| RotoGuru Politics Forum View the Forum Registry XML Get RSS Feed for this thread | Self-edit this thread |
|
| 0 |
Subject: Gay Marriage in Washington Posted by: Toral - [296551812] Thu, Aug 05, 2004, 09:31 Decision. Story. The decision (stayed awaiting appeal) relied on the Washington State Constitution's privileges and immunities clause. But federal constitutional precedents are also Lovingly (heh) cited. The liberals have their sledge hammers out and the pillars of society fall, one by one. Toral | |||||||
| 1 | Perm Dude ID: 2343587 Thu, Aug 05, 2004, 09:32 | Rick Santorum? Is that you? | ||||||
| 2 | Seattle Zen ID: 53252259 Thu, Aug 05, 2004, 12:47 |
I read the opinion. Liberals have their stonemasons and one by one, society's pillars are being built. Wonderfully written, unassailably logical. Toral, you sounded like Baldwin in your post. Without the help of some stuffed shirt wimp from NRO, attack this ruling. | ||||||
| 3 | Toral ID: 296551812 Thu, Aug 05, 2004, 13:10 |
Zen: 1. I'm not surprised that you like the ruling, but am surprised that you would call it "Wonderfully written, unassailably logical". In quality of writing, it is like a first-term Grade 12 student's first essay on "Law and Society", and worth a B there. 2. Homosexual marriage is clearly neiher a privilege or immunity guaranteed by Washington's constitution, as those terms were understood when it was ratified. 3. The learned judge failed to give full consideration to the sociological arguments supporting the institution of marriage. He blew them off with the suggestion that marriage is threatened not by changes to it, but by bad married people (wife-beaters, people who don't support their children, etc.) That's like saying that private property is not worthy of support, as judges would better understand because in court they see many thieves. I believe the learned judge made an honest attempt to consider the importance of (traditional) marriage to society, which is more than I could say for the Massachusetts court. That speaks well of him, I guess. Toral, you sounded like Baldwin in your post. I protest. Baldwin believes marriage is a religious institution primarily, I believe it is primarily a social institution. As such, I am much more outraged at the liberal attack on marriage than Baldwin, who, I believe, considers it just part and parcel of the way the mysterious "they" are leading the world. Toral | ||||||
| 4 | Baldwin ID: 53631254 Thu, Aug 05, 2004, 13:10 | We can't help it if great minds think alike...heh. ;> | ||||||
| 5 | Baldwin ID: 53631254 Thu, Aug 05, 2004, 13:14 |
I am much more outraged at the liberal attack on marriage than Baldwin Or not. I take a back seat to you in rage at the destruction of the family? | ||||||
| 6 | Tree ID: 76471215 Thu, Aug 05, 2004, 13:15 |
shove those fags back in the closet. they've got no right to have the same rights as us straight folks. hell, it all started to go downhill when we started letting colored folks and white people intermarriage. | ||||||
| 7 | Toral ID: 296551812 Thu, Aug 05, 2004, 13:16 |
OK, I'll accept Baldwin as having an equal seat at the table on this issue :) Toral | ||||||
| 8 | Seattle Zen ID: 53252259 Thu, Aug 05, 2004, 14:15 |
Toral Homosexual marriage is clearly neiher a privilege or immunity guaranteed by Washington's constitution, as those terms were understood when it was ratified. Hmm, I guess you want judicially active judges to obliterate the hundred years of precident before them. Every ruling, every interpretation of the WA State Constitution should be ignored and all rulings must rely upon the subjective interpretation of each trial judge's answer of this simple question - What Would the Founding Fathers of Washington Do? At least our trial judges are elected, the smarmy AM radio "unelected judges" tripe won't stick. Clearly, as the LAW stands today, same sex marriage is a privilege and immunity guaranteed by Washington's constitution. Deal with it! | ||||||
| 9 | Madman ID: 43410119 Thu, Aug 05, 2004, 15:45 |
What Would the Founding Fathers of Washington Do? No, Toral said: Homosexual marriage is clearly neiher a privilege or immunity guaranteed by Washington's constitution, as those terms were understood when it was ratified. That has no relation to what the founding fathers WOULD have done. It only has relation to what they DID -- craft the State's Constitution -- as interpreted by people at the time. | ||||||
| 10 | azdbacker ID: 576302318 Thu, Aug 05, 2004, 16:14 |
