Does Gay marriage=Bush reelection?

[KellY]

Hey 'yall,

My friend Andrew just got married to Mike, his partner of 14 years, at San Francisco city hall yesterday - he was on CNN and everything. It meant a great deal to him, even though the legal status of the marriage is murky at best.

The city is doing this in direct defiance to state law- quixotic but very cool, I think. I heard a spokesman for some religious group who tried to get a court order to force the city to stop refer to it as "the worst sort of anarchy". And of course I'm sure to the Republicans this issue is a godsend -something to distract the homophobic masses from the war and the economy- on the other hand, maybe they'll go to far and drive moderates away with Buchannanesque moves. I'm also sure that the Demos wish this hadn't come up in an election year...

Personally, I think it's a no-brainer that gays should be allowed to marry. I mean come on, Britney Spears has done more to destroy "the sanctity of marriage" -as W. puts it- than all the queers in Vermont. My friend Andrew can't marry his partner of 14 years but Elizabeth Taylor can enter into Holy Matrimony 8 times? Puh-leeze.

All the arguements I've heard against gay marriage are either religious, which have no place in our government, or trot out a line of bullshit about marriage being for children, how children need stable homes with a mother and a father, etc. If that's what it's all about, than hetero couples who can't or don't want to have children shouldn't be allowed marry either. Oh, and I guess children should be taken away from single parents as well...

(pant, pant)

Okay, done ranting. What do you all think?

[Zulegoona]

I was one who felt that at this time it would be better to secure most if not all the legal rights of marriage for gay couples and forget about the word " marriage", because it seemed like the stumbling block that outraged the religious right and even served to alienate a number of those middle of the road people who would support legal unions. After the rights it is all about the symbolism of the word of the word.

After a long discussion with my ex-wife who is now in a fairly committed relationship with a woman. And forcing a conservative coworker to explain how increasing the ranks of married people was an assault on marriage that had to be defended against.

I've changed my mind, certainly the legal rights would still be the most important thing to me if I were gay, But the symbolism is important.

Because conservatives feel that to allow homosexuals the mantel of marriage is to sanction and encourage sinful behavior, and any sex outside of marriage is sinful, so on this point the laws have been in accordance with there belief systems.

Because of the way they feel the laws support there definition of who is sinful and who isn't is the very reason it is important in our secular democracy that the union of two people either of the same or opposite gender be treated the same. To accept even as little as a title difference is to accept to idea of a second class statues. Sanctioning the us and them schisms dividing American society.

I do fear that the timing of this all will pull the swayable middle to his camp, and prevent the religious conservatives from finding a different candidate who reflects there values on the home front.

Many of us move in small circles and forget how conservative much of America is, there is a real possibility that the gay marriage issue and the insistence of the word "marriage" also apply to gay unions would be enough to throw the election to Bush. But to bring ourselves down to the winning at all costs even if it means we don't stand for anything is also a losing proposition.

It's easy for me to talk, I'm straight , I don't have any kids, I can afford to do the right thing............

[DVD Burner]

Does Gay marriage=Bush reelection? nope, but it does open the door to a much bigger picture.The change to the American constitution.

Also, I really cannot wait for the marriages in San Francisco to be challenged in court. Most think Newsome is just doing what he is doing as a political play without understanding how well he has thought this through.

The funniest part of all is that his wife is one of the most awsome layers on the planet.

[que.f.o.]

I'm guessing you mean she is a good lawyer as opposed to a great fuck. Proof-reading and using a dictionary are not that difficult. You and all your puppets really should give it a try. It will make your credibility increase almost measurably.

[DVD Burner]

I'm guessing you mean she is a good lawyer as opposed to a great fuck. Proof-reading and using a dictionary are not that difficult. You and all your puppets really should give it a try. It will make your credibility increase almost measurably.

Well I wouldn’t know anything about a good fuck.......she's not my type.

