That's about as logical an argument as I have seen as far as opposition to same sex marriage is concerned. One of many good arguments, but perhaps the best reason of all. I started this thread, and I brought up a point that I thought should be a concern, in my first post. I brought it up a couple of more times, but only a few thought it as something to be concerned about, and maybe it's not such a big deal. But by what you have just said here, I see all the more reason to be against this whole thing. I have a wife and four kids, and I am thankful for the tax exemptions I get for my marital status and my kids.
And now, I thank all of you single people out there who carry an extra tax burdin in order to help perpetuate our society with educated and responsible kids who will grow up and carry theball when we all be "geezin". I pray to God daily that my wife and I are doing a good enough job as a parents. Hope we don't let all of you "single extra tax paying Citizens" down...
Long Gone: Exactly. Once you throw all the hysteria away on both sides, you see that it isn't about tolerance or acceptance, it's about a claim for a new publicly-funded entitlement.
This is about MONEY!!!!!!!!!! The homosexual agenda is HEALTH CARE, surviviors estates, etc, it's about MONEY!!!!
You think health insurance is unaffordable now??? Wait till the cost of treating AIDS begins to be "spread". Oh yeah baby.... and before the ACTUAL costs are figured ... we'll be paying for the ESTIMATED costs...
Currently insurance compamies can exclude "pre-existing conditions" but when it's a "spouse" in a company policy... all bets are off.
Yeah.... and you can bet this is all a prelude to government sponsored universal health care... Brought to you by... the same folks that bring you:
the Post Office
the Court/justice system
airport security
your car tags
$10,000 toilet bowls
etc
etc
etc
Everything else said about "gay marriage" is SMOKE.... to incite emotions... it's all about MONEY.
what about the fact of enforcing child support and vistation when the union ends? Or social security if a parent dies? or family health benefits? marriage would allow these matters to addressed fairly and within the laws we have already .
I am not for same sex marriage yet these issues concern me and need to be addressed.
yes it is about money and if these resposibiliies can not be meant how many more will be entitled to medicade and welfare benefits ?
the insurance is often one that is paid for by the state . esp if born with Aids , the US govt benefits are the only one who cover the outrageous long term expense of Aids . 'regular insurance runs out very quickly and often the person is not able to work and collect the social security money they get for having the diagnoses.
this allows them to be eleigble for gvt insurance from the state that has zero limits.
Hiv infection is when you start collecting the money and the treatments to keep you out of the Aids stage and death . we can treat HIV it is very expensive as the medicines and test. are almost in constant flux and change to keep up with the virus.
I have a friend who has been positive since 84 and never been in the hospital and his daughter who is 15 has never even been ill from a aids related illness. pretty good medicine here where I live tho we have a major university . both collect social security both have all meds paid for by the state dad works under the table to maintain their benefits.
what law enforces child support from a same sex partner?
social securtiy does not go to the same sex partner or a child as far as I know where do you guys think this? again additional court orders would have to be held it isnt a LAW! or a benefit.
where ? if a mom dies dad gets social security if a dad dies mom gets social security and the case of who has the children is not a question in same sex it is far more complex as only one parent has adopted or has the genes that make them a parent the other is left out in the cold.
What company do you know of that allows for medical benefits for a same sex partner? some do but very very few . many times the children have to be "legal" and in same sex marriages only ONE adopts or has common genes what if that isnt the one who has the job for the insurance? a man and wife get it because it is a family policy and it is assumed by either the man or the woman as a "family' policy.
you guys say that but it isnt true . It is not in the law that these children recieve the same benefits a hetrosexual family would get.
quote: You think health insurance is unaffordable now??? Wait till the cost of treating AIDS begins to be "spread".
Al...
I beg to differ darlin'. Healthcare is big money no matter who's agenda it is. Every disease costs lots of money to treat; cancer, MS, muscular dystrophy, alzeimer's disease (sp), mental illness...and the list goes on and on. My son's meds for his ADHD would cost me $270 a month if it wasn't for good 'ol John Deere, and I still have a $35 co-pay for each med because there is no generic.
Also, in case you haven't seen any statistics lately, AIDS insn't the ''gay'' disease anymore, so to allude that it is is misinformation.
Peace.
Love y'all,
-Colleen
GO VOLS!!
