Your title is a nice short noncommital one. Unfortunately the average voter rarely gets past the title when reading the amendment for themsleves. A title that gives some description of the purpose of the amendment is quite a bit more helpful. I suppose that the media will describe the amendment but that goes with the bias of whichever media is involved.

But the more concise and accurate the title is the better it is. even if the title does make an amendment sound negative, especially in a case like this one where the amendment is negative, evil and harmful to humanity on the whole.

Well, that's nice that you find it harmful to humanity on the whole. Shouldn't the voters get to decide that for themselves?

Yes, but not under the name "The Fluffy Bunny Amendment".

I'm not suggesting it be called the fluffy bunny amendment; I'm suggesting it be called a descriptive, objective term: "Amendment Regarding Homosexual Marriage in California."

I have not posted on this subject in a few days, partly because I have a few mixed feelings. Although the AG's office may have the right to re-title a measure, I mam not certain that they should do so so directly. Perhaps it might be better if they returned it to the sponsors and had them re-title it. In this case, I doubt it would do any good, because they would just keep coming up with variations on "Defense of Marriage," since that is what worked so overwhelmingly in all the "red" states, but in other cases, it would make accepting the retitling a little easier.

Also, the sponsors' threat to sue suggests that they only have recourse to the courts. There should be an appeals process within the bureaucracy of the executive branch (which encompasses the AG) before resorting to the judiciary branch.

Love in Action was co-founded in 1973 by John Evans, an adult attempting to reconcile his homosexual feelings with his Christian upbringing. The program failed him, and a lot of others.

Evans wrote a letter to John Smid, the current director saying that the movement leads to "shattered lives."

"In the past 30 years since leaving the 'ex-gay' ministry I have seen nothing but shattered lives, depression and even suicide among those connected with the 'ex-gay' movement," he told Smid.


Saying he understands now that one can be gay and Christian, Evans encouraged Christians to "investigate all sides of the issue of being gay and Christian. The church has been wrong in the past regarding moral issues, and I'm sure there will be more before Christ returns."

.......

"Evans' letter helps pull the rug out from under the reparative therapy argument and further undermines the argument of choice that the right wing has been making for political gain," said Ron Schlittler, deputy executive director of Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG).


The "reparative therapy" industry has come under increased scrutiny for using disproved medical theories to "cure" LGBT adults and youth. LIA in particular has been the target of investigations by the Tennessee Department of Health and has expunged the word "therapy" from its Web site, since it doesn't have a state license to practice psychological counseling.

.......

The increased public attention on LIA and other groups is a hopeful sign, Besen said, because the ministries' claims of conversion never hold up under scrutiny.


"They say they have changed hundreds of thousands of gays, but where are they?" he asked. "You can't find one person who is not on the payroll of an 'ex-gay' ministry who will go on the record to say they've been changed permanently. It's time for them to put up or shut up."


"These ministries have merged pseudo-science with religious beliefs to create, in effect, a new religion," Besen continued. "Eventually they will collapse under the weight of their deceit. But as long as they survive we will have trouble winning any political battles."

MikeC, the problem I have with your proposed titles that are variations on "Amendment Concerning Gay Marriage" is that the proposed amendments would not affect only same-sex partnerships. In its own way, this is as misleading it as calling it "Amendment In Defense of Marriage."

That's true; perhaps it would be better off just naming it as "Amendment 18."

But that still does not tell the purpose of the amendment. The one the Attorny general used or the one ScottN proposed would more follow the truth in advertising laws by telling what the amendment is about and designed for.

Oh and yes the citizens of california should be able to decide for themselves. if they are given the truth behind the amendment and not given some christian taliban misleading lies or feel good pap.

I'm actually starting to think that amendments *shouldn't* be named, except I wonder how many people wouldn't vote on them, or would vote randomly, because they didn't want to read the text themselves?

They need a name to put on the petitions.

Scott's amendment title doesn't tell me anything about what the amendment does (and I think he was proposing it as a sarcastic joke). The attorney general's title is better, but couches it in language that if I were the amendment's proposer, I would object to as prejudicial. In this case, the amendment proposers and the AG should work together to come up with an objective, mutually agreeable title.

Also, the people of California should be able to decide for themselves by READING WHAT THE AMENDMENT DOES. If people need a title to tell them how to vote, then that's their problem.

Also, the people of California should be able to decide for themselves by READING WHAT THE AMENDMENT DOES.

Although in an ideal world, this would be true, there are two problems with applying this statement to the real world. 1) Too many people do not bother to read it through, basing their opinion on what they think they already know about it. 2) The language of most such measures is often deliberately difficult to follow, using specific "legal" terms, partly to more precisely define the limits of the measure, and partly in order to discourage the average voter from reading through and deciding for himself.

That is why a title and an interpretive statement are necessary. The interpretive statement should not be written by someone who is too invested in a particular outcome (e.g. the sponsors or their fierce opposition).

Thank you TomM for beating me to what I was going to say. The average voter while a bright person and able to udnerstand many thigns may not be able to follow the text of a proposed amendment exactly for the the language reason TomM cited.

I mean I asked several people I knew about the issue 1 amendment here in Ohio. I asked them if they had read it and I would say most of them said no they didnt. My ex-girl-friend said she just voted what was right and agreed with the church, while most of the rest of them said they either go with what the commercials and summaries say or what people like me who understand this stuff tell them. Only two of my friends or coworkers (who even bothered to vote) said that they had read the text of the amendment proposal.

I will give you that having either the sponsors of a bill or the opposition to it write the title and summary are not exactly going to be the best choices as each will give it the spin they feel best supports their position, but who else would you be able to get other than an AG or other govt official? Hollywood title writers? That could lead to some interesting amendments.

I still think that the proposers of the Amendment should have at least some say in the matter to come up with an un-prejudicial title. By having an objective title, it would force people to read the amendment description anyway.

The California Supreme Court has decided not to fast-track the same-sex marriage lawsuits. The petition to hear the cases directly instead of going through the appellate court process and then appealling was rejected 5-0, with one abstention.

According to Courtney Joslin, staff attorney at the National Center for Lesbian Rights, the state's briefs in the signature marriage case, Woo v. Lockyer, are due before the appellate court on Sept. 19. The NCLR will have 30 days to respond. No date for oral arguments has been set, but they will presumably take place early next year.


By this timetable, one would not expect the question of marriage equality to reach the California Supreme Court until late next year. Add another year of briefing, arguments and deliberation to that, and the Golden State's same-sex couples will probably remain in limbo until late 2007 or early 2008.


Joslin said the decision was disappointing, but not surprising.

.......

By declining, the high court followed the examples set in New Jersey and New York, where in each case the high courts forced marriage litigants to plead their cause before state appellate courts.


In New York, Lambda Legal filed appellate briefs this week in one of two outstanding freedom-to-marry cases in the Empire State. New Jersey plaintiffs lost before the appellate court, and are preparing for a final showdown at the state high court.


In Washington, by contrast, the state Supreme Court did accept direct review of two marriage cases last year. Oral arguments were held last March in that suit, and a decision that could, in theory, make Washington the second state in the nation to equalize marriage laws could be handed down tomorrow, or months from now.

So now it becomes a race whether the cases will be heard and ruled on before the Amendment moots them. (However, with three versions of the Amendment being circulated, and the AG's office keeping the sponsors honest, hopefully the Amendment will slowly and quietly die.)

James Dobson's organization Focus on the Family has recently published an article relevent to two of the subjects discussed here in the last month or two, Love in Action (on board 6) and the "gay-baby" murder (in LM).

According to the Focus on the Family article Is My Child Becoming Homosexual?, there are 7 warning signs to indicate that your 5 year-old is in danger of growing up gay.

(The warning signs are in blue. Commentary by Gene Stone of the Huffington Post is in Purple. My comments are in black)

1) Your boy has a strong feeling he is "different from other boys."
As we all know, boys must feel exactly like all other boys, or else they are clearly homosexual.
Neither can they be Autistic, Aspergic, BiPolar, ADD/ADHD, etc. because "everybody" knows that these psyco-logical conditions don't really exist. They are just an excuse to pamper lazy children that should be horsewhipped.

2) "A tendency to cry easily, be less athletic, and dislike the roughhousing that other boys enjoy."
Of course, on a relative scale, some boys are bound to be less athletic than others. Well, sorry. These boys are gay.
In other words any hobby other than football and being the playground bully are gay.

3) "A persistent preference to play female roles in make-believe play."
When you see him play cowboys and Indians, and he wants to be the squaw... uh, oh.
Notice that it is not just playing females, but "female roles" in other word's "women's work." If he plays a teacher, or waiter, even a male one...

4) "A strong preference to spend time in the company of girls and participate in their games and other pastimes."
For example, boys must never play with their sisters. Isn't that the leading cause of homosexuality right there?
So now he's gay if he is interested in girls?

5) "A susceptibility to be bullied by other boys, who may tease them unmercifully and call them 'queer,' 'fag' and 'gay.'"
Yes, parents, if the kid next door calls your son a fag, then he is. Four year-old neighbors have a sixth sense: They see gay people.
Again, he is either a bully or he is a "fag."

6) "A tendency to walk, talk, dress and even 'think' effeminately."
Effeminate thinking is destroying our nation; someone better tell Condoleeza Rice.
I don't even know what FotF means by "thinking effeminately." Especially at 4 or 5 years old.

7). "A repeatedly stated desire to be -- or insistence that he is -- a girl."
This is the clearest sign. Apparently, your young homosexual will actually announce his sexual orientation by telling you, while drinking his juicy-juice, that he is actually a girl. Not a gay. A girl.
In other words "real men" have no imagination and no empathy for a woman's point of view. When you combine this with the fact that the "best" of them were bullies and had an aversion to the company of women, you have the "ideal" husband, at least until the filthy liberal neighbors rat him out for spousal abuse.

If your child is experiencing several signs of gender confusion, professional help is available. It’s best to seek that help before your child reaches puberty.

“By the time the adolescent hormones kick in during early adolescence, a full-blown gender identity crisis threatens to overwhelm the teenager,” warns psychologist Dr. James Dobson. To compound the problem, many of these teens experience “great waves of guilt accompanied by secret fears of divine retribution.”

If your child has already reached puberty, change is difficult, but it’s not too late

On another board I visit, someone just posted a discussion of the same subject by Dobson himself, published in June 2002. (Actually it is a letter and his response in his monthly newsletter.)

Dobson contends:

It is important to understand, however, that most of my homosexual clients were not explicitly feminine when they were children. More often, they displayed a "nonmasculinity" that set them painfully apart from other boys: unathletic, somewhat passive, unaggressive and uninterested in rough-and-tumble play. A number of them had traits that could be considered gifts: bright, precocious, social and relational and artistically talented. These characteristics had one common tendency: they set them apart from their male peers and contributed to a distortion in the development of their normal gender identity.

1. Repeatedly stated desire to be, or insistence that he or she is, the other sex.

2. In boys, preference for cross-dressing, or simulating female attire. In girls, insistence on wearing only stereotypical masculine clothing.

3. Strong and persistent preference for cross-sexual roles in make-believe play, or persistent fantasies of being the other sex.

4. Intense desire to participate in stereotypical games and pastimes of the other sex.

5. Strong preference for playmates of the other sex.

Meanwhile, the boy's father has to do his part. He needs to mirror and affirm his son's maleness. He can play rough-and-tumble games with his son, in ways that are decidedly different from the games he would play with a little girl. He can help his son learn to throw and catch a ball. He can teach him to pound a square wooden peg into a square hole in a pegboard. He can even take his son with him into the shower, where the boy cannot help but notice that Dad has a pen¡s, just like his, only bigger.

.......

Many of these fathers loved their sons and wanted the best for them, but for whatever reason (perhaps there was a mismatch between the father's and son's temperaments), the boy perceived his father as a negative or inadequate role model. Dad was "not who I am" or "not who I want to be." A boy needs to see his father as confident, self-assured and decisive. He also needs him to be supportive, sensitive and caring. Mom needs to back off a bit. What I mean is, don't smother him. Let him do more things for himself. Don't try to be both Mom and Dad for him. If he has questions, tell him to ask Dad. She should defer to her husband anything that will give him a chance to demonstrate that he is interested in his son—that he isn't rejecting him.

.......

If [a father] wants his son to grow up straight, he has to break the mother-son connection that is proper to infancy but not in the boy's interest after the age of three. In this way, the father has to be a model, demonstrating that it is possible for his son to maintain a loving relationship with this woman, his mom, while maintaining his own independence. In this way, the father is a healthy buffer between mother and son.

And for the final word on the kind of "reparative therapy" (also known as "conversion therapy," and, when liked to a religious regime "transformational ministry") used in places like "Love in Action," the American Psychiatric Association released a statement in response to a request by The Advocate. The statement apears as a sidebar to a feature article interviewing reparative therapy victims.

The most important fact about “reparative therapy,” also sometimes known as “conversion” therapy, is that it is based on an understanding of homosexuality that has been rejected by all the major health and mental health professions.

.......

Despite the unanimity of the health and mental health professions on the normality of homosexuality, the idea of “reparative therapy” has recently been adopted by conservative organizations and aggressively promoted in the media. Because of this aggressive promotion of “reparative therapy,” a number of the health and mental health professional organizations have recently issued public statements about “reparative therapy” as well.

.......

