01/02/2007
Massachusetts Lawmakers Advance Gay Marriage Ban Proposal
This is not good news.
With 61 voting to move the measure forward and 132 voting against it, Massachusetts legislators today advanced a proposed gay marriage amendment ban to a second legislative session, in which it will require another vote to get on the ballot. By law, the measure needs to be approved by at least 50 members in two consecutive legislative sessions to get on the ballot. With this vote, they achieved eleven more votes than necessary to move the measure forward.
This is a defeat for supporters of same-sex marriage in that state, who were hoping that lawmakers would avoid a vote on the issue entirely. Before the vote, hundreds of supporters and opponents had gathered outside the state house to voice their opinions.
From AP: "The vote Tuesday in the constitutional convention came without debate, immediately after Senate President Robert Travaglini officially opened the joint session. Earlier in the day, Gov-elect Deval Patrick had met with Travaglini and House Speaker Salvatore DiMasi to urge against a vote, calling it a 'question of conscience.' He said the proposed amendment was the first time the amendment process was being used "to consider reinserting discrimination into the constitution."
Civil rights should not be up for popular vote.
Sphere: Related ContentPosted 3:03 PM EST by Andy in Gay Marriage, Massachusetts, Mitt Romney, News | Permalink
Like it?
Subscribe to FREE Towleroad daily headlines with our RSS feed!
RECENT STORIES:
Is this really the only problem in Massachusetts worth tackling right now?
I still cannot fathom why banning gay marriage is the only thing so many state legislatures are focused on. So it's ok for kids to kill other kids, it's ok for drugs and poverty and unemployment to run rampant, it's okay for straight men to have children with as many women they want without providing any support, it's okay for parents to neglect their children and abuse them and even kill them, but it's not okay for two committed same-sex adults to get married.
Every time I think we make progress a setback like this comes. I think we should write a ban against adultery or divorce into the constitution as well, so these hypocrites who claim gay marriage undercuts the sanctity of "traditional" marriage could reap what they sow.
Wow, sorry for the mini-sermon.
Posted by: Larry | Jan 2, 2007 3:12:37 PM
Not a good way to start the year. BUT this tells us that the fight is never over.
Never give up hope. Do what is necessary so that America finally has full marriage equality. It will happen but it will take lots of work as we are seing in Mass.
My prayers go out to Mass. and the rest of the USofA.
Posted by: FunMe | Jan 2, 2007 3:20:31 PM
ANOTHER TERRORIST ATTACK IN ADA, OKLAHOMA!
PINK PANTHERS BLOG!
www.pinkpanthersblog.com
LESBIANS ATTACKED AGAIN BY TERRORIST HATE GROUP!
Posted by: cowboyneok | Jan 2, 2007 3:45:51 PM
Great. So the homophobes of Massachusetts vote to enshrine discrimination into their constitution. Then we petition the court to overturn it as unconstitutional -- with it of course is.
And the music goes round and round oh-oh-oh-oh and it comes out here.
Posted by: David Ehrenstein | Jan 2, 2007 3:47:18 PM
It's a weird process to be sure. 50 votes is a low threshold. Now they have to do it again, and then it goes to the voters. Maybe they should reconsider their amendment process.
Posted by: Anon | Jan 2, 2007 3:52:44 PM
Personally, I have had it with the country where my ancestors settled in 1733. My family has been in America continously since then, and my family fought in every war since the Revolutionary War, but my life as 1/2 of a gay couple is still not equal.
When the time comes, I will seriously consider moving to Canada or the UK, where this is no longer a real issue. I recently sat down and 'did the math' and the financial benefits of moving to Toronto or London are worth considering.
Just wish we hadn't wasted so much on lawyers in our attempts to be 'equal' in spite of the American 'code' of hatred against gays. I will send a check to support Equal Rights, but I plan to live somewhere where they don't hate me, thank you.
A mass Exodus to Vancouver and Toronto and Montreal by gay would throw the American economy into the biggest tailspin they ever knew -- maybe there's a case for all of us to leave.
Posted by: Mark Woods | Jan 2, 2007 3:52:49 PM
As for the amendment process: we here in Michigan have a dandy little referendum process. Get enough people to sign a petition and it goes to a statewide ballot. A majority is enough to amend the constitution. It's been done to outlaw gay civil unions, affirmative action and a host of other things. I have to say, MA seems pretty sane...in spite of this!
