New York Passes Gay Marriage Law

‘I cannot deny a human being the same rights I have with my wife’
US News • Views: 41,144

Congratulations to the New York Senate for taking a step into the modern world — and especially to the Republicans who didn’t cave in to pressure from the reactionary religious lobby, and instead did the right thing: New York Allows Same-Sex Marriage, Becoming Largest State to Pass Law.

The marriage bill, whose fate was uncertain until moments before the vote, was approved 33 to 29 in a packed but hushed Senate chamber. Four members of the Republican majority joined all but one Democrat in the Senate in supporting the measure after an intense and emotional campaign aimed at the handful of lawmakers wrestling with a decision that divided their friends, their constituents and sometimes their own homes.

With his position still undeclared, Senator Mark J. Grisanti, a Republican from Buffalo who had sought office promising to oppose same-sex marriage, told his colleagues he had agonized for months before concluding he had been wrong.

“I apologize for those who feel offended,” Mr. Grisanti said, adding, “I cannot deny a person, a human being, a taxpayer, a worker, the people of my district and across this state, the State of New York, and those people who make this the great state that it is the same rights that I have with my wife.”

Jump to bottom

283 comments
1 Walking Spanish Down the Hall  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 10:31:11am

But, but, but gays already have the same right I do to marry a member of the opposite gender.

Of course, I can marry a person I’m in love with, and they have to settle for something less than that.

But they still have the same literally interpreted right I do.

///

2 laZardo  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 10:32:43am

Despite my initial reservations, I’m glad it turned out well in the end unless there’s still a judicial smackdown waiting in the wing(nuts?) for the epilogue.

It’s times like these that I remember that the history of the United States is one primarily of rights. Yes, there is a history of “empire” both in land and ‘spheres of influence,’ which I recognize from my heritage as a Filipino. Yes, the United States continues to lag behind their European neighbors in quite a few social categories.

But I suppose the one shining aspect of our history is that where rights are won, they are won through the good fight. And even though we may sometimes take two steps back for every step forward, we remember that where there is a victory, we do not take it for granted.

So celebrate this victory, New York. You have sorely earned it.

3 Locker  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 10:39:18am

Absolutely wonderful news. My deepest respect goes to those stood firm against the overwhelming pressure of their party and the vicious culture of homophobia in American society.

Well done.

4 austin_blue  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 10:42:33am

And kudos to Senator Mark Grisanti. It may cost him his job, but he got it exactly right. She Who Must be Obeyed and I don’t have exclusive rights to marriage.

This is a good thing that NY has done. And the opportunity to see Santorum’s head explode is priceless.

5 blueraven  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 10:44:46am

It is such a refreshing change to see republicans who are actually voting their conscience rather than following the party line.

Well done gentlemen!

6 PhillyPretzel  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 10:44:58am

I am very happy to read about this ruling. I am also happy to see a Republican who realizes the error of his ways.

7 Iwouldprefernotto  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 10:51:52am

About time.

Was watching on MSNBC and one of the Albany reporters was saying that some members of the Tea Party were against gay marriage. Why. I thought they were only against big govt. Why can’t they just mind their own business on this issue.

Perhaps the TPs are just radical right wingers in silly costumes?

8 PhillyPretzel  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 10:56:54am

got to go. Be back later. :)

9 laZardo  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 10:57:40am

re: #5 blueraven

Somewhere, TR is smiling.

[Note: I suspect TR’s racism a product of the reality of his day more than it was something he actually believed. Sorta like how Lincoln was primarily about “Preserving the Union” for much of the Civil War. Someone correct me if I’m wrong though.]

10 SanFranciscoZionist  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 11:05:13am

My God. Politicians actually thinking things through, and changing their minds if they thought they were wrong?

What is this world coming to?

:)

11 laZardo  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 11:07:29am

re: #10 SanFranciscoZionist

My God. Politicians actually thinking things through, and changing their minds if they thought they were wrong?

What is this world coming to?

:)

The apocalypse is only 545 days away…

(;

12 SanFranciscoZionist  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 11:10:09am

Meanwhile, the Freeper comments continue to be really special:

Well, I always thought that if the tragic scenario occurred in which Al-Qaeda got its hands on a nuke, for me the least upsetting place for it to be set off would be in Hollywood. But, I’m really thinking right now that New York is pulling to the forefront.

To repeat, burn in hell, New York!!

Apparently the little fuckwads have gotten over 9/11 just fine.

13 Killgore Trout  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 11:12:00am

re: #12 SanFranciscoZionist

Noook da Gaaayyyzzz!

14 bratwurst  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 11:12:13am

re: #12 SanFranciscoZionist

Wow, your home doesn’t even get an honorable mention anymore!

15 3CPO  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 11:12:42am

re: #10 SanFranciscoZionist

You and I may call that “thoughtful,” but according to some politicians that is known as “flip-flopping.”

16 darthstar  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 11:13:09am

Just saw on facebook a few seconds ago that good friend of mine (gayly married three times to the same woman with each iteration of gay marriage here in California) just finished swimming from Alcatraz Island to Acquatic Park…that’s pretty fucking awesome. My wife and sister are doing the Tiburon Triathlon with her next month (it’s a little sprint 1/2 mile swim, 9 mile ride, 3 mile run)…but Alcatraz to the shore…pretty impressive!

17 SanFranciscoZionist  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 11:14:56am

re: #14 bratwurst

Wow, your home doesn’t even get an honorable mention anymore!

Yeah. The best we can get from the Freepers is some sulking about the court not letting the Prop 8 backers overturn Walker’s ruling ‘cause he’s gay.

18 SanFranciscoZionist  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 11:15:46am

They lit up the Empire State Building with rainbow lights. And Pride is tomorrow, out here. (I am walking.)

Too cool.

19 Killgore Trout  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 11:16:04am

Obama: Let’s modernize American manufacturing with technology
AllahPundit: Robots are stealing our jobs!

20 Killgore Trout  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 11:17:23am

re: #19 Killgore Trout
Even better: They’re union robots!

they’re working with unions to create new jobs operating the robots
21 SanFranciscoZionist  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 11:18:36am

My dad’s assorted conservative Catholic blogs are going to go berserk. He will be busy teasing them for days to come.

22 Tiny alien kittens are watching you  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 11:24:40am

More “Special Rights” for gays, they already hound and harass those that oppose them with their hate crimey ickiness, threatening boycotts against our contributors and even worse they blackmail us by saying they will not vote for us unless we support the insidious “Gay Agenda.”

What has happened to this country that perverts are allowed to threaten honest businesses and government representatives? What is next on their agenda? Will this country no longer have any moral code when they are done? Will not God Smite this country for it’s willing perversions and dismissal of the word of our Lord?

This is a Christian Nation and our laws should be based upon the precepts and message of the Bible! Once you accept Gay marriage what is to prevent the next campaign from forcing us to accept Incest, Pederasty, or Bestiality? (Polygamy, slavery, and forcing your slaves to have your children are all ok though, the Bible says so).

These legislators are completely out of touch with real America and only listen to the liberal media propaganda machine (AKA the lame stream media). Just last night I read three comments on Fox Nation by people who were so agonized by this thoughtless and anti-Christian act that they had decided to get divorced. They were not willing to be recognized as married under the same law that could acknowledge Gay marriage! (of course I should point out to them that the Bible does not recognize divorce either, but still I understand their feelings). They all bravely said they would remain married in the eyes of the Church but not in those of the State!

We need many more of these Christian martyrs to step forward and get divorced over this insane addition of special rights and blatantly anti-Christian legislation! By doing so we will deprive our Satan driven enemy of their argument that it does not effect “traditional marriage.” When we lack the same rights that gay couples do on our tax returns, visitation in hospitals, estate rights, child custody, job benefits, and the other thousand or so things gays claim they are being discriminated against by not being able to marry we will have leveled the playing field!

Hey, Divorce is only a minor sin compared to the icky things that go on inside gays bedrooms, right?

///[/channeling Bryan Fischer]

23 jaunte  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 11:25:25am

re: #19 Killgore Trout

The machine known as ‘shareholder value’ is eating a lot of the old jobs.

The culprit, in other words, is technology. The hard truth—and you don’t see it addressed in news reports—is that the middle class is disappearing in large part because technology is rendering middle-class skills obsolete.
good.is
24 RanchTooth  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 11:27:31am

re: #22 ausador

More “Special Rights” for gays

Special, but equal. =)

25 engineer cat  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 11:29:10am

re: #23 jaunte

the middle class is disappearing in large part because technology is rendering middle-class skills obsolete

does this mean that if i can write an eliza-type program that spews jonah goldbergisms i can increase unemployment in moran punditocracy?

“and why do you hate your mother, uh, i mean country?”

26 mikec6666  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 11:30:23am

re: #22 ausador

What the fuck is wrong with you? You’re all sick and twisted inside. See a doctor, or something.

27 jaunte  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 11:31:18am

re: #25 engineer dog

Confirmation of bias is the new growth industry!

28 mikec6666  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 11:31:44am

re: #26 mikec6666

Sorry…i see now that it’s you channeling a psycho…next time put that at the top

29 Locker  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 11:31:49am

re: #16 darthstar

Just saw on facebook a few seconds ago that good friend of mine (gayly married three times to the same woman with each iteration of gay marriage here in California) just finished swimming from Alcatraz Island to Acquatic Park…that’s pretty fucking awesome. My wife and sister are doing the Tiburon Triathlon with her next month (it’s a little sprint 1/2 mile swim, 9 mile ride, 3 mile run)…but Alcatraz to the shore…pretty impressive!

We were just at Alcatraz last week as my nephew was on his first big trip west. I can’t imagine how someone could make that swim to be honest. It’s way further than it looks from shore and that water is COLD and very rough and full of freaking great white sharks. You could not possibly pay me enough money to attempt something of that nature.

Amazing stuff and kudos to your friend.

30 Killgore Trout  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 11:31:56am

re: #23 jaunte

The machine known as ‘shareholder value’ is eating a lot of the old jobs.

It’s a little like railing against globalization or protesting the sunrise. There’s nothing that can be done to stop it. I was listening to an interview with physicist Michiu Kaku recently. He was asked what the jobs of the future would be. He said that plumbers, carpenters, construction workers and various manual repair jobs will be in the highest demand because it’s unlikely that robots will replace them anytime soon.

31 Robert O.  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 11:32:06am

Just for fun, go to the Fox News comments section. You can have a field day collecting quotes. :-S

32 jaunte  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 11:32:09am

re: #26 mikec6666

That’s the //// part.

33 SpaceJesus  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 11:36:24am

Man I hope all the people who are so hostile to gay marriage live long enough to see it made legal everywhere in the United States.

34 Killgore Trout  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 11:36:49am

Wisconsin’s new wingnut judge may be in a bit of hot water….
Prosser allegedly grabbed fellow justice by the neck


Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice David Prosser allegedly grabbed fellow Justice Ann Walsh Bradley around the neck in an argument in her chambers last week, according to at least three knowledgeable sources.

Details of the incident, investigated jointly by Wisconsin Public Radio and the Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism, remain sketchy. The sources spoke on the condition that they not be named, citing a need to preserve professional relationships.

They say an argument that occurred before the court’s release of a decision upholding a bill to curtail the collective bargaining rights of public employees culminated in a physical altercation in the presence of other justices. Bradley purportedly asked Prosser to leave her office, whereupon Prosser grabbed Bradley by the neck with both hands.

It’s probably a bogus or exaggerated story but one to keep an eye on.

35 Tiny alien kittens are watching you  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 11:38:33am

re: #26 mikec6666

What the fuck is wrong with you? You’re all sick and twisted inside. See a doctor, or something.

Zing, sarcasm is kinda hard to do in typing when people cannot see your body language, hear your tone of voice, or see you wink at them…

Still I thought I gave some obvious clues in that post.

The strongest being the tripled /// “sarc tags” at the end along with saying I was now done Channeling the spirit of Bryan Fischer. ;)

No worries, but learn the conventions here, when someone posts
/
at the end of their post it means they were being sarcastic
//
more sarcastic
///
way, way more sarcastic, which is why I used it on that post, you did think it was senseless, stupid, and bigoted right? Then I accomplished what I was trying to do, didn’t I? :P

36 SanFranciscoZionist  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 11:39:16am

re: #28 mikec6666

Sorry…i see now that it’s you channeling a psycho…next time put that at the top

Sorry, guy. Most of the regulars know ausador well enough to know we’re getting our leg yanked.

But he channels a psycho awfully well, doesn’t he?

37 Stanley Sea  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 11:40:28am

re: #12 SanFranciscoZionist

Meanwhile, the Freeper comments continue to be really special:

Well, I always thought that if the tragic scenario occurred in which Al-Qaeda got its hands on a nuke, for me the least upsetting place for it to be set off would be in Hollywood. But, I’m really thinking right now that New York is pulling to the forefront.

To repeat, burn in hell, New York!!

Apparently the little fuckwads have gotten over 9/11 just fine.

Jesus Christo. Their hate hypocrisy.

38 SanFranciscoZionist  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 11:40:39am

re: #33 SpaceJesus

Man I hope all the people who are so hostile to gay marriage live long enough to see it made legal everywhere in the United States.

May they dance at many weddings where their wives won’t allow them to say anything hostile.

39 jaunte  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 11:43:30am

re: #34 Killgore Trout

He bears watching, given his record of blaming other people for his actions.

In March, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported that, in a disagreement over a case last year, Justice Prosser had called Justice Abrahamson a “total bitch” and threatened to “destroy” her. Prosser, the paper reported, confirmed making the remarks, saying he “probably overreacted” while accusing Justices Abrahamson and Bradley of being “masters at deliberately goading peopleinto perhaps incautious statements.”
40 SanFranciscoZionist  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 11:45:10am

re: #37 Stanley Sea

Jesus Christo. Their hate hypocrisy.

They’re in a fever right now. Everything from pictures of 9/11 juxtaposed with children’s Bible illustrations of the destruction of Sodom, bitter raving about how now the gays will find out what it’s like to go through a divorce, and then they’ll be sorry.

They’re also quoting Matthew 19:8 as support for ‘one man, one woman’, but are apparently indifferent to the fact that it’s a condemnation of straight divorce.

Lots of anticipation of being persecuted for, I don’t know, not congratulating people on their marriages. They keep repeating that it’s not about legalizing same-sex marriage, it’s about MAKING people recognize same-sex marriage.

41 SanFranciscoZionist  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 11:46:02am

Did they go this nuts for Iowa, or is it harder when it passes in a ‘real American’ state?

42 Eclectic Infidel  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 11:48:07am

Time to play catch up, California!

43 SanFranciscoZionist  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 11:49:00am

Hot Air is having a much saner sounding discussion. For one thing, they don’t ban people for ‘blasphemy’, so it’s easier to have a political argument.