Tree, nice addition as usual to the discussion. It's sad when the only things you can respond with is namecalling, stereotypes and empty rhetoric. Meanwhile, all the news is not bad. Gay marriage trounced in Missouri: National Review - "But the big news this week was the runaway victory of a state marriage amendment in Missouri. The measure passed with 71 percent of the vote. That is a strikingly high number — substantially higher than pre-vote polling. A pre-election poll by the Kansas City Star had found that 62 percent would favor the amendment, with 20 percent opposed and 8 percent undecided. A St. Louis Post-Dispatch poll conducted a week before the vote had 56 percent of voters in support of the amendment, with 38 percent opposed and 6 percent undecided. While the final 71-percent margin might have indicated a last-minute surge, it's more likely that some voters were reluctant to tell pollsters that they favored the amendment. On this issue, polls often underplay voter support for one-man, one-woman marriage. This suggests that current polling substantially underestimates public support for a Federal Marriage Amendment as well." | ||||||
| 11 | Perm Dude ID: 2343587 Thu, Aug 05, 2004, 16:26 |
Which just goes to show how Republicans at the federal level simply bit off more than they could chew. On one hand this is clearly a state issue (which they could win on that level). On the other, the attempts to tie the FMA with reigning in "activist judges" was the part of the FMA which doomed it. Plenty of elected officials would have voted for the measure (despite the first point) if the additional language had been dropped. pd | ||||||
| 12 | Madman ID: 43410119 Thu, Aug 05, 2004, 16:28 |
azd -- IMO, it's interesting to look at the wording of the relevant amendments. I don't have time to find links, but as I understand it, the Mo. proposal was to simply add to the Constitution words like: "marriage is defined to be between a man and a woman." People can still disagree over that, but it is fairly targetted toward just the institution of marriage, doesn't appear to directly attack civil unions, business partnerships, or other professional or personal contractual relationships between people of the same gender. This would be, for example, as opposed to the FMA, the proposed Arkansas amendment, and the Virginia amendment, all of which also contain clauses that go beyond the Missouri wording to outlaw or ban "any similar benefit to unmarried couples." There is absolutely no way I could ever vote for such a broad based amendment like Arkansas', even if I was in full support of a ban on gay marriage (which I'm not). Business partnerships between nonsexual same gender people would directly be attacked; laws that might prohibit discrimination against two college aged guys who want to live together (just to save money) would be banned, etc. In point of fact, there is some question whether or not Arkansas' amendment could be used to justify discrimination against *heterosexuals* who are courting (i.e., not married). Further, having people vote to pass an amendment is a democratic process. I'm willing to accept more restrictions on my freedoms from the amendment process than I am from a judicial fiat. There are many pieces to this issue. Just because someone does or does not like the outcome of a ruling should not mean that they do or not like the methods used to achieve that outcome. For this reason, I find court decisions like what Toral described above an anathema, whereas I don't mind Missouri's amendment. My forefathers agreed to live in a society where a large majority voting in favor of amending a Constitution would declare the new law of the land. My forefathers never agreed to live in a society where legal theories were read into Constitutions solely to satisfy the personal moral prejudices of a judge. | ||||||
| 13 | Toral ID: 296551812 Thu, Aug 05, 2004, 16:52 |
The FMA didn't (intend to) ban any similar benefits to unmarried couples, but never mind. The sentence in question was subject to difference in interpretation and will have to be dropped. pd On one hand this is clearly a state issue It's a state issue until SCOTUS finds a right to same-sex marriage in the federal constitution, which it eventually will. The FMA at its simplest attempts to lock the barn door while the horse is still there. Plenty of elected officials would have voted for the measure (despite the first point) if the additional language had been dropped. FMA supporters attempted to bring to the floor a version which dropped the entire sentence in question the same day the main vote was held. The Democrats prevented it from being voted on. Toral | ||||||
| 14 | Tree ID: 76471215 Thu, Aug 05, 2004, 16:58 |
It's sad when the only things you can respond with is namecalling, stereotypes and empty rhetoric. if it's good enough for the president and vice-president of this country, it's good enough for me. | ||||||
| 15 | azdbacker ID: 576302318 Thu, Aug 05, 2004, 17:16 |
I would think you would hold yourself to a higher standard than simply that of the President of the United States. If I decided to hold myself to the standards Bill Clinton left behind (or Nixon, or the first JFK, etc...), I would end up hating myself. | ||||||
| 16 | Seattle Zen ID: 53252259 Thu, Aug 05, 2004, 19:07 |
