This is a challenge to those of you who oppose gay marriage to answer this one simple question without going off on a tangent.

How exactly does it hurt you personally if two gay people get married?

Just answer the question.  No excuses.

If the answer that you would have come up with for the previous question is that the entire institution of marriage is de-valued by allowing gays to wed:  Then just exactly HOW is it de-valued, and what actual harm to society as a whole, or to you as an individual, would be experienced by that supposed de-valuation of the institution of marriage?

-- Modified on 2/26/2004 5:44:54 PM

It doesn't hurt me personally!  Happy?

OK, I'll bite - and duck for cover!  

First, I am going to answer a different question: what does it hurt me if gays have full and equal rights and responsibilites to my wife and me through some kind of legal union?

Not one whit.  I think it's criminal to deny this.  My next door neighbor in rural Bible Belt Arkansas in the early 60's was gay by the time he was 5.  He had no choice about this.  And the life he had to lead was tortured by the good ole boys.  It's not easy being gay in Arkansas in 1975, let me assure you. Denying him and his partner anything my wife and I have offends me.

But "marriage" has a definition by custom.  While I personally don't care if we call gays "married" or not, as a compromise to move the ball forward, I'd be ok calling it something else.

Oops.  I guess my answer to your question is, nope, I can't think of one way it hurts me.  Ha! And I actually thought I was going to disagree.  Guess not.

PS: Is emerald vodka a brand?  I've never had it.

http://www.forrelease.com/D20031103/sfm082.P2.11032003173838.06666.html

Cool, thanks.  Vodka is good!

Children starving to death in equatorial Africa doesn't harm me personally, but the world would be a better place it this didn't happen. This situation causes me a deal of mental anguish, but on the superficial level you propose it affects me not at all. Fortunately man is a sentient being, possessed of a rationally thinking brain. Are you attempting to argue that a person can have no opinion on a matter on which he has no firsthand knowledge? So much for such subjects as history, astrophysics and metaphysics.

I suppose my point is that just because I have no personal stake in a matter doesn't mean I can't oppose it on philosophical grounds. Many people opposed South African apartheid and busing public school children in Boston. Should they have minded their own business instead of following their own consciences to try to make the world a better place?

I'll tell you how it hurts. My marriage has been going badly of late. Some of our liberal friends (or should I said comrades) say it because she caught me with her sister a couple times or because I get drunk and throw up all over the house, and who can remember birhtdays anyway (I can hear her"you remember st patrick's brithday". But the reason this marriage is going south is solely due to gay marriages. These gay people with their marriages upset g*d so he makes things hard on everybody so that we will get the "bad" people like the marines in boot camp in "Full Metal Jacket".

As one of the Bigtime preacher says g*d won't proctect us from terrorist if gays have equal rights. This is also why unemployment  is up.

kidding but if I was a consevative this is what I would think then I'll get back to goose-steping

  I answered his question with quiet some contempt!  I didn't want to do that with you!! One of the biggest issues to probably face society on such a grand scale is staring us in the eyes and it just isn't that simple Sedona.  Maybe some issues are simple enough to be considered in terms or relative impact to an individual, however, this is just ISN'T that simple.  
  I don't mean to be rude but so many have focused in on the argument that if it doesn't affect you personally why should it matter.  Hell, society doesn't function and grow with such childish simplicity.  Is that truly the only consideration an entire group of supporters has give this issue??  Whether or not if affects anyone personally??
  Whether you believe in god or Marx, since the beginning of civilization marriage has between men and woman.  An entirely new definition seeks to enter the fold of human existance and people just want to make it a simple issue.  
  Honestly I have so many reasons born out of thought and continued examination of all the ramifications of this issue and I could write hundreds of pages on it but its not worth the time.
  Since you also asked that question 4 times which is certainly a good one, then please tell me how many questions you have asked yourself about its negative implications??  I would love to know that.  
  Changes take over society before society truly grasps the gravity of those changes, and it gets to a point we can't reverse course if we decide it was the wrong decision.  Whether, its war, government, social change, marriage, or the small act of reading one book, entire societies can be affected by one person and one action.  None of us turly understand what this will turn into once this pandora's box is opened.  
  This issue just can't be looked at from the point of affection us as individuals because this will impact us on such a grand scale that none of us have the ability to comprehend its many manifistations.

of greater priortiy, and on a grander scale than whether or not two people of the same sex marry.

And, rather than have the boards tied up with this subject, my self included, I wonder if Staff could create another board for such controversial topics? A Flame Room, if you will, although I LOATHE arguing, and really get upset when people start name-calling.

I'd say email me, so as not to 'bother' others, but I would miss others' participation, as well as my email isn't working right.
Please don't suggest Chat. I'm not a Chatter. (sorry Thirsty)

Seriously, Bush is simply after political points. He knows the Constitution can't be amended for years; and it isn't a sure thing to boot his amendment will pass 38 (?) state legislatures.