44 Tiny alien kittens are watching you  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 11:49:23am

re: #36 SanFranciscoZionist

Sorry, guy. Most of the regulars know ausador well enough to know we’re getting our leg yanked.

But he channels a psycho awfully well, doesn’t he?

BTW the part about the comments on Fox Nation was true unfortunately, their actually are people in New York claiming they will get divorced now rather than stay married under an “Ungodly” law.

Hard to believe the level of unreasoning hate or religious zealotry that has to go behind that, it really is. :(

45 Stanley Sea  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 11:50:16am

re: #40 SanFranciscoZionist

You know, I think this is the first Jobs bill.

The florists, the cake makers, the venues, the photographers. The freaking registries at Macy’s.

JOBS!!

46 SanFranciscoZionist  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 11:51:30am

re: #44 ausador

BTW the part about the comments on Fox Nation was true unfortunately, their actually are people in New York claiming they will get divorced now rather than stay married under an “Ungodly” law.

Hard to believe the level of unreasoning hate or religious zealotry that has to go behind that, it really is. :(

That’s an awful lot of trouble to go to just to be mad at the state of New York.

47 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 11:51:31am

re: #12 SanFranciscoZionist

Meanwhile, the Freeper comments continue to be really special:

for me the least upsetting place for it to be set off would be in Hollywood. But,

I’ve said for many years: “the terrists” will NEVER stike my city. Too many in America would then start rooting for the terrists.

48 SanFranciscoZionist  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 11:52:09am

re: #47 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin

I’ve said for many years: “the terrists” will NEVER stike my city. Too many in America would then start rooting for the terrists.

You’re in Hollywood? Whereabouts?

49 Killgore Trout  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 11:52:31am

Report: Hezbollah moves missiles from Syria to Lebanon, fearing fall of Assad regime


In recent weeks, Hezbollah has used trucks to move hundreds of long-range Iranian-produced missiles from Syria to bases in Lebanon’s Bekaa Valley, Le Figaro reports.


Blue Helmets unavailable for comment.

50 CuriousLurker  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 11:54:02am

Kudos to Sen Grisanti (and the others) who voted their conscience. IMO that’s the only way to go in a society where there is separation of church & state—i.e. is this just, is it moral and in accordance with the law of the land? If so, then it should be done.

A round of applause for Gov. Cuomo as well.

Obviously, no one can be prevented from voting based on their religious beliefs, but I really wish people would separate the two in their minds. I don’t drink alcohol; it’s forbidden by Islam. Even before I was Muslim I wasn’t a big drinker. I don’t want alcohol brought into my home, and I don’t go to bars or clubs where drinking is the main event, but by the same token I don’t go visit a non-Muslim friend in their home and insist they they not drink.

Speaking of alcohol, it’s been my experience that many on the Christian right are teetotalers. Considering their purported respect for the sanctity of human life, I have to wonder why THEY aren’t demanding the return of prohibition. How many people are killed, how many lives ruined by alcohol each year? Where is the outrage? *cups hand to ear* Hmmm… *crickets* /end mini rant/

51 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 11:54:27am

re: #22 ausador

More “Special Rights” for gays,

///[/channeling Bryan Fischer]

Bryan Fischer and the rest of the heterosupremacists are the ones out for special rights. Special rights for unhinged bigots.

52 SanFranciscoZionist  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 11:55:03am

re: #51 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin

Bryan Fischer and the rest of the heterosupremacists are the ones out for special rights. Special rights for unhinged bigots.

But God wants them to have special rights. So that’s OK.

53 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 11:55:14am

re: #48 SanFranciscoZionist

You’re in Hollywood? Whereabouts?

I’m in your city, SFZ :)

54 jaunte  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 11:57:00am

re: #50 CuriousLurker

Speaking of alcohol, it’s been my experience that many on the Christian right are teetotalers.


Maybe you’ve heard this:

Baptist Joke #1:

Q: Why do you have to take two Baptists with you when you go fishing?
A: Because if you take just one, he’ll drink all your beer.

55 SanFranciscoZionist  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 11:57:09am

re: #53 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin

I’m in your city, SFZ :)

ANOTHER Bay Area Lizard? (I’m actually in Contra Costa now.)

We have GOT to have a get-together.

56 wrenchwench  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 11:57:21am

re: #44 ausador

BTW the part about the comments on Fox Nation was true unfortunately, their actually are people in New York claiming they will get divorced now rather than stay married under an “Ungodly” law.

Hard to believe the level of unreasoning hate or religious zealotry that has to go behind that, it really is. :(

They have to do that to make true their claim that gay marriage will destroy the institution.

57 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 11:57:38am

re: #52 SanFranciscoZionist

But God wants them to have special rights. So that’s OK.

It’s not special rights when it’s on behalf of God’s Favorite Patriots über alles. It’s oppressing them to deny them their natural right to rule. You just don’t understand how DIFFICULT life is for poor them.

58 Winny Spencer  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 11:57:39am

re: #50 CuriousLurker

Sharron Angle was pro-prohibition for a while, until she discovered that it wasn’t politically expedient.

59 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 11:57:52am

re: #16 darthstar

Just saw on facebook a few seconds ago that good friend of mine (gayly married three times to the same woman with each iteration of gay marriage here in California) just finished swimming from Alcatraz Island to Acquatic Park…

Jebus! They make gay people jump through all kinds of hoops just to get married.
/

60 Tiny alien kittens are watching you  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 11:58:28am

re: #43 SanFranciscoZionist

Hot Air is having a much saner sounding discussion. For one thing, they don’t ban people for ‘blasphemy’, so it’s easier to have a political argument.

I was registered there once, for about 15 minutes, seems they cannot take a joke (or appreciate sarcasm).

61 wrenchwench  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 11:58:54am

re: #58 Winny Spencer

Sharron Angle was pro-prohibition for a while, until she discovered that it wasn’t politically expedient.

In Nevada. Heh.

62 CuriousLurker  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 11:59:22am

re: #54 jaunte

Maybe you’ve heard this:

Baptist Joke #1:

Q: Why do you have to take two Baptists with you when you go fishing?
A: Because if you take just one, he’ll drink all your beer.

Hahaha!

63 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 11:59:47am

re: #45 Stanley Sea

You know, I think this is the first Jobs bill.

The florists, the cake makers, the venues, the photographers. The freaking registries at Macy’s.

JOBS!!

Don’t forget DJ’s. When Prop Hate is overturned I’ll be investing in new equipment.

64 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 12:01:15pm

re: #55 SanFranciscoZionist

ANOTHER Bay Area Lizard? (I’m actually in Contra Costa now.)

We have GOT to have a get-together.

Yeah plus it’s pride weekend. I have my parking spot (I live in a border neighborhood of the Castro) and will be walking everywhere I go so as not to lose it. Lol this happens every year.

65 Stanley Sea  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 12:01:20pm

re: #62 CuriousLurker

Hahaha!

Hey CL! Went to a friends this a.m. to help her get started on twitter. Used your tutorial. Muchas Gracias!!!

66 jaunte  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 12:01:24pm

re: #62 CuriousLurker

A lot of ‘dry’ counties in Bible-belt Texas support booming liquor store businesses right over the neighboring county lines.

67 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 12:01:30pm

re: #28 mikec6666

Sorry…i see now that it’s you channeling a psycho…next time put that at the top

This is why reading a post in full before replying is important. ;)

68 CuriousLurker  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 12:02:14pm

re: #65 Stanley Sea

Hey CL! Went to a friends this a.m. to help her get started on twitter. Used your tutorial. Muchas Gracias!!!

Great! I’m glad it’s helping others.

69 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 12:02:25pm

re: #43 SanFranciscoZionist

Hot Air is having a much saner sounding discussion. For one thing, they don’t ban people for ‘blasphemy’, so it’s easier to have a political argument.

I’m actually not surprised at that Hot Air is more gay friendly than freeperville or some of the other nasty right sights. See? GOProud is good for something. I guess.

70 albusteve  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 12:03:03pm

re: #49 Killgore Trout

Report: Hezbollah moves missiles from Syria to Lebanon, fearing fall of Assad regime


Blue Helmets unavailable for comment.

or just plain unavailable

71 Stanley Sea  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 12:03:16pm

re: #68 CuriousLurker

Great! I’m glad it’s helping others.

Totally. But I had to stop her from following 30K people. I’m like, you will see the results of that quickly.

72 Killgore Trout  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 12:04:10pm

re: #70 albusteve

or just plain unavailable

Very tired after helping move all those missiles. Those things are pretty heavy.

73 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 12:04:50pm

re: #44 ausador

BTW the part about the comments on Fox Nation was true unfortunately, their actually are people in New York claiming they will get divorced now rather than stay married under an “Ungodly” law.

Hard to believe the level of unreasoning hate or religious zealotry that has to go behind that, it really is. :(

Some take the practice of ‘cutting off one’s nose to spite one’s face’ to the level of an art form.

74 albusteve  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 12:04:53pm

re: #72 Killgore Trout

Very tired after helping move all those missiles. Those things are pretty heavy.

LOL

75 CuriousLurker  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 12:05:45pm

re: #71 Stanley Sea

Totally. But I had to stop her from following 30K people. I’m like, you will see the results of that quickly.

LOL—yeah, just wait till she makes the mistake of following one of those people who tweet like every 30 seconds and you can’t see anyone else’s tweets becuase of them.

76 jaunte  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 12:06:24pm

re: #72 Killgore Trout

Very tired after helping move all those missiles. Those things are pretty heavy.

“The report added that Hezbollah has moved the missiles using means of camouflage more sophisticated than it has used before.”

77 SanFranciscoZionist  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 12:09:40pm

re: #73 Slumbering Behemoth

Some take the practice of ‘cutting off one’s nose to spite one’s face’ to the level of an art form.

I suspect that about as many people will really do it as moved to New Zealand when Obama was elected, or France, when Bush was.

78 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 12:10:57pm

Back on topic…

Since I’m not married, what exactly will this destroy in my life? Will my fridge stop running? Will I start getting mail on sundays? What?
/

79 William Barnett-Lewis  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 12:11:09pm

re: #34 Killgore Trout

Wisconsin’s new wingnut judge may be in a bit of hot water…
Prosser allegedly grabbed fellow justice by the neck

It’s probably a bogus or exaggerated story but one to keep an eye on.

He’s been accused of similar behavior in the past. It was one of the things that cut his lead from 25% in the primary to less than 1% in the general.

80 Tiny alien kittens are watching you  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 12:12:47pm

re: #76 jaunte

“The report added that Hezbollah has moved the missiles using means of camouflage more sophisticated than it has used before.”

They draped Burqas over them?

/

81 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 12:13:18pm

re: #77 SanFranciscoZionist

I suspect that about as many people will really do it as moved to New Zealand when Obama was elected, or France, when Bush was.

I believe you’re correct. Can you imagine the conversation?

H: “Honey, I want a divorce”.
W: “Why? What did I do? Is there another woman”?
H: “No, we just have to teach teh gheys a lesson. Divorce me now, that’ll show ‘em”!

82 Charles Johnson  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 12:13:32pm

Testing …

83 jaunte  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 12:13:38pm

re: #80 ausador

“Wasn’t that sand dune 100 miles east of here, yesterday?”

84 Stanley Sea  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 12:14:22pm

re: #78 Slumbering Behemoth

Back on topic…

Since I’m not married, what exactly will this destroy in my life? Will my fridge stop running? Will I start getting mail on sundays? What?
/

I keep saying. They will now get the benefits of checking ‘married’ on their 1040 (no hurt to you) They will also stimulate the economy especially in June with weddings weddings weddings. The photog’s and flower people are rejoicing.

Oh, and the most important issue. The hospital rights.

Ecstatic.

85 CuriousLurker  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 12:14:44pm

Shoot, I’m hungry. I should’ve had lunch before I came in here. BBLre: #80 ausador

They draped Burqas over them?

/

Nah, Syria & Lebanon are too secular. That’d only work in Afghanistan. /

86 Ojoe  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 12:14:53pm

This whole thing is a vestigial church-state connection.

I think the state should issue domestic partnership licenses only, and you can go find whatever church you want for getting married.

87 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 12:16:39pm

re: #84 Stanley Sea

I keep saying. They will now get the benefits of checking ‘married’ on their 1040 (no hurt to you) They will also stimulate the economy especially in June with weddings weddings weddings. The photog’s and flower people are rejoicing.

Oh, and the most important issue. The hospital rights.

Ecstatic.

That all sounds good, but I keep hearing that I should be scared or something. Just trying to figure out what I’m supposed to be scared of.
/

88 Tiny alien kittens are watching you  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 12:17:10pm

re: #78 Slumbering Behemoth

Back on topic…

Since I’m not married, what exactly will this destroy in my life? Will my fridge stop running? Will I start getting mail on sundays? What?
/

They “Gay Agenda” includes you too, don’t be fooled. When they start playing “YMCA” softly in the background of all television channels then you will be sorry that you didn’t stand up for Hetero rights!
/

89 SanFranciscoZionist  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 12:17:46pm

re: #87 Slumbering Behemoth

That all sounds good, but I keep hearing that I should be scared or something. Just trying to figure out what I’m supposed to be scared of.
/

My husband is afraid that more of our friends will get married, and he’ll be forced to attend the weddings.

90 Eclectic Infidel  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 12:18:39pm

re: #44 ausador

BTW the part about the comments on Fox Nation was true unfortunately, there actually are people in New York claiming they will get divorced now rather than stay married under an “Ungodly” law.

Meh. Talk is cheap.

91 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 12:19:25pm

re: #86 Ojoe

This whole thing is a vestigial church-state connection.

I think the state should issue domestic partnership licenses only, and you can go find whatever church you want for getting married.

Well, since you can get married by the captain of a ship or a justice of the peace, it makes the whole marriage/church thing moot, and the “domestic partnership license” thing is just silly.

92 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 12:20:39pm

re: #89 SanFranciscoZionist

My husband is afraid that more of our friends will get married, and he’ll be forced to attend the weddings.

Okay then, now you’ve got me!

NO GAY MARRIAGE!!!
///

93 makeitstop  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 12:21:13pm

At my show in the city last night, the MC mentioned that the measure passed from the stage, and the roar that went up in the crowd was pretty intense. It was a very happy night in New York City last night.

And I’ll echo what others have said - it’s about time.

94 albusteve  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 12:23:35pm

Corn is hardly some minor agricultural product for breakfast cereal. It’s America’s largest crop, dwarfing wheat and soybeans. A small portion of production goes for human consumption; about 40 percent feeds cows, pigs, turkeys and chickens. Diverting 40 percent to ethanol has disagreeable consequences for food. In just a year, the price of bacon has soared by 24 percent.

Here is perhaps the most incredible part: Because of the subsidy, ethanol became cheaper than gasoline, and so we sent 397 million gallons of ethanol overseas last year. America is simultaneously importing costly foreign oil and subsidizing the export of its equivalent.

just bizarre….the feds are out of control, doing more damage than good, by far…why are so few complaining?

nytimes.com

95 Stanley Sea  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 12:24:06pm

re: #89 SanFranciscoZionist

My husband is afraid that more of our friends will get married, and he’ll be forced to attend the weddings.


exactly. more weddings. more gifts to buy.