Madman 9 Where in the WA Constitution does it explicitly say, "two people of the same gender may not marry"? I'll save you the time, it doesn't. What does the WA Constitution say about the privacy rights of one's e-mail? Nothing. Toral wants the judiciary to simply channel the spirits of the Dead White Men who crafted the Constitution to ask them "WWFFWD?" (My daughter got me this cute charm braclet with those letters on it). "Should two men be allowed to marry?" "Should police officers be allowed to search the glove compartment of cars after they arrest someone?"... The answers to these questions are rulings. Toral and other non-lawyers of conservative ilk use this argument often, claiming that any other type of ruling is simply "judicial activism". Hogwash. Each time a judge rules, he or she makes a decision that is colored by subjectivity. Conservatives think they can interpret what the Founding Fathers believed, but what did Thomas Jefferson know about glove compartments or cars for that matter? Justice and Due Process of Law are of upmost importance, not what some Robert Bork-worshiping dolt thinks James Madison would have thought. | ||||||
| 17 | Toral ID: 296551812 Thu, Aug 05, 2004, 20:39 | You know, that last paragraph is one of the more bizarre attempts at rank-pulling I've seen in a while. You can look through the ranks of leading originalists or textualists and you find an amazing thing -- every last one is a lawyer! (Well, OK, 90%. A historian or political scientist sneaks in every now and again.) The idea that textualism is some kind of non-legal theory being espoused by laymen who call into talk radio -- well I don't know whose eyes you're trying to pull the wool over, but you shouldn't have bothered. Perhaps you mean that they are just law professors? (Well, except for the ones who are now judges -- the leading originalist academic of the 1990s is now on the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals.) | ||||||
| 18 | sarge33rd ID: 16727216 Thu, Aug 05, 2004, 20:40 | one of those not so common times where I find in total agreement with SZ. (of course, with football season fast approaching, I believe there is at least 1 thing he and I will agree upon each and every week....Go Vikes!!!!) | ||||||
| 20 | Madman ID: 41750122 Thu, Aug 05, 2004, 21:36 |
SZ 16 -- Since you apparently aren't familiar with the intellectual underpinnings of original meaning originalism, let me fill you in on the rough outline as I understand it. Let's say that you and I get together and form our own country (God forbid). We agree on a Constitution, and one of its provisions is that no troops shall be quartered in private homes. 150 years later, some military thugs get in power and want to quarter some troops in condos and the apartments of the poor who are living in publicly subsidized units. Now, does the Constitution say anything about this? If you were an Original Meaning Originalist (which is the subset of the Originalist movement that I feel most akin to), the Constitution WOULD say something very specific about all this. You would go back to 2004 and investigate: What was the meaning of the word home? What sorts of living arrangements did that apply to? When people of 2004 read the SZ-Madman Constitution and agreed to it, what did they generally believe they were agreeing to? To the extent that the answers to these questions are available or informative, then a conscientious judges' ruling is clear. In this particular case, you can examine whether or not persons in publicly subsidized housing were otherwise treated as if they have a right to exclude government from their apartments as if they were their homes (they generally do). You can examine what was said during the debates of the Constitution to see how people were interpreting the meaning of the words, to see what SZ and Madman had actually agreed to. By forcing legal scholars of the future to do these investigations, it makes it incredibly difficult for future courts to take away those freedoms, rights, obligations, etc., that we have agreed to today. It provides as clear a road-map as possible to preserve that which we have agreed to preserve. Thus it is with glove boxes: searches of private vehicles on public roads and transportation lines existed back when the Constitution was written. When people read those words, what did they mean with respect to the conveyances they had at the time? To the extent that there are similarities today, and clearly there are in the case of glove boxes, your hands as a judge are effectively tied. You must stay within the interpretation generally agreed upon for decades. Email at work is another slam-dunk. How was letter correspondance handled? Were there Constitutional principles involved? Gay marriage, likewise, is spoken to on a federal level: it is up to the States, and there is very little reason to believe the 14th amendment