Assault on Marriage's topics - tribe.net

New Tribe

DaMom — Sun, 13 May 2007 14:40:40 GMT

http://tribes.tribe.net/politicalcorrectnesssucks

posted in Assault on Marriage - 0 replies

another tribe for people horrified by the assault on marriage...

jmparker — Sun, 04 Feb 2007 17:52:26 GMT

http://tribes.tribe.net/65ca4bde-0272-47ba-9837-297a41b8d9dd?_click_path=Application%5Btribe%5D.Tribe%5B65ca4bde-0272-47ba-9837-297a41b8d9dd%5D

posted in Assault on Marriage - 3 replies

Mass.

jmparker — Sun, 07 Jan 2007 21:51:37 GMT

This is a hard fight.
I hope you guys are ready for it.
The last time I was in the US, I encounted incredible amounts of apathy from the very people who would benefit most from equal marriage rights.
It's been so quiet in this tribe lately... I wonder where everyone has gone.

posted in Assault on Marriage - 0 replies

canada eh?

stephen — Wed, 06 Sep 2006 13:44:52 GMT

http://www.hudsonnuptials.com/same-sex-marriages.html?gclid=COLSn4CSmYcCFS4BGAodCBjZug

posted in Assault on Marriage - 3 replies

Marriage Equality Rally, Barnstable County Court House, CapeCod, Sat.12/9/1:30p

WStuff — Thu, 07 Dec 2006 02:06:35 GMT

You probably saw the news coverage of Governor Romney's anti-marriage rally on the steps of the State House a few weeks ago following the legislature's vote to recess the Constitutional Convention until January 2nd. While it is obvious to almost everyone that the lame-duck governor was grandstanding for the sake of his presidential aspirations, several hundred opponents of equality turned out for the event. Yet, with little publicity or advance notice on our side, supporters of equality came out in full force to counter their message of discrimination. Now we need your help once again.

This Saturday, anti-marriage advocates are planning a rally at 1:30 PM outside the Barnstable County Courthouse. Local activists are organizing a group of marriage equality supporters to gather at the Courthouse at that time. Please join us and show your support for equality to ensure that the only messages heard on that day are not our opponents' mean-spirited attacks on same-sex couples and their families.

Marriage Equality Rally
Saturday, December 9th
1:30 PM
Barnstable County Court House
For more information, email Len Stewart at LenStewart2001@yahoo.com

Bring your homemade sign in support of equality and the 109 legislators who took a stand against discrimination. The event will not last long, so please take an hour or two out of your day and stand up to those who oppose equal rights. Please come out and show your support for equality!

Although 109 legislators took a courageous and principled stand to recess the Constitutional Convention and effectively kill the discriminatory amendment, it is increasingly likely that legislators will need to show up and take final action on the last day of the legislative session -- January 2nd. We need to demonstrate our strong support for marriage equality!

Thank you,

Matt McTighe
Political Director

MassEquality.org

posted in Assault on Marriage - 0 replies

What rights are only available through marriage?

MyBodyIsATemple — Tue, 08 Mar 2005 17:48:58 GMT

Recent discussion - I am pro-gay marriage and was talking to a friend who is anti-gay marriage (and is gay, go figure). His comment was that marriage is for heteros. I said fine, don't get married, but don't you want other homos to have the choice? His response was that there is nothing you can get from marriage that you can't get in any other way.

I was a little stumped. So there are some marriage-related rights that you can set up without being married - for example, you can will your assets to your partner, rather than have them go automatically to them as your spouse.

But what are the other rights / priveleges that are lost?

Can someone give their partner the right to make healthcare decisions even though they are not legally "family"?

Can you appoint someone beneficiary of your 401K if not married?

Can you help me think of other examples?

posted in Assault on Marriage - 15 replies

Boston, MA State House Protest for Gay Marriage Equality Sunday 11/19/06/1p

WStuff — Fri, 17 Nov 2006 00:33:31 GMT

Governor Romney is at it again, trying to score political points off the backs of same-sex couples and their families. Last week, by a vote of 109-87, a majority of Massachusetts legislators voted to derail our opponents' plans to write discrimination into our constitution and end marriage equality.

This Sunday afternoon, Governor Romney will lead a rally on the State House steps to further his presidential ambitions by using marriage equality as a divisive wedge issue. Since we began our campaign to protect marriage equality almost exactly three years ago, we've countered our opponents' message of fear and divisiveness with an even more powerful message of love and equality. Please join us across the street from the State House at 1 PM on Sunday to show your support for marriage equality and the Legislature's action. Bring your friends and family, along with signs displaying your support. The event will not last long, so please take an hour or two out of your day and stand up to Governor Romney and those who would take us back to a darker time.

Also, if you haven't done so already, please make sure you thank the 109 courageous legislators who took a principled stand against discrimination at last week's Constitutional Convention. Contact your legislators or see the full list.

I hope to see you at the State House this Sunday.

