"No, this mayor wasn't just interpreting the Law incorrectly, which is a job that should be left to the Judicial branch of California government, he flat out broke the Law by handing out marriage certificates to Citizens who did not qualify un der California Law. "
It actually raises a number of interesting points and questions. A few people here were very upset by the Mass. ruling because it in a sense, imposed a law upon other states instead of allowing each state to decide for themselves.
But what about the residents of a city, within a state, who do not want the state to impose a law upon them?
I know how the arrangments work, federal, state and city, no one needs to explain it to me. But the point is, we all at times have laws imposed upon us we don't like. Others would like to see more laws than those which currently exist. This is exactly why the federal government does attempt to have some uniformity within the legal system. Otherwise, we have exactly what is happening in California right now, a city rebelling against its own state. A form of civil disobedience.
"Let's thumb our nose at the Law, do what we want, no matter how the Majority votes! "
Awe come on Jonny, are you trying to convince me you've never thumbed your nose at the law? Never smoked a little weed? Drank a little beer before you were of age? Drove faster than the speed limit?
BTW, civil disobedience is in large part what brought about equal rights for African Americans. Were they just thumbing their noses at the law? Would you have also told them to shove it where the sun don't shine?
To every man his own truth and his own God within.
First, (not to you Abigail, but for others who may not know) the state is the sovereign, not a city, county, or township.
If they choose to engage in civil disobedience then they, like the civil rights protesters of the 1950s and 1960s, need to be willing to accept the consequences of their actions.
There is one big difference between the civil rights protesters of the last century and the current battle...the civil rights protesters had the 15th Amendment of the Constitution on their side. Clearly. I don't see anywhere in the US Constitution that guarantees people their rights regardless of their sexual preference or activity. That is why I advocate an amendment to append sexual preference or proclivity as a basis for non-discrimination specified in the 15th Amendment. In this way, up or down, it can be voted on. Then there will be some law to back this movement up.
I was watching one of the news shows with a huge big man who was in the NFL and was homosexual .
He had a boyfriend the whole time but they had to keep it a secret he won one of the fancy rings (I do not do football excuse my ignorance ) and his partner could not be at the ceremony, they could not talk on the cell phone afraid someone would over hear.
Why? he said he had no doubt an "accident" playing the game would take him out of the game forever if his team mates found out . He would get hurt badly.
this dude was as mucho as they come a NFL player big tough man , he frankly said he kept his relationship with his boyfriend a secret because he was convinced the other players would hurt him in some way .
I live up here in Alaska. I remember the big "advertising" on both sides. It took money to get the word out for both interested parties; the "pro same sexers", and those opposed. There is not a thing wrong with either side doing that. But it wasn't "clever ads" by the "church people" who caused me or others to vote against it, it was simply that I learned of the proposition through the publicity which the gay rights people didn't want publicized. Then all I had to do was to vote my previously formed opinion on the matter as did the rest of the majority of Alaskans. I do remember how the gay crowd kicked and screamed over all of the publicity by those who wanted traditional marriage to mean a "man and a woman", and not this same sex thing.
Oh yeah, all of those who were running adds to inform the voters of this proposition were called haters and homophobes because of the "hate publicity" and "hate speech" that they were spreading like a cancer, infecting peoples minds via the newspapers, radio stations and television stations. Shoot, there was no "infecting of my mind", I just needed to know what propositions were there to vote on or against!
Even I was personally called a hater and a homophobe by a shipmate "straight/Leftie" on the day of the vote. Fact was, I screwed up and almost missed the chance to vote because I didn't do an absentee ballot back in this town of Haines, and hadn't expected to be at work on the ferry that week. And this guy laughed at me in a "ha-ha, nanny nanny boo boo" sort of a way because he knew that I didn't get to vote on the marriage proposition. And he called me a h-phobe/ hater and all of that rot.
But, I actually got off the ship in Sitka and found that there was a precinct right next to the ferry terminal, and the only issues I was not allowed to vote on were local city of Sitka issues, or the issues back in Haines where I live because they weren't on the Sitka ballot. But all other State candidates and issues were opened to my vote, right there on a rural road 12 miles from rain soaked "Sitka By The Sea" as we like to call it. What a country, eh?!
