Let's not forget the loving sentiment that "year by year, the bigots will die off, and we'll eventually have the majority....."
I will be signing that petition...Can't wait! I am proud to be a volunteer...
I dislike Conley using the phrase "natural marriage." What is a "natural marriage"? Is it a heoterosexual philanderer's relationship with his wife? Is it a dysfunctional heteroswexual couple where one spouse physically or emotionally abuses the other? As far as I'm concerned any union where the two people respect and honor each other is a "natural marriage" regardless of gender.
As we do not have a theocracy, thankfully, the Constitution and not religious interpretations rules. And nowhere in the United States Constitution is the word "marriage" or "spouse" mentioned. Therefore it is a 10th Amendment issue and if citizens of a state wish to define marriage that is their right to do so in any fashion. But, as the Constitution respects all religious beliefs and non-believers, the strong-armed tactics of religious fanatics should not color the governmental issue.
the strong-armed tactics of religious fanatics should not color the governmental issue.
Interesting thought. Why do you assume marriage is a governmental issue at all? At what point did they interject themselves into marriage?
Government interjected itself into the private matter of marriage through tax laws. For one example, the tax code "married filing jointly" status gives an exemption which is denied to other filers. A heterosexual couple cohabitating voluntarily chose to waive that option by not getting married. A gay or lesbian couple with a long-term commitment equal to most heterosexual marriages is denied that option. Therefore, the government discriminates. If government is to have policies which involve marriage, then they should be applied equally. Were government to not grant such options, the entire issue of marriage -- gay or straight -- would not be an issue and folks could live their lives as they desire. Thus, for a religious institution to tell the government how to define marriage is sectarian intrusion on the civil law which must be blind to such denominational differentials. The test of civil justice is that if it applies to one it must apply to all. I approach this strictly from the civil government approach. It is akin to the blue laws which were created by religious, not civil, concerns like bans on opening businesses on a Sunday; which denied several rights, such as freedom of assembly for those who chose voluntarily to do business on a Sunday and which discriminated against denominations which considered other days of the week to be the Sabbath in their religious observance. Government which protects individual liberty must be neutral if it is to protect rights for all. That neutrality also protects those with certain beliefs by protecting their rights to practice as they deem without government intrusion but the fair trade is that those denominations cannot force their beliefs and practices on others.
Government interjected itself in marriage when it started requiring people to get "licenses", which was done to interdict blacks and whites looking to join together before God and comminuty as husband and wife.
"...the strong-armed tactics of religious fanatics ..."
As opposed to the strong-armed tactics of irreligious fanatics?
Don't all Americans, religious or not, fanatic or not, regardless of issue, have the right to try to create the type of America they want to live in?
And you liberals out there, don't go all Constitutional on me, because it's you guys that call it a "living document", which essentially means it means nothing at all; whoever gets the most judges on his side, gets to say what it means.
When it comes to gay marriage, I guess I don't really care one way or another. I think if we just give the screaming toddlers their rattles, they'll go away and eventually stop playing with it. Gay marriage is really just another piece of wood in the funeral pyre of our society; there are other pathologies even worse.
Plus, no matter what some legislature says, marriage can only be one each of a man and a woman. If a governing body repeals the law of gravity, and people start floating away, get back to me.
Vic, even though I disagree with homosexuality, it is kind of hard to argue with post #186.
A total overhaul of the tax codes would solve a lot of problem.
I will always vote for marriage between man and a woman. Therefor I will not sign the peition if asked.
Can you not sign it more than once?
Can't find any updates on numbers of sig. gathered online. Has the effort petered out?
Don't like "gay marriage"? Great! Don't have one. Otherwise, what business of it is yours who other people marry?
Because I don't want to have to pay for the "right and benefits" that Adam and Steve are going to demand when they pretend to be "married."
Or perhaps, Tim, you think these come from the magic "rights and benefits fairy'?
If government is to have policies which involve marriage, then they should be applied equally.
Then why should we deny these "rights and benefits" to a polygamous family? Or, hang onto your hat, a brother and sister who live together that also want to enjoy these "rights and benefits" Or a parent and child?
It amazes me that people come up with these hare-brained ideas and don't think them through.
Tom C writes: "It amazes me that people come up with these hare-brained ideas and don't think them through."
That's exactly what I was thinking after reading your post. Why should we deny "rights and benefits" to a polygamous family, brother and sister, or parent child? Do you mean something beyond the fact that these sort of relationships are actually illegal? Same sex relationships are not illegal. Unless you have some evidence (baseless fear doesn't count) that states are on the verge legislating your tired hypothetical into law, I'm not exactly sure what your point is.
