California overturns ban on same-sex marriage

[Sean]

I'm sure many of you have already heard about the fact that California's Supreme Court has overturned a ban against same-sex marriage (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080516013347.668wf0ld&show_article=1). It's a great step forward that I personally feel is long overdue.

And today, the Pope reiterated the church's stance that "only unions between a man and a woman are moral" (http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSL1627550020080516?feedType=RSS&feedName=domesticNews&rpc=22&sp=true). As far as I'm concerned, there was a time and place for advocating only male-female marriages, but it's looooong gone. I tend to look at these things from an evolutionary point of view, and while in the distant past it was a necessity for human survival that we procreate, we really don't face any threat of extinction from dwindling numbers at this point in human history. So marriage between a man and woman that's centered around the idea of populating the planet with our species has rightly evolved to be much more of a social foundation in which procreation is no longer necessary for survival. In fact, there are probably too many people on the planet as it is, so if anything, we could do with a little less baby-makin'. In my opinion, this is one of those issues where the church will end up clinging to the mindset of the past loooooong after the practicality of that mindset has gone bye-bye - like when they executed people who said things like the earth wasn't actually at the center of the universe.

In this current reality, I think that what's important to marriage's survival is more that it be between people who love each other, and who are willing to take on the commitment that pledging your companionship to someone for a lifetime requires. It's an institution that helps us mature as a society by teaching us the importance of being responsible for someone and something other than ourselves, being faithful to them by honoring our publicly stated commitments, and being there to support each other through difficult times. These values are absolutely essential to our positive survival as a society, but are not unique to a heterosexual relationship the way that creating a baby is.

So bravo to my home state of California, and let's hope it catches on.

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

I kind of feel all pressured now to be committed. Isn't that an oxymoron(s)(s)?

[cacophony]

i actually forgot that california had a ban. it seemed like such a gimmie for equal rights for gays since so many of the equal rights laws were already in place.

i have no doubt that christian conservative states like georgia and alabama will follow up with homophobic tightening of legal language forbidding such sin.

[Deckard]

I don't fully understand the way laws are passed and overturned over there, but is there any way that the Supreme Court's decision might be reversed, making same-sex marriage illegal again?

[Sean]

I don't fully understand the way laws are passed and overturned over there, but is there any way that the Supreme Court's decision might be reversed, making same-sex marriage illegal again?
There's always that chance.

"A conservative group said it would ask California's Supreme Court (http://search.breitbart.com/q?s=Supreme%20Court&sid=breitbart.com) to postpone putting its decision legalizing gay marriage into effect until after the fall election. That's when voters will likely have a chance to weigh in on a proposed amendment to California's constitution that would bar same-sex couples from getting married."

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D90MQEEO0&show_article=1

[Sarcasmo]

The Governator has said he'd fight any proposed changes to the California Constitution.

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

(?): Hey, let's go to CA & get married.

jOHN: What?

(?): No, no. Listen. Then, once it's all final, we go to the divorce court and ask for the paperwork to get a divorce.
We can get in the papers as the first gay couple to divorce.

jOHN: That's already happened.

(?): WHAT?

jOHN: Send me your picture. I'll get you in papers, heading's going to read: Goofy B.

[Deckard]

and they say romance is dead! ;)

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

and they say romance is dead! ;)


ooops, I know. I think I kind of got into some trouble with that one.

I change that film soundtrack wedding song thread thing to B. Idol's The Dead Next Door. It's still never going to happen.

[beh]

I went down to SF City Hall on Mon to see the two old lesbians get married. Actually didn't see anything, was outside with the revelers (and protesters).

But this moment will go down in history. It will always be etched in my mind, just like the 2004 "marriages" I saw at City Hall. (I'm not a Gavin Newsom fan [SF mayor], but his 2004 decision was truly courageous.)

I've seen such beauty, love, commitment, excitment, and the fulfilment of equal rights this past week that it has brought tears to my eyes. The city, especially the Castro, has been a-buzz.

Gay Pride in SF next week is going to be special.

I'm proud to be a Californian.

Brad -- homo living in the Castro, SF who does NOT believe in the concept of marriage (but does love the Underworld!).

[Skie]

In this current reality, I think that what's important to marriage's survival is more that it be between people who love each other, and who are willing to take on the commitment that pledging your companionship to someone for a lifetime requires. It's an institution that helps us mature as a society by teaching us the importance of being responsible for someone and something other than ourselves, being faithful to them by honoring our publicly stated commitments, and being there to support each other through difficult times.

I think over the passed few decades this concept has be run into the ground. You need not look far in heterosexual relationships to see that marriage often means nothing more than having to pay someone alimony. Government recognition is really nothing more than a cheaply priced legal contract to ensure the family unit stability, e.g. the children are taken care of. But, family stability is a thing of the passed, making me wonder why anyone would be clambering to belong to the defunct "marriage" group.

Not to mentioned there are more financial benefits to be non-married than to be married. You can really buck the tax system with one itemizing the house and the other being able to utilize standardized deductions. Which will work out great unless you're in a common law state.

I also find it ironic that there's no one on the bandwagon asking for polygamy marriages (in all it's forms) to be "official". Because, we know they've been doing it for a long while now just as non-government sanctioned marriages. If a man and a woman is OK, a man and a man is OK, a woman and a woman is OK, why is adding another person (or more people) to the mix a taboo? If you're going to open it up, you might as well open it up so any consenting adult can marry as many consenting adults as they choose.

This doesn't even touch on the fact how throughout history societies that embraced polygamy tended to do very well. With the damn near requirement for dual-income households, wouldn't it be good to embrace a third "stay-at-home" counterpart to actual raise the kids. Then again, society would probably spontaneously combust if raising children ever became a focus. We've gone from "Children should be seen and not heard," to "Children should be; not seen and heard."

[Deckard]

Interesting Skie.

I have no moral problem with polygamy as a construct. If anything I have a bigger problem with the sexism that it can entail, though I'm not convinced that sexism is inherent to polygamy, rather it's a reflection of the cultures within which polygamy has, until now, been seen to flourish.

How about incest, what do you think (morally) about that? Every now and again I read some story about a brother and sister somewhere asking to be left alone to continue their relationship (hey, I live in Wales!), and it's hard not to feel some sympathy for them. I think my only moral problem with it comes from the increased probability of unhealthy offspring. I wouldn't try to pass off my sense of "Urgh, that's icky!!" as a moral justification, which I suspect a lot of people are inclined to do.

Re. gays and marriage - I'm aware that there are lots of people looking on in utter bemusement at why so many otherwise sane gay people would want to chuck themselves into an institution whose purpose "seems to be" aimed at keeping straight people in a straitjacket. It's not a view I share (for many of the reasons given by Sean earlier) and I rather resent the accusation that it's just selling out to straight society in a bid for social acceptance. But I can see how marriage is not going to be to everyone's taste.

I think often, part of the problem with the marriage debate is that when you try to explain what you think it offers (companionship, lifetime committment, etc), some people can read that as saying that those things aren't possible outside of marriage. Well of course they are. I don't doubt there are lots of unmarried couples that are more stable and more committed than many married ones. Just as there are lots of single mothers doing a damn better job than many two-parent families.

I think the issue is really likelihood, the likelihood that, if you've thought about and are willing to enter a contract like marriage, then you're more likely (but not guaranteed) to feel that those things are worth something in life, and that growing old with someone can be beautiful and rewarding, even if it can also be tough and involve personal sacrifice.

That doesn't mean I think that if you choose not to get married, that you automatically don't or can't feel that same degree of commitment to your partner, or won't spend your whole life with them. But I think having some formal framework upon which people can focus (and to which they can strive) is no bad thing.

I'm writing this clumsily at the moment, and probably not putting in enough caveats. There are side issues like monogamy and religion, which I'm not covering. But essentially, I think marriage (even when taken as a secular institution, which many say it's not) definitely has its strengths and plays a mostly positive role in society.

That said, I've often looked at the direction our western societies seem to be heading in terms of marriage and sex, and (without wishing to get all Daily Mail) wondered in all seriousness if marriage is destined to be a thing of the past?

[cacophony]

oh god not the "slippery slope" argument again.

IF YOU LET A HAPPEN THEN SURELY YOU HAVE TO LET Z HAPPEN!!!!!

[Deckard]

Well no, it's not really a slippery slope argument (edit: or at least not a fallacious one). I'm not using it to advocate or assert anything, just pointing out a trend and wondering whether that will continue; whether marriage may become old fashioned and die out. Seems a reasonable thing to wonder.

Or were you referring to something else?

[cacophony]

i'm talking about the suggestion that loosening the death grip on the definition of marriage means we have to let polygamy and incest into the club, too. AND WHY DON'T WE LET PEOPLE MARRY ANIMALS AND HATS AND SANDWICHES, TOO?!?!?!?!

i hate slippery slope arguments. the problem is most of us are capable of abstract reasoning, and through that skill we can tease out even the most tenuous connection between ideas. so everything you can think of becomes a potential slippery slope.

[Deckard]

Ah I see.

Sounds like you're referring to those slippery slope advocates who hold the view that "marriage must be between a man and a woman".

Can't say I really picked up on that in Skie's post tbh.

I thought it was more a genuine point about polygamy in relation to what is and isn't acceptable.

Consenting adults, and all that....

[Sean]

I think over the passed few decades this concept has be run into the ground. You need not look far in heterosexual relationships to see that marriage often means nothing more than having to pay someone alimony. Government recognition is really nothing more than a cheaply priced legal contract to ensure the family unit stability, e.g. the children are taken care of. But, family stability is a thing of the passed, making me wonder why anyone would be clambering to belong to the defunct "marriage" group.You say that the concept has been "run into the ground", but then give no evidence to support your assertion other than to say that people get divorced. Yes, people get divorced, but that doesn't change the fact that marriage, if taken seriously, is an inherently maturing experience that strengthens society as a result. At it's core is the biggest lesson in commitment and responsibility, next to having a child, that you can ever learn. As a married man, I can attest to that firsthand. I've heard people poo-pooing that point for years, but have never heard anyone actually justify their stance in a legitimate way.

Aside from that, I'm in agreement with everything Deckard said in response to the rest of your post. In some cases, I do see the slippery slope argument as legitimate, but not here so much. Especially since, as Deckard pointed out, there are health issues at stake where inbreeding is concerned, and because marrying a minor would likely involve statutory rape, etc. Polygamy is less clear-cut, but I don't see the opening of the definition of marriage creating a huge slipperty slope issue.


