Gary Randall of the retardedly-named Faith and Freedom Network:
Randall said, “I think a number of legislators who are not comfortable with voting for gay marriage chose this vote as an alternative. Unfortunately, rather than a helpful compromise, this decision will most likely prove to be an enabling step toward same-sex marriage, as we are seeing in New Jersey.” Randall also said, “As this plays out over the next year or so, some lawmakers may find themselves at odds with their constitutes, in that a majority of Washington citizens do not favor gay marriage.”
Gary is probably right. If put to the voters, marriage equality would likely fail at the polls. That’s why Senator Ed Murray is a smart guy. He’s going step-by-step. If straight people like me can see and understand how absurd it is to discriminate against gays, change will come.
To be honest, I don’t really care about gay marriage. I don’t care about it because it doesn’t affect me. Gay people getting married doesn’t affect me at all. The Gay Mafia aren’t going to kick down my door and force me to watch Project Runway.
I understand why Gary Randall doesn’t like gay marriage. It’s two things, really; one he likes (marriage), and one he doesn’t (homos trying to GET married). Marriage is the bedrock of society, but gays can’t get married because… something about the Bible. I don’t know the passage, as it’s hard to find among all the other passages that talk about poverty. Gary can criticize the “gay lifestyle” all he wants, but does he want to allow lots of normal tax-paying, children-having, house-buying homosexuals to have the benefits of a union blessed not by God, but by a guy in the King County Administration Building?
Like I said, none of this shit affects me. Gays have to spend thousands of dollars to get what I have for free. I can visit a family member in the hospital, inherit a spouse’s assets, and make all sorts of medical decisions for a loved one. Gays? When their partner goes in the hospital, they better pray their doctor isn’t some fundementalist asshole.
The best arguement I ever heard on this issue is by the comedian Louis CK. Click here to see the video.
Of course gays should be able to marry – why should straight men be the only ones to suffer???
The conservative view of freedom is that they should be free to do as they wish, and, in addition, monitor everyone elses’ behavior, as well.
I just don’t understand why we don’t reserve the term marriage for religious ceremonies and allow everyone else the opportunity for civil unions.
Seems to me the entire issue eventually comes down to individual rights as opposed to religious rights.
Everyone should have the same legal rights afforded under the law.
Truth_Teller @ 1:
My sentiments exactly!
Headless, is that exactly what you are doing by insisting on the term marriage?
If someone has faith and enetered into the sacrement of marriage, the should have the right to not have their religious beliefs compromised due to your politics.
On Topic @5
Two questions for you:
1) Why should government be involved in telling any religion what they should or should not do? If every denomination and creed wants to have a different criteria for deciding whose marriage they will sanctify and whose they won’t then fine. Any attempt to legislate religious doctrine is just wrong on so many levels. Government should keep its nose out of this and let each churches figure out whose marriage they will allow its members and whose they won’t.
Look, right now Catholics are only allowed to marry non-Catholics by getting a dispensation from their bishop. If the Catholic Church suddenly decided to stop giving these dispensations it would be their business and not the government’s.
2) Why should any religious group have the right to decide how another religious group decides whose marriage to sanctify? Does allowing racially mixed marriages compromise the pure marriages of the white supremacists and their World Church of the Creator? Sure. Does it mean government should step in an ban racially mixed marriages? Of course not.
If your church doesn’t want to allow its members to marry for whatever reason then that is its business. But don’t try and use the government to impose your ideas on other churches or everyone else, however good they seem to you.
OF COURSE, the civil/legal aspects of marriage should be completely separate from any religions/magical ceremony you may also participate in. The state supplies the tax/legal variation of any couples…your church decides if your god, gods, goddess approve of who you’re marrying, if you can get divorced, etc.
I do love though how the debate is cast such that “religions” don’t allow gay marriage. Some do. What if my church, temple, new age gathering, whatever, does allow gay marriage, as many do. Now it’s a simple battle of YOUR church (Southern Babtist) is right and gets it’s laws enforced by the government and my church (Universalist) which allows gay marriage, doesn’t. Now the government is enforcing ONE religions ‘law’ over another.
And we ARE talking religious law, there is no scientific/technical/monetary reason to ban gay marriage. Given the # of gay marriages compared to the total population, it’s statistically insignificant. I have never heard any sustained argument against gay marriage that was not carried about by a fundamentalist, usually Christian. I’ve never heard a secular astrophysicist argue against gay marriage.
@1 Boy you said a mouthful!
You’re going to pay for that remark, Roger.
@9 I’ve been paying ever since I married you, and I will doubtless continue paying every day for the rest of my life.