My personal tastes tend to lean towards smaller framed and not so much squared in the jaw.

As far as spelling I'll say this again for the 12th time.... (I guess you're not as good of a troll of me as you may think.) There are plenty of people on this board you can say the same about when it comes to bad spelling. If you're smart enough then you got the jest of my point. If not, maybe you should try to concentrate on more than one thing at a time. Like sticking to the point of this thread.
Yes I do know that she is an excellent lawyer.

Also......this is not a sock puppet issue. I at least stay within thread theme.

What’s your excuse?

It's stupid shit like this that gives me high post counts. I really hope the plonker gets put online soon so that you guys can plonk me out. And of course the spellchecker mod. Some of us have a life and expediency is a necessary evil when posting.

Really.

P.s. ran this through the spellchecker and que.f.o.'s post had some issues too.

[que.f.o.]

Excuse...all of a sudden we need excuses for what we write. Who changed the rules?

You are correct DVDB, some thread drift happens. I didn't have anything cogent to say about gay marriage in CA. I live in Oregon and in all honesty, couldn't care less who marries/sleeps with who.

On the other hand, you say yourself the apparent inability to improve your spelling and grammer has been mentioned a dozen times. So how many times does it take getting hit with a fuckin' clue stick for you to make an effort to change?

Regarding post counts, as I'm sure you've noticed I've got maybe 50-60 compared to your >1300. It reminds me of time spent coaching a 13yo girls fastpitch team. All of a sudden the girls realized they had opinions. They figured out how to state them. Of course they all thought we, as adults, should listen, understand, and give full credence and weight to their 13yo opinions. Most of the time we, the parents and coaches, ignored them. As I tell my kids, frequently the best response or action is silence. Don't make a fool out of yourself by opening your mouth and showing your ignorance. Take the hint.

[DVD Burner]

Ok,

Look, almost everyone on eplaya knows I am a really bad speller. (Cant wait for the spellchecker mod.)
What most don’t know is that I am a really decent programmer and technician. Most of the time when I post here, sometimes I don’t have the time to re-read my posts.

Sorry about that, but most of the time ....time is of the essence.

As of right now, I am in the middle of ( as most times ) setting up my network. At the same time (most of the time again) explaining technical things to my friends and clients and potential clients, having a good time with people that pay just to hang with me to have a good time and learn something new.

At the same time they are all testing out my intranet.....whatever, of my site....( not the site that is posted) webcast with PHPbbs and mods while I'm posting to your response.

So really....please excuse me for making you feel bad in any way. I really really didn’t mean to.

I'm just doing more than chewing gum, talking and diagnosing at the same time.

Please accept my apology. No excuse intended.


That is all.

Thank you.

And what does 13yo girls or guys have anything to do with an intelligent thought?
If you're an awesome teacher you should be able to understand what they are saying or mean at anytime or under any circumstance.
Please don’t get the youngens involved with anything I do.

and I .....We apologize to Kelly for this drastic thread drift.

[que.f.o.]

DVDB,
People can only hurt you or make you feel bad if they have impact/input in your life. I don't know you except as a variety of names on this board. Don't worry, you can't make me feel bad, though I'm at a loss to understand why you thought you had in the first place.

Regarding the 13y.o softball players, apparently I wasn't clear. My point was this: just because they, and you, have a thought, opinion, or belief doesn't make it valid, correct, or interesting. Just because they, and you, have figured out how to express those thoughts or opinions, doesn't make them intelligent, cogent, or something I should give a shit about.

In other words, give us all a break and only post when you have something intelligent or funny to provide.

Feel free to think the same about me.

By the way, I function as an instructor/teacher in a variety of circumstances. Clinical instructor in Respiratory Care, coach of softball, basketball, baseball, etc. I'm actually quite good at it, from what I've been told. And of course, as a parent of two teens, I'm always teaching. They're just not always listening.

