I'MMA LET YOU FINISH
Yes...let's win this fight.
I'm very disappointed with Barney Frank and other leaders of the struggle for GLBT rights who've been expressing public disappointment about this issue emerging as it has. Even if they're right (and I don't think they are) that this hurts the causes, saying so definitely hurts the cause.
At any rate, this particular genie ain't goin' back in the bottle, so let's win this battle. It's sure to be a long war.
Christians should let the amendment fail.
Afterall, the sooner he have sodomites running the country, the sooner Jesus will return!!
So let's go folks! All you christians just sit back, leave the governing to us. Let the country fall into dispair and moral decay, and rack in all the rapture you can swallow!
Sounds like a plan!
MYOB'
.
first? me?
i'm noticing a change in attitude on the editorial ppg here in MA, to reflect the fact that people are not warming to changes in the constitution in order to restrict rights for some.
people are maybe more sensible than we sometimes think.
they know they could be next.
Sorry for the mixed metaphor in my last post.
man, you guys are fast.
Why don't churches who marry gays and lesbians mount a campaign pointing out that all these amendments are violating their religious rights?
I think we've gone a bit too far using the "this is only about civil relations." Fact is, a lot of churches now celebrate same-sex commitments. Their religious views should be on par with those churches that choose not to.
The wingnuts were caught completely off guard by this gay marriage thing. They've yet to come up with a cohesive strategy to deal with it. Repressive measures will be needed to get this horse back in the barn.
i suppose WI will pass their stupid discrimination bill, but they have to do it again next year and then have the people's OK.
do you think this will be an issue next year?
meanwhil;e, rome is burning.
The "democrat" Finneran is going to ram this though (no pun intended).
They may just pass an ammendment this term. This will 'take the heat' from the right on them for awhile and may cool the push for mucking with the US constitution. Kerry said he's in favor of the state constitution changes (bastard!) so that gives them lots of cover.
However, the real vote to watch would be in the next session. The national news won't be keeping them in the headlines as much then. It could even be after the next election when politicians aren't whoring themselves for votes as much. If they block it in the second one, they effectively block it for years.
But Finneran (mr campaign funding irregularities as recently as this week!) is the big problem. He's so homophobic and wields a lot of power that I fear there's nothing to stop the vote in this session. 
Why aren't any mayors marrying couples NOW in MA? They have a clear legal opinion, a date that the state has to accept the changes by. Why is Northhampton not letting us marry now to help steer the debate?
Just wondering...
Why aren't any mayors marrying couples NOW in MA? They have a clear legal opinion, a date that the state has to accept the changes by. Why is Northhampton not letting us marry now to help steer the debate?
A couple of Cambridge city council members were going to ask the council to direct the city clerk to start granting licenses the week after the SJC's decision came down. The rest of the council convinced them to wait.
Having said that, though, May 17 is the date to look for marriages to occur. That's when the SJC's stay will expire. (The Court imposed a stay in order to allow for administrative issues to be cleared up--legislative language being part of that.)
The town clerk's have asked for guidance on what exactly to do on that date (with forms, etc.), so preparations are occuring. Look for Finneran and Romney to try mucking things up, though.
We will see same-sex couples getting married in MA this spring.
As an aside--if folks in Boston would like to take some action today or Sunday, GLAD and the Mass. Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus are phone banking. I'll probably be heading down tomorrow. Below is the copy of an email I received from MGLPC requesting folks help in the effort.
Hi Everyone,
We are entering the final stretch, and we need to dramatically crank up, once again, telephone calls to legislators. We are hearing from certain key legislators that constituent contacts on our side have died down significantly.
This weekend, we will be phone-banking at GLAD, with spill-over going to the ACLU and the Freedom to Marry Coalition. We will be calling people who have taken some kind of action before, and asking them to weigh in once again with their legislators. We will be focused on constituents of legislators who we have identified as critical in order for us to have a chance of winning this Thursday.