Posted by: JT | Jan 2, 2007 3:56:15 PM
It's actually still up in the air. The convention is still in session and the outcome is not fully determined yet as there are a lot of last minute procedural wranglings.
Posted by: Jason | Jan 2, 2007 3:59:14 PM
It was the damn activist judges, telling them that they had to vote on it. Damn activist judges...
Posted by: jimmy | Jan 2, 2007 4:06:44 PM
I don't believe the judges said they had to vote on it. It was the other way around, wasn't it?
Anyway...this isn't over today. I just saw it on the news (LIVE) The are going to do a re-consideration vote in a little while.
Posted by: Patrick | Jan 2, 2007 4:10:36 PM
Really, this issue should have been voted on. It was backhanded politics to not vote, and we don't need to sink to the level of the GOP.
Even if it gets 50 votes with the new DNC oriented congress, putting it to the people may be in the state's best interest. Although it's risky, I like to hope that the majority of people are not willing to take rights away that were previously granted. The vote will be five years after the fact, so society has had time to adjust. If the majority of people vote on in the 2008 election, this issue is over for good, because people can't play the activist judge card anymore.
Posted by: Brill | Jan 2, 2007 4:16:38 PM
So what's the vote going to look like? I read an article which quoted a poll saying 60% of Mass voters were not in favor of a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.
Posted by: Dan | Jan 2, 2007 4:20:38 PM
Gay marriage might be safe. There has been a motion to reconsider that passed. Best place to follow is on Bay Windows or Blue Mass Group
Posted by: jason | Jan 2, 2007 4:31:30 PM
Not good news...but let's be honest...it has not chance of passing.
Posted by: Karim | Jan 2, 2007 4:38:45 PM
I do agree that petition amendments should require super-majority voting 2/3+1 at least. Simple majorities makes it seem like the passing of a regular proposition or law.
Posted by: Anon | Jan 2, 2007 5:03:05 PM
Next the conservatives in MA should reconsider women's suffrage and slavery.
Posted by: homer | Jan 2, 2007 5:08:41 PM
I plan on introducing a bill to hang all witches in Massachusetts' next legislative session. Then perhaps, a bill proclaiming the world flat and Rush Limbaugh as the new King of the state.
Posted by: Marco | Jan 2, 2007 5:43:16 PM
MASS LEGISLATURE = A BUNCH OF PUSSIES
DiMassi couldn't let it die. After all it is a just a job. theres absolutely no obligation for him as Speaker of the House to make decisions about what is right or wrong to send through the Legislature.
What a bunch of fuckin MASSHOLES.
This is the reason that i left that god forsaken state.
If I ran a gay group in MA I would start collecting signitures for a petition to strip the Catholic Church os any CIVIL LEGAL power when preforming a marriage ceremony.
Posted by: Wolfie | Jan 2, 2007 6:14:31 PM
Anyone well informed about Mass. politics know what the new legislature looks like? Seems like you could make a fairly accurate prediction based on who's leaving and who's replacing them. Here's how they voted (this might be the first vote of the day, not the final one): http://www1.whdh.com/news/articles/local/BO38814/
Posted by: scott | Jan 2, 2007 6:22:23 PM
clarification to my above post... a prediction on how the next vote (the one the could send it to the ballot) will turn out.
Posted by: Scott | Jan 2, 2007 6:25:03 PM
The legislature did their job. The MA state constitution mandated the petition be voted on. It was. Now the chips will fall where they may with a vote next year and (if passed again) a vote by MA registered voters.
Same-sex "marriage" supporters shout about inequality, how they should be treated as equally as heterosexual couples. Those same supporters refuse to acknowledge a difference (read: not equal)from their heterosexual counterparts: That a male/male or female/female sexual relationship (in itself) cannot bring forth a new life. Whereas, the male/female sexual relationship intrinsically includes it.
Those who suport marriage as between one man and one woman are only voicing their deepest, heartfelt belief on this topic.
Civil uinions: Yes Marriage: One man and one woman. If you are honest with yourself, you cannot conclude otherwise.
Posted by: Stephen | Jan 2, 2007 7:14:06 PM
The legislature did their job. The MA state constitution mandated the petition be voted on. It was. Now the chips will fall where they may with a vote next year and (if passed again) a vote by MA registered voters.
Same-sex "marriage" supporters shout about inequality, how they should be treated as equally as heterosexual couples. Those same supporters refuse to acknowledge a difference (read: not equal)from their heterosexual counterparts: That a male/male or female/female sexual relationship (in itself) cannot bring forth a new life. Whereas, the male/female sexual relationship intrinsically includes it.