[joel the ornery]

If same sex marriages/civil unions some day come to pass... I only hope gays and lesbians make a much better effort at remaining together in their marriage/civil union than heterosexuals have done in tha past five decades.

[que.f.o.]

As I said earlier, I have little interest in who is in a relationship with who. That being the case, of course people of all persuasions should have the right to love and live in a committed relationship, be it with someone of the same or different gender. Will we ever get over our Puritan heritage?

Regarding the stability of those same gender relationships, don't hold your breath Joel. Avoiding all stereotypes of promiscuity, our culture evolves toward less accountability and committment. It's the "all about me" generation. I view this from a perspective of 23 years of marriage, having two brothers with multiple wives/partners. Am I an example of success? I wouldn't necessarily say so. My relationship is far from perfect. It probably wouldn't of lasted without kids. But being committed to something beyond me (good child-rearing environment) has provided that stability. Who knows?

[DVD Burner]

que.f.o.,

You've spoken much ado about nothing. but hey your entitled.

it wont stop me from making money. Also, that's wonderful about your kids. really. just keep them away from me.


When the plonker is installed please plonk me so I dont annoy you anymore.



Now let's see....what was the topic again???????

oh yeah, so what does this gay marrige thing and marrige in general do for someone like me. DISCIMINATE !

so all the dumb dumbs are complaining about who should get benifits, who gets control over one anothers lifes blah, blah, blah, those who are single dont currently get those same rights. which is not the point, but bush and their cronies wants everyone to think that it is so they can do their dirty deeds as usual.

Look up The bush family history sometime. That includes Babara Bush. it goes all the way back to King George times. These people are fucked in the head and take all the people that fall for the same tricks century after century every time for a ride.

So I bet it's still the grammer and spelling that give you a problem again huh.

[Tancorix]

So how does it discriminate against you? I read that post, reread it, looked back through the thread and still you totally lost me.

I don't see ANY problems with gay and lesbian marriage at all. I've had my hands full with other issues but now that the debate is getting airtime on CNN I'm paying more attention and I'm curious what the arguments are against it. I haven't made up my mind, I'm sure a few others haven't either. So go back and spell out your opposition in clear terms. I'd like to read what you have to say on it, and anyone else for that matter.

[DVD Burner]

the institution of marrige IMHO is somewhat of a farce.

Please dont misunderstand me here, if anyone wants to get married be it gay or straight cool, I'm all for it. However, if I'm the bread winner in my house and me and my significant other have a child and we want it that way without getting married, we are frowned opon. to top it off if either one of us gets hurt we cannot make desions for each other in case of an emergency.

Blah Blah Blah........still not my point. my point is that either way it really does'nt matter because my significant other and I will figure out what to do anyway. this marrige topic is just a distraction for the small fish so the big fish can do their dirty deeds.

[que.f.o.]

DVDB,
If it was only the spelling and grammer, I could ignore it. But your ongoing inability to make logical, cohesive sentences/points just doesn't go away.

Now out comes references to a national conspiracy to distract the public's attention with gay marriage while the "big fish" rape and pillage. I'm up for your basic conspiracy theory regarding abuses of power but even that is a bit far-fetched.

In a prior post within this thread you informed us of your busy work life (glad your good at what you do and are successful) and trying to squeeze in the time to post your many hundreds of missives. We found out your just too busy to proof your work. If you want people to take you seriously, realize that we make judgements on what we read and assisimilate. If you write like a sixth grader, people will respond to you that way.

[Tancorix]

The same De Facto criticisms keep appearing over and over again. Hmmm....I wonder if a few of them such as the spelling and grammatical comments might be valid?

Now I know that people in glass houses should not throw rocks. And I have lots of glass blocks around me as I write this. But even as hard headed as I am, I can make an effort to clean up the spelling and so can you. Slow down a bit and use the preview button please?

I don't mind the 1300+ posts but again, quality over quantity wins in this arena. Putting more of a focus on this for me has cut down the flak levels dramatically. You've got some great ideas and good content, just polish it up a little and some of the pesky sniper type comments will go away.