''...show a little faith, there's magic in the night, you ain't a beauty, but hey, you're alright, oh, and that's alright with me...''
But a step child may have benefits from his dead parent or child support from the other parent. and vistation granted to keep the relationship intact! that is right see what iM saying now?
It leaves the children from these gay or lesbian families is a much more difficult place.
they do split and children are involved and it does get ugly as all break ups can . vistation from the only other parent and in some cases the primary care giver is not a law, grand parents aunts etc. child support and standard of living may decrease beyond a reasonable measure without child support enforcement. and medical benefits cannot be granted etc.
these are the only parents the child knows and it is their only family . They have in some cases no rights by law to see brothers or sisters they grew up with or the only other parent or family in their life! In a legal marriage these are considered rights by law and dealt with in a split. Children without these laws can not get the same rights our other children have and are left to the mercy of the fighting couple, and I feel this is a very serious issue .
I know many step parents fill the role of an absent parent but the other real parent still must by law uphold financial support and does have rights to the child. In homosexual relationships none of these laws are assumed and YET this is the ONLY other parent the child has a relationship with.
[This message was edited by mj412 on February 13, 2004 at 13:50.]
[This message was edited by mj412 on February 13, 2004 at 13:52.]
Again, you are confusing issues. Responsibility for child support does not depend on a relationship between adults. It depends on the relationship of an adult to a child. The same is true regarding visitation rights, health insurance coverage of children, and social security survivor’s benefits to children. All of those are already covered by existing law and practice, and none of them depend upon current or former marital status. Marriage gives no inherent rights or responsibilities regarding someone else’s children. (See examples below.)
Example 1: John has two young children. Mary has two young children. John and Mary marry, and share parental responsibilities, but neither adopts the other’s children. Ten years later, John and Mary divorce, having never had a child together. All the children are still minors. John has no rights or responsibilities regarding Mary’s children, and Mary has no rights or responsibilities regarding John’s children. John’s children have no rights regarding Mary’s children, and vice versa.
Example 2: Jake has two young children. Mike has two young children. Jake and Mark live together, as partners in a homosexual relationship, and share parental responsibilities, but neither adopts the other’s children. Ten years later, they break up. All the children are still minors. Jake has no rights or responsibilities regarding Mike’s children, and Mike has no rights or responsibilities regarding Jake’s children. Jake’s children have no rights regarding Mike’s children, and vice versa.
Regarding rights and responsibilities towards or of the children, it makes no difference that John and Mary are heterosexual and Jake and Mike are homosexual. It also makes no difference that John and Mary were married and Jake and Mike were not. It also makes no difference whether or not the mother of John, Jake, or Mike’s children or the father of Mary’s children, is still living or still involved in any way. The issues in both examples are identical, and neither sexual preference nor marriage changes them. They’d be the same if John, or any other of the parent’s respective children were adopted, rather than biological. The only thing that would change the issues would be for one parent to adopt the children of another parent.
Spousal benefits, what few there are, are a different matter. They are perquisites of marriage, granted by society, as a support for an institution that is a benefit to society. They aren’t something to which everyone is inherently entitled.
I was not aware that GS was the exclusive preserve of Americans or that non-American people were not allowed to make comments.
Well tough s**t. No passports or visas are required here to be able to debate what is an important topic for all my gay brothers and sisters who are Americans.
If you want to comment on our system you can do so, it's no skin off my nose.
Thanks no doubt to TWI I have long been interested in America and things American. We no doubt get much more news over here about what is happening over there than the other way around.
No doubt I should tell Tony Blair to immediately withdraw all co-operation and support to the USA because you wish to revert to being isolationist?
I havent weighed in on this here and probably wont, but I have to wonder how many of these people are actually Massachusetts taxpayers like myself. Few I would would venture a guess, and that puts you all in the same boat
The posts about children I will leave to those who want to argue about them.
I don't believe that is the prime issue regarding same sex marriage as many partners would be couples rather than families,
The argument about money I find to be cynical, whereas money may be involved, it is still the issues of legal recognitions and protections. I have seen enough heterosexual marriages that are all about money and enough where the bearing and raising of children was not the intent.
I could argue civil fairness until I am blue in the face but verily it falleth upon deaf ears.
It is such a pity that heterosexual and religious majority rule feels it necessary to alienate and discriminate against a section of its own citizens.