Those who suport marriage as between one man and one woman are only voicing their deepest, heartfelt belief on this topic.
Civil uinions: Yes Marriage: One man and one woman. If you are honest with yourself, you cannot conclude otherwise.
Posted by: Stephen | Jan 2, 2007 7:14:21 PM
The legislature did their job. The MA state constitution mandated the petition be voted on. It was. Now the chips will fall where they may with a vote next year and (if passed again) a vote by MA registered voters.
Same-sex "marriage" supporters shout about inequality, how they should be treated as equally as heterosexual couples. Those same supporters refuse to acknowledge a difference (read: not equal)from their heterosexual counterparts: That a male/male or female/female sexual relationship (in itself) cannot bring forth a new life. Whereas, the male/female sexual relationship intrinsically includes it.
Those who suport marriage as between one man and one woman are only voicing their deepest, heartfelt belief on this topic.
Civil uinions: Yes Marriage: One man and one woman. If you are honest with yourself, you cannot conclude otherwise.
Posted by: Stephen | Jan 2, 2007 7:14:21 PM
Please Stephen,
Are hetero childless marriages invalid or less worthy than hetero marriages with kids?
And fuck anyone who believes that I am not voicing my "deepest, heartfelt belief on this topic." I am, and banning gays and lesbians from marrying is wrong.
Posted by: Marco | Jan 2, 2007 7:31:41 PM
To be fare to the legislatures, only 1/4 of them are "pussies". So a supermajority of them stood up against bigotry.
Posted by: RDM | Jan 2, 2007 7:43:59 PM
Please, if this makes it to the voters you all in Mass can kiss your nuptials goodbye. You're honestly going to count on the straights to come to your rescue? The people who are going to come out and vote on the issue are those 170,000 who signed the petition, and the 20,000 folks who already married gayly.
Posted by: Jersey | Jan 2, 2007 8:15:30 PM
Stephen = fucking moron. 'Nuff said.
Posted by: stephenisadouche | Jan 2, 2007 8:24:05 PM
I'm for an amendment banning trolls. Sorry Stephen, majority rules.
Posted by: mark m | Jan 2, 2007 9:28:28 PM
Thanks for posting this Andy. We just got home from attending the Convention and rally all day with our local marriage equality group based on the south coast of Massachusetts. Something of a splinter group of Mass Equality. We're proud our group worked hard to change three of our legislators votes. Obviously, not enough work done all around the state. What amazed us about today's goings-on at the State House wasn't what was going on inside but rather outside. There were probably ONLY 300 supporters there faced by as many or more ant-gay marriage schmucks.
Where are the nearly 10,000 couple who married in Massachusetts over the past two years.
Where are all the other queens who have no idea how important an issue this really is.
Sorry to stand on my soap box, but people need to get involved. Not just in Massachusetts but all around the country. What happens here is going to change the lives of people everywhere. If you live in MA, call your legislators, have your parents and friends call their legislators. Give financial support to groups like Mass Equality and the Freedom To Marry Coalition. Hold signs for legislators who support our cause. Write letters to the editors of your local paper.
DO SOMETHING. Time is running out in Massachusetts. Take some time to understand how the Constitutional Convention process works. They have one more vote and if that passes, this will go to the people. And while we could be incredibly surprised, I am not hopeful.
It's been a long day. I'm going to bed.
Thanks Andy.
Posted by: Chris | Jan 2, 2007 10:04:15 PM
Being a Mass resident, I am deeply disappointed with this outcome. While there is still another vote to be had before it goes on a ballot, I think things look grim with that slimey, snake oil salesman, Romney, making his national bid and using "the protection of traditional values" as a platform. The only way I think to beat this ban in Mass is to play up to just how progressive we New Englanders think we are compared to the rest of the nation. Honestly, I think more citizens would voice opposition if they felt they were fighting for their reputation than actually fighting for homosexual couples.
Posted by: Toto | Jan 2, 2007 11:38:30 PM
Romney is not going to be gov. for much longer.
Posted by: Anon | Jan 3, 2007 12:06:06 AM
A number of folks here seem unclear about just what's going on, so let me run it down quickly:
This is a move to amend the MA constitution by citizen initiative. First, the requisite number of signatures on petitions must be gathered. Second, at least 1/4 of the state Legislature must approve. Third, at least 1/4 the next year's session of the Legislature must again approve the measure. Fourth, it goes on the ballot the next year.
