HaloScan.com - Comments

I'MMA LET YOU FINISH

Gee, you mean to tell us this issue isn't as simple as the Repugs would have us believe?
Fed up | 11.22.04 - 12:56 pm | #

But other than those 1049 reasons, you don't have a logical leg to stand on.
Cranky When Old | 11.22.04 - 12:58 pm | #

Amazingly, even though same-sex marriages were performed a while back, my husband and I are still together. Inconceivable!
Igotyermandate | 11.22.04 - 1:00 pm | #

If the anti-gay marriage amendments in the other states are like the one passed in Missouri, they preclude civil unions as well as marriage. According to the polls I've seen, a majority of people do not believe gays should be able to marry, but they are not overwhelmingly opposed to civil unions of some kind. Since gays cannot privately contract to take care of the many issues Atrios pointed out, and they are not being allowed civil unions, those amendments should have been labeled what they are: Anti-homosexual amendments. But I guess that would sound bigoted.
Fed up | 11.22.04 - 1:03 pm | #

Yet still I feel threatened.
typical dumbass voter | 11.22.04 - 1:03 pm | #

But I still don't understand why we have to discuss government-issued, secular marriage certificates in sacred terms. God's representative did not issue (or sign) my marriage license--therefore my marriage has not been sanctified by any deity.

Again: the Chester Co., PA court clerk is a government employee, not a freaking priest.
Christopher | 11.22.04 - 1:04 pm | #

Common sense, to me.
Vicki Stein | 11.22.04 - 1:06 pm | #

An excellent post. Ah, reminds me of the good old days.
Slothrop | 11.22.04 - 1:08 pm | #

Just as an aside- in some states (at least in MA and I belive a few othsd) you don't need to be married to obtain a domestic violence protection order- just in " a substantial dating relationship"

But then again, gay couples can already be married here so it doesn't much matter.
Maggie | 11.22.04 - 1:08 pm | #

ok, now I don't believe anyone should be allowed to get married and anyone who is married should not be allowed to get a divorce. If they're screwing around on their spouse, they should be stoned by their community.
Along with that, I believe everyone ... I mean EVERYONE should be drafted. 60 years old and sitting in that chair rooting for the war, get your ass to the front. 15 years old sitting in front of your computer urging on the war - get your ass to the front. If you don't believe in the goodness of war, you could prove how you've been against it by your letters and marching, friends testimony, blogging records, etc....
else - get your ass to the front.
oldwhitelady | 11.22.04 - 1:10 pm | #

Shorter bigots:

What I think "they" do is icky, and I don't
want to have to PAY for it (these benefits
to those icky, icky people).

$$$$ + icky = winning hate-filled combination!
Bigby | 11.22.04 - 1:13 pm | #

There will be a book emerging soon by a Richard Mohr on this issue (lesbian and gay marriage, rights and equality). Absolutely right on, Atrios.
TheaLogie | 11.22.04 - 1:13 pm | #

OT: New Jack Chick comic about Muslims. I especially liked the part where they said they had to go to the airport:

Christians say muslims suck
cheney_usa | 11.22.04 - 1:13 pm | #

(.)(.)
wÒÓ† | 11.22.04 - 1:14 pm | #

What's really disgusting is imagining Tom DeLay have sex with his wife.
cheney_usa | 11.22.04 - 1:14 pm | #

oldwhitelady ~

You're kidding, right?
Vicki Stein | 11.22.04 - 1:15 pm | #

cheney_usa, I shall have to notify a friend of mine about that new tract. He collects them for the hilarity value...
TheaLogie | 11.22.04 - 1:15 pm | #

$$$$ + icky = winning hate-filled combination!
Bigby

I love the new math!
NYMary | Homepage | 11.22.04 - 1:16 pm | #

cheney_usa,
Is this the one where grandpa has an inexplicable eye patch?
NYMary | Homepage | 11.22.04 - 1:17 pm | #

cheney_usa

OMFG. Are you sure that's not a parody? I can't stop thinking of Harvey Birdman when I see that eyepatch guy...
int argc | Homepage | 11.22.04 - 1:18 pm | #

Yep, if gay people had them rights, my marriage would just fall apart, it would, along with the rest of civilization as I know it.

Yeah, right.

Seriously, wouldn't extending all the rights I have to gay people strengthen society? I mean, if we are to be honest with ourselves. (I think I see the problem now.)
Cabby Old Lady | 11.22.04 - 1:19 pm | #

The best solution to this problem is to end government-sanctioned marriage, period. That is, the legal aspects of a civil relationship between 2 adults of whatever gender should be governed only by contract law and statutes related to matters that pertain to those with a valid union contract (that is, the privileges described here would apply to anyone with a legal civil union).

This would satisfy the constitutional problem of equal protection. The qualification (ie, a license) should only be in place to protect the objective interests of society (eg, preventing inbreeding, exploitation of children, etc). In other words, all couples would qualify for the status we think of as marriage if they have a civil union contract, but by nature of being in a contractual relationship, not because of the license by the government.

On the other hand, "marriage" should be something people do privately (if they so choose), according to their spiritual or religious beliefs. That way religious folks keep their construct of marriage, which they can define however they choose.
Anad | 11.22.04 - 1:19 pm | #

All very well and good, but how does all this affect nuns?
GWPDA | Homepage | 11.22.04 - 1:20 pm | #

If same-sex civil unions are allowed, what's to stop anyone from having a civil union? Brother/brother, sister/brother, friend/friend civil unions could exist. Add no-fault divorce to that and eventually everyone in America would be in a civil union.

It's a small step from 2 party civil unions to 3 or 4 or more partners. Civil unions would eventually evolve into perpetual civil partnerships with members being added and lost constantly. The country would consist of tribes of civil partners. Conservative heads would whirl about their necks so fast they'd twist off and fly across the country, creating a public hazard.

BTW, the real reason the conservative masses oppose marriage for gays is that they are afraid they will be forced to watch men kissing and fondling each other in public places (lesbians are okay, conservative men like watching women kiss and fondle, and conservative women are mostly neutral about it). If every gay couple were forced to sign a binding contract that they would not express physical affection for each in public, the opposition to gay marriage would dissolve.
Bill the cat | 11.22.04 - 1:24 pm | #

Vicki, I figure it's time to go EXTREME! I figure we're doing a lot worse to the Iraqis than they would to themselves if we pulled out. We are ruining their habitat with our stinking bombs, we're causing worsening malnutrition to their kids, we've (once again) ruined their water and sewage system, We're killing their people right and left and our media shows how wonderful we are. We have caused massive pain to that country and 1/2 the population is still clapping and rahrahing. The most horrible part of all this is that these people cheering on the war consider themselves "Christians".
oldwhitelady | 11.22.04 - 1:25 pm | #

conservative men like watching women kiss and fondle

*ahem*

I've heard that some liberal men like that too. I mean, a friend told me. Um, anyways. Just sayin...
int argc | Homepage | 11.22.04 - 1:26 pm | #

Also, Vicki, I really don't care what married or nonmarried people do, just as long as they keep away from me.

I don't understand the problem of gays getting married - I think they should be able to have the same rights as any other couples. They sure pay their share of the taxes.
oldwhitelady | 11.22.04 - 1:28 pm | #

Don't treat each gay like a fucking king.
We gotta spend for our weapons thing.
We need bigger triggers
To kill these sand niggers.
A million bucks a head has a ring.
Lime Rickey | 11.22.04 - 1:29 pm | #

I am glad people are bringing up the immigration issue.

After all, those who claim that marriage should be "left up to the states" ignore the fact that the federal government sanctions marriage and gives married couples special privaleges.

What would happen if a state outlawed interracial marriage? Would the federal government be able to deny immigration and residency benefits to a non-citizen partner in a couple unless they moved to another state?

BTW - the conservatives love to bring up slippery-slope arguments regarding marriage as well as the old line of "marriage has always been between one man and one women". Aside form bringing up the fact that even in the Bible which religious conservatives claim to read, marriage is not between one man and one woman, why don't we liberals bring up the slippery-slope arguments on our side?

If we say two men cannot marry each other or two women cannot marry each other, will we as a society later forbid interracial marriage? Will government refuse to certify marriages performed by clergy who advocate for gay marriage? Will government refuse to certify marriages performed by non-Christian clergy? If the "problem" with gay marriage is that it is non-procreative, will fertility tests be required before a marriage liscence can be issued? And since often fertility is not a function of the man or woman but the coupling, will couples have to demonstrate that they are together fertile, e.g. by the wife to be being pregnant, before a marriage liscence can be issued?

Sure - suggesting that the anti-gay marriage crowd is pushing us onto a slippery slope that ends in mandatory pre-marital sex is silly - but no sillier than the arguments of the anti-gay marriage crowd themselves.

It seems to me that anti-gay marriage arguments fundamentally boil down to "it's against our religion" or "it's icky" - neither of which are valid arguments for laws in a secular society.

I know MediaCO tells us gays are a loosing issue ... but why? Why is so much of the U.S. so easily swayed to vote against their best interests by fear of gays? What does that say about the psychological state of the majority of this country?

Actually, I know Black conservatives who are as homophobic as any fundie, but who nonetheless will not change from Dem. to Rethug no matter how much we Dems. support gay rights or how much Rethugs harp on our support of those rights. Why? 'Cause they know racist crackers when they see them. How much of the Rethug arguments about gays are driven by a general and often racist desire to regulate who gets to marry whom? Are all of my slippery slope arguments really that silly, paranoid and far-fetched?
DAS | 11.22.04 - 1:30 pm | #

Oddly, Texas recognizes "common law" marriage (which it isn't anymore, since it's in the Family Code, but that's a lawyer's observation for ya), which has bugger all to do with "the sanctity of marriage." Basically, it's a recognition of reality.

If I say I'm married, and the woman I say I'm married to concurs with that position, are we actually married? I used to do divorce work in Texas, and we never had to "prove up the marriage" by presenting a marriage license. 'Twas always enough to say the couple was married, and wanted a divorce. Nobody had to check county records to be sure the marriage was "legal."

The idea behind "common law" marriage was purely a property issue. Texas is a community property state, and to protect the interests of both individuals, and to preserve the community property, simply representing yourselves as married is sufficient to establish a community (which, rather like "squatter's rights," can be established against the wishes of one party, though I never had a case like that).

So where's the "sanctity" if the State recognizes, and has done since the days of the Republic (of Texas, that is), "living in sin"?

It's not about sanctity, it's about the "Ick" factor. Just as you prefer to think you were immaculately conceived (because otherwise your parents had to....ick!), we don't like to think of gay sex. Which is what gay marriage inevitably makes us think of.

[sarcasm]Lesbian sex, of course, is hot! But gay sex...ick![/saracasm]

I'm not sure sweet reason will carry us past the "ick" factor, but it is the only avenue toward understanding we have, so....
Robert M. Jeffers | 11.22.04 - 1:30 pm | #

The solution is one that works well in europe. You go to the government to get a civil marriage license. Then, if you want to, you go to a church and have your marriage "blessed." I'm no lawyer but it makes sense to me.
cosmosis | Email | Homepage | 11.22.04 - 1:30 pm | #

Oh christ, we better never bring this up when we argue for gay civil unions and marriages. Remember, everything that Europe does is wrong, unless it's Poland we're talking about, and then YOU'D BETTER NOT FORGET POLAND!

Seriously, though, it sounds like a brilliant system. It's a shame that thanks to the Republiban, it'll never happen here.
int argc | Homepage | 11.22.04 - 1:31 pm | #

Has anyone ever done a rip-off of the Jack Chick cartoons by substituting new dialogue? I think the opportunities for hilarity are boundless.

2 questions: WTF is with Grampa's eyepatch, and why was mom in such a hurry to get to the airport? I can only imagine the Islamic family was being pursued by pick-up trucks sporting "support the troops" stickers and carrying beefy hicks wearing baseball hats and yelling "yee-haaah!"

Countdown until the first homophobic dumbass comments that we should drop the issue of gay rights in order to win elections...
3..
2..
1..
-
Fielding Mellish | 11.22.04 - 1:32 pm | #

What is all the conservative opposition to seeing gay relationships?

As a heterosexual male, I like to see as many gays as comfortable with their sexuality as possible. Heck - I'd like to see gays recruit!

More gay men == more women available for me, I figure.

'Course I don't mind lesbians either - as long as they let me watch! After all, it isn't as if I am getting anything right now ... at least I can watch something cool if they would let me.
RU Screw | 11.22.04 - 1:33 pm | #

In other words, all couples would qualify for the status we think of as marriage if they have a civil union contract, but by nature of being in a contractual relationship, not because of the license by the government.