I’m more than willing to discuss any topic with you, as I have demonstrated in this thread. I’m not willing to quietly endure your accusations of bigotry, your dismissal of honest, reasonable discussion as "the same old rehash of stuff," your comparisons to slavery, and especially, your criticism of our form of government and disregard for the will of the people, who still are supreme in this country, even when they don’t realize it. (Enough of us, acting together, can do anything we please, including abolishing our current system of government and establishing another.)
That’s “Hear, hear!” (As in, “Give ear to what he says!”)
You’re wrong about the rest of us being in the same boat as Trefor. No matter what any of us in the US do, it will not be binding upon the people of any other country. What you folks in Massachusetts do could very well be binding upon the people of every other State, and of the United States as a whole. I think you know that. If not, it has been adequately discussed previously in this thread.
your last paragraph is all I bothered to read as your the one who is confused in my opinion.
If allowed to marry homosexuals would have those same rightand LAWS concerning the family unit which are quite serious and often needed to maintain the welfare of the children and spouse in a lawful and fair manner.
Marriage of homosexuals would allow these same entitlements and laws to them as any other marriage is entitled. this is a reason they want to be legaly married .
mary and john adopt a child together .
john and tom can not .
John dies mary gets some nice social security check for herself and the children of that marriage.
John dies Tom recieves zero social security benefits for himself or the child they raised together.
John leaves mary for another mary nails him for child support and half the property .
John leaves Tom tom has the child an no child support and a lose of a major financial contribution to the family income.
Mary leaves John and takes the kid and in the divorce a plan is made to allow the child both parent equal time for the parent to fullfill their resposiblity and love for the child .
John leaves Tom and takes the child and no vistation orders are ordered by law and the child is now without his right to the other half of his family unit.
Tom has major medical insurance at his job but because it was John sperm they used in the surrogate parenting Tom is not the parent and is not married to John so benefits are denied to the family. no this is not the same as a step family as a step child has another parent. these are the parents of the child and the parents must go through additional court hearing and requsts to be given the same rights and laws any other parent would have in life.
these are just a few examples of the unfairness homosexual families must face.
if allowed to marry homosexuals would have the same laws and rights and entitlements married people have today .
[This message was edited by mj412 on February 13, 2004 at 21:27.]
Subscribers are encouraged to send this e-mail to others and/or print it in its entirety, without any changes, for noncommercial and nonpolitical use only. Because of the time-sensitive nature of the material published in this e-mail newsletter, subscribers are permitted to reprint individual articles in their entirety, without any changes, for noncommercial and nonpolitical use only. Individual articles must be accompanied by the author's byline, as well as the following copyright information:
For all other reprint requests, please send your request in writing to family-permission@custhelp.com or by fax at 719-531-3391.
CitizenLink does not regularly print letters to the editor, but if you would like to submit a comment or question, send it to citizenlink@family.org. PLEASE NOTE: Due to the volume of e-mails we receive, it is possible that we may not be able to respond to your e-mail.
If you would like further information on Family News in Focus stories, call (800) 782-8227..0
this is to help people hear what is the issue and to speak directly with those who will decide .
[This message was edited by mj412 on February 17, 2004 at 10:05.]
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
61
69
130
71
Popular Days
Feb 6
106
Feb 5
68
Feb 7
68
Feb 16
51
Top Posters In This Topic
mj412 61 posts
LG 69 posts
Trefor Heywood 130 posts
J0nny Ling0 71 posts
Popular Days
Feb 6 2004
106 posts
Feb 5 2004
68 posts
Feb 7 2004
68 posts
Feb 16 2004
51 posts
Popular Posts
Trefor Heywood
Mark: Federalism has met problems before and had to deal with them. The original framers could not cross every i nor dot every t nor foresee how things would develop in the future. It created prob
Zixar
Here's a link to an article by Card on the problem with courts legislating by decision: Cool New Rights Are Fine, But What About Democracy?