Thank you,

Marc Solomon
Campaign Director

MassEquality.org

posted in Assault on Marriage - 0 replies

NJ Decides for Equality!!!

theatremama — Wed, 25 Oct 2006 22:09:20 GMT

WOO HOO!
GO JERSEY!!!! PRECEDENT BABY!
Pass it on!

Positive NJ Ruling Would Open Door To Gay Couples Nationwide.
http://www.theatremama.com/ccount/click.php?id=237

posted in Assault on Marriage - 0 replies

Whoa! Brad Pitt's Marriage Statement

theatremama — Thu, 14 Sep 2006 21:09:03 GMT

Go Brad!
http://www.theatremama.com/ccount/click.php?id=208

Didn't see that one coming, but thought I would share!

M-

posted in Assault on Marriage - 0 replies

supportive supremes

stephen — Sun, 03 Sep 2006 14:34:19 GMT

washington state alert!

tom chambers is a washington state supreme court justice up for re-election in position 9. he voted to overturn the ban on gay marriage and we need to keep him on the bench. this election will be decided in the primary vote on sept 19, 2006. if you wait for the nov 7 general election it will already be over! ya gotta vote in the primary sept 19. supreme court positions are non--party statewide elections.

also vote for susan owens in position 2.

we don't have a good choice for position 8. gerry alexander may be the lesser of two evils.

posted in Assault on Marriage - 0 replies

Cold comfort, but still...

jmparker — Fri, 14 Jul 2006 14:35:34 GMT

10 reasons to be single:

Reason #1: You have a better body.
We’ve all been there—you get into a relationship, and suddenly you’re trying out new recipes all the time and cuddling instead of exercising. Well, things tend to get worse with marriage. A recent Cornell University study found that women generally gain five to eight pounds in the first few years of marriage and unhappily married women gain an average of 54 pounds in the first 10 years.

For the unmarried, though, the motivation to stay slim remains: “Singles look at themselves through the eyes of others and want to be attractive to potential partners,” says Susan Davis, Ph.D., a clinical psychologist in New York City, “so they’re still ‘working on themselves.’” In short, being single is way better than any New Year’s resolution or exercise DVD to motivate you to stay in shape.

Reason #2: You’re more likely to achieve great things.
It’s amazing what you can accomplish when you have the time, the quiet and the lack of familial responsibilities. In fact, your premarital motivation to excel in life may be biologically programmed. According to a study conducted at the London School of Economics and Political Scientists, male scientists who stay single longer peak in their careers later in life and tend to be more productive than their married counterparts. Researchers theorize that men, in general, may show off their talents to win the interest of women and then, once they’ve won a wife, get comfortable and do less. In fact, studies have shown that testosterone levels, which boost action, decrease after a man gets married and has children. So single folk should know they are primed to achieve — whether that means turbo-charging their careers or honing their rock-climbing skills — and get out there and work it!

Reason #3: You do less housework.
You know that saying about a tree falling in a forest and there’s no one there to hear it? Well, if you leave a sock on the floor but there’s no one else there to see it, does it really need to be picked up? If you’re a single woman, you can contemplate deep questions like this one because you have more free time. According to one study published in the Journal of Marriage and Family, women do less housework when single than when married. Men, on the other hand, do more housework when unmarried (that’s probably because there’s someone picking up after them once they’re wed…). So the message here is for unmarried women to enjoy their less chore-filled life; fill those free hours with classes, good books, blabbing with friends—whatever makes you happy.

Reason #4: You can do what you want with your money—including keep it.
Go ahead: Splurge on that pricey moisturizer or that obscenely large plasma TV you’ve been lusting after. You don’t have to justify your purchase to anyone but yourself. Once you mix money with marriage, though, things change—and fast. According to a survey by SmartMoney magazine, 40 percent of women and 36 percent of men have lied to their spouses about a purchase. “When you’re single, your finances are your own,” explains Phyllis Chase, a Los Angeles–based psychologist and co-host of the radio show Shrink Rap. “When you’re married, you have to deal with different styles of spending and saving, and you may take on your partner’s debt.” And a marriage that doesn’t make it for the long haul can also have a major negative effect on one’s wealth. According to researchers at Ohio State University’s Center for Human Resource Research, during a divorce, men and women generally lose three-fourths of their personal net worth. Double ouch.

Reason #5: You have better sex.
Married couples may have more sex (approximately 98 times a year vs. singles’ 49), but singles have better sex. According to a recent study published in the British Medical Journal, married women are significantly more likely to report problems with their sex lives than single women. “People who are dating have better sex because it’s novel,” says Davis. “Married people have to relearn how to play. It’s natural for singles because that’s the nature of a courting relationship—they tease, they experiment, they explore.” Nature lends a helping hand, too. According to researchers at the University of Pisa in Italy, raging testosterone levels in both men and women makes the sex hotter during the first two years of a relationship. After that, other hormones take over—most notably, oxytocin, a bonding chemical, kicks in. While getting connected and comfortable is a positive step in a relationship, long-term lovers have to work harder to keep things hot in the bedroom. Singles, however, sizzle just the way they are.

