Same sex marriage-Massachusetts

[Trefor Heywood]

Long Gone:

I do not accept that the criticism you have made of my posts is valid. When I said "same old stuff" it is because the same aruments have been rehearsed over and over upon this thread. You could equally claim that the refutations I have made of them is "the same old stuff" too. I equally have tried to make reasoned arugments.

I have never equated the gay rights issue with slavery - I have simply pointed out that slavery was another one of those issues which took a long time to resolve, with Americans on both sides of the issue who were equally sure of their theological and political correctness.

I have not criticised your system of Government, I have made observations of how it holds certain issues in tension and how it can be used to perpetuate certain problems. That is far from unique to the USA, at least you have a written Constitution and are citizens and not subjects.

It may surprise you to know but in me the USA has a friend. Something you cannot even assume from some of your fellow citizens.

I have yet to meet an American who can name all 50 State Capitals.

I can.

Trefor Heywood

"Cymru Am Byth!"

[Pirate1974]

Scenes from San Francisco where 665 same-sex couples were "married" on Thursday and Friday, defying California state law that only recognizes marriage between a man and a woman.

Whether or not these "marriages" are valid will be up to the courts to decide, I guess.

Some of these couples were in their 80s and have been together more than 50 years. Not long ago, I would have been 100% against this, but now I'm not so sure. Why should I really care?

I don't pretend to understand this one bit, but I can't see it being the end of civilization as we know it, as some seem to think.

[mstar1]

well longgone ---its all sort of a joke around here to see all these crazies from elsewhere wanting to change my states constitution.

Even the Freaking president, who thinks it is OK to invade a country on false pretenses, killing thousands, weighed in thinking it wrong people of the same sex should enter into a loving marriage..

.OOOOOOOOO KKKKKKKKK-whatever you say---but he and alot of these people were never big on honoring or upholding the constitution or giving respect to people other than those who are within their narrow camp, so what else would I expect, its just sort of a scary joke at how inconsistant, foolish and transparently antiamerican people can be.

The Mass constitution states that all are equal under the law. If other states think it in their best interest to live under a discriminatory system, where one class of people is by definition better and more entitled than another -- then have at it ---in yourstate --reinstitute 3/5ths of a vote for blacks,or make other laws making discrimination legal. I thought as a nation we had moved beyond that but apparently not or at least not in some quarters..

For all the ridiculous arguments and loopholes on these pages its all a simple matter of right and wrong, gays and lesbians are full fledged contributing members of society as much as any other and deserve to be recognized and rewarded equally with all others.

All the other arguments are smoke and mirror distractions that only exist to self justify the narrow.

Take care of business in your own house, dont come in and mess with mine.

[LG]

Well, mj, I see you went back and added a lot to your previous post, so I will now respond.

Same sex couples have adopted in at least 20 States, plus the District of Columbia. In not one of those cases were the couples married, but in every case, both partners had full parental rights and responsibilities regarding the subject children, and all subject children had the same rights to dependent and survivor benefits as children of a heterosexual marriage.

I’ll leave it to you to draw whatever conclusions you will.

[LG]

Trefor,

I never questioned your friendship with the USA. I did question the propriety of some of your statements. Perhaps I misunderstood.

[LG]

quote:

---

Originally posted by mstar1:

Take care of business in your own house, dont come in and mess with mine.

---

I wouldn't dream of messing with Massachusetts' business. Massachusetts has every right to marry whomever Massachusetts wishes to marry. The same is true for other States. What Massachusetts does is of concern for people of other States only because it forces the issue of honoring same-sex marriages upon them, and will shortly force the issue of performing same-sex marriages upon them. (There will be lawsuits to force just those issues in several States, and in federal courts, very soon. I predict that several will be filed within 6 months.)

This may have been lost in all the discussion, but I don't care that much about the specific issue of same-sex marriage. Some associated issues interest me much more.

Edited February 14, 2004 by Guest

[mj412]

I do not look into what other states have applied , NY is large enough for me to try to keep track of really, and it sounds like it is a needed thing to take care of the children . If allowed to marry it would be universal and an automatic thing .

I think Trefor is right tho, we do discriminate against same sex unions, bottom line Long Gone the REASON Homosexuals want to be married is not as much about religion as it is for the benefits married people recieve in this country which are numerous and they can not .