As I was saying, we already do that. We call it "common law marriage" (although that's not the offical title for it).

Just that no one talks about it, and in this miasma of "sanctity" we've lost all contact with reality.

Ironic, no?
Robert M. Jeffers | 11.22.04 - 1:33 pm | #

It's a small step from 2 party civil unions to 3 or 4 or more partners. Civil unions would eventually evolve into perpetual civil partnerships with members being added and lost constantly. The country would consist of tribes of civil partners.

Assuming, arguendo, that civil unions couldn't be limited to two people, why would this be a bad thing?
Hecate | 11.22.04 - 1:34 pm | #

So are there benefits to actual marriage that aren't conferred by civil unions? If not, why can't civil unions laws be drafted to include all those benefits?

Sorry, as long as gay and lesbian couples enjoy all the same legal rights as hetero married couples, I would rather spend my time fighting for health care, the environment and other crucial causes, than someone's sentimental attachment to the abstract concept of "marriage". I don't want to lose any more elections over a meaningless official document.
Mark Borok | 11.22.04 - 1:34 pm | #

RMJ,

You know, we used to have common-law marriages here in OH. The Hate Amendment that swept Bush to presumptive victory here also happened to do away with those. Oops!

I'm getting really fucking tired of these "values" voters who are more concerned about sex between consenting hetero- and homosexual adults than the mounting civilian casualties in Iraq, etc. From now on, I dub them "sanctimony voters."
int argc | Homepage | 11.22.04 - 1:35 pm | #

If every gay couple were forced to sign a binding contract that they would not express physical affection for each in public, the opposition to gay marriage would dissolve.
Bill the cat | Email | Homepage | 11.22.04 - 1:24 pm | #

bullshit! we all know that people are too concerned about what their neighbors, relatives, friends, and people they don't even know are up to (in bed). I have a "friend" who is constantly making assumptions of what my neighbors do (sexually). I tell him that it is NONE of his business. He should only be worried about himself. But too many people cannot keep their thoughts out of others' bedrooms because they are too afraid others might be getting something they aren't or are perhaps getting a more enjoyable experience than the mental voyeur is in his/her own bed.
oldwhitelady | 11.22.04 - 1:35 pm | #

I like the part where the xian girl is horrified that Mohamed owned slaves. Good thing no one in the Bible ever owned slaves. Whew!
Hecate | 11.22.04 - 1:35 pm | #

From now on, I dub them "sanctimony voters."

I dub them "fucking idiots"

But that's just me.
rlrr | Homepage | 11.22.04 - 1:36 pm | #

The solution is one that works well in europe. You go to the government to get a civil marriage license. Then, if you want to, you go to a church and have your marriage "blessed." I'm no lawyer but it makes sense to me.

This was the European practice even when the RC was "the" church in Europe.

There were two ceremonies. The first, on the steps of the church, was the exchange of property. This, especially among the landed classes in feudal Europe, was the important part. Clear transfers of title, proper exchange of property, etc. The second went inside, where the priest blessed the union, made it, in other words, sacramental, so the children born of the union would not be bastards (also a property concern, for inheritance purposes).

The first was generally considered more important than the second.

We just blend the two in our practice, but it's not a new idea in Europe at all.
Robert M. Jeffers | 11.22.04 - 1:37 pm | #

It's not a bad thing Hecate. Except to conservatives.
Bill the cat | 11.22.04 - 1:37 pm | #

But too many people cannot keep their thoughts out of others' bedrooms because they are too afraid others might be getting something they aren't or are perhaps getting a more enjoyable experience than the mental voyeur is in his/her own bed.

The "Ick" factor.
Robert M. Jeffers | 11.22.04 - 1:38 pm | #

You know, we used to have common-law marriages here in OH. The Hate Amendment that swept Bush to presumptive victory here also happened to do away with those. Oops!

I wonder if divorce actions in Ohio will now require presentation of a valid marriage license before they can be heard?

Gonna keep a lot of county clerks in Ohio busy making copies.....
Robert M. Jeffers | 11.22.04 - 1:40 pm | #

The "Ick" factor.
Robert M. Jeffers

I prefer to think of it as the "ack!" factor, but that's just me.
Bill the cat | 11.22.04 - 1:40 pm | #

From now on, I dub them "sanctimony voters."

I dub them "fucking idiots"

Well, yeah, but papers won't print an LttE with that phrase in it. We have to find some way to fight this "values voter" frame or else we're going to be swept under in 2008. No one wants to be "anti-values". See Lakoff for more on this...
int argc | Homepage | 11.22.04 - 1:41 pm | #

I'm getting really fucking tired of these "values" voters who are more concerned about sex between consenting hetero- and homosexual adults than the mounting civilian casualties in Iraq, etc. From now on, I dub them "sanctimony voters." - int argc

Here! Here!

There is a lot of talk about how certain segments of society want to institute "Old Testament" law here.

But if they really cared about the legal wisdom of the Hebrew Bible, instead of being focused on homosexuality (the supposed prohibition of which in the Hebrew Bible may actually refer to behaviors we today would not consider part of a consentual homosexual relationship) and abortion (which is allowed under many circumstances in Hebraic law), the focus would be on the prohibition of gleaning crops, the sacrificial system, the Sabbatical and Jubilee years, and other such aspects of the redistributivist society that was supposed to characterize the body politic of the Holy Land.

So why is the so-called Religious Right not focused on creating the redistributivist "city on a hill", a new Jerusalem here in the U.S., but instead focusing on matter sexual with dubious Biblical justification and even aligning themselves with a party whose views on the so-called free market are antithetical to Biblical morality?
DAS | 11.22.04 - 1:42 pm | #

I wonder if divorce actions in Ohio will now require presentation of a valid marriage license before they can be heard?

I don't know, honestly, and I'm probably not competent enough with legalese to be able to say for certain by reading the text of the measure.

However, that would be particularly nasty in conjunction with the rumors I've heard about requiring Selective Service registration to OBTAIN a driver's license. We're slowly sliding towards Starship Troopers, where you're either military or a second-class citizen.
int argc | Homepage | 11.22.04 - 1:44 pm | #

So why is the so-called Religious Right not focused on creating the redistributivist "city on a hill", a new Jerusalem here in the U.S., but instead focusing on matter sexual with dubious Biblical justification and even aligning themselves with a party whose views on the so-called free market are antithetical to Biblical morality?

Because Mosaic law is all about power residing only in God, not us, and about God, not us, being in charge?
Robert M. Jeffers | 11.22.04 - 1:45 pm | #

Mark Borok,

Please see "Separate But Equal Is Not Equal." Then, please go fuck yourself. Thank you.
Hecate | 11.22.04 - 1:46 pm | #

I would prefer to split the marriage thing, with one part being the conduct and legal matters of two partners towards each other, and the other part the conduct and legal matters of the partners towards their children, adopted or otherwise. Whether the partners were same sex or not would be immaterial - if a couple did not have children, they would only be bound by the civil union part of the contract. If they do have children, couples would be equally responsible for the children associated with the contract, whether gay or not, adopted children or not.

Which is sort of how things really are today anyway.
Bill the cat | 11.22.04 - 1:50 pm | #

Look, you're all completely wrong. Gays can get married. Just not to other gays (unless they get married to gays of the opposite, or "correct", gender). Therefore, they have all the same rights as the breeders.

In other words, the marriage of Ken Mehlman and Mary Cheney will be the big-ticket Washington affair of the season.
Alex | Homepage | 11.22.04 - 1:51 pm | #

Dawna, I was takling about how conservatives feel, not about myself.
Bill the cat | 11.22.04 - 1:51 pm | #

Anad,

What you propose is definitely in spirit with the positivist and secular values presupposed by our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution - which means the same crowd, which declares referring to "invasion" and "occupation" of Iraq by those proper words for it to be un-American, would be hyperventilating about how what you propose would undermine the Christian heritage of our country or something or other.

Don't these people get that the whole "Nature's God" bit is pure Deism? That our Founding Fathers were hardly fundy Protestants?

If we went by the religious traditions of our Founding Fathers, we might have three different approaches to gay marriage ... acceptance (Unitarianism), decision by the community (Congregationalism) or the High Church Episcopalean approach: "what is all the fuss about happy people getting married? Shouldn't people be happy on their wedding day? Who cares if their Lebanese? Happy Lebanese people ought to be allowed to get married too!"

Seriously - we liberals ought to start standing up and proudly telling everyone how secularism is an American value. How, when you compare Christian Europe to secular America and see which place is more religious, for religious folk to want a greater religious in our body politic is, from the point of view of religion, to kill the goose that laid the golden egg.

We Dems. need to be clear -- that religious values, that secular values, that the values of the "Old Testament", that the values of atheists --- have nothing to do with gay marriage, etc., but everything to do with helping our fellow humans.

Stopping women from aborting infected fetuses and trying to keep loving couples from getting married is not a demonstration of values. Values, Biblical values, include the redistribution of wealth - not as a matter of charity, but as a required duty for justice and social stability.

We, as a society, need to value people ... not masses of cells, not masses of stock ceritificates, but people.

Those who want to replace humanistic values with slave "values" are immoral and we should not hesitate to point out on which side morality lies!
DAS | 11.22.04 - 1:54 pm | #

Those who want to replace humanistic values with slave "values" are immoral and we should not hesitate to point out on which side morality lies!
DAS | Email | Homepage | 11.22.04 - 1:54 pm

Or just enslave them before they can enslave us...just sayin
Konopelli | 11.22.04 - 1:57 pm | #

Mark Borok, thanks for confirming my amazing powers of prophecy (1:13 / 1:34). I'd like to exploit this new mystical status by asking all the drooling fundie wingnuts out there - if you're so worked up about getting back to "traditional values,"

Why don't you address the topic of usury?

You know - rich man, needle, heaven? Ring a bell?
-
Fielding Mellish | 11.22.04 - 2:00 pm | #

Because Mosaic law is all about power residing only in God, not us, and about God, not us, being in charge? - Robert M. Jeffers

Well, actually Mosaic law is just opposed to a king (by divine right).

As a practical matter, even in Mosaic law, the law, which is certainly deemed to be God-given, is interpreted by judges who serve because they have the respect of the people. In Judaism, the Rabbis are considered to be the heirs of the judges and as such their word, ex cathedra, is infallible law, but OTOH, Rabbis can be freely engaged and disengaged by the community - so the whole thing, even if law is made by "activist" judges and there is no proper separation of powers, is rather democratic even if it is theocratic in principle.

OTOH, the Dominionist crowd and their sympathizers don't really tell us who will be interpreting the Law and how ... pretty big ommissions - in a Dominionist state, since God obviously doesn't seem to want to take charge, one must ask, who will be in charge? Certainly not the people (except as the mob) ... will there be a king?

As a lawyer, I presume RMJ knows that interpretation is 9/10ths of the law, to borrow a phrase.

That the Dominionists and their allies seem to completely ignore 3 or so millenia of interpreting the Mosaic laws and instead act as if they would be the first ones to implement it is completely whacko.
DAS | 11.22.04 - 2:01 pm | #

We Dems. need to be clear -- that religious values, that secular values, that the values of the "Old Testament", that the values of atheists --- have nothing to do with gay marriage, etc., but everything to do with helping our fellow humans.

Yes. Exactly.
Vicki Stein | 11.22.04 - 2:04 pm | #

Fielding--

Your excellent link points up the one reason I would support the application of "Biblical law" to the U.S.

Theologians need the work!

Imagine the possibilities. Why, what constitutes "work" on the "Sabbath" (and even which day IS the Sabbath) would keep us busy for, well, to use the original Greek of the gospels, "into the ages" (usually translated as "eternal").
Robert M. Jeffers | 11.22.04 - 2:04 pm | #

Mosaic law?

Do that have anything to do with my bathroom tiles?
four legs good | 11.22.04 - 2:05 pm | #

Why don't they just declare it's 1950 and be fucking done with it?
four legs good | 11.22.04 - 2:07 pm | #

Mosaic law?

Do that have anything to do with my bathroom tiles?

I think it may have something to do with prohibitions against having sex on tiled floors.
rlrr | Homepage | 11.22.04 - 2:07 pm | #

Why don't they just declare it's 1950 and be fucking done with it?

Because they're shooting for 1650.
rlrr | Homepage | 11.22.04 - 2:09 pm | #

Because they're shooting for 1650

Oh, I think they're aiming for somewhere a little more 12th Centuryish, myself.
Hecate | 11.22.04 - 2:10 pm | #

Oh, I think they're aiming for somewhere a little more 12th Centuryish, myself.