Although, Cacophony, there is a really good sandwhich place down the street that has an italian coldcut hero I may leave my wife for...

[Skie]

I have no moral problem with polygamy as a construct. If anything I have a bigger problem with the sexism that it can entail, though I'm not convinced that sexism is inherent to polygamy, rather it's a reflection of the cultures within which polygamy has, until now, been seen to flourish.

How about incest, what do you think (morally) about that? Every now and again I read some story about a brother and sister somewhere asking to be left alone to continue their relationship (hey, I live in Wales!), and it's hard not to feel some sympathy for them. I think my only moral problem with it comes from the increased probability of unhealthy offspring. I wouldn't try to pass off my sense of "Urgh, that's icky!!" as a moral justification, which I suspect a lot of people are inclined to do.

I agree the cultures that continue to practice polygamy definitely trend to issues with sexism. But, many monogamist cultures also continue to be sexist. Since marriage is not just applicable to a man and a woman, shouldn't it also be able to branch out and embrace other non-traditional marriages between humans?

As far as incest, I agree it's "icky"; but the main concern there is unhealthy offspring. Many island cultures practiced incest without detriment to their offspring. In addition, there are many other unhealthy pairings that are allowed to breed.

But I think having some formal framework upon which people can focus (and to which they can strive) is no bad thing.

I agree, but I suppose I'm a bit jaded due to the volume of divorced couples (10% of the US population). (This figure doesn't even account for those who've hit the reset button and remarried.) I think it's a bit sad that there's about a 1/3 chance a marriage will end in divorce or to a lesser degree death before the 10th year anniversary. It's obvious marriage means less in society today than it did 10 years ago, let alone 20 or 30 years ago.

[Skie]

Polygamy is less clear-cut, but I don't see the opening of the definition of marriage creating a huge slipperty slope issue.

I wasn't saying it' a slippery slope issue, but maybe it's a bit of a prejudice issue. I find it ironic to redefine marriage to include gays and lesbians, but lets keep those polygamists (whether multiple man, multiple women, or both), which are somewhat closer to a traditional marriage, out of our fun. Not that it matters that much, because it's not as though gays and lesbians couldn't get married before. The only change is that it's a state government recognized marriage which creates a binding legal contract.

I honestly don't see how that suddenly includes children, animals, plants, or inanimate objects. Is party one a consenting adult? Is party two a consenting adult? If yes to both then allow marriage equals true.

[Deckard]

there are many other unhealthy pairings that are allowed to breed.
Plenty of those where I live. :D

[cacophony]

IF WE'RE ALLOWED TO KILL ANIMALS FOR FOOD WE SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO KILL PEOPLE FOR FOOD!!!!! slippery slope.

look, the specific quality that makes a society a society is an agreed upon set of rules regarding acts that are either acceptable or unacceptable to enough of the population to justify the thought process. gay marriage was not legal in the 50s because not enough of the population existed that accepted it to justify the thought process. these days it's a different story, and that's why it's changing now. it's not like 90% of the population is against homosexual unions and these changes are moving ahead anyway. over 50% of americans approve of civil union and almost 35% of the population approves of the idea of gay marriage. the scales tip because enough of the public opinion supports it.

it's not a logic puzzle. you can't go "well if a man can marry a man, why can't a man marry three women and a goat?" it's not about teasing out the logical connections. it's about societal support. societies don't operate strictly on cold logical conclusions. our system of laws is a rather emotional thing. all this navel gazing about the justification of incest is silly until enough of the population sees the justification of the thought process and the wheels of change start rolling in that direction.

It's obvious marriage means less in society today than it did 10 years ago, let alone 20 or 30 years ago.

is it obvious? or is that the conclusion you've drawn based on your pre-existing bias? consider that marriage as an institution is no more healthy today than it was 50 years ago, but the barriers to divorce and re-marriage have lowered significantly. 50 years ago if your husband punched you in the eye, you stuck around until death do you part. if your wife was a raging alcoholic you mixed her drinks and helped her to bed (thank you to my grandparents for setting that example). adultery is not an invention of the 20th century. what's an invention of the 20th century is rights for women who otherwise would have had no recourse in miserable or unhealthy marriages.

[Skie]

look, the specific quality that makes a society a society is an agreed upon set of rules regarding acts that are either acceptable or unacceptable to enough of the population to justify the thought process.

But didn't the California supreme court go against the majority of voters by allowing same-sex marriage? So, in other words the agreed upon set of acceptable rules was overturned by people who "know better"? If they didn't come across this determination by a means other than "teasing out the logical connections" then what means did they use? Did they use the "squeaky wheel gets the grease" method or was it simply from flipping a coin?

consider that marriage as an institution is no more healthy today than it was 50 years ago, but the barriers to divorce and re-marriage have lowered significantly. 50 years ago if your husband punched you in the eye, you stuck around until death do you part. if your wife was a raging alcoholic you mixed her drinks and helped her to bed (thank you to my grandparents for setting that example). adultery is not an invention of the 20th century. what's an invention of the 20th century is rights for women who otherwise would have had no recourse in miserable or unhealthy marriages.

So, battered spouses, alcoholism, drug-use, etc. are the main causes of divorce? This doesn't match too well the top four reasons for a divorce; money (problems), in-laws, religion (differences), and children (whether to have, how to raise, and number of). It seems to me the big difference, between now and 50 years ago is that it's much easier to leave than to work out your differences.

It's great that people can get out of bad situation with divorce. But, that paints a much more grim picture if you're saying that the 10% of the population that's divorced and a large portion of the 33% of people who can't even make it to year 10 are because they finally divorce their abusive, alcoholic, or drug-addicted spouse? And, you're saying that this large percentage of disfunctionality is nothing new to society and was the same 50 years ago. :eek:

[IsiliRunite]

Sounds like un-noted incompatibility causes all divorces...

I'm out of this topic.

[cacophony]

But didn't the California supreme court go against the majority of voters by allowing same-sex marriage?

where did i use or imply the word "majority"?

So, battered spouses, alcoholism, drug-use, etc. are the main causes of divorce?

didn't say that either. so congrats on your reading comprehension skills.

i'm skipping the rest of your post because it asks questions based on assertions i never made.

[Sean]

It's obvious marriage means less in society today than it did 10 years ago, let alone 20 or 30 years ago.Well you're still asserting this without offering anything to refute the reasons I gave why marriage is still an important institution in modern society. All you've said is that you think my point has been "run into the ground", and then said that some people get divorced. Simply because some people are flippant about marriage doesn't diminish the importance of it as an institution. People are flippant with all kinds of things that are still important. I'll re-post my opening points, and maybe you can address them:


As far as I'm concerned, there was a time and place for advocating only male-female marriages, but it's looooong gone. I tend to look at these things from an evolutionary point of view, and while in the distant past it was a necessity for human survival that we procreate, we really don't face any threat of extinction from dwindling numbers at this point in human history. So marriage between a man and woman that's centered around the idea of populating the planet with our species has rightly evolved to be much more of a social foundation in which procreation is no longer necessary for survival. In fact, there are probably too many people on the planet as it is, so if anything, we could do with a little less baby-makin'. In my opinion, this is one of those issues where the church will end up clinging to the mindset of the past loooooong after the practicality of that mindset has gone bye-bye - like when they executed people who said things like the earth wasn't actually at the center of the universe.

In this current reality, I think that what's important to marriage's survival is more that it be between people who love each other, and who are willing to take on the commitment that pledging your companionship to someone for a lifetime requires. It's an institution that helps us mature as a society by teaching us the importance of being responsible for someone and something other than ourselves, being faithful to them by honoring our publicly stated commitments, and being there to support each other through difficult times. These values are absolutely essential to our positive survival as a society, but are not unique to a heterosexual relationship the way that creating a baby is.

[Strangelet]

i would say the institution of marriage has only been improved from what it was 50 years ago, not diminished in purpose or importance.

Along with what Cacophony said about divorce being more accessible, the purpose of marriage has shifted from practical/financial/social importance to emotional/personal importance. This effectively means that, while marriage is no longer socially enforced so stringently, society actually benefits more by people choosing to bond on more personally relevant reasons.

Personally I only got married to ensure my foreigner girl friend and I could be together without politics coming between us. Otherwise I don't think I really would have. But what started out as a formality brought out a framework of support, intimacy, and social engagement that did not exist otherwise. Things I wouldn't like to get rid of any time soon.

Why I wouldn't have married otherwise has a lot to do with growing up mormon, the same organization that has now sent what is basically a papal bull to the 750,000 california members to derail the same sex marriage through "time and means"

This same society saw me as a threat while I was single, forces people to choose between living like a chaste eunuch or marrying molly mormon down in ward 112 and having 6 kids in the time span of 6 * 9 = 54 months. Only to find that you were just horny and wanted to please your parents. Which explains why all of my copious siblings have all been married on average 2.4 times.

It took forever to deprogram my thinking to salvage a good institution of marriage from this mess. And the success of this process is all because I love my wife.

So to come full circle, perhaps people who would argue against gay marriage or its relevance, are still blinded by the same social structures that have caused such damage to something that is saved by individual expression.

just saying...

[cacophony]

as a society we cling to this pseudo-historical neo-precious view of marriage as this sweet devoted lifelong institution where gramma baked and grandpa smoked a pipe and everyone celebrated their 50th wedding anniversary with a fluffy white cake with silver and gold candles.

marriage is no "worse" an institution than it was a hundred years ago.

[Skie]

where did i use or imply the word "majority"?

You're right, you only stated "enough" allowing the number of people in society to make something acceptable or unacceptable be as low as one. Or "enough" could require all. Ultra vague and noncommittal for the win!

didn't say that either. so congrats on your reading comprehension skills.

What I inferred from your post has been refuted. Instead of clarifying your point of view, you've decided to leave under the guise of my lack of reading comprehension skills. It seems futile to attempt any further dialog with you.

[Skie]

Sean, it's not that your point has been "run into the ground", it's that I think marriage as an institution has. The number of people who are "flippant" about marriage is increasing and while this could suddenly change, I don't see it coming without some significant changes to society. On top of that, there seems to be a trend where couples aren't even bothering getting married. It appears to me that marriage is being taken less and less seriously every day.

It seems to me that the value isn't in marriage, but in the character of the people who maintain their vows.

