CCTAU 3,350 Posted November 19, 2003 Share Posted November 19, 2003 Although I do not agree, Boortz makes some legally based sense. But I post this just to show you libs out there that I do not blindly believe everything a "consevative" talk show host says. I think that the moral decay this will bring about will touch many areas in the future that will use this as an excuse to OK what most people KNOW are wrong. GAY MARRIAGES. OH .. THE HUMANITY!Oh boy. Here I go setting myself up for another few days of incredibly vicious hate mail from self-proclaimed Christians out there. Nothing gets those folks more angry at me then when I indicate that I don't share their hatred and fear of homosexuals. That's OK though. I can handle it. The Massachusetts Supreme Court has ruled that the state cannot discriminate against gay and lesbian couples in the recognition of marriages. The Massachusetts legislature now has 180 days to come up with a way to give homosexual couples the same rights that heterosexual couples enjoy under Massachusetts law. So, to put it in the common vernacular, it looks like gay marriages will soon be legal in Massachusetts. OK .. here we have a judicial action, soon to be a judicial action which is sure to be controversial. My first and really my only concern here is whether or not the action taken by the Massachusetts Supreme Court could lead somehow to a threat to my life, liberty or property, either through force or fraud. Try as hard as I might, I couldn't dream up the scenario where this would happen. Just which one of my rights is violated if, through the operation of law, the estate of a deceased gay man can pass to his gay partner? What do I lose if a lesbian can file a joint federal income tax return with her lesbian partner in marriage? Nothing .. that's what ... nothing. Not a thing. So can someone tell me on just what basis I'm supposed to rant and rave against the idea of the law recognizing a committed relationship between two people who truly love each other but who happen to be of the same sex? Just what have I lost here? What am I going to lose if every state in the union steps forward and legalizes, as they say, "gay marriage? Every single right that I have under the law today I will have under the law after gays and lesbians get their state issued marriage licenses. Some of you are going to tell me that this is an affront to your religious beliefs. I respect that. But those are religious beliefs and have no role in the operation of government. Your religious beliefs are between you, your God, your family and your church. They are not to be guidelines for the operation of your government. Our government was founded on a principle of equal treatment under the law. Your religion may not be comfortable with that concept. Fine. Live your own life in strict accordance with your religious principles if you wish, but don't try to use the police power of government to compel others to live by them also. You may also tell me that you don't think that children should be raised by homosexual couples. I'll agree with you on that. I firmly believe that children need mothers and fathers. A young girl or boy has many lessons to learn before they're kicked out of the nest, and some of those lessons are uniquely designed to be taught by mothers, some by fathers. Do you want a law recognizing the value of children being raised by mothers and fathers; a law banning adoption by same-sex couples? Fine. I'm with you there too. Some of the people who will object loudly to this decision will go to the corner store today to purchase their copy of People magazine and then wander off to their homes in time to catch Entertainment Tonight on the tube. They will ooh and ahhhh over the latest news and gossip about their favorite celebrities. These are the same celebrities who engage in a series of four-month marriages. They're also the same celebrities who get pregnant and then wonder out loud in anxiously awaited interviews about whether or not they'll get married to the father at some time in the future. Maybe so, maybe not. The Hollywood crowd has made a mockery of the idea of marriage and of raising children in mother-father households. If you want to focus your righteous rage somewhere ... try Hollywood. There is a solution here. State governments could set up two distinct legal relationships between adults. There could be marriages and there could be civil unions. The laws of the state would grant certain privileges and rights to people who have formed state-recognized civil unions. These would be the rights and privileges generally afforded to heterosexual couples today. As for marriages? Let the church's handle those. Create a system whereby governments recognize civil unions, and churches recognize marriages. If people want to be "married" let them go to a church and have their civil union recognized and blessed by the church. Otherwise, you simple remain "partners," but with all of the legal rights and privileges that the government grants to those who's unions are recognized by a church. In the meantime ... unless you can tell me how the Massachusetts decision is going to effect your rights under the law, it's my position that you have nothing to gripe about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donutboy 0 Posted November 19, 2003 Share Posted November 19, 2003 Yeah, it could lead to marriage between humans and animals and who knows what else!! <TIC> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AURainman 6 Posted November 19, 2003 Share Posted November 19, 2003 Well, I don't consider myself a homophobe, but I am a Christian (which makes me a homophobe in most people's eyes). I believe a marriage is a holy thing first. Then it is a legal thing. A marriage is a union before God. Why is this being manipulated into a purely legal thing? If gay couples want to have secular court-room "weddings" to justify their delusion, then fine by me. But, when homosexuality is laid on the alter before God, I have a problem. Of course, I would not be the one to judge, but I would voice my disapproval. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donutboy 0 Posted November 19, 2003 Share Posted November 19, 2003 Well, I don't consider myself a homophobe, but I am a Christian (which makes me a homophobe in most people's eyes). I believe a marriage is a holy thing first. Then it is a legal thing. A marriage is a union before God. Why is this being manipulated into a purely legal thing? If gay couples want to have secular court-room "weddings" to justify their delusion, then fine by me. But, when homosexuality is laid on the alter before God, I have a problem. Of course, I would not be the one to judge, but I would voice my disapproval. If the government stepped in and banned gay marriages, it wouldn't be the first time they've stepped in and imposed "Christian values" on the citizenry. Under Mormon law, polygamy is legal and accepted but our government banned polygamy decades ago. I'll be surprised if they don't do the same over this issue. Of course, no action will be taken until after the 2004 elections. With the shaky economy and the quagmire in Iraq, Republicans are already poising to make this the front and center issue of the 2004 elections. We wouldn't want to setle it too early and not have it as an issue nest year, would we? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rexbo 104 Posted November 19, 2003 Share Posted November 19, 2003 ...Under Mormon law, polygamy is legal and accepted but our government banned polygamy decades ago. I'll be surprised if they don't do the same over this issue... That is the issue with State approved and sanctioned Gay Marriage. Once you open the door past the man-woman relationship that our society has depended upon for thousands of years to form the basis for civilization, you cannot argue against any other type of marriage or civil union between 2 or more adults. The argument against gay marriage is not about someone else's personal civil rights, it is about society. What was the phrase in the Consitution, "provide for general welfare"? We as a society have to decide if opening this door provides for the general welfare of all of our citizens, not a the civil rights of a man living next door to a gay couple. Now, I am just waiting for TigerAl and Jenny to start duking it out, so I can see clearly all of the pros and cons laid out for me... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenny AU-92 0 Posted November 19, 2003 Share Posted November 19, 2003 Sorry - not gonna take a strong conservative side on this one. Like Boortz, I do not support gay adoption, as I also believe that a child needs input from both a father and a mother, not only for conception but also for a proper foundation. My opinion, but still my opinion. i also don't think that "marriage" is the right word. Marriage is a holy union, established by God, not just a legal one, established by man, and is between a man and a woman. Again, my opinion. However, like Boortz, I see no problem with creating a civil union - not marriage, but a legal relationship, like a business partnership - but I have another spin on it. These so-called legal unions would not just be for gay couples, but for athiests, for agnostics, or any other couple who for whatever reason hates the concept of marriage before God, but want a legally defined relationship. I personally see benefit to this - like Boortz said, joint income tax, property ownership, etc. If Carl and I had shacked up and never married, and lived together for years and years and had kids, etc., I would not want to rely on status as his "common-law" wife to be able to continue to live in my house and be guardian to our children and benefit from his insurance if somethng happened to him. What if it had been less than the number of years required by law to be "common law"? And if he cheated on me, I would want the right to take him for everything he had if we had been together for that long. Proving common-law status is not always that easy and usually involves a courtroom and lawyers, which means money. As a legal minded person, I always see benefit to having things done formally, in writing, before a concern arises. I would also think that you could place limits on this union - like the number of people that can be involved, and what is involved in disolving it. THere are rules governing other types of legal realtionships - why not this one as well? No goats, no threesomes, no underage participants. In the interest of total transparancy, I actually officiated at a civil union once, for my secretary and her partner. Of course, the state of TX was not about to recognize their relationship to one another, but as a notary, I was able to "officiate" by making their will, powers of attorney and formal name change documents legal and binding. And I was happy to do it, as I felt that was a smart way to make their own wishes known legally, without creating chaos in anyone else's lives. So let them have a civil, legal union, just as long as the term "marriage" never enters into it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Al 0 Posted November 20, 2003 Share Posted November 20, 2003 I don't have a problem with civil unions between homosexuals. They should be allowed all of the secular benefits that traditional marriages have. I'm mixed on the parenting aspect of it. It would seem to be tilted toward the females in this case. If adoptions are legally out of the question, the women could still be artificially inseminated (or bite the bullet for one night!) and be able to "legally" become parents without adopting a child. I would agree with Jenny on the preference of having both a male and female (Mom