The most important fact about “transformational ministry” is that its view of homosexuality is not representative of the views of all people of faith. Many deeply religious people, and a number of religious congregations and denominations, are supportive and accepting of lesbian, gay, and bisexual people and their right to be protected from the discriminatory acts of others. For example, the following [religious] organizations have endorsed passage of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which would prohibit employment discrimination based on sexual orientation:

• American Ethical Union
• American Friends Service Committee
• American Jewish Committee
• American Jewish Congress
• Church of the Brethren,
• Church Women United
• Dignity/USA
• Episcopal Church
• Evangelical Lutheran Church in America
• Hadassah, the Women’s Zionist Organization of America
• The Interfaith Alliance
• Jewish Women International
• National Council of the Churches of Christ USA
• National Council of Jewish Women
• North Georgia United Methodist Conference
• Presbyterian Church (USA)
• Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism
• Unitarian Universalist Association
• United Church of Christ
• United Methodist Church
• Women of Reform Judaism
• Young Women’s Christian Association

Although “transformational ministry” promotes the message that religious faith and acceptance of gay, lesbian, and bisexual sexuality are incompatible, that message is countered by the large number of outspoken clergy and people of faith who promote love and acceptance.

It is my opinion that that sort of foolishness probably served to either mess up people's sexuality or in fact, DRIVE them over to homosexuality. By Dr. Dobson's standards, almost everyone I know would have been gay as a child. Of them, 1 is normal for everyone, 2/5/6 indicate nothing other than being outside the stereotype, 3/4 are typical for young children. 7 is sort of odd, but is probably a young child unaware fully of gender types (I admit if your 12-year-old keeps saying this, I would take notice).

That kind of attitude this guy is talking about has always bothered me.


It is important to understand, however, that most of my homosexual clients were not explicitly feminine when they were children. More often, they displayed a "nonmasculinity" that set them painfully apart from other boys: unathletic, somewhat passive, unaggressive and uninterested in rough-and-tumble play. A number of them had traits that could be considered gifts: bright, precocious, social and relational and artistically talented. These characteristics had one common tendency: they set them apart from their male peers and contributed to a distortion in the development of their normal gender identity.

That discribes most of my friends, and probably a great deal of people on this site. We are what you would call "geeks" and proud of it.

That whole attitue has always bothered me. A manager at the resturant where I work has a son who's in elementary school. When the kid was like 5 some of the people I work with were saying that they thought he might be gay because when his dad brings him into the resturant he's shy, quiet and well behaved. I hear that and am like "so becaues he's not a retard who runs around bashing things with his head and raising hell he's gay?"

Yep that certainly describes me and most of my high school friends. And out of all of us only one actually turned out to be born homosexual.

and as for him he tried to overcompensate by being one of the biggest horndawgs in high school and chasing every skirt he could, as well as being a bit like animal from animal house. Drunk, fat and slobby. Now that he has finally accepted who and what he is he has cleaned his life up and gotton into a nice stable relationship and is a lot better.

Thats just another reason why Dobson should be on the Jerry springer type of show instead of anythign serious. What is scary though is that there are people out there who actually believe and listen to freaks like him.

The California Marriage amendment is in the news again. There has been a preliminary decision in the lawsuit that the sponsors brought against the Attorney General's office because of the title and description the AG's office appended to the petitions. Sacramento Superior Court Judge Ronald Cadei ruled that the description the attorney general had written to go on the petitions that will be used to qualify the measure for the ballot could be misinterpreted by some voters.

Both Attorney General Bill Lockyer's office and the group that brought the lawsuit described Cadei's decision as a victory.

"It was designed to discourage individuals from voting in favor of the marriage initiative," said Mathew Staver, whose Liberty Counsel law firm represented VoteYesMarriage.com in the case.

But Lockyer spokesman Nathan Barankin disagreed that Cadei found the attorney general's summary to be inaccurate. Instead, the judge merely asked for some portions of it to be clarified so voters understand what specific rights the amendment would restrict, according to barankin.

"He didn't say delete anything. He said, 'Add language to make it more precise,'" Barankin said.

The judge gave the amendment's sponsors, the attorney general and representatives from gay rights organizations two weeks to sit down and rewrite a version of the petition language that all parties find acceptable.

Another perspective on Judge Cadei's ruling:

But Sacramento Superior Court Judge Raymond Cadei said the formal title - - "Marriage. Elimination of Domestic Partnership Rights" -- accurately reflected a principal effect of the measure: nullifying recent state laws that granted registered domestic partners many of the same rights as spouses.

The initiative's formal title and 100-word summary appear on petitions now being circulated for the June 2006 ballot, and will also appear on the ballot if the measure qualifies.

.......

The significance of the ruling is that the attorney general's title and summary, required by law to be accurate and impartial, are the primary source of information for many of those who sign petitions and will vote on the measure if it qualifies.

.......

A lawyer for the initiative sponsors told Cadei that a more accurate title would have been "Limitation of Marriage Rights to Married People." "This is about setting the boundaries of marriage rights" and not about eliminating rights, said Mary McAlister of Liberty Counsel.

Jennifer Pizer of the Lambda Legal Defense and Educational Fund, representing same-sex couples and advocates who joined in defense of Lockyer's wording, said afterward that Cadei's ruling would help voters learn the true impact of the initiative. "Proponents of the measure would like to conceal its effects on domestic partner rights," she said.

A lawyer for the initiative sponsors told Cadei that a more accurate title would have been "Limitation of Marriage Rights to Married People." "This is about setting the boundaries of marriage rights" and not about eliminating rights, said Mary McAlister of Liberty Counsel.

So by limiting rights to only a certian group of people that is not taking away rights from anyone who is not a member of that group. Yeah right. Why not have the klan introduce a bill title "limiting civil rights to only caucasian people" and see what happens?

Actually, that is a fairly accurate title.

Something about it bugs me a little... probably the fact that under the current statute, they're not just "marriage rights," and what defines a "marriage right" anyhow? I might prefer "Definiton of Marriage and Marriage Rights," which is content-neutral.

A lawyer for the initiative sponsors told Cadei that a more accurate title would have been "Limitation of Marriage Rights to Married People.
Actually, that is a fairly accurate title.

Depends on how you define "accurate."

The title as written, is actually totally meaningless. As meaningless as a measure concerning "limiting deep-sea salvage rights to people engaged in deep-sea salvage." If the law only concerns a single, defined activity, of course it is limited to that activity. But that is not what this measure is about. (I almost wrote that it is not really what this measure is about, but frankly, I don't believe that the sponsors, depite their obfuscating language can pretend that it does anything but what the AG's office describes. [Except for the one apparent mistaken exaggeration, which seems to be the only reason Judge Cadei ruled the explanitory paragraph be re-written.])

First, they are not all "rights." Many of them are government-granted priveleges, such as tax breaks. If they were rights, all Californians would have them regardless of race, creed, sex, or marital status.

Second, they are not all "marriage" priveliges (or "rights"). The people of California approved, and the government passed laws confirming, granting many of these priveleges to couples whose relationship is not "married," but simply "registered domestic partners." Since they have already decided that this "lesser" relationship deserves at least some of the priveliges, it is dishonest of the amendment's sponsors to try to obscure the fact that the "rights" they are limiting include the ones just recently granted.

What I meant was pretty much what you said in your first paragraph: the meaninglessness of it made it an accurate title, in my opinion (like "restriction of voting rights to voters" or something like that). It was so vague it was accurate. It was just sort of a flippant remark that I didn't have a lot of time to think over.

Your post allowed me to think, though, that the title "Elimination of Domestic Partnership Rights" should actually be renamed "Elimination of Domestic Partnership Privileges" for the same reasoning.

SAN FRANCISCO — The California Supreme Court on Monday became the first in the nation to grant full parenting rights and obligations to gays and lesbians who have children.

Well thats good news. And as usual the CT are all upset and screaming bloody fits about it. Someday I wish they would just take the corncob out of their orifice and get over it and let people live their own lives.

Some interesting quotes from persons involved:
Randy Thomasson, president of Campaign for Children and Families, which opposes gay marriage, said the court's position "goes against nature."

"We perceive no reason why both parents of a child cannot be women," Justice Carlos Moreno wrote for the unanimous court.

Children cannot choose their parents and should not be deprived of the benefits of having two people to provide financial and emotional support just because their parents are lesbians, the justices said

Children cannot choose their parents and should not be deprived of the benefits of having two people to provide financial and emotional support just because their parents are lesbians, the justices said

I'd like to see the whole ruling, in order to judge the context of this statement. Are they telling the anti-gay crowd that gays and lesbians are just as fit parents as straights? or are they saying that "Children can't pick their families, and because they were unlucky enough to beborn in a GLBT family they already have one strike against them." In other words are they saying that gays and lesbians should be treated as everyone else or are they "just" saying that (in the same sense that "illegitimate" children are no longer legally "bas-tards") the law will not hold the unfortunate circumstances of their birth against the children?

Any victory is positive, but knowing this helps us to understand just how far we still have to go.

Do you have a link to a fuller article, R?

Your post allowed me to think, though, that the title "Elimination of Domestic Partnership Rights" should actually be renamed "Elimination of Domestic Partnership Privileges" for the same reasoning.

Not really. As I said, most of the "rights" that the sponsors are attempting to limit are priveleges. But not all. in several cases (most notably Loving v Virginia, the inter-racial marriage case) the Supreme Court has recognized that everyone has a right to marry, and the State cannot limit the choices. This is the most basic right, and also the most controversial. There are others that flow from it.

This understanding of basic human rights, and the fourteenth amendment guarantees applying federally recognized rights against claims by the individual state governments is the basis for lawsuits for same-sex marriage. Several states' legislatures and/or their highest courts of appeal have found that these guarantees must apply to same-sex couples, either by providing them access to marriage (Massachusetts and briefly Hawaii), or instituting an equivalent "civil union" (Connecticut and Vermont), or at least offering the most relevant priveleges to "domestic partners" (California and New Jersey). The amendment, like the ones passed last November, seeks to deny any access to these rights to same-sex couples.

My reading of Loving is that it is specifically talking about restricting marriage because of race.

Example:

"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law."

This implies that marriage can indeed by resticted by the state with a "supportable" basis--although what this basis is is not described.

The other ruling you may have referred to was "Lawrence v. Texas" in which the Court struck down sodomy laws. This still, though, does not address the issue of gay marriage.

There have been numerous state and superior court rulings saying that states may limit marriages to men and women as well as the national Defense of Marriage Act. The Supreme Court has yet to fully weigh in on the issue by examining the constitutionality of said act or other rulings, in my opinion.

Thus, I think the matter is still open.

Sorry the article was on Yahoo News and even if I had the link I doubt I could get it to work here. I just figured out how to get my text to turn colors recently. :-)

Some of the articles that my My Yahoo! page found on the story(I'm not sure which, if any, is R's source):

http://www.bloggingbaby.com/entry/1234000133055632/

http://newstandardnews.net/content/index.cfm/items/2270

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/local/states/california/northern_california/12446818.htm?source=rss&channel=mercurynews_northern_california

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/nation/12447307.htm

http://www.thestate.com/mld/mercurynews/news/local/states/california/northern_california/12452071.htm?source=rss&channel=mercurynews_northern_california

I'm not really sure which of those it was if any. I was just looking at the main yahoo news pages and not my yahoo (or your yahoo).

one thing I noticed about the checklist (Is your child gay) in the earlier post above:

There's only concern that a boy might be gay. Is there a similar list for girls who might be lesbian (I guess if they don't want to play with their dolls, want to wear jeans instead of dresses, and act with self-confidence instead of the "natural" shyness, they're too "butch" (?) and therefore, unnatural), - or are girls/women just not that important to worry about in the eyes of Dobson?

BTW, an article I read recently reminded me that my city council has one member of the "Pink list" (Rosa Liste) (as in gay, not as in Commie) that were elected. (Not in Berlin, though, they can't make the 5% barrier countrywide).
Do you have a Gay/Lesbian party somewhere in the US, too, or would Armaggedon come for sure if that were allowed?

here is their (german-language only) homepage, so you can see for yourself...

So being a "Tom Boy" is bad to these people. what a shock.

Do you have a Gay/Lesbian party somewhere in the US, too, or would Armaggedon come for sure if that were allowed?


Somehow, here in the USA, politics seems (mostly) confined to the two major parties. "Third" parties may make minor inroads in local politics, but it is rare to have more than one or two elected to prominant national office at any given time. Because of this, one of the two major parties can usually gain a majority without allying with other parties, and we have not had a "coalition government."

Relatively few "third" parties then even rise to national prominance, but the ones that do need a broader base than any single issue would afford them. Even such apparently one-issue parties as the Green Party (environmentalism) have agendas beyond their main issue.

So it is extremely unlikely that a third party devoted to gay and lesbian candidates, or even to "gay rights" in general would get off the ground. But they would find third parties, and even one of the main two (the Democrats) who are willing to champion their cause -- among many others, eventually....

My reading of Loving is that it is specifically talking about restricting marriage because of race.
.......
Thus, I think the matter is still open.

It is true that the Supreme Court has (until Lawrence v Texas) been extremely reluctant to definitively declare that equal protection and human rights do extend to the GLBT. That is why there is such a controversy about it. It would not be necessary to fight the battle on a state-by-state basis otherwise.

