Why does it have to be gay "marriage?" (page 6)

Yeru,

>>So why doesn't this work for gay marriage. The State of California already decided that gay marriage was a NO GO, yet here's the Mayor of SF along with a few activist judges ignoring the State. Kind of a double standard, no?

It does. You see, the State in this context is the courts and the Constitution. I don't care what the public votes into law - if it contradicts the State Constitution, it's worthless. That's the whole reason we have a judiciary branch, remember? It's a check and balance of the executive branch - the branch that sometimes passes unconstitutional laws.

Our country is founded on an important principal - the principal that the minority should not by tyrannized by the majority. That's the whole concept behind the Bill of Rights - individual rights that the majority cannot arbitrarily take away.

Whether marriage itself is or is not a right is immaterial. Even a privilege that is not provided equally is discriminatory and is against many state constitutions - including California's. There is no "right" to sit in the front of the bus either, but the Civil Rights movement showed us that separate is not equal. Not allowing gays to marry (an arguably arbitrary term that has gone through scores of reinterpretations over the millenia) their adult, consenting partners is clearly discriminatory in a secular state. In a free society we must have good reasons for denying people personal freedoms and rights. So far nobody has provided any.

rem

MorpheuzX

Apparently where Yeru lives, a lot of people want to marry their first cousins....umm, okay. Dang I'm glad I'm not from there. x10

I work in the media, as a reporter/low-level editor. And this whole gay marriage issue just smacks of what we call a "timed release". Meaning when there is negative news a company or politician or political party doesn't want the public to focus on, they attempt to stir up some highly volatile issue that's sure to polarize people and divert them from the other more important issues -- like skyrocketing unemployment, a military stretched so thin it's ready to crack, social security failing, and a federal deficits approaching $2.5 trillion. And then instead of tackling these incredibly complex issues, Bush proposes a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. Hmm, I'm sure that's just a coincidence.

Does anybody remember the last time the Republicans tried this in 1992 with banning gays in the military? All that cost us was universal health care. I wonder what this round of gay bashing will cost America?

Sorry about getting political, but it's impossible to seperate this issue from politics.

Phantom Stranger

Considering that this was not an issue in 2000, and Bush and Cheney have changed their positions... I'd have to agree with you.

cruzanheart

1866
Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony form the American Equal Rights Association, an organization for white and black women and men dedicated to the goal of universal suffrage.
1868
The Fourteenth Amendment is ratified, which extends to all citizens the protections of the Constitution against unjust state laws. This Amendment was the first to define "citizens" and "voters" as "male."
1869
The women's rights movement splits into two factions as a result of disagreements over the Fourteenth and soon-to-be-passed Fifteenth Amendments. Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony form the more radical, New York-based National Woman Suffrage Association (NWSA). Lucy Stone, Henry Blackwell, and Julia Ward Howe organize the more conservative American Woman Suffrage Association (AWSA), which is centered in Boston. In this same year, the Wyoming territory is organized with a woman suffrage provision. In 1890, Wyoming was admitted to the Union with its suffrage provision intact.
1870
The Fifteenth Amendment enfranchises black men. NWSA refuses to work for its ratification, arguing, instead, that it be "scrapped" in favor of a Sixteenth Amendment providing universal suffrage. Frederick Douglass breaks with Stanton and Anthony over NWSA's position.
1870 to 1875
Several women--including Virginia Louisa Minor, Victoria Woodhull, and Myra Bradwell--attempt to use the Fourteenth Amendment in the courts to secure the vote (Minor and Woodhull) or the right to practice law (Bradwell). They all are unsuccessful.
1872
Susan B. Anthony is arrested and brought to trial in Rochester, New York, for attempting to vote for Ulysses S. Grant in the presidential election. At the same time, Sojourner Truth appears at a polling booth in Grand Rapids, Michigan, demanding a ballot; she is turned away.
1874
The Woman's Christian Temperance Union (WCTU) is founded by Annie Wittenmyer. With Frances Willard at its head (1876), the WCTU became an important force in the fight for woman suffrage. Not surprisingly, one of the most vehement opponents to women's enfranchisement was the liquor lobby, which feared women might use the franchise to prohibit the sale of liquor.
1878
A Woman Suffrage Amendment is introduced in the United States Congress. The wording is unchanged in 1919, when the amendment finally passes both houses.
1890
The NWSA and the AWSA are reunited as the National American Woman Suffrage Association (NAWSA) under the leadership of Elizabeth Cady Stanton. During this same year, Jane Addams and Ellen Gates Starr found Hull House, a settlement house project in Chicago's 19th Ward. Within one year, there are more than a hundred settlement houses--largely operated by women--throughout the United States. The settlement house movement and the Progressive campaign of which it was a part propelled thousands of college-educated white women and a number of women of color into lifetime careers in social work. It also made women an important voice to be reckoned with in American politics.
1891
Ida B. Wells launches her nation-wide anti-lynching campaign after the murder of three black businessmen in Memphis, Tennessee.
1893
Hannah Greenbaum Solomon founds the National Council of Jewish Women (NCJW) after a meeting of the Jewish Women's Congress at the Columbian Exposition in Chicago, Illinois. In that same year, Colorado becomes the first state to adopt a state amendment enfranchising women.

WHAT THE HELL IS DIFFERENT IN THE CASE OF GAYS????? And, yes, that was meant to be me yelling at the narrow-minded people who hide behind tradition or religion to make their case. Woman and blacks had EXACTLY the same problem of being recognized as HUMAN BEINGS for centuries. Slowly and determinedly they pursued their cause until finally they were recognized to have the SAME RIGHTS as men. So what's different now? All gays and lesbians want are the same rights as heterosexual couples. And for those who equate this with polygamy or incest, we're talking about CONSENTING ADULTS here. You're worried about polygamy or incest, fine -- make it a case-by-case basis but make sure you include heterosexual couples in that in order to make it fair.

And don't try to segregate gays by calling the union something besides "marriage" -- I don't care what the dictionary calls it, marriage is a union between two people who are willing to make a lifetime commitment to one another.

Nina

jst2laws

Shock 4

Nina,

Very well stated.

Steve

Big Tex

And it shows the truth that was once spoken: Don't get Nina pissed.

asleif_dufansdottir

I will never understand why people suggest that to legalize gay marriage will open the doors for legalized incest, polygamy, and child marriage...because unless these relationships are specifically homosexual, they have more to do with heterosexual marriage than homosexual marriage. Legalizing heterosexual union has not made it legal for heterosexuals to marry multiple individuals, children, or their siblings. As a matter of fact, when these types of marriages have been practiced in history, it has been heterosexuals who have practiced them, not homosexuals. I don't see the connection except in the minds of alarmist homophobes.

There is one other legal protection given to legal spouses that has not been mentioned in this thread, and is not one that often occurs to people - legal spousal privilege. If a gay person is being prosecuted, sued, etc, all their communication with their loved ones - emails, letters, phone calls - can all be used against them. This is something that heterosexuals take for granted. We can be totally open with our spouses without it hurting us later.

Valis

I don't see the connection except in the minds of alarmist homophobes.

bang! Dead on alsief!

Sincerely,

District Overbeer

Phantom Stranger

The connection is exactly that they lump them all together under "Sin". Move "homosexuality" from "sin" and put it under "none of our business" and suddenly the argument falls flat..."like a flan in a cupboard" - Eddie Izzard.

Why does it have to be gay "marriage?"

Share this