The Massachusetts Court Ruling on Homosexual Marriage

[AGBF]

----------------
On 3/1/2004 4:07:33 AM chris-uk04 wrote:

[/i]I meant to say 'or' instead of 'and'.

Gotcha.

I think he would be irresponsible and foolish for the same reasons I find Newsom irresponsible and foolish. He wants to tell everyone as mayor to follow the laws, but break them himself? It's horribly hypocritical. What if everyone decides to break the law of their choice?

That is what civil disobedience is: breaking a law or acting contrary to a custom and not running away.


He’s been treated generally like a hero by the media. I’m sure Rush isn’t a fan of him, but I’m talking mainstream media. I didn't support Justice Moore, but I don't support Newsom either.

I feel what Justice Moore did violated the separation of Church and State. To me that is a breach of an essential part of the Constitution. Nonetheless, I see the act as civil disobedience. The man stood his ground and took the consequences. Society can live with lawbreakers who do that.


Thanks for the saying tidbit. I was talking about the hypocrisy in reporting over Gavin Newson and Justice Moore. The AP or Reuters or most Newspapers treat Newsom like a hero. If it was a conservative issue (like the sheriff gun analogy) the media would be all over him for violating the law and setting bad precedent. Shouldn't all people demand that public figures follow the correct proceedure to change law instead of breaking it, no matter what the issue is?.

As I said above, I feel a society can live with people like Justice Moore or Mayor Newsom who stand by their principles even at personal expense.



[/i]Well actually it IS a popularity contest. You've agreed that gay marriage isn't a constitutional right, therefore, in it a democracy, it will be then up to the legislature and therefore it WILL be a popularity contest. It is unfortunate for the gay marriage advocates that they are in the minority, but that is how a democracy should work.

Let's wait and see if the legislature, the courts, or the people (voting on a Constitutional amendment) have the last word. Our system *DOES* rely on checks and balances, after all!


[/i]I was talking about Affirmative action or 'positive' discrimation. I don't see how courts can find affirmative action in the 14th amendment or the equal rights act of 1964, but let's not get into.

I don't need to go there .

Deb

 

[AGBF]

An Op-Ed columnist who writes in "The New York Times", Nicholas Kristof, uses the same analogy used by some people here to put some perspective on the idea of same-sex marriage. Although the idea that what is once abhorrent becomes acceptable is not new, I think Mr. Kristof puts it very well, with interesting historical detail.

From, "The New York Times":


March 3, 2004
OP-ED COLUMNIST
Marriage: Mix and Match
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF

Shakespeare's "Othello" used to be among the hardest plays to stage in America. Although the actors playing Othello were white, they wore dark makeup, so audiences felt "disgust and horror," as Abigail Adams said. She wrote, "My whole soul shuddered whenever I saw the sooty heretic Moor touch the fair Desdemona."

Not until 1942, when Paul Robeson took the role, did a major American performance use a black actor as Othello. Even then, Broadway theaters initially refused to accommodate such a production.

Fortunately, we did not enshrine our "disgust and horror" in the Constitution — but we could have. Long before President Bush's call for a "constitutional amendment protecting marriage," Representative Seaborn Roddenberry of Georgia proposed an amendment that he said would uphold the sanctity of marriage.

Mr. Roddenberry's proposed amendment, in December 1912, stated, "Intermarriage between Negroes or persons of color and Caucasians . . . is forever prohibited." He took this action, he said, because some states were permitting marriages that were "abhorrent and repugnant," and he aimed to "exterminate now this debasing, ultrademoralizing, un-American and inhuman leprosy."

"Let this condition go on if you will," Mr. Roddenberry warned. "At some day, perhaps remote, it will be a question always whether or not the solemnizing of matrimony in the North is between two descendants of our Anglo-Saxon fathers and mothers or whether it be of a mixed blood descended from the orangutan-trodden shores of far-off Africa." (His zoology was off: orangutans come from Asia, not Africa.)

In Mr. Bush's call for action last week, he argued that the drastic step of a constitutional amendment is necessary because "marriage cannot be severed from its cultural, religious and natural roots without weakening the good influence of society." Mr. Roddenberry also worried about the risks ahead: "This slavery of white women to black beasts will bring this nation to a conflict as fatal and as bloody as ever reddened the soil of Virginia."

That early effort to amend the Constitution arose after a black boxer, Jack Johnson, ostentatiously consorted with white women. "A blot on our civilization," the governor of New York fretted.