[Skie]

Personally I only got married to ensure my foreigner girl friend and I could be together without politics coming between us. Otherwise I don't think I really would have. But what started out as a formality brought out a framework of support, intimacy, and social engagement that did not exist otherwise. Things I wouldn't like to get rid of any time soon.

I can understand the benefit of marriage to nationalize a foreigner. But, what aspects of marriage "brought out a framework of support, intimacy, and social engagement"?

[cacophony]

You're right, you only stated "enough" allowing the number of people in society to make something acceptable or unacceptable be as low as one. Or "enough" could require all. Ultra vague and noncommittal for the win!

i specifically left "enough" vague because historically the number of people deemed "enough" to change society has varied according to topic. the same number of people required to create the societal momentum to give women the right to vote is not the same number of people required to create the societal momentum required to make incest acceptable. if you think you can slap a number on this and call the discussion "done" you've got a fairly narrow and ignorant view of how momentum plays a part in societal upheaval.

i'm sorry you're so convinced that there can be hard quantities placed on society but as i said society is not a rational thing. you don't walk into the senate and shout "IF GAYS CAN MARRY, SHOES SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO MARRY GLOVES!" and expect your law to pass. human beings are vague, sloppy, emotional and irrational. things pass according to the winds of change, not your logic that gay = polygamy = incest = bestiality = necrophelia = let's let the moon marry mars.

[Sean]

Sean, it's not that your point has been "run into the ground", it's that I think marriage as an institution has. The number of people who are "flippant" about marriage is increasing and while this could suddenly change, I don't see it coming without some significant changes to society. On top of that, there seems to be a trend where couples aren't even bothering getting married. It appears to me that marriage is being taken less and less seriously every day.

It seems to me that the value isn't in marriage, but in the character of the people who maintain their vows.But you're still missing my point. For the sake of argument, let's assume your assertion is correct. Well, simply because more people are taking marriage less seriously today does not inherently mean marriage is less important in helping maintain and advance a healthy society. Consider this as a parallel example - more people today have decided not to take maintaining a healthy diet seriously, and yet maintaining a healthy diet remains inherently important regardless.

And to address your final sentence, the value of marriage is that it plays a significant role in building the character you speak of when taken seriously - just as a healthy diet helps make your body stronger in most cases. In fact, next to becoming a parent, I'd say marriage is probably the biggest character building institution you can enter into. The level of commitment, understanding, compromise, responsibility and selflessness involved in publicly and legally binding your entire life to another person is simply unparalleled. You have yet to counter this fact in any serious way.

[Skie]

i'm sorry you're so convinced that there can be hard quantities placed on society but as i said society is not a rational thing. you don't walk into the senate and shout "IF GAYS CAN MARRY, SHOES SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO MARRY GLOVES!" and expect your law to pass. human beings are vague, sloppy, emotional and irrational. things pass according to the winds of change, not your logic that gay = polygamy = incest = bestiality = necrophelia = let's let the moon marry mars.

For some reason you keep asserting that my point of view is a slippery slope one. That couldn't be farther from the truth. I wasn't even the one to bring up incest, I simply addressed it in one of my later posts. In addition, I haven't even broached the topics of bestiality, necrophilia, pedophilia, object-marriage or anything equally ridiculous. I feel like i often have to restate this because you seem to be stuck on the slippery slope.

I'm not saying there has to be hard quantities, but by your logic there could be "enough" people who don't want gay marriage today. So, the supreme court better look at it again and decide. In fact, we better re-weigh everything daily because our society is always in flux and the "enough" number for creating or abolishing a law could have been reached. I thought that was the point of voting, to say, "Enough people have decided that this law (or whatever) shall pass."

But, wait, I'm being rational again. Since you've established society is irrational, it's obvious that I am again barking up the wrong tree. Never mind that more said, "No" than "Yes" when put to a vote. The majority obviously means nothing in society today, and "enough" people in favor of something has nothing to do with it. It seems much more obvious that changes are made based on how loud of a voice the group has. The squeaky wheel gets the grease. Numbers are only a factor by providing additional recognition.

[Skie]

But you're still missing my point. For the sake of argument, let's assume your assertion is correct. Well, simply because more people are taking marriage less seriously today does not inherently mean marriage is less important in helping maintain and advance a healthy society. Consider this as a parallel example - more people today have decided not to take maintaining a healthy diet seriously, and yet maintaining a healthy diet remains inherently important regardless.

And to address your final sentence, the value of marriage is that it plays a significant role in building the character you speak of when taken seriously - just as a healthy diet helps make your body stronger in most cases. In fact, next to becoming a parent, I'd say marriage is probably the biggest character building institution you can enter into. The level of commitment, understanding, compromise, responsibility and selflessness involved in publicly and legally binding your entire life to another person is simply unparalleled. You have yet to counter this fact in any serious way.

I won't argue with you that committed relationships are extremely important in character building. But, it is the individual that commits. Meaningful, committed relationships are possible without marriage. Society continues to prove that commitment and marriage aren't married to each other.

The advantage of getting married is the legal contract to help ensure family stability. My wealth is tied to my family for a minor fee (much less than it would cost to have a lawyer draw up papers with the same weight). Even should I cancel the contract, I am still obligated to support my spouse. The only other reasons that marriage continues to exist are tradition and religion.

I fail to see how the institution has any bearing on whether or not I remain committed to someone. It used to, because things like divorce, children out of wed-lock, and even living together unmarried were looked down upon. These days society is OK with someone who has children out of wed-lock and/or multiple divorces. You're no longer a social pariah for having a committed relationship with someone for the rest of your or their life without getting married.

[Sean]

I won't argue with you that committed relationships are extremely important in character building. But, it is the individual that commits. Meaningful, committed relationships are possible without marriage. Society continues to prove that commitment and marriage aren't married to each other.Yes, committed relationships are possible outside of marriage, and are much less looked down upon than they were in past generations. I don't see them being very common though. The fact is, being in a committed relationship that hasn't been consummated through marriage still allows a far easier "out" than entering a public union like marriage does. If you're unmarried and things get rough, then you can just break up. But if you're married, then you're facing a much more involved and public process of ending the relationship, which does tend to add to the likelihood that you'll put the effort into working through a rough patch. That may sound a bit cold, but it's an undeniable reality. Or, for a silly analogy, it's the difference between the care you put into a home you're renting versus one you've bought.

The advantage of getting married is the legal contract to help ensure family stability. My wealth is tied to my family for a minor fee (much less than it would cost to have a lawyer draw up papers with the same weight). Even should I cancel the contract, I am still obligated to support my spouse. The only other reasons that marriage continues to exist are tradition and religion.I believe I've already clearly outlined the reasons I see marriage as far more than a simple legal contract, or outdated tradition. And I'm an atheist, so I don't care about the religious aspect of marriage.

And for arguments sake, I'm fairly certain you've never been married, correct? If I'm right in that assumption, then I do think it's telling that you're arguing the lack of importance surrounding marriage with at least three of us who are married and recognize it's inherent importance. That's not a slap at you...it's just a relevant observation

I fail to see how the institution has any bearing on whether or not I remain committed to someone. It used to, because things like divorce, children out of wed-lock, and even living together unmarried were looked down upon. These days society is OK with someone who has children out of wed-lock and/or multiple divorces. You're no longer a social pariah for having a committed relationship with someone for the rest of your or their life without getting married.I have a meeting I have to go to now, so I'll edit this later to include a response to this final point.

Okay, so I touched on this earlier when I mentioned the fact that marriage, in part, forces us to face difficult situations rather than just breaking up, which is far easier in a non-married relationship....and I don't just mean legally. In getting married, you have publicly announced to your family, your friends, the government, and most importantly to your spouse, that you have decided to spend your entire life together with this one person. In one act, you have formally told every single person that's important to you that your life is no longer going to be just about you...it's now about co-existing with another person and all that that implies. Where you live is a decision you will make together. Whether or not you have children is a decision you will make together. Where you'll freakin' have dinner is a decision that you will make together. That's a huge difference when you really think about it. Which society would be stronger....one in which the people are able to tackle difficulties squarely and together, in an effort to find a real, constructive, lasting and meaningful solution, or one in which the people leave themselves an easy individual way out in the event that a difficult situation presents itself? Now I'm not saying unmarried people can't or don't learn commitment, but next to parenting, where one or more lives are directly dependent on you, marriage is probably the biggest, most life-changing commitment you can make. It forces you to consider more than yourself in almost all aspects of life, including situations where you may very well otherwise just do what's best or easiest for you alone. I can't think of anything else that's comparable. So in large part, in my opinion, this public announcement of your commitment to spend your lives together - legal and religious implications aside - is where the importance of marriage lies and what sets it apart from simply living together.

At this point, it may be good for me to clarify that I don't care if it's a religious marriage, or a civil marriage, or a hippy-style wedding out in the middle of the woods that has no legal ramifications whatsoever....I simply see the serious public announcement of your intended commitment as the key to what makes marriage inherently important to individuals, and to society as a whole now and for the foreseeable future. That's what I consider to be the institution of marriage. I mean, for as long as people the world over have been getting married, every culture, every religion, every society has had their own unique way of actually executing the ceremony of it, but in all cases, the commitment aspect of it has always been at it's foundation. Even in marriages way back when it was centered in large part around procreation, the fact still remains that two people were announcing their commitment to do that procreating only with each other. In the case of what started this thread, same-sex marriage, the issue is one of tackling discrimination and granting gay couples legal equality in this arena. But I know plenty of gay couples who have had wedding ceremonies and considered themselves married long before it was just recently made legal - and in my opinion, where the societal importance of the institution is concerned, those marriages were every bit as valid as my own.

But of course you also continue to raise divorce as an argument against marriage, and say that because divorce is no longer as taboo, then marriage is therefore less important. I don't see that as a valid argument for reasons I've already stated. To reiterate one analogy I presented, simply because more people today have decided not to take maintaining a healthy diet seriously does not mean that maintaining a healthy diet is any less inherently important. Or just because less people today are having children does not mean that the experience of raising a child is any less inherently life-changing.

Not sure what else can really be said beyond this to make the point. I might just add that there are of course exceptions to the rule, and plenty of individuals out there can be just as good about commitment as any married person if not moreso, but for society as a whole, it serves this important purpose.