We need leaders and members of our MassEquality organizations, as well as our allies, to come in and make telephone calls to supporters of equal marriage rights asking them to take action. This work is absolutely critical--if we have a barrage of constituent telephone calls beginning on Monday, I am convinced we will seize next week's momentum.
Location: GLAD (spill-over will go to other nearby locations)
30 Winter Street, 8th Floor (Park Street or Downtown Crossing T stop)
Time: Saturday--10 a.m.-6 p.m.
Sunday--12 noon-9 p.m.
Please come when you can and plan to spend as much time as you are able. We can definitely accommodate groups that want to take shifts of two or three hours. If you are bringing a group, or if you have questions, email or call Gavi Wolfe at GLAD: gwolfe@glad.org or (617) 426-1350 (617-694-9177 on Saturday, Robyn at 617-256-4746 on Sunday).
Please also bring your cell-phones and chargers..we want to be able to make calls even if we have filled all of the land lines.
Thanks very much. See you this weekend!
Go to Josh Marshall's site and read the latest post. I almost had a heart attack with the thought that someone/something had felled my hero...
Go to Josh Marshall's site and read the latest post. I almost had a heart attack with the thought that someone/something had felled my hero...
I'm an immoral commie. You got a problem with that?
I thought this was the land of the free.
Wanna double your donation?
HRC will match donations to MassEquality. Just go to this page.
the Religious coalition for the Freedom to Marry has been working hard to get noticed. http://www.ftmmass.org/rcfm/ doesn't really seem to be working. More rallies are planned for next week however...
Mad Max | Email | Homepage | 03.06.04 - 12:39 pm | #
I see what you mean.. "Atrios is dead"
Atrios...thanks for posting the link on the main page.
Marshall got one detail wrong in this paragraph:
But if supporters of gay marriage can defeat that amendment in this session, they'll gain another two years before gay marriage can be banned in the state and likely go a long way to making it permanent.
If we defeat the amendment this term, they will have to start over with the amendment process. They'll have to have the first reading in next year's session and the earliest it could go on the ballot would be 2007. If we defeat it this year, we'd get an automatic 3 years. Even if we lose this year, we've got two years of fighting--they'll have to reapprove it next year and then it would go on to the voters.
Oh, I almost forgot, tonight was Sydney's gay pride march, and there were one or two notable marriage proposals.
I posted a diary entry at Kos yesterday that contains a letter from a friend. There are also links in that to donate to the NGLTF if you'd prefer to send them money. They are working closely with MassEquality, but they also have presences in other states facing similar attempts: KS and WI yesterday moved closer to enacting constitutional amendments (while ID defeated one). Legislators in MN have also introduced a proposed amendment (interestingly, Arlon Lindner is not among the sponsors--maybe they wanted to keep him out of the spotlight on this one.)
The Kansas House voted Friday to put a gay-marriage ban before state voters in August. The Christofascists want to make it safe to go to the courthouse, I guess.
You can also sign this petition.
Atrios -- you're not getting it. The Republicans wanted to make that hearing about gay marriage. The Dems wanted to make it about the Constitution. So none of the Dem witnesses were even there to talk about gay marriage. That was the point.
For the moment, the best we can hope for in Congress is holding off a federal marriage amendment. If we do that, gay marriage will start to happen in the states -- in other words, we'll start to win. As long as we keep the focus on the sanctity of the Constitution, we win and the states are free to start marrying same-sex couples.
No, it's not as satisfying, but it'll work.
Stop with this marriage Crap and pay attention to what's really going on in the world. GEEZ!!
joshcabs-
The gay marriage issue isn't really going on in this world?
A lot of us think it is, and a lot of us think it's pretty damn important.
From today's STrib:
Let the churches that reject gay marriage do so -- and determine their own course. But stay out of our legislatures and courthouses on this point. Besides, what law can affirm the holiness of things claimed by the church? Let's learn from the wisdom of one of our historical forebears. The churches will survive, and the marriages they bless will survive, whether or not gays marry.