10 — Oooooooh, feeling your oats today, are you?!!
@11 Never mind, let’s both pretend that neither of us said anything.
I’m going for a while. I’ll be back later. Maybe. Then again, maybe not.
“Look, right now Catholics are only allowed to marry non-Catholics by getting a dispensation from their bishop. If the Catholic Church suddenly decided to stop giving these dispensations it would be their business and not the government’s.” – Nindid @ 6
Does anyone in their right mind truly believe in Catholicism anymore? I can see going to the Church because you like the pagenty and regalia, but no body should take Catholicism seriously. Marry who you want to marry. Who gives a rat’s ass what the Catholic Church thinks?
Millions of Catholics care, but even many of them realize that their rules for their church members should not be binding on society as a whole, and that government should not enforce them.
Too many times, over too many years I’ve made the point that government has no business in the Marriage business.
I tend to use “Marriage” (upper case) to indicate the religious sacrament of Marriage. The union of two people, with promises made by two people in the presence of the congregation, and sanctified by God.
Government has no more business trying to regulate Marriage than it does telling churches what vintage of wine to use in Communion.
The civil contract recognized by government (“marriage” – lower case) is an entirely different thing, and I really wish they would use a different name for it. “Civil Union” works just fine for me. Since it is little more than a civil contract, why should the sex of the individuals make any difference?
Why should anyone (gay or straight) that isn’t religious be expected to hold to our (Christian) idea of Marriage? For that matter, why should the government care if two people go through a religious ceremony?
Millions of Catholics care….
Then they’re dumbasses!
16 Thanks, Heaps.
Nindid…..
I’m not saying have the governement impose marriage. I am suggesting that that marriage be a religious ceremony. Everything else would be a civil union, with all rights afforded by law to be equal to that of marriage.
Seriously, have some respect for those with faith.
@15…
John, I agree with you completely.
Yossarian….
What the fuck is the matter with you?
re 5: How is the “sanctitity” of your marriage affected by someone who believes differently than you do and chooses to call their relationship a marriage.
Nobody is stepping on your sanctimonious opinions. But you insist on trampling theirs.
I cannot understand why you think that your sanctimonious views should have the force of law. I think a good shellacking when you overstep your bounds would quickly teach you where those boundaries are — since reasonable explanation seems to do no good.
Trying to speak with you reminds me of trying to talk a two-year old out of running into the streets. Eventually you realize that the only thing the two-year old can understand is that they will get spanked if they go into the street.
You are like that two-year old.
Your issue is not that you are being prevented from being your bad-ass sanctimonious old self. You want to enforce your opininion on everyone else.
You may think your old Bronze Age book is the word of God, but I don’t.
re 5: Why are your opinions sacred beliefs and everyone elses’ are mere political opinions.
I have news for you. Your beliefs are just your own opinion.
Nothing more.
http://www.hillnews.com/thehil.....oenas.html
“A House Judiciary subcommittee approved today the first in what is expected to be an avalanche of subpoenas to Bush administration officials. They will likely explore corruption and mismanagement allegations on everything from pre-war Iraq intelligence to the mishandling of the response to Hurricane Katrina.”
Why Republicans Will Never Be A Majority Party In Washington
The Senate passed a domestic partnership bill yesterday, but 19 Republicans opposed giving same-sex couples the right to visit each other partner in a hospital, inherit each other’s property without a will, or make funeral arrangements. GOP senator Val Stevens argued, in debate, that conferring these rights on gay couples will encourge “bestiality and necrophilia.”
As this illustrates, you can’t have a meaningful debate with Republicans, nor can you reason with them. They’re beyond stupid; they’re just plain mean, and we have to deal with them the same way you always deal with bullies — with a firm ass-kicking. That’s the only language they understand. Never, ever, be nice to a Republican because it only encourages more of their bad behavior.
First of all, anyone who believes marriage, regardless of how you spell it, is a religious institution in the United States of America has fallen prey to the right-wing’s spin machine.
In this country, Marriage, is a wholly owned subsidiary of the government. Period. Bar none, and without qualifiers. The next time you’re at a wedding ceremony pay close attention at the end. You will hear these words, or something very similar: “By the power VESTED in ME by the State of Washington I now pronounce you Husband and Wife.”
Note that the person joining the two people in matrimony does not get their power to do so by God or Jesus or Moses or Allah or the Pope or any other mystical being; including the Easter Bunny. The only entity vesting that power and authority in the priest, pastor, cleric, deacon, sea captain, or some goof at a 24 hour drive-through wedding chapel in Las Vegas is the government.