To gain some understanding of the opposition, I think you have to ask why the gay community thinks it's so important to BE married.  After all, cohabitation has lost its social stigma, and many heterosexual couples have discovered to their dismay that sometimes a good cohabitational relationship makes for a bad marriage (and don't ask me to go into the reasons for THAT one...just seen it happen a few times).  So why not just live together?

One of the key tangibles is health care.  Married couples get a significant break on health insurance in most cases.  (My sister and her boyfriend of 8 years are getting married and she's thrilled at the net increase in her income now that she won't have to pay for health insurance.  Incidentally, he works for Disney, which allows same sex cohabitating partners access to the same health benefits as married couples, but does NOT offer that privilege to heterosexual couples who cohabitate.)  

Don't underestimate the feeling of legitimacy that having a marriage license carries with it.  I can't be the only one who found married sex better (initially) because it was guilt-free.  (It stopped being better a month into the marriage when she-who-had-always-eagerly-swallowed yakked all over me at the Towering Moment, just to make sure I'd never ask her if I could put my dick in her mouth again...but I digress.)

I've really only been thinking about this for about ten minutes, most of which was spent trying to forget how much nicer it would have been if my ex-wife had just asked nicely, and I've come up with a couple valid reasons why a gay couple might feel strongly about being married.

Maybe the opposition wants to corner the market on guilt-free sex?  A "This-Is-Mine-That's-Yours" thing?  Neither of which hurts anyone personally.

I can see where you might feel it hurts you if, say, you own stock in an HMO and your stock dividends will decline by a few cents a year.  

Actually...since I don't oppose gay marriage and don't understand why anyone would...I can't answer your question.

Sorry.

Yoda

P.S. Mazel Tov, Rosie and Kelli!

Ok, no chat

  On a grander scale than people of the same sex marrying??  For the first time in history a group is seeking to redefine marriage, which has stood since the beginning of civilization for whatever reason, and you are saying this isn't a grand issue.
Wars have happened, societies have fallen, pyramids were built, billions have been born and passed but one of the constants embedded in our psyche was marriage and now that constant is about to be redefined and you say this isn't grand??  
  You asked that question about the kids at the cold medecine aisle.  It could be simply dismissed as kids having fun, but if you truly think about why kids have become so dependant on drugs whether prescribed or OTC, why kids are failing in schools, why the richest society in the world can't produce minds to compete with 3rd world educated kids, why there are no virgins left at any high school, and so many other questions then you start seeing the thousands of underlying layers that have brought that about.  
   Its very simple to dismiss that as an isolate act.  But the underlying problems run so deep that we have completely lost the capacity to deal with the issue and its spiraling out of control.
Kids are growin up in broken homes like never before, addicted to more drugs than ever before, constantly bombarded with images of sex on TV and in music, and so much more.  We simply can't look at such complex issues with one frame of mind.

question also, but then would heteros be content with 'just that' or does it make a difference in the whole relationship when you've taken your livein arrangement to a committed lifetime partnership of marriage?
That answered that. Of course they want to, just as we would.

The Disney thing baffles me, and I think that's wrong. It should be straight across the board. I'm surprised about that one.

I think at this point in the argument, I have more respect for an answer like "Just because, or I don't know - it just irks me" than all this other stuff.

Thanks.

As always, Sedona, you nailed it.

Yoda

Now that the question has been broadened (well done, mon ami) - I think the core issue is how do we frame morality as we transition from the industrial age to the information age.  Morality, even the concept of God among the most moral, shift with a change in context (except for those very few who are way up the developmental ladder and know their identity different from their personality).  

So let's ask a different question: what is an "integral" response to gay marriages?  Integral responses need to include the individual, the collective, the subjective (eg, the felt sense) and the objective (eg, the performance) together.  (For those of you who read Ken Wilber, this is his framework).  

Since I'm authoring this, I get to speak as an individual - and I already said, I'm ok with it.  I think only prejudice would prevent anyone from the same conclusion.  

But to the collective - would it harm the culture (felt) - and I think that the answer is that some stages of cultural development would feel injury and others would not.  Gays argue that "separate but equal" does not work, and they have a point.  It certainly didn't in the South in a racial context, and there is some of the same dynamics underlying the Bush idea("we don't like queers").  But is retaining the cultural precident of "marriage" the same as "separate but equal" in racial realtions in the US?  This is where is gets dicey.  

Now, would it hurt the performance of the overall society - would important norms shift, for example.  Would young children be threatened and confused by men or women being married like mom and dad.  Would it increase violence against gay people? Or threaten the family structure?  

I just don't know, but I think not.  We had a gay baseball coach in little league when I was a boy.  We knew he was effiminate, but we didn't know he loved men.  We just knew he threw like a sissy. And he was a nice guy.  He had courage.  Shit, I'll just tell you what I think: I don't want him to face more crap than he already faced.  I want him and his partner to have equal protection under the law.  