Can the state survive if it practices discrimination so deliberately? To abandon the principle of equal justice under the law -- to write law to specifically exclude a class of persons from entering a marriage agreement -- chops away at America's roots. Doing so at the behest of the religious class kills a part of its soul.
joshcabs,
If you don't want to see people crapping on about the gay marriage thing, then don't click on the comments link when Atrios posts about the subject.
Here's an article about the legal battle in San Francisco:
Battle over same sex marriage
And, OT but some articles of interest:
Judge rejects U.S. demand for medical records
Prewar reports said Iraq had no illicit weapons - Government may have ignored what it didn't want to believe
There are definetly church leaders that are eager to be spokespersons against banning gay marriage. It'd be foolish not to take advantage of that. Rev. Peter Gomes, a Harvard theologian, springs quickly to mind.
Stubbly Joe - Satisfying or not, it's the way we will eventually win this issue.
Here's how it will go down (in the absence of a federal marriage amendment, which as we know doesn't have the votes to get out of Congress at this time): Thousands of gay couples have already tied the knot and been given the license recognizing that they are legally married. When legislatures attempt to de-legitimize those marriages, or to add to their state constitutions provisions prohibiting the marriages, someone - probably lots of someones - will go to court. The case(s) will end up being appealed all the way to the highest level, at which point DOMA will be recognized as a violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th and struck down by SCOTUS. This will then leave a bunch of state constitutions and DOMA laws also in violation of the Constitution, which will require they be tossed as well.
The second scenario is that one state decides to legalize gay marriage; a gay couple married in that state moves to another and the marriage is not recognized due to DOMA or the other state's laws or constitution. Enter the courts and appeals, eventually the state refusing to recognize the legality of the marriage will be found in violation of the full faith and credit clause of the constitution, DOMA again goes down.
The only reason this hasn't happened before now is that there was no local or state government granting marriage licenses to gay couples. Now that they have, there is legal standing for these issues to come before the courts.
And if you buy any "Support Gay Marriage" items from here during March, all proceeds will go to HRC's MillionforMarriage.org.
BStu is right about Gomes. He's been involved here in MA--wrote a great piece for the Globe (that Brian Joyce read on the floor of the ConCon as part of the fillibuster) and spoke elloquently and passionately at a rally the day before the first episode of the ConCon.
Religious leaders are on board on the pro-marriage side. Part of the issue is the dominant media frame: Religious=anti-gay. They privilege anti-gay voices as more "authentically religious." I dunno if progressive religious leaders have done a poorer job of media organizing or what the exact issue is. There is a problem here, though.
Bhaal - I believe the Guardian (UK) had a sizeable article today from Hans Blix about how he was sidelined in the runup to the Iraq war.
I came up with some slogans to describe John Kerry's campaign. The intention is to capture several notions:
a) He is a leader.
b) He has the experience to lead us in the right direction (unlike Bush whose leadership is taking us over the cliff; leadership without judiciousness and experience is dangerous).
c) He fought to defend our country in the country and will do so in the future .
d) He is fighting to provide both economic and physical security.
Here is what I came up with. Please critique and improve.
JOHN KERRY: EXPERIENCED LEADERSHIP IN FIGHTING FOR OUR SECURITY.
(or)
JOHN KERRY: EXPERIENCED LEADER FIGHTING FOR OUR SECURITY.
The objective is to [come up with a slogan that best captures John Kerry's campaign] in an easy to understand manner.
May be we can start our own little contest here that the campaign might find useful?
With so many smart people here, I am sure we can tap into our collective creativity.
"May 17 is the date to look for marriages to occur.
Remember, Mass has a mandatory 3-day waiting period for all marriages.
People may apply on the 17th, but they will have to wait through the next three (business) days before any licenses can be issued.
The lack of an institutional counter-weight to the DLC has led the party to select fairly conservative Senate candidates.
Especially in Colorado, where Rutt Bridges is a Joe Lieberman type "Democrat."