Reason #6: You’re better rested and smarter.
While snuggling up next to a warm body can be pretty fantastic, according to a survey conducted by the National Sleep Foundation, your bedmate can cause you to lose an average of 49 minutes of sleep per night. Sleeping two-to-a-bed just isn’t as restful as snoozing solo. Other studies confirm that singles generally get more rest — seven to eight hours of sleep a night — than marrieds, which enhances memory, mood and concentration, as well as allows your immune system to recharge. And, according to scientists at the University of Luebeck in Germany, creativity and problem-solving may directly correlate with getting enough sleep. In the study, participants were given a math puzzle; those who’d had eight hours of sleep or more before tackling it were three times more likely to get the right answer than those who slept less. So, singles, revel in the fact that you’re alert, rested and have that extra brain-power edge.

Reason #7: You’re less depressed.
Although the media often perpetuates the image of single people being down in the dumps, overall unmarried people tend to be happier than their married counterparts—if you’re a woman, that is. One report by the World Health Organization indicated that married women, especially ones with children, have a higher risk for depression than single women, and researchers at the University of London found that single women generally have fewer mental-health issues. “Marriage, in many ways, seems to benefit men more than women,” says Davis. “For women, there’s more of a loss of self.” And, of course, today’s women often feel like they need to do it all—have a career, take care of the kids and perform other traditionally “female” responsibilities. “People who aren’t married are still investing in themselves,” says Davis. “It’s not selfish—it’s giving to yourself, and that’s something married people can learn from single people.”

Reason #8: You have better friendships.
Significant others are a wonderful thing, no doubt, but friends count, too. And on that front, one study found that, when women get married and have children, they spend much less time with their friends—less than five hours a week, down from 14 hours. Singles, however, often have the greatest sense of friendship and community—which can actually decrease stress levels, according to researchers at UCLA.

Here's another way to look at this: “Singles don’t rely on just one person to meet their needs. You don’t automatically know who you’re going to spend Friday night with,” says Sasha Cagen, author of Quirkyalone: A Manifesto for Uncompromising Romantics. “The plus side is that you have a lot of different people in your life and potentially a greater sense of social possibilities.”

Reason #9: Your travel tales are enviable.
Marrieds take the most vacations, dominating the market with 62 percent of all trips taken, but singles arguably go on more interesting trips. According to the Travel Industry Association of America, singles corner the adventure-travel market, engaging in activities like whitewater rafting, scuba diving and mountain biking. Being single and relatively footloose certainly allows you to expand your geographical — and personal — borders. “I have lived abroad, backpacked for close to a year, have been in love three times and much more,” says Courtney Davis, 27, a media-relations manager in Boston. “With every place and every person, my world has expanded.”

Reason #10: You know yourself—and what you want out of a relationship.
You’re a better catch now than you were at 20. You may have signs of, ahem, experience etched on your face, but that’s OK because you’re more interesting and more self-aware. Not only have you grown as a person, but you’ve probably been through the ringer a few times in matters of love and now know what you want—and what you don’t. Experts say that bodes well for future marital success and may actually decrease the likelihood of divorce. “When people get married young, they often feel like the other person will complete them, and they have trouble moving past that Hollywood myth,” explains Chase. “But maturity brings so much, because if you’re able to communicate who you are and what you want, the better your chances of having a successful marriage.” And that’s a wonderful message: Your single self is great... and should you find the right person and decide to marry, you’re more likely to thrive in that stage of your life, too.

Dawn Yanek is the author of How to Find the Right Person in 90 Days and Women’s Best-Kept Secrets. She frequently appears on VH-1, MSNBC, and other networks as a commentator on relationships, celebrities and lifestyle trends.

posted in Assault on Marriage - 0 replies

NY State - where you can legally discriminate......

Rafiqa — Thu, 06 Jul 2006 21:25:56 GMT

From NY State Pride Agenda Executive Director, Alan Van Capelle:

Dear Friends,

Today New York’s highest court decided by a vote of 4 to 2 that the State of New York can discriminate against gays and lesbians and our families by continuing to deny the protections that come with legal marriage. It is now up to our lawmakers to right this wrong and act on the will of the majority of New Yorkers and provide full marriage equality for same sex couples and our families.

Tonight, our community and our friends will gather in rallies across the state to let New York know that the marriage debate is not going away and that Albany needs to act quickly to protect our families from discrimination by passing a marriage equality law. We will send a message to politicians who say they are our friends that this is the moment we need them to demonstrate that their friendship is more than just words. We will call on them to work with us in winning our freedom to marry here in New York State.

Tonight, we also stand alongside religious leaders, union activists and other allies who have been boldly advocating for our community when few people would. Tonight, we will show New York that it’s not just lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people who care about marriage, but that it is also our straight family members, friends, co-workers and neighbors.