would have been interpreted to apply. On the State level, each court would have to examine their own Constitutions and examine what branch of government has been given the authority to determine these definitions? Now, of course original meaning originalism does not answer all questions. Judicial temperament and judgment is required both to weigh the evidence of the past and to weigh the similarities to the present. And there are times when the laws themselves and the meaning of the laws themselves simply are not clear. In those moments, judges must weigh the value of sending things back to the legislatures or the people or just doing the best they can do. But original meaning originalism provides a very valuable and coherent tool upon which to build a lasting, reliable, and fair judicial system. It is the system that intuitively employed for much of our nation's history, and I see absolutely no reason it should not be the starting point for any legal investigation. And, when dispositive evidence is found through such a search, it should also be the end. | ||||||
| 21 | Madman ID: 41750122 Thu, Aug 05, 2004, 21:44 |
Actually, I should retract my third-to-last paragraph a little bit. There is debate within OMO about whether or not the 14th amendment was meant to apply. The 14th amendment is quite vague and its meaning is difficult to peg down. (And, interestingly, so is its intent for those who believe in OIO -- original intent originalism, more like what SZ is mocking). So, I'm not sure that it is a trivial argument. But the questions raised in the search for an answer are generally not the questions considered by the courts today, and I think I can have a reasonable conversation with other believers in OMO as to what does and does not form rational ground for framing a modern decision on gay marriage. | ||||||
| 22 | nerveclinic ID: 465102615 Fri, Aug 06, 2004, 02:42 |
Toral... The liberals have their sledge hammers out and the pillars of society fall, one by one. TiiiimmmmmbbbbeeeeerrrrrrrrrrrrBOOOOMMMMM!!!!!dust, waves of smoke, individual freedom rising from the ashes of oppression. | ||||||
| 23 | azdbacker ID: 576302318 Fri, Aug 06, 2004, 04:24 |
Oppression my ass. There are still some things that are right and wrong, and homosexuality is one of those wrongs. We have sat by as the morality of our country has been attacked. We have allowed homosexuality to be mis-construed as a "choice" as opposed to prosecuting it like the crime that it is. As a Democratic nation, we have the right to tolerate behavior that is wrong, and if enough people agree, even accept it politically. But I'll be damned if I'm going to stand silently while my country tells me that not only will we allow this destructive and immoral behavior to go un-punished, we will now bless it with legality on the same basis as heterosexual behavior. I'll be damned if a gay couple gets a tax break for their immoral behavior. I'll be damned is I sit quietly while the Godly union of marriage is attacked. Oppression... please. Are we oppressive when we don't allow marriage to threesomes? Are we oppressive when we outlaw polygamy? Are we opressive when we outlaw incest? None of these actions are more biblically wrong than homosexuality. But I'm oppressing someone when I refuse to say that I'm not willing to not only allow, but condone, immoral and (previously) illegal behavior? | ||||||
| 24 | Baldwin ID: 53631254 Fri, Aug 06, 2004, 05:38 | God will punish them quite enuff so I don't see any point in piling on. I do however think it devastating to society that right and wrong have been confused and forgotten. | ||||||
| 25 | sarge33rd ID: 16727216 Fri, Aug 06, 2004, 07:56 |
Obviosuly I'm not a Constitutional scholar nor a legal 'expert', but the 9th Ammendment of the Bill of Rights would seem to me to be applicable to this entire debate:The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Here IMHO, we see the FF as saying in essence, just because we haven't stated each and every right retained by the citizen, does not exclude that right from being essential to the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and therefore a protected rihght under this constitution and its ammendments. | ||||||
| 26 | Pancho Villa Sustainer ID: 533817 Fri, Aug 06, 2004, 10:02 |