But we have a more liberal alternative. Rep. Mark Udall (son of environmentalist "Mo" Udall) is considering a bid.
Thoughts on the grassroots starting a Draft Udall effort?
MAjeff:
thanks for the info. im going to try to drag my girlfriend there tomorrow to put in a couple of hours.
shes slightly phone-o-phobic so ill have to do a little prodding.
and for the people that don't think that this is an important issue:
you may not care about gay rights. fine. but these people are trying to amend our constitution based on ignorance and hate. what if they come for you next? maybe there is something you do that these people are going to clamp down on.
although this particular amendment is focused on glbt fols, it is larger than just that. it is a battle for the soul of armerica (too dramatic?). we didn't pick this fight, but it's on.
Marcus,
It's also possible to have the 3-day wait waived. I'd guess we will start seeing marriages on the 17th. Places like Northampton, Provincetown, Cambridge, Brookline, Newton, Boston...will in all likelihood have town/city clerks that will be willing to waive the wait. It will depend on how they read the statute.
Additionally, the SJC put a stay on granting licenses until May 17. Folks could apply 3-days earlier and have their license granted on the 17th...again depending on the clerk.
ooops. "fols" should be "folks".
Since Patrick's post is about my original post, I guess I must be 100% right too.
Here's one straight, Christian, Massachusetts resident and voter who send $20 to MassEquality through HRC.
Kick some ass guys.
Kerry should come out in favor of gay marriage as a civil rights issue, and get it behind him. Then he can pound Bush over it: "There's no threat to hetersosexual marriage from gays getting married, and George Bush knows it. He just wants to take survivor benefits, insurance, etc. away from gays, just like he takes benefits away from veterans, just like he lets jobs go abroad." (etc.) "It's just one more group he's willing to disenfranchise, to cheat out of their rights and their security, so that there's more money for those like his contributors who are already doing well."
Else Bush will smugly say that Kerry doesn't support the FMA because he's mushy, a waffler-- supposedly not for gay marriage, but not for the FMA.
MAJeff -- Thanks for that info. It looks like equality will start on the 17th. 
Do you know what establishes residency in Mass?
As I understand it, non-residents can't marry in Mass if the marriage would not be legal where they reside.
I think it might be a good idea to caution out-of-state people not to rush to Mass on the 17th. Folks may want to wait and see how that particular issue pans out or they could be in for a dissapointment.
If only it were that simple, Mr C. I think he thinks that, Vermont having 'civil unions', and most other states not being in favour of gay marriage, endorsing gays marrying would make him look more radical than, say, Dean, which (tho' we might call it a Good Thing) would be taking him too far to the political left at a time when he's trying to hold his own against the political right.
sent to Time, March 5
Writing in the 1960's (when the word "terrorist" was barely in the lexicon), Robert Ardey predicted that we were entering a new era. He called in "the tyrany of special interest" wherein any group of thugs - armed with a few bicycle chains - coould hold a whole community, a whole city, state even a nation hostage. He also predicted that the family "as we know it" would continue what he called its steady decline.
A year or so ago, a couple of thugs with a rifle and a modified car held a whole state in the grip of terror. "Terrorism" by one group of thugs or another is holding a large part of the world in fright. Single parents just about equal the number of married. Cohabitation has become the preferred way for a large percentage of the young population to get together. And, "gays" in a numb-minded drive want to participate in heterosexuality's most failed institution - marriage.
Reduced to the plainest terms, everybody wants to trample on everybody else's civil rights - all for the noblest principles (as they see them). The religious right is "a group of thugs" wielding their noisy portion of the electorate to straighten everybody out. Ditto for all the others. Geroge Bush is arguably a terrorist trampling on the civil rights of a whole nation in the name of fighting terrorism and falunting our own and international law holding hundreds of people without process. He has also created the largest colony of terrorists we have seen to date.