In the last half-century, there has been a stunning change in racial attitudes. All but nine states banned interracial marriages at one time, and in 1958, a poll found that 96 percent of whites disapproved of marriages between blacks and whites. Yet in 1997, 77 percent approved. (A personal note: my wife is Chinese-American, and I heartily recommend miscegenation.)

Mr. Bush is an indicator of a similar revolution in views — toward homosexuality — but one that is still unfolding. In 1994, Mr. Bush supported a Texas antisodomy law that let the police arrest gays in their own homes. Now the Bushes have gay friends, and Mr. Bush appoints gays to office without worrying that he will turn into a pillar of salt.

Social conservatives like Mr. Bush are right in saying that marriage is "the most fundamental institution in civilization." So we should extend it to America's gay minority — just as marriage was earlier extended from Europe's aristocrats to the masses.

Conservatives can fairly protest that the gay marriage issue should be decided by a political process, not by unelected judges. But there is a political process under way: state legislatures can bar the recognition of gay marriages registered in Sodom-on-the-Charles, Mass., or anywhere else. The Defense of Marriage Act specifically gives states that authority.

Yet the Defense of Marriage Act is itself a reminder of the difficulties of achieving morality through legislation. It was, as Slate noted, written by the thrice-married Representative Bob Barr and signed by the philandering Bill Clinton. It's less a monument to fidelity than to hypocrisy.

If we're serious about constitutional remedies for marital breakdowns, we could adopt an amendment criminalizing adultery. Zamfara, a state in northern Nigeria, has had success in reducing AIDS, prostitution and extramarital affairs by sentencing adulterers to be stoned to death.

Short of that, it seems to me that the best way to preserve the sanctity of American marriage is for us all to spend less time fretting about other people's marriages — and more time improving our own.

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company | Home | Privacy Policy | Search | Corrections | Help |

 

[Rank Amateur]

Race and gender are to entirely different things. Race has a whole palette of colors, while gender primarily is black and white.

To equate those who believe marriage is a man-woman thing with feelings of pure racial bigotry is absurd, no matter how well-established your membership in the intelligentia is.

I do not imply that all gays are perverts and you should not imply that two-person-hetero marriage people are the equivalent of a racial bigots.

 

[pqcollectibles]

The If,... Then logic of this article failed me too, RA.

 

[AGBF]

----------------
On 3/3/2004 11:52:54 AM Rank Amateur wrote:

"Race and gender are to entirely different things. Race has a whole palette of colors, while gender primarily is black and white."

Race and sex (gender is really a misnomer and I won't use it to be politically correct) are, indeed, different. We agree on that. But what does that mean to you? Why are you mentioning it?


"To equate those who believe marriage is a man-woman thing with feelings of pure racial bigotry is absurd"

I agree again that failure to treat equally members of a racial (or ethnic or religious) group-or members of a certain sex-is different from accepting the institution of marriage between two people of the same sex.

Neither I nor the people I have quoted have stated that failure to recognize same-sex marriage is the equivalent of racial bigotry.

What we have said (again and again and again) is that the argument that same-sex marriage has never been accepted BEFORE and thus cannot be accepted now is a specious one.

What we have said (again and again and again) is that people MAY one day come to see same sex marriage as normal although they did not initially...and we have said, correctly, that that was the history of bi-racial marriage.

"no matter how well-established your membership in the intelligentia is."

A cheap shot unworthy of you, R/A. I know you can argue like a man when you want to.


"I do not imply that all gays are perverts and you should not imply that two-person-hetero marriage people are the equivalent of a racial bigots."

I never said you implied gays were perverts, but whether you think they are or not has nothing with what I should (or shouldn't) imply. (Really, where is your logic?)

For the record-and NOT because you were a good boy and didn't say gays were perverts, but just because it's the truth-I never implied that people who fail to accept same-sex marriage are the equivalent of racial bigots.

I have to ask you, R/A: do you TRULY not understand the point I am making or are you being willfully obtuse?

Can you not understand the difference between someone saying:

"failure to countenance same-sex marriage is bigotry"

and someone saying, as I do,

"the argument that same-sex marriage is unacceptable since same-sex marriage never was before is specious; people once felt bi-racial marriage was unacceptable, too"?

Deb

 

[AGBF]

----------------
On 3/3/2004 12:01:00 PM pqcollectibles wrote:

The If,... Then logic of this article failed me too, RA.

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

I tried to make my position clear for R/A. If my attempt to clarify for him doesn't answer your questions, please let me know what I should clarify for you.