The next time some yum-yum thinks GETTING married is a religious thing, go to your priest and file for a divorce. See what the almighty can do for ya! Nothing. The almighty is POWERLESS to act in matters of divorce or getting Married.
Grow up and check your fucking calendars, the year is 2007. What the fuck is wrong with legal, consenting adults choosing to get Married? Who the fuck are you to deny another American the same rights you enjoy, Asshole?
An affront to God was the same arguments made by the social conservatives against inter-racial marriage. Back then the good Christians didn’t want to see no white woman marrying a nigger. Now, if that statements pisses you off, tough shit. At its core “value” it’s the exact same thing. Exactly the same thing. Hate is hate, irrespective of the particulars involved.
Now you know what they mean when they preach “Vote Your Values.” It’s all hate, all the time.
Many timid elected Democrats oppose impeachment resolutions, such as the one debated in Olympia yesterday, because they’re afraid of a negative reaction from Republicans.
I say it’s time Democrats stopped being afraid of Republicans and starting kicking some Republican ass.
When these Democrats talk about passing an “agenda,” my response is, what agenda? Democrats can’t pass anything that Republicans are willing to filibuster or Bush isn’t willing to say, so there’s no agenda worth having that would be put in jeopardy by the acrimony that impeachment proceedings would generate.
But even if there was, which is more important, passing a few bits and pieces of legislation, or protecting the principle that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and office holders who violate the Constitution will be removed from office?
What kind of message will it send to future bullies if this Democratic Congress does absolutely nothing about this administration’s law breaking, lying, corruption, and violations of American citizens’ constitution rights?
If Bush and Cheney aren’t impeachable, then who is?
As former Seattle Weekly staffer Geov Parrish said in yesterday’s hearing, “Inaction is a form of action.” Right now, we have the most strongly Democratic state legislature in generations. If that legislature refuses to pass this resolution, or even worse, refuses to allow it to come to a vote, that will send a message that no one will ever be impeached for anything, no matter how egregious. Unless he’s a Democrat caught up in a private sex scandal.
Shame on the Democrats in our legislature who are holding this resolution back. You know who you are … shame on you. Yes, I know impeachment won’t go anywhere in the U.S. Senate, and this resolution and the impeachment process in the House of Representatives it’s designed to prompt is merely symbolic. But sometimes symbolism is incredibly powerful; and the symbolism of NOT taking this action will not be lost on any future politician who contemplates abusing our laws, abusing our rights, and abusing us as citizens.
re 23: AMEN!
@23 “The only entity vesting that power and authority in the priest, pastor, cleric, deacon, sea captain, or some goof at a 24 hour drive-through wedding chapel in Las Vegas is the government.”
Reminds me of a bumper sticker I saw on a boat several years ago:
“Marriages performed by captain good only for duration of voyage.”
I’m going to get you for that remark, Roger!
You already have, wife … you already have.
No matter how big a hole you dig, it’ll never be big enough for two rabbits, if one of them is a female.
@5 How the hell does two gays getting married interfere with your religious beliefs? The only explanation I can think of is that assholes like you think you have the right to force everyone else to conform to YOUR beliefs. This kind of self-important self-centeredness is common in children of, say, 3 to 14 months of age, but if it doesn’t disappear by age 3 or 4, it’s time for your parents to take you to a child psychologist for some behavior modification.
Hey, Mrs Rabbit:
If things get sideways with you and, uh, you know the old timer, Roger, I have plenty of room in my backyard for a rabbit hole. If you know what I mean.
Remember all the dire predictions of Doom if the Democrats used the filibuster?
The Republicans did not hesitate an instant in using the filibuster to perpetuate their retrograde agenda once they became the minority.
Any thought that you can meet in the center and come up with reasonable solutions with the current breed of Republican is an illusion. We need to stomp these bastards back into political Limbo by any means necessary.
Actually, GBS, I’ve been to a number of church weddings, including my own. While some ministers may use that phrase, I’ve never heard it. There are also church weddings that are done without the sanction of the state, for various reasons. One example you gave, interracial Marriage, was performed by churches, often in secret due to the laws of the time.
No, not always. My own denomination, United Methodist, was officially split for many years over topics just like this.
Since Marriage has been a church function longer than it has been a civil function, I think we should get first claim to the word. I also think that as long as there is confusion between the two, passions will be unnecessarily enflamed.
We’re arguing over a distinction without a difference. Many churches have already recognized gay Marriages. Others have not. As this is a debate within the various denominations, I’m not going to bring it out here. Essentially, that part of the debate is a family argument, and shouldn’t be aired in public.