[cacophony]

I'm not saying there has to be hard quantities, but by your logic there could be "enough" people who don't want gay marriage today. So, the supreme court better look at it again and decide. In fact, we better re-weigh everything daily because our society is always in flux and the "enough" number for creating or abolishing a law could have been reached. I thought that was the point of voting, to say, "Enough people have decided that this law (or whatever) shall pass."

But, wait, I'm being rational again. Since you've established society is irrational, it's obvious that I am again barking up the wrong tree. Never mind that more said, "No" than "Yes" when put to a vote. The majority obviously means nothing in society today, and "enough" people in favor of something has nothing to do with it. It seems much more obvious that changes are made based on how loud of a voice the group has. The squeaky wheel gets the grease. Numbers are only a factor by providing additional recognition.

you're radically misinformed if you think this country was founded on majority rule. it's not. true, we use majority vote to come to many decisions but the actual founding principle of this country has always been that the majority shall not trample the rights of the minority. that's how things like public displays of the 10 commandments and prayer in school get overruled.

even a supreme court ruling is subject to the whims of the changing winds of public opinion. rowe vs wade isn't exactly a popular ruling and left to the vote of the people abortion rights would have never won a majority during that day. even today it's tough to say where the majority would go on an actual vote. and even if the numbers game works and the majority does believe in safe, legal abortions, that doesn't mean the supreme court couldn't take the issue up again and find it unconstitutional after all.

these things aren't etched in stone and you don't expect law to originate strictly from extrapolation. "if A is B and B is C then A must be C."

on the one hand it's messier than necessary. on the other hand it's necessarily messy.

[cacophony]

And for arguments sake, I'm fairly certain you've never been married, correct? If I'm right in that assumption, then I do think it's telling that you're arguing the lack of importance surrounding marriage with at least three of us who are married and recognize it's inherent importance. That's not a slap at you...it's just a relevant observation

to be fair, i'm not sure the observation is all that relevant. it would seem like a logical conclusion that those of us who are married see the inherent importance, otherwise we would have never married. it would be nearly impossible for any of us to sincerely argue against its importance. and for someone who has never been married it could be equally impossible to argue in favor of marriage's importance.

it would be like if you had a muslim and a christian arguing about the bible. you wouldn't tell the muslim that it was telling that he didn't believe in the bible when the three christians in the conversation did.

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

it would be like if you had a muslim and a christian arguing about the bible. you wouldn't tell the muslim that it was telling that he didn't believe in the bible when the three christians in the conversation did.


Someone give this woman an award! I think I want to make a baby again. Oh wait, damn you beat me with that one two. (!)

[Sean]

to be fair, i'm not sure the observation is all that relevant. it would seem like a logical conclusion that those of us who are married see the inherent importance, otherwise we would have never married. it would be nearly impossible for any of us to sincerely argue against its importance. and for someone who has never been married it could be equally impossible to argue in favor of marriage's importance.

it would be like if you had a muslim and a christian arguing about the bible. you wouldn't tell the muslim that it was telling that he didn't believe in the bible when the three christians in the conversation did.At risk of being too direct, that's a horribly inaccurate analogy. Of course the point I made is relevant. If you want an analogy, I'd use being a parent. Non-parents may have all the theories in the world about what constitutes proper parenting, but it's impossible to really know what it would be like until you are one. And I'm saying that as a non-parent who would readily defer to a parent in any conversation about it. Or it could be compared to our outlooks on the Iraq war relative to Sarcasmo's since he's actually been there fighting it. And don't tell my wife that I just compared marriage to war....;)

But yes, we chose to enter into marriage, which is comparable to Skie's choice not to (assuming that's the case). I readily acknowledge that. But the subsequent life experiences directly resulting from being married, which an unmarried person would have no experience with, are what make the point clearly relevant since that's what this conversation is basically about in the first place.

[cacophony]

Someone give this woman an award! I think I want to make a baby again. Oh wait, damn you beat me with that one too.


beat you twice. ;)

[cacophony]

But the subsequent life experiences directly resulting from being married, which an unmarried person would have no experience with, are what make the point clearly relevant since that's what this conversation is basically about in the first place.

i'll concede that point.

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

This should get interesting: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26891725/

1.3 million raised for such wasted effort for ignorance. I just don't get how gays can make a mockery of marriage anymore than some have done with it. Oh wait, there were money gains invovled with those events.

Maybe if these same people focused efforts on things like, say, maybe, THIS: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26843836/ , I mean, it's just maybe the third occurance in a 12 month period.

[BeautifulBurnout]

This should get interesting: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26891725/

1.3 million raised for such wasted effort for ignorance. I just don't get how gays can make a mockery of marriage anymore than some have done with it. Oh wait, there were money gains invovled with those events.

Maybe if these same people focused efforts on things like, say, maybe, THIS: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26843836/ , I mean, it's just maybe the third occurance in a 12 month period.

Absolutely spot-on. Year after year we hear more stories of kids being abused by men of the cloth. To use their own analogy, they should deal with the beam in their own eye before criticising the speck in someone elses.

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

Absolutely spot-on. Year after year we hear more stories of kids being abused by men of the cloth. To use their own analogy, they should deal with the beam in their own eye before criticising the speck in someone elses.

How many false flags do we need to see?

The pieces of the puzzle are all there. How long for these religious(and corporate for that matter) organizations to see they've been infiltrated as well?

One has to wonder who's known all this time? Silence assists the killer.

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

O.K., I thought gays guys were supposed to be the drama queens: http://tv.yahoo.com/show/33812/news/urn:newsml:tv.ap.org:20081023:people_william_shatn er__ER:46779

Somebody get the bitch a bridesmaid's dress already.

[Deckard]

O.K., I thought gays guys were supposed to be the drama queens: http://tv.yahoo.com/show/33812/news/urn:newsml:tv.ap.org:20081023:people_william_shatn er__ER:46779

Somebody get the bitch a bridesmaid's dress already.
I used to think Shatner was like a cheesier version of Hasselhoff but without the 'problems'.

Now I'm not so sure...

[Strangelet]

according to andrew sullivan, something like 77% of all campaign donations towards the proposition to ban same sex marriage via constitutional amendment in california is coming from the mormon church and its members.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/10/mormons-vs-civi.html

leaving the church just isn't satisfying enough.

:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad: :mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad: :mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:

[Deckard]

something like 77% of all campaign donations towards the proposition to ban same sex marriage via constitutional amendment in california is coming from the mormon church and its members.
I guess, in a sense, there's a certain reassurance that comes from that statistic.

But still.... frustrating for you, I know.

And just, like, completely bizarre. Do threats get any less threatening than a bunch of gays just wanting to get married? To judge some people's reactions, you'd think we were the second-biggest danger after terrorism. :confused:

[Sean]

And just, like, completely bizarre. Do threats get any less threatening than a bunch of gays just wanting to get married? To judge some people's reactions, you'd think we were the second-biggest danger after terrorism. :confused:Who people distrust and feel threatened by doesn't seem to be based on reason. We don't have to look any further than this opposition to same sex marriage, the widespread distrust of atheists, the hesitancy by many to support a black man for President, or worse yet, a Muslim black man! :eek::rolleyes: It's sad how ignorant, angry, and fearful so many people are.

I relly hope prop 8 fails.

[bryantm3]

you know, the way i see it, it's not the government's job to define what a marriage is— it's basically the job of the church. the church is where marriage comes from— it is defined in the bible, and it is a sacrament, and to cede that power from the churches violates the seperation of church and state. it would be like the government trying to define what constitutes a baptism, and trying to give hindus the right to baptize. even though they are baptized, they still aren't accepted by the church because they're hindus, so it's not a real baptism.

i, do, however, believe in civil unions, which means that they have every right a married couple does except it is not called marriage. they can file taxes jointly, they can visit each other in the hospital, they have spousal confidentiality in court, etc. unlike marriage, i believe this is a civil right that should be mandated all over the country. i just do not think that the government should force churches to recognize a civil union as a marriage.

[Sean]

you know, the way i see it, it's not the government's job to define what a marriage is— it's basically the job of the church. the church is where marriage comes from— it is defined in the bible, and it is a sacrament, and to cede that power from the churches violates the seperation of church and state. it would be like the government trying to define what constitutes a baptism, and trying to give hindus the right to baptize. even though they are baptized, they still aren't accepted by the church because they're hindus, so it's not a real baptism.

i, do, however, believe in civil unions, which means that they have every right a married couple does except it is not called marriage. they can file taxes jointly, they can visit each other in the hospital, they have spousal confidentiality in court, etc. unlike marriage, i believe this is a civil right that should be mandated all over the country. i just do not think that the government should force churches to recognize a civil union as a marriage.I agree that the government shouldn't force any religion to recognize marriage between same sex couples, or anyone else the religion doesn't want to recognize. But the court decision that started all of this doesn't force anyone to do anything. It simply opens the state government's recognition of legal marriage to include same sex couples. What the church or any other religious group decides to do about it is strictly up to them. But now (unless prop 8 passes) if a religion decides that they want to allow marriage for same sex couples, then those couples will be able to enjoy the legal benefits of being married just the same as my wife and I do. Previously, they could have a marriage ceremony and call themselves married, but they weren't legally recognized as such by the state government. It's just about making equal rights available, not mandates on religions.

[bryantm3]

which is why the name marriage should not be applied to civil unions.

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

[QUOTE=bryantm3;104338]you know, the way i see it, it's not the government's job to define what a marriage is— it's basically the job of the church. the church is where marriage comes from— it is defined in the bible, and it is a sacrament, and to cede that power from the churches violates the seperation of church and state. it would be like the government trying to define what constitutes a baptism, and trying to give hindus the right to baptize. even though they are baptized, they still aren't accepted by the church because they're hindus, so it's not a real baptism.

QUOTE]


So are you saying marriage did not exist before The Bible was written?

[Deckard]

it is defined in the bible, and it is a sacrament, and to cede that power from the churches violates the seperation of church and state.
OK, here is what I consider to be a good proposed constitutional amendment to codify marriage on biblical principles:

1. Marriage in the United States shall consist of a union between one man and one or more women. (Gen 29:17-28; II Sam 3:2-5)

2. Marriage shall not impede a man's right to take concubines, in addition to his wife or wives. (II Sam 5:13; I Kings 11:3; II Chron 11:21)

3. A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If she is not a virgin, she shall be executed. (Deut 22:13-21)

4. Marriage of a believer and a non-believer shall be forbidden. (Gen 24:3; Num 25:109; Ezra 9:12; Neh 10:30

5. Since marriage is for life, neither this constitution nor the constitution of any State shall be construed to permit divorce. (Deut 22:19; Mark 10:9)

6. If a married man dies without children, his brother shall marry the widow. If he refuses to marry his brother's widow or deliberately does not give her children, he shall either be slain or pay a fine of one shoe. (Gen 38:6-10; Deut 25:5-10)

No arguing or challenging this please. It's a sacrament.