Those who oppose our right to marriage equality want to push us back into the closet. At best we are an annoyance to them and at worst they wish we would disappear. They will view today’s court ruling as a victory, but our presence tonight at these rallies will let them know in the loudest possible way how wrong they are.

I urge you to come out, bring your friends and family and stand with thousands of other New Yorkers who demand full equality for same-sex couples and our families. Below are the details for the seven rallies. Please make every effort to attend the one nearest you.

With hope,

Alan Van Capelle

Executive Director

P.S.: To read more about today’s decision, visit our website at www.prideagenda.org.

Albany/Capital District
Start time: 6:00pm
Location: Capitol Park (Washington Ave. & Swan St., adjacent to the State Capitol Building)

Rain Location: Emmanuel Baptist Church, 275 State St.

Buffalo/Western NY
Start time: 6:00pm
Location: Bidwell Park (@Elmwood Avenue)

Rain Location: Unitarian Universalist Church, 695 Elmwood Avenue (corner of West Ferry & Elmwood)

Hudson Valley
Start time: 7:00pm
Location: Memorial United Methodist Church (250 Bryant Avenue, White Plains)

Rain Location: same location

Long Island
Start time: 7:30pm
Location: Bay Shore Band Shell (Main Street at Park Avenue)

Rain Location: 34 Park Avenue, Bay Shore

New York City
Start time: 6:00pm
Location: Sheridan Square (West 4th Street and 7th Ave., Manhattan)

Rain Location: LGBT Community Center, 208 West 13th Street

Rochester
Start time: 6:00pm
Location: Washington Square Park

Rain Location: First Unitarian Church of Rochester, 220 Winton Road South (coming from 490 take Exit #20 Winton Rd./University; coming from 590 take Exit #4 Highland Ave.)

Syracuse/Central NY
Start time: 7:00pm
Location: Hanover Square (Downtown Syracuse)

Rain Location: Hendrick’s Chapel, Syracuse University

posted in Assault on Marriage - 1 reply

Kansas

Kieran — Wed, 28 Jun 2006 00:35:53 GMT

I know this was like last week, but I'm surprised that no one jumped on it. A judge in Kansas ruled that children as young as 12 could be legally considered married in a commonlaw sense. Why have family values groups as well as those of us on the "other" side not made a big hullabaloo about this? What does it say about marriage in America when children can be married (as long as the couple is a male and a female) when consenting, rational adults (of the same gender) can't benefit from such a state?

I was just curious as to why the media and everyone else didn't make such a big stink about this.

posted in Assault on Marriage - 1 reply

Immigration.

jmparker — Sun, 16 Apr 2006 20:48:17 GMT

Hey. So we can get married in Massachussets now. Can we marry a foreigner and bring them to live with us in Massachussets?

posted in Assault on Marriage - 0 replies

Social Equality

jmparker — Thu, 03 Nov 2005 21:47:29 GMT

A friend of mine told me this story tonight:
A bunch of white soldiers are having a dinner at the Legion of Honor after WW1, and a platoon of black soldiers comes in the back door, and one of them gets up and makes a speech, saying, "We're not asking for social equality, we just want to be recognized." They were immediately invited to sit at the tables and eat.

Which made me think...What would happen if gays and lesbians stated clearly that we're not asking for social equality? Would they give it to us then?

posted in Assault on Marriage - 5 replies

An invitation

DrunkPhilosopher — Tue, 21 Feb 2006 06:35:43 GMT

To my new tribe
http://tribes.tribe.net/drunkenramblings

posted in Assault on Marriage - 0 replies

S. Africa Set to Legalize Gay Marriage Despite Christian Objection

MyBodyIsATemple — Mon, 05 Dec 2005 22:02:00 GMT

Thursday, Dec. 1, 2005 Posted: 10:38:52PM EST

Predominantly-Christian South Africa is ready to legalize same-sex unions, becoming the first country in the continent to formally accept the liberal definition of marriage.

On Thursday, the Constitutional Court – the highest court of South Africa – ruled that it is unconstitutional to prevent gay people from marrying, according to the Associated Press (AP).

"The common law definition of marriage is declared to be inconsistent with the constitution and invalid to the extent that it does not permit same-sex couples to enjoy the status and benefits it accords heterosexual couples," said Judge Albie Sachs in delivering Thursday's ruling, according to AP. The common law definition of marriage refers to a union between a man and a woman.

Such ruling also affirms the decision of the Supreme Court of Appeal last November to allow a lesbian couple Marie Fourie and Cecilia Bonthuys to wed, saying that the common law discriminates against homosexuals.

http://www.christianpost.com/article/africa/488/section/s.africa.set.to.legalize.gay.marriage.despite.christian.objection/1.htm

posted in Assault on Marriage - 0 replies

'Gay weddings' become law in UK

MyBodyIsATemple — Mon, 05 Dec 2005 21:43:34 GMT

'Gay weddings' become law in UK

Hundreds of gay couples are preparing to form civil partnerships in the coming weeks as the law changes after decades of campaigning.
At least 1,200 ceremonies are confirmed as being scheduled already, according to figures from councils compiled by the BBC News website.

