Frist Endorses Constitutional Amendment To Ban Gay Marriage

[SwedishFish]

info passed along by my good friend who's going into social work:

lesbian couples have the best track record. have longest relationships. most equal within the marriage in terms of salary and household duties. unfortunately have the least sex.

gay male couples have the most sex. close to equal within the marriage but whoever makes the least amount of money usually ends up taking on most of the housework.

hetero couples have the worst equality breakdown. woman takes on most or all of housework regardless of who makes the most money. sex is slightly above rate for lesbian couples. relationships last the shortest amount of time.


marriage most certainly is not religious. there's no way in hell i'm getting married in a church by any religious official.
if you still insist that it's religious, i'd like to point out that many religions willingly sanctify the marriages of gay couples. jews started doing this a couple of years ago. there were blocks full of churches and synogauges who marched in the gay pride parade to show their support (and advertise that gay marriages will be performed in their church) including several evangelical and catholic churches in the new york area.

 

[otheadp]

"marriage most certainly is not religious"
it is, my friend. just cause religion has been pissed on in the last decade or 2 doesn't change the fact.
you can get married under water or while climbing trees or whatever, but that's totally new and reformed weddings.
the traditional, thousand-year-old marriage is completely religious.

"jews started doing this a couple of years ago. "
yea...the reformist synagogues in the US. a bunch of fuck faces.
they're changing the rules as they please, make up some..... they're putting Women Rabbis bugeye: ). i have nothing against women...power to the ppl and all that, but it's not how judaism goes, u know?

"there were blocks full of churches and synogauges who marched in the gay pride parade to show their support (and advertise that gay marriages will be performed in their church) including several evangelical and catholic churches in the new york area."

as far as i'm concerned, they're blaspheming. i'm not catholic or evangelical or whatever, but when i hear of a priest "marrying" 2 gays in a church, it just makes me wanna vomit.

all religions are pretty specific about gays. just because in our secular society gay people can get the legal benifits of "marriage" it doesn't automatically qualify them to be married "under God".

 

[TheNatMan]

doesnt make sense

"OtheadP", what you are saying is for the most part true, in that marriage has typically been held as a religious institution, but Civil and religious marriage are two separate institutions. Civil marriage binds a couple in a legal contract consisting of obligations and benefits. While some religions provide ceremonial services for same-sex couples, these unions do not receive legal recognition. Legalizing same-sex civil marriage will not require any religion to perform or recognize these marriages.
And, it is almost inevitable that eventually gay couples will be granted the right to marry, for as far as the state and society is concerned, it is a necessary part of life:
1. If a couple is not married, they are looked down on by the rest of society as dirty and unprincipled, even if they do not have sex outside of the relationship. ( A study showed recently that 71% of Lesbians are in committed relationships)
2. Marriage is seen, for those unsure, as extra insurance that the partner will not have extramarital relations. This is especially important in the gay community, as AIDS is very prevalent, and they need the extra insurace.
3. Without the legal right to marry, same-sex couples do not have rights like family health coverage, medical and bereavement leave, child custody, tax benefits and pension plans.

And not to mention, below is a printing of the 14th amendment:

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Marriage is most certainly a privelege, and Gays and Lesbians are most certainly citizens, as defined by the first part of the amendment. This is VERY clearly unconstitutional, and it is religion once again getting in the way of governing what is supposed to be a secular nation. This is very clearly put in the first amendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ."

This is also very clearly a law "respecting" the Christian faith. And also, "OtheadP", imagine if it were the other way around. Imagine for a moment that a gay couple denied you the rights of marriage, the right to have a union with the person you love. They could very well use the same arguments Frist is using to justify their actions. So this proposed new amendment is clearly unconstitutional, plain and simple, and anyone who thinks otherwise should actually read the constitution. There's some good stuff in there.

 

[SwedishFish]

Originally posted by otheadp
but when i hear of a priest "marrying" 2 gays in a church, it just makes me wanna vomit.

that's because you're sick, but anyway......