Oh boy oh boy! Was that guy pi$$ed when he saw my "I Voted, Have you"? sticker on the breast pocket of my coveralls! He actually thought I got it from somebody else, until someone else informed him that we had voted together at the precinct right next to the ferry terminal. And when the results became known the next day he called me a homophobe and a "hater" all over again. He was quite livid. I told him that at least he could be happy over the "medical marijuana" thing going his way..
So hey Treffor. Yous gotta problem with the public being informed as to what is on the docket? I sure hope not...
The reason for my abrupt abandoning of posting to this thread is that Pawtucket intervened "to moderate" my posts. This means that I can no longer post to Grease Spot forums without my posts first being held for review.
I will not, of course, attempt to continue an argument under these conditions.
It looks like I'll possibly be setting up my own website, where, among other things, I might critique some things that have been (and will be) posted to the Grease Spot forums--though I do not intend to let commentary about Grease Spot posts or figures become more than a very minor part of the substance of the site.
If I set up the site, whatever commentary I make should eventually be accessible through search engines.
Oh, and Mark, there is a "slight difference" between drinking some brews before legal age, smoking some weed, and being an elected mayor of one of the largest and most prestigious cities in the whole world! He was handing out legal documents to people who do not qualify for these legal documents. Huge difference!
Oh, and Mark, there is a "slight difference" between drinking some brews before legal age, smoking some weed, and being an elected mayor of one of the largest and most prestigious cities in the whole world! He was handing out legal documents to people who do not qualify for these legal documents. Huge difference!
JL: was that question to me? or to Abigail? I just quoted and responded to her post. Please clarify.
Oh, I'm sorry Mark. Forgive me for being too lax in reading that post. It was Abigali who had said that, so, to Abigail I should have directed that! :)-->
Hey, Cynic, thwarted again, eh? I wondered where you got off to. Now that conditions have improved, I hope you keep posting. Otherwise, make sure you send us a link so we can find you. My dictionary could use a good workout.
I have a question for any of you all. I asked it once before, but it must have been lost in the controversy:
I read something or saw something on the boob tube about a vote in Massachusetts being "stalled" or of the vote on same sex marriage not happening when it should have, or somethin'. Obviously I am unclear on this and what it was about. Who stalled what vote? What was the detail of that vote? Anybody?
I've read a number of arguments which propose the idea that homosexuals seem to want "special treatment" by requesting the right to marry each other. Tne argument is homosexuals have the right to marry if they choose, just like everyone else, as long as they choose a partner of the opposite sex.
Ok, let's replace homosexuals with race. Say bi-racial marriages were illegal, you are only allowed to marry people of the same race. Is this equality? Everyone can still get married, right? The only rule is you cannot marry someone of a different race. Nothing wrong with that is there?
You are comparing an essential element to a non-essential one. The essence of the union we call marriage is gender, specifically the ability, under normal circumstances, with no outside assistance, for the partners in such a union to procreate. A typical healthy male and a typical healthy female, in normal sexual interaction, will procreate. That is true, regardless of race, intelligence, economic condition, hair color, or any other trait or condition not related to gender. It is precisely because of the probability that male-female sexual intercourse will result in children being born that there even is such a thing as marriage. It is also precisely because of that likelihood that close relatives may not marry.
Let’s assume that homosexual interaction is every bit as normal as heterosexual interaction. If it ever becomes so that normal sexual interaction between two typical healthy males or two typical healthy females is likely to result in children being born, then gender will no longer be an essential element and your comparison will be valid.
[This message was edited by Long Gone on February 16, 2004 at 23:54.]
I am sure glad that I live in a small part of the world that has better things to talk about! Around here dominoes and checkers still are the game of choice and these people yer dabating over are still scared to come around. Perahps its because they've never had to earn their keep!
