Quantcast

Subscribe to:
POZ magazine
E-newsletters
Join POZ: Facebook MySpace Twitter Pinterest
Tumblr Google+ Flickr MySpace
POZ Personals
Sign In / Join
Username:
Password:
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
October 02, 2014, 02:04:07 PM

Login with username, password and session length


Members
Stats
  • Total Posts: 640781
  • Total Topics: 48673
  • Online Today: 247
  • Online Ever: 585
  • (January 07, 2014, 02:31:47 PM)
Users Online

Welcome


Welcome to the POZ/AIDSmeds Community Forums, a round-the-clock discussion area for people with HIV/AIDS, their friends/family/caregivers, and others concerned about HIV/AIDS.  Click on the links below to browse our various forums; scroll down for a glance at the most recent posts; or join in the conversation yourself by registering on the left side of this page.

Privacy Warning:  Please realize that these forums are open to all, and are fully searchable via Google and other search engines. If you are HIV positive and disclose this in our forums, then it is almost the same thing as telling the whole world (or at least the World Wide Web). If this concerns you, then do not use a username or avatar that are self-identifying in any way. We do not allow the deletion of anything you post in these forums, so think before you post.

  • The information shared in these forums, by moderators and members, is designed to complement, not replace, the relationship between an individual and his/her own physician.

  • All members of these forums are, by default, not considered to be licensed medical providers. If otherwise, users must clearly define themselves as such.

  • Forums members must behave at all times with respect and honesty. Posting guidelines, including time-out and banning policies, have been established by the moderators of these forums. Click here for “Am I Infected?” posting guidelines. Click here for posting guidelines pertaining to all other POZ/AIDSmeds community forums.

  • We ask all forums members to provide references for health/medical/scientific information they provide, when it is not a personal experience being discussed. Please provide hyperlinks with full URLs or full citations of published works not available via the Internet. Additionally, all forums members must post information which are true and correct to their knowledge.

  • Product advertisement—including links; banners; editorial content; and clinical trial, study or survey participation—is strictly prohibited by forums members unless permission has been secured from POZ.

To change forums navigation language settings, click here (members only), Register now

Para cambiar sus preferencias de los foros en español, haz clic aquí (sólo miembros), Regístrate ahora

Finished Reading This? You can collapse this or any other box on this page by clicking the symbol in each box.

Author Topic: Marriage Protection Amendment  (Read 3580 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Joe K

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • Posts: 3,704
  • 31 Years Poz
Marriage Protection Amendment
« on: June 05, 2006, 05:24:22 PM »
Must be a voting year, because those tired old GOPs are bringing out the demons to provide the smoke and mirrors to hide their own ineptness.  Even still, Congress is debating this Amendment right now and in what is possibly one of the best analysis of this whole debacle, I present the following column from today's edition of the Sun-Sentinel.

Don't enshrine discrimination

None of the major arguments supporters cite holds up to light of reason.

By William Butte
Posted June 5 2006

Is same-sex marriage a sin, or a civil right?

This divisive question is the crux of a fierce debate the Senate will have this week concerning the fallacious Marriage Protection Amendment, the proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution -- designed not to protect marriage but enshrine discrimination, by outlawing marriage or "the legal incidence thereof" for committed same-sex couples, thereby turning millions of Americans into second-class citizens.

The amendment -- defeated 50-48 by senators in 2004 as the Federal Marriage Amendment -- is the handiwork of the Arlington Group, described in The Wall Street Journal as "an umbrella alliance of 60 religious conservative groups" that banded together in 2003.

Conservative? Members include the Rev. Lou Sheldon, who claims gays and lesbians need "an exorcism" (in other words, gays are demon-possessed), and Dr. D. James Kennedy, president of Coral Ridge Ministries, whose former vice president, George Grant, wrote Legislating Immorality, a sermonic tome which includes a fire-and-brimstone rant on our nation's long abandonment of a Scripture-inspired death penalty for homosexuality.

Republicans, facing Nixonian approval ratings as midterm elections approach and desperately seeking votes, are more than willing to pander to our modern-day Puritans and their homophobic fears.

To that end, Senate Republicans who favor the MPA will offer four easily dismissible reasons why they support it.