Registrars are preparing for the first ceremonies, with couples permitted to register from Monday morning.

Campaigners says the law ends inequalities for same-sex couples.

The first ceremonies under the Civil Partnerships Act can take place in Northern Ireland on 19 December, followed by Scotland the next day and England and Wales on 21 December.

Under the law, couples who want to form a partnership must register their intentions with local councils. Unlike marriages, the signing of the legal partnership papers does not need to happen in public.

Bookings coming in

Hundreds of couples are expected to go ahead quickly, with Brighton conducting 198 ceremonies before the end of the year. Overall, the city has taken 510 bookings for the coming months, thought to be the highest in the country.

Other cities which have seen strong interest include London, Manchester, Birmingham, Newcastle and Edinburgh.

Meg Munn, minister for equality, said the government expected 4,500 couples to get "partnered" in the first year.

"This is an important piece of legislation that gives legal recognition to relationships which until now were invisible in the eyes of the law," Ms Munn told the BBC News website.

"It accords people in same-sex relationships the same sort of rights and responsibilities that are available to married couples.

"We know there are people who have been together maybe 40 years and have been waiting for the chance to do this kind of thing, because of the important differences it makes to their lives.

"They have the same concerns as married couples - tenancy, ownership, pensions and inheritance."

Alan Wardle, of gay campaign group Stonewall, said the importance of the change should not be underestimated.

"Our view is that civil partnerships are transformative for the lives of individual couples and their rights, but also for society more generally.

"Society now legally recognises gay relationships for the first time.

"It's a big day but 21 December, when the first partnerships take place, will be even bigger because that will see gay and lesbian people removing discrimination."

But a spokesman for the one of the UK's major Christian groups told the BBC they believed same-sex couples should not get the same rights as married couples.

"If you transport something unique, like marriage, into a different context, there's always a cost. And the cost here is in terms of reduction of marriage and the undermining of it," Don Horrocks of the Evangelical Alliance said.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4493094.stm

posted in Assault on Marriage - 0 replies

Civil Unions for All....

Sun, 09 Oct 2005 05:15:49 GMT

Just a thought that came up in conversation recently:

It has been suggested to me that the term "Legal Marriage" is a two-word violation of the concept of separation of church and state. In a society which truly followed separation of church and state, both straights and gays would be civily unified by the state, and married by the church.

Matrimony is an inherently religious concept. Perhaps we chould fight to ban straight marriage and mandate civil unions for everybody.

Thoughts?

posted in Assault on Marriage - 4 replies

Straight Man Speaks

Don — Sat, 07 Aug 2004 06:45:23 GMT

I have no bad feelings in my heart for gay people.

I do however have very strong feelings for that which makes everything possible. The joining of a man and a woman gave us the ability to write our thoughts on this white board. Should that not be honored in some special way?

Two men may love each other, two women may love each other, they however can NEVER conceive another human being. This is a simple fact. Does this reduce their love for one another - NO.
Does this make them lesser people in some way - NO. Does this make a difference to the future existence to society - YES.

So herein lies the root of the madness in this debate. I respect the love between all people but creation is above love as without creation, their is no love.

We straight married people want to keep the one thing that we have to show for our special bond. It is not that I want to take something from the gay person or withhold a right for them to love each other. I just want my life's work of creating and raising and supporting three children to be recognized as something special and worth striving for. The fabric of our society requires such recognition and celebration, please don't take this away from me.

Let Marriage be for the bond of Ying and Yang. Call the union of same sex people something else. They can have all the so called tax and insurance benefits, I have no concern at all about anything beyond the bond of creation being broken and the fabric of society falling apart.

Debate me if you wish, but this is one thing this liberal will go to his grave with.

posted in Assault on Marriage - 51 replies

it's happening...

jmparker — Thu, 15 Sep 2005 20:11:09 GMT

Ok, so Conan vetoed in California... but according to recent polls, regular folks in Mass. are becoming less and less anti-marriage as the months go by. this is exactly what happened in Belgium and the Netherlands - marriage won by a slim majority, and AFTER the fact, people realized it wasn't the end of the world and the public slowly moved pro-marriage as their fears subsided.

posted in Assault on Marriage - 5 replies

touch-tone democracy

loganotron — Fri, 09 Sep 2005 22:28:32 GMT

If you're so inclined:

1. Call the Governor: 916-445-2841
(This number is listed at http://www.governor.ca.gov)
2. Push: 2 (voice your opinion on legislation)
3. Push: 1 (gender-neutral marriage bill - Senate Bill 849)
4. And push: 1 to support marriage equality

posted in Assault on Marriage - 0 replies

Government Should Not Sanction Marriage, Gay OR Straight

Mon, 18 Apr 2005 23:04:36 GMT

Problem solved.