Deborah

 

[mike04456]

----------------
On 3/3/2004 7:17:42 AM AGBF wrote:

But there is a political process under way: state legislatures can bar the recognition of gay marriages registered in Sodom-on-the-Charles, Mass., or anywhere else. The Defense of Marriage Act specifically gives states that authority.

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

This is still an open question. There's the little matter of Article IV, Section 1 of the Constitution:

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.

The Defense of Marriage Act may well be unconstitutional in that it allows states to ignore marriages from other states. Thus the drive for a constitutional amendment on gay marriage.

 

[AGBF]

LawGem, I didn't write what you just attributed to me!!!!!

Deb

 

[pqcollectibles]

That's just it, Deb. You hardly ever state any views. You mostly reprint articles. The line LawGem quoted was in the article that you posted.

 

[mike04456]

----------------
On 3/3/2004 4:34:18 PM AGBF wrote:





LawGem, I didn't write what you just attributed to me!!!!!

Deb
----------------

It's a quote from the Kristof piece you posted. It was the board software that attributed it to you.

 

[AGBF]

----------------
On 3/3/2004 4:56:00 PM pqcollectibles wrote:

That's just it, Deb. You hardly ever state any views. You mostly reprint articles. The line LawGem quoted was in the article that you posted.


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

Wow. I surely wouldn't say I hardly ever state my views! In fact, I started the "Marriage" thread with a précis of how I viewed marriage when I first got married and I planned to update it. My views have changed over time, but I was certainly no proponent of same-sex marriage when it was first proposed .

Deb

 

[chris-uk04]

One of the big differences between civil rights movement and gay marriage is that there hasn’t any substantial scientific proof to show that being gay is purely genetic rather than a choice. This matters because the natural state is one of the deciding factors of affirming civil rights. Blacks were enslaved because of their skin color. Women were denied the right to vote because of their sex. Asians were systematically rounded up in World War II simply because of their ethnicity. Because skin color, sex, and ethnicity are basic human characteristics, we have a responsibility to guard against discrimination that would penalize these groups. If sexual preference is indeed an individual choice rather than a biological fact, then what civil rights need to be protected?

The problem with the current constitutional crisis that Gavin Newsom has forced on the nation is that we are now shifting the civil rights debate from simple biology to personal choice. From homosexuality, it's a slippery slope to any number of lifestyle choices that people would want to claim civil rights over. Tolerance dictates that all people should be treated with dignity and respect. It does not, however, compel society to endorse someone's personal choice over the will of the majority.

 

[Nicrez]

Wow, Chris that was an interesting point! Personal choice is something that is always controversial. One such issue I have encountered was people having the right to exercise their personal tastes in clothing in the workplace. I recall a time where people were furious about dress codes at work and tried to overturn them at a law firm where I once worked. We had a strict code of no open toed shoes, suits only, stockings had to be worn with skirts, etc.




This is only valid to this point in that a person's choice MAY NOT affect another person physically, but it does change the general atmosphere of a group. Just a point to consider, which is my assumption why Bush and other people are so staunchly against the same sex marraiges. They want to retain the code and the atmosphere as is, and people are asking for further flexibility and a relaxed code...




Eventually the dress code was relaxed to slacks on casual Fridays, but I believe that any older, more traditional group will enventually cede to the wishes of the general population eventually, if the force is great enough. My question is, do you think the force IS great enough this upcoming electoral year?

 

[fire&ice]

----------------
On 3/8/2004 12:36:53 PM Nicrez wrote:


My question is, do you think the force IS great enough this upcoming electoral year?
----------------

No, I don't in the big scheme of things. But, these issues have a way of lumping/morphing into morality issues. I'm sure the religious right will use it to their advantage. I don't see the momentum in the other side.

 

[winyan]

Chris...

I have to differ w/you that homosexuality isn't genetic and is a choice. It occurs in every culture (though not accepted in every culture) and among non-homo species as well.

Among my own people, people who were gay were called 'two-hearted' and thought to be special enough that they were often asked to join the 'elk-dreamers' society and asked to prepare the love medicine for the hetero lovers, and believed that only they could 'dream' the proper name for a newborn.

win

 

[Rank Amateur]

I think this guy has it about right.