[que.f.o.]

Well put Tancorix.

[Bob]

The religious right et al defending us from marriage strikes me as kinda gay.

Esp. Catholic officialdom -- as Earl Butz, who as I recall was a fairly conservative Republican, said, "He no play-a da game, he no make-a da rules."

If they were similarly shrill re: defending divorce, child support, child endangerment, etc. I'd take them slightly more seriously.

Bush doesn't lose a damn thing dancing with who brung him, though.

[stuart]

i thought he meant she was really good at masonry.


in all sersiousness though, I was with my wife for 8 years before we married and I thought doing that deed would be nothing but a formality. It was not. For us, it added something. I respect the right of all committed partners to have the option to take that course if they should so choose. Anyone denying them is simply mean spirited. Anyone honestly reading the teachings of christ as depicted in the bible should easily come to the conclusion that the guy was a non-discriminating socialist.

[KellY]

Bush doesn't lose a damn thing dancing with who brung him, though.

Well, he probably loses the support of those Log Cabin Republicans who were so optimistic about getting the GOP to stop being so anti-gay - although I'm sure there are some who think "Hey, I make $200,000 a year, I'd rather have my fat tax break than a marriage certificate." But probably not too many, I suspect.

BTW, here's some great pictures of my freind Andrew going through the marriage process, if anyone's interested. I suggest going for the slideshow option.

http://photos.yahoo.com/j_a_maloney

[Wind_Borne]

May I throw a wrench in the works, please?

Perhaps we should just do away with civil-law marriage altogether. The marriage concept that some people worry about protecting is the religious insitution of marriage, not the special case of partnership law that civil marriages represent. How about this:

• > Replace marriage in all civil code with domestic partnerships, which may include 2 or more partners of any sex.
  
  > Treat marriage as a strictly spirtual concept.
  
  > The domestic partnership, and only the dometic partnership, would have legal standing; marriage would exist outside earthly law.

Here are the advantages of this notion:

• > Any spiritual group could define marriage within their group as they saw fit without interference from the government (since it would not be a civil law concept). One could then join the church that supported their views.
  
  > Those seeking the legal structure of the domestic partnership would be assured equal rights under the "equal protection" clause of the 14th amendment to the US Constitution.
  
  > Marriage would be freed of all the legal and financial considerations that have so corrupted it (a pre-nup would mean nothing in a spiritual, non-legal, marriage).

While I'm at it, let me make an observation. Many folks look for marriage as a way to share corporate or government benefits with a partner. A word to the wise here... WAKE UP AND SMELL THE COFFEE!! Don't rely on a third party to cover your health or retirement needs. Who knows if that company will be around when you need the coverage? And we all know that Social Security is about to go bankrupt. TAKE CARE OF YOURSELF and YOUR LOVED ONES! Allocate a portion of your paycheck to build your own health and retirement package -- and pay into that first. Then tell your employer that you don't want the health coverage, but the cash they spend on it instead. Once you own your personal benefit package, then you can share it with whomever you like -- the church and government be hanged!

End Of Rant

[que.f.o.]

Wrench away Wind. Great concept. Kind of a "aha" moment for me. Great way to continue separating church and state.

[Bob]

According to the Chronicle, 2,636 gay and lesbian couples have already lined up at City Hall to fill out marriage licenses that the mayor directed to be changed so as to avoid exclusionary gender-specific references such as "bride", "groom", "unmarried man" and "unmarried woman".

The legal basis for the mayor's actions (per WB's post) is reliance on equal protection as defined in the California Constitution, and the duty of the mayor as an executive to uphold it in pursuing the business of the City and County of San Francisco. He sidesteps an explicit reference to the California Defense of Marriage Act (Prop 22, which added "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." to the state Family Code), but cites other law that arguably trumps it and supports his interpretation.