But, all of the legal arguments against same-sex marriage that I've seen are exactly the same arguments used against inter-racial marriage. That they were declared insufficient to override basic rights in the one case means that the logical conclusion is that they are also insufficient in the other case.

On the other hand, the law is not necessarily logical, and it is authored, administered, and ajudicated by men who are often even less so. So, yes, unfortunately, you are right. The matter is still open.

"So, yes, unfortunately, you are right."

I know you meant it as a social but not a personal criticism, but I found that really funny.

Relatively few "third" parties then even rise to national prominance TomM

Just wanted to point out that in the last decade (well, actually, a bit more than that) we did have a major third party in the country- the Reform Party, which picked up enough votes for Ross Perot in 1992 to gain "major" status.

Carry on.

But that was not so much a true party as a "cult of personality." It died as soon as Perot lost interest. There have been other third-party presidential candidates as well who have managed to garner enough support to influence the election. (For example, Anderson in 1980) But they never have maneged to get themselves elected. Nor would they have found many (if any) co-partyists in Congress if they had been elected.

Anderson wasn't third-party. He ran as an Independent, after losing the Republican nomination to Reagan.

I know, I did some campaign work for him (not much, but a little).

Just like Mike Doonesbury.

Somehow, here in the USA, politics seems (mostly) confined to the two major parties. "Third" parties may make minor inroads in local politics, but it is rare to have more than one or two elected to prominant national office at any given time....

Yes, if there were a third party at nation-wide level, I'd've heard about it during election time. But do you mean there are also no other parties at local level - city council, county boards, that kind of stuff? Or is there not enough news coverage that you would hear about it, if there was?

Though with the religious right, I guess even a local level Gay party would get a lot of attention... while I've quite forgotten that Munich is the only city in Europe with a council member from a Gay-/Lesbian party elected. (Klaus Wowereit, mayor of Berlin, is gay, but runs for the SPD, the social democratic party.) Mostly I think of Munich being a red-green city, although correctly, it's called "rainbow coalition", because of the fringe partners like Pink List and some other guys whose party only got 1 or 2 seats, which don't have enough weight to make demands or form a real coalition, but don't want to ally themselves with the Dark Side of the Force, the CSU (conservatives), so they tag along with the red-greens on most issues. Whew, long sentence.

Oh, there are politicians who are far better known for being gay than for their specifc policies (Congressman Barney Frank of Massachusetts, for example) and there are localities where the sexual orientataion and/or gay-friendly (or anti-gay) policies of the candidates out-weigh any other considerations, but even then it is only one plank in their party's platform, and not even a major one.

By the way, is your pro-gay party really called the Pink List? I know that here in America the Pink Triangle is one symbol of gay pride, in defiance of the Concentration Camp badges, but I thought you Germans were sensitive to certain kinds of reminders of the late war...

TomM: slightly off-topic, but I think what killed the Reform Party was its hijacking by Pat Buchanan in 2000. Anyway...

TomM,

By the way, is your pro-gay party really called the Pink List?..

Yes, it's called "Rosa Liste" (which translates literally to Pink List), and AFAIK, the relation is indeed to the discrimination under the Nazis and the symbol used in the concentration camps.

Although Wikipedia says that when homosexuality was still a crime (the infamous Paragraph 175) in the 1960s and 70s, the police kept lists about Gays, which were called pink lists, derived from black lists.

TomM,

as for having only one issue: while the main platform for the Pink List is everything related to Gay/Lesbian issues, they also generally advocate liberal and minority issues (Feminism, Anti-Discrimination, Anti-Racism.)

Ahhh... I understand: the connection to the pink triangles is indirect, through the police-controlled "pink lists" of the later period.

The Wiki entry for the political party (as opposed to the police lists) seems to indicate that it is local to Munich only. On that small a scale it is possible that there are similar local coalitions (probably too small to truly be called parties) in certain cities, especially those with highly visible gay enclaves, such as San Francisco, West Hollywood, and Atlanta, but if there are, they have not caught the national attention.

When the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled in Goodrich that the Massachusetts constitution's stand on equal rights mandated allowing same-sex couples to marry, and determined that civil unions would not satisfy that mandate, the Massachusetts legislature began proceedings to amend the state constitution, forbidding same-sex marriage and setting up civil unions instead. The first steps of that process required passing a resolution outlining the proposed amendment two years in a row. The time for the second vote is coming up, and it looks like it will not pass this time.

Nearly a year-and-a-half after lawmakers approved a constitutional amendment that banned same-sex marriage but set up civil unions for gay and lesbian couples, the Legislature appears ready to defeat the measure.

.......

State Rep. Colleen Garry, D-Dracut, an opponent of same-sex marriage who voted for the 2004 compromise, said she will continue to support it. She says it's too late to start the process over.

“I think we're in a difficult situation now because so many people have been married, and we need to provide coverage for them,” Garry said. “I think my constituents were happy with the way I voted the last time. I think people have gotten used to this situation now.”

.......

House Speaker Salvatore DiMasi, a Boston Democrat who supports gay-marriage rights, predicted yesterday that the compromise amendment would likely fail.

“I will assess before Sept. 14 where the votes are, and everybody anticipates that there won't be enough votes to pass this,” DiMasi said, according to the State House News Service. “That seems pretty clear, and right now I believe that. Unless they change their mind in the end, we're looking pretty good.”

.......

A civil union provides many similar legal protections to marriage, but it doesn't have to be recognized by another state and a couple in a civil union doesn't receive tax benefits or survivor benefits from Social Security.

Yes, if there were a third party at nation-wide level, I'd've heard about it during election time. But do you mean there are also no other parties at local level - city council, county boards, that kind of stuff?

Every now and than you hear of someone from a 3rd party being elected to a local office (Jesse "the Body/Mind" Ventura for one) but the number of them nation wide at any one time could probably be counted on one hand. Within the 2 major parties the local officals have a pretty diverse range across the nation. For example a Republican from New York could be more Liberal on some issues than a Democrat from rural Georgia or Alabama.

Back in July, Brian Fitzgerald made the statement: "As I recall the last big "gay panic" defense someone tried to use was Matthew Shepard's killers. They thought they might get off easier if they said they killed him over gay panic, but when they said that it made what they did a hate crime; now one of his killers is teying to appeal is conviction on the claim that he didn't even Shepard was gay." I assumed then, and still assume, that he felt that "gay panic" as a defense was dead.

In Fresno County, California "gay panic" (or rather its close cousin "tranny panic") still lives. Even though it was not strong enough to gain an acquital for defendant Estanislao Martinez on charges of murdering 20-year-old Joel Robles, it was strong enough to convince the prosecutor to agree to a reduced plea of voluntary manslaughter, and to convince the judge to sentence him to only four years.

"I am extremely troubled that this sentence sends a message that murder is not murder if the victim is transgender," Geoffrey Kors, executive director of Equality California, said in a prepared statement.


"If I just stole money from you, I'd serve more time than this person did for stabbing someone 20 times," Charlotte Jenks, executive director of the Central California Pride Network, told the AP.

...

Legal experts said using the "gay panic" defense helped reduce the sentence in this case.

"I think it is because most people, when they're going to have a relationship with someone, expect it to be the opposite sex. I think when you find out it's not, all kinds of things run through your mind," said defense expert Ernest Kinney.

The prosecutor refused to comment on the case.

I'd like to be able to read the judge's opinion for the Martinez case. Was he swayed more by the "tranny panic" defense or more perhaps by other factors, such as the defendant's behavior after the stabbing?

Interesting. I've often wondered how you can be involved in a relationship with a person and not know what gender the person you are with is.

I mean the plumbing is rather obviously different between a male and a female. And if the person has the opposite plumbing and appearance and attitudes appropriate to the plumbing then what is the big deal. True it might be a bit of a shock to see a girlfriend's high school picture and she be the football quarterback instead of a cheerleader (assuming traditional gender roles) but is that enough to kill a person over? I think not. Mayeb break up or be friends and thats it but not kill someone. Also might be a bit of a mood killer I guess but then it depends.

I dunno. Just a thought that came up when reading this.

Or should the question be should you care about the dna of a person or the physicallity you are presented with.

Depending on the relationship and expectations does it really matter? Maybe these thoughts really belong somewhere else but I'm not sure where.

I'm not trying to excuse what these guys did but I'd wager that the diference between this and something like Matthew Sheppard is that Sheppard was a guy, who may have hit on some guys who knew full well he was a guy. This person was a man (I'm assuming that this person still had a peenis and stuff since they keep saying "biologically a male") who dressed as a women and told these guys that he was a woman and wanted to have sex with them.

Also like R asked how does one have sex with someone and not find out that they have a peenis? Without being offensive I'm assuming that "Lisa" told the guys "she" only wanted to have anal sex (believable since I have known girls who thought that was a way around moral problems that they had with having many sexual partners, figuring that anal doesn't count as real sex) but didn't any of these guys put their hands in certan areas, even with cloths on you'd feel something. I can think of one way to keep a guy from trying to get too close to that area ("lisa" claiming it was a bad time of the month) but wouldn't you still have to get down to at least undies (and something pretty skimpy to just be able to push it out of the way for anal sex) where the Frank and Beans should be pretty obvious.

I took biologically a male to mean still the xy dna while the plumbing had been re-arranged into physically a female.

And I know a few guys who have their red wings so that wouldnt exactly stop all men either.

I almost considered not posting this because I don't want to give the *******s the recognition. And because there always seems to be groups ready to make the same claim concerning every disaster that happens lately.

A fundamentalist group called Repent America, is claiming that God sent Katrina to the Gulf Coast because of a GLBT festival which had been scheduled in New Orleans for the Labor Day weekend.

Although the loss of lives is deeply saddening, this act of God destroyed a wicked city." Marcavage [Repent America director Michael Marcavage] said. "From ‘Girls Gone Wild’ to ‘Southern Decadence’, New Orleans was a city that had its doors wide open to the public celebration of sin. May it never be the same."

"Let us pray for those ravaged by this disaster. However, we must not forget that the citizens of New Orleans tolerated and welcomed the wickedness in their city for so long," Marcavage said.

"May this act of God cause us all to think about what we tolerate in our city limits, and bring us trembling before the throne of Almighty God," Marcavage concluded.

Actually, to be frank, I really wish you hadn't posted this either. The best way to deal with these people is to not give them attention; they enjoy arousing arguments and uproar. The sad part is that this makes all Christian groups, many of which are providing aid to the damaged area, look bad.

Defiantely. I just wish disgusting evil CT groups like that would have to sit through a situation like that. Although it is still good to know what the forces of evil and enemies of humanity are doing.

With all of the national news on California's same-sex marriage issues being on the lawsuit to declare for it and the constitutional amendment to block not only marriage but domestic partnsrships as well, it was with surprise that I read today that the legislature in Sacramento has passed it as a law!

If Governor Arnold Swarzenegger somehow signs the bill, California will be the first state to allow full marriage between same-sex partners without a court order. The measure only barely passed, with no Republicans voting in favor. Swarzenegger, a Republican is expected to veto. If he does, there are not enough votes to over-ride the veto. Still, it is an historic moment of enlightenment.

Wow. Well some good news is better than none right now.

And who knows arnold may give it a go.

Are you sure about Schwarzenegger, Tom? He said on The Tonight Show, IIRC, that he was against activist judges performing them illegaly, but preferred it be made legal by making it into law. If the legislature passed it as a law, wouldn't he ratify it?

If that is the correct interpretation of his statement, that would be good news, indeed.

Since I had no idea that the legislature was so close to this vote, and so I didn't pay too much attention to statements like that. I'd assumed that he was more castigating the "activist judges" for going against "the will of the people," than actually considering the possibility that the people would actually will same-sex marriage.

Still, not one Republican voted in favor, and Swarzenegger is Republican, so it is far from settled that he will sign.

But some Hollywood Republicans like Schwarzenegger tend to be conservative fiscally, but not conservative on social matters like homosexuality. In any case, we'll have to wait and see.

Arnold is pretty moderate to liberal on social matters. He resembles actually Rudy G. in this regard.

Well, Swarzenegger has clarified what he meant by "the will of the people": the etched-in-stone results of a five-year-old ballot initiative.

He says that he will veto the bill because the vote of two houses of legislators elected by the will of the people does not represent the will of the people.

"We cannot have a system where the people vote and the Legislature derails that vote," the governor's press secretary, Margita Thompson, said in a statement. "Out of respect for the will of the people, the governor will veto (the bill)."

So California will be moving toward an all-plebiscite, all the time model of democracy, will they?

He probably wants to see how the public at large will respond to say, another initiative.

But why should the public at large have the power to pass legislation that supersedes anything passed by their elected representatives? And if the public decides that their representatives aren't accurately representing their interests, why can they not simply vote them out of office?

And *why*, in the name of logical consistency, does the statement include an appeal to the courts as the agency by which this should be resolved? Or are we all finally agreed, Democrats and Republicans, that "activist judges" really just means "judges who don't issue the decisions I like"?

I saw that the governator may be in some touble come next election in Cali. He promised to stop runaway productions, movies going to places like Vancouver, BC to shoot because the Canadian government gives them some great tax breaks. His efforts to give similer tax breaks to productions in Cali were stopped by the Republicans, saying it amounted to a government giveaway to Hollywood, and Republicans only like to give money to oil companies not liberal Hollywood types. Now he's in it with the Republicans over the tax break issue and in it with the liberal democrats for fighting gay marrage.