And should Churches start taking their holy book more seriously/literally, and imposing these rules, and if enough people are actually willing to buy into it all, then we should leave everyone to it and not try to change it - separation of church and state, and all that.... ;)

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

Can I just be a slut?

[Deckard]

Can I just be a slut?
You go right ahead jOHN. Don't mind us.... :D

[Dirty0900]

Can I just be a slut?

How much?

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

You're too young, I wouldn't even let you pay.

per edit: I swear, that was always supposed to read "even" from the get go, I'm not a chicken-hawk.

[Sean]

which is why the name marriage should not be applied to civil unions.So then are you saying that even if a particular religion announces that they will recognize and perform same sex marriages, you still think the government (state or federal) should not recognize those marriages legally? Or are you saying that marriage in general, straight or gay, should only be recognized as "civil unions" by the government. Sorry....I'm just having trouble following what your reply here means. I never said anything about applying the name "marriage" to a civil union - I'm talking about actual marriage, period.

[bryantm3]

OK, here is what I consider to be a good proposed constitutional amendment to codify marriage on biblical principles:



No arguing or challenging this please. It's a sacrament.

And should Churches start taking their holy book more seriously/literally, and imposing these rules, and if enough people are actually willing to buy into it all, then we should leave everyone to it and not try to change it - separation of church and state, and all that.... ;)

all of those, except the one referring to divorce, come from the old testament.
when jesus was born, he fufilled the law and there was no longer purpose for the restrictive laws in the old testement, such as animal sacrifice, kosher laws, laws for beating your children, against homosexuality, etc. they became null and void and the laws were replaced by grace... Romans 4-6 discusses this in length:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%204-6;&version=31;

the one verse omitted from your examples, of course, is in Mark, referring to divorce.

Jesus then left that place and went into the region of Judea and across the Jordan. Again crowds of people came to him, and as was his custom, he taught them.

Some Pharisees came and tested him by asking, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?"

"What did Moses command you?" he replied.

They said, "Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away."

"It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law," Jesus replied. "But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.' 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.' So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

When they were in the house again, the disciples asked Jesus about this. He answered, "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery."


here is another instance where jesus states that the old law is no longer valid but the law of grace, or love, takes its place. the church still teaches that divorce is wrong for this reason. the old testament is primarily used for historical purposes and tracing various miracles throughout the years rather than as strict law.

but then again, you're the expert.

[Deckard]

...but then again, you're the expert.
LOL, no not at all. You've missed the point.

Rewriting and reinterpreting according to the tolerances of the different ages has been a continuous component of Christianity. It wasn't too long ago that Christians were using the Bible - the NEW Testament - both to keep women from voting ("Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, not to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence." - 1 Timothy 2:11) and to condone slavery ("Slaves, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the forward." - 1 Peter 2:18). Guess what? As public attitudes changed, people found it increasingly difficult to ignore what their own minds were telling them, and gradually decided to "reinterpret" what was previously regarded as unambiguous dogma. If Christianity is still around in 200 years time, it wouldn't surprise me at all to see gay marriage accepted, and the rules re-interpreted once again - or even re-worded, like the way 'Slaves' has since been changed to 'Servants' in that latter verse – to accomodate the more enlightened general outlook of people.

Let's face it, I've yet to read any convincing reasons to oppose the marriage of two people of the same sex other than religious ones - that it says so in the Bible/Quran/etc. Though I'd be interested to hear any non-religious arguments put forward.

Genuinely I don't mean to sound arrogant, but when it comes to justifying moral positions, Christians might as well quote me the script of a Spiderman comic. In fact at least in that I might expect to see some of the fruits of the last 1000-2000 years of enlightenment thought, of knowledge and progress (much as I appreciate that some of the 'nicer stuff' in the New Testament was to some degree ahead of its time).

The point though is, not only are the rules of these holy books conceived entirely by man rather than some God or other, but also that they're on a continuous path of being reinterpreted according to what is acceptable at any given time, and the issue of gay marriage appears to represent one such transitionary issue.

[Sean]

I think most religious people also tend to forget that many of the religious teachings from 2000 years ago when the New Testament was being written were based on specific needs of the time. I mean let's face it - we just don't have the same problems with leprosy today that they were having back in those days. And in my personal opinion, the rules and laws surrounding marriage are an example of this when you look at them from a practical point of view. As one example, marriage used to be more about procreation because numerous hands were needed around the home/farm/family business to survive. That's simply not the case today. At this point in history, what I personally find to be important is that marriage, be it between a man and a woman, or two women, or two men, needs to be founded on love and mutual respect, and taken seriously. As I've said before in this thread, it serves a huge and important social purpose, and I just want to see it, as well as the people who wish to take part in it, treated with the thoughtfulness they deserve.

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

http://www.kcra.com/cnn-news/17964159/detail.html

Remember that thing called Seperate, But Equal.

Same difference.

[myrrh]

I obviously don't agree with gay marriage.

However, in terms of this law, then I see no problem with it. Why? Because the whole system of law in the United States is based on Democracy, and not any sort of religious law. Simply put, Democracy is the rule of the people, and if enough people want to allow gay marriage, then there should be no problem with that.

Now, say if here in Morocco, they decided to allow gay marriage I would have a serious problem with that. This is because here they are supposed to base their laws on Islaam, and this would be a clear violation of the laws of Islaam.

I don't think that it is correct for any state in the United States to define marriage as because this definition is based on some religious belief, and such things should not play a role in United States politics, according to the system of the United States.

[Deckard]

I obviously don't agree with gay marriage.

However, in terms of this law, then I see no problem with it. Why? Because the whole system of law in the United States is based on Democracy, and not any sort of religious law. Simply put, Democracy is the rule of the people, and if enough people want to allow gay marriage, then there should be no problem with that.

Now, say if here in Morocco, they decided to allow gay marriage I would have a serious problem with that. This is because here they are supposed to base their laws on Islaam, and this would be a clear violation of the laws of Islaam.

I don't think that it is correct for any state in the United States to define marriage as because this definition is based on some religious belief, and such things should not play a role in United States politics, according to the system of the United States.
Re. US - that's fair enough, and broad-minded of you. Of course it still sucks if you're homosexual and through random chance happen to be born in Morocco rather than the US, with no money to move abroad... but then to me that points to the merits of democracy rather than to any inconsistency on your part.

Btw, is that a fairly new thing, spelling Islaam with a second a (like how it should be pronounced) or is it really spelled like that elsewhere?

[myrrh]

Spelling things with a more grammatical lean has been going on for a few years amongst the people who read and make an attempt to pronounce things correctly. I have books published from 1999 that have it spelled Islaam, so it isn't all that new.

With regards to this in general with the religious standpoint: In Islaam homosexuality is a major sin. Islaam does not teach that you are born a homosexual, as then you would be born a sinner, and this is goes against the teachings of Islaam.

That being said, Islaam also teaches us that no one is perfect and everybody sins. However, one should not publically flaunt their sins. This is where the main issue of gay marriage would lie, because now you would be publically announcing that so-and-so are together and in doing so, you would now be subject to the 'law'.

As to the merits of democracy, well that is a whole other thread...

[Strangelet]

Re. US - that's fair enough, and broad-minded of you.

um... I think he meant that the system is satanic, so let it be further satanic, which isn't really broad minded as it is defeatist and condemning.

not that I'm trying to attack you, myrrh, but that is what you meant, right?

glad to see you back around.

edit: ah yes, that's better. my sarcasm detector was turned off

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

um... I think he meant that the system is satanic, so let it be further satanic,


And are you implying Gay Love is satanic?

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

Man, I'm at the edge of my seat waiting for this response.

[Sean]

And are you implying Gay Love is satanic?Yeah, Strangelet! Do you think that gay people are little satan babies?!?!? I'm waiting with bated breath to hear what a hateful gay-basher you are, because obviously, to anyone with(out) a brain, that's what you were saying!!!!! :rolleyes:

Why oh why do I ever override my ignore settings? :confused:

[Strangelet]

<Some fuckhead attempt at attention, i don't know what exactly because he's blocked....>


hey jOHN,

can you just send your antagonisms to me in pm? you'll still have all the fun but you don't have to bother everyone else. I mean imagine a world where people don't dial in to dirty to read your goadings. Its the world we fucking live in, mate.

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

no, no, no, no, no.

Let us make EVERYTHING a public discussion. Enough with the Wizard of Oz bit.


HEADS UP: that's not my quote?????

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

I think this is what's happening. I might be wrong.

"OMG, it's a gay guy, who talks back. And it kind of makes sense. THAT IS UNACCEPTABLE."


I'm just kidding and being antagonistic. I think. Let's wait to see what I'm told I am.


I'm gonna make a cup of tea in the mean time.

[Deckard]

http://i36.tinypic.com/20kqbma.gif

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

Either you are the world's biggest B or you saying I've rested my case.

Let's let it brew folks, they'll be baaaaaack.

[myrrh]

um... I think he meant that the system is satanic, so let it be further satanic, which isn't really broad minded as it is defeatist and condemning.

not that I'm trying to attack you, myrrh, but that is what you meant, right?




Well, I didn't it mean it like that, I just simply meant that it was the system of the US. To say it is satanic would mean that the leaders would be holding meetings in the middle of the night out in the woods where they call each other by mythical names and conduct activities that are so secret that they can't talk about them.

[Strangelet]

Well, I didn't it mean it like that, I just simply meant that it was the system of the US. To say it is satanic would mean that the leaders would be holding meetings in the middle of the night out in the woods where they call each other by mythical names and conduct activities that are so secret that they can't talk about them.


lol sweet answer.

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

Well, I didn't it mean it like that, I just simply meant that it was the system of the US. To say it is satanic would mean that the leaders would be holding meetings in the middle of the night out in the woods where they call each other by mythical names and conduct activities that are so secret that they can't talk about them.

Oh come on, talk some shit to me.

I mean, I'm just this gay guy who's been right about everything that's been going wrong.