In this case, Tuesday's vote was step two. Last month, the joint session adjourned without voting on the measure; the hope was it would do the same Tuesday, the last day of the session. But a ruling by the Supreme Judicial Court of MA declared that while the Court could not order the legislators to vote, they did have a constitutional duty to do so. The legislators buckled and Tuesday's vote was the result.
With that in mind, a repeat vote in 2007 and a ballot question on the amendment in 2008 look likely.
But for reasons I've argued elsewhere and so won't repeat here, I remain very hopeful that the amendment will ultimately fail. Getting it on the ballot is one thing, getting it passed is quite another.
I pledge that MA will not write bigotry into its constitution.
Posted by: LarryE | Jan 3, 2007 2:18:23 AM
By the way, the "elsewhere" referred to above is, if anyone cares:
http://www.thecore4.com/?p=2384
Posted by: LarryE | Jan 3, 2007 2:20:28 AM
Oh how I wish my home country, the United States, would grow-up and take a tip from my adopted home, Canada. Marriage equality is the law of the land, and even many of those who were against same-sex marriage, now admit that their lives have not been changed, challenged or threatened in any way whatsoever. The kinda wonder what all the shouting was about in the first place. Only the most virulently bigoted right-winger, religious fanatics are griping about their so-called "loss." But they are in a tiny minority. I know my home country has the ability to work through this issue if only they could discuss this matter in a rational and sane manner without kissing the asses of the religious right.
Posted by: Michael D. Fein | Jan 3, 2007 2:30:59 AM
Eventually, we'll be able to marry anyone we so choose. It may not be today, tomorrow, or ten years from now, but it will happen eventually. To borrow a phrase, "Our day is gonna come".
Posted by: Dex | Jan 3, 2007 3:28:56 AM
Three cheers for you and your fellow activists, Chris, and for your words of caution. Our limited explicit rights will continue to be lost in more places than they are won until gays, collectively, are as motivated as the American Taliban. You can count on one hand the number of instances in our history when that has been true—and still have fingers left. Sadly, I see that in our future for a long time to come, too. Witness the lack of mass public response to Bush's call to ban gay marriage in ALL states at once by amending the US Constitution. He's been saying that for at least two years, but more gays [counting locals alone] show up for the annual 4th of July fireworks on the Mall, trek to Rehobeth any summer Saturday, showed up to watch the Human Rights Champagne fund canonize Lance and Reichen, saw "Dreamgirls" over the holidays, or are in DC bars every weekend ad infinitum than have protested outside the White House. In fact, to the best of my knowledge no demonstration has even been called for. One can say, as I often have myself, that such demonstrations no longer have any concrete effect. But I erroneously said that before members of ACT UP, et al., made the federal and local governments stop virtually ignoring AIDS when they stopped attending circle jerks [read HRC/GLAAD/Fill In the Blank dinners] and went public in ways that disrupted the status quo. As they say about contests and Life itself: "Must be present to win."
Posted by: Leland | Jan 3, 2007 4:41:31 AM
Stephen = Not a moron.
Call it something else, but marriage it isn't. The same-sex relationship does not, in and of itself, have the ABILITY to pro-create. This is somewhat of a major DIFFERENCE from heterosexual counterparts. I support civil unions which convey virtually the same privileges. Intrinsic to the heterosexual relationship is pro-creation. That makes the two couplings (same-sex vs. hetero) different.
Posted by: Stephen | Jan 3, 2007 7:06:18 AM
The roll call breakdown:
Republicans voted to move the amendment initiative forward at a much higher rate than Democrats. Democrats made the move forward possible, although 6 of 27 (22.2%) of Republicans, along with 126 Democrats (76%), voted No.