Looking at it from a Republican perspective, he probably would be more in line with his party if it came from an out-of-administration initiative rather than a piece of legislation.

His current stand, however, seems to contradict what he said on Leno back when he was running.

Of course, my memory could be bad.

1. Could be a technicality. Anybody have a specific transcript of what he said?

2. Or..."One more thing, Benny. I lied."

So arnie is doing a read my lips thing? It does sound like he has gotton a bit confused as to where he is standing. And I recall his stance being if not positive on at least not standing in the way of same gender marriage.

In Massachusetts, as in California, the arch-conservatives are pushing for an amendment to the state constitution initiating a ban on same-sex marriage. As in California, the first step in the process is a petition for a ballot initiative, the form of which must be approved by the Attorney General's office. As in California, the AG's office approved the form, but not the content.

Some of the local GLBT organizations are upset with the AG's office and are threatening to take the issue to court.

''Today [Attorney General] Tom Reilly threw the entire gay community in front of the bus at the altar of his political aspirations," said Arline Isaacson, co-chair of the Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus. ''We are stunned and horrified by the cowardly nature of this crassly political decision. Tom Reilly chose to ignore the law today. It's a disgrace, a shame. . . . "

Reilly's office concludes, persuasively, that the intent of that article is to prevent laws that a state court has set aside as unconstitutional from being submitted to voters for their approval, and not to prevent citizens from amending the Constitution in reaction to a court decision.

The Supreme Judicial Court, in a 2000 ballot question case, had the same view. As the majority wrote back then: ''By excluding from the initiative process those petitions that 'relate . . . to the reversal of . . . judicial decision[s],' the constitutional convention intended no more than to prevent a statute, declared unconstitutional by a state court, from being submitted to the people directly and thereby reenacted notwithstanding the court's decision. Citizens could, effectively, overrule a decision based on state constitutional grounds, but they could do so only by constitutional amendment."

* No measure that relates to religion, religious practices or religious institutions; or to the appointment, qualification, tenure, removal, recall or compensation of judges; or to the reversal of a judicial decision; or to the powers, creation or abolition of courts; or the operation of which is restricted to a particular town, city or other political division or to particular districts or localities of the commonwealth; or that makes a specific appropriation of money from the treasury of the commonwealth, shall be proposed by an initiative petition; but if a law approved by the people is not repealed, the general court shall raise by taxation or otherwise and shall appropriate such money as may be necessary to carry such law into effect.

What is it with the christian taliban? Are they not happy unless they are ruining someone else's happiness? Or do they just get off interfereing in other's lives?

The way i read the things you presented tom. it looks like the CT and their supporters are upset with the judges fair and right decision for the forces of good and are wanting to get an amendment passed (no doubt using many of the same scare and intimidation tactics used here in ohio as well as playing on ignorance and intolerance and hatred of anything different.) that reverses the decision the forces of evil disagree with.

My sig (from another site): "People who need government to enforce their religion must not have much faith in it. Otherwise, they wouldn't need the govermnent to enforce it."

New alternative: "How does two gay people getting married threaten *your* marriage?"

Seen elsewhere: "Puritan: Someone who is worried that someone else, somewhere is actually happy."

hehehe. I like those scottN. THe last one would make a neat bumper sticker.

The second one whould be printed and passed out in flyers whenver the CT start their scare tactic flyer campaign.

The fundamentalists' reaction is no more than what is to be expected. The same thing is happening in almost all of the other states. The over-reaction of the GLBT organizations, however, plays right into the hands of their opponants.

If there are two initiatives, one of which clearly goes overboard, support for each is reduced. The extended timeframe also works out better for the ultimate defeat of the proposal, allowing time to get used to the idea of same-sex marriage, and to see that same-sex couples are not destroying civilization.

A better strategy would be to lie low and allow the amendments to self-destruct. There is plenty of time to get active if they do not die out on their own.

Funny, but the spiritual descendants of the Puritans are the Church of Christ and the Unitarians, two of the most liberal denominations. Baptists and other fundie groups in the US descend from radical groups that left established denominations and identified with the Anabaptist movement in Europe. The earliest Baptist congregations in America were originally Dutch Mennonites (close relatives of the Amish) -- best known for minding their own business.

TomM, sorry, but I don't buy that the better strategy is to lie low. I went to a presentation by the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force where they detailed their efforts to fight the amendments that are upcoming this year, and in the process, they discussed what they learned from the massive failures in 2004. The specific example of Oregon was brought up. Polling data shows that early in the year, when the amendment was first brought up, a slight majority of Oregonians actually *opposed* the amendment. It took the NGLTF until almost September to start campaigning against it, whereas the anti-marriage folks has been heavily campaigning for it since day 1. By the fall, the numbers had swung the opposite direction, and the NGLTF's (somewhat feeble) efforts at campaigning against it did not change things. The amendment passed 57-43.

Moral: Inaction is also bad. It wasn't for a lack of funds or resources that the campaign was not begun in January (I asked the national issues director, and according to him that wasn't the deal); it was simply that nothing was done. The attitude that you can just sit around and watch them crumble, and if they don't, then maybe get involved, is what lost us the one state that might possibly have gone the other way in 2004. This is a scenario we ought not repeat.

A better question could be "HOW should these organizations campaign to reach the undecided, the apathetic, or the uninformed?" I guarantee that calling them Christian Taliban members won't help.

And I say that the question is how to stop the organizations of the forces of evil such as the christian coalition or other religious conservative groups from reaching the undecided, apathetic or uninformed while reaching and educating those same groups of people about the dangers of unrestrained religious conservatisim and the truth behind their messages of hatred, ignorance and intolerance.

The past few years have shown that the forces of good must continue to fight for every right, every freedom and every chance to live their lives unimpeded by other's moral or religiously imposed views. Because if given a chance the christian taliban or christian conservatives will attempt to impose their harmful attitudes and beliefs and constrictions upon others who neither want nor need them.

And calling them taliban members is a lot nicer than others who have worked for the forces of good have been called.

I think there needs to be more of a dialogue between conservative groups and their opponents in which one side is not being demonized. If someone is opposed to gay marriage, their opinions will not be changed by being called a "force of evil" (on the reverse side, no sane homosexual person will respond to a Christian calling them a "faggot"). I agree with Tom regarding the direction which GLBT organizations should take if they hope to achieve success.

And what sort of dialogue do you really think the CT would have with a GLBT group or person?

During the battle over issue 1 in Ohio there was some really hateful rhetoric coming from the CT as well as preachers using their pulpit to preach for issue 1. Lies and scare tactics such as saying that by allowing same-gender marriage in ohio we'd have to allow people to marry their dogs next among other things.

To speak out against it would get you called names like fag lover among others, issue 1 was one of the things that caused my exfriends to demonize me and others like me who spoke out for reason. I had my car egged because i had Vote no on issue 1 it teaches hate and discriminates written on the rear window. Another person I know and worked with during the campaign was threatened with physical violence for not supporting issue 1. Is that the kind of dialogue you where expecting?

But this is a battle between good and evil, right and wrong. Those who are using their religion to teach hatred, discrimination and ignorance are on the side of evil. Those who are fighting for the right to live their life, or others, in the manner in which they are happy and no one who is not a consenting adult is involved are on the side of good.

I have been told by several christians that they will not rest until the fags are pushed back into the closet. So there is no time to just lie low. These thigns do not self destruct or go away if you pretend it doesnt exist. The forces of light cannot afford to give the evil time to grow. They have to educate, outreach, show and expose the lies of the CT. I disagree with Tom as soon as there is any mention of somethign such as issue 1 forces have to be mobilized and the battle begun.

I am urging BOTH sides to have a dialogue without scare tactics, hateful rhetoric, or demonization from both sides. Hey, Proposition 2 (same thing as Issue 1 in MI) led to some nasty behavior from both sides. That's not a dialogue.

I am not saying "lie low" and even though those are Tom's words, I don't think he meant do nothing. I think his point was don't make this a polarizing issue through extremist behavior--don't turn this into a Christian vs. Non-Christian issue because I don't think it necessarily has to be. By painting it as a battle of "light and evil," you are effectively placing all Christians in the "evil camp" and destroying any potential support from Christians that may not support such pieces of legislation, but don't like having their beliefs ridiculed.

Well to be honest in this part of Ohio it did almost come down to a christian/nonchristian battleline. And I was told by a "chistian" church member that it was that as such by them as well. From what it seemed like around here there was no christian support as many churches had vote yes on issue 1 on their billboards and sign boards out front. Also in the fight against legalized discrimination in cincinnati (i forget which issue number it was off the top of my head) many preachers spoke out to keep the status quo instead of repealing the legalized discrimination.

As for a dialog I would dearly love to be able to sit down and talk with a person in a calm and rational manner without it escalating into a battle royale over this. But it seems like this issue is polarizing in and of itself with very few people able to step back and be objective.

I have tried to be reasonable when talking to others about it and in response I got my car egged, i got yelled at, this issue helped loose two friends (who where already going out the door but this was a peg in the coffin lid of that friendship) called names, been threatened and much of that behavior came from supposedly good decent "christians". I will admit that my usual response to being yelled at was to start yelling back as well as some other people doing the same. But thats human nature.

And as for the good and evil placement. Thats the way for the most part i see things right now. That seems to be the way things are aligning. Not just in this battle but in much of the culture and moral and general attitudes of the country "wars".

TomM, sorry, but I don't buy that the better strategy is to lie low. I went to a presentation by the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force where they detailed their efforts to fight the amendments that are upcoming this year, and in the process, they discussed what they learned from the massive failures in 2004. The specific example of Oregon was brought up. Polling data shows that early in the year, when the amendment was first brought up, a slight majority of Oregonians actually *opposed* the amendment. It took the NGLTF until almost September to start campaigning against it, whereas the anti-marriage folks has been heavily campaigning for it since day 1. By the fall, the numbers had swung the opposite direction, and the NGLTF's (somewhat feeble) efforts at campaigning against it did not change things. The amendment passed 57-43.

OK, I probably should have thought things through better before advocating a "lie low" strategy.

Still, spending all one's time and energy on a strategy that is clearly wrong and clearly destined to lose (suing the AG's office for "approving" the the initiative), especially one which plays into the stereotype of placing one's hopes in "activist judges" is more likely to lose the acceptance of the "swing votes" rather than gain it.

Besides, I was talking about strategy specifically in Massachusetts, where same-sex marriage already is legal and the challenge is not to obtain the right, but to prove that the scare-mongering of the anti-gays is unfounded. That "Adam and Steve" or "Karyn and Eve" getting married does not destroy civilization or somehow cheapen the marriage of the traditional couple next door.

And my prediction of the anti-gay amendment movement falling apart in Massachusetts is closer to realization. A recent AP poll of Massachusetts legislators concerning their vote on the second round of the earlier amendment shows that it is extremely unlikely to pass.

Last year, months after the Supreme Judicial Court ruled that same-sex marriage was legal under the state constitution, the measure passed by a 105-92 margin. To get on next year's state ballot, the amendment needs the support of a majority -- at least 101 -- of the state's 200 lawmakers in the second round of voting.

Opposition to the measure is likely even deeper than the survey indicates.

Several lawmakers who voted against the proposal last year could not be reached for comment. Others who have voiced strong opposition to the amendment in the past declined to respond to the survey.

The AP attempted to reach all 200 lawmakers with at least two phone calls between Sept. 6-9. Of those reached, 104 said they would vote against the proposal, 19 said they would support it, and three said they were undecided.

I think there is actually a good deal of internal agonizing among the Christian church. For the most part, my church refrained from making any sort of official political stance, which I think was the right idea. I can remember having discussions among my friends from church in which there was quite a split of opinions; I think what ends up happening is that the "louder" voices are the ones that were extremely for the amendment, while the ones that were undecided remained silent.

I'm not sure MikeC. All I can say is what I have seen and experienced in this area since all the information i know about what goes on inside churches is either second hand or what they themselves broadcast and promote. And those experiences do not lead me to believe that there is any split or agonizing within many of the churches in this area at least. Especially with several churches openly and officially promoting issue 1.

I mean the episcopal church my mother goes to was considering splitting from the parent church over the homosexual bishop. And even though they have backed off on that (having the priests change again helped) there is still a bit of bad blood there towards homosexuals. One old lady at the church said she felt sorry for mother having such a son as me being an activist for "them". Mother told the old biddy to go bite a tree (not the exact words) but you get the drift.

R actually raises a good point in that the level of discussion you're able to have with religious groups can vary both by geographical area and by denomination. (I believe I made a series of posts at some length about denominational differences not long ago, for instance.) Just because, for example, the Episcopal Church USA officially has recognized the legitimacy of ordaining a gay bishop, does not mean that the rector of St. Swivvins-in-the-Swamp does. And his voice is going to have more weight in the local discussion than the voice of the Presiding Bishop by priority of proximity. Perhaps sad, but definitely true.

Some are born gay, some achieve gayness, and others have gayness thrust upon them.

I raised a good point? Cool I guess miricles do happen. ;-)

But anyhow yeah sad to say most people are only worried about what will affect them, their home or their local area first and foremost and then only periphially generally speaking.

And yes MPatterson that series of essays you did was very interesting and helpful and now resides on my HD until i get around to printing it out.