I also think there is something about "marriage" that is well-defined by centuries of tradition that does not need to be overturned UNLESS separate-but-equal becomes the "colored motel" for them.  So my opinion is that it's a stepwise process.  I started to write, "just to be honest in a way I can't defend, I'm married and Rosie isn't," but to tell you the truth, only she and her partner can know this.  In my heart of hearts, I believe there is sacredness in every act of the will to love.  

-- Modified on 2/26/2004 7:32:51 PM

to BOTH parents WORKING and nobody being home with the kids WAY BEFORE remotely associating gays or gay marriages to this one.

You forget: I was raised in a very fundamental Christian home, and taught Sunday School for 3 years.


PS. I don't see it as a re-definition of marriage. And even if it was, it doesn't matter to me. Maybe it needs redefining - although I'd start someone else first - like the vows.

And the world will stop spinning on its axis and we'll all burn in eternal damnation.  Shit, I can't even type that without laughing.

Honestly, I don't know how many times I can say this but.... two people who love each other and want to spend their lives together in marriage should be allowed to do so without discrimination and persecution regardless of their gender.  To those who oppose it I say, "Go get laid!"

Wmblake,
  Before I begin let me just praise you in your ability to capture the essence of an issue and ability to present in an inclusive, comprehensive, and rational manner.  

Individual-The smoker in California, the divorce of my neighbors parents, the drug smuggler in Columbia, the porn star in LA all have no bearing on my individual being as it is a disengagement of activities by choice on my part.  So far as direct involvement is concerned we are all separated at every moment from the acts.

As a society is it is just so DAMN different-50 years ago a man named Hugh Heffner was claiming freedom of speech as his mantle to sell Playboy.  That one act 50 years ago has metamorphosed into an overcrazed sexually obsessive society where sex sells everything and anything in life.  Girls in high schools compete to wear the least amount of clothing because images of sexual perfection are overwhelming the mind as reality every second of the day.  Affairs are no longer a shameful act.  The act of one man named Heffner has given us the biggest multibillion dollard industry in history where sexual images rule TV, music, magazines, and everything under the sun.  We tolerated one Heffner and today society is littered with him everywhere.  

Kids-In the 60's most parents said oh its ok kids are just experimenting with marijuana.  No one ever dreamed that in 40 years kids would become cigarette, alcohol, and sex addicts in highschool throughout society.  

  People always want to discard a few acts as harmless and then 20 years later those moles become mountains ready to crush society. No body wants to think 20 years down the road.  For THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS of years(and I didn't make the rules this way) marriage between men and women has been ingrained deep within the psyches of humankind and now one act stands to change the one constant that has stood the test of time and everyone says whats the big fucking problem.  
  That damn attitude of whats the big fucking problem in the last 50 years is the reason we have a divorce rate of over 60% and nobody has any damn sense of commitment, that attitude is the reason why the richest and most educated society is producing kids who can't live up to 3rd world education standards, why they are growing up in broken homes, why they are so scarred, why sex rules society, why this society is so fucking addicted to drugs and alcohol.  And when someone 50 years ago so this sorry state of existance coming that person was branded as hysterical and "intolerant."  Oh whats the big deal its only one small act.  
   Well in a society where communication and interaction are instant a problem can take hold before anyone of us can blink.  
"A society that values its priveledges above its principles soon loses both."  That statement applies to every civilization that has ever collapsed, and it applies to us today.  No one wants to think about tomorrow.  Its all about how it feels right now.  Thats the sign of a completely standardless society.  

Your post makes it sound like marriage has had the same form for countless millenia when in fact it has been evolving.  Now I do agree that gay marriage would be a large change, but it would not be the first time marriage has changed.

Sedona,
  You are a very intelligent woman truly.  So why do you not see that is my exact point.  Economic and geographic movement of society led to a reality where both parents do work.  Fine no problem with that, its very honorable that both parents work.  But SOMEONE has to think what happens to those kids when they are in that home without parents, how will they grow up, what will be influencing them, what will be guiding their thoughts, how will they perceive stability and a thousand different questions.  
   Thats what Im asking!!  Whether its an economic change or social change it will impact society down the road and we need to ask all those questions to make wise judgements.  
   Im not associating gays with broken homes, Im saying we can't even begin to understand its impacts just like we didn't fully understand the impact of children growing up in homes when both parents are constantly working.  That economic change impacted society socially indirectly when children started growing up in homes without parents, constantly bombarded with sex on TV, magazines, and music.  
   Why do you think society has so many issues with commitment, drugs, alcohol, stability, happiness and etc...
   Marriage doesn't need redefinition because marriage didn't fail society.  People failed each other.  50 years ago people through sickness and in health stuck with each other.  Today over 60% end in divorce in the first 8 years.  Why have people become so uncommitted??  Why so much infedility??  There were underlying currents that was molding these mentalities but no one wanted to confront them and now look what we have.  Thats my whole point.  We don't have crystal balls to see the future which is why we need to make wise decisions ahead of time.

Bravo!  Dittos!

Those who ask this question are, of course, missing the point.

Well if we follow the arguement that since marriage has always been between a man a woman, how about these other issues?