Naw - too Catholic
rlrr | Homepage | 11.22.04 - 2:11 pm | #

Well, actually Mosaic law is just opposed to a king (by divine right).

As a lawyer, I presume RMJ knows that interpretation is 9/10ths of the law, to borrow a phrase.

Yeah, I do. And yours is but one (albeit Biblically warranted), interpretation.

The prophets (especially Jeremiah and the three Isaiahs) re-interpreted the law to focus on social justice, and it is their interpretation, like Lincoln's interpretation of the Union as indivisible, that I was relying on. I.e., it may not be "original intent," but it is certainly supported by the law itself, and has become an accepted reading.

In fact, the argument against the king was that the king's power would replace God's power (Jeremiah was especially harsh about that), while the judges would rule in favor of the people and the circumstances, in accordance with the law (thus reducing the influence of any individual's opinion as much as possible).

In other words, the king is about the concentration of power. The judges are about the dissolution of power as much as practicable. And when the focus becomes the wielding of power (in a king, v. in a set of judges, who could be male or female), the focus is on the law-wielder, not the law-giver.

And, as the prophets said, that's what brought ruin to Israel and Judah, and had Babylon knocking on the gates of Jerusalem.
Robert M. Jeffers | 11.22.04 - 2:12 pm | #

I think it may have something to do with prohibitions against having sex on tiled floors.

Well, certain patterns and colors of tiled floors, anyway.

Law is all about order, donchaknow?
Robert M. Jeffers | 11.22.04 - 2:13 pm | #

From Fielding's link, above:

Lending money at interest gives us the opportunity to exploit the passions or necessities of other men by compelling them to submit to ruinous conditions; men are robbed and left destitute under the pretext of charity. Such is the usury against which the Fathers of the Church have always protested, and which is universally condemned at the present day.

Death to all credit cards!
Robert M. Jeffers | 11.22.04 - 2:14 pm | #

think it may have something to do with prohibitions against having sex on tiled floors.>i?

Yes, these sorts of laws were first enacted by the Roman Empire. The Romans had a lot of first-hand experience with this sort of thing in the Roman bathhouses.
Bill the cat | 11.22.04 - 2:16 pm | #

I think it may have something to do with prohibitions against having sex on tiled floors

Ah, you young people! Tiled floors are cold! And it's hard on the knees getting down to the floor, anyway. And beds are nice, and soft and warm. And then, when you fall directly asleep, you don't wake up cold and stiff and have to get up and go to bed, because you're already there.

But go ahead, live life to the fullest! Screw away on all those tiled floors while you're young!
Hecate | 11.22.04 - 2:20 pm | #

Seriously, wouldn't extending all the rights I have to gay people strengthen society? I mean, if we are to be honest with ourselves. (I think I see the problem now.)

This is yet another thing I don't understand about the so-called "argument" against gay marriage! If you believe that them gays are icky, wouldn't you WANT them settling into permanent arrangements -- with all the social and legal benefits?! I mean, even just to keep them secluded from "our" easily tempted young people?

As with so many of these issues, it's not about argument with the Repugnicans. It's about gut feelings, fear, hatred, and bigotry. Argument? Remember? They don't trust people who use their brains too much.
FootFace | 11.22.04 - 2:20 pm | #

Start dropping off dirty underwear at churches and save them the troble of looking for you.
Barndog | 11.22.04 - 2:21 pm | #

OT: New Jack Chick comic about Muslims. I especially liked the part where they said they had to go to the airport:

Christians say muslims suck
cheney_usa

funny also how it turns into a winning argument only after it becomes one-sided
preznit giv me turkee | 11.22.04 - 2:22 pm | #

I expect all of the religious voters and church leaders who were so concerned about denying communion to those tolerant of a woman's right to choose to heed these words

Lending money at interest gives us the opportunity to exploit the passions or necessities of other men by compelling them to submit to ruinous conditions; men are robbed and left destitute under the pretext of charity. Such is the usury against which the Fathers of the Church have always protested, and which is universally condemned at the present day.

and rush out to picket Citibank with the same vehemence exhibited at anti-Kerry photo ops.

Of course, I won't jeopardize my newly-gained status as a mystic by predicting that's actually going to happen.
-
Fielding Mellish | 11.22.04 - 2:22 pm | #

I admit, that suggestion is a bit George Carlin-esq...
Barndog | 11.22.04 - 2:23 pm | #

But go ahead, live life to the fullest! Screw away on all those tiled floors while you're young!

Any port in a storm, you gotta do what you gotta do, etc.
rlrr | Homepage | 11.22.04 - 2:23 pm | #

I, for one, am going to be sick and tired of these fundie wackjobs long before the rest of America catches up with me and begins to wonder who the fuck these morons think they are to run around sniffing everyone else's crotches. In fact, I'm sick of it already.
Hecate

Amen to that. I can't believe there are people in this country who want us to hop on the retro-machine. I guess I was hoping we were more evolved than that. Of course, driving around this weekend, noticing that the "Support our troops" magnetic ribbons are placed on SUVS in the shape of Ichthys, I should know better.
Vicki Stein | 11.22.04 - 2:25 pm | #

The Dominionists are outright enemies of the Constitution of the United States, and should be dealt with accordingly....forced at bayonette point out of this country. I suggest we deport this filth to Saudi Arabia.
Gary Frazier | Homepage | 11.22.04 - 2:25 pm | #

Mosaic law?

Do that have anything to do with my bathroom tiles?

I think it may have something to do with prohibitions against having sex on tiled floors.
rlrr

so is that why they call those fuzzed out naughty bits on the TV mosaics?
preznit giv me turkee | 11.22.04 - 2:27 pm | #

This is yet another thing I don't understand about the so-called "argument" against gay marriage! If you believe that them gays are icky, wouldn't you WANT them settling into permanent arrangements -- with all the social and legal benefits?! I mean, even just to keep them secluded from "our" easily tempted young people?

Well, no. The argument is that if gays marry, then they will become 'respectable' people, in the sense that any married person is 'respectable', and thus become a potential role-model for the young. By keeping gays un-married and hidden away in gay bars or whatever, they are not 'respectable' and thus exert a lesser impact on the young and impressionable, who presumable are not frequenting gay bars. Or so they think, anyway.

Rather dubious logic, but most of middle America has never learned how to think clearly.
Bill the cat | 11.22.04 - 2:27 pm | #

Yeah, i've done it in a portapotty, too...i little stinky, but for some reason it didn't seem to matter just then...

I really hope you didn't manage to knock it over.....
Robert M. Jeffers | 11.22.04 - 2:27 pm | #

RMJ beat me to it! May a plague of viagra spam infest your inbox, and all your sustenance be transmuted into the form of Cheetos!

I keed, I keed.
-
Fielding Mellish | 11.22.04 - 2:27 pm | #

well, the spam part is already working...

mmmm....Cheetos......
Robert M. Jeffers | 11.22.04 - 2:28 pm | #

ot - but, here's a lovely little xmas item for those wannabe assassins out there:

New York Daily News - http://www.nydailynews.com
Game lets players take shots at JFK
BY BILL HUTCHINSON
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER
Monday, November 22nd, 2004

Just in time for today's 41st anniversary of President John F. Kennedy's assassination, a tasteless Internet game is being launched that lets players be Lee Harvey Oswald.
The game, JFKReloaded.com, charges contestants $10 to take aim through Oswald's rifle scope and fire away at a 3-D image of the presidential motorcade passing through Dealey Plaza in Dallas.

"It is despicable," said a spokesman for Massachusetts Sen. Edward Kennedy, JFK's brother.

Traffic Management Limited of Scotland is proudly taking credit for inventing the game. The company is even offering a $100,000 prize to the contestant who most accurately re-creates the three shots Oswald fired from a sixth-foor window of the Texas School Book Depository building on Nov. 22, 1963.

"It is up to you to send the President instead to a cruel and early death," say the game's instructions, which also offer tips on how to be a better shot.

Contestants get points deducted if they accidentally hit First Lady Jacqueline Kennedy, whose digital image is decked out in her famous pink-pillbox-hat outfit.

"High scores will come from replicating the timing and accuracy of Oswald's shots as reported in the Warren Commission's report into the assassination," the game says.

Kirk Ewing, Traffic's managing director, tried to make the game seem like a public service instead of a macabre money-making gimmick.

"This new form of interactive entertainment brings history to life and will stimulate a younger generation of players to take an interest in this fascinating episode of American history," Ewing said.

"We've created the game with the belief that Oswald was the only person that fired the shots on that day, although this re-creation proves how immensely difficult his task was," he said.

Ewing said he sent a letter to Sen. Kennedy to explain he meant no disrespect to the memory of the country's 35th President.
bkny | 11.22.04 - 2:28 pm | #

in a portapotty, too

Outside, in my youth, many times. In a portapotty, never.
Hecate | 11.22.04 - 2:28 pm | #

What is the difference, really, between Dominionists trying (and succeeding) to destroying the Constitution and, say, Communists (pace, any marxians out there) doing it?? Is there one? If these theo-=fascist fux weren't proceeding under the banner of their spurious faith, they'd be (justly) labelled traitors and treated accordingly...
Konopelli | 11.22.04 - 2:30 pm | #

Yeah, i've done it in a portapotty, too...i little stinky, but for some reason it didn't seem to matter just then...

yeah, it really stinks when that kinda shit reaches a tipping point...

Cap'n Dunsel | 11.22.04 - 2:30 pm | #

i've done it in a portapotty, too...

Oh my God! How the hell???? Never mind.
Vicki Stein | 11.22.04 - 2:33 pm | #

Re; Portapotty...

All i can say is that, well, you hadda be there. A festival, ya know, and there was a really big crowd around...you should seen the looks when we emerged, tho...priceless
Konopelli | 11.22.04 - 2:34 pm | #

And, as the prophets said, that's what brought ruin to Israel and Judah, and had Babylon knocking on the gates of Jerusalem. - Robert M. Jeffers

You are correct - as usual.

Even if the Bible does not require separation of powers, the goals of the Boy-King to concentrate power seem rather antithetical to the Bible.

I am always amazed by how the Religious Reich ignores the words of the prophets (except as some sort of prediction of the coming of Jesus). What they fail to appreciate is that the prophets were not soothsayers seeing into the far future (which is, btw, not allowed under Biblical law), but rather commentators on their own times (as well as discussing likely consequences of actions)?

Of course, the prophets' messages are often timeless. And yet, today the very people who take the messages of the prophets' out of their contexts are the ones who most ignore those messages in today's context - we are destroying our environment, subverting the laws of God and man (cf. the movie version of More), and worshiping the golden calf ... we are asking for God's wrath. Yet the religious right is doing nothing to oppose the very real sins of modern society but to provide a distraction worthy of the circuses of Rome from those sins.

Even if you think modern day homosexuality is an "abomination" (which it is not, IMHO) - which is worse - gay marriage or our actions causing Iraqi children to starve? Even if you think abortion is ending the life of an ensouled human - which is worse - a mother killing an infected fetus which places her life at risk or abandoning the fruit of the wombs of mothers all over the world to an unjust "free market" propped up by userous loans?

Anyone who answers the way the Religious Reich wants you to answer, does not understand the very idea of value - of making choices under circumstances where no choice is good. And thus, you can never know if such people are good or evil.

Anyone who, OTOH, considers the options and "chooses life" ... of the living - is someone who is a person of values.

We should ignore the MediaCO advise to turn our backs on our gay brethren (since when does MediaCO have our interests at heart, anyway?). Instead, we should proudly proclaim we are the ones of the side of values: secularism, support of marriage/monogamy for all people, caring about the spirit of the law rather than the letter, etc.

We are the heirs of the Judges and the Prophets. We need to be confident of this (the Rethugs don't win by being diffident) - and proclaim our values to the nation.

Maybe then the values voters will vote for us.
DAS | 11.22.04 - 2:35 pm | #

Grilled Cheese up to $15K
wÒÓ† | 11.22.04 - 2:35 pm | #

Oh my God! How the hell???? Never mind.
Vicki Stein

Standing...you think we were perverts???
Konopelli | 11.22.04 - 2:36 pm | #

OT, but relates to comments in a previous thread today- From the Sunday Oregonian:
"Chief Charles Ramsey of the Metropolitan Police Department in Washington, D.C., appealed to chiefs across the nation to send officers to assist in securing the nation's capital for the Jan. 20, 2005, presidential inauguration"
ErinPDX | 11.22.04 - 2:37 pm | #

i've done it in a portapotty, too...