What does need to be aired and debated in public is the fact that the law, as enforced by the government, discriminates against one class of adults. That’s wrong, no matter what we call the contract.
Sorry if you consider that to be “hate”.
Yes, Wingnuts: By any means necessary….
@18 I respect people of faith, but I would like some of the self-described “people of faith” to reciprocate and respect my faith by not trying to shove theirs down my throat. No one is telling them that, if they’re queer, they have to marry their partner. It’s fine with me (and everyone else) if they live in sin. And if someone else is gay and wants to get married, that’s none of their business.
@ 24:
“But even if there was, which is more important, passing a few bits and pieces of legislation, or protecting the principle that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and office holders who violate the Constitution will be removed from office?”
Well said.
@31 What about me? Don’t you know how these things work? Mrs. Rabbit isn’t going anywhere; she’ll keep my hole, and I’m the one who’ll have to relocate. You got room in your backyard for a slightly dilapidated buck rabbit?
What is the fundamental building block of our society?
The broader issue is not whether or not “allowing” homosexuals the right to marry is a good thing, rather how is our society, as it becomes more and more secular, fragmenting.
The nuclear family, 1 husband 1 wife and their children are the building blocks of our society, our civilization. As our society moves further away from supporting and valuing that fundamental institution, the society becomes less stable.
In that context does the state have an interest?
@24 should read “Bush isn’t willing to sign”
“I say it’s time Democrats stopped being afraid of Republicans and starting kicking some Republican ass.”
I don’t think it’s because they fear Republicans….
The nation is not divided 50/50 R’s and D’s
The D’s know that is will hurt them in the long run with “moderates”, “centrists”,”independents” whatever you want to call them. The D’s that successfully unseated R’s this past election convinced this group that they were moderates. That is over simplyfying the results I know…
Bottom line. The D’s are no better than the R’s, and they know that if they want to hold power, they can’t pull that kind of nonsense. I mean the R’s that impeached Clinton were idiots…and look what happened…
Of course that does not satisfy the extreme left side of the party that lives here…
Why do gays want a less committed form of “marriage” through “domestic partnerships”, but want to deny this uncommitted “marriage” option to most heterosexuals? (See Senate Bill 5336, recently passed by the Washington State Senate)
Key important differences between “domestic partnership” and legal marriage:
1. Legal marriage takes a court dissolution lawsuit, $220 filing fee, minimum 90 day waiting period, and possible protracted litigation and enormous lawyer fees. Termination of “domestic partnership” is immediate upon one partner sending document to Secretary of State (or if one partner legally marries someone else!).
2. Upon dissolving legal marriage, court must divide property, with all property obtained during marriage considered community property, with equitable division (which can be unequal and uncertain) ordered by court, and possibility of one spouse getting even the other spouse’s separate property. Upon terminating “domestic partnership”, each partner walks away with their own property without any further ado.
3. When dissolving legal marriage, one spouse can be ordered to pay spousal maintenance (alimony) to the other spouse, or to pay some or all of the other spouse’s attorney fees. When termination “domestic partnership”, no possibility of continuing financial obligation to other partner.
On the other hand, “domestic partnership” provides most of the benefits of marriage, including official state blessing, inheritance rights, and various medical rights. But, as pointed out above, “domestic partnership” provides none of the really messy burdens that marriage can entail — especially when marriage doesn’t seem to be working and one or both parties wants out of it.
I think the blatant discrimination in Ed Murray special-privileges “domestic partnership” bill could have some serious constitutional problems, both under the state and federal equal protection clauses. In order for this bill to pass constitutional muster, they would have to show that denial of “domestic partnership” status to heterosexuals is substantially related to protecting both heterosexual marriage and the rights of children produced through heterosexual liaisons. The bill certainly cannot be justified based on the theory that gays deserve special-privileges — which happens to be the political rationale being floated by Ed Murray and the Democrats for passing the current legislation in its discriminatory format.
Frankly, I can’t see how denial of “domestic partnership” status to heterosexuals serves to protect the of children produced through heterosexual liaisons. Heterosexuals can legally live together without being married, and can legally have children without being married. Over 20% of children are born through such liaisons. Alllowing heterosexuals to have “domestic partnerships”, while a less committed form of “marriage”, will serve to bring closer ties among a group of heterosexual parents (or step-parents, as the case may be), who would not decide to get legally married. Instead, denial of “domestic partnership” status to heterosexuals can only serve to disadvantage children and their parental ties.