- Slavery:  It used be acceptable in the US for Black people to be thought of only as slaves.  If you remember, we had a war about that one.

- Women's right to vote:  Women only got the right to vote in the last 100 years.  Does any reasonable thinking person honestly believe that women should not be allowed to vote.

- Equal rights for Minorities:  As late as 50 years ago, Minorities did not have even close to equal rights as the rest of the United States citizens.  At the time it was considered "right"

- Acceptance of religious differences:  Until JFK the concept of a catholic president was not something that anybody considered "right".

- Banning of Alcohol:  When that amendment was passed, drinking was considered "wrong"  Now it is "right"  Why the change?

- Working on Sunday:  Years ago, it was not "right" to have stores open on Sundays.  Now try and find a closed store on a Sunday.

And I am sure other can come up many different things.

The bottom line, is that many people cannot seperate the religious act of marriage from the civil (government) joining of marriage.  For anybody who responds with the arguement that the bible says that gay marriage is wrong, I always respond with "Does the State or Federal government base it's laws on the bible?"  And do not give me line that since we say "in god we trust", because that does not specify which god the Government is saying.

It doesn't hurt me "personally"...but then the 9/11 attacks didn't hurt me "personally". Just like 9/11 was an attack on our culture and nation, gay marriage is an attack on a cultural institution. It is not about marriage...it is about advancing a Marxist agenda. Karl Marx mocked and spoke of the destruction of the family unit. Gay marriage would water down the institution. I heard that in European countries that allow gay marriage, marriage is in trouble. People don't even bother to get hitched anymore.

There has to be some standards. Gays have the same right to get married as straights. Two hetero men cannot marry each other either. We cannot marry a woman who is already married to someone else....I don't hear any straight guyscrying about discrimination.

Lastly this is all a political ploy from the left wingers. I would guess most gays have no desire to marry. Yet we're being led to believe this is a mainstream gay position. Doubt it.

Hey Emeraldvodka - thanks for your kind words.  In truth, I am trying to think clearly and act accordingly - so I only fuck up every other moment !  I want to recommend the guy I mentioned, Ken Wilber, to you.  I think he's got the best "map" of how things can move forward.  He's written maybe 20 books, and I would recommend maybe Marriage of Sense and Soul.  He can be kinda dense, but I find the effort to be well worth it.  At least, I have found his ideas and insights to be profound in helping me organize what I am seeing.  

BTW, I haven't found anyone around that stocks Emerald Vodka, but I will keep looking.  It'll be somewhere.  Is it a new brand?

What is going on here is that a small (maybe 3-5% of the population) that is presently EXCLUDED from marriage, is saying:

"We agree, this is a great institution, for any number of reasons, and we want IN!  Because we CHERISH the benefits it will offer us"

ALL of the current THREATS to marriage as an institution are the fault of opposite-sex couples who do NOT give it the reverence and sanctity that it warrants.  (Britney Spears, etc.)  OK, I hear that some folks say that Gays already HAVE the right to wed, just not to same sex partners.  OK, you want more Liza Minelli marrying David Guest?  Now THAT is the type of marriage that threatens the institution.  Not the loving committed people like Rosie O'Donnell and her partner, who are widely acknowledged to be deeply in love with each other and SUPERB and dedicated parents to their 4 adopted children.

Just LOOK at the gay couples that are getting married now in San Francisco.  They are very ordinary people, who, other than the fact that they are gay, would be held up as models of most communities, because they are committed to each other, and deeply love each other, and want to be the security system for each other throuout their lives.

This is NOT about the Hypersexualizing of society - If anything, it is about a class of people who have tended to BE hypersexual, taking a step back toward normalcy, and saying, we don't want to be ONLY about sex.  We want to be about love, and about commitment, and about sharing a lifetime partnership.  I for one think that we as a society can LEARN from the yearnings of these people to just fit in and be normal, in the way that makes the most sense for them.  And maybe many of us straight folks can take a lesson from them about what is good and strong about marriage, and the institution can GAIN strength from seeing why a heretofore EXCLUDED class finds so much to desire from being a part of it.

The fact is, Same sex marriages harm NOBODY individually, and it does not harm SOCIETY in any way shape or form.  But denying this right to an entire group of people unequivocally DOES harm these people in a very grievious manner, and it also creates spillover costs to the rest of us.  It is time to stop excluding people and start welcoming them into an institution that most of us have taken for granted.  For these newly welcomed people will most assuredly NOT take this institution for granted.

Answer to your "simple" question, nothing personally.

Now I ask you what has does "being personally hurt " hurt have to do with law?

In 38 states, including California same sex marriage is not recognized.  If you don't like the law, change it.  But what Gavin Newsome has done in San Francisco is break the law.  If I break a parking law in San Francisco, why should I now pay a fine, if after all I parked in a convenient location for my self?

I cannot say it any more eloquently than James86 did in another thread last week, here is his post copied and pasted in its entirety:

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.