#23 None of these actions is more biblically wrong than homosexuality This statement is completely irrelevant to the legal ramifications that are the basis for this thread. I realize that it is a personal opinion, yet it is obvious that you would like to see the law based on an interpretation of your personal religious views. If the FF intended that the Constitution be based on Bilical law, then why didn't they just make that part of the document? I contend that ommission is intentional for a variety of reasons. Theological scholars can't even agree on what could be termed Biblical law. If one contends that the Ten Commandments are the basis for Biblical law, I suggest you review them, as only Thou Sall Not Kill and Thou Shou Not Steal have ever been illegal in this country. I'm on record as opposing special rights for homosexuals. I believe an employer or landlord should have the right not to hire or rent to homosexuals based on their personal beliefs. I believe employers should be able to fire homosexuals without fear of a lawsuit, if that employer deems that the homosexual is promoting sexual behavior in the workplace that is disruptive or distracting. I don't believe homosexuality should be treated as an oppressed minority like Blacks, Hispanics, Jews, Mormons, etc. However different religious denominations regard homosexuality within the boundaries of their beliefs is their own business. The government passing laws restricting the private lives of consenting adults has everything to do with basic civil rights and nothing to do with the Godly union of marriage. | ||||||
| 27 | Perm Dude ID: 2343587 Fri, Aug 06, 2004, 10:08 |
I believe employers should be able to fire homosexuals without fear of a lawsuit, if that employer deems that the homosexual is promoting sexual behavior in the workplace that is disruptive or distracting. I agree, believe it or not. Where we probably differ is that some people believe homosexuals to be disruptive or promoting sexual behavior simply by being there and being homosexual--no action involved. No one should have employment, housing, or other opportunities denied them simply by being a homosexual. pd | ||||||
| 28 | nerveclinic ID: 465102615 Fri, Aug 06, 2004, 10:28 |
Azback post 23 As a Democratic nation, we have the right to tolerate behavior that is wrong, and if enough people agree, even accept it politically. Yeah we've been down that road before, you've heard of the Salem witch trials? But I'm oppressing someone when I refuse to say that I'm not willing to not only allow, but condone, immoral and (previously) illegal behavior? See we have a little problem here Azzy, your definition of immoral doesn't jib with mine. What are we going to do about that? Maybe you'd prefer living in a country like Iraq where the church and state are a little more cozy. How much of the bible do you want to turn into law? Shall we bring the shackles back to town square to put the infadels on display? Do you want to live in a free country or are you looking for a theocracy? Sounds like the later and you're a traitor to the Constitution. | ||||||
| 29 | Mattinglyinthehall Leader ID: 1629107 Fri, Aug 06, 2004, 10:31 |
AZDbacker post 23: We have allowed homosexuality to be mis-construed as a "choice" as opposed to prosecuting it like the crime that it is. No comment from me on that. I just felt the need to make sure people skimming this this thread caught that quote. | ||||||
| 30 | nerveclinic ID: 465102615 Fri, Aug 06, 2004, 10:36 |
Pancho 26: I'm on record as opposing special rights for homosexuals. What is special about not fearing for your job because of what you do in your bedroom at home provided you don't brng it to the workplace. if that employer deems that the homosexual is promoting sexual behavior in the workplace that is disruptive or distracting. That's funny, I've worked with homosexuals my entire life and had gay bosses because of my profession. I've never once see the behavior you describe above. I mean if you're running a Christian book store, and the guy behind the counter is acting like he's auditioning for an episode of "Queer Eye for the Sytraight Guy", I can see the arguement, but other then an extreme case like that everyone has a right to work hard and earn a living in a free society. | ||||||
| 31 | Perm Dude ID: 2343587 Fri, Aug 06, 2004, 10:38 |
Actually, many conservatives believe it to be a "choice" but most liberals do not believe it to be a choice nor do they refer to it as a choice. Indeed, the term "lifestyle choice" is a euphamism invented by conservatives to cover their belief in it strictly as a choice. If you believe it's being talked about as a choice you've only got your side to blame, azd. pd | ||||||
| 32 | Mattinglyinthehall Leader ID: 1629107 Fri, Aug 06, 2004, 10:40 |
PD: if that employer deems that the homosexual is promoting sexual behavior in the workplace that is disruptive or distracting. Nerve: That's funny, I've worked with homosexuals my entire life and had gay bosses because of my profession. I've never once see the behavior you describe above. I have. But far more frequently I've seen heteros disruptively promoting sexual behavior in the workplace. The infraction is no different. | ||||||
| 33 | Perm Dude ID: 2343587 Fri, Aug 06, 2004, 10:46 | I agree, MITH, which is why we should penalize actions. Conservatives are completely against legislating against hate crimes (i.e., "thought crimes") except for thoughts by homosexuals. | ||||||