Rob McKenna’s office will have a very difficult time defending the constitutionality of this bill (assuming it survives a possible referendum challenge). Since Rob McKenna is both an ethical lawyer (bound not to submit frivolous arguments to the courts) and at least philosophically an opponent of the legislation, I would not expect the state Attorney General’s office to wage that strong of a defense of the bill when it is challenged in the courts.
Limiting “domestic partnerships” to gays is a highly hypocritical, rub-it-in-your-face move by Ed Murray, Jamie Pederson, and other gay leaders. They know that such restrictions won’t last more than a few days after the law becomes effective, assuming it isn’t put into a referendum and defeated in November.
Once the law becomes effective (when and if this happens), here is what will happen. Secretary of State Sam Reed is the public official responsible for processing “domestic partnerships”. A man and a woman, both under 62, will apply to register and be turned down. They will then file a lawsuit.
Both Reed and Attorney General Rob McKenna will believe that it is unconstitutional for the law to discriminate in favor of gays and against heterosexuals. Not only that, they don’t want to inflame their political base by defending special-privileges-for-gays. Nor does the Secretary of State want to use its limited budget to defend such a law with the Attorney General services, or to have to pay the plaintiffs’ lawyer fees under 42 USC 1983 when they lose.
So Reed will answer the lawsuit with the help of McKenna’s office, and admit that the law is unconstitutional, and that the plaintiffs — a man and woman, both under 62 — are entitled to be issued a certificate of domestic partnership, and that the permanent injunctive relief to afford these same rights to all heterosexuals should be granted.
So unless some private individuals ask the court for permission to intervene in order to defend the special-privileges-for-gays provisions in the law, the entire legal case will be concluded in a matter of days with an agreed judgment at the trial court level, and no appeals. If private individuals or groups do wish to intervene, then they will publicize themselves as hypocrites in favor of special-privileges-for-gays, and also have to fork out lots of money for legal fees.
And I doubt that any so-called “gay rights” groups would do this. It wouldn’t take away in the slightest from the rights and dignity of gays entering into “domestic partnerships” if all heterosexuals were afforded the same dignity. Nor do I think any conservative groups would be willing to intervene to defend these special-privileges-for-gays provisions.
Hopefully, the court battle will not be protracted at all, and it will only cost a few thousand dollars to pay for the plaintiffs’ lawyers efforts in preparing the lawsuit.
@ 37:
Sorry, bud, I really like you and all, and you’ve been sort of a legal mentor to me, but, uh truth be told, there’s always plenty of room in my backyard for a nice, soft, fluffy cottontail.
Know what I mean?
Uh, Mr. Stuff?
The traditional “family” was never one man, one woman and their children until just a few years ago.
The traditional family was the grandparents, their parents, all their siblings, the spouses of all those folks, the children of all those folks, aunts, uncles, cousins, second cousins, close friends, etc… The family actively helped and supported the Marriages of its members. Children were raised by the whole family, and you might get away with sassing your momma, but nobody sassed grandma.
Divorces were few, and considered a scandal.
My wife’s family had a reunion not that long ago. They needed name badges, color coded by generation.
Not that many years ago, they wouldn’t have needed a reunion. It would have been called “Sunday dinner”, and everybody knew everyone else. The idea of a name badge would have been considered insulting.
We can debate about the effect on society of our changing families. You may even be surprised about how often we end up in agreement. But for good or ill, those days are gone forever, and nothing that the government does will bring them back.
What we have today is a civil contract. Many (most?) people entering into that contract do not consider it to be a lifelong commitment. Divorce is easy and commonplace.
That being the case, I can see no reason to deny the civil benefits of that civil contract to any adult, regardless of sex. They pay taxes, serve as police, firefighters and (when allowed) in the military (a topic for another day).
So, what legitimate societal goal is served by denying them visitation in hospital rooms, community property rights and next-of-kin status?
John @ 33:
John, for the sake of discussion I have ZERO problems with you (“you” being the religious folks) laying first claim to the word “Marriage.” Done. Now the Gays get to have the same claim. It’s called a “Marriage License.” And only the legal ones are given out by the government.
Church “weddings” done without the sanction of the state are not legal Marriages. Some people choose to include religious sacraments with a marriage ceremony, and that’s fine, but it’s not a requirement to get legally married. It is requirement, however, to have the government involved if you want a legal marriage.
“We’re arguing over a distinction without a difference.”