[Deckard]

To say it is satanic would mean that the leaders would be holding meetings in the middle of the night out in the woods where they call each other by mythical names and conduct activities that are so secret that they can't talk about them.
Haha :D

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

Cut & paste rocks.

[Sean]

The California Supreme Court is set to review prop 8 next March (http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-me-prop8-supreme-court20-2008nov20,0,4034655.story).

Opponents of the proposition are saying that "the measure was actually a constitutional revision, instead of a more limited amendment. A revision of the state Constitution can be placed before the voters only by a two-thirds vote of the Legislature or a constitutional convention".

Supporters are saying that "it merely amended the constitution by restoring a traditional definition of marriage", and that they'll "mount a recall of any justice who votes to overturn the measure".

Glad to see the threats have already begun. :rolleyes: Guess we'll just have to wait and see what happens.

[gambit]

Well, Californians are nothing if not reasonable.

No wait, did I say reasonable? I meant unreasonable. Unreasonable.

[dubman]

Supporters are saying that "it merely amended the constitution by restoring a traditional definition of marriage", and that they'll "mount a recall of any justice who votes to overturn the measure".


i'd ask if this wasnt almost transparently childish but these are the same voters who passed prop 11

whats with california getting extraordinarily stupid these days? usually we're just fumbly and entitled but this is actively egging on some sort of suburban crusade of the ignorant. jeez.

oh and is john finally coherent enough to look like a complete bullshitter to someone other than myself? top ho!

[gambit]

whats with california getting extraordinarily stupid these days? usually we're just fumbly and entitled but this is actively egging on some sort of suburban crusade of the ignorant. jeez.People here keep complaining that Californians have "taken over" Montana. So maybe we've stolen some of your liberals.

[chuck]

Story. End. Of.

http://graphjam.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/gaymarriage.gif

[BeautifulBurnout]

And the prize goes to Chuck for my first LOL moment of the day! Excellent. :D

[Deckard]

That is class Chuck!

[dubman]

People here keep complaining that Californians have "taken over" Montana. So maybe we've stolen some of your liberals.

you do have the appropriate landscape for the faux-meditative, guilt-ridden, desperate-for-'spirituality' kind that think the wilderness invokes some sort of innocent purity.

good luck with those.

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

you do have the appropriate landscape for the faux-meditative, guilt-ridden, desperate-for-'spirituality' kind that think the wilderness invokes some sort of innocent purity.

good luck with those.


O.K. yeah, but are you still thinking about me?

[gambit]

you do have the appropriate landscape for the faux-meditative, guilt-ridden, desperate-for-'spirituality' kind that think the wilderness invokes some sort of innocent purity.

good luck with those.Maybe we gave you some of our God-fearing, gun-toting conservatives in the exchange?

[Sean]

Maybe we gave you some of our God-fearing, gun-toting conservatives in the exchange?They're probably all in Bakersfield and Orange County.

[dubman]

my dad sent me this hilarious postcard from bakersfield that was nothing but old oil rigs and desert

it is the worst place ever.

[Sean]

my dad sent me this hilarious postcard from bakersfield that was nothing but old oil rigs and desert

it is the worst place ever.They also have cows.

One of my best friends is originally from there, so I've gotten to see some of the better side of Bakersfield too, like some great Basque restaurants, Buck Owen's Crystal Palace (http://www.buckowens.com/index2.html), and....um....I think that's it. But they certainly have no shortage of "God-fearing, gun-toting conservatives".

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

They also have cows.

One of my best friends is originally from there, so I've gotten to see some of the better side of Bakersfield too, like some great Basque restaurants, Buck Owen's Crystal Palace (http://www.buckowens.com/index2.html), and....um....I think that's it. But they certainly have no shortage of "God-fearing, gun-toting conservatives".

And I'm sure they're all so sexy thin.

[Deckard]

Is Gordon Brown the first world leader to speak out against Prop 8?

Speaking at a reception held inside Downing Street last Thursday:

"What I saw in America tells me what we have got to do... This Proposition 8 in California, this attempt to undo good that has been done, this attempt to create divorces for 18,000 people who were perfectly legally brought together in partnerships... this is unacceptable and this shows why we have always got to be vigilant, always got to fight homophobic behaviour and any form of discrimination. I want to say to you all, you have broken new ground, you have shown what can be done, you have shown how you can change opinion in our country, you have shown how the legislative process, by your pressure, can respond."


It's all delivered in Brown's usual cack-handed way of course, but the sentiment (from someone who we're to believe is quite religious) should boost the morale of anyone seeking change in this area.

[Sean]

Is Gordon Brown the first world leader to speak out against Prop 8?

Speaking at a reception held inside Downing Street last Thursday:

"What I saw in America tells me what we have got to do... This Proposition 8 in California, this attempt to undo good that has been done, this attempt to create divorces for 18,000 people who were perfectly legally brought together in partnerships... this is unacceptable and this shows why we have always got to be vigilant, always got to fight homophobic behaviour and any form of discrimination. I want to say to you all, you have broken new ground, you have shown what can be done, you have shown how you can change opinion in our country, you have shown how the legislative process, by your pressure, can respond."Well done Gordon Brown! It'll be interesting to see what the California Supreme Court's ruling on prop 8 is in the coming weeks (http://www.examiner.com/x-4107-SF-Sex--Relationships-Examiner~y2009m3d8-Expected-Prop-8-decision-could-lead-to-federal-appeal). I have a feeling they won't overturn it, but who knows?

[Sean]

Well, California should be ashamed of itself, letting Iowa beat it to making same-sex marriage legal (http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20090403/NEWS/90403010). The ruling stated that:

"We are firmly convinced the exclusion of gay and lesbian people from the institution of civil marriage does not substantially further any important governmental objective. The legislature has excluded a historically disfavored class of persons from a supremely important civil institution without a constitutionally sufficient justification."

Big surprise that there were no constitutional grounds for the ban, right? And again with the people I simply don't understand:

Diane Thacker’s eyes filled with tears as the ruling was read to a crowd opposed to gay marriage that had gathered on the north side of the judicial building.

“Sadness,” she whispered. “But I’m prayerful and hopeful that God’s word will stand.”

Thacker said she joined to group “because I believe in the marriage vow. I can’t see it any other way.”

And why doesn't she feel that the "marriage vow" would carry the same meaning for a same-sex couple as it would for an opposite-sex couple? "God's word", I guess. :rolleyes:

[Strangelet]

Well, California should be ashamed of itself, letting Iowa beat it to making same-sex marriage legal (http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20090403/NEWS/90403010). The ruling stated that:


iowa has the advantage of not being in such close proximity to utah...

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

j: [italicks]crying profusely[end italicks] "I don't wanna get married, I don't wanna get married, no, no, no"

[Sean]

iowa has the advantage of not being in such close proximity to utah...Very true.

And now Vermont's State House and Senate have both voted to allow same-sex marriage (http://www.boston.com/news/local/vermont/articles/2009/04/07/vermont_legalizes_gay_marriage/) as well. Cheers, Vermont!

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

(WASHINGTON) — Mike Huckabee, a possible Republican presidential candidate in 2012, says the effort to allow gays and lesbians to marry is comparable to legalizing incest, polygamy and drug use.
Huckabee also told college journalists last week that gay couples should not be permitted to adopt. "Children are not puppies," he said.
Huckabee visited The College of New Jersey in Ewing, N.J., last Wednesday to speak to the Student Government Association. He also was interviewed by a campus news magazine, The Perspective, which published an article on Friday. (See a TIME photo essay on Mike Huckabee)
Huckabee told the interviewer that not every group's interests deserve to be accommodated, if their lifestyle is outside of what he called "the ideal."
"That would be like saying, well there's there are a lot of people who like to use drugs so let's go ahead and accommodate those who want to use drugs. There are some people who believe in incest, so we should accommodate them. There are people who believe in polygamy, should we accommodate them?" he said, according to a transcript of the interview. See "Portraits of the Tea Party Movement."

The 2008 presidential hopeful and former Arkansas governor also said that deciding which lifestyles should be accommodated and which ones should not creates a slippery slope. "Why do you get to choose that two men are OK but one man and three women aren't OK?" he asked.
Huckabee added that his goal isn't to tell others how to live, but that the burden of proving that a gay marriage can be successful rests with the activists in favor of changing the law. "I don't have to prove that marriage is a man and a woman in a relationship for life," he said. "They have to prove that two men can have an equally definable relationship called marriage, and somehow that that can mean the same thing."
Since the magazine published the interview, Huckabee's remarks have attracted considerable attention on the Web.
In a statement Tuesday, Huckabee said that while he believes what people do in their private lives is their business, "I do not believe we should change the traditional definition of marriage." He also said he thought the college magazine was sensationalizing his "well-known and hardly unusual views of same-sex marriage."

***

First things first, do share your weight loss secrets with us...

[Sean]

Wow. Huckabee just lost some of my respect. I mean, I already disagree with much of his ideology, but I always found him to be a pretty respectable guy in the way he spoke about virtually any subject. But this stuff is pretty low-brow.

Incidentally, I looked up more on this, and found an article (http://www2.timesdispatch.com/rtd/news/national/national_govtpolitics/article/huckabee_likens_gay_marriage_to_incest_polygamy/336974/) that starts exactly as the one you copied here does, jOHN, but it also then goes on to include:

"In response to a 1992 questionnaire from The Associated Press, Huckabee, then a Senate candidate in Arkansas, spelled out his opposition to homosexuality, saying it was crucial that the country not 'legitimize immorality.'

'I feel homosexuality is an aberrant, unnatural, and sinful lifestyle,' he wrote, in response to a question about gays in the military.

He also advocated isolating AIDS patients from the general public, saying it was necessary to confine 'carriers of this plague.'

As governor, Huckabee supported an Arkansas policy that prevented same-sex couples from serving as foster parents. On gay marriage, he said in an interview, 'Marriage has historically never meant anything other than a man and a woman. It has never meant two men, two women, a man and his pet, or a man and a whole herd of pets.'"

[Deckard]

Huckabee told the interviewer that not every group's interests deserve to be accommodated, if their lifestyle is outside of what he called "the ideal" ... The 2008 presidential hopeful and former Arkansas governor also said that deciding which lifestyles should be accommodated and which ones should not creates a slippery slope. "Why do you get to choose that two men are OK but one man and three women aren't OK?" he asked.