Well that is not very equal, change the definition of marriage for all, lets open the big tent of diversity for all comers, it is the liberal way after all. Or is it for the children etc
"Let's not forget the loving sentiment that "year by year, the bigots will die off, and we'll eventually have the majority....."
right! and add to it, in this attrition the young voters who will be replacing them at the polls will cause a great shift.
You might see it as sentimental and have strong feelings about the dynamic but it's just a fact you don't seem to like much.
Chris there was a article in PPH or MST the other day about former liberals / hippies/ young people who have become more conservative as they grow older!
Chances are the young will come to believe what their parents did so I wouldn't count on it !
The only bigots are the people calling others bigots because they believe marriage is made up of a man and a woman !
Bruce, I believe you will find I don't use the word bigot so to avoid the turn around you and others so easily hook to statements.
Why should we deny "rights and benefits" to a polygamous family, brother and sister, or parent child? Do you mean something beyond the fact that these sort of relationships are actually illegal? Same sex relationships are not illegal.
But gay marriage is. So, I expect you have a point, but it seems to be on the top of your head.
A man living with two women is not illegal. So, if we are going to legalize gay marrige, why shouldn't we legalize other kinds of marriage?
It amazes me that people come up with these hare-brained ideas and don't think them through. But then I repeat myself.
"A man living with two women is not illegal. So, if we are going to legalize gay marrige, why shouldn't we legalize other kinds of marriage? "
Who's this "we" you speak of? You and who else are seeking to legalize these partnerships you have interest in?
Chris, please. Edit your post so it make sense.
Tom says, "why shouldn't we legalize other kinds of marriage? "
You and who else makes up the "we" in this question?
Where is the demand? Where are the petitions? Who would be presenting legislation legalizing partnerships such as polygamy?
After gay marriage is legalized will you be seeking to legalize polygamy?
You seem to be quite interested in the proposition but I don't think you have a lot of backing.
Not 10 years ago we were PROMISED by the gay activists that civil unions wasn't a stepping stone to gay marriage.
Just because the support for these other ideas is underground doesn't mean they don't exist.
Hey, how come the cops don't arrest these people? Maybe it's because Coral Sea's "legal" argument hasn't been thought through.
Restating earlier question. Any updates on the signature count?
That's the best you've got to support your fears of legalization of polygamist marriage?
It's a good idea to seperate fears into rational and irrational catagories before typing in public.
Tom C: "Not 10 years ago we were PROMISED by the gay activists that civil unions wasn't a stepping stone to gay marriage." Who is the "we" that you're referring to? Also, who is the "gay activist" that spoke with such authority that the view "they" offered up was binding upon all?
"Hey, how come the cops don't arrest these people? " I don't have his name in front of me (Jeffords, Jeffers?), but I believe there was a recent high profile trial of a polygamist/pedophile who is now in prison for life. I guess I don't assume that your question is based in fact.... As an aside, just because police don't arrest someone for breaking the law does not mean that the law is no longer valid. The fact that I might drive 75 mph in a 65 mph zone and not receive a ticket does not mean that doing so is legal.
I asked you in an earlier post if you had any evidence of any particular groundswell of support for legalizing parent/child, brother/sister, etc relationships. I suppose you're still researching. Remember, I'm asking you to find the level of support that would realistically find it's way into the legislative chambers across the country and become law. Finding a random story about the existence of sick people across the country is not the same as base support.... If you actually find something (which cannot include anything in which you are the source), let me know. Perhaps then I'll start worrying...
Never said you did.
My sentence was a statement not a quote of you!
Why does there have to be support of polygamy etc to make it ok, I thought this was about equality for all. I am always amazed that the people who claim they are discriminated against are some of the first to discriminate.
Islander: " Why does there have to be support of polygamy etc to make it ok, I thought this was about equality for all."
There has to be support if you're to believe the "slippery-slope" argument raised by Tom C. Essentially, if we legalize same sex marriage, what prevents us from applying the same arguments to support such a move to things such as marriage between siblings, parents and their children, pet owners and their pets, etc? The answer, of course, is that there is no way that any lawmaking institution in our society would legalize such arrangements. Basically, if we legalize same sex marriage, Tom C's nightmare scenario is not going to just happen because we've opened the door (though that seems to be the fear). I'm simply asking for some indication from Tom C, or you if you support his point of view, that the slippery slope argument has real legs. It's too easy to just throw out inflammatory statements.