First, amendment supporters will claim that wedded same-sex couples will destroy the "traditional" and "natural" definition of marriage between one man and one woman. But historically, marriage has more often been polygamous than monogamous.

(Speaking of which, why are these moralists so outraged about 7,000 legally married same-sex couples in Massachusetts, yet strangely silent about the estimated 50,000 Americans living throughout the West in outlawed polygamous marriages, many involving underage girls? Even more curiously, why does the proposed amendment define marriage as "a union of a man and a woman" (emphasis added), without a numerical limit? Is that a concession by the Arlington Group for any of its members who might hold Scripture-fueled polygamous beliefs?)

The amendment's supporters will next argue the will of the majority should prevail. But this is the same morally bankrupt argument that kept Jim Crow laws in place for decades, making interracial marriage a felonious offense in numerous states only 50 years ago.

Perhaps recalling that taint to our nation's history, a poll by Peter D. Hart Research Associates taken in April revealed the will of the majority of respondents, 63 percent, rejected the idea of amending the Constitution to deny committed same-sex couples the right to marry.

The third assertion will be to deny the amendment is discriminatory, with supporters rebuffing the idea that denying marriage to same-sex couples violates a civil right, since they believe a same-sex couple in love -- the one word amendment supporters will shun -- is "a behavior," "a choice" or "a lifestyle." But in 1967, when the Supreme Court struck down existing state anti-miscegenation laws barring interracial marriages, they declared those laws indeed violated a civil right to marriage.

And as MPA supporters know, the Supreme Court's 2003 decision striking down existing state sodomy laws jeopardizes state laws restricting marriage to heterosexual couples, hence the rush to push this discriminatory amendment.

The fourth -- and for virtually all amendment backers the most important -- reason for their unwavering support is their fervent belief that same-sex marriage is immoral and contradicts God's will for marriage as an institution for procreation. But we don't outlaw marriage for either the infertile or nonbelievers. And all Judeo-Christians -- as well as modern secular society -- ignore many things Scripture both condemns and embraces, just as they ignore the fact that they ignore certain irreconcilable verses.

As examples, Bible-followers who are parents don't kill their disobedient children, although Scripture commands them three different times to do so (Ex. 21:17, Lev. 20:9, Deut. 21:18-21). In America, we don't put people to death for working on the Sabbath (Ex. 31:15, Num. 15:32-36). We don't stone mediums (Lev. 20:27). We don't allow for slaves, or their brutal beatings (1Peter 2:18-21). And we also ignore the verses that say people who divorce and remarry are committing adultery (Mark 10:11-12).

Imagine the public outcry if these religious moralizers were pushing an amendment to ban divorce. That is, however, one of their future goals.

Legal experts are already arguing whether, if passed, the MPA could be used to prevent states from legally recognizing civil unions or domestic partnerships, or bar committed same-sex (or even unmarried heterosexual) couples from things like shared health benefits, insurance coverage, or making life-and-death decisions for each in hospital emergency rooms -- already legal issues in states with similarly amended constitutions.

The civil rights of millions of Americans -- including the right to either marry their loved one or divorce -- shouldn't be held hostage by a theocratic group of extremists, whose stone-casting sin is exemplified by this reprehensible amendment.
« Last Edit: June 05, 2006, 05:29:59 PM by killfoile »

Offline The Canuck

  • Member
  • Posts: 628
Re: Marriage Protection Amendment
« Reply #1 on: June 05, 2006, 05:32:04 PM »
Quote
Members include the Rev. Lou Sheldon, who claims gays and lesbians need "an exorcism" (in other words, gays are demon-possessed)

This Rev. is the type I call '' lobotomised pea brain ''..his IQ = undetectable.  8)

The Canuck

Offline Moffie65

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,755
  • Living POZ since 1983
Re: Marriage Protection Amendment
« Reply #2 on: June 05, 2006, 05:46:52 PM »
Lately, I have been answering many of the narrow minded of this neighborhood, with the simple exclamation, " If your Jesus/God is so all fired in favor of the protection of Marriage, then why the hell did he spend three years, traveling around the Eastern Mediterranean with no wife, no girlfriend, very long hair, a dress and twelve boy friends"?  I think a totally legitimate observation/question.

