Commonwealth of Massachusetts

[B_Stronzo]

is my home and I'm staying put.

Just this minute on the eleven o'clock local news has reported that those 170 thousand-odd signatures gathered by religionists (see: KnowThyNeighbor.org - Protect marriage for ALL families!) to put the issue up for public vote in 2008 has been "avoided".

Boy are some people pissed.

The Massachusetts State Supreme Courts Decision to allow marriage between same sex couples to marry has been "avoided" by the Legislature and in doing so has killed the issue as a ballot issue in November of 2008.

This is a significant triumph for gay rights.

In part:

"But just two days after the state elected a governor -- Democrat Deval Patrick -- who favors same-sex marriage and just two months before the next Legislature takes office, lawmakers broke off debate rather than approve or reject a proposal to put the issue on the November 2008 ballot for voters to decide..."

and this:


"This is over. It's over," said Arline Isaacson of the Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus..."

Read more

 

[B_cigarbabe]

I don't know understand how giving same sex couples the rights as
straight folks takes anything away or harms anybody else. I really don't know why they're so threatened by equal rights for everyone.
It's just so much bullshit.
Ciao,
cigarbabe

 

[mindseye]

Meanwhile, in Virginia, we just passed a law defining marriage as the union of ONE man and ONE woman.

I hear they're holding a lottery next week to find out who the lucky couple is.

 

[titan1968]

That's how I see it too, cigarbabe. I didn't always see it that way, though....

It was much easier to have gay marriage or 'same sex marriage' passed in Canada. By the time it passed in our federal parliament in Ottawa and became law (got royal ascent), 7 out of our 10 provinces said they'd conform to the law, and had already been working on similar legislation of their own; out of the 3 provinces/ territories that opposed the law, Alberta was the most critical; they even went to court to have it struck down, but our Supreme Court sided with Ottawa. Eventually, everyone came on board.

It really isn't an issue anymore in Canada. For example, the collective agreement at work was reworked to reflect the changes in our society and in our laws (i.e. a couple: a man and a woman or a same sex couple-- with the same rights and benefits).

Canadians aren't any smarter or better than you. If we could make the changes, so can you. :biggrin1:

I don't know understand how giving same sex couples the rights as

straight folks takes anything away or harms anybody else. I really don't know why they're so threatened by equal rights for everyone.
It's just so much bullshit.
Ciao,
cigarbabe

 

[Lordpendragon]

Gay rights are human rights in Europe. Some of the Catholic Countries have an issue, but generally it is a minority opposition.

It is paradoxical given your constitution, that you guys are really going to beat yourselves up over this in the coming years. But then you have a history of this - Freedom so long as you're not black, rights so long as you're not gay - fuckywucky :smile:

I think I will be a little more controversial - Christians think they invented marriage - bollocks - they also think that it is ordained to them by God - well whatever - it's theirs and you can't have it - the greatest democracies have been able to lead against a misplaced majority opinion for the protection and rights of a minority. For me it's a test of the strength of your democracy - ooops.

 

[dong20]

In terms of marriage, it seems to me that in our cynical, materialistic societies that if any couple is willing to make such a commitment the very least they should expect is the blessing of society. Legal recognition of all such unions by Goverment shouldn't be an issue for discussion, it should be a given. So far as I'm concerned it's not our Governments' role to define our moral standards, that's our job.

Government should be as much about protecting the rights and liberties of minorities and the vulnerable on the margins of society as it is about providing essential protections for the majority, who, for the most part can look after themselves.

 

[fortiesfun]

- Christians think they invented marriage - bollocks - they also think that it is ordained to them by God -

Some Christians think that, LPD. Some do not. I always hate it when all Christians are conflated with the fundamentalists. It disempowers those of us who belong to mainline sects, and ignores the branches of Christianity that recognize and bless same sex couples.

 

[Lordpendragon]

Accepted FF - please take my meaning as those Christians who oppose same sex marriage. Bloody academics :smile:

 

[B_Stronzo]

Will keep abreast of the matter at the noontime news.

All hell's broken loose here.

Tempers on Beacon Hill are flaring and those opposed to my tying the knot with my boyfriend are picketing the State House in droves along with their opponents with rainbow flags.

Our not-so-esteemed Governor Mitt Romney (the Mormon) who's openly against same sex marriage is under heavy fire to "do something about this travesty of democracy" (according to one avowed "traditional Roman Catholic).

It's a curious that this thing comes down simultaneous to the election of Governor elect Deval Patrick who's gone on the record over and over again supporting same sex marriage.

I had a lengthy conversation with my lapsed Roman Catholic friend yesterday who (as we perilously discussed this new news) said "I still believe in real marriage; that between a man and a woman". It's pretty damned difficult to carry on an equality-based friendship when on a very primal level my very good friend thinks my relationship is somehow less valid than her marriage to with her opposite sex husband.

They seem to get awfully touchy about the semantics of the thing and the word "marriage" is key to this thing for some odd reason.

 

[HotBulge]

Marriage for homosexual citizens is a civil right and therefore, it appropriately does not really belong to the legislature for a referendum. If the US had waited around for its state legislatures to give women the right to vote or African-Americans the right to vote, millions of people in this country would still be waiting to be recognized as full citizens.

I just find it amazing to see how people still don't understand that there's a separation between church and state. Whether your religion sanctions or denounces same sex unions, it's the duty of the state to enforce everyone's civil rights uniformly.