Konopelli, were you in the Army? I witnessed plenty of portapotty hijinks during Basic at Ft Leonard Wood.
-
Fielding Mellish | 11.22.04 - 2:38 pm | #

Remember the woman who had SEPTUPLETS about 8-9 years ago? She already had a healthy daughter and decided to take fertility drugs.

The doctors tried to get her to do a "selective abortion" because there were just too many in there. Her answer was no, that it was "God's will" to carry all 7 to term.

"God's will" - really? God needed the assistance of fertility drugs?

Anyway, they had a news show on the other night about these kids -- only one of the seven is normal. The ones who don't have physical problems are mentally slow; one is borderline retarded.

Somehow, I DON'T think that was in God's plan!

Does the world really need to have people like this woman breeding? How selfish and stupid she and her husband are!
Terry C | Homepage | 11.22.04 - 2:39 pm | #

We're slowly sliding towards Starship Troopers, where you're either military or a second-class citizen.
int argc | Email | Homepage | 11.22.04 - 1:44 pm | #

Slowly sliding?
bunker buster | 11.22.04 - 2:40 pm | #

Relationships with animals have never been condoned by any culture anywhere that I know of.

Well whadda ewe know? Well I don't know if sheep farming constitutes a 'culture,' but there have been stories of such practices around for a very long time...I don't know if they use condones or not...
Konopelli | 11.22.04 - 2:40 pm | #

Terry C ~ I wrote a similar post here a couple of weeks ago and had someone flame me for addressing the "God's Plan" issue. But I tell you what, I think you're 100% correct.
Vicki Stein | 11.22.04 - 2:41 pm | #

Out of all their values, is there a single one which has anything to do with what they're gonna do? Nope. Every single one has to do with what they're gonna make other people do.
Some values.
Mooser | Homepage | 11.22.04 - 2:42 pm | #

Fielding...
Nope. AirForce...but the event in question occurred at a very public, very crowded, out-door music festival...any portapotty in a storm...
Konopelli | 11.22.04 - 2:42 pm | #

Smitty Werbenmanjensen,

Smitty, I agree. As long as we're talking about consenting adults, who cares what they do or how many of them do it? A friend at work told me that multiple-partner civil unions would be bad because lots of people would enter into them and the one person working would have health insurance covering all the partners, thus upping our health insurance costs. I asked her how this was different from the fact that she and her husband and their six rugrats are covered by our health insurance. She didn't have an answer.
Hecate | 11.22.04 - 2:43 pm | #

Smitty, no flames from me, although animal sex is out of the question...in my narrow world view, sex should be human on human. I don't care the gender or the number involved. The only rule I have is that it must be consensual. And it must be good.
Vicki Stein | 11.22.04 - 2:44 pm | #

I'm not defending the anti-gay crowd, but can't you get a medical power of attorney to make medical decisions for an incapacitated partner? That seems simple enough.
PaulF | 11.22.04 - 2:45 pm | #

Relationships with animals have never been condoned by any culture anywhere that I know of

I'm pretty sure that the animals in question don't condone them, at any rate.
Hecate | 11.22.04 - 2:45 pm | #

A friend at work told me that multiple-partner civil unions would be bad because lots of people would enter into them and the one person working would have health insurance covering all the partners, thus upping our health insurance costs. I asked her how this was different from the fact that she and her husband and their six rugrats are covered by our health insurance. She didn't have an answer.
Hecate | Email | Homepage | 11.22.04 - 2:43 pm | #

Beautiful, Hecate! How come none of the Dem spokespeople can think as quickly on their feet as you?
int argc | Homepage | 11.22.04 - 2:45 pm | #

Mooser...look at their pathetic little lives. There's nobody who's that unhappy who doesn't want everybody to be that unhappy too...misery loves company (I think that's St. Paul's epistle to the Whoovians)
Konopelli | 11.22.04 - 2:45 pm | #

"Out of all those sheep, you hadda go and pick the ugliest one!"
deja pseu | 11.22.04 - 2:45 pm | #

"And it must be good."

That pretty much rules out Baptist sex, then, doesn't it. They won't have sex standing up because it's too much like dancing.
Smitty Werbenmanjensen | 11.22.04 - 2:47 pm | #

PaulF,

Yeah, but then when the parents show up and contest it in court because they always hated the gay partner and want their son or daughter kept on life support forever, you've got a huge mess on your hands. Separate but equal really isn't equal. And, yes, I know the same scenario can happen w/ a hetero couple, but the court will give lots more credence to the document when it names an actual spouse than when it names a gay lover.
Hecate | 11.22.04 - 2:47 pm | #

Terry C-
She may have been selfish and stupid, but it looks like she'll have to be self-sacrificing and resourceful now, won't she? Maybe that was Gods plan.
He, as you no doubt have surmised, works in mysterious way his wonders to perform.
Mooser | Homepage | 11.22.04 - 2:49 pm | #

1. I've never understood the logic behind "Gay marriage will lead then to polygamy and then beastiality." Has anybody asked the simple question of "why"? Marriage has, for at least the last thousand years, been between two people. Homosexuality is something that is, in fact, natural. Relationships with animals have never been condoned by any culture anywhere that I know of. Why, then, would gay marriage spread to other forms of relationships?

2. I don't want to enter into it personally (because I couldn't stand twice or three times the nagging) but why is polygamy wrong if a) all parties consent to it, and b) the economic entity that exists provides for basic necessities of life such as food, shelter, etc. The "crime" of polygamy, to me, is that young girls are married into it without their own consent, and that the economic engine of the family can't provide adquately for all the wives.

OK, waiting for the shower of flames, to mix my metaphors.- Smitty Werbenmanjensen

As for point (1) - I know many clergy types who support gay marriage because they want to promote monogamy! Indeed, my parents are not the biggest pro-gay-rights people in the world, but they are very pro-gay marriage. Why? Because they are socially conservative enough to be against extra-marital sex. So gay people should be allowed to marry so at least they are not condemned to "sin" by engaging in extra-marital sex.

As to point (2) - I agree ... indeed, since polygamy is Biblically sanctioned, you'd think the fundies would support it. I would argue, though, that society does have an interest in promoting monogamy. Given such an interest, there is no reason not to allow gay marriage but many not to allow polygamy. Of course, if society has no such interest, why does society even sanction marriages anyway?
DAS | 11.22.04 - 2:49 pm | #

society does have an interest in promoting monogamy.

DAS,

I'd be interested to hear your reasons. My feeling is that, regardless of whatever interest society may have, it has no right to tell consenting adult people how to conduct their sex lives.
Hecate | 11.22.04 - 2:52 pm | #

"Sure - suggesting that the anti-gay marriage crowd is pushing us onto a slippery slope that ends in mandatory pre-marital sex is silly"

Not having pre-marital sex is silly. Are you kidding me, you're tying your whole life to this person and you don't want to know if you are sexually compatible? That is just stupid.
krsaz | 11.22.04 - 2:58 pm | #

Blogspot misbehaving...
New thread up above on DNC/Vilsack.

Oh - and can you spell marter... martir.... martyr, boys and girls?
elkal | 11.22.04 - 2:59 pm | #

BTW, speaking of that Chick tract (yes, it's real), here's a pic from another I esp. liked (the panel on the left)...

Reminds me of that exchange between a young Woody Allen and the Russian priest in "Love and Death":

Priest: You've never seen a Jew? Here, I have some sketches...

Young Woody: Wow! Do they all have horns?
dave | Homepage | 11.22.04 - 3:00 pm | #

No civil marriage period. Why should people have special rights and privileges just because they've found a reliable sexual partner? We can subsidize dependency relationships in other ways.
gorsh | 11.22.04 - 3:00 pm | #

Hecate,

Mainly it's a matter of health, but I might have certain prejudices being raised in a somewhat religious environment.

However, if society has not interest in promoting stable, monogamous relationships - then why the Cheney do we even go through the bother of certifying any sort of marriage in the first place? Why not just allow any two people to file a joint tax return, etc.? Why issue marriage licenses, etc.?

As far as family togetherness is concerned - for one thing, that cannot be a justification for marriage otherwise why let infertile couples marry ... anyway, it could be handled by giving special preference to the relationship of "baby's mother" or "baby's father" ... i.e. if I have a baby with someone, the baby's mother should have some special rights concerning my medical care, etc., and I would have the ability to declare that she should get preference becoming a citizen etc.

And it would work for gay people too - if a gay couple adopts a baby, let both of them adopt and then they would be related as "baby's mother" or "baby's father".

Why have some extra-contractual notion of marriage in a secular society if society doesn't get anything from marriage? You would think the party that claims to want to get the government off of our backs would be the first to attack this wasteful government program ... but no ... I guess the big-tent allows one to maintain a certain amount of intellectual inconsistency. Jesus had a name for these people --- I cannot remember it off-hand, though
DAS | 11.22.04 - 3:02 pm | #

"Beautiful, Hecate! How come none of the Dem spokespeople can think as quickly on their feet as you?"
int argc

Notwithstanding the fact that I find Hecates answer personally gratifying,
please see This Daily Howler (scroll down halfway)

Why not look at the last Democratic winner and the way he dealt with the "values voters"? No wonder it was so important for the Rethugs to get him. And the pathetic part is that next to Clinton, Kerry was about as straight arrow as you can get.
Translation: I might think they have pathetic little lives, but I don't think I would tell them so. I'd tell them anything if they would vote the way I wanted them to.
I mean, for Christ's sake, Mary Cheney is a beer selling Lesbian!
Mooser | Homepage | 11.22.04 - 3:05 pm | #

Mooser,

Well, yeah, I mean, I'm not suggesting that her answer become part of the platform. I was just complimenting her mental agility. Although I find the answer itself gratifying as well.
int argc | Homepage | 11.22.04 - 3:07 pm | #

I like Bill Mahr's take on gay marriage:

"Gay people should have the right to be just as miserable as everybody else."
krsaz | 11.22.04 - 3:11 pm | #

I'd tell them anything if they would vote the way I wanted them to.

We've tried that. It didn't work. They don't believe us, anymore than I believe Bush when he assures me he's a good steward of the environment. Falwell was asked why they didn't support Kerry since he was against gay marriage and basically said that they didn't believe him and that even if he was against it, he wasn't as against it as Bush was. We won't win being Republican-lite.

That said, I didn't call them "rugrats" to her face; I called them her children.
Hecate | 11.22.04 - 3:13 pm | #

DAS,

What does a marriage between two people have to do with health vis a vis a marriage of six people?
Hecate | 11.22.04 - 3:15 pm | #

"Not having pre-marital sex is silly."

One of the most persistent and silly myths of the "sexual revolution"
A little bit of "bundling" should tell you every thing you need to know.
I saved myself for the girl I married. Both times. And it was worth it.
Mooser | Homepage | 11.22.04 - 3:16 pm | #

"Mark Borok, thanks for confirming my amazing powers of prophecy (1:13 / 1:34). I'd like to exploit this new mystical status by asking all the drooling fundie wingnuts out there - if you're so worked up about getting back to "traditional values,""

You've got it wrong. I don't care a bit about traditional values (and I'm an atheist, not a fundie. I can't stand fundies, thank you very much). I wasn't thrilled about getting married myself for that very reason and can't understand my wife's attachment to this useless concept.

The fact is, if a gay couple wants to get married they can go to a friendly clergyman or woman (Quaker, Unitarian) and consider themselves married. Their friends will consider them married. Fundies will not consider them married no matter what the law says.

The comparison to the civil rights era is inaccurate. When a black person can't eat at a particular lunch counter his freedom is limited. When a gay couple can't get official approval from the state for something that shouldn't require official approval in any case, there is no limitation to their freedom.

A more accurate comparison would be if black people could eat at the same lunch counters as white people, but the state refused to officially call it "eating".
Mark Borok | 11.22.04 - 3:20 pm | #

A little bit of "bundling" should tell you every thing you need to know

Um, no.
Hecate | 11.22.04 - 3:20 pm | #

What does a marriage between two people have to do with health vis a vis a marriage of six people? - Hecate

Assuming a given person is equally likely to cheat on a marriage, the probability that one person involved in a marriage of six would cheat is greater than the probability that one person in a marriage of two would cheat.

And the more marriage units in which people are cheating - the more "social" diseases are getting spread.

That being said - I suspect my views might be more prejudice than anything.
DAS | 11.22.04 - 3:21 pm | #

Under the disco ball,
Another child will fall.
Under the spell of leather
and the big kick drum.

They have a scheme
They have a plan,
To take the children of our land
Turn them into stylists
And women who play golf
Craig in New Vatican City | Homepage | 11.22.04 - 3:23 pm | #

You've got it wrong. I don't care a bit about traditional values (and I'm an atheist, not a fundie. I can't stand fundies, thank you very much).

