Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: LAWCobra on March 12, 2004, 02:27:18 AM
-
Gay Marriage Stalls in Calif., Mass.
Fri Mar 12,12:09 AM ET Add U.S. National - AP to My Yahoo!
By DAVID KRAVETS, Associated Press Writer
SAN FRANCISCO - The California Supreme Court ordered an immediate halt to same-sex weddings in San Francisco on Thursday as Massachusetts lawmakers gave preliminary approval to a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriages in the only state where they have been ruled legal.
AP Photo
AP Photo
Slideshow: Same-Sex Marriage Issues
Teary-eyed couples were quickly turned away at San Francisco's City Hall, where 4,161 gay couples have tied the knot in the last month.
"We were filling out the application and they told us to stop," said Art Adams, who was the first to be denied as he and partner Devin Baker sought a license. "It's heartbreaking. I don't understand why two people in love should be prevented from expressing it."
The high court moved to block any more marriages, at least for now, until they decide whether San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom had the power to authorize such unions. The court said it would hear arguments in May or June on whether Newsom had that authority.
On the other side of the country, Massachusetts legislators returned to the Capitol to consider a constitutional amendment that would strip gay couples of their court-granted right to marriage but allow civil unions.
The amendment won approval during three preliminary votes, before the Legislature recessed just before midnight Thursday. Lawmakers planned to return March 29 to resume deliberations.
The amendment's final passage is far from certain, however, as gay marriage supporters were conducting procedural maneuvers that could ultimately lead to the proposal's defeat.
Massachusetts took center stage in the national debate over gay marriage following a landmark decision by its highest court in November that was reaffirmed last month. The rulings set the stage for the nation's first legally sanctioned gay marriages on May 17.
Lawmakers seeking to put a gay marriage ban before Massachusetts voters were unsuccessful during a joint House-Senate session last month.
San Francisco's mayor waded into the debate at about the same time, ordering his administration on Feb. 12 to issue same-sex marriage licenses.
Newsom's defiance of California law prompted officials in several other cities and counties across the nation to follow suit, and President Bush (news - web sites) last month cited the San Francisco weddings when he announced that he supports changing the U.S. Constitution to ban same-sex marriages. Lawmakers in dozens of states have also taken up the issue.
The high court's unanimous decision Thursday marked a victory for conservatives who have been fighting for a month to block the rush to the altar by gay couples.
Had the court declined to intervene, the legal battle over gay marriage in California would have taken years as gay marriage lawsuits traveled through the state's lower courts.
"They restored order to chaos in San Francisco," said Joshua Carden, an attorney with the conservative Alliance Defense Fund.
The Alliance Defense Fund, a fellow conservative group and state Attorney General Bill Lockyer had asked the court to immediately block the gay marriages.
Jon Davidson, an attorney for the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, a gay rights legal aid group, said the ruling simply puts the issue on hold for now. About 2,688 couples had wedding appointments that are now on hold.
"The court has put everything on pause rather than stop," he said. "They are saying that until we hear this, you are on pause."
The court said whether the California Constitution permits same-sex marriage is a question that should work its way through the lower courts. That process could take a year or more before it again reaches the state high court.
San Francisco, in response, immediately filed a lawsuit in state court demanding that a judge declare that the state constitution permits same-sex marriages.
"While we are disappointed with the interim stay of same-sex marriages here in San Francisco, we must remain cognizant that our overriding purpose is to ensure marriage equality for all Californians, not merely those performed within our city limits," City Attorney Dennis Herrera said.
In Massachusetts, both sides acknowledged that they face a long battle.
Several of the most ardent supporters of gay marriage actually gave preliminary approval to the ban. By doing that, the lawmakers eliminated the possibility of other, less appealing versions coming forward at this time. They hope to withdraw support on the crucial final vote needed before the end of the session.
The gay marriage ban needs to be approved by two consecutive Legislatures before reaching the ballot. The earliest that could happen is November 2006.