In Shock and Awe!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The Bible contains 6 admonishments to homosexuals,
and 362 to heterosexuals.
This doesn't mean that God doesn't love heterosexuals,
It's just that they need more supervision.
Lynn Lavne

Offline jack

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,578
  • fomerly the loser known as Jake
Re: Marriage Protection Amendment
« Reply #3 on: June 05, 2006, 05:52:04 PM »
Joe, all I have heard in recent days is that this stands absolutely no chance of passing. I think Bush is doing everyone who supports gay marriage a favor. He is shining the big light on this, and discrimination usually loses in the US when you shine the light on it. We have no idea if he is doing this because polls say people desperately want this, or if he is using it to take attention away from his disaster in nation building,or if he really thinks gay marriage needs to be banned because of his religious beliefs.
I will bring this subject up occasionally during political discussions or arguments in groups of people,who are republicans, and I have yet to hear anyone say they support this ban. Most of these people are not the far christian types, so i guess its a biased sample, but I say it turns off most conservative types because it smells like discrimination.
I believe if you are for gay marriage,you should want Bush talking about this ban everyday. The dude fucks up everything and he will fuck this up too.


Offline aztecan

  • Member
  • Posts: 5,398
  • 29 years positive, 57 years a pain in the butt
Re: Marriage Protection Amendment
« Reply #4 on: June 07, 2006, 11:19:45 AM »
Hey Joe,

Great column. I think it puts exposes the fallacies of this proposal pretty well.

This is just a blatant attempt by Bush to bring out the conservatives and get them to the polls, the old "god, gays and guns" thing.

Tim, honey, you are priceless. May I borrow that response?

HUGS,

Mark
"May your life preach more loudly than your lips."
~ William Ellery Channing (Unitarian Minister)

Offline DingoBoi

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,355
  • Bailey's Infected Cream™ Served since 2004
Re: Marriage Protection Amendment
« Reply #5 on: June 07, 2006, 12:07:43 PM »

Offline jack

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,578
  • fomerly the loser known as Jake
Re: Marriage Protection Amendment
« Reply #6 on: June 07, 2006, 03:57:31 PM »
as it was supposed to. Just a game. Never had a chance.
Even heard two conservatives on msnbc last night, coulter and the guy with the bow tie,both saying it really didnt seem fair if gays were banned from marriage.
as time goes by things change,slowly,but they change. like watching a glacier.

Offline BB

  • Member
  • Posts: 168
Re: Marriage Protection Amendment
« Reply #7 on: June 07, 2006, 03:58:52 PM »
Yup, me and my un-exorcised buddy demon all wrapped up together in this un-exercised body didn't believe many in congress would take this BS amendment seriously.

We're just say'en.

Bill and  Bill
Damn the Torpedoes! Full speed ahead! Adm. D. Farragut.

Started Atripla 8/18/06 and if I eat the right food when I take my meds, I get to go on a-trip-la.

Offline J.R.E.

  • Member
  • Posts: 7,180
  • Joined Dec-2003 Living positive, since 1985.
Re: Marriage Protection Amendment
« Reply #8 on: June 08, 2006, 08:46:12 AM »
Hello Joe,

All I can say is " where is Mary Cheney now" ?  :-\
Current Meds ; Viramune, Epzicom, 40mg of simvastatin, 12.5mg of Hydrochlorothiazide.
Metoprolol tartrate 25mg



http://forums.poz.com/index.php?topic=40802.0

http://forums.poz.com/index.php?topic=45159.0

http://forums.poz.com/index.php?topic=39722.msg495621;topicseen#msg495621

http://forums.poz.com/index.php?topic=46806.0

http://forums.poz.com/index.php?topic=39414.msg491701#msg491701


 In October of 2003, My t-cell count was 16, Viral load was over 500,000, Percentage at that time was 5%. I started my first  HAART regimen  on October 24th,03.

 As of 8/2514,  t-cells are at 402, Viral load <40

 Current % is at 11%

  
 62 years young.

Offline J.R.E.

  • Member
  • Posts: 7,180
  • Joined Dec-2003 Living positive, since 1985.
Re: Marriage Protection Amendment
« Reply #9 on: June 08, 2006, 08:49:59 AM »



 And, Isn't that Ann Coulter, real special,  loving and caring..? Maybe we should have the' burn" the Ann Coulter book day.