HOUSE
54 Yes, 100 No
Yes: 35 D, 19 R
No: 98 D, 2 R
Republican Yes: 90.5% (19 of 21)
Democrat Yes: 26.3% (35 of 133)
SENATE
7 Yes, 32 No
Yes: 5 D, 2 R
No: 28 D, 4 R
Republican Yes: 33.3% (2 of 6)
Democrat Yes: 15.1% (5 of 33)
HOUSE AND SENATE
Republican Yes: 77.7%
Democrat Yes: 24.0%
Posted by: sean | Jan 3, 2007 8:55:39 AM
This just in: Today, Stephen [last name withheld] was elected President of the Flat Earth Society. Arriving at the ceremony on his pet dinosaur, Stephen tearfully thanked everyone who voted for him, and promised to never stop regurgitating Medieval nonsense no matter how much evidence was presented to the contrary. This was followed by the reading of a congratulatory message from His Homoness, Pope Benedicked: "Dot dot dash dot dash dash dot...." etc. Stephen reminded the faithful in attendance that a barren woman cannot enter Heaven and, quickly removing his hand from his pocket, that masturbation is wrong, wrong, wrong. The meeting ended with a huge bonfire of condoms during which Stephen took the opportunity to explain the origin of the term "burning rubber."
Posted by: Leland | Jan 3, 2007 9:56:49 AM
Ok Stephen, I'll bite.
Gay couples can and do adopt in many states (though not all due to the law). So in a sense, their coupling can produce children.
Not in a strictly biological sense (though lesbians can come closest with insemination).
So your distinction between hetero marriage and gay coupling includes merely a biological factor as the difference.
Someone else already challenged you with the following argument, which you dodged (wisely, since I suspect you don't have a reasonable counterpoint) that barren str8 couples lack the "inherent" biological distinction you speak of.
So according to your argument, these couples should be in civil unions, not marriage, since marriage is reserved for couples who can biologically procreate with one another.
And lastly, I wish to know who you name as an authority on your viewpoint. Is it the Bible (which no where says that marriage is between one woman and one man - partly because men often had several wives in those days). Is it the government? Society? There has been absolutely no proof that allowing gays to marry in other countries has hurt those societies. In fact, they have adjusted quite nicely. So any concerns "Society" might have are unfounded.
I guess that leaves strident bigots and religious nutjobs as your authority on the distinction of marriage.
Which one are you?
Posted by: mark m | Jan 3, 2007 10:08:01 AM
Note that I siad, "...have the ABILITY to procreate." That doesn't mean a heterosexual marriage where the husband & wife choose not to have children is invalid.
As for being a religious nutjob or ...bigot, I am neither. But whatever you want to tag me, do the same to Bill Clinton and John Edwards, et al.
Posted by: Stephen | Jan 3, 2007 12:08:03 PM
Ok Stephen, what about hetero couples that DO NOT have the ability to procreate? Let's say that the man or the woman or both happen to be infertile? Then what?
Oh, and you response is so lame - *That doesn't mean a heterosexual marriage where the husband & wife choose not to have children is invalid.* Ok, so marriage even though it is MEANT to create life and all, is still valid even to heteros who choose NOT to creat life anyway. But homos can't marry, because you say so. Wow.
Btw, you're still a moron.
Posted by: stephenisadouche | Jan 3, 2007 1:34:29 PM
A man and a woman who don't have the ability to pro-create due to infertility, illness, etc. doesn't negate the fact that intrinsically they are otherwise a special union, a union - unlike any other - that would bear them new life if they were both healthy and desirous of children. This doesn't negate any heterosexual marriage whereby the couple hasn't given birth, because the nature of the union (male/female) intrinsically still allows it. The ability to pro-create can never exist in and of itself amongst 2 people of the same sex. It cannot be done without outside influence. So call it something (civil union?), but don't call it marriage, because there does exist a magnificent difference.
Posted by: Stephen | Jan 3, 2007 3:10:15 PM
I have nothing better to do, so....
Stephen are you a heterosexual? Just curious because most gay men would probably not characterize the difference in gay vs. straight marriages as "a magnificent difference." That sounds like a hetero assumption that there is something blessed and special about their experience and gays don't measure up.
Aside from that, you are still skirting around the question of infertility and marriage. To you, as long as there is a uterus and semen, regardless of whether they work or not, the marriage is valid. On whose authority? Where exactly are you getting this rule book from? If procreation makes marriage special, then you MUST PROCREATE to validate your marriage. And if the possibility alone is enough, then please share with us your SOURCE for this assumption.
Your arguments to the contrary are so circular, it sounds as if you are stuck in a feedback loop.
I love debating with people who are obviously unable to back up their position with sound logic. It shows me just how sad and desperate they must feel since their side is losing this battle.
Posted by: mark m | Jan 3, 2007 6:07:55 PM
Mark M,
Marriage is defined as a legal agreement between one man and one woman. Any dictionary will reveal to you my SOURCE.
