Dubai Debt Issues Push Stocks Down
Family Gets Early Christmas Gift From Ellen DeGeneres
Stuy Pyro Leaves Notes In Hieroglyphics
Photos of D Train Murder Depict Bloody Panic
Have Fancy Dress & Thirst For Spotlight, Will Crash State Dinner
The news is grim for many gay rights supporters after the NY State Court of Appeals upheld the gay marriage ban - ceding a decision to the NY State Legislature (one of the most dysfunctional in the country!). The NY Times' news analysis calls this a "key setback" as other states deciding on gay marriage will look at this ruling:
For now, at least, so-called marriage equality is the fight that both sides want to wage, and opponents are predicting that New York will be remembered as the beginning of the end of gay marriage.The Empire State Pride Agenda organized rallies throughout the city, including one in Sheridan Square yesterday, and many of the protesters included the children of gay couples."When people look back and write the history of this issue, they will view the New York decision as the Gettysburg in this big contest," said Monte Stewart, president of the Marriage Law Foundation...
David S. Buckel, senior counsel and director of the Marriage Project at the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, which is pressing court cases to legalize gay marriage, acknowledged that the New York decision "will certainly be an opinion that other states will look at."
Yet Mr. Buckel and other supporters of gay marriage said parts of the ruling could shock judges and other Americans into seeing gay marriage in a favorable light. In particular, they noted one section suggesting heterosexual couples need marriage to be preserved as a way to shore up their faulty relationships and protect their children who might suffer in broken-home situations.
"It's a mess of a decision that in the end makes a very weak argument: That you can justify barring same-sex couples from marrying because of the unstable relationships of heterosexual couples," Mr. Buckel said.
Gay City News had a great quote from one of the plaintiffs in the case. John Wessell said he was thinking of the "I Love NY" slogan: “I still love it. But it is with a question mark. I’m not leaving for Massachusetts or Spain or Canada. I am going to work to change this state.”
Photograph from the Sheridan Square rally by Julie Jacboson/AP
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
In order for gay marriage to become legal, the society in America would have to become more of a pagan nation, "a nation that has no religion." Or follow hedonism: "pursuit of or devotion to pleasure."
That is how "gay" relationships flourished in the time before Christ, B.C. and A.D. Not to generalize, they were not all the same types of relationships or called "gay." It took many wars and decades of thought to change or dissolve society's inclusion of same sex, sexually oriented relationships. Many structures in the society over time changed, including , concubines, multiple wives, marrying children, and worshiping idols, slavery, and the purchase of woman as property, to name a few.
“The dissenters assert confidently that "future generations" will agree with their view of this case (dissenting op at 28).” The dissenters either think that enough gay people will be born to meet a demand for a legalization of gay marriage; or they believe that being gay is more about satisfying a self indulging pleasure and therefore, more people with no morals would comply and jump on the band wagon of gay rights. The break down of the American moral structure, which has been taking place since the turn of the century, will no doubt, make available an atmosphere conducive to a larger number of the population getting involved in gay relationships because it will become pop culture and fashionable, similar to drugs.
Openly gay relationships and marriage in America is a step away from a future of advanced compassionate behavior toward humankind, a more peaceful existence, and a greater spiritual depth of thought. A pro gay marriage and legalization of it, moves the pendulum to the other direction, swinging backward to a chaotic society.
Anti-Dissenter: You're absolutely right! Allowing people who love each other to marry is certainly a step towards utter chaos. Because it's OUR BUSINESS who people marry, that's why! Pretty soon, we'll have interracial marriages and the end of slavery. Certain people are just innately beneath people like you and me, and we shouldn't allow those people to have the rights or dignity that we have. "All men are created equal" means you and me, buddy. Right on.
When people stop living their lives according to what you and I believe, then total anarchy is surely upon us. Sure, the Bible also says that it's not our place to judge, and that it's purely between an individual and God as to whether that person is saved or not, but let's not forget that we just don't have to listen to those parts that don't really gel with the rest of our beliefs. Especially when our beliefs say that other people are just wrong and are surely destined for hell. That's not judging--that's just true.
Jesus loves you*.
*you = those who agree with us.
what a weird friggin post.
bring the chaos
tear down the corporate capitalist neocon neocrusader christian supremacist heterosupremacist "order" all with guy on guy and girl on girl lovin?? wow, that's some kind of power. glad to know youre that scared of me and mine. let's get 'em!
hey anti dissenter:
for someone who is not gay, why do you spend so much time worried about gay relationships?
you're not questioning yourself, are you?