96 Ojoe  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 12:24:34pm

I recall being brought up Catholic, being taught that marriage was bestowed on the partners to it, by each other anyway & the church was just there it bless it.

So who needs a state to marry you?

Out with this whole business of the state “marrying” anybody.

Just issue a document for partnership & hospital visiting rights, tax purposes, etc. and let it go at that.

Otherwise, since the state is an inclusive thing, it drags some people into “approving” what they are just not going to approve, and there will be no end of bitterness and controversy.

The 1st amendment is there for a reason, folks.

97 Eclectic Infidel  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 12:25:06pm

Woah. It just dropped 1.2 deg F in San Francisco. Quirky weather there. Yesterday a lady friend and I were sharing beers on Union Square, under an umbrella, commenting on how wonderfully warm it was in the City. Now it seems I may have to bring a jacket today.

98 Ojoe  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 12:25:39pm

re: #91 Slumbering Behemoth

The partners marry each other, if you look up the theology of it.

99 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 12:26:25pm

re: #96 Ojoe

Are you trying to argue that the first amendment can be used to deny gays the right to marry?

100 Ojoe  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 12:28:31pm

re: #99 Slumbering Behemoth

No.

The state has no business marrying anybody. Marriage is a religious thing. Leave it to the churches.

101 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 12:29:00pm

re: #98 Ojoe

The partners marry each other, if you look up the theology of it.

Theology? This is a secular country. There is no need to look to theology to determine whether or not same sex marriage should be legal.

102 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 12:29:52pm

re: #100 Ojoe

No.

The state has no business marrying anybody. Marriage is a religious thing. Leave it to the churches.

Okay, thanks for clarifying. I disagree, however.

103 wrenchwench  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 12:31:16pm

re: #96 Ojoe

I recall being brought up Catholic, being taught that marriage was bestowed on the partners to it, by each other anyway & the church was just there it bless it.

So who needs a state to marry you?

Out with this whole business of the state “marrying” anybody.

Just issue a document for partnership & hospital visiting rights, tax purposes, etc. and let it go at that.

Otherwise, since the state is an inclusive thing, it drags some people into “approving” what they are just not going to approve, and there will be no end of bitterness and controversy.

The 1st amendment is there for a reason, folks.

Sure, this is all anybody needs:

Just issue a document for partnership & hospital visiting rights, tax purposes, etc. and let it go at that.

Let’s issue that document, and call the partnership — hmmmmmmmmmm — how about marriage.

It’s so ridiculous to say, “sure, they have the same right to marriage, but now we can’t call it that.” The first Amendment doesn’t say anything about defining words to fit one’s bigotry.

104 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 12:32:17pm

re: #96 Ojoe

Out with this whole business of the state “marrying” anybody.

In other words, either only straights can “marry”, or no one can “marry”.

This kind of talk ONLY comes up around same sex marriage.

105 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 12:33:15pm

re: #100 Ojoe

The state has no business marrying anybody.

Lol since when?

106 wrenchwench  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 12:33:56pm

I’m so proud of myself. I didn’t use the ‘f’ word.

107 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 12:34:24pm

re: #100 Ojoe

The state has no business marrying anybody. Marriage is a religious thing. Leave it to the churches.

And this simply is not the case. From tax filings to inheritance to any manor of legal proceedings surrounding the institution of marriage, it is very much a part of the state’s business.

108 Mickey Blumental  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 12:34:58pm

Oh I wish I could be a fly on the wall and see the reactions of many anti-gay people around America, and especially New York. I could almost taste their mortified disappointment and it is delicious.

109 Tiny alien kittens are watching you  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 12:35:55pm

re: #94 albusteve

Corn is hardly some minor agricultural product for breakfast cereal. It’s America’s largest crop, dwarfing wheat and soybeans. A small portion of production goes for human consumption; about 40 percent feeds cows, pigs, turkeys and chickens. Diverting 40 percent to ethanol has disagreeable consequences for food. In just a year, the price of bacon has soared by 24 percent.

Here is perhaps the most incredible part: Because of the subsidy, ethanol became cheaper than gasoline, and so we sent 397 million gallons of ethanol overseas last year. America is simultaneously importing costly foreign oil and subsidizing the export of its equivalent.

just bizarre…the feds are out of control, doing more damage than good, by far…why are so few complaining?

[Link: www.nytimes.com…]

It is all about immediate return on investment, which means short term planning, there just doesn’t seem to be any long term growth plans amongst corporations that I can see anymore. What we have now is pretty much openly “government of the corporation, by the donation, for the shareholders. (My apologies to Mr. Lincoln)

Congress is broken and I do not think you will get a lot of argument on that from either side of the political spectrum. Both sides can agree on that at least.

110 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 12:35:56pm

re: #104 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin

In other words, either only straights can “marry”, or no one can “marry”.

Hey, I’m entirely open to the latter.
/

111 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 12:36:18pm

re: #108 Udon

Oh I wish I could be a fly on the wall and see the reactions of many anti-gay people around America, and especially New York. I could almost taste their mortified disappointment and it is delicious.

Lol I don’t. Let them go sit in their self-induced conservative miseries and stew.

112 Stanley Sea  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 12:36:33pm

re: #100 Ojoe

No.

The state has no business marrying anybody. Marriage is a religious thing. Leave it to the churches.

Bullshit. I’m not religious, I got married. On a fucking beach.

Marriage is a religious thing. Total Bullshit.

113 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 12:37:02pm

re: #108 Udon

Oh I wish I could be a fly on the wall and see the reactions of many anti-gay people around America, and especially New York. I could almost taste their mortified disappointment and it is delicious.

Meh. It tastes like flop-sweat.

114 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 12:38:07pm

re: #111 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin

Lol I don’t. Let them go sit in their self-induced conservative homophobic miseries and stew.

FTFY

115 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 12:39:37pm

re: #114 Slumbering Behemoth

FTFY

Original sentence stays. Homophobia is social conservatism. It’s not social liberalism, social libertarianism or social anything else but conservatism.

116 albusteve  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 12:42:44pm

a lot of fear mongering regarding gay marriage…I doubt there is a consensus against it except around the GOP…let them scream and move on…arguing over language is a waste of time, mincing words changes nothing

reuters.com

117 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 12:42:54pm

re: #115 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin

Homophobia is not solely a phobia limited to conservatives. In fact, there are many conservatives who have no such phobia, and many liberals who do. It has more to do with fear and religion than political leanings.

118 albusteve  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 12:44:27pm

re: #117 Slumbering Behemoth

Homophobia is not solely a phobia limited to conservatives. In fact, there are many conservatives who have no such phobia, and many liberals who do. It has more to do with fear and religion than political leanings.

agreed…there is nothing political inherent in the issue

119 jaunte  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 12:45:21pm

re: #112 Stanley Sea

I would bet that the idea of marriage predates religion.

120 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 12:46:34pm

re: #119 jaunte

I would bet that the idea of marriage predates religion.

Proof that we haven’t evolved by much.
/kidding, married people, just kidding

121 PhillyPretzel  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 12:48:33pm

re: #119 jaunte
I believe you are correct. At least Wikipedia agrees with you. encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com

122 122 Year Old Obama  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 12:49:30pm

re: #121 PhillyPretzel

I believe you are correct. At least Wikipedia agrees with you. [Link: encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com…]

Wikipedia has a liberal bias!!!11ty

123 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 12:49:40pm

re: #117 Slumbering Behemoth

Homophobia is not solely a phobia limited to conservatives.

Never said it was. It is foundational to social conservatism, however.

It has more to do with fear and religion than political leanings.

Not so. There are plenty of secular people who have socially conservative leanings when it comes to homosexuality. I.e., homophobia. Far left totalitarian/authoritarian regimes and old left ideologues who still harbor the idea it’s “bourgeois decadence” are good examples. Many on the left in the USA suddenly get quite socially conservative when it comes to homosexuality. Ask me how I know.

124 PhillyPretzel  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 12:50:40pm

re: #122 SteelPH
And the person who posted it is a “moderate.” /

125 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 12:51:30pm

re: #118 albusteve

agreed…there is nothing political inherent in the issue

Lol that’s why antigay planks are part of GOP platforms, because it’s not inherently political.

Yesterday’s vote and the significance of Republicans voting for the bill that is the topic of this thread, had nothing to do with politics.

126 webevintage  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 12:51:46pm

What is the world coming too.
Next thing you know wimmens will be wanting control of our wombs….
/

This is pretty awesome and my traditional marriage is still intact.
Social conservative never get anything right…

127 albusteve  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 12:54:02pm

re: #125 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin

Lol that’s why antigay planks are part of GOP platforms, because it’s not inherently political.

Yesterday’s vote and the significance of Republicans voting for the bill that is the topic of this thread, had nothing to do with politics.

you can politicize anything you want…there is nothing inherently political about marriage, gay or otherwise..people forced it into the political realm

128 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 12:54:26pm

re: #123 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin

Never said it was.

No, you just implied it…

re: #111 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin

Lol I don’t. Let them go sit in their self-induced conservative miseries and stew.

Many on the left in the USA suddenly get quite socially conservative when it comes to homosexuality. Ask me how I know.

Not necessary. I’ve met or known many socially liberal homophobes in my time.

129 Ojoe  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 12:55:34pm

re: #103 wrenchwench

It’s so ridiculous to say, “sure, they have the same right to marriage, but now we can’t call it that.” The first Amendment doesn’t say anything about defining words to fit one’s bigotry.

Not at all.

I just think that the State should not be involved with “marriage” one way or another.

If you are a gay couple, you can already find a church, or a synagogue for that matter, where you can get married, & that’s fine with me.

But the state is a public thing, & this other stuff is private & I think it is a mistake to drag the state into it. It creates unnecessary ill feeling all around.

130 jaunte  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 12:56:13pm

re: #122 SteelPH

Conservapedia:

Marriage is the divinely ordained union between one man and one woman. (Genesis 2:24) It has been practiced as such in most cultures across geography and time.


All 6,000 years of it.

131 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 12:56:18pm

re: #127 albusteve

you can politicize anything you want…there is nothing inherently political about marriage, gay or otherwise..people forced it into the political realm

Which people?

Besides the people disallowing it based on their conservative views of marriage and family?

132 JamesWI  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 12:57:19pm

re: #96 Ojoe

I recall being brought up Catholic, being taught that marriage was bestowed on the partners to it, by each other anyway & the church was just there it bless it.

So who needs a state to marry you?

Out with this whole business of the state “marrying” anybody.

Just issue a document for partnership & hospital visiting rights, tax purposes, etc. and let it go at that.

Otherwise, since the state is an inclusive thing, it drags some people into “approving” what they are just not going to approve, and there will be no end of bitterness and controversy.

The 1st amendment is there for a reason, folks.

And no one is forcing your churches to perform, or even acknowledge, these “marriages.” So what exactly is your problem?

133 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 12:58:03pm

re: #129 Ojoe

Not at all.

I just think that the State should not be involved with “marriage” one way or another.

If you are a gay couple, you can already find a church, or a synagogue for that matter, where you can get married, & that’s fine with me.

But the state is a public thing, & this other stuff is private & I think it is a mistake to drag the state into it. It creates unnecessary ill feeling all around.

The same thing was said about the Civil Rights movements but that is incorrect.

The cause of this unnecessary feeling is the idea that some equals are more equal than other equals.

134 jaunte  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 12:58:27pm

re: #129 Ojoe

But the state is a public thing, & this other stuff is private & I think it is a mistake to drag the state into it. It creates unnecessary ill feeling all around.


The state is already in it, and it’s the only mechanism we have to enforce the ‘full faith and credit’ clause of the Constitution.

135 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 12:59:32pm

re: #129 Ojoe

Again, with all the legal proceedings that revolve around marriage, taxes, inheritance, divorce, etc., there is no basis for saying that the state is being dragged into marriage on just this one issue. The state is already there.

136 Ojoe  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 12:59:36pm

re: #132 JamesWI

The State should get out of the marriage business, because among other things, it would be but a step therefrom to the state telling churches what they can and cannot do. I do not think many people would want that.

137 SidewaysQuark  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 12:59:59pm

re: #119 jaunte

I would bet that the idea of marriage predates religion.

I’m not sure any institution or invention predates religion.

138 engineer cat  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 1:00:18pm

Marriage is the divinely ordained

and jesus in the new testament is emphatically dead set against divorce in no uncertain terms absiposilutely, yet this seems to bother most of them not a whit

139 AlexRogan  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 1:01:03pm

re: #12 SanFranciscoZionist

Meanwhile, the Freeper comments continue to be really special:

Well, I always thought that if the tragic scenario occurred in which Al-Qaeda got its hands on a nuke, for me the least upsetting place for it to be set off would be in Hollywood. But, I’m really thinking right now that New York is pulling to the forefront.

To repeat, burn in hell, New York!!

Apparently the little fuckwads have gotten over 9/11 just fine.

Fucktards like that are lower than whale shit….they can just piss off and stew on it.

140 (I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was)  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 1:01:21pm

re: #127 albusteve

there is nothing inherently political about marriage, gay or otherwise..people forced it into the political realm

Errr… sure it is. Marriage is essentially a contract, contracts are bound by law, laws are passed and enforced by political bodies.

141 Stanley Sea  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 1:01:46pm

re: #136 Ojoe

The State should get out of the marriage business, because among other things, it would be but a step therefrom to the state telling churches what they can and cannot do. I do not think many people would want that.

I’m gonna file married next year then. With 19 dependents! Fuck you state/fed. You are not allowed to be involved with the “coupling” thingy.

Ojoe, you are not making sense.

142 albusteve  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 1:02:43pm

re: #131 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin

Which people?

Besides the people disallowing it based on their conservative views of marriage and family?

doesn’t change a thing…you can take an ideology and dress it up with all kinds of social bullshit and call it whatever you want…it’s not conservatism, just because so called conservatives endorse it…you can’t just redefine something at a whim because you want to….like the guy in the Nixon mask is not Nixon….gay and abortion rights have been hijacked by the GOP and sucked into their agenda

143 JamesWI  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 1:02:57pm

re: #136 Ojoe

The State should get out of the marriage business, because among other things, it would be but a step therefrom to the state telling churches what they can and cannot do. I do not think many people would want that.

You seem to be hung up on the word “marriage.” How about this….you use the Aramaic or Ancient Hebrew word for marriage (or whatever language was in place when you Christians first started performing marriages).

That way, your word conforms to the “original religious” idea of marriage, while our word is simply an English construct designed to describe what the state provides to people in such a relationship.

There, problem solved.

144 AlexRogan  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 1:03:18pm

re: #19 Killgore Trout

Obama: Let’s modernize American manufacturing with technology
AllahPundit: Robots are stealing our jobs!