 

[chris-uk04]

----------------
On 3/8/2004 12:36:53 PM Nicrez wrote:


Wow, Chris that was an interesting point! Personal choice is something that is always controversial. ... My question is, do you think the force IS great enough this upcoming electoral year?
----------------

Gay marriage is a touchy subject, especially for the Democrats. The fact is that most polls show 65-70% of America are against gay marriage. While most gays and anti hetero-marriage sympathizers vote Democrat, “mainstream” Democrats are trying to get a broad support of American voters. So while the Democrats don’t want to alienate their base by being pro hetero-marriage, they don’t want to scare off the “swing” voters. So look for Kerry to have long-winded, Clintonesque, answer-less responses to questions on his position on gay marriage. He'll just try to duck the issue. Also look for blatant double talk depending on who his crowd is.

Bush on the otherhand won't have a problem stating his opinion. However, overall, it will not turn out to be a major issue and a major reason why people will vote the way they will vote (if they vote at all).

 

[fire&ice]

----------------
On 3/9/2004 5:38:30 PM Rank Amateur wrote:

I think this guy has it about right.----------------

That's is the way I feel about it. Could I be turing into a conservative?

 

[winyan]

I totally disagree. It's common that marriage is between a man and woman in 20th century America, but historically it wasn't always this way.

Times change and marriage should change with it.

I resent the fact that marriage is being defined by Mr. Bush's religion, culture, and social mores. There are more peoples in this country, more cultures and more religions. Defining customs by one religion, culture and custom is especially wrong in this country which prides itself on it's 'stew'. (It used to be called melting pot, but now it's a stew, with each culture, religion and social mores more clearly defined than ever.)

win

 

[chris-uk04]

----------------
On 3/11/2004 7:58:04 PM winyan wrote:

I totally disagree. It's common that marriage is between a man and woman in 20th century America, but historically it wasn't always this way.

Times change and marriage should change with it.

I resent the fact that marriage is being defined by Mr. Bush's religion, culture, and social mores. There are more peoples in this country, more cultures and more religions. Defining customs by one religion, culture and custom is especially wrong in this country which prides itself on it's 'stew'. (It used to be called melting pot, but now it's a stew, with each culture, religion and social mores more clearly defined than ever.)

win----------------

First off , when was marriage ever not between a man and a woman?

Secondly, I would agree with your statements if the majority of the population agreed with gay marriage and the minority’s social views were preventing it. However the fact is the opposite remains true. Polls continue to show that 65-70% are against gay marriage. Since the right of gays to get “married” is not a constitutionally protected right, then it should be up to the people. Perhaps in 25 years, people will feel differently, but they don’t now. This is how a democracy works. Instead of trying hijack the democracy, gay should be patient and try to work to improve their image. In the meantime, gays certainly shouldn’t define their love for each other by a government issued document.

Gay marriage certainly won’t effect my future marriage or effect my day-to-day life in the slightest. So I really don’t care all that much, but I write on principle.

 

[AGBF]

----------------
On 3/11/2004 7:58:04 PM winyan wrote:

"I totally disagree. It's common that marriage is between a man and woman in 20th century America, but historically it wasn't always this way."


Would you elaborate on this, win? In studying "the History of the Family", a sort of sub-specialty or specialized area of history, I saw it always as between a man and a woman. However, my training was as an historian specializing in western civilizations, not as an anthropologist, and I know that I am unaware of many practices in non-western societies. (Anthropologists like Colin Turnbull and Ruth Benedict have fascinated me because they shed so much light on what occurs psychologically in cultures very different from ours.)

Deborah

 

[Nicrez]

I think there are two ways of viewing this debate. One is based on principle and the other based on facts.




Principles lead me to agree with Chris, RankAmature and F&I. That the gay rights issue of marraige isn't something to be determined by the governing bodies, and that they should not be overturned based on personal belief, but follow the laws set in, for a basically male-femal tradition where the government has control only due to the societal advantage of children and procreating of said marraiges...




HOWEVER, based on facts, gays are adopting and providing for eachother. They are cohabitating, and dying and willing their estates to eachother. There are laws in place for all these actions, especially the adoption laws that DO affect gay marraiges. So, what now? Ideally speaking, if they just had relations, and no equity, no offspring, no financial responsibilites and relationships to each other things would not be complex, and maybe they wouldn't care to have governmental support. But the fact remains that legitimacy of their relationship and the benefits that heteros enjoy are denied to gay marraige families. Families are being redefined every generation. What was mother and father and extended family, becamse mother and father, and then just mother or just father, or father sometimes, then mother the rest of the time, now it's mother and mother, father and father. Do we deny the rights to single women to apply for tax breaks just because they are not a traditional family setup?




Just a thought...I am confused myself as to where I stand, and without further clarification of what a marraige priviledges a gay family, or even being in one, I wouldn't know how to respond just yet...