The homosexual and lesbian agenda is seeking to make marriage something it isn't: A legal union between two people of the same sex. (A boat isn't a car if you put wheels on it. It's no longer a boat, but neither is it a car!)
An intrinsic part of a marriage is the sexual union which ultimately brings forth new life. That does not mean if a man and a woman choose not to, or are unable to have children, their marriage is null and void.
Same sex unions do not carry this intrinsic criteria. Hence, there is a DIFFERENCE in the unions, i.e., a differnce in how they are defined. Future dictionairies -- it is my hope -- will include a defintion for civil union: Legal agreement between same sex couple (sic.).
- END -
Posted by: Stephen | Jan 3, 2007 7:27:09 PM
"A boat isn't a car if you put wheels on it. It's no longer a boat, but neither is it a car!"
And a moron who compares cars and boats with basic human rights is still... well, a moron.
And it's funny that you didn't answer Mark M's first question - are you a heterosexual? Hmmm, since you avoided that question I'm guessing you're a big fat self-loathing closet case. Typical. -END-
Posted by: stephenisadouche | Jan 3, 2007 9:58:58 PM
Doucheman:
My sexual preference is irrelevant. What you're saying is ANYONE who lives with a system of beliefs and values not in line with those that you and others here are espousing, well, just dismiss them as dolts.
Funny thing is, I thought acceptance was a stalwart of those supporting and promoting the 'gay' agenda. You know, "Live and let live."
Moron? Not me.
Posted by: Stephen | Jan 4, 2007 2:33:35 AM
Stephen, You are not only a moron but a bigoted idiot. Your so-called "system of beliefs" is unsupported by any factual or ethical basis that you have cited. A dictionary may define a word but does not encompass the attendant rights and privileges. That is for society to ascribe, as we have done in our Constitution. The Constitution enumerates rights as an expansive doctrine not as a delimiting concept. Why is such a self-loathing closet case trolling on this site? We are fully supportive of intelligent discussion but have no patience for cretins spouting bile.
Posted by: rudy | Jan 4, 2007 7:01:04 AM
"Marriage is defined as a legal agreement between one man and one woman. Any dictionary will reveal to you my SOURCE."
Then you add...
"An intrinsic part of a marriage is the sexual union which ultimately brings forth new life. "
So you essentially jump from a legal argument to a more spiritual argument. No where in law is it stated that marriage between men and women serves the purpose of bringing forth life.
You just took a car (marriage is law) and tried to characterize it as a boat (marriage is about bringing forth life).
Your second attempt to distinguish marriage between straights from marriages between gays has failed. Yet again.
I find myself amused at your frequent use of the word "intrinsic". You find intrinsic difference in the pure biological factor of a penis and a vagina in straight marriages. What a brilliant distinction. Funny I never noticed that men are built different than women!
And yet you ignore some of the most important intrinsic aspects of any marriage which are essential and common to BOTH straight and gay unions.
These include but are not limited to:
Love
Trust
Communication
Shared Interests
Companionship
Tax Benefits
Sexual bonding
Financial security
respect
Your pathetic attempts to belittle gay marriage with terms like "The gay and lesbian agenda" illustrates your self pious agenda, sir.
I respect your right to feel the way you do. I do not respect your opinion and I will continue to call you out on your bigotry as long as you continue to troll on this web site.
It's good practice for you.... learning to deal with defeat. Any help I can give is time well spent.
Posted by: mark m | Jan 4, 2007 9:55:08 AM
Rudy, I must respectfully disagree with your (and other's) characterization of Stephen as a Moron.
A moron is a baffoon, an imbecile, a dullard who doesn't know any better.
Stephen is not a moron. Stephen is an otherwise intelligent person who has chosen his views based on a sense of superiority and a desire to keep gays and lesbians marginalized because in his view, they are not equal to straights. They are not human.
Masked behind his calm rebuttles lies the voice of a self righteous Christian. Having been raised a born again Christian, I know their type very well.
No, he's no moron. He's far worse. The people who operated the gas chambers in Germany were not Morons. They knew EXACTLY what they were doing.
Posted by: mark m | Jan 4, 2007 10:02:27 AM
Stephen, generally I try to avoid the temptation to attempt an informed discussion with a fool but in this case I take personal offense to you're ignorance and feel it necessary to weigh in.