145 SidewaysQuark  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 1:03:41pm

If marriage is a purely religious institution as some claim, then it shouldn’t matter to them what the state has to say about it.

146 (I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was)  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 1:03:49pm

re: #129 Ojoe

I think it is a mistake to drag the state into it. It creates unnecessary ill feeling all around.

The state is obliged to occupy itself with the issue, since it is essentially about legal questions. The ill feelings come only from people who think that their own religious beliefs should dictate the whole of politics. As far as I am concerned, they can throw their tantrums all they want while actual people with actual needs finally get their rights.

147 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 1:04:17pm

re: #130 jaunte

Conservapedia:

Marriage is the divinely ordained union between one man and one woman. (Genesis 2:24) It has been practiced as such in most cultures across geography and time.

All 6,000 years of it.

Lol I love when conservative conformists like the jokers at Conservopedia try to rewrite all of human history to reflect their narrow views. Who do they think they are kidding? Lol!

There are a lot of people in the Bible who did not conform to one-man/one woman. If they were really interested in “traditional marriage”, they’d be making dowries and arranged marriage the law of the land.

The Bible is probably the worst-ever source for their Victorian ideal of marriage and family.

148 albusteve  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 1:04:48pm

re: #140 000G

Errr… sure it is. Marriage is essentially a contract, contracts are bound by law, laws are passed and enforced by political bodies.

of course it’s enforced by a political body…same with any legal agreement….but that does not make it a political issue

149 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 1:05:12pm

re: #136 Ojoe

The State should get out of the marriage business, because among other things, it would be but a step therefrom to the state telling churches what they can and cannot do. I do not think many people would want that.

As someone already pointed out, there are many churches that can and will refuse to host/preform interfaith marriages. I don’t see the state breathing down their necks and forcing them to do so. Your argument is weak.

150 (I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was)  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 1:05:52pm

re: #148 albusteve

of course it’s enforced by a political body…same with any legal agreement…but that does not make it a political issue

I have no idea what you mean by “political issue”, then.

151 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 1:07:06pm

re: #145 SidewaysQuark

If marriage is a purely religious institution as some claim, then it shouldn’t matter to them what the state has to say about it.

This is why atheists can’t get married either.
/wait, what?

152 (I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was)  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 1:07:23pm

re: #149 Slumbering Behemoth

As someone already pointed out, there are many churches that can and will refuse to host/preform interfaith marriages. I don’t see the state breathing down their necks and forcing them to do so. Your argument is weak.

As long as the churches do not have public accommodations…
//

153 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 1:07:54pm

re: #136 Ojoe

The State should get out of the marriage business, because among other things, it would be but a step therefrom to the state telling churches what they can and cannot do.

Ridiculous argument.

Religious freedom from state impositions in marriage is long-established First Amendment law — there are some exceptions as there are for everything in the First Amendment, e.g. religious people don’t get a First Amendment pass on polygamy.

Either you accept that the First Amendment as the law of the land, or you don’t.

154 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 1:08:34pm

re: #147 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin

Those guys confuse themselves daily. They confuse conservatism with theocracy.

155 goddamnedfrank  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 1:09:12pm

re: #136 Ojoe

The State should get out of the marriage business, because among other things, it would be but a step therefrom to the state telling churches what they can and cannot do. I do not think many people would want that.

Slippery slope as logical fallacy, one does not follow from the other.

156 albusteve  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 1:09:14pm

re: #150 000G

I have no idea what you mean by “political issue”, then.

obviously not…because it isn’t one…voters and elected have no right or business deciding who marries who

157 (I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was)  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 1:11:20pm

re: #156 albusteve

obviously not…because it isn’t one…voters and elected have no right or business deciding who marries who

But they had the right to decide who can marry who. And they just did. I don’t think you have clear definitions of “political”.

158 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 1:11:32pm

re: #142 albusteve

doesn’t change a thing…you can take an ideology and dress it up with all kinds of social bullshit and call it whatever you want…it’s not conservatism, just because so called conservatives endorse it…you can’t just redefine something at a whim because you want to…like the guy in the Nixon mask is not Nixon…gay and abortion rights have been hijacked by the GOP and sucked into their agenda

Touchy-touchy.

You didn’t answer the question.

Which people are forcing marriage into the political realm?

159 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 1:12:08pm

re: #156 albusteve

voters and elected have no right or business deciding who marries who

Since when?

160 JamesWI  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 1:13:01pm

What is so ridiculous about this line of argument (the one that Ojoe is perpetuating) is that the word “marriage” itself is somehow holy. Not the institution. The WORD “marriage”…. Absolutely fucking ridiculous.

Apparently, words can’t have more than one meaning for Christians. We’re going to have exponentially increase the sizes of the English, Spanish, etc. vocabularies, to get rid of all those situations where words have more than one meaning. Because God doesn’t want all those homonyms.

Better get rid of those homophones too, in case people confuse two different words.

I guess it fits in with their hatred of “homos”

161 spiderx  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 1:13:53pm

typical disgusting comments over at Fox Nation

“This law is made to help decimate healthcare, as one result of this will be to spread disease.”

162 albusteve  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 1:14:29pm

re: #157 000G

But they had the right to decide who can marry who. And they just did. I don’t think you have clear definitions of “political”.

the fact that they HAVE is exactly the point…it’s wrong, they have created a political flashpoint where non should exist

163 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 1:15:05pm

re: #157 000G

But they had the right to decide who can marry who. And they just did. I don’t think you have clear definitions of “political”.

What he said flies in the face of all manner of conservative marriage laws such as anti-miscegenation and racial purity laws. Not only did they restrict who could and could not marry whom, they were the basis for the very definition of “legitimate”. That’s where these antigay marriage laws and arguments come from in the first place.

164 (I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was)  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 1:15:19pm

re: #161 spiderx

Some political cultures seem to be all about who can come up with the most outrageous thing to say.

165 (I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was)  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 1:16:05pm

re: #162 albusteve

the fact that they HAVE is exactly the point…it’s wrong, they have created a political flashpoint where non should exist

You mean gay couples should just have gone ahead and get married in NY before it was legalized, just to see what happens?

166 AlexRogan  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 1:16:31pm

re: #161 spiderx

typical disgusting comments over at Fox Nation

“This law is made to help decimate healthcare, as one result of this will be to spread disease.”

Harkening back to when the RR wingnuts labeled HIV/AIDS as a “gay disease” and rightful retribution for G-d for their “sins”…

*spit*

167 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 1:17:27pm

re: #162 albusteve

the fact that they HAVE is exactly the point…it’s wrong, they have created a political flashpoint where non should exist

People in hell also want ice water.

They did not create any political flashpoint. Restrictive, repressive marriage laws — i.e. state-sponsored — predate same sex marriage debate by how many generations.

168 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 1:19:05pm

re: #165 000G

You mean gay couples should just have gone ahead and get married in NY before it was legalized, just to see what happens?

In Albusteve Utopia, where no one is ever confronted with socially-repressive laws, well why not.

169 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 1:21:04pm

re: #160 JamesWI

What is so ridiculous about this line of argument (the one that Ojoe is perpetuating) is that the word “marriage” itself is somehow holy. Not the institution. The WORD “marriage”… Absolutely fucking ridiculous.

Apparently, words can’t have more than one meaning for Christians.

Well, Christians like Ojoe, at least.

We’re going to have exponentially increase the sizes of the English, Spanish, etc. vocabularies, to get rid of all those situations where words have more than one meaning. Because God doesn’t want all those homonyms.

Better get rid of those homophones too, in case people confuse two different words.

I guess it fits in with their hatred of “homos”

They sure do love their homogeneity, though.

170 AlexRogan  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 1:21:08pm

re: #166 talon_262

Err, meant “retribution from G-d”

171 albusteve  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 1:21:27pm

re: #168 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin

In Albusteve Utopia, where no one is ever confronted with socially-repressive laws, well why not.

your insult is laughable, and when you make something up at least try to make it plausible…what I suggest is pretty elementary, regardless of how much blathering goes past it

172 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 1:22:04pm

re: #154 Slumbering Behemoth

Those guys confuse themselves daily. They confuse conservatism with theocracy.

They have plenty of company, too.

173 Tiny alien kittens are watching you  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 1:23:07pm

re: #117 Slumbering Behemoth

Homophobia is not solely a phobia limited to conservatives. In fact, there are many conservatives who have no such phobia, and many liberals who do. It has more to do with fear and religion than political leanings.

I have found it mainly to be concerned with age, during the hectic adolescent years pretty much everyone claims to be anti-gay, or at least during hazing by bullies at school. For those struggling with their hormones on becoming sexually aroused and experiencing strong yearnings but who have as of yet not been introduced to the actual act I can understand. They have yet to form their sexual identity, they are not yet secure in their sexual preference.

To be accused of being Gay, especially in the rumor driven crucible of public school peer pressure is devastating to these kids who have not even really figured out if they are are not. Kids however grow out of it, they become secure in their sexual orientation once they find it. The social media, education efforts, and growing secular elements in this country have made an impact. An overwhelming majority of people under 25 now say that they support full rights equality for Gays.

It is the older people who cannot justify their antipathy for gays in any other way but to fall back on it being proscribed by the Bible. The fervency of and increasing frequency of their attacks only prove to me that they realize that they have already lost this battle that was solely of their own making. This is their last gasp, they need to get laws passed now because defending an existing law is easier than getting a new one pushed through.

This also applies to the abortion laws/debate…it really does.

Never underestimate a desperate opponent who knows that he is losing, you never know what they might do.

174 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 1:25:07pm

re: #171 albusteve

your insult is laughable, and when you make something up at least try to make it plausible…what I suggest is pretty elementary, regardless of how much blathering goes past it

Well no, what you suggest is baseless, inaccurate, and pie-in-the-sky.

What people are forcing marriage into the political realm? (As if the political realm is somehow completely separate from the human, legal, social and other realms.)

175 (I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was)  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 1:25:14pm

re: #171 albusteve

what I suggest is pretty elementary

It seems to me that you suggest people just leave each other alone, live and let live. That’s not how it works, though. There’s got to be functions in place that compel party C to recognize a special legal status between party A and party B.

176 albusteve  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 1:27:08pm

re: #175 000G

It seems to me that you suggest people just leave each other alone, live and let live. That’s not how it works, though. There’s got to be functions in place that compel party C to recognize a special legal status between party A and party B.

determining who can be bound by marriage is nobodies business but those seeking the marriage…pretty simple

177 (I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was)  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 1:27:10pm

going to bed. l8r

178 Tiny alien kittens are watching you  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 1:27:34pm

re: #175 000G

It seems to me that you suggest people just leave each other alone, live and let live. That’s not how it works, though. There’s got to be functions in place that compel party C to recognize a special legal status between party A and party B.

You are discriminating against Party D and Party E you racist!

179 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 1:27:58pm

re: #176 albusteve

determining who can be bound by marriage is nobodies business but those seeking the marriage…pretty simple

Lol since when?

180 wrenchwench  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 1:28:11pm

re: #129 Ojoe

Not at all.

I just think that the State should not be involved with “marriage” one way or another.

If you are a gay couple, you can already find a church, or a synagogue for that matter, where you can get married, & that’s fine with me.

But the state is a public thing, & this other stuff is private & I think it is a mistake to drag the state into it. It creates unnecessary ill feeling all around.

Ooops, I’m a little late in replying. I had to go outside and exercise the ‘f’ word.

From your #96:

So who needs a state to marry you?

Out with this whole business of the state “marrying” anybody.

Just issue a document for partnership & hospital visiting rights, tax purposes, etc. and let it go at that.

Otherwise, since the state is an inclusive thing, it drags some people into “approving” what they are just not going to approve, and there will be no end of bitterness and controversy.

The 1st amendment is there for a reason, folks.

The state is involved because it is a contract. No matter what you want to call it, it is a contract and the state is involved. Nobody dragged the state into it. That’s one of the legitimate functions of a state. Your consideration for the people who are supposedly being dragged into approving something they don’t approve of is sorely misplaced. First of all, they don’t have to approve. Nobody has to approve of anything done by another person. That’s part of being ‘free’. Secondly,the bitterness and controversy is part of being a human society. You are proposing that gay people suffer more of the bitterness, because bigots can stir up controversy.

I don’t understand why you are putting out positions that seem to have no rational thought behind them. All you are doing is figuring out ways to cater to bigots, apparently because there’s too many hard feelings otherwise. To the people who have hard feelings over basic rights being extended to others, I say ‘tough shit’.

181 albusteve  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 1:28:26pm

re: #174 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin

Well no, what you suggest is baseless, inaccurate, and pie-in-the-sky.

What people are forcing marriage into the political realm? (As if the political realm is somehow completely separate from the human, legal, social and other realms.)

you behave exactly like the theocrats you despise…creating friction where there is none…your needless question was answered way up thread had you read it
LOL!

182 (I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was)  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 1:29:41pm

re: #176 albusteve

determining who can be bound by marriage is nobodies business but those seeking the marriage…pretty simple

Errrr….. you are mistaken. Marriages are special statuses within a society, not just between the married persons but also to third parties. Hospital visitation rights, taxes, immigration, social security, nursing homes, family leave, etc. All has to do with third-party-recognition being compelled by law.

But really going to bed now.

183 Lidane  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 1:31:20pm

re: #5 blueraven

It is such a refreshing change to see republicans who are actually voting their conscience rather than following the party line.

Well done gentlemen!

And now they get primaried for their efforts by the reactionary goons in the party.

I wish we’d see more GOP pols with enough balls to tell the bigots where to go and then just do the right thing for its own sake. It would be nice.

184 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 1:38:03pm

re: #181 albusteve

your needless question was answered way up thread had you read it
LOL!

My question is based on your own statement, that “people” forced marriage into the political realm. I’ve read the thread, but you did not answer — it’s ok, you’re not beholden to answer.

Marriage has always been “political”. This is why state and local governments devise(d) conservative, moralist, restrictive laws such as anti-miscegenation, racial-purity, and one-man/one-woman. Only certain people get the benefits. The rest don’t deserve them.

185 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 1:40:08pm

re: #183 Lidane

And now they get primaried for their efforts by the reactionary goons in the party.

I wish we’d see more GOP pols with enough balls to tell the bigots where to go and then just do the right thing for its own sake. It would be nice.

I wonder if the vote was somehow an answer to those same reactionary goons, who think Carl Paladino is a valid politician.

186 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 1:43:44pm

re: #181 albusteve

you behave exactly like the theocrats you despise…creating friction where there is none…

Not so; last I checked my state allows for man/woman marriage but does not allow same-sex marriage. I suppose any friction from that is my doing, and my fault. Lol this ought to be good.