"It took many wars and decades of thought to change or dissolve society's inclusion of same sex, sexually oriented relationships."
LOL!!! This line is straight out of term paper hell.
"It took many wars..." heh heh. I heard this is actually the real reason for the Civil War and WW1 being fought. WW2, not so much. heh heh. nice one anti dissenter...
Since when is it the government's job to enforce religious dogma and follow the book of job instead of the book of law? That's for the religious leaders to speak on NOT politicians. Certainly not where I want my taxes going towards. Divorce is not condoned in any religion yet I somehow don't see that being outlawed. All the government should care about is that 2 consenting, unrelated adults wish to combine their assets in a legally binding union. End of story. No love.. no romance.. no religion. Separation of church and state people!
Anyone remember the show "My Two Dads"?
It is true that Jesus does love you. So much so that He freely offered up His life for yours to pay for your sins so you won't have to when you die. He did this as a free gift to you. But like any gift, you have to be willing to accept it. You also need to be wiling to face the fact that you are a sinner and that without this priceless gift, you are destined to an eternity in hell. Not my words, His words. Don't believe me? Then I urge you, no, I beg you to please sit down and carefully read the Gospel of John. Put away your intellect, all of your preconceived notions about what you think is right and what you think is wrong, and open up your heart to the love of God that is in Jesus Christ. He will set you free.
With Love,
Todd
Lakah,
What we are talking about here is not a religious question. What we are talking about the law of the land and it goes far beyond combining assets. Are you petitioning to file a joint return or what?
Marriage, if the word is to mean anything, has historically meant the union of a man and a woman committed for a life-long union. A homosexual realtionship has never been recognized as "marriage" by any culture that I am aware of. The fact that heterosexual lifelong unions fail is also no basis to argue that this definition should change. There are years of case law and legislation that would have to be considered.
Men and women have been marrying for all of recorded history and it doesn't look like its going to abate any time soon. Same sex couples living openly together is a fairly new phenomenon. The Urban Institute counted 601,000 same sex households in 2000 showing a growth of 314% since 1990. Will that curve hold? Even if it held for the next 10 years that would still leave same sex unions at less than 1% of U.S. households.
It is not a rational policy decision to upend the entire legal basis and definition of marriage for a trend that may or may not survive and that currently only affects less than 1% of the U.S. population.
This has nothing to do with religion imposing anything on you or your freedom to live however you want to and with whom you want to. It has everything to do with maintaining the much greater need of the legal basis for heterosexual unions which make up 99% of households in the U.S.
Once you have about 5-10% of the country living in a same-sex union, then you've proven that same sex unions may actually be here to stay and we might actually have to change law to accomodate things. In the meantime the Hispanics are having 98 births per 1000 women and they will be running the place in the next 30 years so you'd better get to reproducing and figuring out other ways to pay your taxes...
Uursa
Uursa,
I am interested in your population threshhold for civil rights concept. Please expand. At what population do groups have rights? If a group is one person short of quota, can they be offered temprary civil rights?
Hi Breathturn,
All groups have civil rights granted to them by the constitution. Some groups that are specifically disadvantaged, like disabled persons for instance, have other rights granted to them to overcome obstacles to basic living. In 1965, afro-americans made up 11% of the
U.S. population, they had no basic human rights in certain states and laws were instituted to overcome these obstacles. What's the magic number? I have no clue...
I can't read minds but I think it would be safe to say that a large majority of Americans don't view the gay community as disadvantaged in any manner that inhibits their basic right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. When Jeff Garber of OpusComm tells us that median combined income of gay couples is 60% higher than the national average that one-fifth of gay households are over $100k, and 79% of the community votes and has significant market power, it's hard to make a case that you're having a tough time other than tax time.
I'm not gay but I would like to honestly know what the real motivators are behind the move to legalize gay marriage. Is it a desire for the lifestyle to be accepted by mainstream society? I don't imagine it's religious but I may be wrong there too...
Uursa
Uursa,
A legal union in marriage creates a legal entity of 2 people in their current and future assets. This is then taken into account for taxes and in the distribution of wealth in the event of death or divorce. It also allows for sharing of benefits and other services that can be extended to immediate family. I can see no logical reason why such a union cannot include members of the same sex. If they are consenting, unrelated adults then why should the government care?