Long Gone, this is, once again, the most basic and logical reason for the American people to utilize our powers as voters to stop this ridiculous charade known as "same sex marriage". I think it was you who said it in more detail earlier on, and it was very intelligently presented, and certainly not "hateful" nor "homophobic". Great additional point about first cousins not being allowed to marry because any procreation there could very well result in a child with screwed up genes, because, marriage is considered a preferred status because of the procreation factor.
And...........it also don't line up with the Good Book...
I have a question for any of you all. I asked it once before, but it must have been lost in the controversy:
I read something or saw something on the boob tube about a vote in Massachusetts being "stalled" or of the vote on same sex marriage not happening when it should have, or somethin'. Obviously I am unclear on this and what it was about. Who stalled what vote? What was the detail of that vote? Anybody?
I believe the item in question was proposed legislation and/or state constitution amendment on same-sex marriage.
What I saw on CNN (the pinkos!) :D--> was that debate on the issue has been cut off until something happens next month.
I don't know any specifics of proposals and/or status of pending consensus.
Rocky......the only reason people dabate over this issue is because they are really afraid to stand and speak ! Everyone is always afraid of hurting someones feelings but so often the only feelings they are really hurting is their own! I think the non- gays should continue standing on their soap box yelling out how wrong it is and let the gays stand on their's and yell out how right it is and let's see who wins. I think sooner or later they (tha gays) are gona fall of'n their soap box into tha wild blue yonder! And I sure hope it ain't in my neighborhood during fishing season...we might use em' fer spoonbill bait.
"You are comparing an essential element to a non-essential one. The essence of the union we call marriage is gender, specifically the ability, under normal circumstances, with no outside assistance, for the partners in such a union to procreate."
The logic doesn't work for me Long Gone. There are many heterosexual couples who do not wish to have kids but still wish to marry. There are also many who cannot have kids the old fashioned way, but chose to either adopt or use another method to have children. Likewise there are homosexual couples who do not wish to have kids and there are homosexual couples who chose to either adopt or use another method to have kids.
To every man his own truth and his own God within.
quote:So hey Treffor. Yous gotta problem with the public being informed as to what is on the docket? I sure hope not...
Of course not. But please take an f out of my name it's Trefor, not Treffor. In Welsh a single f is pronounced as a v, two ffs are pronounced as an f
I am against anything that tries to sneak through by default. But the Bush election fiasco does indicate that there can be problems about how people read what is on the docket and how election officials read them afterwards. I don't know what was put on in Alaska, nor if several questions were put on the paper at one go. The clearer and more separately and understanable each question is the better. I also know that way things are phrased can affect how people vote also. This is a general observation rather than a specific one.
There was a proposition in California back in the Harvey Milk era that would have effectively caused all gay teachers to be sacked but it wasn't clear from reading it that this would be the effect. The gay community had to come up with oceans of publicity about it in order to make people aware of the implications and as a result the proposition was defeated.
So attempts at concealment are not one-sided.
If there was a question such as:
"Do you believe that marriage should be defined as one man and one woman?" then no doubt many would go for that.
But if the question was added:
"If so, do you believe that alternative civil arrangements should be made for those who do not fit this definition?"
You might get another result.
The fact that people may for one thing does not mean that they are against another.
quote: Maybe some poof in Her Majesty's Army can make a casual pass at his straight roomie, or stare at his straight roomie's nice a$$ and get away with a casual "sorry, mate, it's not my thing," but I can guarantee that if that happened here in a US Army barracks, there would be a "blanket party" scheduled for that evening with the poof as the guest of honor.
I agree with you that the USA does have some way to go in this area.
Once of my favourite films is A few Good Men regarding Code Red situations and how Top Brass connived in it. But part of progress is the exposure of such situations.
Not all Americans are Rednecks living out in the boondocks and rearguard actions have a limited timescale. The different concepts of what America is and should be will no doubt carry on competing for attention.
Im sorry our college boys do not go into combat . and they are often exempt from the draft .
We do have types and nontypes but our process is one of the people and who speaks is one issue , as well as who is educated and yes who has the money . California just elected a movie star !
