Massachusetts backs gay marriage

by ignored_one 60 Replies latest social current

  • Stacy Smith
    Stacy Smith
    Stacey, if anyone thought that in the circumstances like you describe, you would have excellent reasons for not respecting them.

    Abaddon , Yeru has earned the respect I give him and a disagreement doesn't lesson that respect he has earned. You on the other end have done nothing that would suggest I should listen to you.

    Yeru and I totally disagree with each other on this topic yet neither of us have manged to toss about nasty names or comments towards each other yet both of us have been hammered by the likes of you.

    The lack of respect you have shown me during my short stay here on the other hand is amazing in itself.

    Then again you and I agree on this topic yet I feel no compulsion to respect you? I guess I'm a mess huh?

  • SanFranciscoJim
    One teacher at work broke out that old saw that countries that supported gay lifestyles were destroyed within 50 years, and that Gays would destroy marriage.

    I suppose Canada, Sweden, the Netherlands, and a few other countries better prepare themselves to be destroyed.

    Where do they get this "information"?

  • Phantom Stranger
    Phantom Stranger

    Slate article

    Holy Matrimony What's really undermining the sanctity of marriage? By Dahlia Lithwick
    Posted Thursday, Nov. 20, 2003, at 3:29 PM PT

    Within nanoseconds of the Massachusetts Supreme Court's declaration that gay marriage is protected by the Constitution came predictions of the end of life as we know it: The president, speaking from London, warned: "Marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman. Today's decision of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court violates this important principle."

    "The time is now. If you don't do something about this, then you cannot in 20 years?when you see the American public disintegrating and you see our enemies overtaking us because we have no moral will?you remember that you did nothing," said Sandy Rios, president of the Concerned Women for America, to her 1 million radio listeners. "We must amend the Constitution if we are to stop a tyrannical judiciary from redefining marriage to the point of extinction," Focus on the Family urged in a statement on Tuesday.

    Extinction, no less. The institution of marriage?the one that survived Henry VIII, Lorena Bobbitt, Nick Lachey and Jessica Simpson?is suddenly going to become extinct?

    Do you want to know what's destroying the sanctity of marriage? Phone messages like the ones we'd get at my old divorce firm in Reno, Nev., left on Saturday mornings and picked up on Monday: "Beeep. Hi? My name is Misty and I think I maybe got married last night. Could someone call me back and tell me if I could get an annulment? I'm at Circus Circus? Room?honey what room is this?oh yeah. Room 407. Thank you. Beeep."

    It just doesn't get much more sacred than that.

    Here's my modest request: If you're going to be a crusader for the sanctity of marriage?if you really believe gay marriage will have some vast corrosive, viral impact on marriage as a whole?here's a brief list of other laws and policies far more dangerous to the institution. Go after these first, then pass your constitutional amendment.

    1. Divorce
    Somewhere between 43 percent and 50 percent of marriages end in divorce. If you believe gay marriage is single-handedly eroding a sacred and ancient institution, you cannot possibly be pro-divorce. That means any legislation passed in recent decades making divorce more readily available?from no-fault statutes to the decline of adultery prosecutions?should also be subject to bans, popular referendum, and constitutional amendment.

    2. Circus Circus
    In general, if there is blood in your body and you are over 18, you can get married, so long as you're not in love with your cousin. (Although even that's OK in some states). You can be married to someone you met at the breakfast buffet. Knowing her last name is optional. And you can be married by someone who was McOrdained on the Internet. So before you lobby to ban gay marriage, you might want to work to enact laws limiting the sheer frivolousness of straight marriage. You should be lobbying for an increase in minimum-age requirements, for mandatory counseling pre-marriage, and for statutory waiting periods before marriages (and divorces) can be permitted.

    3. Birth ControlThe dissenters in the Massachusetts decision are of the opinion that the only purpose of marriage is procreation. They urge that a sound reason for discriminating against gay couples is that there is a legitimate state purpose in ensuring, promoting, and supporting an "optimal social structure for the bearing and raising of children." If you're going to take the position that marriage exists solely to encourage begetting, you need to oppose childlessness by choice, birth control, living together, and marriage for the post-menopausal. In fact, if you're really looking for "optimal" social structures for childrearing, you need to legislate against single parents, poor parents, two-career parents, alcoholic or sick parents, and parents who (like myself) are afraid of the Baby Einstein videos.