My husband and I are the parents of a 13 year old son. We are the ONLY parents that he has ever known. He was conceived in the very SAME fashion that has brought parenthood to tens of thousands of heterosexual married couples across the country. It may not have been "natural" by YOUR standards, but it didn't make my child any less natural and didn't make me any less his father AND didn't make my husband any less his father than any heterosexual father of a child that was the result of donated sperm (due to his infertility).
Though I was legally married to my husband in Canada years ago, he has ABSOLUTELY NO legal rights or relation to his son since we live in Florida where gay adoption is illegal.
Explain to me again why my family is less than a heterosexually headed family that shares our history. Explain to me why my neighbor's THIRD marriage (which, by the way, is graciously childless) is of greater value than my 16 year committed relationship to my soulmate and our lifelong commitment to each other and to our child. Explain to me why my 74 year old, barren aunt's recent marriage is valid because once upon a time she was fertile but my lesbian cousin’s 20 year committed relationship to her partner and their family with three children is not. Explain to me why the mass murderer serving three consecutive life sentences (or is on death row) in the state penitentiary for killing his wife and kids has every legal right to marry some brainless pen pal that he's never met but the marriage of myself and my husband, two tax paying, law abiding, community minded fathers of a teenage son is a threat to society.
And one last thing: We’ve all heard your lame, “your intolerance of my right to discriminate makes you just as intolerant as those who discriminate” meme is a tired and terribly flawed argument that no intelligent person would ever repeat.
I for one will NEVER tolerate ANYONE who tells my kid that his family isn’t real or that his family is “less than” any other family. LOVE, COMMITMENT, RESPONIBILTY and MUTUAL RESPECT are what makes and MAINTAINS a family NOT the ability to breed. Contrary to popular belief, marriage does not make ANY relationship, gay or straight, sacred and the absence of marriage does not negate the validity of a truly sacred relationship. If you don’t have LOVE, COMMITMENT, RESPONSIBILTY and MUTUAL RESPECT for your partner and kids, NO legal document of religious incantations will sanctify it. If you don’t believe me ask any one of the 50+% of your straight divorced friends about why their “sacred” marriages broke up. I’ll give you $100 for every person you can find whose heterosexual marriage broke up because of the possibility that gay people might be allowed to marry somewhere in the country.
And, just for the record, I want marriage for the legal protection of my family; NOT because I for one moment NEED or WANT the approval of my government, any church or MOST ESPECIALLY an ignorant, arrogant blowhard such as yourself.
Here’s a suggestion for you Steve: Instead of spending your time trolling around gay sites spewing ignorance, why don’t you focus at least half as much attention on your own marriage and the failing marriages of 50+% of you straight friends as you do trying to scapegoat gay people for the total degradation of the institution that straight people should take 100% credit for. THAT, my friend, would be the first step in admitting that STRAIGHT people have a marriage problem and THAT would be the first step in a REAL defense of marriage.
Peace.
Posted by: Zeke | Jan 4, 2007 11:37:10 AM
Sorry for the errors. Didn't proof read before posting.
Yes I know the difference between "you're" and "your". I type faster than I think.
Posted by: Zeke | Jan 4, 2007 11:39:46 AM
Why does anyone here care what this particular Stephen thinks? There is no room in his world view for things beyond the simple measures of his mind.
Posted by: anon | Jan 4, 2007 12:29:36 PM
As you know, this is a divisive and controversial issue for Americans.
I have not invoked a religious aspect to my argument because the bottom virtually falls out for same-sex marriage supporters.
I have based my thoughtful viewpoint -- as millions of others Americans have -- on the unique relationship that a man and a woman possess: The ABILITY (barring health issues or ther personal choice) to pro-create. That cannot be done in a same sex union. Hence, and I state it here again (!) therein lies THE major difference between the two unions.
Civil unions for same sex couples; marriage for heterosexual couples. Because there IS a difference. I don't relent from my position, nor have millions of others in this country (many of them our elected leaders, including many Democrats).
I conclude here, as anymore becomes redundant.
Posted by: Stephen | Jan 4, 2007 12:56:47 PM
Yes, you are redundant but yet you skillfully manage to avoid actually answering any questions asked of you.
Being from Mississippi, I've heard the same arguments that Stephen makes against marriage equality made to justify segregation and anti-miscegenation (race mixing) laws.
It's the same old, "since they're different they can't possibly expect to be treated the same or expect to fall under the same laws that protect the majority" argument. It's also the SAME argument that spawned the "separate but equal" doctrines that dominated the old South prior to the Supreme Court ruling that declared separate but equal simply means ALWAYS separate but NEVER equal.