J0nny Ling0
Ok. Apparently Massachusetts is poised to move on with same sex marriage. First of all, and it may not surprise some of you, I am opposed to this. Since I don't live in Mass, however, it doesn't real
J0nny Ling0
Wow Zixar,
That's about as logical an argument as I have seen as far as opposition to same sex marriage is concerned. One of many good arguments, but perhaps the best reason of all. I started this thread, and I brought up a point that I thought should be a concern, in my first post. I brought it up a couple of more times, but only a few thought it as something to be concerned about, and maybe it's not such a big deal. But by what you have just said here, I see all the more reason to be against this whole thing. I have a wife and four kids, and I am thankful for the tax exemptions I get for my marital status and my kids.
And now, I thank all of you single people out there who carry an extra tax burdin in order to help perpetuate our society with educated and responsible kids who will grow up and carry theball when we all be "geezin". I pray to God daily that my wife and I are doing a good enough job as a parents. Hope we don't let all of you "single extra tax paying Citizens" down...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LG
Very good, Zixar.
The trade-off works well, IMO. The benefits flow both ways.
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
Long Gone: Exactly. Once you throw all the hysteria away on both sides, you see that it isn't about tolerance or acceptance, it's about a claim for a new publicly-funded entitlement.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Al Poole
I am a-mazed........
Doesn't anyone get it????
This is about MONEY!!!!!!!!!! The homosexual agenda is HEALTH CARE, surviviors estates, etc, it's about MONEY!!!!
You think health insurance is unaffordable now??? Wait till the cost of treating AIDS begins to be "spread". Oh yeah baby.... and before the ACTUAL costs are figured ... we'll be paying for the ESTIMATED costs...
Currently insurance compamies can exclude "pre-existing conditions" but when it's a "spouse" in a company policy... all bets are off.
Yeah.... and you can bet this is all a prelude to government sponsored universal health care... Brought to you by... the same folks that bring you:
the Post Office
the Court/justice system
airport security
your car tags
$10,000 toilet bowls
etc
etc
etc
Everything else said about "gay marriage" is SMOKE.... to incite emotions... it's all about MONEY.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mj412
what about the fact of enforcing child support and vistation when the union ends? Or social security if a parent dies? or family health benefits? marriage would allow these matters to addressed fairly and within the laws we have already .
I am not for same sex marriage yet these issues concern me and need to be addressed.
yes it is about money and if these resposibiliies can not be meant how many more will be entitled to medicade and welfare benefits ?
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
Al: Have you had a recent head injury? AIDS treatment is already covered by insurance.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
mj: If the child was legally adopted, your concerns are already covered under existing law.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LG
Even if the child is not legally adopted, mj's concerns are covered under existing law.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mj412
Zixar
the insurance is often one that is paid for by the state . esp if born with Aids , the US govt benefits are the only one who cover the outrageous long term expense of Aids . 'regular insurance runs out very quickly and often the person is not able to work and collect the social security money they get for having the diagnoses.
this allows them to be eleigble for gvt insurance from the state that has zero limits.
Hiv infection is when you start collecting the money and the treatments to keep you out of the Aids stage and death . we can treat HIV it is very expensive as the medicines and test. are almost in constant flux and change to keep up with the virus.
I have a friend who has been positive since 84 and never been in the hospital and his daughter who is 15 has never even been ill from a aids related illness. pretty good medicine here where I live tho we have a major university . both collect social security both have all meds paid for by the state dad works under the table to maintain their benefits.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Al Poole
Okay zix....
............... just watch
BTW... take a look at how much health care costs have risin ... lately... the last ten years have out-paced the previous 50 years.
makes you go hhhmmmmmmmmm?????
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mj412
what law enforces child support from a same sex partner?
social securtiy does not go to the same sex partner or a child as far as I know where do you guys think this? again additional court orders would have to be held it isnt a LAW! or a benefit.
where ? if a mom dies dad gets social security if a dad dies mom gets social security and the case of who has the children is not a question in same sex it is far more complex as only one parent has adopted or has the genes that make them a parent the other is left out in the cold.
What company do you know of that allows for medical benefits for a same sex partner? some do but very very few . many times the children have to be "legal" and in same sex marriages only ONE adopts or has common genes what if that isnt the one who has the job for the insurance? a man and wife get it because it is a family policy and it is assumed by either the man or the woman as a "family' policy.
you guys say that but it isnt true . It is not in the law that these children recieve the same benefits a hetrosexual family would get.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jezusfreaky
Al...