It's a sad statement that you speak of this as a trend. As if it's a fad that may come and go like bellbottoms. I am of the belief that these are not choices or fetishes but rather an expression of the human condition called love. To deny any percentage of the population of this basic human right is offensive and should not be tolerated.
I am a hetrosexual married man and I can say with much confidence that my marriage will not be weakened nor will I love my wife any less if gay marriage were to suddenly become legal. This is contrary to the rhetoric that seems to think such a move will rip the moral fiber of the country apart.
Love is love. Leave it at that.
Thank you for your thoughts and comments, Uursa! I love the way you write. It is nice ‘talking’ to someone who isn’t screaming. You have helped me work through some things. First, I do not know where Jeff gets his numbers on gay wealth. Based on statistics, I am a powerful market force! I like that idea. It makes me feel important. In reality, I make $23,000 a year. My friends make from $15,000 to $30,000. We are waiters, grocery clerks, bookstore clerks, house painters, and baristas. We cut lawns. We frame pictures. We pump gas. We don’t live on lake property. We don’t know anyone important and we vote as often as anyone else does. We really are just ordinary folk and we really are everywhere.
Second, one can argue that gay relationships are not valid for one reason or another and should therefore not be granted the same status as straight relationships. It doesn’t matter. Gay couples believe their relationships are important and worthy. Because of that, they will do all they can to build a safe and stable home for themselves and for their children. I think that is a beautiful thing.
Hi Breathturn and Lakah,
It's nice to be popular... :-)
Let me address the trend comment that Lakah brought up. The first governmental recognition of same-sex unions happened in...(this is a great Scattegories question) Denmark in 1989!
So the legal precedent for the legal acceptance of these unions doesn't go back very far in legal timelines. It takes multiple decades for issues to: a) build to a tipping point b) become codified c) work into the finer points of common law. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a great example. It took almost 40 years before that law had worked its way into society to the point where in this decade we began to see real pushes to repeal some of the legal provisions it gave birth to like Affirmative Action hiring quotas, etc.
There are currently over 1000 federal laws and innumerable (well I guess they are numerable) state laws on the books athat have marital status as a factor. That is why I look at this not as a "fad" but something with this short of a history of being in mainstream consideration is still in the "trend" stage in my mind.
The second issue is love. Love is a wonderful thing and if love is real, will ignore all obstacles to its progress. Romeo & Juliet can testify to that.
But the Supreme Court could care less about love. Passing a law and getting it to stand on its two feet cannot be based on the quality of love. The Supreme Court of the U.S. has already weighed in same-sex marriage in 1971 in Baker v Nelson and said that laws enacted by states limiting same-sex marriage unions "does not offend the First (Freedom of Speech,press, religion, assembly), Eight (cruel & unusual punishment), Ninth(rights not enumerated by the constitution not limited), or Fourteenth (Due Process & Equal Protection) Amendments to the United States Constitution." (quotes mine..)
That friends, is no small statement. They are saying that same-sex couples living under the laws of 1971 restricting same-sex marriages do not constitute a breach of your basic freedoms including life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This decision has been cited against numerous same-sex marriage and union cases. The New York Supreme Court in 2005 used the U.S. Supreme Court's Baker v Nelson decision as precedent to deny a case involving a same-sex issue and I can guarantee you that NY legislators took a real hard look at the survivability of this legislation from a legal perspective. The Spreme Court will also quote you Moses when it comes to the establishment of a definition for marriage because, as I mentioned in my first post, traditional heterosexual marriage has a 5,000 year legal precedent!
But I think Breathturn hit it on the head: If gay couples think their relationships are important and worthy, they will pursue building stable homes for themselves. Why? To prove a legal point? To make everyone accept the gay lifestyle? No, because that is their context for love. I think if we all spent alot more time figuring out how to really love one another we'd find we'd stop screaming at each other and actually communicate. Real communication between human beings is a rare and precious thing.
Hopefully the Blog Police won't think we are getting too real here...
Shalom,
Uursa
And Lakah, please excuse my tone in the first post, particularly my parting comments as they were unnecessary and inflammatory - the last we need to lower ourselves to is the the sound bite, cutting down, "I-can-rip-you-one-better" crap that all forms of media seem to delight in and that we have conditioned our children to consider "normal"...
Ursa
If gay marriage isn't legal, divorce shouldn't be either. Especially when appeals court judges claim that it shouldn't be legal because traditional marriages are in jeopardy.