187 albusteve  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 1:47:31pm

re: #186 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin

Not so; last I checked my state allows for man/woman marriage but does not allow same-sex marriage. I suppose any friction from that is my doing, and my fault. Lol this ought to be good.

clearly you do not comprehend my premise that votes or elected officials SHOULD NOT have the legal right to determine who marries who…there is no more to it, other than a few laws to protect people for some reason

188 lawhawk  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 1:49:11pm

re: #165 000G

You mean gay couples should just have gone ahead and get married in NY before it was legalized, just to see what happens?

You mean like this?

The same-sex marriage controversy moved to a tiny Hudson River village, where the mayor of New Paltz, New York, began performing same-sex marriages Friday.

Mayor Jason West said he considers it his “moral obligation” to issue marriage licenses to gay couples.

He started conducting ceremonies, the first of their kind in the state, for about a dozen couples in front of the Village Hall at noon. West said he would marry same-sex couples until 2 p.m., according to the New Paltz village Web site.

Hundreds of people have called inquiring about getting married in New Paltz, a town of 6,000 about 75 miles north of Manhattan, a mayor’s spokesman said. Those unable to get married Friday were instructed to complete an online form to be added to the waiting list.

That was in 2004. Then AG Spitzer issued an informal ruling saying that the state should not recognize those marriages since they weren’t within the scope of the Domestic Relations Law. The Court of Appeals (NY high court) separately ruled that the state constitution doesn’t recognize same sex marriage as a right.

The current effort to bring gay marriage to NY began when Gov. candidate Spitzer said he’d support gay marriage and that legislation died in the Senate. Gov. Paterson also supported the gay marriage package; but it took Cuomo to get it done.

189 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 1:52:42pm

re: #180 wrenchwench

Your consideration for the people who are supposedly being dragged into approving something they don’t approve of is sorely misplaced. First of all, they don’t have to approve. Nobody has to approve of anything done by another person. That’s part of being ‘free’. Secondly,the bitterness and controversy is part of being a human society. You are proposing that gay people suffer more of the bitterness, because bigots can stir up controversy.

I don’t understand why you are putting out positions that seem to have no rational thought behind them. All you are doing is figuring out ways to cater to bigots, apparently because there’s too many hard feelings otherwise. To the people who have hard feelings over basic rights being extended to others, I say ‘tough shit’.

To me, this is the result of lacking a basic civil rights education. This false belief that the targets of discrimination are somehow the cause of political strife dates back to frickin slavery and the Indian Wars.

It’s trotted out by social conservatives in every generation — women wanting the vote are making men feel less like men; why do those Freedom Riders insist on going where they’re not wanted; if only “we” had voted for the States Rights Democratic Party in 1948, we wouldn’t be having “all these problems”, etc.

We have heard all these things before from these people for generations. Same old predictable crud, different millennium.

190 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 1:55:42pm

re: #187 albusteve

clearly you do not comprehend my premise that votes or elected officials SHOULD NOT have the legal right to determine who marries who…there is no more to it, other than a few laws to protect people for some reason

Oh, I comprehend your premise quite well. That’s why I call it pie-in-the-sky Utopia, so just relax.

Here on terra firma, what you think SHOULD and SHOULD NOT be the law is irrelevant from what people must deal with, in reality. We do not live in a world based on your personal ideals as you state them on LGF.

191 lawhawk  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 2:00:55pm

re: #49 Killgore Trout

UNIFIL only has responsibility for the area south of the Litani River. Even there it’s limited to what it can do b/c it lacks the force to truly stop Hizbullah from rearming.

The situation means that the Beka’a Valley is the key - again. That’s how Hizbullah was able to survive the 2006 Hizbullah war with Israel. That region is a free-flowing terror haven.

192 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 2:04:38pm

re: #142 albusteve

it’s not conservatism, just because so called conservatives endorse it

Yes, it is too conservatism.

“So-called conservatives” — they are definitely one type of conservative. Who is anyone to say they are not?

193 moderatelyradicalliberal  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 2:06:18pm

re: #188 lawhawk

You mean like this?

That was in 2004. Then AG Spitzer issued an informal ruling saying that the state should not recognize those marriages since they weren’t within the scope of the Domestic Relations Law. The Court of Appeals (NY high court) separately ruled that the state constitution doesn’t recognize same sex marriage as a right.

The current effort to bring gay marriage to NY began when Gov. candidate Spitzer said he’d support gay marriage and that legislation died in the Senate. Gov. Paterson also supported the gay marriage package; but it took Cuomo to get it done.

I disagree with this statement. Cuomo deserves all the credit in the world for the part he played, but he didn’t get it done. The times and the right people being elected got it done. Cuomo, with all of his political skill could not have gotten this done just 5 years ago. His personal and political beliefs meet with opportunity and change in public opinion and he ran with it. He deserves credit for taking the opportunity and using his great political skills to get it done, but the change in public opinion is what is really responsible for the change in the law. If the GOP state senators who voted for the bill had been against it, there is nothing Cuomo could have done to get marriage equality in NY. No politician waves a magic and gets something done. But some are smarter and braver than others in recognizing opportunities and taking them.

194 Petero1818  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 2:11:40pm

re: #180 wrenchwench

Not sure I agree with that. If, as it seems many in America object to the definition of marriage being expanded to include same sex marriages, the most logical way to deal with it is to say that you are free to define marriage any way you choose. The state should not care. The state, and the legal system merely must enforce practices around civil unions be they homosexual or heterosexual. If the Cathoic church wants to say there is no Catholic gay marriage, that is unfortunate, but ultimately irrelevant, other than to one’s acceptance within the Catholic Church. End the political and legal recognition or “marriage” completely. There should be no state marriage licence for anyone. It should be a state civil union licence for hetero or homosexual alike. Insurance companies would be unable to deny spousal benefits, hospitals unable to deny visitation, tax authorities unable to deny status. If you have a civil union certificate or fall under the common law definitions of civil union, you are civil union. You want to say I am “married”? Go right ahead. It has no legal status whatsoever. Merely reflects a religious or social construct that you would like to adhere to. Your Church wants to endorse your civil union as a marriage within its social constructs? Good for them. They can do whatever they want. However, other than recognition within that particular congregation, it has no relevance whatsoever. I just don’t get it. I am Jewish, at my marriage I signed both a Ketuvah (A Jewish marriage contact) and a Marriage Licence. Those two documents mark the exact same event, but have completely different purposes. One civil, the other personal. Separation of Church and State demands legislation that prevents the religious definition of marriage from having any significance to the discussion.

It seems to me that this would be the ultimate “fuck you” to the religious zealots in that it would do more to unravel the religious theocracy they are slowly trying to impose.

195 reine.de.tout  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 2:11:55pm

re: #192 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin

Yes, it is too conservatism.

“So-called conservatives” — they are definitely one type of conservative. Who is anyone to say they are not?

I tend to be socially conservative.
I don’t have one homophobic bone in my body.
I could give a crap who gets married to whom.

So I’m clearly more qualified than YOU to say that there is a TYPE of conservative who is against this. There are also TYPES of liberals against it.

You and your broad brush - who are you to think you can speak for ME? You don’t.

196 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 2:14:53pm

re: #193 moderatelyradicalliberal

Cuomo, with all of his political skill could not have gotten this done just 5 years ago.

If anyone had told me in 2001 that we’d start to see real movement towards marriage equality, I would have laughed them out of the room.

7 years ago, we had our crankypunch, fair-weather friends on the left blaming gays for Kerry’s loss, by standing up to antigay measures on ballots. counterpunch.org This was conventional wisdom. The public opinion swing you mention started a generation ago. I’m glad for it.

197 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 2:17:37pm

re: #195 reine.de.tout

So I’m clearly more qualified than YOU to say that there is a TYPE of conservative who is against this.

Having been one myself, no, you are not.

There are also TYPES of liberals against it.

You should have read my other comments in this thread before giving me that old tired lecture.

198 reine.de.tout  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 2:20:03pm

re: #86 Ojoe

This whole thing is a vestigial church-state connection.

I think the state should issue domestic partnership licenses only, and you can go find whatever church you want for getting married.

I with you on this one, Ojoe. And by law, make all the contractual elements and priviliges of marriage apply to the domestic partnerships or civil unions.

There was a time when I mentioned that here, and at that time, it seemed to be acceptable as a reasonable solution. However, it seems these days those of us wanting to maintain the separation between church and state, by calling the state marriage vs. religious marriage by different names, are bigots for some reason that I can’t really fathom. So be it.

199 reine.de.tout  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 2:20:37pm

re: #197 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin

Having been one myself, no, you are not.

You should have read my other comments in this thread before giving me that old tired lecture.

You mistakenly assume I have not.
A tired ploy of your own.

200 reine.de.tout  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 2:21:24pm

re: #197 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin

Having been one myself, no, you are not.

You should have read my other comments in this thread before giving me that old tired lecture.

And.

YOU. DO. NOT. SPEAK. FOR . ME.

It is awfully presumptuous of you to assume you do.

201 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 2:25:04pm

re: #194 Petero1818

It seems to me that this would be the ultimate “fuck you” to the religious zealots in that it would do more to unravel the religious theocracy they are slowly trying to impose.

Yeah I’m not so sure about that.

The point of legalized samesex marriage is not to say fuck you to the religious conservative bigots. It’s to get married, with parity.

The answer to that isn’t to dismantle state marriage just because it now includes samesex couples. The definition has never, ever been static, despite the insistence of the socon bigots. That’s why interracial marriage is now legal across the board instead of only in some states.

202 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 2:25:57pm

re: #200 reine.de.tout

And.

YOU. DO. NOT. SPEAK. FOR . ME.

It is awfully presumptuous of you to assume you do.

I have never purported to speak for you, so stop yelling, pls.

203 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 2:28:59pm

re: #199 reine.de.tout

You mistakenly assume I have not.

I know you didn’t, because I’d said the same thing a few times already, prior to your post.

You’re no victim, just because you read a couple posts of mine you didn’t like. So please leave the enrage, indignant con act at the door.

204 Petero1818  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 2:30:10pm

re: #201 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin

Yeah I’m not so sure about that.

The point of legalized samesex marriage is not to say fuck you to the religious conservative bigots. It’s to get married, with parity.

The answer to that isn’t to dismantle state marriage just because it now includes samesex couples. The definition has never, ever been static, despite the insistence of the socon bigots. That’s why interracial marriage is now legal across the board instead of only in some states.

The point was never to say “fuck you” that is merely a pleasant byproduct IMHO. The separation of Church and State requires a clear utterance that ensures that one’s religious institutions have no bearing whatsoever on the political discourse around rights. Catholics will never agree that “marriage” includes homosexual marriages. Should they have to? In my opinion they should but I am not a member of their congregation and ultimately don’t care what they decide for themselves. What I object to is having to debate them on the definition of a word. It is irrelevant. In the eyes of the state, their union is no different than anyone else’s. In the eyes of god? Well that is for them to grapple with and has no place within this discourse. There is no religious definition of “civil union” and that is what should be applied to both hetero and homosexual alike.

205 Pamela Gellar [sic(k)]  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 2:31:28pm

oh crap I have a crush on OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin.

206 wrenchwench  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 2:31:40pm

re: #194 Petero1818

re: #198 reine.de.tout

My reply may apply to both of these.

It just seems wrong to me to say, “OK, men can marry men, and women can marry women, but now that we accept that, we can’t call it that.” To try for an analogy, what if someone said, “OK, women can vote, but now we’re going to call it ‘civil balloting’. The word ‘vote’ will be reserved for what congressmen and senators do.” Seems innocuous, but to me that would be insulting.

207 Decatur Deb  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 2:34:39pm

re: #200 reine.de.tout

re: #203 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin

Have you noticed that you’re not talking about gay marriage any more?

208 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 2:34:43pm

For those cons who believe the state is somehow magically going to dis-involve itself from marriage, a question: federal-level, or state level?

I.e., would you prefer every state does it their own way with caveats like Massachusetts’ anti-miscegenation era 1913 non-portability laws (not repealed until 2008) in place? (Or not?)

Or should there be DOMA-style legislation that disallows states from calling partnerships “marriage”.

How about a SCOTUS ruling dissolving all marriages and downgrading them to civil unions.

How do we implement this idea? What’s your timeline?

209 Petero1818  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 2:36:27pm

re: #206 wrenchwench

re: #198 reine.de.tout

My reply may apply to both of these.

It just seems wrong to me to say, “OK, men can marry men, and women can marry women, but now that we accept that, we can’t call it that.” To try for an analogy, what if someone said, “OK, women can vote, but now we’re going to call it ‘civil balloting’. The word ‘vote’ will be reserved for what congressmen and senators do.” Seems innocuous, but to me that would be insulting.

Perhaps you have missed my broader point. Everyone is free to say they are married, because it has no significance other than a personal one, or within one’s congregation. Trust me, I would still say I am married and this is my wife. But when filling out forms, when answering census, and applying for a licence from the State, I would check a box that says ” live within a Civil Union”. Do I think everyone is going to change the way they speak? No. But that is wholly irrelevant to the law.

210 Petero1818  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 2:41:49pm

re: #208 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin


How about a SCOTUS ruling dissolving all marriages and downgrading them to civil unions.

Not sure why you would suggest that marraige would be “downgraded” to a civil union. That is precisely the language of the religious right IMHO. A ruling that stated that any marriage licence issues prior to the ruling immediately has the status of “civil union” and henceforth the States shall issue Civil Union Licences. Both shall have the same force and effect.

211 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 2:42:39pm

re: #204 Petero1818

Catholics will never agree that “marriage” includes homosexual marriages. Should they have to? In my opinion they should but I am not a member of their congregation and ultimately don’t care what they decide for themselves.

Neither do marriage equality advocates. For myself, I don’t think they should have to, though I will celebrate with them if they ever do. Religion in marriage equality is a red herring. Religious groups are already afforded those protections by the First Amendment.

Eg: Catholics also don’t recognize divorce. They’re not allowed to impose that restriction on the populace, nor is the populace allowed to make Catholics change around their theology to recognize divorce.

I think the 1st Amend is genius, personally. Without it, we couldn’t have a country, with all these issues.

What I object to is having to debate them on the definition of a word. It is irrelevant. In the eyes of the state, their union is no different than anyone else’s. In the eyes of god? Well that is for them to grapple with and has no place within this discourse. There is no religious definition of “civil union” and that is what should be applied to both hetero and homosexual alike.

I don’t think nomenclature is the main problem. We could all start calling it boobooboo, and the same old anti-equality arguments will surface on who can use the word boobooboo for their partnerships, and who can’t.

212 wrenchwench  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 2:43:14pm

re: #209 Petero1818

Perhaps you have missed my broader point. Everyone is free to say they are married, because it has no significance other than a personal one, or within one’s congregation. Trust me, I would still say I am married and this is my wife. But when filling out forms, when answering census, and applying for a licence from the State, I would check a box that says ” live within a Civil Union”. Do I think everyone is going to change the way they speak? No. But that is wholly irrelevant to the law.