But you're more than happy to throw gays under the wagon if it can get you more votes. Fuck you.

The fact is, if a gay couple wants to get married they can go to a friendly clergyman or woman (Quaker, Unitarian) and consider themselves married.

The point of this thread is that marriage is necessary for certain legal priveleges--not just hurt feelings. Please learn to read.

A more accurate comparison would be if black people could eat at the same lunch counters as white people, but the state refused to officially call it "eating".

No, the comparison would be if people then suggested that they just go sit somewhere else, that didn't serve food, and called it "eating." Asshole.
int argc | Homepage | 11.22.04 - 3:23 pm | #

Assuming a given person is equally likely to cheat on a marriage, the probability that one person involved in a marriage of six would cheat is greater than the probability that one person in a marriage of two would cheat.

If 6 people are in three separate marriages wouldn't the likelyhood of cheating be pretty much the same as it would if those same 6 people were all in the same marriage? Or would it be even less, as there would be more variety, sexually speaking, in the 6-person marriage?
Bill the cat | 11.22.04 - 3:24 pm | #

comparison to the civil rights era is inaccurate. When a black person can't eat at a particular lunch counter his freedom is limited. When a gay couple can't get official approval from the state for something that shouldn't require official approval in any case, there is no limitation to their freedom.

So long Moron Mark. You apparently read nary a single word of the list of 'rights' to which 'married' folks are entitled, but which are forbidden to unmarried, gay partners.

Are were you born bereft of the competence for thought, or did you parents beat it out of you against the walls of your crib...either way, you're too fucked to live...
Konopelli | 11.22.04 - 3:26 pm | #

Assuming a given person is equally likely to cheat on a marriage, the probability that one person involved in a marriage of six would cheat is greater than the probability that one person in a marriage of two would cheat

Maybe. Or maybe in a marriage of six people, the partners would feel less need to cheat because they could sleep with someone different w/o going outside the marriage. I'd love to see some figures on this.

I'm not necessarily advocating polygamy, but I can't see why the government should stop it.
Hecate | 11.22.04 - 3:26 pm | #

Mark Borok,

Except when a marriage is licensed by the state, certain privaleges attach that simply don't attach to civil unions.

For example, what happens in a gay "marriage" between a citizen and non-citizen.

And even though privaleges, not rights, are at stake here, the comparison with the civil rights movement is on the mark. As someone who has dated outside of my race and considered marrying some of these dates (though so far things haven't worked out), I very much appreciate that I can marry someone outside my race and this marriage will be recognized not only by my friends and fellow congregants, but also by society at large and I would receive all the privaleges that an intra-racial couple would receive.
DAS | 11.22.04 - 3:27 pm | #

I'm not necessarily advocating polygamy, but I can't see why the government should stop it.

I don't see that DAS necessarily thinks the government should... promoting monogamy is not incompatible with permitting polygamy.
int argc | Homepage | 11.22.04 - 3:28 pm | #

Konopelli -

I'm here.
Number Two Troll | 11.22.04 - 3:28 pm | #

Mooser, congratulations to you.

Conversely, I did not save myself. And it's not because I'm weak of the flesh, it's because I don't place much "religious" value on sex. I don't regret it one iota. I've had some wonderful sexual experiences, and some not so good ones. Regardless, sex can be pretty damned good even if "love" isn't part of the equation. And when love is involved ~ watch out!
Vicki Stein | 11.22.04 - 3:29 pm | #

I'm not necessarily advocating polygamy, but I can't see why the government should stop it. - Hecate

I am not saying the government should stop it. I am just questioning why government should give it its seal of approval by licensing it.

Of course, I question why government should be in the marriage liscencing business in the first place ...
DAS | 11.22.04 - 3:30 pm | #

Here are some other non-financial benefits of marriage:

Married folks generally live longer than their cohabiting counterparts.

Married folks are generally more satisfied with their relationships than their cohabiting counterparts.

Married folks are generally healthier than their cohabiting counterparts.

Married folks generally have a stronger social support network than their cohabiting counterparts.

Is it ethical to deny these benefits to other citizens on the basis of sexual orientation? [Hint: The answer starts with an 'N']
Soo | 11.22.04 - 3:31 pm | #

Who gets the children if one of the members of the 6-party marriage decides to leave? The birth-mother? The biological father? The rest of the marriage group?

Bill the cat | 11.22.04 - 3:31 pm | #

Who gets the children
Hecate | 11.22.04 - 3:33 pm | #

Curse you HaloScan!

I imagine a judge would figure that out -- just as happens now with two-partner marriages.
Hecate | 11.22.04 - 3:33 pm | #

question why government should be in the marriage liscencing business in the first place ...

DAS,

I agree completely.
Hecate | 11.22.04 - 3:35 pm | #

Ah-ha! "Your misbegotten rugrats", or
"Your darling half-dozen angel packages of infinite joy". Good choice of words.

It comes down to that rolling river of rightwing ramblings, a seamless panoply (if a panoply can be seamless, Jeeves would know) of e-mails, sermons, TV, radio, newspaper columns, and every other damned thing.
I wonder if it hasn't gotten to the point where only something completely devastating might shake America up enough to make people examine themselves. And the last event, 9-11, was thoroughly co-opted by the right wing.
As far as I'm concerned, all of the crap about values is self indulgence.
Don't worry- Bush will push the whole applecart over. He'll fuck the US up like he's fucked everything else up, and now there is no one to rescue his sorry ass.
Mooser | Homepage | 11.22.04 - 3:36 pm | #

Why do you list "filing a joint return" as a benefit conferred upon married people? It's only a benefit if one has no earned income. Take two people who work(not exactly uncommon, is it?) and have them file a joint return. They will pay more in taxes than if they were single and filed by themselves. There is not an income tax benefit to marriage, there is a penalty.
agentalbert | 11.22.04 - 3:37 pm | #

"Your darling half-dozen angel packages of infinite joy
Hecate | 11.22.04 - 3:40 pm | #

A note about the whole visiting a partner in the hospital thing: clergy are exempt. Get ordained on line and say the partner is your priest.
John Gillnitz | Homepage | 11.22.04 - 3:41 pm | #

Aaargh!

Mooser, I was going to say that if you knew this woman's kids, you wouldn't go quite that far.
Hecate | 11.22.04 - 3:45 pm | #

Hecate writes,

"I like the part where the xian girl is horrified that Mohamed owned slaves. Good thing no one in the Bible ever owned slaves. Whew."

Didn't you know Christians never practiced any of the bad things in the Bible, either in the past or today. All rumors to contrary are vile lies, fantasy or the practitioners thereof were not "real" Christians (wink, wink).

Does that clear things up for you?

I mean just look at the Bush Admin. They never make any mistakes either.

Same thing.

j swift | 11.22.04 - 3:48 pm | #

Didn't you know Christians never practiced any of the bad things in the Bible, either in the past or today. All rumors to contrary are vile lies, fantasy or the practitioners thereof were not "real" Christians

Oh, no, j swift. Every single word in the bible is literally true. The fundies told me so.
Hecate | 11.22.04 - 3:50 pm | #

"What would happen if a state outlawed interracial marriage? Would the federal government be able to deny immigration and residency benefits to a non-citizen partner in a couple unless they moved to another state?"

Yes. That's why my parents were very careful where they lived, and there was a measure of doubt over my sister's citizenship until 1967.
Sisi | 11.22.04 - 3:51 pm | #

As far as I'm concerned, all of the crap about values is self indulgence. - Mooser

I have, believe it or not, some fundie friends (they vote Dem., btw ... but that's not a matter of them agreeing with Dems. on social or even economic issues but a matter of them not trusting a party dominated by white southerners and using certain code-words to be anything but racist crackers). I have been to church with them, listened to their favorite TV evangelists, etc.

The interesting thing is how little they focus on what I, as a part-time synagogue going, "conform" Jew (or is it "reservative"), would consider morality and values.

There is a lot of talk (especially in their church as well as on that guy Ornsteen or Orsteen or whatever his name is) about 'feeling good' and even practical advice about living life to the fullest (and most of it is not all that disagreeable in fact). There is some talk on some of the TV evangelists about "moral issues" (read - gay marriage, abortion and other distractions served up by the masters to keep the peasants from thinking about their plight).

But there is very little talk about sin and salvation, about minding your own actions, about "minding your belly studiously", about social justice, etc.

I would say the Rabbi in the Reform Synagogue my family went to was far more into the hellfire and brimstone than is your typical fundie preacher (he's officiated at gay marriages, btw ... I have seen the photographic evidence as my father would do wedding photography at cost for couples who were not quite capable of paying for fancy-shmancy expensive photographers).

My impression is that the whole "we Evangelicals believe in 'old-time religion' whilst liberal folks are decadent new agers" is half-stereotype and half-projection.

The fundie types seem rather decadent to me - and their religion seems far more "new-agy" and "feel good" than the darkly Teutonic, "Lake Wobegon Lutheran" liberal Judaism with which I was raised.
DAS | 11.22.04 - 3:51 pm | #

Vicki, my disparagement (if disparagement is the word I want) is not based on religious ideals at all.
I also made my bride a solemn promise: As we go through life, we will not have a surfeit of material things. But all that we do have will only be of the cheapest quality!
And by gum, I've stuck to that promise!

Please keep in mind, that like a benevolent polo player, I post with mallets toward none.

And I think the efforts to deny gay people from entering into marriage are shameful, petty, and a diversion-by-bullying. And why shouldn't there be in addition to marriage other types of legal arrangements such as civil unions which can offer legal protection to people in relationships, and provide a framework within which children can be protected.
They are a nasty bunch, those "values" Repubs.
Mooser | Homepage | 11.22.04 - 3:58 pm | #

"So long Moron Mark. You apparently read nary a single word of the list of 'rights' to which 'married' folks are entitled, but which are forbidden to unmarried, gay partners."

That's precisely why I was asking if there are any rights that exist in marriage but not in civil unions (or could not be written into civil unions). And no, I just scanned the list of rights available to married people. 1,049 is a bit too much reading for me right now. Atrios specifically said these are rights not available through private contracts, but civil unions are not private contracts AFAIK.

"As someone who has dated outside of my race and considered marrying some of these dates (though so far things haven't worked out), I very much appreciate that I can marry someone outside my race and this marriage will be recognized not only by my friends and fellow congregants, but also by society at large and I would receive all the privaleges that an intra-racial couple would receive."

Good point.

"But you're more than happy to throw gays under the wagon if it can get you more votes."

Forcing them to spend another four years under the Bush administration is a better deal, huh?

"Of course, I question why government should be in the marriage liscencing business in the first place ..."

Ditto.
Mark Borok | 11.22.04 - 4:09 pm | #

Mooser, just want you to know that I respect the fact that you chose to save (if that's the appropriate term) yourself for marriage. But more than respect, I appreciate your attitude towards others. More of that, please! (I mean that in general, to everyone in this world with their underwear a little tighter than their waist permits.)
Vicki Stein | 11.22.04 - 4:09 pm | #

The Bigot-American community is still up in arms over the whole same sex marriage thing, here in Massachusetts.

Still desperately trying to overturn the decision or remove the 4 judges from the SJC who voted in favor of equal rights for all.

Kind of funny to watch, actually.

Keep re-arranging them deck chairs, guys!
Chris Tucker | Homepage | 11.22.04 - 4:10 pm | #

Forcing them to spend another four years under the Bush administration is a better deal, huh?

Google for term limits, genius.

Fuck you and your triangulation argument. 2000 and 2004 showed us what happens to Republican-lite candidates.
int argc | Homepage | 11.22.04 - 4:11 pm | #

As a gay man who had a rough time making through high school in NJ(with the death threats and such) and think the part of this that is most terrifying is how this is going to affect gay kids (from suicide to depression). The relgious right is trying to erase us and relabel homosexuality a mental problem despite all the evidence against this in the last 60 or so years. Its horrifying.
adamN | 11.22.04 - 4:11 pm | #

"A more accurate comparison would be if black people could eat at the same lunch counters as white people, but the state refused to officially call it "eating"."

Even better: they get a different menu with fewer items, and have to pay more and wait longer to receive them. Been there, done that.
Sisi | 11.22.04 - 4:13 pm | #

I should add, that the reason Republican-lite candidates tank, is that the public (rightly) feels that they stand for very little.