I think if it was just about What God thinks or religous freedom, Homosexual would do as every other group does and make their own church or sect and worship as they see fit and get married in it and carry on .

Because 20 states have modified adoption laws to fit same sex unions does not lessen the FACT we do discriminate against Gay parents and unions, we do.

They do not have equal rights or laws applied to them as a married couple does .

The question is really is it against the constiution of our Country to do this isnt it?

In my opinion it is not .

but we as a nation do discriminate by saying they can not legaly marry and with that discrimination we withhold the priviledges and entitlements being married has for us by LAW.

Trefor

It is difficult for someone from another country to understand the "spirit" of freedom America allows its people. Looking in it may appear we pick and chose who is right and wrong in a manner that is hurtful to the minority, but I regard my country as one of the largest giving Nations of this earth. America is powerful because of its people which is who choses how we live.

Our process allows the people to speak ( and then some if you ask me) and we have a system that works for the people. Problems? yes and they will never end in the constant debate of the New Country Called America because we are making a country of and for the people it must constantly change ideas and laws and such because we as a people grow and change. I love America and its govt. and its people who make it so.

[wyteduv58]

MJ, I agree with most of what you said but I don't beleive the people have the say about our country. Its the polititions who think they have our say, thats why they will say anything to get elected. But on the other hand its my country and I love it. Wouldn't want to be anywhere else on earth. Now if we could hook all polititions up to lie detector thingys then let em debate or give thier little speaches we would have a better idea of where they actually stand not where they say they stand, give em a little shock everytime they lie. lol

Dovey....proud owner of two low riders...Dovey's Doxies...... too dumb to post pics http://gscafe.com/groupee/forums?s=9716057...a&ul=4846073735

[mj412]

another problem is the peoples resposibility to educate themselves about who thinks what in political circles and to vote as a personal responsibility instead of party .

it can be done ya know.

But as far as thinking I believe the American people may be the most informed about the choices our nation face if we chose to be educated . I see the process as an individual citizen responsibility now but did not always recognize this as what will be our contribution to making it happen.

uh oh sorry johnny if this is derailing your thread..

[J0nny Ling0]

No problem, it's interesting...

[Tom Strange]

hey Tref! I can...

I'm on the outside, looking inside, what do I see? Much confusion, disillusion, all around me.

[J0nny Ling0]

I can too. So can my kids, and my brothers daughters can tell us all of the different states' logos...

[J0nny Ling0]

I can too, and so can my kids. My brothers daughters can also name each one of the States' logos. Utah, the beehive state, North Dakota, the Peace Garden State, etc...

[wyteduv58]

MJ, I vote for who I hope and think will be the best pres. not for any party. And I do try to keep myself informed to the best of my ability which may not be as good as yours, but I do try and try with the help of God. We may not know for sure who's best but God sure does. Thanks for your input MJ, love reading some of your posts.

Dovey....proud owner of two low riders...Dovey's Doxies...... too dumb to post pics http://gscafe.com/groupee/forums?s=9716057...a&ul=4846073735

[wyteduv58]

My daughter can not only name all the states and territories but can do it in alphabetical order. :D--> :P-->

MJ, my dear maybe we women folks should run for pres. eh I'll nominate you. You seem smart enough to do the job and I'll even work on your campaign in whatever position you want me too! :D--> :P--> woo woo

What about it girl, you up to it. lol

Dovey....proud owner of two low riders...Dovey's Doxies...... too dumb to post pics http://gscafe.com/groupee/forums?s=9716057...a&ul=4846073735

Edited February 15, 2004 by Guest

[Linda Z]

After all this discussion (and I've listened with an open mind to all reasonable arguments from both sides of this issue), I simply do not see how granting this right or privilege or whatever anyone wants to call it is going to weaken the fabric of our society. As long as heterosexuals retain their right to marry, I don't see what difference it makes if homosexuals are allowed to do the same.

If two people, of any sexual orientation, want to make a lifelong commitment like marriage, I think that's a good thing, and they should be able to do it legally, just like anyone else.

To people's religious objections, I'd have to say, don't go to a church that allows gay couples to attend. Problem solved. I understand where you're coming from, because I was once there. I have not thrown out my Bible by any means--just my black-and-white, fundamentalist, "I have all the answers" view of it.