"all religions are pretty specific about gays. just because in our secular society gay people can get the legal benifits of "marriage" it doesn't automatically qualify them to be married "under God"."

no, no they are not. you must be referring to christian religions which most certainly is not 'all religions'. wicca is extremely inviting to it. even if you meant just the christian religions, you'd still be wrong. what exactly do you know about what god considers a marriage? i suppose he's told you personally.

religious sects are constantly updating and changing to fit the current need. i see nothing wrong with bringing old religions into the here and now. the catholic church has a reputation of being antiquiated and strict. it overhauled a hell of a lot during it's two vatican counsils. i've sat through many a homily preaching compassion and love towards gays. most of the dominant religions are pretty ancient and so reflect the time they were born in. just because you have your own notion of how judaism goes does not mean it should always go that way. it's high time they threw out that prayer that men say to thank god for not being born a woman too.

if marriage ever was religious (i have my doubts it even started out as religious in the first place), it is long forgotten. it is now a legal institution.

 

[otheadp]

swordfish, natman:

reread my posts. as i said before, legally, they should have the right to receive equal benifits. this legal commitment is enough to put them in the "faithful" mode. i.e, they won't cheat.

if they please, they can throw a ceremony and exchange vows. who's stopping them?

but to be "married" in a church or mosque or synagogue is blatant sacrilige. i'm not religious but i respect religious people and their traditions and ceremonies. to see 2 gays in a church, turning a religious ceremony into a farce, -and that's exactly what it is, even tho they are serious and act as if this is nothing out of the ordinary- just hurts my eyes.

"If a couple is not married, they are looked down on by the rest of society as dirty and unprincipled"
gay life is looked down on as dirty and unprincipled. doesn't sound good, but is true. i know lots of gay guys. even older ones that should be past the stage of partying around. and u know what, they are complete sluts (their own description of themselves) so i'm not talking without knowing.

and people marry in all kinds of places besides church, and they're considered "partners for life" by society.

"religious sects are constantly updating and changing to fit the current need"
yep. that's why religion's influence and role in our society has declined severely in the past decade or 2.
when Hulk Hogen was young he used to tell his audience to "say your prayers before bed time"
he's still wrestling but if he was to say it now he'd be the laughing stock.

why has it been declining? because people keep changing the rules as they see fit.
if God's word keeps being changed all the time, as it has been changed many times lately, it's really hard to believe, let alone practice religion wholeheartedly.

 

[TheNatMan]

RE:

OtheadP, the word "marriage" uniquely conveys the nature and legitimacy of the relationship. When one says to another that this is my husband or wife, the listener understands immediately the love, commitment and legal ties that exist. Gays and lesbians should not be denied this form of communication. If someone were to introduce their would-be spouse as their "legally designated life partner" or something to that effect, it would not produce the same reaction. And this whole idea of a ceremony other than marriage reminds me vaguely of the "separate but equal" idea that was used to segregate southern schools. Why shouldn't they be able to? It makes them think that they are second-class citizens, unworthy of being on the same "higher plain" as the "normal" people who have spouses of the opposite sex. And as to your ideas about God:

if God's word keeps being changed all the time, as it has been changed many times lately, it's really hard to believe, let alone practice religion wholeheartedly.

you are very directly saying that you know personally what God's word is. You are very directly saying that you are right, and anyone who thinks differently is wrong. This is the exact same rationale that killers have used throughout history. This is the reason that so many wars have been fought, why so many millions have died. Because people have been so sure that their interpretation was the right one. I've got several quotes for you:

I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Creator. By fighting off the Jews, I am doing the Lord's work.

Any guesses as to who said that? If you said Adolf Hitler, you're absolutely right! He thought he was doing the Lord's work. This just goes to show you that anyone can read anything out of the Bible, and claim that it is what God originally intended when He "wrote" it. His claim seems ludacrous on the surface, but he no doubt found some portion of the Bible to justify his thinking. Easily, i might add. And what about slavery? reading I Timothy 6:1-5 will show you that the Bible very clearly endorses it:

all who are under the yoke of slavery ... who have believing masters ... must serve all the better since those who benefit by their service are believers and beloved. Teach and urge these duties. If any one teaches otherwise ... he is puffed up with conceit, he knows nothing; he has a morbid craving for controversy..., which produce envy, dissension, slander, base suspicions, and wrangling among men who are depraved in mind...