"The silver lining out of this is you saw a desire here to protect marriage," Ron Crews, head of the Massachusetts Family Institute, said of the preliminary approval.
The first constitutional convention ended after three versions of a gay marriage ban met narrow defeats during two days of passionate debate, pitting civil rights against the desire to preserve the traditional definition of marriage.
By 6 a.m. Thursday, hundreds of people stood at the Statehouse entrance before the start of the second convention, and others chanted, waved flags and sang Gospel music on the sidewalks.
"No Hatred. Just loving biblical truth," read posters held by some of the opponents of gay marriage.
Lynn Tibbets, 50, of Boston, held a sign urging "No discrimination in the constitution." "It used to just make me mad — the people on the other side. Now it just makes me sad," Tibbets said as she choked back tears.
___
:rofl :rofl :rofl :D
-
Yes, it's hilarious.
-
Another step back in time... Maybe it is time to keep those annoying colored people away from public transporation again too, don't you think?
Long live the land of the free!
-
I think someones worried they couldn't marry one of their other personalities...
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
I think someones worried they couldn't marry one of their other personalities...
Prob couldn't remember which personality booked the flight to San Francisco I guess....
Tronsky
-
I wonder why there should be gay marriages.. christian marriage was created with the man & woman in mind, not man & man :confused:
-
Maybe they want the same financial benefits as their hetero counterparts. Understandable really. You wouldn't even have to give it any religious significance. Make it a civil partnership. I don't see the big deal - the only issue is whether or not it is recogized in the Christian church, so they could have religious ceremony; this is up to the clergy to decide. Because the State should be entirely separate from any religious body, it should be a State recognized union. People get married in registry offices all the time with no religious connotation. Why anyone should go to all the trouble of constituional ammendment is beyond me.
-
Another step back in time... Maybe it is time to keep those annoying colored people away from public transporation again too, don't you think?
Now we are comparing Blacks with the mentally ill?
Apples and Oranges
-
Originally posted by Fishu
I wonder why there should be gay marriages.. christian marriage was created with the man & woman in mind, not man & man :confused:
well, why should "christian marriages" have gov't endorsement over non-christian marriages?
-
Originally posted by Thud
Another step back in time... !
Yes, a step back to a time when the law and the will of the people is not pissed on by a whacky Mayor who decided he knows what's best for the people.
-
The 'will of the people' does not make laws. We would still be doing trial by fire if that was the case.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Maybe they want the same financial benefits as their hetero counterparts. Understandable really. You wouldn't even have to give it any religious significance. Make it a civil partnership. I don't see the big deal - the only issue is whether or not it is recogized in the Christian church, so they could have religious ceremony; this is up to the clergy to decide. Because the State should be entirely separate from any religious body, it should be a State recognized union. People get married in registry offices all the time with no religious connotation. Why anyone should go to all the trouble of constituional ammendment is beyond me.
Damn.. I better make an appointment with doc... this made sense...
I fail to see what the big deal is either. If they wanna get married, more power to'em. Call it a "civil union" to make ya feel better if ya want, but add to the law that these unions get all the same benefits of marriage. I'm just tired of hearin about it.. there's bigger fish to fry.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Yes, a step back to a time when the law and the will of the people is not pissed on by a whacky Mayor who decided he knows what's best for the people.
Or when a whacky governor decides to block a college on the first day blacks are allowed in and the president has to send in the NG. Those were the days...
-
Originally posted by Mighty1
Now we are comparing Blacks with the mentally ill?
Apples and Oranges
Go dig a cave, you might find a better troll there
-
Now we are comparing Blacks with the mentally ill?
Apples and Oranges
LMAO! Just too funny.
-
Here we go again. :)
I still don't see anything wrong with it. Day after day we're losing the freedoms we've come to enjoy. ;)
-
You know, you can say that millions upon millions of times Texace, it will never make it true...