It's a strange world. Stranger still, if, as Ardrey had predicted, we have entered a "new era," our leadership offers no new, bold solutions to deal with the situation as it exists. Instead, they look nostalgically (and foolishly) to a past long gone and now propose some patchwork of ill-conceived tampering with the Constitution that has served as our protection throughout our history.
Paul Power - Janesville, WI
Phew, that's a letter to conjure with for sure.
Had a look at the article linked from your Homepage, Paul - also very interesting. Advocating a sort of American Reformation?
Huh? I just heard a Republican on CNN claim, "You want to destroy God in this country, you raise taxes."
One to beam up Scotty......
Wow, that Republican sure sounds like he has a puny God!
The only reason this hasn't happened before now is that there was no local or state government granting marriage licenses to gay couples. Now that they have, there is legal standing for these issues to come before the courts.
Jennifer
Exatamundo Jennifer. That's why they opened the door to marriage for gays across the country. There will be so many court cases in many different states, the FMA becomes almost irrelevant.
kewl huh.....
FMA = Fantasy Marriage Amendment
Man, I love the fundies getting their shorts in a wad about this.
love it....
Or, FMA = Fundamentalist Marriage Amendment.
Bloomberg has finally decided to state his position:
NEW YORK (AP) - The mayor of the nation's largest city says same-sex couples deserve the same rights in civil unions that straight couples enjoy in marriage, but he will continue to enforce New York state's ban on gay marriage.
Mayor Michael Bloomberg's statement, reversing his previous refusal to discuss his position on gay marriage, came the same week that dozens of same-sex couples seeking marriage licenses were turned away by the City Clerk, and that state Attorney General Eliot Spitzer held that gay and lesbian marriages are prohibited by state law.
Bloomberg said in an interview that he goes ``back-and-forth'' on whether same-sex marriages should be allowed, but believes these couples deserve equality.
``Personally, I've always thought that civil unions should have exactly the same rights as marriage,'' Bloomberg said during the interview, to be broadcast Sunday on WPIX-TV. ``I don't think you should discriminate against anybody.''
I heard on NPR either yesterday or the day before, that Elliot Spitzer really regretted having to make the statement that New York state law prohibits same sex marriages. Apparently, he said that he believes they should be legal, but that according to law they weren't.
Marcus,
I'm not exactly sure what establlishes residence in MA.
The out-of-state issue is going to be interesting. Here's the MA law on this issue (Gen Law 207, Section 11):
No marriage shall be contracted in this commonwealth by a party residing and intending to continue to reside in another jurisdiction if such marriage would be void if contracted in such other jurisdiction, and every marriage contracted in this commonwealth in violation hereof shall be null and void.
One of the things the state association of town clerks (or whatever its official title) asked for clarification on is exactly this issue. Questions that arise might include: If a state doesn't have a DOMA, would MA grant a marriage license? These questions are still open.
Has there been an Anonymous sighting this afternoon?
Just curious...
The institution of marriage has weathered the storm over the years, surviving through divorce, adultery, polygamy, domestic violence, women gaining the right to no longer be considered property of their husband, minimum age of consent laws - but I don't see how it can possibly survive the despoiling of two people who love each other but are the same gender tying the knot. This is the end of society as we know it.
"I heard on NPR either yesterday or the day before, that Elliot Spitzer really regretted having to make the statement that New York state law prohibits same sex marriages. Apparently, he said that he believes they should be legal, but that according to law they weren't."
This is an interesting interpretation by Spitzer. He's not basing it on the terms "man and woman" or "male and female", but instead on "bride and groom" and "husband and wife". The key word here is interpretation.
Another reason out of many why we need to win the November elections in case another Supreme Court Justice decides to retire. (All the different state statutes will have to be thrown out in favor of one uniform federal description of marriage.) I believe that O'Conner, although appointed by Reagan, is somewhat unnerved for the survival of our democracy over the last few years that she held off retiring. Maybe she doesn't want Bush to appoint one after she retires. All these court cases will head to the SCOTUS after the beginning of next year. Maybe she would hold off retiring for another 4 years but I don't know. I'm willing to forgo violence as long as there is movement toward gay rights. But what am I supposed to do if discrimination against me and others is written into the Constitution and upheld by the SCOTUS? What happens when the aspirations of millions of citizens in this country is permanently denied by a tyranny of the majority? If that's the case, you can take the Constitution of the United States and throw it in the trash. This Indian is going off the reservation.