Sdstud,
  Indeed very good points!  My entire argument isn't singular in perspective,  rather its about judging and understanding the comprehensie effects of any change on society, wheteher its military, political, social, personal, institutional, psychological, abstract or real.  
  An institution's intrinsic purpose is timeless and never changing, however the identity and its manifistations permeate throughout society as people apply individual perspective to the original meaning of that institution.  
  Marriage is a noble and praiseworthy commitment certainly.  That remains ever so true.  However, just as you mentioned the high divorce rate giving marriage a bad name.  
  To me I simply cannot discard the issue and say someones divorce isn't my business.  That individual act certainly isn't my business, however Im trying to ascertain in a very broad range what social, economic, personal, psychological, and cultural changes has brought this condition about and what it means for society now and in the future.  What impact does broken homes have on children, why don't people have the sense of honesty and commitment they had 50 years ago, why is it the girls defining their self image first through sexuality and not intrenally, what causes those pressures on the mind.  There are thousands of questions to be asked.  
  You are looking at the act and its direct impact on me as an individual.  You are right there is none.  However once we accept any kind of change its filters deep into the bowls of society and eventually it impacts every single human being.
  The CIA training Osama didn't have any impact on me directly when I was a kid, yet 20 years later all the underlying seismic changes that were brewing came back to change the ENTIRE world on 9-11.
  Woodstock had no impact on me since I wasn't even born yet.  However the sentiment born of that one movement of laissez fair social behavior spread like wildfire throughout high schools and colleges and today I would be hard pressed to find one high school or college where sex, drugs, and alcohol aren't the norm. That change does impact EVERY SINGLE HUMAN BEING.  Just as we don't realize we are living through history we also don't realize we are living through change.  
  One playboy doesn't impact me 50 years ago, however, that one act started a social revolution that slowly but surely kept changing the attitudes of society to the point where today sex sells everything under the sun.  The social impact of such change is litreally immesurable.
  The internet was a positive change.  Bill gates didn't have an impact on me when he invented DOS.  However, NO ONE, not the most brilliant of minds could have imagined how that would change the entire face of humankind in 15 years.  Yes its good change, but no one  fully understood the MAGNITUDE of the change when DOS was introduced.  
  NO ONE today fully understands how changing that one constant of the understanding of marriage will impact us in just 20 years.
You say 3-5% now, you, nor anyone else can guarantee that in 20 years it won't be 25-30%.  Once the act is accepted, its unleashes a force NONE OF US have the ability to grasp.  
  You are right about Britner Spears anc company.  However you seem focused on present acts.  Im trying to understand how it got to a point that as a society we started accepting the likes of Britney and how accepting her now will change us in 20 years.  Its not as simple as blaming Britney.  Millions of changes took place at every level of society to bring us to this point.  No one could have seen it coming, NO ONE.  
   Just line NO ONE sees the changes this one act will bring about, NO ONE!!!

I will pay much more in taxes.  Here is why:

A spouse can give a significant amount of money to his or her spouse and avoid estate taxes.  In other words, the government takes in less money because of this exemption.  If this is allowed for gay "spouses" then that is a tremendous amount of money that will be exempted from taxes - so the federal government will have far less income.  They are either going to cut programs or raise taxes to make up for it -  what do you think they will do?!  

Second, surviving spouses get higher social security payments.  If there will be millions more surviving gay "spouses" it will bankrupt the social security system, that is already falling apart.  Which may mean there is no money left for me (or my wife) when the system falls apart.

How you like them apples?

Here's another one:  

If we allow gay marriage, then my saying to a new person I meet that "I'm married" relays less information than it used to:  Before, if a person said "I'm married" we knew that that person was a heterosexual and had a wife or husband as the case may be.  But if you allow gay "marriage" than saying "I'm married" might mean you're straight, or gay, (or, I think you cannot deny this slippery slope -- I have several spouses, I'm married to my sister, I got hitched to my cat, etc.)

  I saw it in my fathers room and decided to try it, I didn't personally buy it myself.  From what I understand it has to be specially ordered from the maker, its not stocked in any stores.  Here is the link again if you ever did decide to order it. Thanks for the book names!

http://www.forrelease.com/D20031103/sfm082.P2.11032003173838.06666.html

That is frankly the silliest thing you've come up with in this entire series of discussions.  There have always been a small percentage of gays in the population.  If you are actually contending that the disapproval of society has been a GOOD thing because it has limited people's experimentation in this space, that is simply a patently ridiculous argument on it's face.

And your argument that all of society's ills stem from Playboy is equally absurd.  We can't go around making laws based upon those types of hysterical arguments.  We have to make our laws based upon the KNOWN effects on all aspects of society, and the REASONABLY PREDICTABLE effects on society.  And if there are unexpected impacts, they CAN be addressed at the time that thier ramifications become understood.  There is simply no place for the type of "the sky is falling" nonsense that you are trying to inject into this argument.

There used to be laws allowing people to hold slaves in this country.  There also used to be laws that women couldn't vote in this country.  But they ALL ran afoul of the same thing:  Our Constitution GUARANTEES that all citizens are entitled to equal protection under the law.  It is probably THE major fundamental bedrock principle of the U.S. Constitution.