Last July I posted that forced Tennessee to investigate the "Love in Action" conversion therapy program -- twice. The first investigation, by the Department of Childrens' Services claimed to find nothing wrong. The second, by the Department of Mental Health & Developmental Disabilities found several violations of both regulations and of state laws.

I reported then that the camp's directors claimed that as a religious organization they were above the law.

The State is not happy about them publicly taking so arrogant a stand. Love in Action has until Sept 15 to comply with state law, or they will be shut down.

Story 1
Story 2
Story 3

Yes! Take those arrogant SOBs downtown and busta them up. Sometiems there is justice. Now if only to keep those cockroaches from scurrying around and starting their same BS somepalce else.

Finally!!

First Trio "Married" in The Netherlands
BrusselsJournal.com ^ | 9/27/05 | Paul Belien

The Netherlands and Belgium were the first countries to give full marriage rights to homosexuals. In the United States some
politicians propose “civil unions” that give homosexual couples the full benefits and responsibilities of marriage. These civil
unions differ from marriage only in name.

Meanwhile in the Netherlands polygamy has been legalised in all but name. Last Friday the first civil union of three partners was
registered. Victor de Bruijn (46) from Roosendaal “married” both Bianca (31) and Mirjam (35) in a ceremony before a notary
who duly registered their civil union.

“I love both Bianca and Mirjam, so I am marrying them both,” Victor said. He had previously been married to Bianca. Two
and a half years ago they met Mirjam Geven through an internet chatbox. Eight weeks later Mirjam deserted her husband and
came to live with Victor and Bianca. After Mirjam’s divorce the threesome decided to marry.

Victor: “A marriage between three persons is not possible in the Netherlands, but a civil union is. We went to the notary in our
marriage costume and exchanged rings. We consider this to be just an ordinary marriage.”

Well it's not like this kind of thing is unheard of. In the US polagamey was not illegal on a federal leval until Utah applied for statehood. Quite a few older cultures also allowed men to take more than one wife, even the bible condones it.

The KuKlux Klan has recieved a permit to hold a rally in support of Texas' marriage amendment.

[Governor Rick] Perry said he is not concerned about the Klan’s plan to rally in support of the measure.

“If they don’t break any laws of the state or the city of Austin relative to parades and what have you, they have every right to state their pro or con on a vast array of issues,” Perry said. “The fact of the matter is, that’s how it works in America.”

......

“I hate to say that we don’t need friends like that, but we don’t need friends like that,” said state Rep. Warren Chisum, a Pampa Republican leading the push to pass Proposition 2, which would define marriage in the constitution as a union between one man and one woman.

......

[Former state Rep. Glenn] Maxey said that his organization, No Nonsense in November, has no plans for a counter-demonstration. But he predicted that anti-Klan activists will show up.

Well having the Klan endorse it should be some wonderful publicity. /sarcasm

Originally, the KKK's "mission" was to stop Carpetbaggers from the South from exploiting people in the North during the Civil War era.

How they got to be what they are now is another story.

I think you mean "Carpetbaggers from the North" and "exploiting people in the South."

You are correct, too, as the current incarnation of the Klan is arguably the third distinct version of the Klan; the second, which reached its peak in the 1920's, even had a more populist feel to it that attracted many intellectuals to it.

Thanx, MikeC. I always get that mixed up.

I'm confused. I thought the Klan was forbidden by federal govt. when they murdered people during the civil rights struggle?

Or is this the 3rd version - and federal law allows forbidden org. to be re-formed under the same name?

The federal government cannot "forbid" an organization. The gov. prosecuted several Klansmen on charges of infringing civil rights.

Even if the statues of the org. violate civil rights? What if the org. is dedicated to overthrowing the govt.? How do you protect your democracy then?

Strange, isn't it? The groups have to use democratic protections to preserve their message of overthrowing the democracy. America: Sweet Land of Irony!

Yep, constanze. Read the First Amendment. The US Government can not "ban" any organization.

Having IDEAS against the law is not illegal. Acting on such ideas is.

For example, I can say, "I wish someone killed President Bush. I want to kill President Bush." (I'm not talking about sending him a death threat, which is illegal)

I cannot kill President Bush.

Actually, according to Wikipedia, the federal government, under President Ulysses S Grant, did pass a law banning the (first incarnation of) the Klan. The Supreme Court struck down much of that law, citing the 14th amendment.

I remember reading something to that effect, about Grant destroying the first incarnation of the Klan.

Yes, Mike and Scott, the First Amendment forbids such things, but during the Civil War and Reconstruction, the Bill of Rights was not as strictly adhered to as today. Lincoln, for example, suspended habeus corpus during the Civil War (though the SCOTUS later ruled that unconstitutional). Or hell, just look at how Woodrow Wilson trampled on the First Amendment during his administration, and that was during the early 20th century.

I'd like to think, however, that as much as I despise the Klan, that such a thing on the part of the government would not be successful today.

As everyone else has pointed out thoughtcrime is not a real thing ,totally, in the real world. It is close in some areas though. And there are abuses and have been abuses of rights but generally thoughts and organizations holding or espousing those thoughts are protected just like organizations holding and espousing positive thoughts.

And yeah the first Klan was specifically mentioned by name by law. The problem with the modern Klan is there is no real one Klan to deal with as it is a bunch of groups all claiming to be the heirs of the original Klan but with no real central organization or coordination. Which is a good thing really. Not to mention their numbers arnt that huge any more and it is generally the same nutjobs you see running all over the country causing trouble.

In my opinion, The Klan's only purpose nowadays is to create disorder & spread racial hatred wherever they can. The Klan should have disbanded decades ago. There's no room for such hatred anymore.

Pretty much John. Unfortunately that kind of attitude is hard to let go of by many people. I remember an old Mork and Mindy episode that I would love to do at a Klan rally. Might be an entertaining little subject lesson.

(For those who dont recall/know what i am talking about *Warning it has been some time so I am a bit fuzzy on some of the finer points*): Mork is trying to make friends and meets a guy who is talking about sticking together and stuff. Gets mork to join the club. Turns out the club is the Klan. Mork discovers/doesnt understand why people wanna hate. At a meeting he turns all the White Klansmen into different minorities and then leaves. Gives normal report/moral of the story.

John A. Lang: The Klan should have disbanded decades ago. There's no room for such hatred anymore.
Luigi Novi: White supremacists can and have been arrested and charged when it was found that they made specific encouragments or instructions to their followers to commit crimes, as in the case of Bill Riccio, a white supremacist leader profiled on an HBO America Undercover special years ago.

But unless such a specific action can be shown, merely spreading hate is an issue of personal belief, and protected by the First Ammendment. The First Ammendment, after all, protects offensive speech.

There is a place for Klan-like attitudes; it's called the Republican Party. I was reminded of this fact when I was listening to an interview on Air America. The author commented on the nature of today's Conservatives. He said that Nixon was considered a Conservative 35 years ago. Now the country has shifted so far rightward that Nixon is considered a liberal by today's standards. He said today's Right is so far right that their attitudes are "indistinguisable from the Klan's".

Last year's elections support this fact. The Republicans used homophobia (gay marriage) to get out the Evangelical and Right-wingers vote.

Both sides have their less than moral ideas, not just the Republicans.

Yeah. Democrats' morals concern everyone. Republicans' morals concern only themselves.

Luigi Novi: White supremacists can and have been arrested and charged when it was found that they made specific encouragments or instructions to their followers to commit crimes, as in the case of Bill Riccio, a white supremacist leader profiled on an HBO America Undercover special years ago.

But unless such a specific action can be shown, merely spreading hate is an issue of personal belief, and protected by the First Ammendment. The First Ammendment, after all, protects offensive speech.

That's why I was referring to the aims of an org. as stated in their statues or similar - because I consider taking away human rights based on race as part of destroying democracy no longer a "thought crime" or part of free speech, but already a definite declaration of will. That's why those org. whose aim is either to overthrow democracy, or incitment to racial/nations hatred or similar are forbidden in Germany.

As for "right of free speech" vs. "Thoughtcrime": here in Germany, hatespeech is forbidden, because we've seen in our dark past how quickly and easily people can be incited to actions by a skilled orator or rabble-rouser.

Luigi,

if incitment to specific actions is forbidden under US law, too, what about the televangelist (Pat Robertson?) who called to assassinate the venezuelan President recently (as mentioned on one of the boards here?) What about all the other radical Christian preachers who tell their followers to bash homosexuals - will they be brought on charges, too?

There has always been a fine line regarding the "incitement to specific action" charge. I am unaware of a vast amount of Christian preachers urging specific acts of physical violence on homosexuals: those that do frequently end up arrested anyway for engaging in such acts.

Robertson's statements could not be construed as an incitement to crime, as one of the judicial standards is the idea of how seriously the incitement is. For instance, if I walked up to someone on the street and said "The U.S. should kill Hugo Chavez," I could not be arrested because there is no way I could be construed as inciting anyone.

Last year, during a discussion with Derrick Vargo, I mentioned that there was a case in Kanas involving anti-gay discrimination in that state's statutory rape laws.

Kansas has a law (popularly called the "Romeo and Juliet" law) that modified the degree of the crime if the adult is less than a certain age (I think 18, but it might be 19) and the child is older than a given age (I think 14).

About a month after his 18th birthday, Matt Limon engaged in oral sex with a partner who was little more than a month from his 15th birthday. If the partner had been a girl, the applicable law would be the "Romeo and Juliet" law and Limon would have faced a maximum of 15 months. But the "Romeo and Juliet" law specifically reqires that the couple be of opposite sexes, so Limon was tried under the full statutory rape law and sentenced to 17 years -- more than 13 times as long!

His appeal has been bouncing between the Kansas and US Supreme Courts for several years. This year, after ruling on Lawrence v Texas which struck down sodomy laws, the US Supreme Court took note that a major leg of the reasoning in the Kansas appeals was relying on the Hardwick v Bowers decision to allow states to continue to regulate sodomy. They ordered the original appeals court to re-adjudicate in light of the fact that Lawrence overturned Hardwick.

The appeals court still found against Limon, but last week, the Kansas Supreme Court ruled that the clause limiting the "Romeo and Juliet" law to opposite-sex couples was unconstitutional, and ordered the trial court to vacate the rape conviction and to allow the state to retry him under the "Romeo and Juliet" law. Since the five years he has already served is longer than the 15 month maximum, it is questionable whether or not the state will bother.

constanze: if incitment to specific actions is forbidden under US law, too, what about the televangelist (Pat Robertson?) who called to assassinate the venezuelan President recently (as mentioned on one of the boards here?)
Luigi Novi: Well first of all, while I'm not a legal expert, I think there has to be a specific relationship between the person inciting the act and the person committing it, and a clear and direct causal relationship between the two, and the possibility that the person committing the might or will do so. I don't think Robertson has the power to get the government to do something just because he advocates it.

Second, I don't know how this principle applies to governments. A leader telling a bunch of young hoodlums to go out and commmit violent acts is responsible if they go out and do so. But I don't think governments or their officials can be held liable by that same law.

constanze: What about all the other radical Christian preachers who tell their followers to bash homosexuals - will they be brought on charges, too?
Luigi Novi: Only if the "action" they incite is an illegal one. "Bashing" (that is, criticizing, insulting, speaking out against) isn't illegal.

Unless they take the word bashing litterally and use a ball bat.

Luigi,

..."Bashing" (that is, criticizing, insulting, speaking out against) isn't illegal.

I meant the other "bashing" - when groups of young men get together to kill young people they think are gay.

Which is illegal. I have not seen preachers generally urge this. Those that have are arrested because it is a crime to promote a felony.

And the few I have seen/heard (late night/early tv/radio) have chosen their words very carefully so it sounds like they arn't but they are but not directly encouraging people to take actions.

Continued from the Moral Relativism, Absolutism & Subjectivity board:

Zarm: This belief is based on the definition of marriage, and to Christians, marriage is a word used to specifically describe the relationship between one man and one woman as ordained and blessed by God. Saying that Homosexuals should be included in marriage is like saying a circle should be called a square… they AREN’T the same thing! They may both be shapes, but the term ‘square’ is a term that only applies to a specific kind of shape. This isn’t being discriminatory against circles, it’s just being honest about what’s what.
Luigi Novi: Well no, you’re stating your opinion of it. The definitions of geometric shapes is factual in nature. The definition of a cultural more is not. Historically, the “definition” of marriage had nothing to do with what it does today, as marriage was often a matter of property rights and a means of ensuring reproduction, and often involved multiple wives. So obviously, your definition of it is not everyone else’s. In addition, the statement that the word describes what you say it does “to Christians” is obviously false, since not all Christians agree with you.

Obviously, those who are for gay marriage do not recognize this definition you prescribe for it. Those who want gay marriage legal see marriage as the marital union between two consenting adults who have fallen in love and want to form a familial unit, and therefore, denying it is denying them a right that heterosexuals have.

Zarm: Truthfully, I’d need to see some proof for that ‘fact’ (besides the Roman empire, of course)…
Luigi Novi: Right, because you’ve always answered me in a straightforward manner in the past when I’ve furnished such “proof”, right? And what exactly is wrong with the Roman Empire?

Zarm: by the way, wouldn’t a fact be an objective truth?
Luigi Novi: If you go by the scientific connotation of the term, I believe so.

Zarm: There are many others who believe that it should not/cannot be changed without changing what marriage is and devaluing it
Luigi Novi: Yeah, it would change it insofar as its definition. As for devaluing it, how would it?