Actually, we’re arguing over distinctions with significant differences. I am in no way advocating or suggesting that any Church be forced to recognize a Gay marriage. I would be the first one to tell the government to get the FUCK out of the Church’s business. See, like Thomas Jefferson I believe in the meaning of the 1st Amendment’s Establishment clause. What I’m saying is the Church has ZERO to do with a legally binding marriage, and the government has ZERO do to with religious sacraments. But, ONLY the government has anything to do with a legal marriage.
Please, no need to apologize to me about the “hate” value openly displayed by bigots. I cannot be counted amongst them. That’s a special providence reserved for those who try to use the force of law to deny other American citizens equal rights.
Richard at 3:37
I love it. Add in folks getting a “Domestic Partnership” instead of a marriage license even when they intend a church wedding, and eventually the domestic partnership licenses end up far outnumbering marriage licenses.
Then someone asks why the government is still bothering to issue two types of license that do the same thing, except that one of them is limited to heterosexuals and the other is not.
And then the government gets out of the marriage business.
“rather how is our society, as it becomes more and more secular, fragmenting.
The nuclear family, 1 husband 1 wife and their children are the building blocks of our society, our civilization. As our society moves further away from supporting and valuing that fundamental institution, the society becomes less stable.”
What you’re talking about is the problem caused by Newt Gingrich, Rush Limbaugh, and Rudy Gullianai types.
The nuclear family, 1 husband 1 wife and their children are the building blocks of our society, our civilization. As our society moves further away from supporting and valuing that fundamental institution, the society becomes less stable.
In that context does the state have an interest?
Well, if it does, then divorce shouldn’t be legal either, and infertile couples should not be able to get married either, right?
This is a strawman. The state only has a compelling interest that children are provided for and not abused, not in what the adults do in their bedrooms.
@44
Hey John I have little doubt that there are many issues we agree on…
My comments were more directed at the nuclear family. I think the changes in the “traditional family” you describe are attributable to the evolution of our society. We are more mobile, range further more easily from the nuclear family. etc etc etc……My comments are more to the point that the government should have an interest in supporting an instituition that futhers the society. The best results are achieved from the nuclear family.
And GBS I appreciate your humor!
Oh, and that whole ‘nuclear family’ canard is BS as well. In fact, there is a lot of literature that theorizes that the decline of the multi-generational family in the postwar period (changing into this ‘nuclear family’ thing that is the accepted norm now) is responsible for an increasing number of societal ills, including an increase in serial and spree killings. The people saying this aren’t exactly liberals, either.
But the very idea that the ‘nuclear family’ is somehow the norm for all people for all time is just not supported by history.
“Well, if it does, then divorce shouldn’t be legal either, and infertile couples should not be able to get married either, right?”
Interesting that you put it out there like that.
This is not a zero sum game. There are exeptions of course.
Are people who are unable to have children any less able to parent? what about adoption? In that scenario, again, the nuclear family is intact.
In my opionion, both marriage and divorce are too easily entered into and exited. That goes back to what I was saying, specifically, that it’s a poor reflection of our society. It shows that we are evoving further away from the nuclear family as a vital institution of our society.
“But the very idea that the ‘nuclear family’ is somehow the norm for all people for all time is just not supported by history. ”
Who said that?
Do you not agree that the fundamental building block of any society is the family? And that the nuclear family achieves the best results in terms of creating functioning, contributors to the society?
Well, Mr. Stuff, you may have a point, but I fail to see how it applies in denying gays the right to marry.
Gay couples adopt children and provide support and comfort to each other. The legal differences make this more difficult under some circumstances, but they still provide that same support to each other and to society.
When I was in the Navy, I lived in San Diego for a while. There was a quiet, pleasant neighborhood called “Hillcrest” (no relationship to the one in Tacoma) where the yards were neatly maintained, houses painted, and litter was picked up by folks out taking their morning walks. The joke around town was that Hillcrest was in the Gay 90’s, because everyone that lived their was either gay or 90. It had a low crime rate, and the folks that were 90 were often looked in on by their neighbors who were gay.
I lived in a nearby neighborhood called City Heights for a while. It was not a “gay” neighborhood by either definition of the word. My (heterosexual) neighbors routinely kept me awake with their fights. Their children broke into my car.
The point here is that the sex of the people in the family has little to do with the stability or worth of the family. My wife and I don’t keep our neighbors up by fighting, and our son doesn’t break into cars. Most other families are much the same.
Many of the changes in our society have been for the better, and some have been for the worse, but there is no doubt that society has changed. We can recognize this and find ways to deal with it, or not, but nothing that government does will prevent the changes from happening.
That being the case, I come back to the question. What legitimate societal goal is served by denying gays visitation in hospital rooms, community property rights and next-of-kin status?