What lifestyle is he talking about?
And what precisely is it that he fears from this lifestyle?
And does it pose a greater danger to society than a lifestyle of total celibacy?

(Excuse the language, but a nice big FUCK YOU goes out to Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article7096149.ece) on that one.)

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

Yeah, I'm just waiting for the environmentalists to blame us for global warming next. Damn flamers. And then Paris Hilton's gonna say, 'yeah, they're hot.' & it will be official.

I'm, like, all depressed. Can someone get me some weed for my medical condition?


Party on guys, WE CAN ALWAYS BLAME THE GAYS!:

[Sean]

And does it pose a greater danger to society than a lifestyle of total celibacy?

(Excuse the language, but a nice big FUCK YOU goes out to Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article7096149.ece) on that one.)I was just coming here to post the same quote from Bertone. Unbelievable. For those who haven't read it yet, here's the quote from the Pope's right hand man:

"Many psychologists, many psychiatrists have demonstrated that there is no relationship between celibacy and pedophilia but many others have demonstrated, I was told recently, that there is a relationship between homosexuality and pedophilia."

[Deckard]

"Many psychologists, many psychiatrists have demonstrated that there is no relationship between celibacy and pedophilia but many others have demonstrated, I was told recently, that there is a relationship between homosexuality and pedophilia."
One problem with this is that saying "there's a relationship" between homosexuality and paedophilia tells us nothing about the nature of the (supposed) relationship. Does one make the other more likely? Which one? Or are both made more likely by a third factor? And a fourth? It seems to me he's falling into that classic trap of seeing an apparent "correlation" but refusing to analyse it further because it's enough as it is to confirm his prejudices.

Of course that's assuming we can trust the source/methodology of this research in the first place. I have no problem with acknowledging genuine data, but right now I have my doubts about it.

In terms of the cases specifically involving the Catholic church, I've already read several odious posts remarking on why so many of the victims are boys rather than girls, how this reveals the truth about the 'connection' between paedophilia and homosexuality, and how the "PC brigade" won't let anyone admit it (ignoring the fact that their pathetic little comments have been published by the national newspapers). But the point is, surely it's relevant here that male priests are usually in charge of boys rather than girls, and that male priests (men) are more likely to sexually abuse than nuns (women)? Surely it's no surprise that child sexual abuse in the Catholic church will involve more boys than girls? Are people deliberately ignoring these factors?

Finally - pulling figures completely out my ass to make another point here - but if, for the sake of argument, 1% of heterosexuals were found to be inclined to paedophilia, compared with 4% of homosexuals, then yes we could bleat on about how homosexuals are "more inclined" to paedophilia than heterosexuals. But does that 3% difference make a strong moral case against homosexuality? Really?

And finally (again) - remind me again, why should anyone take moral guidance on homosexuality from celibate frocked men in an institution possibly swarming with sexual abuse? What a friggin joke.

Publicity stunt or not, Dawkins and Hitchens have my support in their plans to arrest the Pontiff (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2010/apr/13/pope-prosecution-dawkins) when he steps foot in Britain. Just a shame no-one else was willing to step in and do it.

[chuck]

"Many psychologists, many psychiatrists have demonstrated that there is no relationship between celibacy and pedophilia but many others have demonstrated, I was told recently, that there is a relationship between homosexuality and pedophilia."

Oh come on.

You can't be hating on the Cardinal.

He's only telling you what he was told - he's a busy man - he doesn't have time to actually understand these things.

;)

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

. . . . Finally - pulling figures completely out my ass to make another point here - but if, for the sake of argument, 1% of heterosexuals were found to be inclined to paedophilia, compared with 4% of homosexuals, then yes we could bleat on about how homosexuals are "more inclined" to paedophilia than heterosexuals. But does that 3% difference make a strong moral case against homosexuality? Really?

. . . .

It really is much more simple than this. And it has nothing to do with homosexuality nor heterosexuality, but sexuality in general biological functioning of the male human form. As always, I'm just waiting for the right moment...

[Sean]

Publicity stunt or not, Dawkins and Hitchens have my support in their plans to arrest the Pontiff (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2010/apr/13/pope-prosecution-dawkins) when he steps foot in Britain. Just a shame no-one else was willing to step in and do it.I'm really hoping this actually happens. I doubt it will, but this molestation problem has been going on for a very, very long time, and with far too few consequences for the people who have perpetrated the actual crimes and been complicit in it all. I can't think of a clearer way to convey the message that no one will be excused for this kind of disgusting behavior - even the Pope.

It's just a shame that the effort is being led by high-profile atheists. I can already hear people defending the church and the Pope saying that it's all just motivated by atheist animosity towards religion, and not by wanting legitimate justice for sexual crimes perpetrated against children by the Catholic Church.

[Deckard]

I'm really hoping this actually happens. I doubt it will, but this molestation problem has been going on for a very, very long time, and with far too few consequences for the people who have perpetrated the actual crimes and been complicit in it all. I can't think of a clearer way to convey the message that no one will be excused for this kind of disgusting behavior - even the Pope.
Yes, and I really don't understand the media inertia around this. People should be furious.

I thought Dawkins made a good point when he drew this analogy:

Suppose the British secretary of state for schools received, from a local education authority, a reliable report of a teacher tying up his pupils and raping them. Imagine that, instead of turning the matter over to the police, he had simply moved the offender from school to school, where he repeatedly raped other children. That would be bad enough. But now suppose that he justified his decision in terms such as these:

"Although I regard the arguments in favour of prosecution, presented by the local education authority, as of grave significance, I nevertheless deem it necessary to consider the good of the government and the party, together with that of the offending teacher. And I am also unable to make light of the detriment that prosecuting the offender can provoke among voters, particularly regarding the young age of the offender."

And what did I read this morning? A piece on why the Vatican media strategy is failing (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8621197.stm). :rolleyes:

Imagine a similar puff piece had any other individual or organisation been caught doing such things.

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

And what did I read this morning? A piece on why the Vatican media strategy is failing (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8621197.stm). :rolleyes:


Too big to fail applies to many.

[Deckard]

Well they've blamed it on the gays and blamed it on the jews.

Now a Mexican Bishop is blaming it on TV (http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Catholic-Sex-Abuse-Scandal-Mexican-Bishop-Blames-Pornography-On-Television-And-The-Internet/Article/201004315607185?lpos=World_News_Top_Stories_Header _4&lid=ARTICLE_15607185_Catholic_Sex_Abuse_Scandal%3A _Mexican_Bishop_Blames_Pornography_On_Television_A nd_The_Internet_).

Bishop Felipe Arizmendi was speaking as the Pope prepared to visit Malta where he is expected to meet victims of abuse by Catholic priests. "With so much invasion of eroticism, sometimes it's not easy to stay celibate or to respect children," he told an annual meeting of bishops near Mexico City.
Excuse me?

"Not easy to respect children"?

A curious thing to say.

Not that I want to bash the Bishop (that's what he should be doing more of) but has he just revealed more about himself in a state of celibacy than he realised?

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

Oh Decks, you're always just so negative. LOOK ON THE BRIGHT SIDE OF THINGS, dammit.

I mean, at least now we will be allowed to watch our loved ones be sick in bed!!!


YYYYY......YYYa, YAY!!!!!

[34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j]

Well they've blamed it on the gays and blamed it on the jews.

Now a Mexican Bishop is blaming it on TV (http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Catholic-Sex-Abuse-Scandal-Mexican-Bishop-Blames-Pornography-On-Television-And-The-Internet/Article/201004315607185?lpos=World_News_Top_Stories_Header _4&lid=ARTICLE_15607185_Catholic_Sex_Abuse_Scandal%3A _Mexican_Bishop_Blames_Pornography_On_Television_A nd_The_Internet_).


Excuse me?

"Not easy to respect children"?

A curious thing to say.

Not that I want to bash the Bishop (that's what he should be doing more of) but has he just revealed more about himself in a state of celibacy than he realised?

This is really just one step away from "the children deserved it...just look at them"

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

TIME's QUOTE OF THE DAY:


"If we put male hormones in a chicken and we make a homosexual eat it, he will transform into a heterosexual."

EVO MORALES, President of Bolivia, suggesting that eating hormone-injected chicken could turn gay men straight and straight men gay



". . . & cocaine makes people feel like they're the KING OF THE WORLD!!!"

John Rodriguez




***edit***

AAAAH, O.K.:


When Bolivian President Evo Morales took the stage to inaugurate the World People's Summit on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth on Tuesday in Cochabamba, he gave his thousands of politically correct attendees a surprise. Somewhere between appealing for an international climate change court and questioning why the United Nations still uses plastic cups, Morales went after genetically modified foods — by making a comment that some think meant that hormones cause homosexuality.

"When we talk about chicken, it's pumped full of female hormones," Morales said, "and so when men eat this chicken they stray from being men" (tienen desviaciones en su ser como hombres in Spanish, literally). The comment went over non-Spanish speakers' heads and so wasn't until sundown that it had rippled its way through the 35,000-participant gathering. By the next morning, the international press had gotten wind of it, Bolivian newspapers plastered it on their front page and Spain's national LGBT federation had issued a statement calling the comment "homophobic."
(See the world's worst dressed leaders.)

The Morales government swears he meant no harm. "He made no mention of sexuality," the Foreign Relation's Ministry said on Thursday in response. "Rather, he said that eating chicken that has hormones changes our own bodies. This point of view has been confirmed by scientists and even the European Union has prohibited the use of some hormones in food," the government asserts, citing studies that have shown that sexual hormones in food can cause genital abnormalities in boys. The document has not assuaged all critics — especially since the Latin left, which Morales represents, has historically been considered less than sympathetic to homosexuals — but has taken some of the heat off Morales.
(See a history of gay rights in the U.S.)

Bolivia's president also called Coca-Cola the poor man's Drano. "If the plumber comes to your house and can't get the job done with all his tools," Morales quipped, "have him pour Coca-Cola down the clogged toilet and problem solved." This jab, however, was better received since Bolivians think that the beverage company unfairly benefits from the country's traditional coca leaf. The leaf, an integral part of indigenous culture here as well as the base ingredient for cocaine, is banned outside the Andes. Bolivia therefore can't export its popular tea, for example. However the U.N. Convention on Narcotics offers an exception when the leaf is used as a "flavoring agent." The Coca-Cola company refuses to disclose any part of their secret formula, but reporting suggests the coca leaf is still in the recipe. Morales' may have timed this one on purpose: Just last week, a small company in Bolivia introduced "Coca-Colla" into the local market (Colla refering to the native Andean highland people), a new soda/energy drink that proudly uses coca as a main ingredient.