I've sacrificed more for this country than most but what loyalty would I be expected to have if I'm permanently blocked by Christian fundamentalists who no longer make any attempt to hide their desire to scrap the very same Constitution in favor of a Theocracy of their choice? This isn't only a fight between the gay community and the religious zealots. This is a fight for the soul of our Constitutional Republic and everybody has a dog in this fight now.
Taken from Sullivan's site:
THE FMA AS TROJAN HORSE: Here's an email from a Republican lawyer who sees the religious right amendment as a device to do far more than just deny gay couples constitutional protection. The amendment is just the beginning of the religious right agenda:
Now that opponents and proponents of gay marriage are all riled about the FMA its time to talk about the true impact of including a definition of marriage in the Constitution. The potential impact of inclusion of the FMA will effect every American straight or gay because the FMA is not about gay marriage, it is a dangerous Trojan Horse that could completely redefine the powers of the federal government. As an attorney who is researching this issue, let me explain to the best of my ability, why I haven’t been sleeping well since Tuesday.
Under the Constitution of the United States there is no express right to privacy, rather this right to be free from excessive government interference in our personal lives has arisen from Supreme Court precedent that cites the lack of regulation of intimate relationships and the protections of the bill of rights as the basis for an inference of the right to privacy. The right to privacy, according the Supreme Court is found in the penumbras and emanations of these two factors. A shadow of a right, very delicate and now threatened.
By including a provision regulating the most intimate of relationships into the Constitution, the traditional analysis that the court has used to limit government power will be fundamentally changed and the right to privacy, if it is not destroyed completely, will be severely curtailed. As a result, decisions like Roe v. Wade, (Abortion), Griswold v. Connecticut (Birth Control), Lawrence v. Texas (Private Sexual Acts), will all be fair game for re-analysis under this new jurisprudential regime as the Constitutional foundation for those decisions will have been altered. A brilliant strategy really, with one amendment the religious right could wipe out access to birth control, abortion, and even non-procreative sex (as Senator Santorum so eagerly wants to do).
This debate isn’t only about federalism, it’s about the reversal of two hundred years of liberal democracy that respects individuals. So why isn’t anyone talking about this aspect of it?
With luck, this agenda will be revealed as this amendment is discussed and debated. The most important thing to remember is who is behind this amendment: Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Gary Bauer, Robert Bork, Rick Santorum. For them, gays are just the beginning, the soft targets before the real battle. Memo to straights: you're next.
Mars - great post. When I first read the FMA, my feeling was that most lawyers would be very uncomfortable with it because of the potential it contains. I know the ABA was not in favor of the Patriot Act, and I suspect it won't be in favor of this amendment. Doesn't mean the FMA supporters will pay any attention, but I really believe that this thing isn't going to make it through Congress. It's a terrible piece of legislation and has divided the Repugs - they are not all in favor of it by any means.
Hang in there, Mars, I think we are going to move this issue forward and that equal rights and protections for GLBT is going to win. I'm not saying it won't be a battle, but I really believe that we will win.
I'm sick of being made to feel like a stranger in my own country. The only time in my adult life I didn't feel this way was right after the events of 911. Then, it didn't matter that I am gay to anyone. But before the smoke had even cleared, the religious zealots began blaming me and others like me for what had happened and the lines were drawn once again at one of the saddest circumstances possible. Most who post here feel engaged with a stake in the future of this country. But when you're gay, you're not allowed. Consider that and imagine how that would feel.