My conclusion after all this discussion is that if you're against same-sex marriage, then don't marry someone of your gender, and let those people alone who want to do so. I'm sure they'll be happy to leave you alone, too.

I understand why the slavery comparison has come up here. I'm sure the good people of Georgia and South Carolina were pretty miffed, along with the northern slave owners, that the gov't outlawed their right to own another human being. Too bad. Although slavery was not an identical situation to what we're discussing, I think there are many legitimate parallels.

When my mom was a little girl in Arkansas, my great-grandfather used to drag her quickly across the street if they encountered a black person walking on "their" side. He was an honorable man in other ways, but he was blinded by the belief that black people weren't really quite human, that they were defective somehow.

Old taboos die hard, but thank God there's hope that they'll die eventually.

Linda Z

[LG]

Linda,

This post is not to argue for or against civil marriage of same-sex couples. I don’t much care about that, per se. If the people want to establish it, that’s fine by me. I just want to comment on one thing you brought up.

It is already perfectly legal for two people, regardless of gender or sexual orientation, to make a lifelong commitment like marriage. It is perfectly legal for them to formalize that commitment through a religious or non-religious ceremony, and for them and any other people to consider that commitment to be a marriage. The issue is state recognition of that commitment as a civil marriage.

Edited February 15, 2004 by Guest

[dmiller]

I have yet to meet an American who can name all 50 State Capitals.

I can.

Trefor Heywood

"Cymru Am Byth!"

Trefor -- Probably cause you haven't travelled over the "big pond" and taken the time to do so.:D--> :D--> :D-->

Many of us can.

[mj412]

Excuse me really excuse ME!~

comparing slavery to homosexual marriage?

I do not think so.

In the battle GETTYSBURG 53,000 men died.

WHITE MEN mostly as few slaves were free and even fewer allowed to fight this was a battle of man standing on what is wrong and right for ALL men .

53,000 died for a cause in ONE BATTLE and the war raged on for two more years after that.

This same sex marriage ideal is not a battle of freedom this is a battle of behaviours and money and if our NATION is built on the premise of IN GOD WE TRUST (why did we come to this new country? anyone remember? here?)

THIS will not break our founding Fathers vision of a country that will fight for the GOOD of ALL MEN, not just a select few as that is exactly where we came from! that is why we left the kings rule. geez

I know I get emotional I do but so few recognize this baby countrys history and strength and ride these emotional thoughts of reasoning , without considering what it means to our great UNION ! We must not allow it to break down , it is our country our land our voice .

In God we do trust I still believe it .

do you?

Edited February 15, 2004 by Guest

[dmiller]

My daughter can not only name all the states and territories but can do it in alphabetical order.

WyteDuv ---- In ALPHABETICAL ORDER????? !!!

I am impressed!!

[dmiller]

WhyteDuv --- makes me believe in America AGAIN

[This message was edited by dmiller on February 15, 2004 at 15:05.]

Edited February 15, 2004 by Guest

[Trefor Heywood]

Naturally I am pleased that some Americans can! :D-->

None of them appeared on The Weakest Link USA !

Trefor Heywood

"Cymru Am Byth!"

[Trefor Heywood]

quote:

---

From Rabbi Michael Lerner

A Bimonthly Jewish & Interfaith Critique of Politics, Culture & Society

Jan/Feb 2004 || http://www.tikkun.org

Gay Marriage

------------------------------------------------------------------------

A recent Massachusetts Supreme Court ruling that insists on equal marriage rights for gays and lesbians may prove to be a huge gift for the Bush re-election campaign, allowing fears of "gay marriage" to propel many Americans back into support for an Administration whose war and economic policies have lost support. The challenge for those of us who support equal rights for homosexuals is to figure out a way to acknowledge and speak compassionately to people's underlying fears while simultaneously rejecting the homophobia in which these fears manifest.

