I can't wait til this couple that was "married" in San Fran gets back to Cincinnati,OHIO where that marriage license isn't worth the paper it was written on. If gays/lesbians/transsexuals/NAMBLA members/people supporting beastiality/polygamists/et.al don't like our current laws, and our current institutions [i.e. marriange] they can't just ignore them. If I don't agree with the current taxes, do I just not pay them? No, I lobby my elected officials, or work on a voter initative to change the way things are. For example, while I disagree with the people trying to appeal article 12, I applaud them for going about its repeal the democratic way--get the voters to put it on the ballot.
Stop making the heterosexual population create the legislation [DOMA, future constitutional amendment] to maintain the current laws and defend the way marriage has been defined since day one. Don't get me wrong, I wish this couple nothing but the best in their lives, and I don't think that anyone should be denied their right to happiness, but don't try to redefine marriage. Heterosexual marriages are already on the defensive against divorce rates, adultery, and others-- we don't need this as well.
*repeal, not appeal
Wow, Todd.
So homosexuals are equivalent to those into bestiality or pedophilia?
Did you accidentally mix in a press release from Rick Santorum's office?
And I just KNOW Mr. Todd here will follow up with "I'm not bigoted!!'
How the hell does same-sex marriage cheapen heterosexual marriage in any way, shape, or form? I hope to have a heterosexual marriage someday - it'll be as strong or weak as I and my wife make it; no more, no less.
I thought you guys on the Right were at least trying to be more compassionate. Guess I heard wrong.
WF
Way to go Maggie...though civil unions, providing many of the same priviliges, not marriage, is the still the answer.
Wes,
The bestiality/pedophilia thing were a bit of a hyperbole. The point I was trying to make by adding those "alternative lifestyles" to those of the GLBT community is kind of the old adage of -- if we let one group do it, then we have to let them all. Kind of the same problem we have had in Cincinnati in the past with the Menorah, Klan cross, nativity scene on Fountain square. One fear I have is that if we allow gays to marry because it is their inherent right to do so and because they love each other just as much as a man can love a woman, then couldn't someone use the same argument for taking 2 wives? If it is merely for the tax and benefit implications, then can a man who is caring for his elderly father, or elderly friend that is living with them, claim they are entitled to the same benefits?
I've actually heard religious right-wing nut's claim that homosexuality is a conspiracy by foreign governments to force us to stop breeding. Hahah. That way we become smaller and smaller and they breed more and more and take us over. Bung Hole Terrorism 2004!!!!! Don't let it get you! The evil-doers want you to be gay...fight it so our country can survive!! Man, crazy people crack me up.
Well, you don't have to worry about children or animals because, by definition, they are incapable of deciding to enter a marriage contract.
As far as polygamy, I don't see that taking fire either. If anyone out there actually WANTS to create a "plural marriage," I would say that they would probably legally marry one of the people involved, then rewrite their will to reflect the other relationships.
"Ah!" I hear you say. "Why can't that be done with gays as well?" Because the next-of-kin can usually challenge a will; no legal marriage usually means surviving parents or siblings (if no kids) are next-of-kin.
So, if the relationship with the 'rents was bad, all the 'rents have to do is say "We challenge this will as the next-of-kin," and in conservative states, they'd usually win. In the polygamy situation I described above, there is at least one marriage contract defining next-of-kin.
Like I said, though, outside of a couple fringe groups (and certain sci-fi authors), I don't see a rush to polygamists' rights here; handling one relationship is enough of a challenge!
WF
Todd, I am legally married. How would allowing gays marry affect me? Thank you for your desire to defend me but could you explain how exactly this works?
To add to Wes's comments, I don't worry too much about bestiality becoming a problem. It's covered pretty easily under the animal cruelty acts. Particularly if you're talking about a human woman being a participant--post-coitus blathering would clearly constitute animal cruelty whether you're human or not.
< sarcasm > And I always appreciate the gratuitous NAMBLA reference, because what the gays are doing in the Bay is soooooooo similar to pederasty committed molestation by sick screw-balls. Yeah, gratuitous abuse by perverts is the same thing as principled civil disobedience by otherwise upstanding citizens. < /sarcasm >
Further, Let me second Steve on this one, but I'll go further and say that the govm't should get out of the business of endorsing any kind of religious ceremony at all--it's extraconstitutional. Labels can be played with by interested parties later.
Wait, that's how marriage has been defined from day one? I thought it was day six.
It's so very confusing. Fortunately, we can turn to the Bible to find out what healthy sexuality is all about:
www.biblesexstories.com/
Todd,
HOW DOES HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE HARM HETEROSEXUAL MARRIAGE?
I want some fact, not just tradition. That is not an answer. It was tradition that inter-racial marriage was "wrong" too. It was tradition that woman were denied the right to vote.
Tradition is a bullshit reason when people are chicken to come out and say it: they are fearful of gays.
Note I said gays, meaning homosexual men, because that is what I think drives most of the anti-gay action: the many hetero-men think that having a gay guy out in public could somehow make them gay too.
Being Gay is not like getting a cold. It is like being left handed. Just because it is "tradition" that most of the desks in schools are right handed, it does not mean you can't have left handed desks.
I'm amazed at the conservatives who say we shouldn't allow gay marriage or civil unions because it will be a huge financial drain due to survivorship benefits in pensions and from social security. Glenn Beck said that a week or so ago. Apparently it's alright to take money from gay people while disqualifying them categorically from some of the benefits. How about this - how about we have a different FICA rate if you're gay? Seems fair to me...
I am, like Griff, still waiting to hear how gay marriage is a threat to heterosexual marriage. Todd? Hello? Anyone?
Also wouldn't gay couples pay income tax at a higher level if they were married?
Not to mention the massive boost to the economy as they try to one-up each other on big weddings. As Margaret Cho said, the spendnig on ice sculptures alone would wipe out the national debt. What's a $300 tax cut compared to hundreds of thousands of $100k weddings?
Todd, some of us understand exactly what you are trying to say. However, some believe that just because something doesn't particularly effect them then they don't see a problem with it. It is only after they perceive a problem that they join the "bandwagon." The situation is that we (as Americans) use the democratic process to instill change. Once we stop using that process, and just take what we want, we then enter into anarchy.
Commenting by HaloScan