I beg to differ darlin'. Healthcare is big money no matter who's agenda it is. Every disease costs lots of money to treat; cancer, MS, muscular dystrophy, alzeimer's disease (sp), mental illness...and the list goes on and on. My son's meds for his ADHD would cost me $270 a month if it wasn't for good 'ol John Deere, and I still have a $35 co-pay for each med because there is no generic.
Also, in case you haven't seen any statistics lately, AIDS insn't the ''gay'' disease anymore, so to allude that it is is misinformation.
Peace.
Love y'all,
-Colleen
GO VOLS!!
''...show a little faith, there's magic in the night, you ain't a beauty, but hey, you're alright, oh, and that's alright with me...''
-Bruce Springsteen
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
If the partner is neither the biological parent nor the adoptive parent, child support is not legally required.
It's the same way with non-adopted stepchildren. The parent's new spouse is not obligated to pay child support in a divorce.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mj412
Right!
But a step child may have benefits from his dead parent or child support from the other parent. and vistation granted to keep the relationship intact! that is right see what iM saying now?
It leaves the children from these gay or lesbian families is a much more difficult place.
they do split and children are involved and it does get ugly as all break ups can . vistation from the only other parent and in some cases the primary care giver is not a law, grand parents aunts etc. child support and standard of living may decrease beyond a reasonable measure without child support enforcement. and medical benefits cannot be granted etc.
these are the only parents the child knows and it is their only family . They have in some cases no rights by law to see brothers or sisters they grew up with or the only other parent or family in their life! In a legal marriage these are considered rights by law and dealt with in a split. Children without these laws can not get the same rights our other children have and are left to the mercy of the fighting couple, and I feel this is a very serious issue .
I know many step parents fill the role of an absent parent but the other real parent still must by law uphold financial support and does have rights to the child. In homosexual relationships none of these laws are assumed and YET this is the ONLY other parent the child has a relationship with.
[This message was edited by mj412 on February 13, 2004 at 13:50.]
[This message was edited by mj412 on February 13, 2004 at 13:52.]
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
LG
mj412,
Again, you are confusing issues. Responsibility for child support does not depend on a relationship between adults. It depends on the relationship of an adult to a child. The same is true regarding visitation rights, health insurance coverage of children, and social security survivor’s benefits to children. All of those are already covered by existing law and practice, and none of them depend upon current or former marital status. Marriage gives no inherent rights or responsibilities regarding someone else’s children. (See examples below.)
Example 1: John has two young children. Mary has two young children. John and Mary marry, and share parental responsibilities, but neither adopts the other’s children. Ten years later, John and Mary divorce, having never had a child together. All the children are still minors. John has no rights or responsibilities regarding Mary’s children, and Mary has no rights or responsibilities regarding John’s children. John’s children have no rights regarding Mary’s children, and vice versa.
Example 2: Jake has two young children. Mike has two young children. Jake and Mark live together, as partners in a homosexual relationship, and share parental responsibilities, but neither adopts the other’s children. Ten years later, they break up. All the children are still minors. Jake has no rights or responsibilities regarding Mike’s children, and Mike has no rights or responsibilities regarding Jake’s children. Jake’s children have no rights regarding Mike’s children, and vice versa.
Regarding rights and responsibilities towards or of the children, it makes no difference that John and Mary are heterosexual and Jake and Mike are homosexual. It also makes no difference that John and Mary were married and Jake and Mike were not. It also makes no difference whether or not the mother of John, Jake, or Mike’s children or the father of Mary’s children, is still living or still involved in any way. The issues in both examples are identical, and neither sexual preference nor marriage changes them. They’d be the same if John, or any other of the parent’s respective children were adopted, rather than biological. The only thing that would change the issues would be for one parent to adopt the children of another parent.
Spousal benefits, what few there are, are a different matter. They are perquisites of marriage, granted by society, as a support for an institution that is a benefit to society. They aren’t something to which everyone is inherently entitled.
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Trefor Heywood
Long Gone:
I was not aware that GS was the exclusive preserve of Americans or that non-American people were not allowed to make comments.
Well tough s**t. No passports or visas are required here to be able to debate what is an important topic for all my gay brothers and sisters who are Americans.
If you want to comment on our system you can do so, it's no skin off my nose.
Thanks no doubt to TWI I have long been interested in America and things American. We no doubt get much more news over here about what is happening over there than the other way around.