Ray >:(
Current Meds ; Viramune, Epzicom, 40mg of simvastatin, 12.5mg of Hydrochlorothiazide.
Metoprolol tartrate 25mg



http://forums.poz.com/index.php?topic=40802.0

http://forums.poz.com/index.php?topic=45159.0

http://forums.poz.com/index.php?topic=39722.msg495621;topicseen#msg495621

http://forums.poz.com/index.php?topic=46806.0

http://forums.poz.com/index.php?topic=39414.msg491701#msg491701


 In October of 2003, My t-cell count was 16, Viral load was over 500,000, Percentage at that time was 5%. I started my first  HAART regimen  on October 24th,03.

 As of 8/2514,  t-cells are at 402, Viral load <40

 Current % is at 11%

  
 62 years young.

Offline aztecan

  • Member
  • Posts: 5,398
  • 29 years positive, 57 years a pain in the butt
Re: Marriage Protection Amendment
« Reply #10 on: June 08, 2006, 08:55:47 AM »
Ann Coulter was on the "Today Show" yesterday. After about two minutes, I turned the set off.

What a waste of space - not to mention a self-aggrandizing cow.

Mark
"May your life preach more loudly than your lips."
~ William Ellery Channing (Unitarian Minister)

Offline Lisa

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,240
  • Formerly known as sweetieweasel/Joined Nov. 2004
    • http://www.myspace.com/lisanowak58
Re: Marriage Protection Amendment
« Reply #11 on: June 08, 2006, 11:17:36 AM »
I have a feeling that Coulter will go the way of the Dixie Chicks, after the totally fucked-up shit she said about the Sept.11, widows.
After her books get a nice flame going, I'd love to toss her on top.
    ........or lynch her.
Crazy bitch! >:(
No Fear  No Shame  No Stigma
Happiness is not getting what you want, but wanting what you have.

Offline Terry

  • Member
  • Posts: 339
  • 7/13/82 Infected
Re: Marriage Protection Amendment
« Reply #12 on: June 08, 2006, 08:08:00 PM »
Dear Mr. Terry ******:
Thank you for contacting me regarding the Marriage Protection Amendment (S.J.Res.1), which would amend the U.S. Constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage. I appreciate hearing from you, and I share your opposition to this proposal.
You will be pleased to know that on June 7, 2006, I joined 47 of my Senate colleagues in voting against limiting debate on S.J.Res.1, which effectively killed the amendment.
This unnecessary, divisive debate was nothing more than a cynical election-year ploy. The Senate should be using its time to work on the serious issues Americans face today, including the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan , rising gas prices, and the need for affordable healthcare.
Furthermore, S.J.Res.1 would have undermined the states' right to regulate marriage and provide benefits for all their citizens. I believe that states should retain the right to regulate marriage, partnerships, or unions as the states see fit. I also believe that our Constitution should never be used to restrict the rights and freedoms that define our nation.

Again, thank you for writing to me. Please feel free to contact me again about any issue of importance to you.

Barbara Boxer
United States Senator

Please visit my website at "http://boxer.senate.gov"

 ::) ::)


As I have said before, I could care less about who wants to marry whom. However if any person feels it's important to them, then they have the right to do what makes them happy.

It burns my butt when these so called Christians push their rules/values on other people wether they like it or not.

Terry  :'(

Offline AlanBama

  • Member
  • Posts: 3,630
  • Alabama: the 'other' 3rd World Country!
Re: Marriage Protection Amendment
« Reply #13 on: June 08, 2006, 09:12:10 PM »
Terry,

You are so lucky to have Barbara Boxer for a senator.   I like her response to you!

Alan
"Remember my sentimental friend that a heart is not judged by how much you love, but by how much you are loved by others." - The Wizard of Oz

Offline ademas

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,151
Re: Marriage Protection Amendment
« Reply #14 on: June 08, 2006, 09:37:42 PM »
anyone catch Bill Bennett on The Daily Show on this topic?

He got skewered pretty good by Jon Stewart.


http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/

(the clip is about halfway down the page.)

 


Terms of Membership for these forums
 

© 2014 Smart + Strong. All Rights Reserved.   terms of use and your privacy
Smart + Strong® is a registered trademark of CDM Publishing, LLC.