So is having slaves OK? God says it is, right there. OtheadP, this whole thing is to get you to think twice before you say that you are doing what you are because God wants you to. Remember that this is quite possibly the most dangerous statement that has ever been made, in the history of the world.

 

[SwedishFish]

playing the religion card is so tired ::yawn:: (not directed towards nat)

geez man, you must be old and beyond any ability to change. even the holy mother church changes and it's spent hundreds of years the same. they've had to change their zipped mouth/protection of priests policy because they were raping kids! in the past, the people of the church were exactly like any other people of any other church or no church at all: ignorant and biased. strategic murder of jews in spain who refused to convert, policy of noninvolvement in the holocaust, portugese missionary murders of native peoples, monks warring upon arab merchants, condonation of slavery. the list goes on and on and on and on. they are slowly but surely correcting their sexism against women. i'm proud to say i was in the first group of girls initiated into the alter service when the pope decreed that girls could enter it. now there is much favorable talk about female priests. i sincerely doubt changing their position on slavery or murder of innocent people has led to the downfall of society. it is building it up.

 

[Mystech]

Weather or not one religion or another will perform a wedding ceremony for a homosexual couple really isn't the core issue here. For the most part, when people talk about allowing homosexual marriage, I think that the foremost issue is the government allowing it, affording the same rights and protection to homosexuals as is given to heterosexuals.

It’s a very sad thing that some people continue to retreat back to their antiquated and hateful beliefs in order to justify why they think certain people should be treated like shit, but they are free to believe whatever they like, and so long as they chose to create an “Us” vs “Them” mentality in regards to religious practices, well that’s also their right, it’s ugly, but I don’t think anyone can really tell them different, it’d be unjustly denying them their rights. But the fact that the government endorses such discriminatory behavior is really quite sad. It’s not a happy thing to watch a government which is supposedly for the people, decide to work against them, and even more so when it’s for religious reasons despite the illusion of being secular.

 

[goofyfish]

This amendment enshrines in the Constitution the bigotry of DOMA (thanks Mr. Clinton), and the ability of gay/lesbian citizens to seek equality through the courts using a rationale based on Constitutional grounds. The amendment clearly states its goal of eliminating access by gay/lesbian citizens to any of the legal rights granted to married people through the courts. The Constitution is supposed to, in part, protect people from the tyranny of the majority. If this Amendment is adopted, gay and lesbian citizens will have no such protection.

Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution nor the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried coupled or groups. (H.J. Res. 93)

This is not, however, just about the definition of "marital status".

In several threads and conversations I have seen and heard in the past several weeks, people like to point out that the US is a terribly puritanical nation, compared to other industrialized countries, because of the people who founded it over two hundred years ago.

The News-Journal received a one-line letter from a reader upset at the way the paper headlined the ruling: "I hope," the reader wrote, "your child or children all ask you what Sodomy is when they see your front page today." The word did appear in a point size big enough to make the Gomorrah Chamber of Commerce jealous. But the ruling wasn't about lollipops. And euphemisms about sex have a Jane Austen dullness to them that would, if used in a 21st century newspaper, send our readers lunging for Geraldo. Had my 9-year-old daughter asked (disappointingly, she didn't), I'd have answered no differently than if she'd asked why lovers French-kiss in public or why New Yorkers cuss like Corsicans: It's what people do, and who are we to demand otherwise? (Full text here)

Excellent answer, IMHO. American society constantly contradicts itself about sex. I've yet to meet any person who is against sodomy who actually knows the full definition. Most state sodomy laws list it as the crime of oral or anal sexual contact or penetration between persons or of sexual intercourse between a person and an animal. There is nothing to prevent a government agency from applying these laws to you for going down on your boyfriend or girlfriend. I’ll say it again: it’s an issue of privacy.

From the same article:

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, a devout Catholic, gave voice in his dissent from the sodomy decision to a common fear that the ruling would open the door to legalized “bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity.”

Mr. Scalia does not masturbate? Maybe that’s his problem. :bugeye:


America as a whole is at a place where "patriotism" and "Puritanical mumbo-jumbo" go hand in hand. We are not a puritanical nation, we only pretend to be.

:m; Peace.