You have to be involved in your own community your own vote here we have to be informed.We listen to our voice and do our representitives, or things change. Sadly some are apathetic. I do not trust human judgements as a solutions to the countrys issues many of us refer to God for His will be done. this is what I believe is the essence of the American Sspirit and what will never die, it truly is In God we trust.
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.
REMOVAL INSTRUCTIONS: If you would like to be removed from the list, please send an e-mail to listserv@listserv.family.org with the text UNSUBSCRIBE LINKMEMBERS as the body of your message.
[This message was edited by mj412 on February 17, 2004 at 19:24.]
I understand what you mean about cleverly worded propositions on ballots. My wife and I had to really study a predator control (wolves) proposition. Initially, we thought we should have voted "yes" on it, but the more we studied it, we found that if we had voted "yes", had that propsition ended winning as a yes vote, the hunting of wolves for the sake of predator control in certain areas would have been outlawed. As it was, the "no's" won, and our wolf control program in McGrath and along the Nelchina River is finally underway. About thirty wolves have been taken so far..
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
61
69
130
71
Popular Days
Feb 6
106
Feb 7
68
Feb 5
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 7 2004
68 posts
Feb 5 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
markomalley
First, (not to you Abigail, but for others who may not know) the state is the sovereign, not a city, county, or township.
If they choose to engage in civil disobedience then they, like the civil rights protesters of the 1950s and 1960s, need to be willing to accept the consequences of their actions.
There is one big difference between the civil rights protesters of the last century and the current battle...the civil rights protesters had the 15th Amendment of the Constitution on their side. Clearly. I don't see anywhere in the US Constitution that guarantees people their rights regardless of their sexual preference or activity. That is why I advocate an amendment to append sexual preference or proclivity as a basis for non-discrimination specified in the 15th Amendment. In this way, up or down, it can be voted on. Then there will be some law to back this movement up.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mj412
Mark
yep yep yep .
I was watching one of the news shows with a huge big man who was in the NFL and was homosexual .
He had a boyfriend the whole time but they had to keep it a secret he won one of the fancy rings (I do not do football excuse my ignorance ) and his partner could not be at the ceremony, they could not talk on the cell phone afraid someone would over hear.
Why? he said he had no doubt an "accident" playing the game would take him out of the game forever if his team mates found out . He would get hurt badly.
this dude was as mucho as they come a NFL player big tough man , he frankly said he kept his relationship with his boyfriend a secret because he was convinced the other players would hurt him in some way .
Link to comment
Share on other sites
J0nny Ling0
Hey mon,
I live up here in Alaska. I remember the big "advertising" on both sides. It took money to get the word out for both interested parties; the "pro same sexers", and those opposed. There is not a thing wrong with either side doing that. But it wasn't "clever ads" by the "church people" who caused me or others to vote against it, it was simply that I learned of the proposition through the publicity which the gay rights people didn't want publicized. Then all I had to do was to vote my previously formed opinion on the matter as did the rest of the majority of Alaskans. I do remember how the gay crowd kicked and screamed over all of the publicity by those who wanted traditional marriage to mean a "man and a woman", and not this same sex thing.
Oh yeah, all of those who were running adds to inform the voters of this proposition were called haters and homophobes because of the "hate publicity" and "hate speech" that they were spreading like a cancer, infecting peoples minds via the newspapers, radio stations and television stations. Shoot, there was no "infecting of my mind", I just needed to know what propositions were there to vote on or against!
Even I was personally called a hater and a homophobe by a shipmate "straight/Leftie" on the day of the vote. Fact was, I screwed up and almost missed the chance to vote because I didn't do an absentee ballot back in this town of Haines, and hadn't expected to be at work on the ferry that week. And this guy laughed at me in a "ha-ha, nanny nanny boo boo" sort of a way because he knew that I didn't get to vote on the marriage proposition. And he called me a h-phobe/ hater and all of that rot.