Mars - I understand to the extent that I am able to understand without being gay. It's hard for me to say anything to you from that standpoint - I don't want to speak to something I haven't experienced first hand. But I have to say that from my perspective, it seems that there has been growing acceptance for gays and lesbians in this country over a number of years. All this howling on the part of a minority - the religious right - is a good indication of that acceptance in the general population. The RR feels empowered by the Bush administration, but it is out of step with the rest of the country, just as the administration is. The RR is trying all kinds of last ditch efforts to drag the rest of us back in time - that's impossible.
People don't whisper about homosexuality any more - it is an open discussion these days. That alone is a huge change from the way it was when I was growing up. We aren't all the way there, yet, but we sure have moved quite far in the right direction. People are openly gay now, which also didn't happen when I was growing up. Gays and lesbians are known to be in all walks of life and in the public eye. So, hang in there - I truly believe that we will clear this last hurdle.
And once we get rid of Bushco, the RR isn't going to have the same amount of influence it has had under this administration. We'll get rid of Ashcroft and effectively shut down some of the other loud mouthed bigots. And if it doesn't happen that way, Mars, I'll join you in the streets. I promise you that.
OK Tena, and while I'm still up on my soapbox:
The definition of marriage has changed over the centuries from dowry marriage to romantic love marriages we have now. Marriage isn't an immutable unchangeable law of physics inherent in the Milky Way. Gay couples should now be included in the definition of marriage in this country.
:::getting off soapbox::::
Yer both wrong; it's that Fucking Marriage Amendment
"One to beam up Scotty......
Mars Spirit Rover"
Anyone else ever catch Elisabeth Clare prophet's show on Access TV in the mid '80s? I saw it once, swore the woman was on some really fine brain candy. All that came out was word salad in a freaky monotone. Then there was a sitdown with a guest or two, and damn if Ghod didn't invent America, Capitalism, and Christianity all on the 8th day, according to these Wacos.
It's the FUBAR Marriage Amendment.
"One to beam up Scotty......
Mars Spirit Rover"
Anyone else ever catch Elisabeth Clare prophet's show on Access TV in the mid '80s? I saw it once, swore the woman was on some really fine brain candy. All that came out was word salad in a freaky monotone. Then there was a sitdown with a guest or two, and damn if Ghod didn't invent America, Capitalism, and Christianity all on the 8th day, according to these Wacos.
goober
Yeah, and I love to remind them that nowhere in the Bible is there any mention of 'Murca or even the slightest suggestion of its existence.
I guess God was keeping that as a little surprise.
My fantasy is to get in Jenna's drawers.
"....right after the events of 911. Then, it didn't matter that I am gay to anyone. But before the smoke had even cleared, the religious zealots began blaming me and others like me for what had happened....."
Anyone need an emetic, and you're fresh out of Ipecac, and just hate to use your finger, click here, and have a bucket handy . When I first heard of this a couple years ago, I thought, can't they be arrested for this? Something? Anything?
MSR; LOL, you win. FUBAR is right.
ahem.
here
Here is my guestbook! Tell me your favorite Jenna story!
HRC....and here I thought for a minute that Hillary R. Clinton was actually going to take a progressive stand for once.
Silly me.
HRC....and here I thought for a minute that Hillary R. Clinton was actually going to take a progressive stand for once.
Silly me.
Jill
I think it's the gay community's battle to fight and in that regards, we have over the last 30 years alone against incredible odds. But now this one battle in the cultural wars has spilled over into the broader population and it will now affect all Americans. So unless most straights want to live in a Jerry Falwell Theocracy, our fight is their's now.
The Battle is joined.....
Mars - you're totally right about the changing view of marriage. Love used to have absolutely nothing to do with it - it was all about property, it was all arranged. When it started shifting to a situation where the prospective marriage partners chose themselves, instead of their having been chosen for them by their parents, I believe that some people predicted the end of life as we know it because of it. People resist change, but it happens because that is the nature of the universe we live in. Nothing is immutable.
Barney Frank has been against the amendment in Mass. He wants same-sex marriage to be legalized. He just isn't happy about the mayors in other states violating their laws and giving the fundies ammunition.