As a wise man once said:

“Will anyone HERE actually step up and say with all seriousness, "If gays are allowed to marry, I will probably get divorced because my own union has less worth?" "If gays are allowed to marry, I never will, because I wouldn't want to be part of any club that has gays as members?" Seriously. I want to know. I'm not talking about people claiming that OTHER people might feel that way at some point in the future, or that society in general might feel that way, or that our children's children might feel that way.

I want to know what percentage of Americans actually are willing to bag marriage FOR THEMSELVES if gays are allowed to marry. And it better be one damned big percentage to warrant paying attention to them. Because if they're claiming that gays marrying will make marriage become "irrelevant" or "a joke" but are saying they themselves won't consider it irrelevant or a joke and will take it just as seriously as ever, then all they really are are bigots, promoting their bigotry while hiding behind the notion of keeping marriage white for whites...I'm sorry, hetero for hetero.

And you know what? It's not name calling. It's truth in labelling.”

Zarm: I for one am tired of all of those activist left-wing taliban trying to push their personal beliefs down our throats!
Luigi Novi: Saying gay marriage should be legalized is not pushing a belief. It is the exact opposite. It’s saying that we don’t want to push our religious beliefs regarding marriage on gays.

Zarm: If you think that ‘I think it’s icky’ is the basis of the arguments against, then you obviously haven’t done your research- the arguments are based on large part specifically on the fact that it WOULD have an impact on the culture, and one that would affect everybody.
Luigi Novi: First of all, I would make the suggestion that you not to make any presumptions about my tendency to do research on topics I participate in discussing, given my documented history of doing so on these boards, and your near lack thereof. Any perusal of say, the EvC boards or the Jesus Christ boards will show that I not only read and view much material on such subjects, but that I always cite and link to my sources. By contrast, you do not, and have a history of failing to respond when I provide such material (your failure to back up your definition of evolution as “pseudoscience” being the most recent example).

All the arguments I’ve heard against gay marriage are filled with internal inconsistencies and logical fallacies. The impact that it would have on the culture is that opponents of it would not like it. That’s it. That there would be anything detrimental to society more substantial than this is not a “fact,” unless we again use a selective definition of that word. Any assertions that it would hurt society are pseudoscientific in nature. But if you have any scientific “research” that shows substantial hurtful effects it would have on society, my response is the same it always is when you make such assertions:

Cite it.

Zarm: I really tire of this ‘creative language’ that’s used in this term… no one is trying to ‘ban’ gay marriage… it doesn’t exist! The other side is trying to CREATE it. Calling opposition of gay marriage banning it would be, to borrow your term, “disproof of non-existence.”
Luigi Novi: Proponents of gay marriage believe the term does/should include gays, so there’s no “creative language” or non-existence. It’s a difference of opinion.

Zarm: I for one am tired of all of those activist left-wing taliban trying to push their personal beliefs down our throats!/i>

Not the same thing. Right now 2 heterosexual christians can get married if they want to. Right now 2 homosexual people can not get married.

Us left wingers want to law changed so that 2 homosexuals can get married. If that law changes 2 heterosexuals will still be able to get married just like they can today.

That's the diference, people who are for gay marrage want a right to be avalable to those who choose to take advantage of it. People who are aginst it want to deny others something that does not effect them in the first place. That's what we mean by cramming things down our throat. Gay marrage law in the books or not heteros can still get married. Left-wingers (in this case) want people to be able to live their own lives, right-wingers (in this case) want to tell others what they can and can not do.

I'm starting to feel that marriage shouldn't be allowed for non-believers either...

And just what do you mean by that?

I'm all for marriage!

Christer,

You're not far off from the Christian definition of marriage in the early centuries...

Well that would be an interesting thign to see them try and pass laws for that. Might be the straw that broke the camel's back.

Isn't a "Defence of Marrage" act supose to increase the number of married couples? So, if allowing gays to marry dose this, should it be legal.

My point was of course that why should a non-believer engage in a religious ritual? Of course I'll recede that forbidding or forcing might not be the right way to go.

Well to me and my wife (and many others as well) marriage is at its heart and most basic level a civil contract between two consenting adults that has had a big deal made out of it by certain people.

Especially considering the aformentioned hypocritical arguments by the churchies I pointed out on the board with Zarm. ie marriage is only for reproduction etc...., in which case no sterile people should be allowed to be married and the other stupidity on the part of the christian taliban that is so easily refuted.

And I want to clarify that my wife and i do think and feel that our marriage is special and "sacred" but only because we each feel that way for each other and make it so.

What about the other woman? What does she think of your marriage?

Well considering how we broke up over a year ago when she joined the christian taliban along with her husband my ex-best-friend, she thinks we are worthless evil scum who cannot be good until we repent and become "good" christians.

Right now we are without side partners as we have not found anyone worthy and special enough to share life with aside from each other.

Sunday, Nov 20, was the seventh annual Transgender Day of Remembrance. It honors those who were murdered for no reason other than attempting to live their own lives in their own way. In 2005 29 persons were murdered just for being transgendered. That is 29 persons too many.

Ironic that it was a day of "remembrance" and nobody heard about it til 2 days later.

OK since Zarm has had multiple opportunities and calls to post the arguments against same gender marraige and has not done so I will now do so. These may not be all the arguments the christian taliban have used but they are rather common ones and the ones i have personally encountered the most. I will place them in blue and my debunkings in the normal. I will try to be as brief as possible. So some of my arguments may not be at their finest form. (also suffering from insomnia so that may not be helping much.)

marriage is between one man and one woman
Says the christian bible and this is a relgious argument. Besides there are instances where one many many women is foudn in the bible. Also the mormans, muslims and a few other religious/ethnic groups might beg to differ about that.

Same sex couples arn't the optimum environment to raise children
And many heterosexual marriages are? Ones where the parents are either innattentive or abusive are more optimum just because they have a man and a woman in them. It isnt the gender of the parents that is the issue but the amount of attention, love and support that the child receives that makes an environment optimum or less so.

same gender relationships are immoral
Well there's a religious argument. I dont think we need to say anything more on this relative subject.

marriages are for procreation and ensuring the continuation of the species
I know Zarm hates to hear this one, but it is an argument i have encountered frequently. If it is true (which it is a religious based argument so it isn't true) then infertile people, menopausal people need not apply and cannot be married. And besides with 6 BILLION people on the planet i don't think we need to worry about the human race dying off any time soon.

same sex marriage would threaten the institution of marriage
Yeah right. So far no one has been able to give me a clear answer on how allowing 2 people who love each other and want to commit their lives to one another thereby strengthening the amount and institution of marriage is a threat to marriage. Thats like saying putting sober drivers on the road is a threat to the institution of driving.

marriage is traditionally a heterosexual union
Many things have been traditional. Slavery, catholics hating jews, women staying home and being baby machines while the men went out and did stuff. Traditions change, times change and people change. Grow up.

Same sex marriage is an untried social experiment
Well consideirng several european countries have had same gender marriage laws in effect now for going on over a decade I wouldn't exactly call it untried. Lets take Denmark for example. They passed their laws in 1989. As of a poll of Danish clergy in 1995 89% of them said that it had been beneficial to the institution of marriage and society in general to allow same gender marriage.

Same sex marriage would start us down a slippery slope towards legalized incest, bestial marriage, polygamy, cats sleeping with dogs and all the rest of the usual end of the world pronouncements.
I think we can all get a good laugh out of this scare tactic. (if it didnt work and the christian taliban didnt keep pulling this one out of their bag of tricks) In those countries that have had same-gender marriage there has not been any rush of people wanting to marry their sister their dogs or both at the same time. Not to mention that in america marriage is still considered in many ways a legal contract that only a sentient and person capable of freely entering into a contract can enter. I think the term is reducto ad absurdium.

granting homosexuals the right to marry is a special right
Ok so the rest of us have the right ot marry whomever we choose to do so because we are heterosexual but homosexuals should be denied that exact same right? How is that fair,just or legal? That is the same thing that was said to keep blacks from voting or marrying whites by the klan during the sixties. rightsd are only rights if they are equally applied for everyone and not just reserved for special classes of people.

Sodomy should be illegal
Aside from how I wouldnt want to be the officer investigating these charges this is a religious based argument. I am quite sure that heterosexuals would not want a law saying that all sex has to be done missionary style with the lights out as that would be seen a violation of a person's right to privacy. And there are already laws on the book for if a person does it out in plain sight.

Same gender marriage would mean forcing business to provide benefits to same sex couples on the same basis as opposite sex couples.
And your point is what? Many businesses already do so as it helps them maintain, acquire and retain employees who are motivated to work for them and wish to do so. It is just good business sense to take care of your employees. not to mention that it is illegal to discriminate on the grounds of sex or sexuality in many communities. (True story the health insurance at work does not use the word husband or wife anywhere in the documents but the terms life partner instead)

same gender marriage would force churches to marry homosexual couples when they have a moral objection to doing so
Another religious scare tactic and a big fat LIE! LIAR LIAR PANTS ON FIRE! BS! Churches have the legal right to turn down anyone for any reason (at least here in Ohio) from their doors and no law I have heard of or encountered would change that fact. Considering how you can go before a judge, justice of the peace, sheriff and i even think a notary public can sign the piece of paper as well as a preacher the requirement for a church is irrelevant and nonessential. That is one of the joys of the seperation of church and state. In that if a church doesnt want to marry a couple because they are interracial or interreligious or not of that denomination or tooold or too young or whatever the church does not have to and the couple has no legal right to take the church to court to force them to do so. (at least as far as i ahve heard, encountered or discovered in my research. It is 0200hrs so I may be beginning to go off the deep end here.)

I hope this brings something to this discussion and that people do learn a little bit. I would still like and appreciate it if Zarm would post his alleged repercussions to permitting same gender marriage here but i doubt we'll ever see them.

Oh and I apologize for going a bit over on who can solemnize a marriage in the state of Ohio. I went to the Ohio revised code and looked up who is legally able to do so and this is what it had to say:

§ 3101.08. Who may solemnize.






An ordained or licensed minister of any religious society or congregation within this state who is licensed to solemnize marriages, a judge of a county court in accordance with section 1907.18 of the Revised Code, a judge of a municipal court in accordance with section 1901.14 of the Revised Code, a probate judge in accordance with section 2101.27 of the Revised Code, the mayor of a municipal corporation in any county in which such municipal corporation wholly or partly lies, the superintendent of the state school for the deaf, or any religious society in conformity with the rules of its church, may join together as husband and wife any persons who are not prohibited by law from being joined in marriage.

But it still doesnt detract from my argument that churches are not the only place where you can get married. And that a church is not forced to marry anyone they dont wish to. As I could not find anything in the O.R.C. that said otherwise.

This is continued from the Moral Relativism, Absolutism & Subjectivity board:

Zarm: anon-er, inflamitory name, therein lies the exact problem to which I spoke: We're not allowed to debate whether something's a right because you're trying to declare it already a right, simply because of it's conception? It's nonsensical to say, but it's true: the basic position being taken on this is 'If you think it up as a right, it's a right, and therefore protected from anyone deiciding if it's a right.'

The Constitution doesn't speak on what the right of marriage IS... so there is nothing in the Constitution to state or deny gay marriage as a 'right,' thus making it subject to such protection. But any attempt to decide whether it is a right is attemptedly-muzzled by someone who's unilateraly decided it IS a right, and under the protection of the 14th ammendment!
Luigi Novi: In what does Anon stating his position on the issue somehow mean that it is debating the subject is “not allowed”? Of course people form their own opinions “unilaterally”. Don’t you do so with yours? Are you saying that you do not form your own opinions unilaterally? In what way is it any different for Anon to “unilaterally” decide that marriage is a right than it is for you to unilaterally decide what the definition of marriage is?

Zarm: Think about it... Homosexuals aren't denied the vote...They aren't being denied anything that is universally recognized as a right.
Luigi Novi: Yes they are. They are denied the right to marry. Pretending that the argument over this is over simply because you pretend that the word "marriage" is only defined the way you say it is will not change this.

Zarm: So before you start throwing around the KKK and the Neo Nazis, why can't you acknowledge that the only discrimination going on here is your attitude towards differing viewpoints on homosexuality?
Luigi Novi: Beacause it isn't the only discrimination going on here. You've made that clear with your statements in support of forcing someone on their death bed to hear about your religion even if they don't want to, and about your lack of respect for the Separation of Church and State.

And you still haven't answered the question about the "effects" of gay marriage.

He hasn't answered because hes afraid to admit that there are not any and he will have to be shown he is wrong, again. And if they can be wrong about that who knows what else the bible and religion and the Christian Taliban are wrong on.

(Continued from the Moral Relativism board)

The Constitution doesn't speak on what the right of marriage IS... so there is nothing in the Constitution to state or deny gay marriage as a 'right,' thus making it subject to such protection. But any attempt to decide whether it is a right is attemptedly-muzzled by someone who's unilateraly decided it IS a right, and under the protection of the 14th ammendment! Zarm

Judicial Review is based on the Constitution, but is not restricted to the words on the paper alone, but also on other things, such as: logic; the reasonable extension of principles that are invoked (allowed, and even required, by certain passages -- for example the ninth and tenth Amendments); precedence; Common Law, where it does not conflict with a more immediate principle; etc.