The fears that arise in relation to gay marriage are many: the collapse of traditions that have provided a bulwark against the ethos of the competitive marketplace (marriage seen as a last vestige of an ethos of love that counters the "look out for number one" common sense of contemporary capitalism); the rejection of responsibility for raising the next generation; the fear of being soft in a world that requires toughness; the fear of pleasure in a world that requires discipline. It's not enough to point out that the desire for gay marriage comes from those who seek to bolster rather than undermine the tradition, that gays and lesbians are increasingly involved in raising the next generation and that's why they want the protections of hetero families, that the toughness and discipline required in the contemporary world are distorting factors that hurt all of us and need to be overcome (and, incidentally, that those distortions are just as prevalent in gay culture as in the cultures and lifestyles of heteros). The fears will only dissipate with a deeper societal healing process.

Replacing the language of "marriage" with "civil unions" may bring temporary relief, but the underlying issues will continue to fester until we develop a serious strategy to challenge and cure persistent American homophobia. Liberals' failure to do so and their dishonest attempts to avoid the issue ("don't ask, don't tell") may soon explode in our faces‹in the November 2004 elections.

---

Thought I should post a few viewpoints I have found from those who are both pro gay marriage and American....

Trefor Heywood

"Cymru Am Byth!"

[Trefor Heywood]

quote:

---

The way I see it, the fight over same-sex marriage will ultimately end in one of two conclusions. Either same-sex marriage will

eventually become legal across the entire US, or there will be of necessity an amendment to the US Constitution banning its

recognition. The first scenario will be the legal recognition that gay people are entitled to the same equal human rights (including

marriage) as straight people, regardless of how the straight community considers them. The second will trashcan the very basis of

American justice and equality. It goes back to the very reason the Massachusetts Supreme Court decided the way it did, the US

Constitutional provision of equal treatment under the law. Such a ban would be nothing less than the legally defining of an entire class

of people as second-class citizens, which would bring all the evils of such degradation.

So why is the gay community seeking to get the right to marry, when the consequences of failure are so dire? Certainly it's not so

that they can share in the 50% divorce rate that typifies straight marriage. Rather, it's for the same reason that they went after the

sodomy laws, because the very existence of these laws have been used time and again to rationalize all manner of discriminatory

legislation and court rulings against gays, from child custody cases to employment and housing issues.

I have to wonder why so many straight people are so irrationally horrified at the idea of allowing two people of the same sex to get

married. Would that prospect in any way make a straight-married person think anything less of their own marriage? I doubt it. Truth is,

same-sex marriage would have no adverse affect whatsoever on either straight marriage or society in general. After all, the

Netherlands didn't collapse after they approved gay marriage. Neither did Canada crumble after they legalized it. In fact NOTHING

happened! So what's the problem here? Is this a tempest in a teapot or what?

Some may think that marriage is a religious institution. If that were true, we'd get marriage licenses from the local minister, priest, or

rabbi. Instead, marriage licenses are issued by the clerk-of-courts, which is a legal, not religious entity. So just what are straight

people trying to "defend" marriage from anyway? Aren't they really trying to defend their own hatred and bigotry?

Truth is, you can't have it both ways. You can't profess equality for all, and then discriminate against some. Amending the

Constitution would be a repudiation of those founding principles that have been the heart of America. It would be the first time in

history that such a designation of second-class citizenship has ever been INSERTED into the Constitution. Should that happen, the

America we true Americans all know and love would cease to exist. It would be a sad day indeed.

---

From "Mark" in the "matthewshepperd" yahoo group.

Trefor Heywood

"Cymru Am Byth!"

[Trefor Heywood]

quote:

---

By Terrence McNally, Four-time Tony Award winner Terrence McNally's new

play, "The Stendhal Syndrome," opens Monday off-Broadway.

Los Angeles Time

February 13, 2004

Just before Christmas, my partner, Tom Kirdahy, and I went to Vermont to get

married. It was high time. We'd been together for more than two years, and

we were confident and happy in our love.

We thought that it was time to notarize our bliss and maybe flaunt it a bit

as well. After all, our "civil union" was featured in the Sunday New York

Times Style section, right next to Sen. John Warner's fifth or sixth attempt

at getting it right. My Shallow Hal side exulted: Surely our two names, so

definitely masculine, would attract Elizabeth Taylor's eye as she read about

an ex, and she would read about us!