-
Originally posted by Thud
Or when a whacky governor decides to block a college on the first day blacks are allowed in and the president has to send in the NG. Those were the days...
Actually, the president sent in Active Duty troops. It was the governer that tried to block it with NG troops. We are talking about Arkansas here... right?
MiniD
-
Originally posted by Mini D
Actually, the president sent in Active Duty troops. It was the governer that tried to block it with NG troops. We are talking about Arkansas here... right?
MiniD
You're absolutely right, I thought the president did send in the NG again after he federalized them.
-
It won't? Let me ask you something.
Let's say, just for kicks, that someone in the United States finds that publically speaking about one's religion is offensive. This individual gets together with their friends and they form and intrest group. This intrest group...we'll call them Americans Agaist Spoken Religion...sends a lobbyist to DC to get a lawmaker to pass a law against it. Probable? No, but let's say this lobbyist makes their case and the lawmaker puts the bill into the House and Senate. The law somehow passes, and now anyone caught speaking in public about religion is fined.
Far featched, maybe, but the basic fact is this is what is going on every day. There's not constiutional ammendment against gay marriage, but lobbyists nation wide are pushing for one. Soon, it will be illegal for same sex couples to get married, but they can form civil unions? Basically, marriage without the financial benefit, so it seems. While this doesn't bother me, the fact that people can be arrested and fined for exersizing their rights as Americans seems a little...strange to me. I mean, they aren't putting anyone's life in danger, they're not a threat to society...what's the big deal?
Being a Christian nation, Christain beliefs are rampent in some of our laws. I don't see anything wrong with this, but the more people whine about how moral or how offensive something is, the more inclined Washington is to pass a law. Gay marriage will be illegal, abortion will be illegal...it's like a snowball rolling downhill. Activists get a law passed and move on to the next thing that offends them.
Am I wrong? Probably...I'm usually never right about anything on this board anyway, but I post how I feel because I can. That is...unless Congress passes a law saying we can't talk about this stuff here because some of you find it offensive. That would be a kicker, there, wouldn't it?
-
Originally posted by CavemanJ
Damn.. I better make an appointment with doc... this made sense...
I fail to see what the big deal is either. If they wanna get married, more power to'em. Call it a "civil union" to make ya feel better if ya want, but add to the law that these unions get all the same benefits of marriage. I'm just tired of hearin about it.. there's bigger fish to fry.
How much ya gonna care when some NAMBLA geezer wants to hitch up with a 12 year old boy. Whos to say "freedom" shouldn't be extended to a grown man and a boy marriage?
-
Originally posted by Scatcat
How much ya gonna care when some NAMBLA geezer wants to hitch up with a 12 year old boy. Whos to say "freedom" shouldn't be extended to a grown man and a boy marriage?
This is always brought up as a defense. Last time I checked its illegal because they aren't old enough to consent. That's an interesting concept there, consent. If they were 16 in Oklahoma, the age of concent, a 60 year old and the 16 year old could shack up all they want, and get married if it was a 16 year old girl and 60 year old man. (Although parents concent is needed for marriage.) Therefore unless consent laws get changed we will have nothing to worry about NAMBLA ever getting any rights. If consent laws get changed it's not just 12 year old boys and 60 year old men you need to watch out for... it's your 12 year old daughters and 20 year old men.
-
Originally posted by texace
Here we go again. :)
I still don't see anything wrong with it. Day after day we're losing the freedoms we've come to enjoy. ;)
Not extending freedom that has never been is not the same as losing freedom already practiced.
-
Originally posted by Fishu
I wonder why there should be gay marriages.. christian marriage was created with the man & woman in mind, not man & man :confused:
That should be decided by the religious group, not by the goverment.
-
In some states (up until now) the practice of gay sex was legal. Ergo, it's a freedom that is practiced...
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Not extending freedom that has never been is not the same as losing freedom already practiced.
This one puzzled me.....
So if an individual never enjoyed a particular freedom, then he or she is not entitled to that freedom?