In the case of same-sex marriage, I have never seen a legal argument proposed that wasn't essentially the same argument as one of the ones rejected in interracial marriage cases such as Perez and Loving.

These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

These convictions must be reversed.
-- United States Supreme Court, Loving v Virginia, June 12, 1967

Yeah, anon. That's the answer. It's in no way because I just looked at the board for the first time today. It's in no way because I have a life outside of Nitcentral.com. And it's in no way because I'm sick and tired of everyone on the Moral Relativism board trying to goad me into a separate argument when they can't sucessfully sidetrack the real issue with it on that board. It's because I'm scared that R's view of Christian arguments is going to destroy my faith.

Sheesh.

Wow thats dancing around the issue. I'll give you that you may not have looked at this board for the first time. But you've had plenty of opportunities to say what these mysterious effects of same sex marriage would be for the past week and you never once said what they where. Because you know there are none. That anything you can come up with is either a big fat lie or just your religious hatred of anyone different than you and your beliefs.

A few things:

1. Zarm, this question has been asked of you several times, not just on this board.

2. Anon, your post is pretty ad hominem in my opinion. It's nice that you can divine Zarm's thoughts, but you're just speculating. About another poster.

Ok fine. Sorry. But what else can one do when there have been multiple requests for him to respond and he has not done so over what is going on a 2 week time period.

There would be no real bad results from allowing same sex marriage. The only arguments against it are either stupid BS or religious based.

If the general consensus is that the last post or so was ad hom then by all means remove the last 2 but Zarm's post should be removed as well in response if you do. I'll not complain.

I would legitimately call Zarm on not responding in a respectful manner.

Ok to go back to subject and ignore zarm's nonresponse.

In South Africa their supreme court has declared that same-gender-mariage is legal.
From Google News:
In its ruling, the court -- South Africa's equivalent of the Supreme Court -- gave the Legislature one year to change the law. If lawmakers fail to act, the marriage law would become gender neutral, the New York Times reports.

Whats cool is that the only dissenting vote came from a justice who thought it should take efect immediately instewad of giving them a year.

Also in great britain tomorrow is the first day for full legal civil union equivalency to marriage to go into effect. Still not a full fledged marriage and seperate but equal discrimination but certainly better than nothing at all. And besides people will call it a marriage anyhow.

So maybe there is hope that someday america will defeat the christian taliban and join the rest of the world in growing up and becoming enlightened. Because it is rather sad when South Africa is able to move forward on anti-discrimination and america is not.

When behavior is observed over a long-enough period of time that a pattern is established, it is not unreasonable to speculate. Because Zarm has an established history of not responding to challenges to his arguments that he cannot refute, it is not unreasonable, therefore, to speculate (or even opine as a conclusion) that his assertion that there ways in which gay marriage would effect society negatively was simply a bold assertion that he cannot back up. It is not, therefore, an ad hominem argument.

R: So maybe there is hope that someday america will defeat the christian taliban and join the rest of the world in growing up and becoming enlightened.
I would just like to point out that it's not only the "Christian Taliban" who are against gay marriage. They're most likely the largest and most vocal opponents, but they are by no means the only group.

True you are correct there are the neo-nazi's the KKK and all the misguided people who where either lied to or tricked or bullied into believing that homosexuality and same-gender-MARRIAGE are so dangerous and horrible that they must be stopped at the expense and cost of the constitution, freedom and all reasonable and rational thought.

Seriously what goes on between two consenting adults is nobody's busines sexcept theirs and should be sucha non-issue that to overreact and go into hyperdiscriminationtion mode is just plain crazy irrational behavior. To allow that sort of evil (the discrimination) to exist is an insult to the values of equality, freedom and justice that america was founded upon.

R: True you are correct there are the neo-nazi's the KKK...

As well as other groups who don't base their ideas on hatred and bigotry.

R included those other groups as well in his reponse, albeit in a back-handed way: "...and all the misguided people who where either lied to or tricked or bullied into believing that homosexuality and same-gender-MARRIAGE are so dangerous and horrible that they must be stopped at the expense and cost of the constitution, freedom and all reasonable and rational thought."

Seriously, I have no problem with people whose religion teaches that homosexuality is wrong for them and their co-religionists (ignoring scientific evidence about the nature of homosexuality), but when they insist that it is wrong for society in general without evidence or they claim that the Bible authorizes tyranny in this arena, they overstep themselves.

Why? Like who? Any reasonable and rational sane person would see that this is or should be a non-issue. What two consenting adults who love each other is the problem of noone but those two people. So what if it just happens to be two men or two women who want to get married. To deny them that would be the same ignorance, hatred and bigotry that went on during the sixties and before when a black and a white or any minority and a white wanted to get married. There are no threats or problems or issues coming from same-gender-MARRIAGE that does not arise from bi-gender-marriage. They are the one and the same and totally interchangeable. If you din't know any better you couldn't tell the difference. It is just plain out hatred, ignorance and homophobia that is causing all the problems.

I am sorry but I see this as a cut and dried pure and simple case of good vs evil. If you realize that it would be dangerous to allow religion and government to comingle in regards to intruding into a person's personal life in such way as to deny you the ability to marry the person you love and want to spend your life with. If you are adult enough and not bigoted enough to let two consenting adults live their life without sticking your nose into. Then you are on the side of good and right.

If you feel that homosexuals have less rights, or that religion has a place in government or that religion gives you the right to intrude and interfere in another person's life, then you are wrong and on the side of evil. At least as how I and many others see it.

In South Africa their supreme court has declared that same-gender-mariage is legal.
From Google News:
In its ruling, the court -- South Africa's equivalent of the Supreme Court -- gave the Legislature one year to change the law. If lawmakers fail to act, the marriage law would become gender neutral, the New York Times reports.

I thought I reported that ruling over a year ago. It must have been the next highest court, and the decision was appealed.

From what I understand it was their highest court. Sort of the top of the line and unappealable above this point.

I'll try and track back down the news article and double check things.

No, I meant that the ruling I reported last year must have been the second-highest court.

Yep it was Thursday Dec 1 2005 that the decision was handed down by South Africa's highest court. IUt was as a result of an appeal form the 2004 case that started it all.

Also according to a poll taken in Austria 70% of the population think the pope and the church are wrong in their stance against same-gender-MARRIAGE.
Polling Data

The Pope has requested all Catholic politicians to oppose same-sex marriage. Do you think the Pope is right or wrong in making this demand?

Right 24%

Wrong 70%

Not sure 6%

Source: OGM
Methodology: Telephone interviews with 500 Austrian adults, conducted on Nov. 28, 2005. Margin of error is 4.5 per cent.


And there is this little bit of encouraging news:
Domestic partners in the District of Columbia would be granted full rights of inheritance as well as the obligation to pay alimony and child support after a break-up under a far-reaching bill the D.C. Council is expected to approve on Tuesday.

So there is some slim hope that the forces of good and defenders of freedom may win out against the darkness. Someday. Keep up the fight against the evil!

Well, the ruling in South Africa did not make same-sex marriages legal -- yet. Unlike in America, a ruling that a law does not agree with the constitution does not automatically change the law to force agreement.

Instead, they ordered the Parliament to re-write the law to bring it into agreement with the constitution.

Accordind to this editorial in the Mercury, there is a second alternative available to the Parliament: change the constitution to agree with the law.

Parliament now has a choice. Accept the outcome of the ruling, or alter the constitution to protect marriage as it has always been, and as it is cherished by the vast majority of South Africa's population.

As a country, we must decide whether we will dispense with almost all of human history, and something that is at the core of our identity as men and women, or whether we will uphold what is essentially the most fundamental institution upon which any society can be built.

Ok I see the difference. Subtle point and a reminder that not all legal systems are created the same.

Still though it should count for something.

Great person this Atkins. I guess he goes to the same thought school as Robertson, Phillips and Burris.

And when you describe it the way you do same-gender-marriage sounds so reasonable and rational. So why is it so hard for so many people to recognize it as such and react in such unreasonable and irrational manner?

Northern Ireland Begins Granting Gay Unions

Well good. Thats one more country more advanced socially than america.

How is it more advanced socially than America? More than a dozen states recognize gay civil unions/domestic partnerships.

Northern Ireland, being part of the UK, offically began to allow the Unions Dec 5, along with England, Scotland, and Wales as part of the national legislation. In some cases (I know it was true of Scotland) the individual kingdoms' parliaments deferred the question to the national parliament, so that they wouldn't have to take the heat at election time.

Well MikeC until each and every state in this union recognizes and acknowledges the validty of same gender marriages america will be less socially advanced than any country that does so.

And yeah there are also 11 states who have enshrined and endorsed bigotry, hatred and discrimination in their state laws. And those states that do recognize it are under attack from christian taliban and their supporters.

Northern Ireland recognized a civil partnership as being equivalent to a heterosexual marriage. This is different than recognizing "gay marriage."

MikeC, I'm not at all sure how that follows legally.

Legally, I have no idea.

But semantics and meaning-wise, it makes a big deal. The word "marriage" is a loaded one; there are people who would accept a "civil union" or a "domestic partnership" for homosexuals with all legal benefits therein, but not "marriage."

Although if you grant "civil unions" as full legal equality as a marriage people will still call it a marriage regardsless of what its legal definition. I mean if you want to be technical a civil union with each and every equivalent rights and protections as bigender marriage IS a marriage in fact if not in name, so why not just pull the hoods off and call it a marriage.

And a civil union is still a step up from what many backwards places in america have which is legalized discrimination.

MikeC, while I of course understand that some people would accept the identical arrangement called by a different word, I must say that the logic behind it baffles me completely. Two things which *are* the same thing but which are *called* different things... yeah, I just don't see a difference.

What's in a name? A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.

And another thign giving civil unions but not permitting them to be called marriages goes back to the whole "seperate but equal" problem that was found unconstitutional.

Separate but equal was found to be unconstitutional because separate was inherently unequal, as seen in school systems in the specific case.

What would be the inequalities in marriage/civil unions?

Actually to be perfectly honest it would mainly be attitude and acceptance of civil union vs marriage. So if both system are equally totally and absolutely in all regards why not just call them a marriage and get it over with?

So if both system are equally totally and absolutely in all regards why not just call them a marriage and get it over with?

If they are not the same institution, future laws can be passed that benefit or penalize one without affecting the other. There is no other sane explanation. That is precisely the problem with any "Separate but Equal" scheme.

Thats what I was trying to get at. If you either everythign a marriage or everything a civil union then you have no problem (well legally at least) as the laws are easily referenced and able to be clear and undertandable (or at least as laws go) and applied fairly and equitably for all.

With a combination of marriages and civil unions then even if everything is set the same at the begining laws can be made to favor one and penalize the other or otherwise make it difficult or impracticle for a civil union to be equivalent to a marriage for all intents and purposes.

Thats what I keep wondering why if a person or group is willing to give all the same legal rights as a marriage in a civil union why not just go on a head and call it a marrige? The participants and general public will no doubt do so. I've heard people referring to the marriage and wedding of elton john in the news already.

The Concerned Women of America are concerned about Barbie™. They claim that Mattel has "overstepped a line" and has joined the "transgender movement."

When you look at the details of their complaint, it is sillier even than the Spongebob Squarepants and Tinky-Winky "outings."

Mattel has a webpage for Barbie. The webpage recently conducted a poll. Since many, if not most, of the ones taking the poll are minors, it was felt prudent to include as an option the chance not to answer questions which asked personal information, even though they were compiling that information for statistical purposes only.

The default response for a non-answer was "I don't know." For a some of the questions, they re-worded the response, and for the question of gender it was supposed to read "I don't want to say." But somehow the correct wording got lost somewhere before the page went live, and so the default appeared instead.

Audio file of "interview" with Bob Knight, Director of CWA’s Culture & Family Institute

If this had appeared on the Onion or Landoverbaptist, I would have laughed, but it's on Yahoo, and so supposedly real???? Just what are these concerned women smoking???

When asking children about gender and the answer is "Don't know" instead of "Don't want to say", I felt reminded of the old joke about the two kids and the naked statue...*

Shouldn't the concerned women be more concerned about Barbie generally - the image of women she portrays - then one webpoll? (Or are only the feminists allowed to get upset at the values the Barbie doll promote?)

* (For those who don't know that one: two kids are standing in front of a nude statue (think Ancient Greece) and looking at it. 1st kid asks the 2nd kid: "Is this a man or woman?" 2nd kid says "I don't know. Pity it doesn't have clothes on, then we would know.")

Shouldn't the concerned women be more concerned about Barbie generally - the image of women she portrays - then one webpoll? (Or are only the feminists allowed to get upset at the values the Barbie doll promote?)

Oh, Mattel has already been on CWA's hit list over those values, but not in the way you suggest that they should.

Mattel has a line of "American Girl" dolls which have been used in a promotion for Girls, Inc -- a non-profit organization which promotes leadership and self-esteem. CWA considers those to be code-words for promoting abortion and pro-lesbian rights

Yeah leadership and self-esteem are codewords. I have a new name for the CWA. Compleately Wonky Arseholes.

This board is up to 269KB.

To be "fair" to the CWA, it's not just codewords; Girls Inc. is a pro-choice and a pro-gay rights organization.

That said, this is a silly non-issue.

Back in November, R posted several objections to same-sex marriage and responded to them.