Thank you for putting this up Atrios, and thank you for your thoughtful comments, MAJeff, Tena, Mars Spirit Rover, etc. I have to admit that from what I've read about Finneran it sounds like he will get his way. The scariest part is that he's doing his best to make sure that gays don't even get civil unions. He's planning to put a split amendment on the ballot in case people want to vote "yes" on banning marriage and then "no" on granting civil unions.
Here are other, urgent battles going on in Wisconsin (what the hell has happened to that state, legislators now openly call gay legislators "fag" and "that queer" now???) Georgia and Minnesota.
http://www.actionwisconsin.org/
http://www.outfront.org/index.html
http://www.georgiaequality.org/
http://www.sr595.org/
Yes, yes, yes and yes again. The fight against the Falwell-Santorum perverts has to be taken directly to their backwards, totally repudiated, mid-20th century demagoguery about ``immoral'' homosexual ``lifestyles.'' Instead of the Democrats offering up sensible secular politicians to counter narrow, mean and highly debatable religious arguments, they have to push people into the fray who can make coherent counter-religious arguments that throw in convincing behavorial science. It's by no means too late to do that.
---It's really sad that our Dems in the senate were too stupid to get some religious representatives to be "pro-gay marriage," and thus allowed the Republicans to frame this as religious vs. secular. Because, as we all know religious=moral and secular=godless immoral commies.
Idiots.
We are getting very little help from our own elected Democrats. Take Spitzer in New York - he went out of his way to find that same sex marriage is illegal in New York, not because it is prohibited, but because it is not specifically allowed.
" While the text of the DRL does not expressly bar marriage of
same-sex couples, the inclusion in the DRL of gender-specific
terms to describe parties to a marriage, as well as the
historical context of its enactment, indicates that the
Legislature did not intend to authorize same-sex marriage.
The DRL includes no express requirement that married persons
be of the opposite sex. Nor does it declare invalid marriages
between persons of the same sex; "
Which he follows up with this:
" The inclusion of gender-specific references to married
persons in the DRL is consistent with this conclusion. For
example, section 15(1)(a) of the DRL requires the town or city
clerk to obtain certain information from the “groom” and the
“bride.” Another provision requires that the parties to a
marriage “solemnly declare . . . that they take each other as
husband and wife.” "
That language "take each other as husband and wife" is a throwback to the bad old days when brides were either taken or given like property. The Bible is overflowing with that crap, namely women being treated exactly like cattle.
That's another thing that needs to evolve already! I wouldn't like to participate in a ceremony where I had to "take" my spouse. I would, however, have no problem with "accepting" one.
Here's an interesting aside:
New Paltz Marriages Continue on Saturday Despite Statements by Mayor!
New Paltz, New York) Thirteen same-sex couples were married in New Paltz, New York Saturday despite statements by the village's mayor that he will not conduct marriages for two weeks.
With mayor Jason West sidelined by his commitment to Attorney General Elliot Spitzer that he would hold off on any more gay marriages and a court order obtained by a conservative Florida group (story) the weddings were performed by two Unitarian ministers, the Reverend Kay Greenleaf and her partner Reverend Dawn Sangrey.
Instead of using the village hall, the weddings were held on a private piece of land not far away.
Following the ceremonies each of the couples was given a notarized affidavit of marriage.
You can find the rest of this story in the 'homepage' link directly below this message.
Thank you for that New Paltz information, Marcus; I love my Unitarians
I'm a member of one of the oldest continuously-operating Unitarian congregations in the country; John Quincy Adams was one of the founding members, and Paul Revere's son made our church bell. My pastor is one of the many Unitarian pastors who has refused for many years to sign marriage licenses, until all of his congregants may marry legally. I've suddenly become confident that, by the time I decide to get married, my pastor will be willing to sign my marriage license
secular = godless immoral commies.
It's true, except you left out hedonist.
Characters Remaining:
Commenting by HaloScan
