Should We Be Concerned About Same-Sex Marriage?

[Lorna]

I totally agree. Plus it can now be said that Bush has alienated a lot of the American people, gay and straight alike.

I just have to wonder why John Kerry changed his mind regarding the same-sex marriage issue. One minute he's against Bush's amendment, the next minute he offers an amendment of his own?

Perhaps it might be best to leave this issue up to the individual states. Agree or disagree? What are some of your thoughts on that?

[Nancy]

As far as same sex marriage it shouldn't be left up to anyone to decide. Marriage should be between the two consenting adults.

[Toni Divine]

Exactly.

Rant ON:

What is a marriage license for anyway? To protect a marriage? No, I don't think so. Its no different that a fishing license, and I don't think that's really there to protect the fish! Maybe its to protect the public? Well, take a driver's license. Here in Iowa, they only select a random few to take the actual test; everyone else just gets in line for the picture. That scares me way more than a couple of consenting adults deciding they make a family unit!

They are REVENUE GENERATING DEVICES for the government. Period. And for the couples that are married, it is a TAX SHELTER. Surely, we can find other ways to protect the flow of federal and state revenue than this.

Rant OFF:

[Alexandra]

Toni, I admire your speaking up on the issue, however there are a number of benefits to having a marriage license (or being married) such as spousal rights for disability or incapitation, custody issues, financial things like insurance and so on . . . gay couples find such things expensive (lawyers) or or out of reach. Really, just simple basic things married people take for granted.

Nancy, I know how you feel. Its almost impossible to be silent on the matter now.

[Toni Divine]

Alexandra:

Excuse my rant of yesterday, the lack of oxygen made my thoughts blurred. Actually, you did a better job making my point than I did yesterday. There are many advantages of being married, and these should be open to all. What I so poorly tried to re-iterate from some of the other posts was that barring a license on the basis of the sex of the couple makes as much sense as some of the examples I used.

Toni

[Sally]

Here in Australia we have laws which protect us and give all people under the transgender flag equal rights in law with the rest of the community.

In 2001 there were numerous changes to acts of Parliament, including the Equal Opportunity Act to ensure all couples were treated equally. The term 'defacto spouse' was replaced with the name 'domestic partner' to include heterosexual couples and same sex couples. Although same sex marriages are performed here, they don't have official Government sanction as yet, but there is no interference with them being carried out. There is still loud objections from the Churches, but so far they haven't had any significant effect.

Since year 2000 there are also laws in place which protect people who have an issue with Gender Identity, not only socially but in the work place, and these laws also cover family and friends of those people.

These laws were all brought about by people who dedicated themselves to the cause and spent the majority of their time lobbying politicians, the media and anyone who would listen and had the ability to make a difference. It was a case of making enough noise in the right places at the right time, especially in an election year.

If anyone is interested in having a read of how we are protected, then you can do so at www.eoc.vic.gov.au/

There is still a very large contingent of people working hard to obtain further changes to laws, which will give more rights to our people and bring them more in line with the general community, it all takes time, but the gentle washing of the waves can break down mountains, given time and patience. We may never achieve what we would like in our lifetime, but at least the ball is rolling and each change we can achieve for the better, makes the road of those coming behind us that much easier.

We all travel our road at different speeds and face varying obstacles along the way, but the main objective always remains the same. We may win some battles along the way, but the war is far from won, yet.

Kind Regards.

Sally.

[Alexandra]

Toni, no big deal. I might have misunderstood a few things you were trying to point out. I've also been known to run out of oxygen too.

Lorna, I missed your earlier comment. Kerry is in a tough situation. If says he is FOR gay marriage, he may not get elected. Bush is a known commodity. IMO the choice is simple here.

Sally, interesting comments . . . it never amazes me to find things sometimes more "progessive" elsewhere when the U.S. is supposed be the the land of the "free".

[Kersten Lee]

Hi,
I heard one man say on pbs that the constitution is an inclusionary document. Freedom to be the most we can be without stepping on others.

A ban on gay marriage in our constitution would hurt that wonderful
document. It is an exclusionary belief. My question is, how does married
loving gays harm me or those who are so vocal against gay rights.
Their is no data so far that shows gays raising children cause those
children to be gay. Their children are gay so far as in the population at
whole.