and Dad) to raise a child. I phrased it as a "preference" but not as a "necessity" because many, many children are raised by just one parent due to divorce, death, abandonment, etc. and do fine. I was one, as my mom never remarried. It seems to me that people are opposed to the adoption of children by homosexuals primarily for a couple of reasons. The first is because homosexuality is viewed to be morally abhorrent, usually due to religious beliefs, and therefore, homosexuals would be poor parents. The other reason is for fear that the child would be "steered" toward homosexuality. I'm not sure I'm on solid ground with either. I don't know what would keep them from being loving, nurturing parents who would give a child what he or she needs. I also kind of lean toward the "nature" side of the fence as to the origins of homosexuality, so I don't think a child exposed to two parents of the same gender would necessarily become homosexual also. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AURainman 6 Posted November 20, 2003 Share Posted November 20, 2003 I also kind of lean toward the "nature" side of the fence as to the origins of homosexuality, so I don't think a child exposed to two parents of the same gender would necessarily become homosexual also. I think without THIS issue being resolved, no one will ever stand on the same ground when discussing homosexuality. I, personally, don't buy the "nature" reason for homosexuality, and therefore I believe "steering" a child towards homosexuality is a possibility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
channonc 466 Posted November 20, 2003 Share Posted November 20, 2003 Well, I am of the feeling that a gay or lesbian couple getting "married" or entering into a union would really have no effect on my life. I say if they want to do it-- go for it. As far as getting married in the church, I think that is up to the particular church. I for one would not go for this, but I do know there are churches that do marry gay and lesbian couples. As far as adoption goes, my feeling is I would prefer a mother and a father, but I know that in reality this situation is not always possible. I would rather have a child in a loving home, with all their needs provided for by a nuturing caring family with 2 moms or 2 dads if the other option is to have them floating from foster home to foster home, or living with one parent that abuses them, etc. I think there are loving couples out there that would be great parents. There are some heterosexual people I wouldn't want anywhere near children (for ex, Michael Jackson). Just my .02 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weagle98 119 Posted November 20, 2003 Share Posted November 20, 2003 I don't think there is proof that Michael Jackson is a heterosexual. Don't claim that he was married to a woman as proof either we all know that marriage was about as fake as his nose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
channonc 466 Posted November 20, 2003 Share Posted November 20, 2003 I was just giving an example, calm down. GEEZZ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weagle98 119 Posted November 20, 2003 Share Posted November 20, 2003 I was kidding around. :jester: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donutboy 0 Posted November 20, 2003 Share Posted November 20, 2003 Well, I am of the feeling that a gay or lesbian couple getting "married" or entering into a union would really have no effect on my life. I say if they want to do it-- go for it. As far as getting married in the church, I think that is up to the particular church. I for one would not go for this, but I do know there are churches that do marry gay and lesbian couples. As far as adoption goes, my feeling is I would prefer a mother and a father, but I know that in reality this situation is not always possible. I would rather have a child in a loving home, with all their needs provided for by a nuturing caring family with 2 moms or 2 dads if the other option is to have them floating from foster home to foster home, or living with one parent that abuses them, etc. I think there are loving couples out there that would be great parents. There are some heterosexual people I wouldn't want anywhere near children (for ex, Michael Jackson). Just my .02 There's the rub with government interference. There ARE some churches already willing to perform the function. If the government stepped in and tried to place a constitutional ban on gay marriage, wouldn't this be in conflict of the "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.." provision of the First Amendment? Oh be assured, it's going to happen. There are too many narrow-minded people out there who are dead set against it happening, but like the Civil Rights issues of the past, it's only another wedge to be used to drive between the voting electorate. There's nothing like a little "Gay Marriage" issue to energize the Bubbas for next year's elections. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donutboy 0 Posted November 20, 2003 Share Posted November 20, 2003 I don't think there is proof that Michael Jackson is a heterosexual. Don't claim that he was married to a woman as proof either we all know that marriage was about as fake as his nose. You mean his nose AIN'T real!?!?!?!? Well, he DID father a child. I would assume that means he's bisexual at most. Of course, legitimizing gay relationships might actually do away with the closet gays and bisexuals, such as Jackson. I have nothing against gays or bisexuals but I wouldn't want my daughter marrying one who feels they have to hide their true sexuality to fit into society. Let them be who they are and maybe they'll stop procreating. If it IS in the genes, maybe allowing them their lifestyle will end or at least thin their gene pool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.