February 10, 2004

Nancy Alfaro
San Francisco County Clerk
City Hall, Room 168
1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place
San Francisco, CA 94102

Dear Ms. Alfaro,

Upon taking the Oath of Office, becoming the Mayor of the City and County of San Francisco, I swore to uphold the Constitution of the State of California. Article I, Section 7, subdivision (a) of the California Constitution provides that "[a] person may not be . . . denied equal protection of the laws." The California courts have interpreted the equal protection clause of the California Constitution to apply to lesbians and gay men and have suggested that laws that treat homosexuals differently from heterosexuals are suspect. The California courts have also stated that discrimination against gay men and lesbians is invidious. The California courts have held that gender discrimination is suspect and invidious as well. The Supreme Courts in other states have held that equal protection provisions in their state constitutions prohibit discrimination against gay men and lesbians with respect to the rights and obligations flowing from marriage. It is my belief that these decisions are persuasive and that the California Constitution similarly prohibits such discrimination.

Pursuant to my sworn duty to uphold the California Constitution, including specifically its equal protection clause, I request that you determine what changes should be made to the forms and documents used to apply for and issue marriage licenses in order to provide marriage licenses on a non-discriminatory basis, without regard to gender or sexual orientation.

Respectfully,

Mayor Gavin Newsom

http://www.ci.sf.ca.us/site/mayor_page.asp?id=22779

I wouldn't say WindBorne's arguments are moot, but by the end of today some 6000-odd people previously denied the opportunity will have volunteered to enter into the civil contract that by law and custom -- not religious edict -- we call marriage. If that's what they want, let's give it to them.

[que.f.o.]

Amen...in a totally non-religous sort of way.

[unjonharley]

People are just like crotch dogs.
.
Sticking there collective noses in some ones shorts.
.
This nation need to stop checking every ones underwear.
.
They shoulg have learned after Star was distracted from bird doging Hillary. They took him off point with the prezz getting a blow job. Made him a crotch dog. He was so easy.

[stuart]

we all know that Social Security is about to go bankrupt. TAKE CARE OF YOURSELF and YOUR LOVED ONES! Allocate a portion of your paycheck to build your own health and retirement package -- and pay into that first. Then tell your employer that you don't want the health coverage, but the cash they spend on it instead.

a few notes

first, vis a vis social security. Please tell me what you mean by 'about' cuz last time I checked it was something like 70 years until insolvency by some reckonings.

re: allocating portions of your wages to retirement and healthcare. This assumes you have some sort of discretionary income to begin with. It also ignores the issue of our brutally corrupt health insurance industry. While I have the discretionary income I am loathe to give it to a middle man who is motivated financially to give me crappy care.

You can only tell your employer to give you the cash they spend on your health coverage if they are giving you coverage in the first place. This situation is becoming less and less common.

[KellY]

Hey Wind-Bourne,

I certainly think you have a point, but I think you'd need a complete transformation of our capitalist state before it was really viable. Even then, I'm not too sure about the mulitple partners thing - say you go into a coma; which of your spouses has power of attorney? What if they can't agree what to do and start arguing, then going to court...ay yi yi. Non-monogoamy is all well and good, but I'd keep it out of the legal sphere.

On a competely different topic, more evidence that the W administration is pure, spiteful evil (from http://www.salon.com):

Feb. 18
"Your Rights" -- or not

The Washington Post reports that even as the Bush administration is caught up in the debate on gay marriage, a Republican appointee at the independent agency Office of Special Counsel, whose mission is to protect whistleblowers and other federal employees from retribution, pulled references to sexual orientation discrimination off the Web site where government employees can learn about their rights in the workplace.