There are some rights the Dems stand for that we can't compromise. I would submit that a working wage, reproductive rights, gay rights, women's rights, and civil rights are all parts of the platform that we can't honestly sacrifice.
int argc | Homepage | 11.22.04 - 4:13 pm | #

I really, really want my dear brother and his life partner to have these rights. It hurts me to think that they don't. Anyone who knew them would agree.
Jamais Vu | 11.22.04 - 4:15 pm | #

"Fuck you and your triangulation argument. 2000 and 2004 showed us what happens to Republican-lite candidates."

Gore and Kerry were Republican-lite?

On the contrary, 2000 showed that a liberal like Gore could get a majority of the popular vote and 2004 showed that an even more liberal guy like Kerry could get 48% against an incumbent president in "wartime". But I digress.
Mark Borok | 11.22.04 - 4:23 pm | #

So are there benefits to actual marriage that aren't conferred by civil unions? If not, why can't civil unions laws be drafted to include all those benefits?

Hypothetically, such a law could be drafted and passed.

It would have to be a federal law (because the federal government grants certian benefits to married couples) and it would have to compel each state to apply its marriage laws to people in that state who are in a civil union, so as to ensure the equal protection of the law that is required by the 14th Amendment. I don't think equal-rights supporters would find fault with such a law.

The problem is that a large portion of the opposition don't want a reasonable compromise. They don't want gay people to have the same rights they do. They don't want gay people living in their neighborhood. They don't want gay people living in their state. And in the case of the most influential Republican supporters (Sun Myung Moon, "Tinky Winky" Falwell, "Blood Diamond" Robertson, et al) they don't want gay people living, period.

So, in theory, yes, a far-reaching civil union law could be drafted and would suffice for all the purposes mentioned in the post. But the people obstructing equality have no interest in such a compromise... Despite what they say, this has nothing to do with "protecting marriage" from some ephemeral, undefined threat. It's pure bigotry, and nothing more.
Seraphiel | Homepage | 11.22.04 - 4:25 pm | #

"The Bigot-American community is still up in arms over the whole same sex marriage thing, here in Massachusetts.

Still desperately trying to overturn the decision or remove the 4 judges from the SJC who voted in favor of equal rights for all.

Kind of funny to watch, actually."

It backfired. Romney's attempts to get more Repubs into the state legislature actually ended up replacing two anti-gay legislators with two pro-gay Dem legislators. Which just shows that the conservatives are as bad at reading the blue states as we are at reading the red ones.
Mark Borok | 11.22.04 - 4:27 pm | #

Well, I did save myself for marriage, but even with all the interest compounded there still wasn't a whole lot there. My wife is ten years younger than me, many's the night I've attempted to guard my virtue, fluttering like a wounded bird in her inscense-scented boudoir, her kohl-rimmed eyes, pupils dilated by bella-donna, holding me paralysed,till I am mercifully released by syncope from the awareness of my compromise. Or sometimes I just hide under the bed.
But never in the closet, damnit!
Mooser | Homepage | 11.22.04 - 4:28 pm | #

Please ignore that last post.
Mooser | Homepage | 11.22.04 - 4:29 pm | #

Uh, Mooser...you sure?
Vicki Stein | 11.22.04 - 4:33 pm | #

"Oh, no, j swift. Every single word in the bible is literally true. The fundies told me so."

Ah yes, believing the Bible is literal fact. IMHO, that would be like repeatedly running yourself into a brick wall and then denying it exists, but then I am a rational person.

To the fundie that is just one more difficult and unsavory elephant in the room. Ignoring it is much simpler. Ignorance is Bliss. (Sigh)
j swift | 11.22.04 - 4:33 pm | #

The country would consist of tribes of civil partners.

And major disagreements would result in civil wars?
Cranky When Old | 11.22.04 - 4:34 pm | #

Don't any of these Bushies think it's more than a little fucked up that our government claims to be "liberating" another country while they're attempting to strip away OUR rights one by one?

But, hell, that's THINKING and THINKING is "un-MURIKAN" and for pointy-headed liberals!
Terry C | Homepage | 11.22.04 - 4:34 pm | #

Das- When you get right down to it, every independent church in the area is in competition with the others for the congregants and income stream they need. They can't afford to spit to much fire and brimstone, people will go elsewhere. - Mooser

That's an interesting point. Has anybody studied the sociology of independent churches and various denominations?

I know congregations/minyans in my own religion are very much niche affairs - there's the synagogue you go to and the one you wouldn't step foot in even if they paid you. Of course, congregations can and do change over time (the one my family went to started out as a classic Reform congregation but became more ritually conservative as German immigrants -- of all people to push for this change -- started pouring in peri/post-WWII), but at a given moment you can usually identify "the classic Reform" congregation, the "Conservadox" congregation, the "hippy" congregations, etc., fairly readily. And people will tend to associate to one congregation or another without having to make much of a decision. The result is that there really ain't much competition for members.

I guess, though, the situation would be radically different for expensive, mega-churches. How does it work in other denominations/religions, though?
DAS | 11.22.04 - 4:35 pm | #

It's beginning to look like the best option for gay people is to just leave the country until this present madness passes.

There aren't enough of us to protect ourselves, and there aren't enough other people who care enough to stand up to the fascists if/when they start getting really ambitious.

I'm not sure I'd feel safe (especially in a heavily-red state) without maybe some high-powered automatic weapons.
Seraphiel | 11.22.04 - 4:45 pm | #

Game lets players take shots at JFK

And it's really historically accurate, too, because Oswald's nowhere near it.
Backslider | Homepage | 11.22.04 - 4:52 pm | #

Another thing about the whole "many of these rights can be secured through a private contract" argument is that, while true, it doesn't solve the problem of legal equality. Gay couples have to pay a lawyer to draw up such a contract while my wife and I just had to pay the marriage license fee.
joycamp | Email | Homepage | 11.22.04 - 1:31 pm

this is exactly the problem i am in. we're in louisiana. my wife and i have 2 kids. for me to have any legal rights to them as being my kids too, it costs $10,000 in legal fees each kid to get a "2nd parent adoption". and even after paying the fees, if we draw the wrong judge it can be tossed out or denied. the lawyer we went to see told us that some of the fees were to *ahem* grease the wheels *ahem* to making sure we got a good judge.

just having our registered domestic partnership along with wills and other legal paperwork (which we can't afford either, but if we could) still gives me no assurance or right to my children should anything happen to my wife.

her repub parents could sweep in from california and take my kids away from me despite her wishes. we don't even let the kids visit her dad because he molested her, but the state would hand my 2 girls over to him rather than to me or their maw-maw & paw-paw (my parents) if something tragic happened.

so when i hear this stupid argument that a few legal bits of paperwork can give all gay couples the same legal rights as straight couples, i get so angry! sure, if we were really rich, maybe we could buy a little security. but when you're raising a family of four on less than $30,000 a year, it is impossible!
just lil' ol' me | 11.22.04 - 4:56 pm | #

Seraphiel,

Thanks for the courteous response. That's about the answer I was looking for.

Your characterization of the religious right is satisfying, but I don't think it's entirely accurate. We can't beat the enemy if we're fighting a caricature of what they really are. Robertson, Fallwell, Dobson et al. represent a large number of people who are threatened by change in society. This is normal human behavior. People have traditions for a reason and there is a reason why they're frightened when those traditions fall by the wayside.If we want to address these problems we need to address the real people who hold these views, not caricatures of them (except for Fred Phelps, who really is a caricature and should die as soon as possible). Persuading them won't be easy if we approach them as if the whole lot were Phelpses. And not persuading them is not an option; they are our fellow citizens, there are a lot of them and their votes count whether we like it or not. Right now the right is making the same mistake, thinking they don't have to take liberals and moderates into account.

Here's an interesting article about a town of fundies that came out in support of a young gay man: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ ac...anguage=printer
Mark Borok | 11.22.04 - 4:57 pm | #

Again, to bring the question about polygamy back to its central question: If all the parties involved enter into it willingly, of sound minds etc. etc., what interest is it of the government to stop it? The only social problems that arise are a) if the family unit cannot sustain it economically (and that's theoretically a social problem even in monogamous relationships), and b) if you marry off young 'uns (almost always girls) when they're really too young to consent to it.

In the case of the polygamy trials that we've seen recently, the realy problem is b. And I'm not sure that any person age 18 or older is going to consent to a polygamous relationship. I just don't see it happening. If age-of-consent rules are enforced, I believe there would be no more polygamy than we see today.
Smitty Werbenmanjensen | 11.22.04 - 5:05 pm | #

"There are some rights the Dems stand for that we can't compromise. I would submit that a working wage, reproductive rights, gay rights, women's rights, and civil rights are all parts of the platform that we can't honestly sacrifice."

We need to wrap those up into one package. As long as we're about separate issues and the Republicans have their "smaller government, lower taxes, stronger defense" position, they will do better.

I wish that when Bush called him the most liberal senator Kerry had called him on the lie and then stood up and defined liberalism in positive terms. It would have been a great opportunity to take that word back and show some inspiration.
Mark Borok | 11.22.04 - 5:06 pm | #

Of course, I question why government should be in the marriage liscencing business in the first place ...

Well, there are, as the post that launched this thread attests, quite a lot of government benefits associated with marriage, which is precisely the reason why their ought to be government regulation of marriage, to assure that the benefits are given in a way which serves the public purpose of having those benefits, not merely the private purposes of those seeking them.

Now, that being said, I think the fundamental problem with civil marriage in this country is that there has never been a serious examination of the public purpose of civil marriage and an alignment of the regulation with that purpose; its an institution that used to be a state/religious function where State and Church were fused, and which both grabbed hold of when the two split, but the public and religious purposes have never really been split up effectively.

And I don't agree with those who see providing for child-rearing as the principal public purpose of marriage (though its a not-unimportant one); I see providing a reliable structure of private support to avoid public burden as important.

I'm not sure that multimember marriages do that as well -- there are very different group dynamics in groups bigger than dyads -- but its not inconceivable. The rules governing dissolution would be more tricky, of course.
cmdicely | 11.22.04 - 5:12 pm | #

12 Reasons Same-Sex Marriage Will Ruin Society
http://12reasons.com

1. Homosexuality is not natural, much like eyeglasses, polyester, and birth control are not natural.
2. Heterosexual marriages are valid because they produce children. Infertile couples and old people cannot get legally married because the world needs more children.
3. Obviously gay parents will raise gay children because straight parents only raise straight children.
4. Straight marriage will be less meaningful, since Britney Spears's 55-hour just-for-fun marriage was meaningful.
5. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and it hasn't changed at all: women are property, Blacks can't marry Whites, and divorce is illegal.
6. Gay marriage should be decided by the people, not the courts, because the majority-elected legislatures, not courts, have historically protected the rights of minorities.
7. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are always imposed on the entire country. That's why we only have one religion in America.
8. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people makes you tall.
9. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage license.
10. Children can never succeed without both male and female role models at home. That's why single parents are forbidden to raise children.
11. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and we could never adapt to new social norms because we haven't adapted to cars or longer lifespans.
12. Civil unions, providing most of the same benefits as marriage with a different name are better, because a "separate but equal" institution is always constitutional. Separate schools for African-Americans worked just as well as separate marriages will for gays & lesbians.
Scott | Homepage | 11.22.04 - 5:12 pm | #

Thanks, Atrios for putting this up. The discussions about this subject just before and after the election were so shrill that it was painful. Especially when Dems started blaming gays for "losing the election."

I had to pay several hundred dollars for my wife and I to get powers of attorney, wills and all that legal jazz het folks get with a simple marriage license. We got married in Vancouver, so we're legal in some places around the globe. But all it would take here in NC is for the wingnuts to propose and succeed at passing, a super-DOMA that invalidates it all. That's what already exists in Virginia and the eight other states that banned civil unions. The progressive community here fought hard and managed to keep two proposals off the ballot in November, but the American Taliban here in NC plan to put bills back on the table next session.

Mike Easley, the Dem governor that was easily re-elected, lost the endorsement of EqualityNC, the local gay rights organization, when at the last minute, he came out in favor of a state amendment to ban gay marriage. Depressing.

Pam's House Blend
Pamindurham | Homepage | 11.22.04 - 5:12 pm | #

Again, to bring the question about polygamy back to its central question: If all the parties involved enter into it willingly, of sound minds etc. etc., what interest is it of the government to stop it?

The government has an interest in preventing large-scale criminal conspiracies from sharing spousal privilege, to start with.
cmdicely | 11.22.04 - 5:13 pm | #

Robertson, Fallwell, Dobson et al. represent a large number of people who are threatened by change in society. This is normal human behavior. People have traditions for a reason and there is a reason why they're frightened when those traditions fall by the wayside.If we want to address these problems we need to address the real people who hold these views, not caricatures of them (except for Fred Phelps, who really is a caricature and should die as soon as possible). Persuading them won't be easy if we approach them as if the whole lot were Phelpses.