| 34 | Perm Dude ID: 2343587 Fri, Aug 06, 2004, 10:47 | To quote someone (I genuinely forgot who it was): "Once again we're faced with the Right's obsession with male anal sex." | ||||||
| 35 | Seattle Zen ID: 53252259 Fri, Aug 06, 2004, 10:56 |
Please don't construe post 16 as a "rank pull", I'm not that snarky. I'm familiar with the Federalist Society, a bunch of conservative lawyers who prance around in powered wigs. I simply meant that I know of no practicing lawyers who would use an "Original Meaning" argument in court. These arguments are generally reserved for the op-ed and philosophical salons in the crushed velvet drapped gentlemen's clubs which I do not frequent. And, yes, occasionally these arguments are espoused by attorneys, but they know that their dreams will never be implemented. Madman 20 Your points are painfully obvious. I stand by my post 16. | ||||||
| 36 | Pancho Villa Sustainer ID: 533817 Fri, Aug 06, 2004, 11:10 |
MITH #32 I've seen heteros disruptively promoting sexual behavior in the workplace I agree, and when they are terminated, they have no recourse based on being an oppressed minority. Homosexuals should be treated just the same, without threat of a lawsuit that wouldn't exist except for their lifestyle choice. In the end, many of these discriminatory lawsuits become counter-productive, as an employer will be less inclined to hire a homosexual because of possible legal entanglements if the employer feels a need to terminate that employee at a future date, even if the reason has nothing to do with their sexuality. | ||||||
| 37 | Toral ID: 296551812 Fri, Aug 06, 2004, 11:13 |
I see. It occurred to me that perhapsyou were distinguishing between practitioners and "ivory tower" theorists and trying to make the point that originalist arguments weren't, practically, winning ones, given that most judges aren't originalists, and that even originalist lower court judges are bound by non-originalist precedents. Granted, there's no point making an originalist argument before a non-originalist judge, and if you're sure that the highest level of appeal the case is likely to get to won't depend on originalism. Toral | ||||||
| 38 | Perm Dude ID: 2343587 Fri, Aug 06, 2004, 11:23 |
I'm just going to throw this out there: Madman, your example of troop quartering is probably the ver simplest example you could have made, designed (perhaps) to make non-originalist lawyers look stupid by going against the clear language. Much, much more often, the question is one based upon law for which intent is not clear (or for which people might come to different conclusions). All of which puts aside the role of precedent in making rulings. One can see how Scalia, for one, thinks the "original intent" argument is a slippery slope and tries to avoid it whenever possible. And he's not alone in this in the liberal and moderate camps. | ||||||
| 39 | Toral ID: 296551812 Fri, Aug 06, 2004, 11:30 |
That's because Scalia is, in Madman's terms, an OMO (Original Meaning Originalist) and not an OIO (Original Intent Originalist). From his A Matter of Interpretation: "There is plenty of room for disagreement as to what original meaning was, and even more as to how that original meaning applies to the situation before the court. But the originalist at least knows what he is looking for: the original meaning of the text." | ||||||
| 40 | Perm Dude ID: 2343587 Fri, Aug 06, 2004, 11:41 |
Oh, I quite agree. But Scalia wouldn't spend time looking at intent as for the actual words used. No interpretation, which is what original intent discernment involves. Not for all things, of course, even for Scalia. But it's his MO. | ||||||
| 41 | Baldwin ID: 53631254 Fri, Aug 06, 2004, 14:30 |
Toral Could you please do a better job of defining the difference between an OMO and an OIO please? Or point me in the right direction? | ||||||
| 42 | sarge33rd ID: 16727216 Fri, Aug 06, 2004, 14:50 | personally, I'm more familiar with an E-I-E-I-O | ||||||
| 43 | Toral ID: 22731114 Thu, Dec 09, 2004, 15:39 |
Bawk-bawk-bawk-bawk. The Supreme Court of Canada chickened out today on the gay marriage issue. It issued a decision answering a reference from the government (in a "reference" the government asks legal questions of the court and gets a technically non-binding but pretty authoritative answer). The gov't asked whether a federal law allowing same-sex marriage would be constitutional. The court answered, unsurprisingly yes. The chickening out came on the hard question -- is the traditional definition unconstitutional? According to the Canadian Press story, The Supreme Court of Canada refused to say whether the traditional definition of marriage -- between one man and one woman -- violates equality rights. Toral | ||||||
| 44 | Seattle Zen ID: 3415339 Thu, Mar 23, 2006, 12:10 |
Poll: opposition to gay marriage declining BTW, the Andersen v. Sims ruling by our Supreme Court of WA is due any day now. | ||||||