-
Take goverment out of marriage. Make the "tax breaks" universal to all citizens. Make the decisions in a hospital based on a living will or spouse. Eliminate the recognition of marriage by the goverment completely. The seperation of a mutually agreed upon union can still be decided in a court of law, ie child support, alimony. The only recognizable union would be through the church, which is where it started in the first place.
Simple solution to a simple problem.
-
Originally posted by Scatcat
How much ya gonna care when some NAMBLA geezer wants to hitch up with a 12 year old boy. Whos to say "freedom" shouldn't be extended to a grown man and a boy marriage?
LOL, now we're talking apples and oranges.
I'd wager there is not one person on this BBS, let alone anyone we'd know personally that would support a marriage/relationship between an adult and a child. That's statutory rape in my book.
Relationships between two conscenting adults should be a non-issue, really. If they aren't victimizing anyone, we shouldn't be butting into their relationship. Too bad some here feel insecure and threatened by it.
Newflash: Having homosexual marriages legalized isn't going to increase the homosexual population. Either one is heterosexual/homosexual/etc or they are not. It is not by choice but of who they are.
Children will not get "confused" about their sexuality if they see same-sex couples kissing, holding hands, getting married, etc.
For those "espousing" their Christianity by showing their intolerence, shouldn't you let God make the final judgement?
'Let he that is without sin cast the first stone." That mean anything to you?
I wonder if God will allow those with intolerence in his heaven.
Something to think about.
-
In some states (up until now) the practice of gay sex was legal. Ergo, it's a freedom that is practiced...
So was slavery. Doesn't mean that it's the right thing to do...
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
So was slavery. Doesn't mean that it's the right thing to do...
again apples and oranges
-
Originally posted by vorticon
again apples and oranges
Please elaborate instead of posting pointless oneliners...
-
Actually, it's the same orchard. Slavery is immoral, so is homosexuality.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Actually, it's the same orchard. Slavery is immoral, so is homosexuality.
Oppressing blacks is immoral, oppressing gays is immoral. In both cases the culprits of the oppressing are simple, misguided, narrowminded and not too bright individuals. Think about what that implies with regards to yourself...
-
Oh boy, the nature or nurture argument rears its ugly head. Is it genetic, or simply a lifestyle choice.
People have genetic tendencies towards alcoholism. They choose not to drink.
So what about taking government out of marriage? No thoughts on the idea?
-
Originally posted by Lazerus
So what about taking government out of marriage? No thoughts on the idea?
All for it!
marriage in my book is holy thing thats why most have it done by a priest or rabbi.
Marriage should be handled by the church and not the white house.
-
Originally posted by LAWCobra
All for it!
marriage in my book is holy thing thats why most have it done by a priest or rabbi.
Marriage should be handled by the church and not the white house.
So all atheists, and those married by a celebrant/civil service are not married?
Tronsky
-
Originally posted by -tronski-
So all atheists, and those married by a celebrant/civil service are not married?
Tronsky
Of course they are. If they can find a religious affiliation that will recognize them. Marriage is and has always been a religious union. If they can find a religious organization that will marry them, then they are married. The current argument is over governmental recognition. Take the government out of marriage and there is no argument at all.
Take the government out of marriage, period.
Make the taxation 'benefits' universal to all americans.
The only argument is the ability to recieve tax breaks and medical benefits through marriage.
Make them universal and end the argument.
-
Originally posted by Thud
Oppressing blacks is immoral, oppressing gays is immoral. In both cases the culprits of the oppressing are simple, misguided, narrowminded and not too bright individuals. Think about what that implies with regards to yourself...
Actually, I think there would be a stronger argument if you suggested one guy buggering another was simple, misguided, narrowminded, and not too bright.
-
Originally posted by MJHerman
This one puzzled me.....
So if an individual never enjoyed a particular freedom, then he or she is not entitled to that freedom?
No, I was replying to a comment which said that "Day after day we're losing the freedoms we've come to enjoy."