But, I actually got off the ship in Sitka and found that there was a precinct right next to the ferry terminal, and the only issues I was not allowed to vote on were local city of Sitka issues, or the issues back in Haines where I live because they weren't on the Sitka ballot. But all other State candidates and issues were opened to my vote, right there on a rural road 12 miles from rain soaked "Sitka By The Sea" as we like to call it. What a country, eh?!
Oh boy oh boy! Was that guy pi$$ed when he saw my "I Voted, Have you"? sticker on the breast pocket of my coveralls! He actually thought I got it from somebody else, until someone else informed him that we had voted together at the precinct right next to the ferry terminal. And when the results became known the next day he called me a homophobe and a "hater" all over again. He was quite livid. I told him that at least he could be happy over the "medical marijuana" thing going his way..
So hey Treffor. Yous gotta problem with the public being informed as to what is on the docket? I sure hope not...
[
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cynic
The reason for my abrupt abandoning of posting to this thread is that Pawtucket intervened "to moderate" my posts. This means that I can no longer post to Grease Spot forums without my posts first being held for review.
I will not, of course, attempt to continue an argument under these conditions.
It looks like I'll possibly be setting up my own website, where, among other things, I might critique some things that have been (and will be) posted to the Grease Spot forums--though I do not intend to let commentary about Grease Spot posts or figures become more than a very minor part of the substance of the site.
If I set up the site, whatever commentary I make should eventually be accessible through search engines.
Adieu.
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Cynic
Damn! It went through.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mj412
was it for cursing?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
J0nny Ling0
Oh, and Mark, there is a "slight difference" between drinking some brews before legal age, smoking some weed, and being an elected mayor of one of the largest and most prestigious cities in the whole world! He was handing out legal documents to people who do not qualify for these legal documents. Huge difference!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
JL: was that question to me? or to Abigail? I just quoted and responded to her post. Please clarify.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
J0nny Ling0
Oh, I'm sorry Mark. Forgive me for being too lax in reading that post. It was Abigali who had said that, so, to Abigail I should have directed that!
:)-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
laleo
Hey, Cynic, thwarted again, eh? I wondered where you got off to. Now that conditions have improved, I hope you keep posting. Otherwise, make sure you send us a link so we can find you. My dictionary could use a good workout.
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
J0nny Ling0
I have a question for any of you all. I asked it once before, but it must have been lost in the controversy:
I read something or saw something on the boob tube about a vote in Massachusetts being "stalled" or of the vote on same sex marriage not happening when it should have, or somethin'. Obviously I am unclear on this and what it was about. Who stalled what vote? What was the detail of that vote? Anybody?
I
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LG
Let’s assume that homosexual interaction is every bit as normal as heterosexual interaction. If it ever becomes so that normal sexual interaction between two typical healthy males or two typical healthy females is likely to result in children being born, then gender will no longer be an essential element and your comparison will be valid.
[This message was edited by Long Gone on February 16, 2004 at 23:54.]
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Littlehawk
I am sure glad that I live in a small part of the world that has better things to talk about! Around here dominoes and checkers still are the game of choice and these people yer dabating over are still scared to come around. Perahps its because they've never had to earn their keep!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jezusfreaky
Gawd I love ya 'Lil!!! Ya big 'ol sillyhead!
:D-->
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
J0nny Ling0
Long Gone, this is, once again, the most basic and logical reason for the American people to utilize our powers as voters to stop this ridiculous charade known as "same sex marriage". I think it was you who said it in more detail earlier on, and it was very intelligently presented, and certainly not "hateful" nor "homophobic". Great additional point about first cousins not being allowed to marry because any procreation there could very well result in a child with screwed up genes, because, marriage is considered a preferred status because of the procreation factor.
And...........it also don't line up with the Good Book...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
I believe the item in question was proposed legislation and/or state constitution amendment on same-sex marriage.
What I saw on CNN (the pinkos!)
:D--> was that debate on the issue has been cut off until something happens next month.