Hellooooooooooo:
What will you libtards do when sha’ria law becomes the new US law of the land? What you say, it’ll never happen?
Since you libtards claim there is no islamofascism per your hero Michael Moore; I’m sure when you all are under their rule gay marriage will be well received by their judges!
The talibanski polizei will be lifting up the bottoms of burqas looking for those hairy legs. Oh no, busted again!
Does gay marriage affect me? Well, lessee…my sister and her partner got married in Vancouver a few years ago. My wife, son and I were in the wedding party–it was on the beach in Stanley Park on a beautiful summer’s day, and we went to dinner at a really nice Chinese restaurant afterwards. Gina and Jean had already been together nearly 20 years (they met when they were both in the Navy. John, you may have crossed paths with Gina. She was a DI in San Diego for a while.)
They’d already been through plenty of “for better or worse”, “richer or poorer” and “sickness and health” (Jean is a cancer survivor), and it seemed “til death do us part” was a reasonable next step. They have as much a committed and loving relationship as any straight couple we know, and they’ve been an inspiration to the rest of our family. So, that’s how gay marriage has affected me–quite positively, thank you very much.
Speaking of the nuclear family, when our economy left agrarian principles and entered industrial principles, the dynamic changed. There was no longer the need for big families or for them to stay at home. I remember discussing this with someone long ago.
GBS was dat you?
Anyway, when the chillen (plural) became mobile, grandma and grandpa were left in Spokane and the chillun (singular) moved to Seattle, found their Moonbat! spouse and started stuffing the KC ballot box. So every holidy they pack up the new chillen and go back to see Grandma and Grandpa in Spokane.
John, to answer your question honestly…
“That being the case, I come back to the question. What legitimate societal goal is served by denying gays visitation in hospital rooms, community property rights and next-of-kin status? ”
There isn’t any.
The purpose of my post was to highlight the value of marriage. There are those who don’t see how gov has any stake in the institution and I simply put my reasons out there as to why I think it is legit for government to recognize and support marriage.
I do think that it is possible for 2 men or 2 women to raise kids well. But that said, study after study shows the best results for kids is a mom and a dad. Again this is not an all or nothing proposition. My personal beliefs are that civil unions should encompass all the “benefits” of marriage.
Amen, Brother.
Right Stuff @ 52:
You’d have to study anthropology to understand that the concept of the “nuclear” family, as you depict it, is really a phenomena of contemporary history. And that John Barelli’s description of the clan–tribal–village scenario is the most prevalent family unit structure in human existence.
But, more to your point, what I think I hear you saying is that the fundamental building block of society is the nuclear family. And, if it is destroyed, lessened, or somehow damaged wouldn’t that cause our society to function less effectively if not descend into chaos?
Is that the gist of your point?
My counterpoint is this: regardless if we allow gay people to get “legally married” it’s not going to alter the natural attraction to the opposite sex that is overwhelming prevalent in the world’s population.
What is going on in the gay community now has been going on for 10’s of thousand of years, if not millions, and will continue to do so.
Somehow, the human race had continued to grow in population and the percentage of homosexuals remains relatively the same.
No matter how many laws are passed regarding Gay marriages, I’m not going to suck ANYONE’S dick, or allow them to penetrate my anal orifice.
I wouldn’t do that if the Gays became 98% of the worlds population and reproduced in test tubes and passed a law outlawing heterosexuality, I’m still going to be attracted to women.
Either you’re worried about something that cannot come to pass due to the shear number of heterosexuals in the world, or, . . . there’s something else weighing heavily on your mind.
Care to share that “secret” concern of yours with us?
@ 54:
Well, if Bush’s handling of Iraq is any measure of whether or not sha’ria wil come to pass in the United States, then I say we have plenty to worry about.
Over 3,100 troops have died and more than 23,000 wounded bringing sha’ria law to Iraq.
Is that what you supported? American soliders dying so bin Laden and al Qaeda can achieve their goals of spreading radical Islam througout the Middle East and America?
Puddybud @ 57:
Ohhhhh, Helllll NO! Dat wazn’t me mo’fo’.
You know how I know we didn’t have that conversation?
You wouldn’t bring it up again with me after being taken to the woodshed and getting your whuppin’!!
Ba da boom, ba da bing!
Puddybud:
So, uh, you just trolling the blogs looking for trouble or what?
GBS
“What is going on in the gay community now has been going on for 10’s of thousand of years, if not millions, and will continue to do so”
yes, and now more than ever homosexuals are accepted in society. Great!