Gay marraige is not a 'freedom we have come to enjoy' as (in all but a very few countries) it has not been legal. In order to lose something you need to have it in the first place.
-
I can still marry a sheep right?
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Actually, it's the same orchard. Slavery is immoral, so is homosexuality.
But the bible says that slavery is okay and homosexuality is bad.
This religion stuff is so confusing. ;)
-
Originally posted by Thud
Another step back in time... Maybe it is time to keep those annoying colored people away from public transporation again too, don't you think?
Long live the land of the free!
I may be labled a bigot on this issue but so be it.
I personaly feel every individual has personal rights granted by the constitution but I don't see where personal sexual orientation should grant anyone any more rights than any other individual.
Marriage as such is primarily a relegious ceremony and as someone has already mentioned, the government got involved to make money off of it.
Personaly, I think homosexuals have a mental impairment. When I see what are obviously homosexuals I pity them. I personaly don't consider it "natural". In society I don't treat homosexuals any differently than I do "straight" people simply because I beleive in the inaliable rights of the individual. I don't feel comfortable in the company of "blatant" homosexuals but don't have a problem associating with homosexuals who act "normal".
I have in my lifetime been approached by homosexuals and it was a scary moment to me. What was I afraid of? I'm not sure because as soon as I communicated my lack of interest I was left alone.
I think this whole panorama has been taken to an extreme and has been publicised far too much.
A step back in time? I view this as a step forward myself.
-
Originally posted by Lazerus
Marriage is and has always been a religious union.
The only argument is the ability to recieve tax breaks and medical benefits through marriage.
Make them universal and end the argument.
bzzzzzzttttt... try again.
marriage has always been a social union (contract). the church(es) only took over to weasel their way into more power (and make their own moola off it).
instead of taking gov't out of marriages, why not take religion out of the gov't.
your second point is right on target and is what's being "fought" for now.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
the only issue is whether or not it is recogized in the Christian church,
Do you think Muslims and Jews would Marry Homosexuals in their Holy places?
-
Originally posted by weaselsan
Do you think Muslims and Jews would Marry Homosexuals in their Holy places?
homosexuals have their own holy places ? :confused:
-
Oppressing blacks is immoral, oppressing gays is immoral. In both cases the culprits of the oppressing are simple, misguided, narrowminded and not too bright individuals. Think about what that implies with regards to yourself...
No, Slavery is immoral, same with Homosexuality. Are we oppressing the people who want to commit murder? Are we oppressing the people who want to rape people? Are we oppressing the people who commit genocide?
By your thought process, we oppressed the slave owners by telling them they weren't allowed to have any slaves.
-
Originally posted by Joc
I can still marry a sheep right?
Sure ... if you have a sheep that can sign a marriage license on its own ... ask her if she has a sister :lol
Originally posted by lasersailor184
No, Slavery is immoral, same with Homosexuality.
Slavery opresses other people without their consent. Slaves did not choose to be slaves .... they were forced into being slaves. Homosexuality doesn't affect anyone but the people involved ... and last time I checked forcing anyone to be homosexual is still illegal.
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Are we oppressing the people who want to commit murder? Are we oppressing the people who want to rape people? Are we oppressing the people who commit genocide?
All of those affect other people. Don't see how that relates to homosexuality.
-
Hmm...
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
By your thought process, we oppressed the slave owners by telling them they weren't allowed to have any slaves.
If you choose to believe that my statement revolved around the idiotic principle that anyone who can't do anything he/she desires is oppressed, than your rather shallow argument would have some trace of logic in it, even you know better than that.
Comparing one activity that does NOT affect anyone but two people who love eachother getting married... and one that involved kidnapping, humiliating, dehumanizing and essentially taking the lives and all and any rights away of an ethnic group that was handy as free labor is completely ridiculous.
It makes it painfully obvious that you neither did understand my thought process, nor possess the capability to have one yourself.