No doubt I should tell Tony Blair to immediately withdraw all co-operation and support to the USA because you wish to revert to being isolationist?
That post was just so childish - grow up.
Trefor Heywood
"Cymru Am Byth!"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mstar1
Here Here Trefor
I havent weighed in on this here and probably wont, but I have to wonder how many of these people are actually Massachusetts taxpayers like myself. Few I would would venture a guess, and that puts you all in the same boat
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Trefor Heywood
The posts about children I will leave to those who want to argue about them.
I don't believe that is the prime issue regarding same sex marriage as many partners would be couples rather than families,
The argument about money I find to be cynical, whereas money may be involved, it is still the issues of legal recognitions and protections. I have seen enough heterosexual marriages that are all about money and enough where the bearing and raising of children was not the intent.
I could argue civil fairness until I am blue in the face but verily it falleth upon deaf ears.
It is such a pity that heterosexual and religious majority rule feels it necessary to alienate and discriminate against a section of its own citizens.
Sometimes I am really glad I am not an American.
Trefor Heywood
"Cymru Am Byth!"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Trefor Heywood
A good point mstar1 - when people don't like it then it is a national issue and yet when people do like it it a state's rights issue.
Having your nose closer to the ground than many of us you may well be better enfranchised to keep some people the the original topic of the thread.
Trefor Heywood
"Cymru Am Byth!"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LG
Trefor,
I’m more than willing to discuss any topic with you, as I have demonstrated in this thread. I’m not willing to quietly endure your accusations of bigotry, your dismissal of honest, reasonable discussion as "the same old rehash of stuff," your comparisons to slavery, and especially, your criticism of our form of government and disregard for the will of the people, who still are supreme in this country, even when they don’t realize it. (Enough of us, acting together, can do anything we please, including abolishing our current system of government and establishing another.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LG
mstar1,
That’s “Hear, hear!” (As in, “Give ear to what he says!”)
You’re wrong about the rest of us being in the same boat as Trefor. No matter what any of us in the US do, it will not be binding upon the people of any other country. What you folks in Massachusetts do could very well be binding upon the people of every other State, and of the United States as a whole. I think you know that. If not, it has been adequately discussed previously in this thread.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mj412
Long gone
your last paragraph is all I bothered to read as your the one who is confused in my opinion.
If allowed to marry homosexuals would have those same rightand LAWS concerning the family unit which are quite serious and often needed to maintain the welfare of the children and spouse in a lawful and fair manner.
Marriage of homosexuals would allow these same entitlements and laws to them as any other marriage is entitled. this is a reason they want to be legaly married .
mary and john adopt a child together .
john and tom can not .
John dies mary gets some nice social security check for herself and the children of that marriage.
John dies Tom recieves zero social security benefits for himself or the child they raised together.
John leaves mary for another mary nails him for child support and half the property .
John leaves Tom tom has the child an no child support and a lose of a major financial contribution to the family income.
Mary leaves John and takes the kid and in the divorce a plan is made to allow the child both parent equal time for the parent to fullfill their resposiblity and love for the child .
John leaves Tom and takes the child and no vistation orders are ordered by law and the child is now without his right to the other half of his family unit.
Tom has major medical insurance at his job but because it was John sperm they used in the surrogate parenting Tom is not the parent and is not married to John so benefits are denied to the family. no this is not the same as a step family as a step child has another parent. these are the parents of the child and the parents must go through additional court hearing and requsts to be given the same rights and laws any other parent would have in life.
these are just a few examples of the unfairness homosexual families must face.
if allowed to marry homosexuals would have the same laws and rights and entitlements married people have today .
[This message was edited by mj412 on February 13, 2004 at 21:27.]
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
LG
mj412,
If you won't bother reading, I won't bother responding. Bye.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mj412
Massachusetts Marriage Debate Dead Ends
by Gary Schneeberger, editor
SUMMARY: Lawmakers end two-day, 18-hour session with more
work to do on preserving the traditional definition of
marriage.
BOSTON -- The Massachusetts Legislature ended more than 18
hours of debate over two days early this morning without
arriving at a decision on allowing their constituents to
have a say in how marriage is defined in the Bay State.