    4. Misc.
    Here's what's really undermining the sacredness of modern marriage: soap operas, wedding planning, longer work days, cuter secretaries, fights over money, reality TV, low-rise pants, mothers-in-law, boredom, Victoria's Secret catalogs, going to bed mad, the billable hour, that stubborn 7 pounds, the Wiggles, Internet chat rooms, and selfishness. In fact we should start amending the Constitution to deal with the Wiggles immediately.

    Here's why marriage will likely survive this week's crushing decision out of Massachusetts: Because despite all the horrors of Section 4, above, human beings want and deserve a soul mate; someone to grow old with, someone who thinks our dopey entry in the New Yorker cartoon competition is hilarious, and someone to help carry the shopping bags. Gay couples have asked the state to explain why such privileges should be denied them and have yet to receive an answer that is credible.

    The decision to make a marriage "sacred" does not belong to the state?if the state were in charge of mandating sacredness in matrimony, we'd have to pave over both Nevada and Jessica Simpson. We make marriage sacred by choosing to treat it that way, one couple at a time. We make marriage a joke by treating it like a two-week jungle safari. There is no evidence that gay couples are any more inclined toward that latter course than supermodels, rock stars, or that poor spineless bald man on Who Wants to Marry My Dad? There's good evidence that most of them will take the commitment very seriously, as do the rest of us. There will be more "sanctity" in marriage when we recognize that people of all orientations can make sacred choices. Good for Massachusetts for recognizing that truth.

    Dahlia Lithwick is a Slate senior editor.

    Article URL:

  • alirobbi

    Here's something else that sort of goes along with the article you posted Phantom. I'm not sure how to make a link(computer illiterate) but here is the URL

  • Enishi

    The sooner the rest of the country follows massachusetts, the better.

    Of course, we can just imagine how the WTS will respond to all this, they'll try to paint what is infact a triumph of human rights as a sign that "morality" is on the decline and the end is near.

  • Phantom Stranger
    Phantom Stranger

    That's a great web site ali. Thanks.

  • heathen

    Technically I think marriage is a religious ceremony . I think it will be hard to make same sex marriage legal with G.W in the white house because he already made it clear that he will do everything in his power to preserve the sanctity of marriage. The gay community has made a civil rights campaign out of it. I think it will be interesting to see how this all turns out . It wouldn't surprise me to see some people wanting to marry farm animals in the future .

  • SanFranciscoJim
    Technically I think marriage is a religious ceremony .

    Yes, but as long as the State gives tax deductions for married couples, and the private sector gives medical insurance discounts to married couples, the fact that marriage is a religious ceremony will be a moot point.

    I think it will be hard to make same sex marriage legal with G.W in the white house because he already made it clear that he will do everything in his power to preserve the sanctity of marriage.

    I don't think it will happen at a federal level for years to come. The current administration opposes it on "religious moral" grounds, blatantly defying the separation of church from state. Do they have enough support to back a constitutional amendment? I doubt it. Sure, there's lots of talk of opposition, but I really don't think that the Republican party is made up of a primarily ultraconservative right-wing element, any more than the Democrats are all left-wing extremists.

    It wouldn't surprise me to see some people wanting to marry farm animals in the future .
    There are a lot of nut cases out there. I wouldn't be surprised if a group arises asking for marriage to corpses, to space aliens, or to Elvis. As I said above to Yeru, this does not mean that any of these groups would be able to piggyback their causes on the gay marriage issue.
  • Gretchen956

    The funny thing is, its only been a religious ceremony and institution for the last hundred years or so. Before that it was a secular thing, later blessed by the church if so chosen. Been like that for centuries. Marriage is, in fact a secular institution. Bringing it back to that shouldn't be such a threat. Besides, if you read the articles on the finding by the court in Massachusetts, you will see that they went to lengths to separate it from the religious aspect and promoted changing the laws on secular grounds.

    Personally I don't believe in marriage for anyone, but I think its blatant discrimination to allow some and not all to have those same rights. To bring out the "what if's" and scary stories is the same thing they did when people wanted to free the slaves, give women the vote, give blacks the votes, etc. Same old tired cliches.

    Martin Luther King's widow certainly thinks that gay equality is this generation's civil rights crusade, she has made that clear and other leaders from that original civil rights movement have joined in this as well.

    To say that marriage should be only allowed by religious ceremony also says that athiests, agnostics, and pagans (by some people's definition) would be left out. If you want to keep discriminating why stop with gays?

    Same rights does not equal special rights and should not be a threat to anyone. The sooner we stop legislating our morality on others the better.


  • Phantom Stranger
    Phantom Stranger

    If it was religious, would judges and ship captains be so empowered?

Share this