremely conservative Supreme Court.
And as for YOU, well we have hate crime legislation to keep you from acting on your appalling and hateful behavior. And your own words are the textbook definition of a homophobe. I didn't call you anything worse that what you GLADLY call yourself. At least if your hate was due to fear, it would be pityable. But since it is JUST based on hate and spite, it is rather more apalling. You are simply a disgusting slime of a human, who would try to justify bigotry for ANY reason at all.
Doesn't this post qualify?
"You are simply a disgusting slime of a human"
I based my comment on your own words. I believe that you yourself said that you do not accept gays, and will not accept gays, and do not believe that society as a whole should accept gays because they carry out "vile and unnatural acts" and spread disease such as Aids.
If that is an accurate paraphrase of YOUR attitude toward gays, well than you are, by definition, a bigotted disgusting slime of a human.
If I have, in some way NOT accurately paraphrased your own views, well then I withdraw that comment. However, I DO believe that you have specifically said those things, and as a result, I need to stand by my comment that you are a biggotted disgusting slime of a human. Because ANYONE who holds those type of attitudes toward an entire class of people, is in fact, a bigotted disgusting slime of a human. It's not hypocrisy, because I don't condemn a group, absent knowledge of their particular attitudes and actions - I condemn you personally, because of your particular noxious views toward others as a class. And I am extremely thankful that I live in a country where the law of the land precludes you from acting out on your hatred without sufferring sanction.
you don't deserve having it pointed out to you
[sheesh]
What a thoughtful answer!! I could simply say right back to you that "If you cannot see the flaw in the support gay marriage argument of yours, then you don't deserve to have it pointed out to you."
So now we are back to square one. I wasn't comparing the act to pedophilia, simply trying to point out that each side needs to stop insulting the other for their beliefs and start talking substance. There are many reasons why each of us believes what we do and simple disagreement with your point of view doesn't automatically indicate ignorance or close-mindedness on the other side!!
It is a well established legal principal[at least in democratic societies] that government has not only the right, but the duty, to protect children from those who would harm or exploit them. Pedophilia is exploitation as is child porn, child abuse et al. The relationship between two consenting adults, on the other hand, is not automatically deemed to be exploitative, although we do have some rather perverse laws when it comes to sexual contact.
Personally, I feel having two partly hungover, and still partly drunk, strangers trying to keep from sluriing their "vows" in front of an Elvis impersonator in Vegas devalues it far more.
Oh, and how about Ms. Spears "commitment" of a few hours.
Geez!
d_d
They knew each other from high school
Frankly, I believe that she actually DID want to marry the guy, even if it was only do to an excess of alcohol, but the corporated money machine that manages her saw the threat to her income as unacceptable, and got it un-done.
Gay Marriage: The Arguments and the Motives - A personal essay in hypertext by Scott Bidstrup
http://www.bidstrup.com/marriage.htm
-----------------------------------------------
The Baehr vs. Miike Court Decision - Why Gays Should Be Allowed To Marry:
http://www.bidstrup.com/hawaii.htm