Governments should only be involved in the process of civil unions, be they gay or straight. Let 'marriage' be the province of religion/spirituality/community. I don't believe the Gov't should be involved with 'marriage', per se, at ALL.

posted in Assault on Marriage - 8 replies

check this out

enoki — Thu, 28 Apr 2005 23:42:22 GMT

www.defendmarriage.ca

they are resorting to leaving voicemail messages imploring Canadians to support their agenda..not surprising given the impending election, but troubling nonetheless.

posted in Assault on Marriage - 0 replies

Why Gay marraiges are bad (a funny)

Tedster — Sun, 03 Apr 2005 07:56:42 GMT

http://www.felbers.net/mt/archives/000505.html

posted in Assault on Marriage - 0 replies

File Jointly in Protest?

Mon, 21 Mar 2005 20:47:22 GMT

What if everybody who got married in San Francisco this year...
Got together on April 15th...
And filed joint California Tax returns...
At the biggest Post Office in the city...
In their wedding clothes?

How many people would do it?
How many people could do it nationwide next year?
Who might publicize a campaign like this?

How would mass arrests of gay partners for tax evasion play out on national TV?
How would thousands of court cases play out on national TV?

I believe that today that anti-gay marriage laws result in a persecution that seems "Passive" when viewed from the outside: Gays ask for marriage licenses, the state says "no"... relatively passive circumstances - no beatings, no handcuffs.

If a mass joint filing were to happen, It'd up the stakes. In order to enforce the law, the government would have to engage in active persecution. I believe that empathy towards the entire homosexual community would grow if the general public sees people hauled off to jail.
If gays start going to jail for nothing more than declaring their love for eachother on form 1040, the public will begin to feel symapathy.

And when they start to feel, they'll start to ask questions.
And when they start to ask questions, the scales start to tip.

posted in Assault on Marriage - 6 replies

Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding!

Tedster — Tue, 15 Mar 2005 01:10:11 GMT

Court invalidates California's ban on same-sex marriage
- Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer
Monday, March 14, 2005

Gay and lesbian couples in California have a constitutional right to marry, a San Francisco Superior Court judge ruled Monday.

The ruling by Judge Richard Kramer is just the first step in a case that is headed for the state Supreme Court, probably sometime next year. But it marks the first time that a California judge has declared unconstitutional the state law that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

"I never thought I would see it in my lifetime," a jubilant Kate Kendell, executive director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, said outside the courthouse. "It's an amazing day for justice, an amazing day for lesbian and gay families."

The ruling comes more than a year after about 4,000 same-sex couples exchanged marriage vows at San Francisco City Hall after Mayor Gavin Newsom ordered that the city clerk issue them marriage licenses. The state Supreme Court declared the marriages invalid last August and ruled that Newsom had exceeded his authority in giving the marriages the go-ahead.

Monday's ruling did not revive those marriages but - if it stands - will allow same-sex couples to marry in the future. Currently, only Massachusetts allows same-sex couples to wed. A trial judge in New York has ruled that state's same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional. That decision is on appeal, and a decision on same-sex marriage is pending in Washington state.

In his 27-page decision, Kramer - an appointee of former Gov. Pete Wilson, a Republican - said the state's ban on same-sex marriage violates "the basic human right to marry the person of one's choice," and has no rational justification.

Rejecting California Attorney General Bill Lockyer's argument that California is entitled to maintain the traditional definition of marriage, Kramer said the same explanation was offered for the state's ban on interracial marriage, which was struck down by the state Supreme Court in 1948.

The judge also rejected arguments by opponents of same-sex marriage that the current law promotes procreation and child-rearing by a husband and wife. "One does not have to be married in order to procreate, nor does one have to procreate in order to marry," Kramer said.

E-mail Bob Egelko at begelko@sfchronicle.com

URL: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/archive/2005/03/14/samesexruling14.TMP
©2005 San Francisco Chronicle

posted in Assault on Marriage - 0 replies

My HRC Page

BonnieMargay — Sun, 27 Jun 2004 21:37:08 GMT

Please visit my HRC page to defend marriage equality:

www.hrcactioncenter.org/actioncenter/advocacy/b_margay-137168

While you're there, you will see seven different actions you can take to make an important difference (for free) with just a few clicks.

Thank you so much for checking it out!