The fact is, as soon as the GOVERNMENT got involved in marriage AT ALL, the change you are decrying took place.  And once it took place, it has to take place EQUALLY for all of the citizenry.  If you would be OK getting the government 100% OUT of the marriage business for straight couples, I could agree that it would have no role in the marriage business for same-sex couples.  But Constitutionally, you can't have it both ways.

Sdstud,
    Society's ills don't stem from one Playboy.  Society has ills and there is a reason why those ills exist.  NEITHER YOU nor ANYONE ELSE one earth could have predicted these ills would materialize so rapidly throughout society.  That KNOWN EFFECTS ARGUMENT is the most absurd, and unfounded argument used to promote this issue. Please tell me what makes you or any other human being qualified to KNOW ALL THE AFFECTS or REASONABLY PREDICT societial changes.  
   Did any of you REASONABLY PREDICT that divorce rates would skyrocket to 60%. NO! Because neither you nor anyone else has the ability to predict that much.  But since you and the rest of the crowd seem so confident you can solve problems after the ramifications become appearent, then snap your solution finger and solve this problem.  THE FACT IS you can't.  Because the problem is out of control.
   Did any of you REASONABLY PREDICT that by 2004 entire high schools would be graduating over 25% of the seniors who don't have a 9th grade reading level?  NO
   Did any of you REASONABLY PREDICT that by 2004 the greatest and richest nation would graduate kids who rank lower than 3rd world countried in education. NO
   Did any of you REASONABLY PREDICT that by the 80's AIDS would have come about. NO
   Did any of you REASONABLY PREDICT that 2 planes hitting the WTC would alter the course of history. NO
   Did any of you REASONABLY PREDICT that the out of wedlock birthrate would shoot up to over 20% when in the 70's it was below 5%. NO
   Did any of you REASONABLY PREDICT that by 2004 the highest rate of AIDS infections would be amongst people under 25, and that a majority of kids will have had sex, smoked marijuana and cigarettes, and drunk alcohol by the the age of 16. NO
   Did any of you REASONABLY PREDICT diet changes would lead to 50% of the public being overweight and cause a health crisis. NO
   
   Sdstud, since you seem to be overly confident in your ability to REASONABLY PREDICT change, and solve problems once the RAMIFICATIONS are evident here give us all your solution to any one of these problems.  THE FACT IS YOU AND THE REST OF THE CROWD CAN'T.  
    When people were warning years ago that we need to understand change now instead of waiting until it stares us in the face, they were called hysterical.  And it was from your crowd who didn't bother to put one ounce of thought into the real ramifications of even the smallest change.  Your assertion that we can REASONABLY PREDICT OUTCOMES is the most laughable joke I have ever heard.  If all of us could REASONABLY PREDICT what will happen 10 years down the road we wouldn't be in such a fucking mess.  
   Don't sit here and tell me Im hysterical when no one from your it feels good so lets do it crowd, REASONABLY PREDICTED ONE SINGLE FUCKING PROBLEM that exists today. NOT EVEN ONE, NADA, ZERO, ZILCH, ZIP.  
    And yet again the same crowd raises the flag of tolerance and says oh trust us you are being hysterical, we can REASONABLY PREDICT this will have no affect.  Please all of you together pop the bubble of your own arrogance.  The fact that you even believe YOU CAN REASONABLY PREDICT all the ramifications shows how utterly childish and insincere the basis for the entire argument is.  Your crowds track record in REASONABLY PREDICTING THE FUTURE is the most laughable and absurd hoax I have ever heard anyone trying to justify.  
   WHY is it that none of you were REASONABLY ABLE TO PREDICT any of the current social ills of today.  I know a lot of people who were able to predict these ills.  OH but wait your crowd was too busy screaming "YOU HYSTERICAL RIGHT WING BACKWARD BIGOTS."
Well now the ills are here and your crowd has no solution for it.
Thank you for the wonder world we live in!
   

I quote " if the mayor dont like the law he should change it"...........bahahhahahahhahahhahahhah..........guess when it comes to breaking the laws as far as escorting goes ( at least 10 times ) that you bothered to write a review !!   dont know you !! dont care to know you !!! dont care to waste my time checking your previous posts on whether your married or not, not that it matters if you are it only makes u look lke more of an ass.......please enlighten us on your version of laws that "can" be ignored"...bahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahhaha at your fucking hypocrisy.....by the way not pro or con so save your next rant for something else.....bahahahahhahahhahahahhahahhahhahah

In the last 36 years, we have had 24 years of Republican Conservative Presidencies, and 12 Years of Democratic Presidencies

7 of the 9 Sitting Supreme Court Justices have been nominated to office by these Republican Conservative Presidents.

I would assume that it is the LEADERSHIP of this country that is responsible for LEADING us in the right direction as a society.  I will grant you that this leadership has done a pretty lousy job of this.  Why have our leaders, who have mostly been conservative republicans, NOT led the way on this issue?  Because they would rather DIVIDE, than lead.