Lawmakers adjourned the constitutional convention that
began Wednesday, during which time they were to consider
the Marriage Affirmation and Protection Amendment, just
after midnight without actually ever discussing that
measure. In fact, liberals ensured the session ended in
gridlock by launching a filibuster for the last hour of
Thursday's debate.
The convention is scheduled to reconvene March 11 to
continue consideration of how best to answer last
November's Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC)
ruling that denying homosexual couples marriage licenses
violates the state constitution.
Speaker of the House Thomas Finneran, considered an ally
of pro-family activists on this issue, said it's not
surprising a final resolution has yet to be reached.
"No one should expect that decisions of this magnitude
would be made casually or quickly," he said. "Our efforts
will continue."
But Ron Crews, president of the Massachusetts Family
Institute and chief spokesman of the Coalition for
Marriage, said he was "very disappointed" that lawmakers
have at least temporarily ignored the thousands of people
who have made it clear they want to vote to protect the
traditional definition of marriage as the union of one
man and one woman.
"A lot of citizens are going to wake up (today) very upset
because their legislators haven't done what they were
elected to do," Crews told CitizenLink. "This was very
clearly an attempt by the (Legislature's) leadership to
prevent members of this body from voting on the 'Ma & Pa.'
"
Not only was the 'Ma & Pa' -- the colloquial name for the
Marriage Affirmation and Protection Amendment -- not voted
on, it wasn't even discussed. Instead, debate over the
course of the convention's two days centered on four
alternative proposals, three of which were voted down by
slim majorities of the joint session of the House and
Senate. Passage of amendment language would be the first
step to a statewide ballot question in 2006.
Each of the alternative measures mentioned in some fashion
civil unions -- either explicitly creating them as the
equivalent of traditional marriage in the constitution or
noting that the Legislature could, at a later date, choose
to enact them separately. Such efforts were designed to
appease pro-gay pressure groups and lawmakers who support
special rights for homosexuals, who contended that the Ma
& Pa, by simply restricting marriage to the union of a man
and a woman, would forever outlaw any legal recognition of
same-sex unions by any other name.
Two civil-unions proposals -- one from Finneran (which
said the Legislature would consider such arrangements at a
later date) and one from Senate President Robert
Travaglini (which would have created civil unions in the
constitution), were defeated Wednesday; a third, from Rep.
Philip Travis, the sponsor of the 'Ma & Pa,' was defeated
103-96 on Thursday.
Ironically enough, homosexual activist groups opposed all
three proposals, arguing that anything less than full
marital rights left them as victims of discrimination.
Travis, whose compromise proposal simply would have said
that nothing in the bill would "require or prohibit civil
unions in Massachusetts," grew increasingly frustrated as
Thursday wore on and it became clear his colleagues were
moving toward adjournment without agreeing to put any
measure before the voters.
"I will not you get off the hook on the question of
marriage," he vowed in a speech from the floor of the
House chamber. "You will not escape the wrath of the
general public. You will not be able to face them when you
go back home."
The only constituents lawmakers had to face inside the
State House, in the immediate wake of their vote to
adjourn, was a throng of nearly 200 homosexual activists
who spent the majority of the day Thursday clogging the
main hallway outside the House chamber while chanting
slogans like "No Discrimination" and singing such songs as
"The Star-Spangled Banner" and "This Land is Your Land."
Pro-family activists, who gathered in impressive numbers
Wednesday, were in short supply Thursday -- their absence
explained by one protest organization as a function of
their only being able to take one day off of work to
monitor the proceedings. A handful prayed quietly in the
State House basement.
Had they been paying attention to the chaos upstairs, much
of what they would have heard would have surely upset
them. Lawmakers favoring full marriage rights for
homosexuals chewed up the lion's share of Thursday's
debate time, equating the denial of such rights to
everything from the enslavement of blacks to the policies
of Nazi Germany to the moral milieu of the novel "The
Scarlet Letter." An openly lesbian representative
philosophized on how marriage, historically, has been an
"evolutionary creation." And another gay-marriage
supporter questioned the wisdom of letting the people vote
on such an emotionally charged issue, noting that when
Pontius Pilate tried that approach the people demanded he
free Barabbas instead of Jesus.
One of the sole bright spots for those with a traditional
view of marriage and family was Rep. Marie Parente,
D-Milford, one of the senior members of the House, who
chided fellow lawmakers for saying that it was improper to
debate the issue from a religious perspective. In fact,
stories about racism and sexism and all sorts of other
-isms, she said, only underscore the need for God.