But why change it to “live within a Civil Union”? Why not leave the check-box saying “marriage”? Is it to appease someone who doesn’t want gays to be able to call themselves “married”?

From your #194:

the most logical way to deal with it is to say that you are free to define marriage any way you choose. The state should not care.

If the state should not care, why should they change it from ‘marriage’ to ‘civil union’?

213 Decatur Deb  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 2:47:33pm

Iceweasle—are you the link to an old comment outlining the vast number of laws (State and Fed) that have real-world outcomes based on the word ‘married’? It needs to be posted again.

214 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 2:47:37pm

re: #210 Petero1818

Not sure why you would suggest that marraige would be “downgraded” to a civil union. That is precisely the language of the religious right IMHO. A ruling that stated that any marriage licence issues prior to the ruling immediately has the status of “civil union” and henceforth the States shall issue Civil Union Licences. Both shall have the same force and effect.

If it has the same force and effect, then I don’t see the need for a third category. I used the word “downgraded” because as of right now, it really is a downgrade. There are marriages, civil unions for gays/marriage for straights, and this idea of civil unions for all.

Which legislative body should carry out the CU policy?

215 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 2:50:09pm

re: #207 Decatur Deb

re: #203 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin

Have you noticed that you’re not talking about gay marriage any more?

Sure I am, check my posts.

216 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 2:51:25pm

re: #212 wrenchwench

From your #194:

If the state should not care, why should they change it from ‘marriage’ to ‘civil union’?

And which lawmaking body of “the state” should be the one to do it, if they should not care.

217 Petero1818  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 2:55:41pm

re: #214 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin

If it has the same force and effect, then I don’t see the need for a third category. I used the word “downgraded” because as of right now, it really is a downgrade. There are marriages, civil unions for gays/marriage for straights, and this idea of civil unions for all.

The whole point is it is not a downgrade at all. There would not be three categories. Only one. There will be no marriages as far as the state is concerned. Only civil unions. That’s it. Full parity. Equality. Your life won’t change. I promise. Explain how that can be a downgrade, other than to the religious right, who are brought onto the same plane as homosexuals as far as the state is concerned. In their mind they might feel that the state no longer views them as superior which is exactly the point.

218 wrenchwench  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 2:58:36pm

re: #217 Petero1818

Explain how that can be a downgrade, other than to the religious right, who are brought onto the same plane as homosexuals as far as the state is concerned.

That’s what I tried to do in #212.

219 Petero1818  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 2:59:50pm

re: #216 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin

And which lawmaking body of “the state” should be the one to do it, if they should not care.

It is the job of the Judiciary to protect the rights of the minority and ensure equality, at least where I live anyway. Equality should never be a political issue. Regrettably it is increasingly difficult to see the Judiciary as a non political body in the US.

220 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 3:02:48pm

re: #217 Petero1818

There would not be three categories. Only one. There will be no marriages as far as the state is concerned. Only civil unions. That’s it. Full parity. Equality. Your life won’t change. I promise. Explain how that can be a downgrade, other than to the religious right, who are brought onto the same plane as homosexuals as far as the state is concerned. In their mind they might feel that the state no longer views them as superior which is exactly the point.

The religious [and socon] right [and left and center and anyone else who thinks heteros deserve more rights than others] already believes that the very concept of marriage is being downgraded by the inclusion of samesex couples. Calling that concept something else is only going to yield the same result, but I’m not really interested in their ages-old anti-equality gripes.

My question was, how do you implement this. Federal level or state level. Legislation, court ruling, EO/fiat, etc.?

221 Petero1818  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 3:03:24pm

re: #212 wrenchwench

But why change it to “live within a Civil Union”? Why not leave the check-box saying “marriage”? Is it to appease someone who doesn’t want gays to be able to call themselves “married”?

Absolutely not. It is to say to that person, your defining yourself as married and someone else as not, it totally irrelevant to this form. While it may be important to you, and that is within your rights, it is irrelevant to this.

222 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 3:09:26pm

re: #219 Petero1818

It is the job of the Judiciary to protect the rights of the minority and ensure equality, at least where I live anyway.

Ideally, but it took a several-generations long civil rights movement to accomplish that. We’re still stuck with vestiges, like that 1913 antimiscegenation law from Massachussetts, linked in my #208, that was not repealed until 3 years ago.

Equality should never be a political issue. Regrettably it is increasingly difficult to see the Judiciary as a non political body in the US.

Equality was one of the top domestic political issues of the 20th century. Ideally, it should not have been, but then, that would mean nobody would ever have passed laws that foster inequality, in the first place.

As for the judiciary as a non-political body, one could argue that that, too, has always been inherently political. Maybe you mean “politicized”?

223 webevintage  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 3:13:21pm

My traditional marriage is still intact….

224 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 3:14:28pm

re: #221 Petero1818

Absolutely not. It is to say to that person, your defining yourself as married and someone else as not, it totally irrelevant to this form. While it may be important to you, and that is within your rights, it is irrelevant to this.

How do you propose that a state (general “state” i.e. governmental body) implement civil unions and abolish its involvement with marriage?

There’s legislation, ballot initiative, judicial rulings, what do you suggest?

Does one (US) state’s definition of a civil union trump or cancel out another’s? If one US state wants to say only heterosexual whites get civil unions and all other civil unions are illegitimate, what does the married interracial gay couple from NY do when they move to that state?

I’m not trying to be a jerk with all these q’s, I’m trying to understand how this will work, since judicial rulings especially rely on precedent.

225 Decatur Deb  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 3:14:59pm

re: #223 webevintage

My traditional marriage is still intact…

Let me check…
Yup, but she’s been on my nerves for the last 43 years.

226 albusteve  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 3:16:41pm

re: #225 Decatur Deb

Let me check…
Yup, but she’s been on my nerves for the last 43 years.

43 years!…wow dude
you have my admiration…
my folks were married 63 years

227 Decatur Deb  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 3:18:37pm

re: #226 albusteve

43 years!…wow dude
you have my admiration…
my folks were married 63 years

It’s 44 years—the first year was kind of fun.

228 Petero1818  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 3:20:33pm

re: #222 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin

Well where I live Canada, it was the courts, and not the legislative branch of government that ensured that progress for the most part. At least in terms of how those rights were defined, which is ultimately what we are referring to. Your Constitution is fairly clear regarding equality. It is interpreting those words that I believe is a Judicial rather than legislative function.

As for political, I think it covers what i was referring to as well, but perhaps politicized would be more accurate for part of it. I believe the process by which Judges are elected in the US, is political, and I find electing judges to be an odd practice. I find the politicization of the courts to be equally troubling.

re: #224 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin

With respect to how to implement, I as a Canadian, am no expert on your process. But I suppose it starts with a ruling from the Supreme Court that puts offside any legislation that does not conform. That forces new legislation, and forces insurance companies etc.. to comply.

229 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 3:41:31pm

re: #198 reine.de.tout

Reine, it’s a very rough subject. The stance of the Catholic church on homosexuals is one of condemnation if they are at all active homosexuals. There is no expression of homosexuality that is allowed by the Catholic church. Likewise, unless a divorce is granted by the Vatican— which is rather rare— the Church doesn’t recognize any expression of sexuality by a divorcee. The Catholic church is condemnatory of that class of people, too.

If the Catholic church, or individual Catholics, feel strongly enough that marriages that take place outside the aegis of the Catholic church impact their own use of the word ‘marriage’, then they should certainly use a different word for those marriages— perhaps calling their own marriages “Catholic marriages”.

But for the state— which has provided ‘marriage’ for divorced couples as well as other couples for whom marriage would not be sanctioned by the Catholic church— to suddenly not use the word ‘marriage’ to refer to the legal status of marriage, but another word, because of the offense given to Catholics and other religions that don’t recognize or approve of homosexual marriage, would be distinctly odd. Why now? Secular marriage has existed for a long, long time in the US, and Catholics and others have lived with it. Why would it be suddenly unacceptable to have the same word used to describe marriages outside the Catholic purview, and those within them?

I don’t really care what the institution is called if the rights are the same. The rights are what’s important. But the question still needs to be asked, of those who want the name for the institution changed, why now?

230 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 3:41:48pm

re: #228 Petero1818

Well where I live Canada, it was the courts, and not the legislative branch of government that ensured that progress for the most part. At least in terms of how those rights were defined, which is ultimately what we are referring to. Your Constitution is fairly clear regarding equality. It is interpreting those words that I believe is a Judicial rather than legislative function.

As for political, I think it covers what i was referring to as well, but perhaps politicized would be more accurate for part of it. I believe the process by which Judges are elected in the US, is political, and I find electing judges to be an odd practice. I find the politicization of the courts to be equally troubling.

re: #224 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin

With respect to how to implement, I as a Canadian, am no expert on your process. But I suppose it starts with a ruling from the Supreme Court that puts offside any legislation that does not conform. That forces new legislation, and forces insurance companies etc.. to comply.

Yeah, Canada has 10 provinces, and we have 50 states, many packed to the gills with whackodoodle, pitchfork, teaparty cons. Here, it’s working out differently. A landmark ruling around samesex marriage would likely be along the lines of Loving v Virginia (1967) which outlawed discriminatory anti-miscegenation marriage laws.

You’re probably aware of the general con antipathy to judicial rulings on equality. The cry and wail of “judicial activism!!!!” did not start with Brown vs Board of Ed., but it has not ended, since. Lol if they are having a g/d cow over yesterday’s ruling on state-level legislation, I’d love to see their sad/mad faces at another Loving case.

That said, I think it’s possible, though not likely, especially with Prop 8, a ballot initiative, being in judicial review by a Federal court (9th circuit). Still waiting to see what happens with that one. Whatever their decision, there is a chance it may end up at the SCOTUS, if they’ll hear it.

The issue there will be whether or not voters can vote away already-established rights via the ballot.

231 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 4:01:34pm

re: #228 Petero1818

The other real-world part of the equation is DOMA and the 14th Amendment. That is, federal level legislation that forbids federal recognition of samesex marriage. The Obama administration, while officially for CUs and not marriage, has refused to defend DOMA anymore, on 14th Amendment “due process” grounds. But it remains the law.

That’s to say, the law forbids equal recognition of marriages. Snuffing out DOMA is going to be another long struggle, but one that will eventually happen imo. TMK, Canada had no DOMA in place at the time of the Civil Marriage Act.

232 reine.de.tout  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 4:04:23pm

re: #229 Obdicut

Reine, it’s a very rough subject. The stance of the Catholic church on homosexuals is one of condemnation if they are at all active homosexuals. There is no expression of homosexuality that is allowed by the Catholic church. Likewise, unless a divorce is granted by the Vatican— which is rather rare— the Church doesn’t recognize any expression of sexuality by a divorcee. The Catholic church is condemnatory of that class of people, too.

If the Catholic church, or individual Catholics, feel strongly enough that marriages that take place outside the aegis of the Catholic church impact their own use of the word ‘marriage’, then they should certainly use a different word for those marriages— perhaps calling their own marriages “Catholic marriages”.

But for the state— which has provided ‘marriage’ for divorced couples as well as other couples for whom marriage would not be sanctioned by the Catholic church— to suddenly not use the word ‘marriage’ to refer to the legal status of marriage, but another word, because of the offense given to Catholics and other religions that don’t recognize or approve of homosexual marriage, would be distinctly odd. Why now? Secular marriage has existed for a long, long time in the US, and Catholics and others have lived with it. Why would it be suddenly unacceptable to have the same word used to describe marriages outside the Catholic purview, and those within them?

I don’t really care what the institution is called if the rights are the same. The rights are what’s important. But the question still needs to be asked, of those who want the name for the institution changed, why now?

We do have a different name for it - it is the SACRAMENT of marriage.

Now there are those who do not understand, or would not care to make a genunine attempt to understand, how that is different from plain marriage, and I’m not in a mood to explain, it won’t pacify them anyhow.

Why now? You don’t know when I personally made a distinction between civil marriage (union) and the Sacrament of Marriage (religious union). Louisiana also has a legally defined “covenant” marriage. But back to civil marriage and religious marriage - that distinction became clear to me a LOOONG time ago, when I began taking my catechism classes. So the “why now?” question, which seems at first glance to me to be a “gotcha” to prove I am somehow bigoted about this, is moot, really, as far as I’m concerned.

re: #202 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin

I have never purported to speak for you, so stop yelling, pls.

Well, yes you did purport to tell me what I am:


re: #197 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin

Having been one myself, no, you are not.

You should have read my other comments in this thread before giving me that old tired lecture.

233 SanFranciscoZionist  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 4:10:09pm

re: #123 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin

Never said it was. It is foundational to social conservatism, however.

Not so. There are plenty of secular people who have socially conservative leanings when it comes to homosexuality. I.e., homophobia. Far left totalitarian/authoritarian regimes and old left ideologues who still harbor the idea it’s “bourgeois decadence” are good examples. Many on the left in the USA suddenly get quite socially conservative when it comes to homosexuality. Ask me how I know.

234 Decatur Deb  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 4:11:15pm

Chores. BBL

235 SanFranciscoZionist  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 4:11:40pm

re: #129 Ojoe

Not at all.

I just think that the State should not be involved with “marriage” one way or another.

If you are a gay couple, you can already find a church, or a synagogue for that matter, where you can get married, & that’s fine with me.

But the state is a public thing, & this other stuff is private & I think it is a mistake to drag the state into it. It creates unnecessary ill feeling all around.

The state is in this because the state decided to be in this. We decided as a society that marriage was a legal contract. We decided as a society to make all sorts of legal arrangements contingent on marriage.

Backing out now and pretending that isn’t so once we start to talk about same-sex couples doesn’t seem very honest to me.

236 Varek Raith  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 4:14:57pm

Progress.

237 SanFranciscoZionist  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 4:15:03pm

re: #136 Ojoe

The State should get out of the marriage business, because among other things, it would be but a step therefrom to the state telling churches what they can and cannot do. I do not think many people would want that.

Honestly?

If the state being in the marriage business is just a step to telling churches what they can and cannot do, and few people would want this, why hasn’t this been a problem since, I don’t know, the states started issuing marriage licenses?

Or are you concerned about this imaginary crisis where churches are going to be forced to perform same-sex marriages?

I don’t get this. Marriage is legally speaking, not a religious concept. Legally speaking, it’s a legal concept.

238 First As Tragedy, Then As Farce  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 4:18:40pm

This thread reminds me that Internet arguments of today seem so bland in comparison to the ancient days of the Internet when Usenet, rather than the WWW, was the most common discussion forum for those not using CompuServe.

Bizarre rivalries between two or three Usenet-famous individuals (i.e., kooks that make the Shrieking Harpy seem merely mildly eccentric) would commonly spawn vast flame wars that spread like illegal alien Arizona wildfire and took no quarter when it came to sucking in completely unrelated kooks from other newsgroups.

