"Marriage Protection Week" starts, day Matthew She

[Iceberg]

12-18 October 2003. What in the bloody HELL were these idiots thinking? This is among the most wretched perversions of American political rhetoric I've ever seen, and I've seen a lot of things that turn my stomach happen in the political arena.

Visitation rights to see their partner in the hospital and the right of one's last will and testament to be heeded and followed are two rights that gay Americans routinely have taken away from them, because of the lack of an equivalent married status for homosexual couples. I'm certain that somebody will soon show up and claim that the marriage status is "equal" because a gay man is legally allowed to marry any woman he wants to. That argument is among the most ignorant I've ever heard. It presupposes that the right to marry a person of the opposite sex means the same thing to a homosexual as to a heterosexual. That is not fairness - that is mean-spirited legalism masquerading as fairness.

After the first quarter of the third century of America's independence, it is unacceptable that there is any class of Americans who are counted as second-class citizens, yet homosexual Americans are, by being forbidden the same rights as other Americans. A law was made explicitly exempting homosexual unions from the clause of the Constitution requiring all contracts made in any State of the Union to be honored with full faith and credit in all States of the Union. Jim Crow lives again, he was just waiting to find a more acceptable class of victims for his divisive legalism to sink his teeth into.

"We have met the enemy, and he is us." - Walt Kelly, Pogo

[Iceberg]

Topic lines are too short. The topic line was supposed to read, "Marriage Protection Week" starts the day Matthew Shepard died.

[haas mark]

12-18 October 2003. What in the bloody HELL were these idiots thinking? This is among the most wretched perversions of American political rhetoric I've ever seen, and I've seen a lot of things that turn my stomach happen in the political arena.

This certainly does not top, but definitely rivals, the Matthew Shepard "monument."

Visitation rights to see their partner in the hospital and the right of one's last will and testament to be heeded and followed are two rights that gay Americans routinely have taken away from them, because of the lack of an equivalent married status for homosexual couples. I'm certain that somebody will soon show up and claim that the marriage status is "equal" because a gay man is legally allowed to marry any woman he wants to. That argument is among the most ignorant I've ever heard. It presupposes that the right to marry a person of the opposite sex means the same thing to a homosexual as to a heterosexual. That is not fairness - that is mean-spirited legalism masquerading as fairness.

Presumably, marriage is based on who one might love, correct? Well, in that case, it should be argued that a person should be able to marry a person that they feel strongly emoionally for, regardless of gender, especially considering they will say that a lesbian woman has the legal right to marry any man she chooses.

That stated, civil rights are not supposed to be (I should think) biased in any way, shape or form against anyone. Else that would destroy the values of civil rights, yes? Well, given that gays and lesbians have something in them that prevents them from otherwise being the same as straights, I say that gay marriage should be allowed on that alone. I mean, there's nothing inherently different about blacks that makes them different from whites, save their color skin.. Or men from women, save their anatomy.. Giving them the right to vote, and to own property, and to work.

After the first quarter of the third century of America's independence, it is unacceptable that there is any class of Americans who are counted as second-class citizens, yet homosexual Americans are, by being forbidden the same rights as other Americans. A law was made explicitly exempting homosexual unions from the clause of the Constitution requiring all contracts made in any State of the Union to be honored with full faith and credit in all States of the Union. Jim Crow lives again, he was just waiting to find a more acceptable class of victims for his divisive legalism to sink his teeth into.

Well.. though we are making steps to change that, it is being a very slow process, which makes it that much harder. The first steps are the antidiscrimination policies, as well as the civil unions. But I am afraid that marriages are not going to be a reality for some time yet. Not as long as we have fundamentalists in power.

~ver

[haas mark]

I think I might add Bush's take to this mess. :evil::evil::evil::evil:

~ver

[salm]

interesting that they complain about the incorrectness of this analogy

Isn’t prohibiting homosexual “marriage” just as discriminatory as prohibiting interracial marriage, like some states used to do?

This analogy is not valid at all. The purpose of laws against interracial marriage (miscegenation) was to protect the social system of racial segregation, not to protect the nature of marriage. Preserving “racial purity” was an unworthy goal, and certainly not one of the fundamental purposes of marriage common to all human civilizations. Uniting men and women, on the other hand, is both a worthy goal and one fundamental to the nature of marriage.

right after bringing up a whole bunch of crap analogies:

The fact that a tiny but vocal minority of Americans desire to have homosexual “marriages” does not mean that they have a “right” to them, any more than the desires of other tiny (but less vocal) minorities of Americans gives them a “right” to pedophilic “marriages,” incestuous “marriages,” or polygamous “marriages.”

[Darth Wong]

The religious tactics employed in order to attack gay marriage are a fine example of carefully honed rhetorical technique. Notice how they portray any attempt to update the definition of marriage as an "attack" upon it, and try to make the reader feel as if heterosexual marriages will be somehow diminished, perverted, or destroyed if the definition is made more inclusive. The end result is to almost make people feel as if marriage is being taken away from heterosexuals and given to homosexuals. No class in rhetorical technique would be complete without a discussion of the amazing rhetorical methods of organized religion in America.

[Wicked Pilot]

Think of all those heterosexual marriages that would end up in divorce if homosexual marriages were allowed. Think fo the children!

[Ender]

I'm really trying to fathom this: They are making political moves to keep gay marriage banned and ban it whre it is allowed. This means that you want to win over the voters. So they choose to set up their push starting on a day coinciding with the anniversary of a brutal murder that got national attention rather then right before or afterwards. Regardless of what someons opinion is, they are going to regard that as in incredibly poor taste. So you just poisoned the people whose votes you are courting against you.

How the hell does that make any sense?

[Iceberg]

Won't you please save the children? *stuffs giant strawberry shortcake into face*[/SallyStrothers]

[RedImperator]

How the hell does that make any sense?

It doesn't. They made the usual radical mistake: appeal to the hardcore base instead of the people you're trying to convert to your way of thinking. Fortunately, religious zealotry rarely coincides with political acumen.

[haas mark]

How the hell does that make any sense?

It doesn't. They made the usual radical mistake: appeal to the hardcore base instead of the people you're trying to convert to your way of thinking. Fortunately, religious zealotry rarely coincides with political acumen.

The problem that I have is that people in office won't even consider a religion that actually condones something that is different from non-Christian values. In one case, the gay marriage thing.

~ver