A "top ten" list has been circulating lately in cyberspace which humorously "hides" the responses within the objections themselves. I have not been able to find an author in order to properly attribute the list, but I'd like to aknowledge his/her talent.

LOL. That's a good list.

Yer sit is. I wish I had thought of it.

here is a wonderful report on the answer to the question: "Is homosexuality born or learned?" If it's learned, a hetero should be able to become gay, so one guy decides to try (strictly in the name of science, of course). The result ... go read yourself. But warning: don't drink while reading, or you may spray everything while laughing.

And as a hetero woman I can confirm that the normal male body (not models or film stars) looks funny when naked. (Yes, God does have a sense of humor, a wicked, weird one...)

Oh my goodness. That is freaking awesome funny. I love that guys sense of humor.

And yes my wife agrees with you about the normal average naked man.

Well Maryland has joined the states where a ruling on the equality clause of the state constitution vs. an "Anti-Gay-Marriage" law is awaiting appeal. Judge M. Brooke Murdock ruled yesterday that the law is unconstitutional. He has stayed action on his ruling pending the inevitable appeal.

Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr., who has previously vetoed all domestic partnership bills has decided to push a very modest one. One can only assume that he thinks that by giving the GLBT community something, no matter how little, it might be enough to allow the appeals court to declare that the equality clause has been met. After all, that is the excuse that the Apeals court in New Jersey used to rule against the plaintiffs in that state. Even so, Ehrlich is under attack for making any concessions.

“You look at the social impact of the countries that have engaged in homosexual marriage. You'll know 'em by their fruits,”
-- Sen. Sam Brownback, (Rep. Kansas) in an interview with Jeff Sharlet of Rolling Stone

"It's nice to know that Senator Brownback doesn't resort to name-calling from the 1970s, but unfortunately his anti-gay agenda continues to speak for itself"
-- Brad Luna, Spokesman, Human Rights Campaign.

Okay, what's bad about calling gays "Fruits"?

Secondly, I would read the quote above as allusion to the Biblical quote "by their fruits you shall know them". (and assume a gay-bashing politican comes from a christian background.)

So what am I missing as non-native-English speaker?

I guess the Swedish won't care much about what he calls them, the same as no sane person in Germany has suggested that allowing Gay marriage some years earlier has called God's wrath down on us, or damaged the moral fibre of our society in any obvious way.

As with most slang terms for the GLBT, "Fruit" is considered derogatory (not quite as bad as the other "F" word* -- the one that in England sometimes refers to a cigarette or a burning brand, but close). Mainly because it has always been used by the anti-gays, and pronunced with an audible tone of disdain.

Yes, Brownback was quoting Scripture. But in English, a word, a phrase, or a sentence is often made to convey two separate and often independent ideas at once. It is just beyond credibility that a politician would not be aware of the second level of meaning in quoting that particular Scripture in that context.

And Brownback was not speaking to persuade the Swedish people, but to stir up his fundamentalist constituency.

* Since the GLBT community has "rehabilitated" the word "queer," use of the "F" word is the strongest derogatory action -- equivalent to using the "N" word for Blacks.

It's entirely possible that this could have been a slip of the tongue/mind; the non-insulting way of reading the sentence makes perfect sense. I will say, though, that Brownback should have been more careful and if he had the chance to read/preview the interview, he should have corrected himself.

That said, the interview is a fascinating piece of work, an interesting look at how an outsider views fundamentalism.

MikeC, while I agree that we should probably err on the side of politeness with respect to reading his comment... all due respect, you've probably never been slurred by your elected representatives quite as much as your average queer citizen, and when placed in this context, it *does* make perfect sense for Brownback to have meant it the insulting way.

I guess the only way to tell would be to see how he said it in the interview itself. It is telling that he said "fruits" and not "fruit," though.

I'm sorry but I have the impression he meant it more derogatory than not and is just backpedalling at light speed like Robertson and the rest of the CT from actually having to deal with the truth.

How about Britney Spears upcoming appearance on Will and Grace? Can't wait to see her acting abilities shine.

Britney Spears? Acting Ability? Now there's two phrases you never expect to hear in the same sentence!

R: Agreed.

Britney on Will and Grace and just when you thought the show wasnt dead enough. When will they yank the life support on that one......

Yes Josh.

New Jersey's State Supreme Court will be hearing the case for same-sex marriage this week. Many observers from outside the state feel that it is almost a forgone conclusion that New Jersey will follow Massachusetts' lead and find for the plaintiffs. They do not realize that there are two (or possibly three) New Jerseys.

There is the industrial corridor, following Rte 1 and the New Jersey Turnpike from New York City to Philadelphia, which is heavily urbanized and includes the largest population centers in the state: Jersey City, Newark, New Brunswick, Princeton, Trenton, and Camden, along with their suburbs. That this area contains considerably more people than the other two areas combined means that it determines New Jersey's contribution to national politics. The rest of the state, both north and south of the corridor, is much more rural. Politics within the state are more complicated, with the possible exception of the governor's race.

I can't speak for the northern counties, but South Jersey is a different place, much more "in tune" with the Old South than with the rest of the Mid-Atlantic states. There were still slaves in South Jersey after the Civil War!

Because of this disparity, between the various regions of the state, it happened that two of the three Appeals court judges who heard the case last year found excuses to find against the plaintiffs, even after they admitted that all of the state attorney's arguments failed. The lead judge went so far as to attempt to throw the case out on the basis that while it was awaiting appeal, the state legislature passed a law allowing some Domestic Partnership benefits, and so he considered the issue moot.

Oral arguments in Lewis v Harris (the NJ same-sex marriage case) will be held at 10:00 am EST tomorrow morning (Feb 15). They will be webcast live at http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/webcast/index.htm, and will be archived for 30 days.

I will not be able to watch it live, and the webcasts of today's cases are not yet archived, so it may be a few days before I can report on how it went.

The pendulum swings. Those states that initiated anti-gay "marriage amendments" back in '04, but whose constitutions make amendments a difficult and time-consuming project, and so have not completed the attempt, are running out of steam. West Virgina and New Hampshire are dropping out, and Virginia has agreed to re-word their amendment so that voters can see that more than just marriage is "protected." They will see that civil unions, domestic partnerships, etc. are also banned, and for all couples, not just same-sex couples.

West Virginia and New Hampshire
Virginia

Well, I've watched the video of the oral arguments in Lewis v Harris. Of the seven justices, two (Wallace and Rivera-Soto) made no comments nor asked any questions. Two had apparently already made up their minds (Zazzali for the plaintiffs and La Vecchia against). The other three asked tough questions of both lawyers. Justice Albin seemed to go a little harder on the plaintiffs' lawyer, and Justice Long seemed to go a little harder on the State's lawyer. Chief Justice Poritz was equally hard on both, but she appeared to become more frustrated with the State's lawyer.

This was because his argument seemed to keep coming back to the claim that the Court did not have the standing to overrule the legislature on the question because, although there is a fundamental right to marriage in the federal Constitution (which he admitted applied to the State through the 14th amendment), that right does not apply to homosexuals until and unless state law or the state constitution explicitly grants it to them. He also claimed that the state law explicitly banning all discrimination based on (among other things) sexual orientation cannot be interpreted to supply that grant.

After watching the State's position here and having read its oral arguments during the appeals case last year, I'm beginning to suspect that the attorney general's office, and possibly much of the executive branch, wants to lose the case. Either that or Mr D'Almeda, the lawyer assigned to this case, is the least competent in the AG's office.

If it is deliberate, and not incompetence, I don't know whether the purpose is to grant full marriage rights while at the same time letting the politicians in the executive and legislative branches off the hook, or to scare up support for an anti-gay amendment. I suspect that it is too late for the latter though, since even in red states which have not yet completed the process, the momentum for such amendments is dying out.

Apparently stopping adoption by GLBT will be the next step in the christian taliban pogram of destruction and subjugation of anyone who does not follow their narrowminded doctrine.

Here in Ohio there is a bill before the state considering this but it does not appear to be going anywhere (fortunately thanks to those defenders of intelligence, freedom and justice) but the christian taliban groups have sworn to put it on the ballot like they did the anti-marriage issue.

Deja vu!

It's been official policy (by law) in Florida for a while, and since the Supreme Court refused to review Lofton v. Florida Department of Children and Families last year, it has been national news. Naturally other states are jumping on the bandwagon.

Well I'm just starting to hear about it. And I find this actually if possible more insulting and evil than the antimarriage issues the christian taliban raised. One of my cousins is a foster parent because she cant have her own and has seen kids from supposedly "good decent christian" homes that are so abused and messed up that it would make you sick.

One such teen almost managed to commit suicide after getting pulled out of his home and placed with my cousin because of what his family did to him, fortunately my cousin and her husband caught him and got him the help he neeeded and he should graduate college this spring. I would rather see a child with two people that would love and care for and appreciate them than with a "christian hetero couple" who ignore, abuse or unnappreciate the child.

Why in the name of the 9 hells cant the freakin christian taliban go live in their shiny happy place and let everyone else be?

Biggy, I have deleted your post. Stop making insulting remarks towards other visitors.

This article begins by mentioning that there are 16 states which are attempting to ban adoption (and also, in many cases, foster parenting) by GLBT. It then focuses on Ohio's pending bill and the attempt by Republican Ohio House Speaker Jon Husted, who had been an adopted child, to place the welfare of the children over devisive partisan wedge issues.

"This is not an issue about gays," Husted said. "This is about children."

.......

"What this really is in the best interest of is the very small and vocal political group that is trying to seize power," Chrisler [Jennifer Chrisler, the executive director of Family Pride, an advocacy organization for LGBT parents.] told the PlanetOut Network

Already done so TomM snail, email and managed to phone his office to register my support for him. I also have spoken to the members of both the car and scifi clubs about it.

Oh hello biggy. Thank you for your kind words and consideration. Have a nice day :-)

Oh and just for the record here is his contact/ info from the state website:
Jon Husted (R)
District 37
Speaker of the House

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Address:
77 S. High St
14th Floor
Columbus, OH 43215-6111
Telephone: (614) 644-6008
Fax: (614) 644-9494
Email Address: district37@ohr.state.oh.us
Term in Office: 3rd

City: Kettering

Occupation: Full-time Legislator

Education: B.S., University of Dayton; M.A., University of Dayton

Standing Committees:
Rules and Reference (Chair)


Memberships/Affiliations: The Ohio Arts Council

Recipient: Named one of the Dayton Area's "Top 40" Business Leaders under the age of 40 by Business News; Montgomery County Republican of the Year (1996)

Personal: Born 1967, Married, 1 child

Oh and another thing I did was to contact all of the sponsors/authors of the bill and let them know what disgusting discriminating pigs they are, politely of course.

Another person you in Ohio might want to encourage is Sen. Robert Hagan, who is trying, tongue-in-cheek, to sponsor a bill parallel to the anti-gay adoption bill. If Senator Hagen's bill passes, then households with Republican voters will be banned from adopting or fostering children, the reasons stated in the bill exactly paralleling the reasons given in the fundies' bill.

He does not really expect the bill to go anywhere, but he is hopeful that it will draw attention to the ridiculous, but harmful discrimination of the other bill.

United First Parish Church in Quincy, Mass -- popularly known as the Church of the Presidents because the Adams family (including John and John Q) were members and are buried in the churchyard -- is planning on raising a banner proclaiming its current members to be "People of Faith for Marriage Equality." The banner is in support of the decision in 2003 that the Masschusetts State Constitution (of which John Adams was one of the original authors) demands equal treatment all citizens, even in marriage. It also protests the attempt, supported by other area churches to change the Constitution to remove that equality for the GLBT.

‘‘Equality is a fundamental principle in our state constitution, which was written by John Adams,’’ Bennett [The Rev. Sheldon Bennett, pastor of United First Parish] said. ‘‘So it’s not entirely a coincidence that our congregation holds equality as a key principle. We’re the continuation of the church in which John Adams was a member.’’

.......

United First Parish members voted at their annual meeting last year to endorse same-sex marriage, a move mirrored by many Unitarian parishes and the denomination as a whole over the past several years.

But few Unitarian parishes can claim the historical significance of Quincy’s. In addition to being the home parish and resting place of both Adams presidents, the church was the baptismal site of John Hancock, whose father was a pastor there. Built with granite donated by John Adams, the current church building opened in 1828, replacing a smaller church on the same site.

United First Parish was gathered in 1636 as a branch of Boston’s Puritan parish, becoming one of the first Congregational churches to adopt Unitarian theology during the 1750s.

City officials are treading lightly on the issue, aware of the issue’s combustible nature. Mayor William Phelan’s office issued a blunt ‘‘no comment’’ when asked about the proposed sign, and other officials were quick to note that any ruling on the banner will be about its dimensions and not its message.

‘‘The content of the sign is something I’d presume that’s regulated under freedom of speech, more so than any city ordinance,’’ said City Council President Douglas Gutro. ‘‘The question is going to be the size, the scope, the type and the placement. We need to ensure that the church is treated like any other comparable property that is in the historic district.’’

Mineau [Kris Mineau, the president of the Massachusetts Family Institute] said that while many churches are actively involved in the issue, most ‘‘are taking a more civil approach’’ than hanging a large banner outside their sanctuary.

‘‘It’s a shame that this could happen right there at the burial ground of great patriotic leaders like John Adams and others,’’ Mineau said. ‘‘I’m sure they are rolling over in their graves.’’

Onto Board 8.