I believe I am not criminal for cross dressing, I do nothing to harm others
or myself. I know the feminine in me has been there always.
Cross dressers can be criminals and so can gays be criminal. Loving
relationships will never be a detriment to us, our children, or the world.

I hated gays my whole life and hated myself. To grow spiritually and
become a better person, I had to give up my hate of those who are
different.

I'm only talking about me. Please no one take offense. I believe
discussion is one of our cornerstones. We must communicate to
know one another. Through discussion comes understanding.

Kersten

[Laura]

Hi all,

There is a great spoof on the Bush Amendment in the latest Issue of the New Yorker (March entitled "My Amendment" by George Saunders. The focus is on transgender characteristics in marriage. I highly recommend it.

It can be found on the internet at:

http://www.newyorker.com/shouts/content ... 8sh_shouts


hugs,

Laura

[Carolynn]

Hi all. Hope this has not already been posted here. Just got it as email from a Jewish friend of mine.

Laura Schlessinger is a US radio personality, who dispenses advice to
>people who call in to her radio show. On her radio show recently, she said
>that, as an observant Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination,
>according to Leviticus 18:22, and cannot be condoned under any
>circumstance. The following response is an open letter to Dr. Laura,
>penned by a US resident, which was posted on the Internet.
>
>Dear Dr. Laura:
>
>Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have
>learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with
>as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual
>lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly
>states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from
>you, however, regarding some other elements of God's Laws and how to follow
>them:
>
>1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female,
>provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine
>claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify?
>Why can't I own Canadians?
>
>2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus
>21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for
>her?
>
>3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her
>period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I
>tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
>
>4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a
>pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They
>claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
>
>5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2
>clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill
>him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?
>
>6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an
>abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I
>don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there "degrees" of abomination?
>
>7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a
>defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my
>vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?
>
>8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair
>around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.
>19:27. How should they die?
>
>9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me
>unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
>
>10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different
>crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two
>different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse
>and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble
>of getting the whole town together to stone them? - Lev.24:10-16.
>Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do
>with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev.20:14)
>
>I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy
>considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help.
>Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.
>
>Your adoring fan,
>Homer Simpson-Caldwell

[Laura]

Carolynn and all,

I just want everyone to know that despite the same name, I'm no relation to Laura Schlesinger,

Laura

[Carolynn]

YIKES!! That's a relief!!!!!!

[Bernice]

Well, here's my two cents: Bush is terribly dissapointing. I am a staunch Libertarian, dismayed by the erosions of the first, second, fourth, fifth, ninth, and tenth amendments that have occurred on his watch. Nowadays they seem to mean "only what you can afford". Martha Stewart does hard time, while OJ Simpson shoots golf.

I think the genetic makeup of those who would commit to a loving union is (should be) of no concern to our government. Then again, I think that the maximum safe speed for an automobile on the highway ought to be determined individually by the driver who is responsible for safe operation, and not a politically driven mechanism for revenue enhancement at the expense of decimating our system of justice and losing all respect for law enforcement personnel. This is usually the point at which well intentioned mothers begin flaming me.

I'm just depressed. Maybe my brother was right. We have Goverment for the people who can afford to rent it.

But I still e-mail my congressional reps, and I still vote.

Let's vote together! Maybe we could get John Stossel to run?

Hugs,

Bernice

[Alexandra]

Carolynn and all,

I just want everyone to know that despite the same name, I'm no relation to Laura Schlesinger,

Laura

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

OREGON UPDATE:

By now they're approaching 2000 marriage licenses issued (catching up with SF which I believe is now 2,600 -- not that there is a race here!) There are several major anti-gay marriage organizations from out of state trying to put a stop to it -- so far the judges have ruled its an issue for a jury to decide and he refused to stop the marriages until the outcome of a trial. They're trying to appeal to higher courts hoping that a judge might decide to stop things until a trial. One of the things in the Oregon consititution says that one has to show that "harm" or "injury" as resulted of this -- something the anti-gay marriage groups have failed to prove. The Oregon AG is expected to make an interpretation -- but he's postponed it twice -- perhaps presumably to allow time to let everybody in the state who wants to get married to do so.