You're right about that, but I haven't yet seen a reasonable, rational argument that really worked on the most virulent of the hard-core haters. That it is a matter of constitutional protections, equality, and even protecting religion from the intrusion of the state, does not penetrate their thinking.

Polling shows that American society is slowly but surely trending toward more recognition of equal rights anyway, and there will probably always be a die-hard core of people who simply refuse to accept it. The situation is much more complicated because Falwell and Moon and their ilk have their fangs sunk deep in the neck of one of the major parties in this country, and that party is (legitimately or otherwise) in power at the moment.

There are more mild people who don't (for whatever reason) understand that these Nuremberg-flavored marriage laws are discriminatory. I don't think they actually hate gay people, but they have been convinced by their churches that marriage needs "protection" from something, and denying equal rights is the way to do it. One of my co-workers is like this... I tried to explain the federal rights angle and I'm not sure it got through. Perhaps I can print this file out and show him.
Seraphiel | 11.22.04 - 5:13 pm | #

"There are more mild people who don't (for whatever reason) understand that these Nuremberg-flavored marriage laws are discriminatory."

Exactly. We don't need the "hard-core haters", any more than the civil rights movement needed the Klan. We need to persuade the ones in the middle. Did you read the article I linked to? It shows that most people have an underlying humanity that comes out when they actually see someone they know threatened by outsiders - even if that someone is gay.

On a related note, what ever happened to those other anti-gay laws that were passed a few years back? The ones that forbade the governments of Maine and one other state (Colorado?) from passing civil rights laws to benefit gays and lesbians. Those were a sight worse than the anti-gay marriage laws, in my opinion. Has anyone been fighting those?
Mark Borok | 11.22.04 - 5:36 pm | #

There are more mild people who don't (for whatever reason) understand that these Nuremberg-flavored marriage laws are discriminatory.

I don't think that there is anyone who doesn't realize that they are "discriminatory" in the sense that they make a distinction among different classes of people.

There are people who disagree over whether or not they are unwarrantedly discriminatory in that they make a distinction among different classes of people not adequately justified by the degree to which that distinction serves a legitimate public purpose.

And one of the reasons that it is hard to refute this -- or argue for it, on the flip side -- is that few people on either side of the debate have a clear idea of the public purpose of civil marriage.
cmdicely | 11.22.04 - 5:46 pm | #

few people on either side of the debate have a clear idea of the public purpose of civil marriage.

This list is a good place to start. People who are denied rights tend to be fairly well versed in the implications of those rights, and the costs of not having them.

And no, we don't need the Klan or the more well-disguised hate groups like "Concerned Women for America." Those groups, and the ones run by Dobson and his cronies, have a more direct influence on the people we're trying to reach because they claim to speak from a religious, and even Christian, perspective. This makes it even harder to get through to them, even when we have the real Christians on our side. I know a few, and they're deeply ashamed of people like Dobson giving their faith a really bad name... The real ones just aren't as vocal and pushy and aggressive about forcing their views on other people, and the very openness and gentleness that strengthens their faith often makes it difficult for them to bring more of their fellow churchgoers over to our side.

In any event, I'm not sure the current climate is even safe for me to stay here. When Oregon passes such a law by such a huge margin, something is deeply wrong. I don't know if I can afford to wait around and see if reason and compassion will triumph sooner rather than later.
Seraphiel | 11.22.04 - 5:58 pm | #

On a related note, what ever happened to those other anti-gay laws that were passed a few years back? The ones that forbade the governments of Maine and one other state (Colorado?) from passing civil rights laws to benefit gays and lesbians. Those were a sight worse than the anti-gay marriage laws, in my opinion. Has anyone been fighting those?

Well, the one from Colorado (Amendment 2) was declared unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court in Romer v. Evans. That's pretty much put an end to that sort of legislation.
MAJeff | 11.22.04 - 6:00 pm | #

Smitty -- I happen to know a happily "married" triad. They're "married" in the sense that two of them have a legal marriage union, and the other one probably qualifies under common-law provisions if such things exist in the state in which they're resident. (Being Canadian, I don't know these things.) They seem happy and as stable as possible, given the amount of financial trouble they seem to be in every now and again, which has little to do with their relationship, and a lot to do with their state having those abominable *cough* "right-to-work" laws.

I personally don't see a group marriage as much different from an intentional community, except that maybe (maybe) there's more sex going on. I don't have problems with any of that.

However, having talked to even some of my fairly liberal friends on the subject, I think a lot of the resistance to the idea is simply, "We can't do X because X contradicts what we do." There's at least a perception that "things have always been this way" (evidence or not to the contrary), and that's hard to get around.
Interrobang | 11.22.04 - 6:04 pm | #

This list is a good place to start.

Not all that good. Lists of privileges associated with a status are not a particularly good place to start discussing the public purpose of the status (and they aren't "rights", they are privileges associated with a particular status). OTOH, they might be the only place to start thinking about a backwards rationalization of the existing policy in terms of public purpose.

The question is whether those privileges all of which, whether gay marriage is allowed or prohibited, constitute discrimination among persons, are consistent with any public purpose; and, if so, once that purpose is defined, whether limiting the status that provides access to those privileges to partners of opposite sex is necessary to serve that purpose.
cmdicely | 11.22.04 - 6:22 pm | #

Point taken. But at least a major part of them can, in fact, be duplicated by contract.

The perverse thing is, though, that the wording of many anti-gay marriage amendments (e.g., prohibiting "incidents of marriage") potentially prevent courts from enforcing anything resembling an incident of marriage established by private contract (not to mention common law marriage).

So such amendments may be abridging general rights under the traditional common law.
Kevin Carson | Homepage | 11.22.04 - 6:26 pm | #

Don't bother giving us faggots any rights.

Just don't turn around later and wonder why such a large chunk of society turns its back on society.

Outlawing 10% of the population's affections is pretty heavy-duty. Homosexuality is natural (look up "Bagemihl" under Books on Amazon.com if you haven't heard) and until civilization stops bashing gays, it ain't civilization.
zogbyev2004 | 11.22.04 - 6:29 pm | #

Ii>Claiming the marital communications privilege, which means a court can’t force you to disclose the contents of confidential communications between you and your spouse during your marriage.

OK, I know I'm opening a can of worms here, but can anybody explain to me why gay folks should be denied these rights? Ouch, in advance.
bigvic | 11.22.04 - 7:04 pm | #

Obtaining immigration and residency benefits for noncitizen spouse.
Karin - You better hold me back before I pull an Artest on the US Consulate General here! Only 6 more years before I get my Permanent Residency here and the right to vote in US and HK elections.

And if the nut hatcheries want to get all Biblical, then they should approve polygamy. How many wives did King David have?

As for me, the bigotry of the wingnuts have hurt my marriage and family values a hell of a lot more than gays getting married or polygamy ever would.
Tom - Daai Tou Laam | Homepage | 11.22.04 - 7:06 pm | #

Whoops! Those pesky tags.

Don't bother giving us faggots any rights.

I just want to grab anti gay America by the neck and shake them.

I'm gonna go to my window and open it and yell...

I'M A FAGGOT!!!!

Every single person on this planet is related to, or knows someone who is gay. It's a fact. I hate the GOP.
bigvic | 11.22.04 - 7:14 pm | #

And if the nut hatcheries want to get all Biblical, then they should approve polygamy. How many wives did King David have?

The nut hatcheries line is the best of the thread.
bigvic | 11.22.04 - 7:18 pm | #

I recall reading a story about a same-sex couple several years back (I think it was 1999 when this report was first released). One member of the couple came from a traditionally Catholic family, who had disowned him. He hadn't spoken with his family for over a decade. The two owned a house together, had a joint checking account, and had purchased adjacent plots in a cemetary. The Catholic one fell ill and died (I think it may have been HIV). When that happened, the hospital notified his parents, who were his only legitimate next of kin. Immediately they had the couple's bank account frozen and took possession of the house. They also took their son's body, and (against his last wishes) had him cremated and flushed the ashes down their toilet. The surviving partner suddenly found himself homeless and without any money whatsoever. After a lengthy and protracted court battle (which lasted months if not years), he was able to get some (though not all) his assets back - and the family kept the rest. The law has failed these two, and I think that what the family did should be criminal.
Leo Caesius | Homepage | 11.22.04 - 7:26 pm | #

DAS - Values, Biblical values, include the redistribution of wealth - not as a matter of charity, but as a required duty for justice and social stability.

Obviously DAS hasn't been paying attention to those single-sourced and no-bid contracts being run through DoD, AID, and CPA (and the Coalition's faulty books should bring out the irony in the use of the acronym CPA.)

And thanks for the compliment bigvic, but the concept of marital immigration rights for non-citizen spouses is one that has been getting a lot of comments at my blog recently. And because of changes in US law it is more concept than reality.
Tom - Daai Tou Laam | Homepage | 11.22.04 - 7:53 pm | #

A thought... do you suppose that an effective legal argument could be made against defining legal marriage as between a man and a woman by invoking the First Amendment?

That is, defining marriage as such is not only discriminatory against gays. It also discriminates against religious groups (such as Unitarian Universalists, Quakers, Reform Judaism, and Wicca) that place same-sex marriage on the same spiritual and religious ground as opposite-sex marriage. As such, it violates the separation of church and state.

How can the government legally privilege one religion's conception of marriage over others?

Answer: it can't. It can regulate civil unions, but it can't regulate religious marriage. And there is no sound LEGAL reason to define civil unions as reserved for opposite-sex couples only.

--Rana
. | 11.22.04 - 8:16 pm | #

Not all that good. Lists of privileges associated with a status are not a particularly good place to start discussing the public purpose of the status (and they aren't "rights", they are privileges associated with a particular status). OTOH, they might be the only place to start thinking about a backwards rationalization of the existing policy in terms of public purpose.

I see your point but don't necessarily agree with it. Was being able to ride in the front seats of a bus a right or a privalege? Was being able to eat at a lunch counter a right or a privalege?

AKAIC, denial of privaleges for reasons that are based on race is as much discrimination as denial of rights -- the same logic should apply to sexual orientation - as you essentially point out below:

The question is whether those privileges all of which, whether gay marriage is allowed or prohibited, constitute discrimination among persons, are consistent with any public purpose; and, if so, once that purpose is defined, whether limiting the status that provides access to those privileges to partners of opposite sex is necessary to serve that purpose. - cmdicely

After this paragraph, I am agreed 100%
DAS | 11.22.04 - 8:18 pm | #

BTW - AKAIC is not some new acronym (at least to my knowledge) but a typo ... it should read, AFAIC.
DAS | 11.22.04 - 8:20 pm | #

I've noticed that with many issues, during the peak of discussion/debate, people get a bit smarter about them but then as the issue fades away the stupids begin to take hold of the issue again and discussion of it gets dumber and dumber.

Good point, Atrios.

I'm glad you laid the legal benefits to marriage out like this. I hadn't realized them in quite this way, or that so many would not be covered by some sort of private contract.
Wile E. Odysseus | 11.22.04 - 8:27 pm | #

Actually it is about denial of rights.

The 14th Amendment guarantees all citizens equal protection of the law.

The law permits certain couples to obtain a legal status that gives them many protections with regard to each other. To allow that status to one group of consenting adults, and not to another, is a denial of our 14th Amendment rights.
Seraphiel | 11.22.04 - 8:40 pm | #

The perverse thing is, though, that the wording of many anti-gay marriage amendments (e.g., prohibiting "incidents of marriage") potentially prevent courts from enforcing anything resembling an incident of marriage established by private contract (not to mention common law marriage). - Kevin Carson

Actually, we Dems. need to go further. If Rethugs can use gays as a wedge issue, so can we. If Rethugs can play dirty tricks - so can we.

Let's get some top lawyers to figure out some angle in which these laws, which potentially restrict the ability of consenting adults to enter into contracts, can be construed to limit the ability of business partnerships to operate.

Even if we cannot have some lawyer, pretending to be a conservative, successfully sue a partnership for violating laws, we can at least frame the issue ... why do Rethugs want to limit the ability of people to enter into partnerships? You may think it's just gays, but tommorrow they'll be after limitted license partnership? Why do Rethugs hate small business?

We Dems. need to have a leadership that can spin so fast they appear to be stationary. We Dems. need to start playing the game if we wanna get elected. Alas a majority of our country doesn't take our democracy seriously. Alas, if we wanna make a difference, we need to play the game like the Rethugs do.