Way back in the early 90s, THIS VERY GUY RIGHT HERE was a prominent Usenet kook. A person who’d been having a Usenet pissing contest with him posted an audio file of an answering machine message Winter left for him. I sadly don’t have the file anymore, but it was so side-splittingly hilarious to me that I memorized it.

necessary setup:
Imagine that you move into a new neighborhood. A kindly and well-meaning neighbor calls you up and leaves you message that says, “Hello, My name is John Doe. My wife, Jane, and I would like to welcome you to the neighborhood and invite you to join us this Saturday afternoon for our weekly BBQ. Hope to see you there; bye!” (click).

Now, in that exact same tone of voice and jauntiness of spirit, imagine the person saying this:

“Hi, Greg. This is Steve Winter. I curse you in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. You are filthy little false Christian scum. Keep your garbage to yourself. I curse you in the name of the Lord. Filthy false Christian scum.” (click) And he was heart-attack serious about it.

Primordial lulz. The younglings have no idea what they missed.

239 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 4:18:50pm

re: #232 reine.de.tout

Well, yes you did purport to tell me what I am:

re: #197 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin

Reine, because I like you, I’m only going to do this once. So pay attention.

You initially decided to get bent out of shape at my #192

re: #142 albusteve

it’s not conservatism, just because so called conservatives endorse it

Yes, it is too conservatism.

“So-called conservatives” — they are definitely one type of conservative. Who is anyone to say they are not?

Your sad angry/clutch-the-pearls answer, #195

I tend to be socially conservative.
I don’t have one homophobic bone in my body.
I could give a crap who gets married to whom.

So I’m clearly more qualified than YOU to say that there is a TYPE of conservative who is against this. There are also TYPES of liberals against it.

Having been a TYPE of conservative myself, no you are not more qualified than ME to say that there is a TYPE of conservative who is against this.

The question for you is — and this was the original q in 192 — who are you or albusteve or anyone else to define a “so-called conservative” like the ones screaming about this law, just because you wish to personally distance yourselves from their behavior?

240 SanFranciscoZionist  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 4:18:54pm

re: #147 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin

Lol I love when conservative conformists like the jokers at Conservopedia try to rewrite all of human history to reflect their narrow views. Who do they think they are kidding? Lol!

There are a lot of people in the Bible who did not conform to one-man/one woman. If they were really interested in “traditional marriage”, they’d be making dowries and arranged marriage the law of the land.

The Bible is probably the worst-ever source for their Victorian ideal of marriage and family.

Back when, an Episcopal priest wrote in to the paper to say that he’d heard someplace or other (can’t recall), had legalized same-sex marriage. He was horrified. Horrified. Marriage is between one man, and one woman. He was sure that the founder of his church, King Henry VIII, and his wife Katherine of Aragon, and his wife, Anne Boleyn, and his wife, Jane Seymour, and his wife, Anne of Cleves, and his wife, Katherine Howard, and his wife, Anne Parr, would be absolutely shocked by this news.

I have adapted this to Jacob and his family on occasion.

241 SanFranciscoZionist  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 4:20:12pm

re: #161 spiderx

typical disgusting comments over at Fox Nation

“This law is made to help decimate healthcare, as one result of this will be to spread disease.”

Weddings are disgustingly unsanitary. Do you know how many germs can balance on the edge of one of those cute cake-cutting knives?

242 Varek Raith  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 4:20:46pm

re: #241 SanFranciscoZionist

Weddings are disgustingly unsanitary. Do you know how many germs can balance on the edge of one of those cute cake-cutting knives?

You must be a riot at parties.
/
:)

243 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 4:24:45pm

re: #240 SanFranciscoZionist

Back when, an Episcopal priest wrote in to the paper to say that he’d heard someplace or other (can’t recall), had legalized same-sex marriage. He was horrified. Horrified. Marriage is between one man, and one woman. He was sure that the founder of his church, King Henry VIII, and his wife Katherine of Aragon, and his wife, Anne Boleyn, and his wife, Jane Seymour, and his wife, Anne of Cleves, and his wife, Katherine Howard, and his wife, Anne Parr, would be absolutely shocked by this news.

I have adapted this to Jacob and his family on occasion.

Lol that is classic. And so true. I always get a laugh from the types who suddenly get so pious around the ideas of sin, redemption and retribution when it comes to the gays. Yet, they are some of the biggest freaks on the planet in their personal lives. Dorks.

244 Varek Raith  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 4:26:00pm

re: #240 SanFranciscoZionist

Back when, an Episcopal priest wrote in to the paper to say that he’d heard someplace or other (can’t recall), had legalized same-sex marriage. He was horrified. Horrified. Marriage is between one man, and one woman. He was sure that the founder of his church, King Henry VIII, and his wife Katherine of Aragon, and his wife, Anne Boleyn, and his wife, Jane Seymour, and his wife, Anne of Cleves, and his wife, Katherine Howard, and his wife, Anne Parr, would be absolutely shocked by this news.

I have adapted this to Jacob and his family on occasion.

Anne fetish?
/

245 reine.de.tout  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 4:27:27pm

re: #239 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin

Reine, because I like you, I’m only going to do this once. So pay attention.

You initially decided to get bent out of shape at my #192

Yes, it is too conservatism.

“So-called conservatives” — they are definitely one type of conservative. Who is anyone to say they are not?

Your sad angry/clutch-the-pearls answer, #195

Having been a TYPE of conservative myself, no you are not more qualified than ME to say that there is a TYPE of conservative who is against this.

The question for you is — and this was the original q in 192 — who are you or albusteve or anyone else to define a “so-called conservative” like the ones screaming about this law, just because you wish to personally distance yourselves from their behavior?

I’m not disagreeing, and never did disagree, that there are conservatives who are screaming about this law.

And yes, I do indeed personally distance myself from that behavior. Are you seriously suggesting I don’t have that right?

*clutching at my pearls*
*fainting dead away*

246 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 4:28:27pm

re: #238 negativ

This thread reminds me that Internet arguments of today seem so bland in comparison to the ancient days of the Internet when Usenet, rather than the WWW, was the most common discussion forum for those not using CompuServe.

Primordial lulz. The younglings have no idea what they missed.

Must say I agree. Anyone looking to feel offended and indignant at every post they read needs to get in the time machine and go have a conversation about any given social issue on Usenet. Where the only moderation was you turning your computer OFF. Those were days.

247 Varek Raith  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 4:28:50pm

re: #245 reine.de.tout

Your sad angry/clutch-the-pearls answer, #195

Having been a TYPE of conservative myself, no you are not more qualified than ME to say that there is a TYPE of conservative who is against this.

The question for you is — and this was the original q in 192 — who are you or albusteve or anyone else to define a “so-called conservative” like the ones screaming about this law, just because you wish to personally distance yourselves from their behavior?

I’m not disagreeing, and never did disagree, that there are conservatives who are screaming about this law.

And yes, I do indeed personally distance myself from that behavior. Are you seriously suggesting I don’t have that right?

*clutching at my pearls*
*fainting dead away*

No, no, no!
First you clutch your pearls.
Second you feign a faint.
Then you faint.
Sheesh.
:)

248 Petero1818  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 4:28:57pm

re: #230 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin

I have to say that the idea of “activist” judges is a comical one to me. The idea that a country’s jurisprudence cannot evolve beyond the framework that was available at the time to the drafters of the constitution is to me the strangest concept i have ever heard. Would these morons reject the existing amendments? I would like to think that we have had an opportunity to evolve beyond the discourse that would have existed in the basic concepts of liberty that the framers grappled with. If we haven’t than in my opinion it is a failed system destined to be supplanted with the next great emancipatory movement.

249 reine.de.tout  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 4:31:17pm

re: #237 SanFranciscoZionist

Honestly?

If the state being in the marriage business is just a step to telling churches what they can and cannot do, and few people would want this, why hasn’t this been a problem since, I don’t know, the states started issuing marriage licenses?

Or are you concerned about this imaginary crisis where churches are going to be forced to perform same-sex marriages?

I don’t get this. Marriage is legally speaking, not a religious concept. Legally speaking, it’s a legal concept.

It wasn’t a problem before, because the state’s definition of marriage, was the same as a Church’s definition of marriage. Simply that.

I’m not convinced it’s a problem now, though I would prefer to see the distinction between civil unions and religious unions made clearer. If it doesn’t happen, well - it’s NOT gonna happen - and I can live with it.

It did distress me no end seeing Ojoe being called a bigot for making what I think was a reasonable discussion point.

250 reine.de.tout  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 4:31:37pm

re: #247 Varek Raith

No, no, no!
First you clutch your pearls.
Second you feign a faint.
Then you faint.
Sheesh.
:)

Shit.
I never get the order of things right.

251 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 4:32:20pm

re: #245 reine.de.tout

I’m not disagreeing, and never did disagree, that there are conservatives who are screaming about this law.

Then you’ve nothing to be offended about.

And yes, I do indeed personally distance myself from that behavior. Are you seriously suggesting I don’t have that right?

Distance yourself from them or don’t, who is stopping you?

252 SanFranciscoZionist  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 4:35:04pm

re: #244 Varek Raith

Anne fetish?
/

Actually, it was Catherine Parr, so, fail on my part. Maybe a Catherine fetish.

253 First As Tragedy, Then As Farce  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 4:36:03pm

re: #241 SanFranciscoZionist

Weddings are disgustingly unsanitary. Do you know how many germs can balance on the edge of one of those cute cake-cutting knives?

Blood… Sometimes it sets my teeth on edge, other times it helps me control the chaos.

Image: FVsou.jpg

254 reine.de.tout  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 4:36:36pm

time to go make groceries, as they say in my neck ‘o the woods.

255 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 4:38:06pm

re: #249 reine.de.tout

It wasn’t a problem before, because the state’s definition of marriage, was the same as a Church’s definition of marriage. Simply that.

Well kind of. That divorce thing notwithstanding.

There has never been a static definition of marriage. Especially not in the US…ask Miss Perez and Mr. Sharp

256 albusteve  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 4:38:16pm

re: #249 reine.de.tout

It wasn’t a problem before, because the state’s definition of marriage, was the same as a Church’s definition of marriage. Simply that.

I’m not convinced it’s a problem now, though I would prefer to see the distinction between civil unions and religious unions made clearer. If it doesn’t happen, well - it’s NOT gonna happen - and I can live with it.

It did distress me no end seeing Ojoe being called a bigot for making what I think was a reasonable discussion point.


agreed…people need to win a stupid argument at any cost…inflated egos

257 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 4:39:02pm

re: #249 reine.de.tout

though I would prefer to see the distinction between civil unions and religious unions made clearer.

What are your definitions of either?

258 SanFranciscoZionist  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 4:40:33pm

re: #249 reine.de.tout

It wasn’t a problem before, because the state’s definition of marriage, was the same as a Church’s definition of marriage. Simply that.

It was not, though. Any religious institution that doesn’t want to perform interfaith marriages, or recognize divorces, or marry a couple from outside their faith, or marry a couple that doesn’t go through pre-Cana hoops-jumping, or marry a couple that doesn’t agree to raise the children in the faith of the organization is completely free to do so. I don’t think you can make a church perform an interracial marriage if they don’t wanna.

Religious definitions of marriage and state definitions of marriage have differed a lot, for many many years. I don’t think same-sex marriage creates any new facts on the ground. I could be mistaken, but I’m not seeing any evidence for, and substantial against.

259 First As Tragedy, Then As Farce  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 4:46:26pm

re: #247 Varek Raith

No, no, no!
First you clutch your pearls.
Second you feign a faint.
Then you faint.
Sheesh.
:)


re: #246 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin

Must say I agree. Anyone looking to feel offended and indignant at every post they read needs to get in the time machine and go have a conversation about any given social issue on Usenet. Where the only moderation was you turning your computer OFF. Those were days.

Yes indeed, they were days. The Sperglord Collective, forever at tension with the Normalists. Both of them in an uneasy alliance against the Order of Misanthropy who had reluctantly allied with The Troll Brigade. The battle continues to this day, and every day new factions are spawned as quickly as older ones are reabsorbed.

260 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 4:47:02pm

re: #248 Petero1818

I have to say that the idea of “activist” judges is a comical one to me. The idea that a country’s jurisprudence cannot evolve beyond the framework that was available at the time to the drafters of the constitution is to me the strangest concept i have ever heard. Would these morons reject the existing amendments? I would like to think that we have had an opportunity to evolve beyond the discourse that would have existed in the basic concepts of liberty that the framers grappled with. If we haven’t than in my opinion it is a failed system destined to be supplanted with the next great emancipatory movement.

The thing that cracks me up is, the people now shrieking to high heaven about judicial activism and strict constructionism wouldn’t have a chance in those days, anymore than I would.

I love the hue and cry about “judicial activism!!!!!!” cons are trotting out against Judge Walker in Prop 8. Boo hoo, judicial tyranny sniffff-sniffle!!!

Lol being one of their peers in every way but one — Republican, Bush supporter, Appointee — does not spare him, apparently.

261 Varek Raith  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 4:50:53pm

re: #260 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin

Proposition 8.
The LDS Church should lose its 501c3 status over that.

To be tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, an organization must be organized and operated exclusively for exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3), and none of its earnings may inure to any private shareholder or individual. In addition, it may not be an action organization, i.e., it may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities and it may not participate in any campaign activity for or against political candidates.

262 First As Tragedy, Then As Farce  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 4:56:58pm

A sentence you will never, ever hear spoken sincerely:

“While I agree completely with Judge McKean’s ruling, and could not agree more strongly with it if my life depended upon it, I nevertheless must denounce it as an instance of heinous judicial activism.”

263 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 4:57:59pm

re: #258 SanFranciscoZionist

It was not, though. Any religious institution that doesn’t want to perform interfaith marriages, or recognize divorces, or marry a couple from outside their faith, or marry a couple that doesn’t go through pre-Cana hoops-jumping, or marry a couple that doesn’t agree to raise the children in the faith of the organization is completely free to do so. I don’t think you can make a church perform an interracial marriage if they don’t wanna.

That is true, it would be unconstitutional.

In fact, one of the precedents to Loving v Virginia included Perez v Sharp, linked in my #255. They were both Catholic and the church/parish would have married them, except California’s anti-miscegenation law prevented the church (and anyone else) from performing the marriage.

So Perez v Sharp ended up having some religious-freedom aspects to it, also.

264 Petero1818  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 5:15:01pm

re: #261 Varek Raith

Proposition 8.
The LDS Church should lose its 501c3 status over that.

It all hinges on the word “substantial part”. My guess is that the amount of money spent on Prop 8 by the LDS Church would not constitute a “substantial” amount of their annual budget. Just a hunch, but I suspect they made sure not to step over the line.

265 reine.de.tout  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 5:33:53pm

re: #258 SanFranciscoZionist

It was not, though. Any religious institution that doesn’t want to perform interfaith marriages, or recognize divorces, or marry a couple from outside their faith, or marry a couple that doesn’t go through pre-Cana hoops-jumping, or marry a couple that doesn’t agree to raise the children in the faith of the organization is completely free to do so. I don’t think you can make a church perform an interracial marriage if they don’t wanna.

