POZ Community Forums
Off Topic Forums => Off Topic Forum => Topic started by: Joe K 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.
-
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
-
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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
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.
-
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
-
it's dead on the senate floor
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/06/07/same.sex.marriage/index.html
-
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.
-
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
-
Hello Joe,
All I can say is " where is Mary Cheney now" ? :-\
-
And, Isn't that Ann Coulter, real special, loving and caring..? Maybe we should have the' burn" the Ann Coulter book day.
Ray >:(
-
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
-
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! >:(
-
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 :'(
-
Terry,
You are so lucky to have Barbara Boxer for a senator. I like her response to you!
Alan
-
anyone catch Bill Bennett on The Daily Show on this topic?
He got skewered pretty good by Jon Stewart.
http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/ (http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/)
(the clip is about halfway down the page.)