So let's counterspin gay rights as a right of people to enter into contracts issue ... start telling slippery slope tales about how these laws represent the beginning of government interference in contract law which could lead to major government interference in small business ... start asking "why do Rethugs hate small business?" and let's drive a wedge between the businessfolk and the religious reich!
DAS | 11.22.04 - 8:41 pm | #

The law permits certain couples to obtain a legal status that gives them many protections with regard to each other. To allow that status to one group of consenting adults, and not to another, is a denial of our 14th Amendment rights. - Seraphiel

Of course, this begs the question of why should marrieds get special rights in the first place.

Perhaps I am just sayin' this because I am a lonely, dyspeptic grad student who's pushin' 30 and not yet married, but why should married people be allowed these privaleges when my flatmates and I, who have set up house together and whose families are all far away, are not granted these privaleges?
DAS | 11.22.04 - 8:44 pm | #

Do you really think the fundies are open to any of these arguments? At least half of them are beyond help. I was for civil unions before I read this posting and looked at the list, but now I see why gay marriage has to be the answer. But, because we live in the real world, it will never happen by making it a big issue in the election. Gays know the democratic party supports them, let them get in power, then make a stink! Talk about gay rights in general. You may think that's cowardly, but otherwise you get more years under the conservatives. Practically and stealth. It's sad, but we're living in a dream world when you think people will listen to reason when all they respond to is short sound bites.We've got to get the power back.
boz scaggs | 11.22.04 - 8:57 pm | #

If we're going to amend state constitutions to preserve traditional marriage, I think we should at least at a close forbidding people with minor children from a previous marriage from remarrying. I don't want to outlaw divorce, but shouldn't these folks be focused on their kids?

I sometimes wonder whether the anti-gay marriage thing is really a mask for anti-feminism. If people had the option of choosing a range of legally recognized domestic estates, the patriarchy would probably take one in the gut. But then I remember, those Red Christians really hate us homos - really.
Pudentilla | Homepage | 11.22.04 - 9:01 pm | #

my advice for everyone opposed to gay marriage-- DON'T MARRY A GAY PERSON!!!

..
rasher | 11.22.04 - 9:29 pm | #

And the good thing about marriage is ... speaking selfishly of course -- is that people who don't get married can't get divorced. My wife is a family (divorce) lawyer. She would be reduced to child custodial battles if it were not for marriage. Viva le mariage!
knut wicksell | 11.22.04 - 9:35 pm | #

I think any good discussion of marriage should begin with the understanding that it, like slavery, is all about chattel--the purpose was originally to convert women into property.

So the entire process of contemporary marriage evolving into an egalitarian relationship is more like contractual relations. While in contrast, "traditional" or religious marriage has largely perpetuated the relationship in terms of power-over.

I believe that this at the core of why why same-sex unions are a threatening to fundamentalists. It's not the same-sexness, but a threat to the underlying power relationship embodied in man-woman marriage. In this sense it is true that same-sex marriage is a threat to the family. This view also explains the observation that secular folks (who see marriage as a contract between two equals already) are not threatened.

Just a thought...
Anad | 11.22.04 - 9:58 pm | #

interesting...
A-Dawg | Homepage | 11.22.04 - 10:00 pm | #

I think Power of Attorney thingies can confer next-of-kin status for the purpose of hospital visits, making medical decisions when you are incapacitated, etc.

But it just occurred to me that another thing marriage conferred early in the Vietnam war was a draft exemption. That's something you can't contract for. Stuff like that comes and goes depending on the period, but it usually comes along because someone saw a need for it, and it'd be nice to have it when it does.
Avedon | Homepage | 11.22.04 - 10:45 pm | #

Stop supporting gay marriage. Stop being upset that it failed.

Settle now for civil unions. That's all you're gonna get.

Try for marriage again in 50 years.

Face reality here.

But look on the brightside, by aiming high and failing you get to settle for second best. Had you not aimed for marriage, they may not have even let you had civil unions.
jt | 11.22.04 - 10:45 pm | #

http://tinyurl.com/5us7x

Here's a refreshingly honest conservative appraisal. Repressive, but honest.

"Some conservatives, however, say marriage in America began unraveling long before the latest gay-rights push and are pleading for a fresh, soul-searching look at the institution.

"When you talk about protecting marriage, you need to talk about divorce," said Bryce Christensen, a Southern Utah University professor who writes frequently about family issues.

While Christensen doesn't oppose the campaign to adopt state and federal bans on gay marriage, he worries it's distracting from immediate threats to marriage's place in society.

"If those initiatives are part of a broader effort to reaffirm lifetime fidelity in marriage, they're worthwhile," he said. "If they're isolated - if we don't address cohabitation and casual divorce and deliberate childlessness - then I think they're futile and will be brushed aside." "
jeffs | 11.22.04 - 10:48 pm | #

"It's the civil rights, stupid".

That's what the next election needs to hit home. You all make some fantastic points, but we need to hear them around the next 3 Thanksgiving tables. Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to convince all your aunts and uncles and cousins that they need to stand up for civil rights.

Like Howard Dean said that white people need to talk to white people about race???.......... Straight people need to get talking to straight people about glbt rights. (Not to imply that all of you are straight, but you probably get my point.)

If more people learn how to talk intelligently about the civil rights issues, maybe the politicians will learn a thing or two. And, maybe they'll come up with something better than pointing a Mary Cheney, fer crisakes.
terri | 11.22.04 - 11:37 pm | #

I'm a conservative Republican who happens to be gay, and I'm not settling for anything less than full marriage equality.

The more and more I talk to people about this, I am convinced that they are either just ignorant, or just plain bigoted. I don't believe that there are any people who have given this serious thought, and are still against gay marriage, yet are not bigoted. I really don't think it's possible.

We WILL win this debate one day. Maybe not in my lifetime, but it will happen.

Downtown Lad
Downtown Lad | Homepage | 11.22.04 - 11:48 pm | #

regarding this post:
"Stop supporting gay marriage. Stop being upset that it failed.Settle now for civil unions. That's all you're gonna get.Try for marriage again in 50 years.Face reality here."

Thanks for your support Captain Freedom, can I have my vote back now?

But maybe I'm kidding myself in thinking the democrats are really going to stand up for the rights of Gay Americans anytime soon. Whenever Kerry actually had to address the issue he got all flustered and weird, as if someone had just caught him doing something shameful. It sent a terrible message.

So far the Democratic/Kerry position has been just to oppose the FMA, mostly on the grounds that it is "unnecessary".

Meekly saying that active discrimination is unnecessary isn't really making much of a case, and it does nothing to reframe forthe zillions of americans who are now marching along to the repuglican drumbeat.

The extreme environment of the election and the perception that defending the full citizenship of gay people might be political suicide kept the democratic leadership largely silent on the issue and has allowed the other side to define the questions and the answers to their own advantage. Now that the election is over I still waiting for the left to make the argument for freedom in clear and forceful terms.

Moreover, I'm sad to say it, but we need the straight people to initiate these discussions. Gay voices will always be perceived as marginal to the people who need to hear these arguments. Dithering on about polygammy and the decadent state of marriage in general helps no one. We need the people who say they support us to speak up loudly and at length that freedom and justice are for all.

And while I'm on my soapbox, why not just come clean and re-name civil unions Pretend Marriage.
Krimpet | 11.23.04 - 12:00 am | #

My wife and I separated and divorced long before gay marriage was legal in Massachusetts or Canada. How do I explain this?

And while we're on the subject, did anybody read the AP story on Bryce Christenson that ran 11/22/04?

A phrase caught my eye: deliberate childlessness. This sounds oddly like something you'd find banned by the Third Reich, and I was just wondering if that's an offense against Mormonism, too.

I'm not trying to slander Mormons, but I did notice that Bryce teaches at Southern Utah University (?) which, I'm guessing, is not a place where too many non-Mormons find teaching positions.

Unless they know how to step lightly around the only culture in America to practice polygamy.

Which, by the way, is another puzzlement. What does the Christian Right and the Family Values Movement say about Orrin Hatch's constituency?

Must make for some awkward silences in his office when they come calling about his legislative agenda.
Jon R. Koppenhoefer | 11.23.04 - 2:54 am | #

Clearly you haven't read this charming advertising supplement supplied to my house last friday via The Washington Post:

http://rawstory.com/images/pdfs/ ...hSidesSmall.pdf

I cancelled my subscription yesterday.
KCO | 11.23.04 - 11:13 am | #

I believe that this at the core of why why same-sex unions are a threatening to fundamentalists. It's not the same-sexness, but a threat to the underlying power relationship embodied in man-woman marriage. In this sense it is true that same-sex marriage is a threat to the family. This view also explains the observation that secular folks (who see marriage as a contract between two equals already) are not threatened. - Anad

That is definitely a large part of it. I notice that, comparing myself to some of my more traditionally religious friends - it is interesting that while the families we grew up in all had similar dynamics, there is a very different view of what is an ideal family ... for the traditionalists, the man should be in charge, whereas modernists like myself take the view that our partner (i.e. not us ... we don't want that kind of responsibility in a relationship ) should be in charge and we just want to stand around her/him and look pretty. My traditionalist friends, even if they grew up in households with fathers who were as much luftmenschen as mine and mothers who were as prone to take charge as mine, do feel that a woman should be behind her man, whereas I feel that a man should be behind his woman (the better to check out her bod ).

Seriously - there is a difference in attitudes that does seem to correlate with gay marriage (as well as a deliberate ignorance about the origins of the institution of marriage - and when conservatives are this ignorant of the past, you can always safely assume that they have misinterpreted Santayana and are forgetting the past on purpose so that they can condemn us all to repeat it).
DAS | 11.23.04 - 11:39 am | #

OTOH, I think there is another dynamic at work as well - many people, for many reasons, are married to people to whom they are not physically attracted. The opposition to gay marriage from these people may in part be pure 'if I cannot be happy no-one can' ... if heterosexual person X is married to someone who is so physically unattractive to him that he would feel no different about his partner if she were a male, then why shouldn't people who are attracted to members of the same sex not just find some member of the opposite sex whom they can tolerate and just settle down in a proper marriage?

Indeed, in this vein, one can argue that gay marriage does weaken heterosexual marriage. Consider my position -- I have various women interested in me, but for various reasons I consider them to be 100% physically repulsive (due to the fact that their weight is not distributed in an age and/or gender appropriate manner). If it were not for the visibility and acceptance of gays (which I support, btw), I might think -- well, I can get along with these people and I am getting pretty desparate to find a wife, so why marry one of my "suitors"? But now I think -- well, if a gay man can say "I won't marry her because she's a woman ... and I just ain't attracted to women", why is it unfair for me to say "I won't marry her because she just isn't attractive - I'm not looking for a supermodel or anything, but I am looking for someone who looks like a woman in her late 20s rather than someone who already looks like a middle-aged woman even at 30 or someone in her late 20s who is already obese"? And I've been on the flip side of this too - I know women who have felt about me "why should I go for him when he just ain't attractive to me and I feel about him no differently than I would a woman?". I am sure that before woman's rights, acceptance of gays, etc., men and women wouldn't necessarily expect to be physically attracted to their (prospective) spouses - but now, since whole catagories of people (e.g. gays), are going against what many consider to be a social norm of heterosexuality in order to be with people to whom they are attracted - many of us heteros now think -- wait a minute ... why should I date/marry Jill, even though she is physically repulsive - just because I get along with her? - well then, why don't I just marry my (male) flatmate Jack with whom I already know I can set up house? It isn't as if I find Jill more attractive than Jack or anything. And if a gay man would go for Jack and not for Jill simply because of their body parts, why should I go for Jill or Jack -- when Jack doesn't have the body parts I like and, while Jill does, those parts are hardly in the condition I in which want to experience them?
DAS | 11.23.04 - 11:46 am | #

And lest you think my rant is pointless - do remember that a lot of people make up their minds based on bitterness.

I am sure there are many people who are against gay marriage simply because they are unattracted to their wives and are trying to prevent others from experiencing what they don't have.

It's no different than those Middle-Americans who voted for GWB, knowing he is an A.H. and idiot, but who didn't want to vote for a "Northeastern Liberal Elitist" because they wanted to stick it to the pointy-headed academics, Hollywood liberals, Europeans and other such people whom these Middle-Americans find condescending.

Spite is a powerful emotion in this country ... and very dangerous.

Right now it's keeping the Rethugs in charge and possibly preventing gays from being treated with the respect they deserve. And it may be the downfall of this country even more than hubris or religiosity, etc.

But how do we Dems. fight spite?
DAS | 11.23.04 - 11:50 am | #