"Men fail -- that's why we need to talk about God once in
awhile," she explained. "When I was a child, there was a
guy who went to school with me every day, and He never
failed me. But I'm not even supposed to say His name to
you in here."
When Parente and her colleagues reconvene the
constitutional convention next month, the matter before
them will be a fourth civil-unions compromise measure, one
that establishes such arrangements as providing "entirely
the same benefits, protections, rights and
responsibilities that are afforded to couples married
under Massachusetts law." That's language the Coalition
for Marriage cannot support, Crews said, although he added
he has some hope Travis' original amendment might still be
heard.
"We now have a recorded vote on this matter, so we know a
little better now who is with us and who we need to talk
to," he said. "We have some work to do over the next
month, but I believe that this will be a wake-up call to
some people out there who are concerned about the family."
TAKE ACTION: It is more important than ever that the
members of the Massachusetts Legislature here from Bay
State residents about the importance of preserving the
traditional definition of marriage.
1) Call and e-mail Massachusetts state lawmakers and tell
them to let the people vote on the Marriage Affirmation
and Protection Amendment. If you live in Massachusetts,
you can compose an e-mail that will be sent to your
members of the Legislature at:
http://capwiz.com/fof/mail/oneclick_compose/?alertid=4194006
All Americans, though, have a stake in this issue, because
if the court's decision stands, homosexual couples from
any state who receive marriage licenses in Massachusetts
could demand that their home states recognize those
so-called marriages. So, no matter where you live, if you
want to send e-mail to Massachusetts lawmakers. You can do
that at:
http://www.family.org/cforum/feature/A0028893.cfm
You will be taken to a list of e-mail addresses you can
copy and paste into an e-mail, allowing you to reach every
legislator with one e-mail. Additionally, Massachusetts
residents and all Americans should also call the state's
lawmakers. To reach a lawmaker's Capitol office, call the
Capitol switchboard at 617-722-2000 and ask for the
senator or representative by name. You can find district
office phone numbers at:
http://www.family.org/cforum/feature/A0028892.cfm
2) You also can contact your U.S. congressman and senators
and urge them to support a marriage-protection amendment
to the U.S. Constitution. For complete information about
the Federal Marriage Amendment, including sample e-mails
you can send to your elected officials in light of last
Tuesday's court ruling in Massachusetts, please see the
Stop Judicial Tyranny Action Center:
http://www.family.org/cforum/judicial_tyra...tion.cfm?pt=fma
===================
Gary Schneeberger
Editor
Pete Winn
Associate Editor
Trish Amason
Editorial Coordinator
Peter Brandt
Director, Issues Response
Tom Minnery
Vice President, Public Policy
Don Hodel
President and CEO, Focus on the Family
Dr. James C. Dobson
Founder and Chairman, Focus on the Family
---------------------------------
Copyright © 2004, Focus on the Family. All rights reserved. International copyright secured. CitizenLink is a policy and culture information service of Focus on the Family, a ministry sustained by the contributions and prayers of supporters. This e-mail may not be used for commercial or political purposes.
Subscribers are encouraged to send this e-mail to others and/or print it in its entirety, without any changes, for noncommercial and nonpolitical use only. Because of the time-sensitive nature of the material published in this e-mail newsletter, subscribers are permitted to reprint individual articles in their entirety, without any changes, for noncommercial and nonpolitical use only. Individual articles must be accompanied by the author's byline, as well as the following copyright information:
"Copyright © 2004, Focus on the Family. All rights reserved. International copyright secured. This article appeared in CitizenLink Daily Update published (date), a policy and culture information service of Focus on the Family. For more information, see www.citizenlink.org."
For all other reprint requests, please send your request in writing to family-permission@custhelp.com or by fax at 719-531-3391.
CitizenLink does not regularly print letters to the editor, but if you would like to submit a comment or question, send it to citizenlink@family.org. PLEASE NOTE: Due to the volume of e-mails we receive, it is possible that we may not be able to respond to your e-mail.
If you would like further information on Family News in Focus stories, call (800) 782-8227..0
this is to help people hear what is the issue and to speak directly with those who will decide .
[This message was edited by mj412 on February 17, 2004 at 10:05.]
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.