Religious definitions of marriage and state definitions of marriage have differed a lot, for many many years. I don’t think same-sex marriage creates any new facts on the ground. I could be mistaken, but I’m not seeing any evidence for, and substantial against.

By “Church”, I meant (and should have said) religious organizations’ definition of marriage as being between man and woman. On that narrow item, the state’s definition matched the definition of most religious organizations that I’m aware of.

AND you bring up another point, which is that the state will license any combination for marriage; and various religious organizations have different ways of handling their marriage blessings for individuals, depending on circumstances, and are FREE TO DO SO. which should lay to rest any concerns anyone might have had about what different religious organizations will become REQUIRED to do as re: gay marriage.

And it also further clarifies the point that a civil marriage (union) is a different thing from a religious marriage (union), which was my point to begin with, that these are different things and should be called different things.

at any rate it appears the term marriage is the one that will be used and so - fine and dandy with me, it’s not such a big thing I want to scream and pull my hair out. I did think the characterization of Ojoe as a bigot for suggesting it was unnecessary. Ojoe isn’t a religious person anyhow, as far as I can recall, so he wasn’t making his observation for that reason.

266 wrenchwench  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 5:57:57pm

re: #265 reine.de.tout

And it also further clarifies the point that a civil marriage (union) is a different thing from a religious marriage (union), which was my point to begin with, that these are different things and should be called different things.

I can see the logic of that, but I feel it is so unfair to take the word “marriage” and say it’s only the religious version.

at any rate it appears the term marriage is the one that will be used and so - fine and dandy with me, it’s not such a big thing I want to scream and pull my hair out. I did think the characterization of Ojoe as a bigot for suggesting it was unnecessary. Ojoe isn’t a religious person anyhow, as far as I can recall, so he wasn’t making his observation for that reason.

I’m glad you’re fine with it, and I wish Ojoe was too. I’m sorry for offending you (and probably him) with the bigot talk, but I see no reason to take the word “marriage” away from people who have been fighting for the right to use it for so long, other than just not wanting them to have it. Although I see the logic of needing two words for two things, I don’t see the logic of saying the commonly used word should go to the “specialty” version [or each of several specialty versions, for each religious group], not the “everybody” version.

{Reine}

I’m out ‘til Monday.

267 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 6:11:27pm

re: #265 reine.de.tout

AND you bring up another point, which is that the state will license any combination for marriage; and various religious organizations have different ways of handling their marriage blessings for individuals, depending on circumstances, and are FREE TO DO SO. which should lay to rest any concerns anyone might have had about what different religious organizations will become REQUIRED to do as re: gay marriage.

There has never been any such requirement from marriage equality advocates, certainly not in the US. The establishment clause takes care of that.

So those concerns are a red herring and used as a pretext to keep marriage unequal between different-sex and same-sex partners.

268 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 6:21:23pm

re: #232 reine.de.tout

I’m in no way attempting or implying that you’re bigoted. I don’t know why you’d think I was.

Ojoe’s claim that allowing gay marriage at the governmental level drags people into approving it, I think, is what got him downdinged. It really doesn’t make much sense. Nobody has to approve of anyone else’s marriage simply because it’s legal.

Like I said, the rights are what’s important to me. If New York had passed a law renaming legal marriage as ‘civil unions’ for everyone, and allowing gays to have them too, I’d be just as happy.

I just don’t find it at all necessary or useful, since the distinction between state and religious marriage has always been there, and nothing is changing about that now that gays are allowed marriage.

269 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 6:23:21pm

re: #266 wrenchwench

I can see the logic of that, but I feel it is so unfair to take the word “marriage” and say it’s only the religious version.

It’s unfair, and it’s also inaccurate, and untrue. That’s like saying the word “icon” should be limited to religious definitions just because it matches up with the religious concept. Religious people with a limited, socially-conservative comfort zone do not have a monopoly on the meanings of words. It makes them very angry from time to time, but ftmp thanks to the First Amendment, they have learned they have to live with it.

270 reine.de.tout  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 6:42:54pm

re: #266 wrenchwench

I can see the logic of that, but I feel it is so unfair to take the word “marriage” and say it’s only the religious version.

I’m glad you’re fine with it, and I wish Ojoe was too. I’m sorry for offending you (and probably him) with the bigot talk, but I see no reason to take the word “marriage” away from people who have been fighting for the right to use it for so long, other than just not wanting them to have it. Although I see the logic of needing two words for two things, I don’t see the logic of saying the commonly used word should go to the “specialty” version [or each of several specialty versions, for each religious group], not the “everybody” version.

{Reine}

I’m out ‘til Monday.

Oh, hon. You didn’t offend me. I just have a different opinion.

271 SanFranciscoZionist  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 6:50:38pm

re: #265 reine.de.tout

By “Church”, I meant (and should have said) religious organizations’ definition of marriage as being between man and woman. On that narrow item, the state’s definition matched the definition of most religious organizations that I’m aware of.

Sure, on that item, although as I’ve said, a lot of churches and shuls were doing same-sex marriages from way back in the 90s.


AND you bring up another point, which is that the state will license any combination for marriage; and various religious organizations have different ways of handling their marriage blessings for individuals, depending on circumstances, and are FREE TO DO SO. which should lay to rest any concerns anyone might have had about what different religious organizations will become REQUIRED to do as re: gay marriage.

I honestly would be absolutely fine in principle with the nation deciding that everyone gets a civil union, and that marriage will be a solely social or religious concept. I don’t think it’s very likely to happen any time soon—for one thing, I think it would be furiously opposed by many social-conservative groups, on the grounds that marriage was being ‘rejected’ by society.

I do not think Ojoe is a bigot in the slightest, and I’ve seen him in action for some time around here. But I definitely question whether it’s reasonable to think that there’s a real reason to completely change legal terminology around marriage.

272 reine.de.tout  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 6:50:43pm

re: #268 Obdicut

I’m in no way attempting or implying that you’re bigoted. I don’t know why you’d think I was.

Ojoe’s claim that allowing gay marriage at the governmental level drags people into approving it, I think, is what got him downdinged. It really doesn’t make much sense. Nobody has to approve of anyone else’s marriage simply because it’s legal.

Like I said, the rights are what’s important to me. If New York had passed a law renaming legal marriage as ‘civil unions’ for everyone, and allowing gays to have them too, I’d be just as happy.

I just don’t find it at all necessary or useful, since the distinction between state and religious marriage has always been there, and nothing is changing about that now that gays are allowed marriage.

As I said - the term marriage is what will be used, that ball is rolling now and that’s that. And yes, the rights are what are important. I happen to also think that the beliefs of people who wish to hang tight to the term “marriage” to mean what it’s traditionally meant in terms of their faith are important, and there is no need to disparage or assume bigotry. Separation of church and state doesn’t mean that we ignore the arguments of people of faith or assume they’re always coming from a bigoted place.

273 Simply Sarah  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 6:55:17pm

re: #265 reine.de.tout

Well, jumping in way late here, but reading through this thread, I feel I need to state my thoughts.

While I get where you are coming from on the marriage vs. civil unions/whatever angle, I think you may be missing part of the larger picture. Even if states were to stop calling civil marriages, uh, marriages and that term was left for religious organizations, it really wouldn’t resolve your concern about the meaning of marriage.

For one, gays would still be able to be married in those denominations that allow it. The same would go for other cases that Catholic Church would deny its blessing for (Divorce, for example). Ditto for any other religious group. They would still use the term marriage/married/etc. to refer to themselves, even though they would be using the term to describe a union that, from the Catholic view, does not qualify as a marriage.

This seems to be the very situation that you state you wish to address my making all civil marriages become civil unions, instead. Sure, you could specify, as has been mentioned, a Catholic marriage or some such, but then you’re back to where you started. It seems to me that the only way this could be avoided would be to tell everyone that isn’t in a Catholic marriage to stop using the term (I’m not trying to suggest you think this should be the case, I must note).

Conversely, atheists and other types of people that may only wish to have a civil partnership and not be be united by some sort of religious institution would no longer be able to say they were married under such a system. This doesn’t seem right, especially when such a pairing between a man and woman would, in your definition, be much closer to what you consider the common religious view of marriage.

274 reine.de.tout  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 6:56:05pm

re: #271 SanFranciscoZionist

Sure, on that item, although as I’ve said, a lot of churches and shuls were doing same-sex marriages from way back in the 90s.

I honestly would be absolutely fine in principle with the nation deciding that everyone gets a civil union, and that marriage will be a solely social or religious concept. I don’t think it’s very likely to happen any time soon—for one thing, I think it would be furiously opposed by many social-conservative groups, on the grounds that marriage was being ‘rejected’ by society.

….

Point!

275 reine.de.tout  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 6:58:15pm

re: #273 Simply Sarah

You make some good points.

I don’t feel so strongly about this that I’m going to lose sleep over it. I do understand where those folks are coming from (those who wish to reserve the term “marriage”).

276 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 7:00:43pm

re: #272 reine.de.tout

I happen to also think that the beliefs of people who wish to hang tight to the term “marriage” to mean what it’s traditionally meant in terms of their faith are important, and there is no need to disparage or assume bigotry.

No one is making those people alter their personal, denominational or sect’s definitions, in any way. It’s a free country; they get to cling, they just do not get to make their personal preferences the basis for everyone’s law.

277 Simply Sarah  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 7:03:45pm

re: #275 reine.de.tout

You make some good points.

I don’t feel so strongly about this that I’m going to lose sleep over it. I do understand where those folks are coming from (those who wish to reserve the term “marriage”).

Oh, I get where the view comes from as well. It’s mostly that I sorta feel that ship set sail a long, long time ago.

278 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 7:42:55pm

re: #238 negativ

This thread reminds me that Internet arguments of today seem so bland in comparison to the ancient days of the Internet when Usenet, rather than the WWW, was the most common discussion forum for those not using CompuServe.

Bizarre rivalries between two or three Usenet-famous individuals (i.e., kooks that make the Shrieking Harpy seem merely mildly eccentric) would commonly spawn vast flame wars that spread like illegal alien Arizona wildfire and took no quarter when it came to sucking in completely unrelated kooks from other newsgroups.

Way back in the early 90s, THIS VERY GUY RIGHT HERE was a prominent Usenet kook. A person who’d been having a Usenet pissing contest with him posted an audio file of an answering machine message Winter left for him. I sadly don’t have the file anymore, but it was so side-splittingly hilarious to me that I memorized it.

necessary setup:
Imagine that you move into a new neighborhood. A kindly and well-meaning neighbor calls you up and leaves you message that says, “Hello, My name is John Doe. My wife, Jane, and I would like to welcome you to the neighborhood and invite you to join us this Saturday afternoon for our weekly BBQ. Hope to see you there; bye!” (click).

Now, in that exact same tone of voice and jauntiness of spirit, imagine the person saying this:

“Hi, Greg. This is Steve Winter. I curse you in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. You are filthy little false Christian scum. Keep your garbage to yourself. I curse you in the name of the Lord. Filthy false Christian scum.” (click) And he was heart-attack serious about it.

Primordial lulz. The younglings have no idea what they missed.

Usenet was so rad :D You had to THROW DOWN on usenet!

279 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin  Sat, Jun 25, 2011 9:58:29pm

re: #278 WindUpBird

Usenet was so rad :D You had to THROW DOWN on usenet!

Lol Usenet was a zoo. At least no one had to put up with this crybaby, poor-me BROAD BRUSH bellyaching, either. Please. Lol!

280 Jimmah  Sun, Jun 26, 2011 1:09:52am

What about all those folks who want the word ‘gay’ to mean ‘happy’ or ‘pleasant” like it did in the sweet old olden days? Won’t anybody think of them?

Waah!

281 po8crg  Sun, Jun 26, 2011 7:12:39am

Anyone ever seen a French marriage procession?

The French state, because of laïcité, does not recognise marriages conducted in a church. The Catholic church requires Catholics to marry in a Catholic church.

This is how it works out in practice in small towns in France

The couples have a nuptial mass in church, and then they walk through the streets of the town, followed by the entire wedding party (ie all their families and friends) to the Hôtel de Ville (the town hall) where the mayor of the town is waiting to conduct the civil marriage. Then they head off to the reception.

If the couple are popular - and they usually are, most people are in favour of young people getting married - then the rest of the town will come out and line the streets from church to town hall.

[Obviously, gay couples don’t have a religious marriage in a Catholic church; I understand that some of them have the procession from their home to the town hall, if they’re in an area where gay marriage is socially acceptable]

I’d have thought that small-town America, where there are much more likely to be multiple churches of different denominations, would find the wedding procession through the streets to be something that would include people of another denomination who would not be welcome in the church where the wedding took place - it would, I think, fit well into the customs of much of the USA.

The French state only recognises the civil marriage; the Catholic church only recognises the religious marriage. That works far better than the idea of trying to call the civil marriage something other than marriage, and perhaps the US should learn from the other country that separates church from state.

282 po8crg  Sun, Jun 26, 2011 7:15:05am

re: #281 po8crg

Bother, I’d misinterpreted what I’ve seen on holiday in France. It appears that they have the civil marriage first, and the processions I’ve seen go from the Hôtel de Ville to the church and not the other way around.

283 Genshed  Sun, Jun 26, 2011 10:57:45am

Well, my husband and I have been happily married for either fifteen or three years, depending on how we count. Back in 1996, we had a wedding performed by a Baptist minister. Although he was happy to marry us, the State of California would not recognize the marriage. So much for religious liberty! Then, during the Wedding Window back in 2008, we married AGAIN, this time with a UCC minister, this time recognized by the State. Our two sons were somewhat confused. “Aren’t you ALREADY married?”

I have to tell you, it does feel good knowing that our family is legally recognized - at least at the state level. Now, if one of us were to die tomorrow, the surviving spouse would NOT get any Social Security survivor’s benefits - but WOULD be the payor for our sons’ survivor’s benefits. Because they Feds recognize them as our sons, but not each other as spouses.

Imagine our grandkids hearing these stories.


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT
LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal
Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
Once Praised, the Settlement to Help Sickened BP Oil Spill Workers Leaves Most With Nearly Nothing When a deadly explosion destroyed BP’s Deepwater Horizon drilling rig in the Gulf of Mexico, 134 million gallons of crude erupted into the sea over the next three months — and tens of thousands of ordinary people were hired ...
Cheechako
Yesterday
Views: 58 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Texas County at Center of Border Fight Is Overwhelmed by Migrant Deaths EAGLE PASS, Tex. - The undertaker lighted a cigarette and held it between his latex-gloved fingers as he stood over the bloated body bag lying in the bed of his battered pickup truck. The woman had been fished out ...
Cheechako
4 days ago
Views: 162 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1