I don't know any specifics of proposals and/or status of pending consensus.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Littlehawk
Rocky......the only reason people dabate over this issue is because they are really afraid to stand and speak ! Everyone is always afraid of hurting someones feelings but so often the only feelings they are really hurting is their own! I think the non- gays should continue standing on their soap box yelling out how wrong it is and let the gays stand on their's and yell out how right it is and let's see who wins. I think sooner or later they (tha gays) are gona fall of'n their soap box into tha wild blue yonder! And I sure hope it ain't in my neighborhood during fishing season...we might use em' fer spoonbill bait.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
"You are comparing an essential element to a non-essential one. The essence of the union we call marriage is gender, specifically the ability, under normal circumstances, with no outside assistance, for the partners in such a union to procreate."
The logic doesn't work for me Long Gone. There are many heterosexual couples who do not wish to have kids but still wish to marry. There are also many who cannot have kids the old fashioned way, but chose to either adopt or use another method to have children. Likewise there are homosexual couples who do not wish to have kids and there are homosexual couples who chose to either adopt or use another method to have kids.
To every man his own truth and his own God within.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Trefor Heywood
mark:
erm, maybe it depends upon how baggy their swimshorts are?
:D-->
Trefor Heywood
"Cymru Am Byth!"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Trefor Heywood
Jonny:
Of course not. But please take an f out of my name it's Trefor, not Treffor. In Welsh a single f is pronounced as a v, two ffs are pronounced as an f
I am against anything that tries to sneak through by default. But the Bush election fiasco does indicate that there can be problems about how people read what is on the docket and how election officials read them afterwards. I don't know what was put on in Alaska, nor if several questions were put on the paper at one go. The clearer and more separately and understanable each question is the better. I also know that way things are phrased can affect how people vote also. This is a general observation rather than a specific one.
There was a proposition in California back in the Harvey Milk era that would have effectively caused all gay teachers to be sacked but it wasn't clear from reading it that this would be the effect. The gay community had to come up with oceans of publicity about it in order to make people aware of the implications and as a result the proposition was defeated.
So attempts at concealment are not one-sided.
If there was a question such as:
"Do you believe that marriage should be defined as one man and one woman?" then no doubt many would go for that.
But if the question was added:
"If so, do you believe that alternative civil arrangements should be made for those who do not fit this definition?"
You might get another result.
The fact that people may for one thing does not mean that they are against another.
Trefor Heywood
"Cymru Am Byth!"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Trefor Heywood
Mark:
I agree with you that the USA does have some way to go in this area.
Once of my favourite films is A few Good Men regarding Code Red situations and how Top Brass connived in it. But part of progress is the exposure of such situations.
Not all Americans are Rednecks living out in the boondocks and rearguard actions have a limited timescale. The different concepts of what America is and should be will no doubt carry on competing for attention.
This thread is but one example.
Trefor Heywood
"Cymru Am Byth!"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mj412
Trefor
Im sorry our college boys do not go into combat . and they are often exempt from the draft .
We do have types and nontypes but our process is one of the people and who speaks is one issue , as well as who is educated and yes who has the money . California just elected a movie star !
You have to be involved in your own community your own vote here we have to be informed.We listen to our voice and do our representitives, or things change. Sadly some are apathetic. I do not trust human judgements as a solutions to the countrys issues many of us refer to God for His will be done. this is what I believe is the essence of the American Sspirit and what will never die, it truly is In God we trust.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mj412
ok lets try again
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.
REMOVAL INSTRUCTIONS: If you would like to be removed from the list, please send an e-mail to listserv@listserv.family.org with the text UNSUBSCRIBE LINKMEMBERS as the body of your message.
[This message was edited by mj412 on February 17, 2004 at 19:24.]
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
J0nny Ling0
Ok Trefffor,
I understand what you mean about cleverly worded propositions on ballots. My wife and I had to really study a predator control (wolves) proposition. Initially, we thought we should have voted "yes" on it, but the more we studied it, we found that if we had voted "yes", had that propsition ended winning as a yes vote, the hunting of wolves for the sake of predator control in certain areas would have been outlawed. As it was, the "no's" won, and our wolf control program in McGrath and along the Nelchina River is finally underway. About thirty wolves have been taken so far..
Link 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.