Bright blessings,

Bonnie

"It doesn't matter how strong your opinions are. If you don't use your power for positive change, you are, indeed, part of the problem." ~ Coretta Scott King

posted in Assault on Marriage - 2 replies

mccarthyism

acoustichrmny — Wed, 09 Feb 2005 07:18:44 GMT

i created this tribe today. id enjoy if some of you would check it out to see if you are interested. please consider joining.

http://mccarthyism.tribe.net

posted in Assault on Marriage - 0 replies

Canada lawmakers craft gay-marriage bill

Tedster — Tue, 01 Feb 2005 23:22:14 GMT

http://www.salon.com/news/wire/2005/02/01/canada/print.html

Canada lawmakers craft gay-marriage bill

By Beth Duff-Brown

Feb. 1, 2005 | Toronto -- The Canadian government introduced its contentious same-sex marriage bill in Parliament on Tuesday, seeking to legalize gay marriage nationwide over the objections of the Roman Catholic Church and other conservative clergy.

Justice Minister Irwin Cotler, upon introducing the bill, said the legislation reflected the spirit of Canadian rights and freedoms protected under the constitution.

"Canada is a land built on a tradition of equality and respect," Cotler said. "It is the responsibility of Parliament to ensure that minority rights are uniform across the country. The government cannot, and should not, pick and choose which rights they will defend and which rights they will ignore."

But the country is deeply divided on the issue, and the bill's passage was not assured.

The opposition Conservative Party said it would fight the legislation, which defines marriage as a civil union between two people, as opposed to the current definition of marriage between a man and a woman.

"Marriage is a historical union that has existed between a man and a woman. It has been recognized in that way by cultures across time," said Vic Toews of the Conservative Party.

Prime Minister Paul Martin, whose minority Liberal government drafted the legislation, defended the proposed bill on Tuesday.

"Canada is a country where minorities are protected," he said.

Martin has staked his leadership on the issue, saying he was prepared to call early elections to defend the right of homosexuals to marry.

He insisted a clause in the legislation reinforced a Supreme Court ruling in December that stipulates that no place of worship would be forced to perform gay unions against doctrine.

For passage, the bill needs approval from 154 members of the 308-seat House of Commons. It approved, Canada would join Belgium and the Netherlands as the only other countries to embrace same-sex marriage nationwide.

The debate is being watched closely in the United States, where a majority of Americans oppose gay marriage, according to an Associated Press-Ipsos poll taken in November, shortly after constitutional amendments in 11 states to ban same-sex marriage were approved.

Cotler noted that seven of Canada's 13 provinces and territories already allow marriage between gays and lesbians, and he said it was time to make the law uniform nationwide.

Roman Catholic Church groups have joined forces with other religious groups to defeat the legislation, with Quebec Archbishop Marc Cardinal Quellet saying the bill "threatens to unleash nothing less than cultural upheaval whose negative consequences are still impossible to predict."

The legislation will have to go to committee for study and it could take weeks, or even months, for a final vote.

posted in Assault on Marriage - 1 reply

write your senator

jmparker — Tue, 25 Jan 2005 12:15:33 GMT

this makes it easy -

http://www.hrcactioncenter.org/campaign/senate_mpa_oppose

.... of course, a phone call is generally considered worth 500 emails in DC....

posted in Assault on Marriage - 2 replies

HRC petition

jmparker — Tue, 25 Jan 2005 08:03:57 GMT

In case you haven't seen the "Million for Marriage" petition... we still haven't got a million signatures yet...

http://www.hrc.org/millionformarriage/index.shtml

posted in Assault on Marriage - 1 reply

what state are you in?

tinker, tailor, soldier, spy — Tue, 30 Nov 2004 15:34:25 GMT

and what's happening there?

i'm in wisconsin where the amendment proposal to ban gay marriages and civil unions may come as early as april.

posted in Assault on Marriage - 5 replies

Gay Marraige Amendment not coming soon

Tedster — Tue, 28 Dec 2004 02:31:18 GMT

http://www.salon.com/news/wire/2004/12/27/marriage/print.html

Gay marriage amendment not coming soon

- - - - - - - - - - - -
By David Espo

Dec. 27, 2004 | Washington -- Opponents of gay marriage concede victory will not be swift in their attempt to amend the U.S. Constitution, even after prevailing in all 11 states where the issue was on the ballot last month.

While the Nov. 2 election also increased the ranks of amendment supporters in both houses of Congress, the gains were relatively small.

"We're going to have to see additional court cases come down" supporting gay marriage before congressional sentiment shifts dramatically, predicted Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, who supports the amendment that failed in both houses of Congress this year.

Critics of gay marriage have long warned of such court rulings. Cornyn and others who support changing the Constitution to ban gay marriage say several cases have the potential to produce a sharp shift in congressional sentiment toward their viewpoint. They point to suits in Florida, California, Nebraska and elsewhere.

But Matt Coles of the ACLU's Lesbian and Gay Rights Project said that's unlikely -- and not entirely by accident.

Many of the cases making their way through the courts were filed by individuals not affiliated with leading gay rights organizations, he said, and were not framed to make a targeted challenge to a 1996 law known as the Defense of Marriage Act.

Frontline groups have held off, he said. "People think that neither the country nor the courts are ready for it and probably we'll lose. Nobody likes to take cases and lose."

The 1996 law defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman. It also says no state is required to recognize same-sex marriages sanctioned by any another state.