 

[B_Stronzo]

HotBulge..

Thanks for your always-spot-on perspective.

However I've found many who'd argue that the separation of church and state is an invention of Jeffersonian Democracts. They'll tell you it has "no real meaning" in our Constitution since the word "God" is in there.

Again we arrive at the Bible ..... tellingly.

 

[tripod]

I had a lengthy conversation with my lapsed Roman Catholic friend yesterday who (as we perilously discussed this new news) said "I still believe in real marriage; that between a man and a woman". It's pretty damned difficult to carry on an equality-based friendship when on a very primal level my very good friend thinks my relationship is somehow less valid than her marriage to with her opposite sex husband.

They seem to get awfully touchy about the semantics of the thing and the word "marriage" is key to this thing for some odd reason.

It's funny how you would think that women would logically be in favor of same sex marriage. It makes sense in my book. It's usually the men who are the homophobes in this world. There are so many damned conservative women out there... it's scary. Your friend is a bit of a fascist Stronzo, not a problem ,because they are everywhere!

I am actually in the wedding business and am amazed at the amount of conservative people getting married and having children. It is like 6 to 1 ratio in my neck of the woods. This is going to translate into a future country that is inhabited by brain dead rednecks and non english speaking immigrants. Where are all of the progressive marriages? Why are all of the good people either staying single, or not be allowed to get married? This country needs more progressive couples. Same sex marriages cannot really have kids, but there is always adoption (my mother was adopted) and surrogates. Gay people make excellent parents! So do progressives! The damned fascists plan on populating the earth with conservative children who have never even heard of a progressive point of view. It's actually more sinister than we all thought!

 

[B_Stronzo]

tripod -

Said friend? She said also "a real family consists of a mother and a father. Anything else is not the ideal".

I even brought up the case of the children from Foster care who were HIV + in Florida (same case which made Rosie O'Donnell out herself publically on The Barbara Walters's Special) and she said; "Oh yes. Wasn't it awful that once the child tested HIV- he was pulled from their care?" :33:

When I asked said female friend precisely why she had a problem with the term "marriage" in the same context as same sex her response? "I don't know. I just do". Yipes.

So it's a pretty tough call maintaining my good opinion when (though I suspect she's entirely unaware of it since she chooses to be) my very good oldest friend thinks of me as not quite equal.

Anyhow - your observations especially given your heterosexual male status are profoundly heartening to me and I cannot tell you how your observations give me hope for the kind of eventual outcome mindseye spoke of when bolstering all us "homos" in a previous thread. But your telling of what you do and what you see leaves me sober for the generation to come.

You've made me ever-the-more aware of the blessings of living in my native state and for this you have my gratitude.

Thanks.:smile:

 

[titan1968]

Stronzo, if one assumes that people marry to have children, ask your friend the following:

If a man and a woman are legally married, but can't (or won't) have children, is their marriage a 'real' one? Should it be dissolved?

Tell her that she should remember that women didn't always have the right to vote. Not that long ago, women weren't seen as 'legal entities' or persons, and therefore they had NO rights. A single woman or a widow was considered lower than dirt, and not that long ago (1960s), a woman had to give up her job once she became pregnant. Ask her if she wants to go back to those times....

In my opinion, what is good for the goose (i.e heteros) is also good for the gander (i.e. homosexuals).

By the way, I'm also Roman Catholic.

tripod -

When I asked said female friend precisely why she had a problem with the term "marriage" in the same context as same sex her response? "I don't know. I just do". Yipes.

Thanks.:smile:

 

[B_Stronzo]

I'll put it to her precisely that way next time we speak titan.

Thanks. I suspect logic however, in her case, is entirely subjective.

But I'll give it a go.

 

[Shelby]

Ask her if she wants to go back to those times....

*longing for the good old days*

 

[B_Stronzo]

*longing for the good old days*

...........and what 'good old days' would those be Shelby?

 

[Shelby]

when dudes like me were in charge
​

 

[B_Stronzo]

when dudes like me were in charge​

Ah! so

doesn't it just blow?

 

[Sklar]

Interesting thread, Stronzo. Thanks for bringing it up.

Here in Washington State, as some of you know doubt know, Marriage was decided by the Supreme Court to be a man and a woman. The underlying reason for this is so that they could have children.

I'm waiting for the following situations to occur:

1) A married couple getting divored. The man says that he doesn't have to pay alimony because they didn't have children and according to the State Supreme Court decision, that's one of the reasons to be married. So by not having children, they were, in effect not married hence the man doesn't have to pay alimony.

2) A married couple without children is getting divorced. The State says they can't get divorced until they have children thus fulfilling the State requirment for having a marriage to get divorced from.


And on a tangent topic:

Every wedding I've ever been to always has the Priest, Minister, Rabbi, etc... ending with a line like: And by the power given to me by the State of ________, I know pronounce you man and wife.

If it's the state that gives people the power to be married, shouldn't the right wingers be more upset that the state is usurping the power of the church, not who is marrying who?

Also, doesn't it denigrate marriage when lay people can marry others? The state of Alaska allows ANYONE to marry people twice. The state of Washington has a similar provision. So if I were to marry someone, even if it's a hetero sexual marriage, doesn't that denigrate the power of marriage, too, as a non religous person is conducting the ceremony?