| 45 | Toral ID: 52621719 Wed, Jan 03, 2007, 12:55 |
ONTARIO COURT's PERILOUS DECISION RECOGNIZES THREE PARENTSlink Toral | ||||||
| 46 | Seattle Zen ID: 49112418 Wed, Jan 03, 2007, 13:23 |
Good for them. Imagine the horrors from the right when they come across two formerly married people who then ... REMARRY and live happy lives. Oh, those poor kids, they now have FOUR parents. My heart goes out to those confused little minds. I'm reminded of something I'm just going to make up. Dick Cheney writes to his friend George W. Bush, "You are lucky that you don't understand the implications of your policy decisions. You get the joy of being the 'Decider' and when things go bad, the joy of watching me accuse those who doubt you as terrorist-loving anti-Americans. Me, all I get is to line the pockets of war profiteers with millions of dollars and the blood rush of knowing I ordered the death of tens of thousands of people." Yeah, having a mother with a lesbian partner much more likely to be the downfall of civilization than the destruction of an entire country. | ||||||
| 47 | Seattle Zen ID: 49112418 Tue, Feb 06, 2007, 14:10 |
A little political street theater for the Washingtonians to enjoy. No children? Then no marriage! Proponents of same-sex marriage have introduced an initiative that would put a whole new twist on traditional unions between men and women: It would require heterosexual couples to have children within three years or else have their marriages annulled. "Absurd? Very," the group says on its Web site, which adds it is planning two more initiatives involving marriage and procreation. "But there is a rational basis for this absurdity. By floating the initiatives, we hope to prompt discussion about the many misguided assumptions" underlying the Supreme Court's ruling. "We did toy with the idea of (requiring) procreation before marriage," he said. "We didn't want to (annoy) the fundamentalists too much." | ||||||
| 48 | Perm Dude ID: 56116613 Tue, Feb 06, 2007, 14:20 | To borrow a phrase from walk: Frickin' brilliant! | ||||||
| 49 | walk ID: 3511361116 Tue, Feb 06, 2007, 14:30 |
Funny, PD. Along those lines, and related to this thread to some degree, this story is just "freakin' absurd:" Haggard "cured" of Homosexuality - walk | ||||||
| 50 | walk ID: 3511361116 Tue, Feb 06, 2007, 14:36 |
Another tidbit from that article is that he and his wife have decided to pursue master's degrees in psychology. WTF? Now I'm gonna be professional colleagues with the Haggards. Can't wait to see him at the next conference. Oy yoi yoi! walk | ||||||
| 51 | Perm Dude ID: 56116613 Tue, Feb 06, 2007, 14:39 |
I was just reading a post by Andrew Sullivan about Haggard. What an idiot Haggard is. A short vacation and then he's "cured." Sullivan also had this question for Haggard. | ||||||
| 52 | Myboyjack Dude ID: 014826271 Tue, Feb 06, 2007, 17:53 |
Proponents of same-sex marriage have introduced an initiative that would put a whole new twist on traditional unions between men and women: It would require heterosexual couples to have children within three years or else have their marriages annulled. Be careful what you ask for. I actually think that if the State insists on involving itself in personal relationships and contracts - then it should be limited to those that produce children. | ||||||
| 53 | Perm Dude ID: 56116613 Tue, Feb 06, 2007, 18:00 |
If that's their reason for being involved, one can't help but think the only real effect is a requirement to have children. I tend to think that societal stability (which is not entirely dependent upon biological offspring) is the best reason for marriage from a government point of view. But that's just me, I suspect. | ||||||
| 54 | biliruben ID: 52014814 Tue, Feb 06, 2007, 20:03 |
Would conception or birth be the cutoff, I wonder? If the later, we wouldn't have made it. 2 days after the due date, and my wife is ready to meet the kid, already. I tried the televangelist route last night. "Let the baby come Owwuutah!" No luck. ;) | ||||||
| 55 | Tree ID: 33115620 Tue, Feb 06, 2007, 21:17 |
Haggard "cured" of Homosexuality man, i just read that article. it is so ridiculous, it reads like the Onion. | ||||||
| 56 | Perm Dude ID: 40329307 Mon, Apr 30, 2007, 16:18 | David Blankenhorn gets fisked for his changing targets. | ||||||
| 57 | Seattle Zen ID: 49112418 Mon, Jul 23, 2007, 19:08 |
 WA gay couples line up to register as domestic partners I loved this paragraph from the story: Decked out in a veil, the top half of a wedding gown and black leather pants, Amanda Swar, 34, walked with her partner T Steele, 41, carrying a small sign that read: "When we get the rest of our rights, we'll wear the rest of the dress." | ||||||
| 58 | sarge33rd ID: 99331714 Thu, Jul 26, 2007, 15:38 | What "they" fear | ||||||
| ||||||||
Post a reply to this message: (But first, how about checking out this sponsor?) | ||||||||