 

[winyan]

Really, RA, and how would your categorize hermaphrodites?

win

 

[winyan]

Sorry, I missed this earlier, Deb.

Cultures like the Greek and Roman have long espoused (no pun intended) couples like Achilles and Petrakolas (spelling), and of course Alexander (the Great) had his paramour as well.

My own culture allowed 'twin hearted people' to marry and live as medicine people. Other cultures in the So. Pacific did likewise.

Among the Hawaiian and Ancient Egyptian peoples (Kemet) sister married brother, and some of the most beautiful of the love poetry embraces the brother/sister relationship.

Of course we know now that genetically, it's not an ideal thing for family to intermarry close family. I'm just pointing out that what is forbidden within Judaeo/Christian/Islamic culture isn't necessarily the status quo for everyone.

win

 

[Rank Amateur]

I would characterize them as freaks of nature. The "gender" of these people will not set the course of our nation's policy on marriage.

Cultures of the past have done all sorts of things, many many many of which we don't want to model ourselves after.

 

[winyan]

Err, at the risk of sounding like what is commonly called "Politically Correct" would you really want to label people 'freaks'? That's as bad as the medical term for babies born with birth defects. That term is 'Monster'.

win

PS Having two people in love and sharing a bond isn't something I would mind emulating in this era. Throwing living two year olds into the mouth of a bronze burning idol, a la Baal, would be.

 

[AGBF]

----------------
On 3/13/2004 5:26:46 PM Rank Amateur wrote:

"I would characterize them as freaks of nature."


Hermaphrodites are so incredibly rare that I don't think they really need anyone defending their good name. Having seen a child born with dual genitalia while working on the pediatric service of a major teaching hospital, though...I can't bear to hear the child referred to this way. It is incredibly tragic. The doctors have to "pick" the better sex for the child and then operate and offer treatment to bring as much as can be into alignment with the selected sex. The baby is really innocent, you know. It didn't choose to have its body mixed up anymore than conjoined twins chose to be conjoined.

I no longer get PMS and I certainly didn't just have a baby, so I wonder why this makes me feel like crying? I didn't mean to pick on you, R/A. I know you would never say anything to a child or his family to hurt him. I just can't get the tears out of my eyes, though .

Deb

 

[verticalhorizon]

I stopped reading about a million posts back, but thought I'd add...

Democratic Nominee Kerry said on MTV's Rock the Vote that he supports all of the legal rights afforded to all citizens who are partnered and therefore supports civil unions.

I will agree with senator Kerry IF he were to take it one step further.

1.) It is inherent in the US government's earliest beginnings to separate church and state. Therefore the government has no place in telling the church who can and can't marry. (LIkewise the church can't tell the government, either) Some churches won't marry you if you're a different race, or even if you live together before marriage. That's their prerogative. Gay and straight couples can find a church that suit them.

2.) Fully support civil unions that bestow all the legal rights of marriage in the US to ALL citizens who want to partake, but call ALL ceremonies that are not church related Civil Unions... those for homosexuals AND heterosexual couples. Therefore equality is provided, in name as well as law.

 

[Rank Amateur]

There was no effort "at the beginning" to separate church and State. Quite the opposite, really, as God is mentioned over and over in the early documents. The Declaration of Independence is the Grandaddy of them all and makes several references to God. Your bit about it being "inherent" is just wishful thinking.

AS for Kerry, he is trying (as always) to play both sides of the fence, not really taking a stand. He's against gay marriage but for gay civil unions. Riiiight. Sounds like a politician's attempt to traverse the waters using semantics rather than principle. If he had any nads he'd come out in favor of gay marriage and let the chips fall where they may.

 

[verticalhorizon]

I'll concede to the many, many Judeo-Christian references in the birth of the nation, however, I will still contend that religion still had less of an offial purpose in the rule of law as it had been earlier in Europe (like the Church of England-created purposefully b/c the king didn't like the laws, or the church and wanted to be a crazy lunatic).

As for Kerry's wishy-washy stand on gay marriage. Point also taken. I'd only side with Kerry if he were to either make a full stand, or concede to point #2, which I think, it terms of the current politial atmosphere, is not a great leap and is a very sustainable platform. I don't think I've seen a presidential candidate come out and say anything that resembles a real opinion in 50 years. Everyone comes to the center during the election year. In fact, I'm very surprised W's campaign people agreed to let him try and push the amendment at all. (Apparently, he doesn't watch the Bravo network.)

To expect any major party to come out and say that they support gay marriage... well THAT's wishful thinking. The consitution simply should not be used to take away people's rights.