"The Web pages at the Office of Special Counsel, an independent agency, has removed references to sexual orientation from a discrimination complaint form, training slides, a brochure titled 'Your Rights as a Federal Employee' and other documents. Scott J. Bloch, the agency head, said he ordered the material removed because of uncertainty over whether a provision of civil service law applies to federal workers who claim unfair treatment because they are gay, bisexual or heterosexual." More Post: "The provision usually has been interpreted to mean that a worker's off-duty behavior cannot be used as a justification for dismissal, demotion or discipline unless it hampers job performance or interferes with the work of others. That has been the stance at the Office of Personnel Management, which oversees the government's workplace policies, for at least two decades. The OPM Web site continues to advise employees that bias based on sexual orientation is unlawful and informs them that complaints may be filed at the Office of Special Counsel."

Reminds me of the time a few months ago when all information regarding condoms was pulled off the Health and Human Services web site. Evilevilevil...

Meanwhile, Bush says he is "deeply troubled" by what he sees happening in San Francisco (Laura is "shocked"). Funny, I don't remember any comments from the Bushes when Brittany went through her get married-disappear in hotel room for days-annullment adventure. BTW, it was recently pointed out to me that Brit's fiasco is particularly amusing because she had publicly said she was "saving herself for marriage".

With the courts giving San Francisco basically carte blanch to keep performing marriages until the whole thing is settled, possibly as late as March 29th, I think things will get very interesting. I think it will be a lot harder for the conservatives to prove the need to revoke thousands of marriage liscences than it would have been to simply keep it illegal if this hadn't happened.

[Wind_Borne]

Stuart,

• I may be taking rhetorical license with the phrase "about to go bankrupt," but I wouldn't trust it to last 70 years either. It's my life, and my old age -- I have no intention of depending on a Social Security check! You? Taking control of one's own health & financial future is daunting to many, and schools neglect it; but your future contentment may depend on it!
  
  I don't want to drift this thread too much. Perhaps I'll start a new thread about this, or just PM me.

KellY,

• Well I didn't really expect to change the world (but one can always hope). Next I'll fix the tax code!
  
  I don't think I could work an intimate relationship with more than one other person; but the muslims seem to have done so for centuries. I'll defer to the muslims out there to explain the details of shariac law regarding powers of attorney.
  
  My goal was to explore the sometimes contrary facets of marriage as a spiritual and legal construct.

Thanks for your thoughts.

[unjonharley]

Wind

When your wife go's out with canser after you and the kids spend everything even the 1937 Indian. SS checks look pretty good. L have to live way down. I can do that and be happy theres a morning{:)

[Absyntheboy]

12 Reasons Same-Sex Marriage Will Ruin Society


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Homosexuality is not natural, much like eyeglasses, polyester, and birth control are not natural.

2. Heterosexual marriages are valid because they produce children. Infertile couples and old people cannot get legally married because the world needs more children.

3. Obviously gay parents will raise gay children because straight parents only raise straight children.

4. Straight marriage will be less meaningful, since Britney Spears's 55-hour just-for-fun marriage was meaningful.

5. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and it hasn't changed at all: women are property, Blacks can't marry Whites, and divorce is illegal.

6. Gay marriage should be decided by the people, not the courts, because the majority-elected legislatures, not courts, have historically protected the rights of minorities.

7. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are always imposed on the entire country. That's why we only have one religion in America.

8. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people makes you tall.

9. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage license.

10. Children can never succeed without both male and female role models at home. That's why single parents are forbidden to raise children.

11. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and we could never adapt to new social norms because we haven't adapted to cars or longer lifespans.

12. Civil unions, providing most of the same benefits as marriage with a different name are better, because a "separate but equal" institution is always constitutional. Separate schools for African-Americans worked just as well as separate marriages will for gays & lesbians.

Visit http://www.gatorgsa.org/gaymarriage.html to print your own.

The Gator Gay-Straight Alliance at the University of Florida made this flyer last week. It's been circulating the internet via livejournals, email forwards, IM profiles, etc.

[Rob the Wop]

8. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people makes you tall.

That's it. I'm gonna have to start "hanging around" (so to speak) with Ron Jeremy.