I am NOT in the It feels good so let's do it crowd.  I am arguing FOR a stable institution for gay couples, As a BETTER alternative than wanton promiscuous sex among gays that has been a characteristic of their community, BECAUSE nothing has been done to discourage it, and BECAUSE there was not a BETTER, SOCIETALLY ENDORSED choice for them to make.

YOU have done a VERY GOOD job of screaming that the sky is falling.  What are YOUR solutions to the problems that you are decrying?  None of these problems have ANYTHING TO DO WITH GAY MARRIAGE, EXCEPT that gay marriage might slightly ameliorate some of them.

Certainly, the status quo has been, by your own account, a total disaster.  I am arguing for an inclusive enhancement in an institution that has been under fire.  The way to DEFEND Marriage is to make sure that the poeple who marry are committed, loving couples, who WANT to be there for each other for the rest of their lives.  And to encourage those folks to marry.   That is exactly what is now finally starting to happen in the gay community.

Although one man one woman is presently the most widespread definition of marriage it is hardly the only one in history. Marriage has taken many forms over human history. My guess would be that one man and as many wives as he could afford was most likely the most common form of marriage in human history. I'd also say that if something can be done it has been done sometime in history or pre-history

Prostitution is probably the only relationship older than marriage.  

I know that the idea of the Mayor of a major city, as well as a county official who is sworn to uphold the laws of his city, county, state and nation in a voluntary oath of office and the actions of a single citizen may seem the same in your rather juvenile mind, they are not.

If I am caught breaking the law, I will pay the price.  I will not join the legalize prostitution crowd.  I like it the way it is.  Also after paying the fine/time, I would assuredly do it again!  

I am not entrusted to enforce the laws in my city, county, state or nation.  That you cannot see the difference reinforces my opinion that you are just too stupid to be allowed to be in the presence of sharp objects.

I also speed on the freeways, smoke cigars in public places when I can get away with it.   Egads, I hope you will be able to sleep with such a heinous criminal and "hypocrite" at large in California!

I was wondering, is danfrommass an alias ashamed to use your regular moniker, are you too cheap to engage the services of an escort or are you just a sick fuck to reads others reveiws and jacks off on your keyboard

And if you have no actual harm from the issue, then your opposition is not worth anything, Constitutionally speaking.  

The Courts' job is to actually determine who's Constitutional Rights are harmed, and whose are not harmed.  The State can only impinge on Constitutional Rights where it has an ACTUAL interest.

If there is no bona fide interest in restricting the rights that have been confirred on SOME citizens, on ALL citizens, then the rights need to be Granted.

If you can't come up with any valid societal rationale to preclude gay couples marriage rights from coming under the equal protections clause, then you have no case, when it comes up under judicial review.  You can oppose it all you want.  YOU have no standing in the case.  The STATE does have standing, and the STATE needs to show harm to a legitimate interest that outweighs the obvious harm to gay couples if their rights are denied.

simply to attain the financial benefits and get some modicum of societal acceptance.  There is NO information content about the sexual preference of the individual who states "I'm married".

Also, your other rationale, that there is a tax benefit to YOU and other straights, at the EXPENSE of gays, is a DIRECT conflict with the equal protection clause of the Constitution, and you have NO RIGHT to an unequal benefit vs. them.

yep , the laws i break are ok , just dont break the ones i actually am against...must be a great way to go through life , huh?.... like a christian who sins 6 days a week and repents on sunday ...i have cleansed myself !!! i can sin again !
  seen 1 provider , just a nite ago , 1st time , great experience , doesnt want a review and i wouldnt write one anyways , how do u write a review on one visit, nothing to compare it too ? , cant compare it too a civilian relationship..........dont kow your present circumstance and dont want to know, if you gotta buy all your sex, hey go for it....if you wanna flame me and make wild ass comments because i nailed you on , dont break that law but...........  the laws im breaking are ok ,just seems pretty fuggin kindergarten to me.........btw , danfrommass, not an alias...ask staff

I would agree that the sanctity of marriage ought to be considered more carefully and divorces not granted so lightly.  I also think that one relates to the other.

I do not accept any correlation between gay marriage and the civil rights movement.  It would seem neither do any of the black activists of that era.  Note that none of them have entered this debate - publicly.

I find the idea of civil disobedience a viable way to change laws and hearts.  I also understand and agree that the concept that it may cost the disobedient something, jail or money, as it did in the Civil Rights protests of the 60's.

That said, I do not think it is acceptable for an official who has sworn an oath to uphold the law to lead in civil disobedience.  He/She should resign the position in protest and join the fight.  That does not mean that they should have to resign if they fight for change within the law in a lawful manner.  And in my opinion that is not "goose stepping".  I'm not going to shoot myself if gay marriage becomes the norm.