Though the off-color remarks took center stage in the press, summit participants chalked it up to quirky humor and kept focus on what few consider a laughing matter — the growing climate crisis. Morales called for this "people's" summit back in January after what he and many in the global south saw as an unwillingness by developed world leaders to set out a sustainable path in Copenhagen. Workshops and panels in Cochabamba echoed with harsh criticism of the Copenhagen Accord's back-door birth and complaints that it falls short of what's needed to curb the problem.

"There is a cruel irony to climate change," Naomi Klein, author of the international bestsellers No Logo and The Shock Doctrine and who participated in the People's Summit, told TIME. "The poorest nations that did not create the problem are the ones who are feeling its effects most," she said, explaining that experts are predicting that the developing world is going to suffer 75% of the effects of climate change.

Bolivia is an example of this irony. The Andean nation's millennia-old glaciers are melting down to bare rock because of global warming that the country's nine million residents did little to create. Scientists here say that Bolivia's ice masses have lost 50% of their volume in the last 40 years alone. Yet this goes beyond mourning the slow death of great natural beauty. These glaciers provide 20% of drinking water for two of Bolivia's largest cities, La Paz and El Alto, as well the surrounding countryside, which combined make up almost a quarter of the country's population.

Moreover, this may be a warning for everyone, says Dirk Hoffman, head of the Climate Change program at Bolivia's largest university, Universidad Mayor de San Andres. He considers the glaciers a kind of environmental miner's canary: "They are extremely sensitive and so when they show their distress by melting, they are telling us that the rest of the planet is in great danger."

Since Bolivia is suffering the consequences of a sequence of conditions it did not cause, there's a debt to be paid, say some activists. For this nation, that could mean funding for projects like the construction of reservoirs. But, the idea goes, climate reparations is about more than just aid. It's about industrialized countries accepting responsibility by taking actions within their own borders to curb the problem: for example, 40% emissions reductions from 1990 levels by 2020, rather than the 13%-to-19% promised in Copenhagen. This debt idea has been met with harsh resistance. Todd Stern, the top U.S. climate negotiator in Copenhagen says that reparations on the scale the activists advocate — a cool $400 billion — is "wildly unrealistic."

Back on Tuesday's inaugural stage, speakers understood their uphill battle. As the smoke from the ceremonial coca leaf offering floated into the late morning air, representatives from Brazil, Nigeria and India said that it is time the world chooses between survival and destruction. But the vast gathering shows tenacity, despite the challenges. As Alaska Inter-Tribal Council member Faith Gemmil noted in her welcoming address: "Our people have faced destructive policies for centuries. And we are still here."



Read more: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1984064,00.html#ixzz0lwN3jzwi

[Sean]

So the Pope has now come out saying that same sex marriage is one of the most "insidious and dangerous" threats to the world (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9FM362G0&show_article=1) today. Now for some context, keep in mind that his strongest language regarding the many priests who have forced themselves sexually on defenseless children has been to call them "sins within the church". I just can't seem to view him as a moral authority for some strange reason...

[Deckard]

So the Pope has now come out saying that same sex marriage is one of the most "insidious and dangerous" threats to the world (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9FM362G0&show_article=1) today. Now for some context, keep in mind that his strongest language regarding the many priests who have forced themselves sexually on defenseless children has been to call them "sins within the church". I just can't seem to view him as a moral authority for some strange reason...
You should have seen our Prime Ministerial candidates on TV recently, all three falling over themselves to express their utmost respect for the Pope. Just pathetic how religious leaders get this undeserved respect.

[Deckard]

Anyone hear Laura Bush telling Larry King how she backs gay marriage?

That - along with the results of this snapshot of American attitudes towards gay marriage (PDF here (http://www.columbia.edu/~jrl2124/Lax_Phillips_Gay_Policy_Responsiveness_2009.pdf)) is encouraging.

http://i39.tinypic.com/288xs9x.png

[Sean]

Anyone hear Laura Bush telling Larry King how she backs gay marriage?

That - along with the results of this snapshot of American attitudes towards gay marriage (PDF here (http://www.columbia.edu/~jrl2124/Lax_Phillips_Gay_Policy_Responsiveness_2009.pdf)) is encouraging.

http://i39.tinypic.com/288xs9x.pngI've never seen the generational gap on this issue so clearly portrayed. Really drives home the fact that it's only a matter of time...

[cacophony]

ugh, just look at the bottom 10 states on the Y axis.

if you divided up georgia and polled atlanta vs the rest of this godforsaken state you'd see a very divided picture. rednecks are ruining it for everyone.

[Sean]

ugh, just look at the bottom 10 states on the Y axis.

if you divided up georgia and polled atlanta vs the rest of this godforsaken state you'd see a very divided picture. rednecks are ruining it for everyone.Rednecks and Mormons. Utah's vying for the bottom spot with Mississippi and Alabama, and of course Mormons were largely behind the push on the prop 8 out here in California.

[Deckard]

It certainly looks bad for old Alabama and Mississippi, but it could be worse (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/10130240.stm).

A judge in Malawi has imposed a maximum sentence of 14 years in prison with hard labour on a gay couple convicted of gross indecency and unnatural acts. Handing down sentence in the commercial capital, Blantyre, Judge Nyakwawa Usiwa-Usiwa told the pair:

"I will give you a scaring sentence so that the public be protected from people like you, so that we are not tempted to emulate this horrendous example."

Huh? Another anti-gay conservative accidentally letting slip that he's running away from temptation?

Well whoodathunkit...

[Sean]

The "Defense of Marriage Act" has been ruled to be unconstitutional (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jZVhxGXCMRA-mJB4JYXiICP3a6jQD9GR42L80) by U.S. District Judge Joseph Tauro in Boston.

BOSTON — A U.S. judge in Boston has ruled that a federal gay marriage ban is unconstitutional because it interferes with the right of a state to define marriage.

U.S. District Judge Joseph Tauro on Thursday ruled in favor of gay couples' rights in two separate challenges to the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, known as DOMA.

The state had argued the law denied benefits such as Medicaid to gay married couples in Massachusetts, where same-sex unions have been legal since 2004.

Tauro agreed, and said the act forces Massachusetts to discriminate against its own citizens.

"The federal government, by enacting and enforcing DOMA, plainly encroaches upon the firmly entrenched province of the state, and in doing so, offends the Tenth Amendment. For that reason, the statute is invalid," Tauro wrote in a ruling in a lawsuit filed by Attorney General Martha Coakley.

Ruling in a separate case filed by Gays & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, Tauro found that DOMA violates the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution.

"We've maintained from the very beginning that there was absolutely no basis for this law treating one class of married Massachusetts couples different from everybody else and the court has recognized that," said Gary Buseck, GLAD's legal director.

The Justice Department argued the federal government has the right to set eligibility requirements for federal benefits — including requiring that those benefits only go to couples in marriages between a man and a woman.
The law was enacted by Congress in 1996 when it appeared Hawaii would soon legalize same-sex marriage and opponents worried that other states would be forced to recognize such marriages. The lawsuit challenges only the portion of the law that prevents the federal government from affording pension and other benefits to same-sex couples.

Since then, five states and the District of Columbia have legalized gay marriage.

One step at a time....

[cacophony]

last night's futurama episode was a tribute to prop 8.

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38560562/ns/us_news-life/

Judge overturns Calif. gay marriage ban
Verdict comes in response to lawsuit challenging Proposition 8Advertisement | ad info
.NBC, msnbc.com and news services
updated 24 minutes ago
Share Print Font: +-breaking news
SAN FRANCISCO — In a major victory for gay rights advocates, a federal judge on Wednesday struck down a California ban on same-sex marriage.

Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker's decision to overturn the voter-approved ban, known as Proposition 8, came in response to a lawsuit brought by two same-sex couples and the city of San Francisco seeking to invalidate the law as an unlawful infringement on the civil rights of gay men and lesbians.

Proposition 8, which outlawed gay marriages in California five months after the state Supreme Court legalized them, passed with 52 percent of the vote in November 2008 following the most expensive campaign on a social issue in U.S. history.

Attorneys on both sides have said an appeal was certain if Walker did not rule in their favor. The case would go first to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, then the Supreme Court if the high court justices agree to review it.

Anticipating such a scenario, lawyers for the coalition of religious and conservative groups that sponsored Proposition 8 in 2008 filed a legal brief Tuesday asking Walker to stay his decision if he overturns the ban so same-sex couples could not marry while an appeal was pending.

"Same-sex marriages would be licensed under a cloud of uncertainty, and should proponents succeed on appeal, any such marriages would be invalid," they wrote.

Walker presided over a 13-day trial earlier this year that was the first in federal court to examine if states can prohibit gays from getting married without violating the constitutional guarantee of equality.

Supporters argued the ban was necessary to safeguard the traditional understanding of marriage and to encourage responsible childbearing.

Opponents said that tradition or fears of harm to heterosexual unions were legally insufficient grounds to discriminate against gay couples.


********************

God f-ing save me, I can hear the pressure to wear a damn ring already. . .

[Strangelet]

Judge Walker, American Hero in the silly season of swamp gas extremism: "That the majority of California voters supported Proposition 8 is
irrelevant, as “fundamental rights may not be submitted to [a] vote;
they depend on the outcome of no elections.” West Virginia State Board
of Education v Barnette, 319 US 624, 638 (1943)"

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

(raising open shaking hands in the air like the holey rollers I've seen on the television) "Laaawd, Laaawd Jesus Christ SAVE me. I want to follow in your footsteps and be a bachelor FOREVAAAA!"

[dubman]

yo john rodriguez you ever look back in your posts and realize that what you said three months ago as a private joke is not actually funny or worthwhile at all

everyone here is three months ahead of you on that.

anyway, update: judge lifted the stay on marriages altogether while the appeals process gnashes and writhes about.

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

PM'd to spare everyone the bitchy catfight. ;)

[dubman]

now spare everyone the posts you make

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

yo john rodriguez you ever look back in your posts .... blah..blah....blah.....

anyway, update: judge lifted the stay on marriages altogether while the appeals process gnashes and writhes about.




now spare everyone the posts you make




This is what we really heard: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BhwEJl691Bk