It was a five-hour drive and a pleasant one, but we could not help wondering

why the state where we live and work (and pay taxes) does not recognize our

desire to be a loving, committed and legal couple. Neither does our federal

government. In their eyes, we are marginal people and consequently entitled

only to marginal rights. It is as if we asked for a driver's license, passed

the written and driving tests with flying colors (you should see us

parallel-park!) and were issued a permanent learner's permit instead. We

drive as well as Dick and Jane (definitely better than Dick), but that was

not the point.

You're different from Dick and Jane. You're both men. Duh! All right then,

Tom and Terrence, marriage is a profound and deeply spiritual institution.

Committed relationships are the bedrock of a society. We couldn't agree

more. That's why we went to Vermont. Boys, you still don't understand. Dick

and Jane are a man and a woman, and marriage is a sacred contract between a

man and a woman. Who says? Their dog Spot? No, God. Oh, Him.

At this point I throw up my hands and say if we are going to have an

intelligent dialogue about this issue of "gay" marriage, we have got to keep

Him out of it.

My God, you see, delights in my relationship with Tom. He sees that we are

happy, and that makes Him happy. Buddha said the meaning of life was "to be

happy," and my God, essentially the one with the robes and long white beard,

totally agrees.

Separation of church and state is a fundamental tenet of the American

experience. That it is being challenged everywhere is apparent to even the

most casual citizen of this country, and people like Tom and me refuse to

stand silently by while we and others of our "persuasion" and "orientation"

(how I loathe the euphemisms that litter this debate) are denied the same

rights as Dick and Jane and their healthy heterosexual appetites — all in

the name of some God and some religion. And please, what about my healthy

homosexual appetites? I can't conjure up others just to qualify for a

marriage certificate.

No, the name of this game is homophobia. I know the Falwells and Bushes of

the world say they hate the sin and not the sinner, but that is just so much

hogwash. I know it, they know it, let's just admit it. They don't like

liberal Democrats either, but they allow them to marry and even multiply.

They reserve a special detestation for people like Tom and me.

In the mid-1970s I wrote a farce called "The Ritz." It took place in a gay

bathhouse. It played on Broadway to packed houses for more than a year. It

was filmed by Warner Bros. In it there was a line that I regretted having to

write but I believed to be true. Unfortunately, 30 years later I still do.

The character who spoke it was called Chris. He was a "flamer" but a pretty

tough customer too. If he thought you were looking at him "funny" he'd be in

your face before you had time to look away. He was in ACT UP before the AIDS

epidemic started.

"I'll tell you something about straight people," he said to a heterosexual

man who had wandered into the bathhouse by mistake and was doing his best to

be tolerant of the queers and perverts who were suddenly in the majority.

"And sometimes I think it's the only thing worth knowing about them. They

don't like gay people. They never have, they never will. Anything else you

say about them is just talk."

F. Murray Abraham spoke the line brilliantly: tough and straight to the

point. He didn't try to sell or soften it. I always expected the straight

members of the audience — and after the first weeks of the run they were

definitely in the majority — to walk out or shout back when this line was

spoken. But they sat there and took it — this deadly, scathing line in the

middle of a farce. So maybe there was some truth in it.

I said it was a line I regretted having to write 30 years ago. I regret even

more repeating it now. But if it looks, talks and smells like homophobia —

and that is exactly what this Defense of Marriage stuff does — then I say it

is homophobia, and let's talk about it in these most basic of terms.

Refusing gay men and women the right to marry is reinforcing the same deadly

concepts that we have been raised on: that we are simply not as good as

everyone else. That my love for Tom is less than your love for Dick or Jane.

Why? Because. Most nice people won't say "because you and Tom are gay and if

we allow you to marry we're saying your relationship is as valid as ours."

Isn't it? "No, not really. This is the sacred institution of marriage we're

talking about. Allow you guys to get married, and we're opening the

floodgates of depravity."

Our president has threatened to amend the Constitution to prevent the likes

of Tom and me getting married. In that sad and, I hope, unlikely event, it

is the floodgates of naked bigotry, not immorality, that will be opened.

Tom and I are married in our eyes. We ask you to respect and honor that in

every legal detail. Nothing less, nothing more. Get to know us, you might

even like us, too, but let's keep our priorities in the proper order.

Next stop, Massachusetts.

---

Trefor Heywood

"Cymru Am Byth!"