It seems pretty obvious to me that the breakdown of marriage has had a rather dramatic affect on our society.  Single parent homes, although many are great are not the optimum.  The ideal is a mother and a  father,  A female role model and a male role model.  Being that I consider an intact marriage (1 man, 1 woman) as the ideal, and if gay marriage is adopted, heteros would have no preference in adoption.  I don't mean to say that homosexuals can't be good parents, but it is not the ideal.  

Since we can expect the same divorce rate among homosexuals and heteros, and the same ratio of remarriage, the confusion of Joey has 4 mommies or Becky has 4 daddies just doesn't come close to the ideal.

I also wonder where it will end.  What if one homosexual, one bi-sexual male and one kinky woman want to marry?  How far does society take this "if people love each other what right does society have..."?

I agree with your opinions on entertainment.  Many laugh at the Ozzie and Harriet era of the 50's and early 60's, however, in my opinion we were in many ways a happier, more genteel people then.  Not without social problems, but I find it hard to accept the current level of crassness has improved any social problems.  (This from a man you have castigated for using the F word) lol

Damn I find you sexy, if we ever get  together, can we spend some time arguing?

intelligent responses to your idiotic rants.

His sworn duty is to uphold the Constitution of the State of California.  It is pretty apparent that Newsome is trying to force a Constitutional Test of the California marriage law that he believes to be in violation of that Constitution.  If that is his belief, his DUTY is to act on it.

If the Court then rules that he is wrong, you should be pleased, because it will put his gay weddings to a stop, at least for the time being.  But, what if the Court actually rules that he's correct?   Then that means all these weddings are LEGAL in California, and the law in question is history.  (Which is exactly what HAS happened in Massachusettes and Hawaii so far).
I am of the belief that Newsome will WIN the court challenge, and Gay marriages will be the law in California.  And then it will be EVERY elected official in the state's SWORN DUTY to carry them out.



So far, no court in California has granted an injunction against Newsome, which means, none of the courts are ready to say that the Law banning gay weddings is CLEARLY Constitutional.  Get ready, as they are probably going to come down the other way.

intelligent responses ???...my god you ARE full of yourself.......... guessing you neednt waste your cash on prostitutes, you seem to be in love with yourself and your posts, betting YOUR keyboard is real sticky...

Sdstud, sorry can't reply right now

Sdstud,
  Before we go on let me just thank you for engaging this issue.
I know we don't agree but the dialogue is genuinely appreciated.

 I have to get on my crutches and get my crippled self to dinner far away at a friends house.  I want to reply in a very thorough manner to your message that clarifies my thoughts on the issue.  I will reply over the weekend when I get a chance!

So you will not need to be nearly so hypocritical once you relocate there after Kerry defeats Bush in the election.

I was just looking at the Supreme Court's website and I noticed Justice Stephen G. Breyer, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Justice Clarence Thomas, Justice David H. Souter, Justice Anthony Kennedy , Justice William H. Rehnquist, Justice Antonin Scalia, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, and Justice John Paul Stevens.  The absence of sdstud gave me pause.

Either there has been an awful mistake, you have been kick off or you are (now get this) NOT NOW AND HAVE NEVER BEEN A  JUSTICE SITTING ON THE SUPREME COURT!

I'm leaning towards the third option!

I love the scent of a woman, but there's a limit as to how long I want that scent to ripen!

1st of all, my last post was in reference to the CALIFORNIA Constitution.   However, that is of little matter.  Because the U.S. Supreme Court's last decision on the Texas Sodomy case made it patently obvious that the Court will be ready to rule in favor of Gay Marriages when that test case reaches the court.

Anthony Kennedy's majority opinion made this clear, and Antonin Scalia's DISSENT also made this clear.  In fact, Scalia went so far as to say that the Texas case meant that the Court was on an irrevocable path in that direction, and only a U.S. Constitutional Amendment would give the court future grounds NOT to find in this way, based on the Texas Sodomy Precedent.  Bend Over, because it's coming.  

S.F.'s Mayor Newsome is simply ACCELERATING the process by which a test case gets there.

And with just the slightest vein of mold running through.

It seems to me that the same book the anti-gay marriage folks use as their "proof" for why it shouldn't be allowed, also documents:
- arranged marriages
- bigamy (just how many wives *did* David and Solomon have?)
- concubines (just how much trouble could we have avoided in this world if Sarah had stuck with the notion of marriage as "one man and one woman" and not 'given' Haggar to Abraham)

Marriage has most certainly changed.  The notion of "one man, one woman" is certainly a "recent" notion on the scale of human history, and in 100 years people will look back and think "how silly" the attempt at a constituional amendment against gay marriage was, just like we look back and realize how silly the prohibition amendment was.

I think you are missing the point. Go back and read the original question.

You assume I seek a judicial solution? In the absence of legislation an executive order has the force of law, as does an AGO. The executive and legislative branches have the advantage of being elected and in touch with reality.

Have you ever actually read the Constitution or doen any research  on Constitutional Law. Your knowledge seems rather superficial, kinda like from a high school civics class. And if you disagree with me you can always call me names; I'm sure it'll make you feel much better.