“My counterpoint is this: regardless if we allow gay people to get “legally married” it’s not going to alter the natural attraction to the opposite sex that is overwhelming prevalent in the world’s population.”
Yes, and as such will continue civilization. agree
“No matter how many laws are passed regarding Gay marriages, I’m not going to suck ANYONE’S dick, or allow them to penetrate my anal orifice.
I wouldn’t do that if the Gays became 98% of the worlds population and reproduced in test tubes and passed a law outlawing heterosexuality, I’m still going to be attracted to women.
Either you’re worried about something that cannot come to pass due to the shear number of heterosexuals in the world, or, . . . there’s something else weighing heavily on your mind.
Care to share that “secret” concern of yours with us? ”
Well, you lost me there. Whatever you are talking about has nothing to do with what I saying.
My limited anthroplogic study tells me that the clan/tribal/multi-generation/nuclear family structures are a function of the evolution of the society/civilization. And as the civilization evolves thru periods such as the industrial revolution to the current technological evolution, so evolves the society. At the core, the rearing of children has always been a fundamental value of civilization. As society evolves so to the rearing of children to further the society. In todays society, of which the nuclear family is the current structure by which children raised, the best results are achieved when a mother and a father raise the children together, as a family unit.
Just for the record, gay marriage is not ever mentioned in the bible.
re 54: Fascism is a marriage of government and big business where each of these Goliaths work to solidify and strengthen their own power and position, to the exclusion of the common man.
Fascism and “born again” Islamacists are worlds apart. Conservative White Southern Baptists are much closer to what you erroneously term “Islamofascism” than radical Islam is to Fascism.
And all your bullshit shucking and jiving is as annoying and false as it ever was, PudWax. You are one confused human being.
The main reason the bible-thumpin’ extreme right wing hates gay weddings is simple. . . deep down, these retarded cowards are afraid they’ll go “homo” on each other if gays stream into the local churches getting hitched. The right wingers all secretly want to suck cock and that’s the primary reason they hate gays. Just like Jimbo West, they’re all self-loathing homosexuals who believe in some silly religion that makes them feel guilty for wanting to have sex with boys.
Richard Pope @ 41: “…filing fee of $220…”
Er, Richard, been away from practice for a while, huh? There’s a $30 surcharge on dissolutions since 1/1/05, so the filing fee is $250.
GBS@60;
There was a Science-fiction short story written with just that premise written sometime before 1970. In the story, once test tube babies became possible, almost everyone in the population became homosexual because they didn’t need to bother dealing with the opposite sex anymore. Then of course, since it was now normal, they criminalized heterosexuality because it was ‘perverted’ and ‘abnormal’.
You didn’t go to jail though, you got sent to mental institutions to be reprogrammed. It was told through the eyes of a heterosexual male. Very interesting stuff. I wish I could remember the title.
Sounds kinda like “Brave New World”. That was Huxley, right?
@38 To answer your question — No; it’s none of the state’s business who you marry (or don’t marry).
Now I have a question for you: If the “nuclear family”, consisting of “1 husband 1 wife and their children”, are entitled to special status and/or treatment that no one else gets, where does that leave all of the childless heterosexual couples who, as far as I can tell, are accorded exactly the same marital rights as dads and moms? And if childless heterosexual couples are entitled to the benefits of marriage, then why shouldn’t homosexual couples be entitled to the same benefits, in that their contribution to procreation and the continuation of society is exactly equal to that of childless heterosexual couples?
Do you now wish to admit this isn’t about procreation at all, but rather bigotry?
Aha found it after much diligent searching:
Charles Beaumont “The Crooked Man” 1955 first published in Playboy.
@71 Roger,
Answered at 58.
I am not trying to make a special issues case here. In the marriage debate, I feel that marriage as an institution, tradionally, sets the table for the family which is the bedrock of our society.
Are there exceptions,…of course.
Right Stuff @ 73:
If there are exceptions to your idea of the nuclear family, can gay marriage just be one more exception to the accepted norm?
There are plenty of studies out there to suggest that on average children raised by gay parents enter into society as well adjusted as children raised by heterosexual couples without any increase in the rate of homosexuality of their adopted offspring.
In other words, a human being’s natural attraction to the opposite sex is a by product of Mother Nature and not their environment. All the more reason to understand that discriminating against someone because they are born with a tendency to be attracted to the same sex is like discriminating against someone because they are born with different genitalia or color pigmentation.
I am of the opinion that someday, hopefully sooner rather than later, that science will prove our genetic predisposition to our sexual “wiring.”
Although if ancient history and contemporary history are any indicator, social conservatives will continue to place their belief in the mystical above science.