I've also quite familiar with his "most other people agree with me, therefore I MUST be right" argument. I heard THAT little bit of simpleminded wisdom in Mississippi too.
One day, Stephen will be looked back upon in the very same way that we look back on segregationists now. The anti-gay marriage politicians that are so popular today and that Stephen lauds will be tomorrow's George Wallace who people look back upon as a disgraced bigot who stood proudly and defiantly blocking the doorway of progress to cheers of his constituents.
People told racist and segregationist then that they would be looked back upon as ignorant and hateful bigots but when they looked around and saw that they were in the majority they couldn’t imagine that these admonitions might ever come to fruition. Frankly, at the time, I didn’t think it would happen in my lifetime either. But how many segregationists are looked back upon in a positive light now?
Of course, by the time marriage equality opponents become pariahs, he, like my former segregationist parents do today, will act as if he ALWAYS believed in equality.
Honestly we should pity the poor soul.
Posted by: Zeke | Jan 4, 2007 1:52:44 PM
Zeke, Good to have you back! We missed your passion, wisdom, and willingness to take on the egregiously stupid and the bigoted. I will not waste my pity on the Stephens of the world. If someone wants to proclaim their ignorance, so be it. They only make the case for their opponents, the rational and intelligent. I will however, take on any who attempt to denigrate my family or those of my gay brethren. Battle them, yes; pity them, no.
Posted by: rudy | Jan 4, 2007 2:15:50 PM
Agreed! it's good to have you back Zeke. But Stephen The Troll has posted his viewpoint ad naseum without directly addressing any counterpoint raised by myself and others here.
The sign of an intellectual coward, and I would agree with him that his argument is getting redundant. Bigotry IS often redundant.
Posted by: mark m | Jan 4, 2007 3:02:52 PM
Three other quick things re: Stephen's ill-begotten attempt to find some way, any way, to value straight relationships above same-sex ones.
- Not so long ago, certainly within my lifetime, marriages performed by clergy were considered somehow "better," truer, more exalted than ones performed by, say, a judge or a J.P. Nowadays, I doubt there could be more than a tiny handful to who it makes any difference at all. Raising up procreation is just another way some are trying to maintain a sense of superiority over others.
- What's more, the argument is absurd on its face because procreation and marriage are not related as Stephen would have it: Procreation can occur outside marriage and need not occur within it. There is an overlap, yes, but there is no inherent connection.
- In fact, tellingly, the institution of marriage was not developed in response concerns about procreation and certainly not with the intention of promoting it. Marriage was developed over concerns about property and its distribution.
In my own wedding, it was said that "true marriage arises out of the heart, the soul, the spirit, not out of ceremonies." And, I would add here, neither does it arise out of "ability to procreate."
Posted by: LarryE | Jan 4, 2007 5:05:34 PM
LarryE:
(EPILOGUE)
Of course, procreation can occur outside of marriage. Isn't that just what this society needs more of: Unwed mothers, irresponsible fathers and the children therein who suffer the consequences.
The family, i.e., mother and father has always been (though by no means perfect) the best environment to raise children.
Research & data abound about this.
As for others saying I've not answered their questions, those questions are not immediate to the topic (What does it matter if I am hetero-, homo- or bisexual? ...if I am Christian, Mormon, atheist, etc.? -- Note that I have not invoked a religious aspect to my argument --- the bottom falls out for same sex supporters -- there I go being redundant!)
I have stated my case based on the physiological, biological and anatomical FACTS of what a man and woman produce in a sexual union versus what two people of the same sex cannot produce --- new life. A magnificent difference. I have never said that same sex couples unions/long-term relationships are inferior or less than their heterosexual married counterparts. Never.
Here is the basis of my argument (it is simple and direct):
Do male/male or female/female sexual unions bring about new life? No. Do male/female unions bring about new life? Yes. Are these answers the same? Why is it so difficult for same sex "marriage" supporters to say, "Yes, these are facts.
Give us all the rights that apply to our unique and special relationship, we realize we are different from the majority, we take pride in it. Give us civil uinions so that we have virtually all of the equal rights of those men and women who choose to marry."
It is a fair. It is equitable as it could possibly be.
- END -
Posted by: Stephen | Jan 5, 2007 7:17:52 AM
Stephen please answer this one question. Would you want the government to deny an infertile heterosexual couple the right to marry?
Posted by: Ben | Jan 6, 2007 7:27:58 PM