Purely by the numbers, prospects for passage of an amendment in Congress "have definitely improved" following the election, said Tom McClusky of the Family Research Council. "But by enough? That's going to be wait and see."

Leaders on both sides of the issue say supporters of the amendment gained four votes in the Senate on Nov. 2, and a small, undetermined number in the House. Based on votes in 2004, amendment opponents still have more than enough strength to prevail in a second showdown.

The measure drew 48 Senate votes on a procedural roll call, far below the two-thirds majority needed for passage. The vote in the House was 227-186, 49 less than the required two-thirds. Passage by Congress would send the issue to state legislatures for ratification. Three-fourths of them also would have to approve it.

It's not clear how aggressively the White House or Republican leaders in Congress intend to push the issue, with the election over and priorities such as Social Security and tax overhaul competing for attention.

White House political adviser Karl Rove said after the election that President Bush intends to continue seeking a constitutional amendment that says marriage must consist of a man and a woman.

At the same time, GOP congressional aides who attended a series of closed-door meetings recently said Rove did not mention the amendment when he outlined the administration's key legislative goals for the year ahead. Nor did the issue figure prominently in strategy sessions held by GOP congressional leaders, added these officials, who declined to be identified by name because the proceedings were closed to the press.

McClusky, director of government affairs for the Family Research Council, said his organization wants more than rhetorical support from the administration.

"We're hoping for a vote early on in 2005 and we're hoping that the president will make the phone calls again," he said. "It's going to be another one of those things of wait and see whether this is going to be something he did for the 2004 elections or this is something he truly believes in."

Bush urged Congress to act last February, when San Francisco officials were performing thousands of same-sex marriages and after the Massachusetts Supreme Court legalized them in that state.

The president endorsed an amendment that would ban same sex marriage, while letting states decide whether to sanction relationships such as civil unions or domestic partnerships.

While the amendment headed toward defeat in Congress, Bush's decision to speak out elevated the issue during the campaign, and conservative groups successfully passed state constitutional changes in all 11 of the states where they tried.

However small the shift in votes in Congress, Cornyn said the Nov. 2 results demonstrate that "the American people want to preserve traditional marriage."

posted in Assault on Marriage - 3 replies

bisexual woman speaks

alora — Fri, 05 Nov 2004 18:35:10 GMT

My sister is getting married in 2k5 and I couldn't be happier! She's already had two kids with her future husband, and one with a deadbeat. They own a house and work hard and raise the three kids together.
And man, are those kids smart even though they live in the Central Valley.
My sister and her man are getting married in a Catholic Church, which means I had to be the spokesperson for her on this questionaire about their marriage compatibility. "Are they planning on having children?" the priest asked. I giggled and said, "um, yes?"
I was dating a woman when Newsom decided Feb. 14 was a good day to allow gays to be married. I visited City Hall on my own just to watch. It was really a tear-jerking experience.
I don't think the marriage laws have anything to do with being straight, gay, bisexual or asexual.They have everything to do with being undereducated, under exposed, un-compassionate, and inflexible.
For example, a man sexually assaulted me in June. He was the boyfriend of a woman I dated for a short time. He didn't do it because he thought he could get away with it _ I kicked his ass _ he did it because he was angry at me.
He did it because he does not understand bisexuality.
I am attempting to procecute him for a federal hate crime. It is a long shot, mostly because the courts, the media, and the general public do not understand bisexuality either.
Oh well.

posted in Assault on Marriage - 1 reply

An antigay Supreme Court: four more years or 40?

Tedster — Thu, 21 Oct 2004 06:05:55 GMT

http://advocate.com/html/stories/925/925_supreme_court.asp

An antigay Supreme Court: four more years or 40?
The president elected this November almost certainly will get to name two, three, or even four new Supreme Court justices. That should grab the attention of every gay and gay-supportive voter.
By Ralph G. Neas

An Advocate.com exclusive posted October 12, 2004

There’s more than marriage at stake for GLBT people in this year’s presidential election.

With President Bush and GOP congressional leaders pushing to enshrine discrimination in the U.S. Constitution in the name of “protecting” marriage, and antigay measures advancing in states under the same ridiculous rallying cry, it is understandable that political discussion has focused on progress toward marriage equality and the ferocious backlash engineered by equality’s enemies.

But GLBT voters and people who support them should also be thinking and talking about another enormously important issue—the future of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court plays a huge role in everyone’s lives, because it interprets our laws and our Constitution. It has had the final word—historically both bad and good—on whether the promises of equal justice under the law include gay Americans.

The president elected this November almost certainly will get to name two, three or even four new Supreme Court justices. That should grab the attention of every gay and gay-supportive voter. The historic 2003 ruling in Lawrence v. Texas overturning state sodomy laws would have gone the other way with two more right-wing justices. As we know, those laws had a reach far beyond the bedroom—they defined gay men and lesbians as de facto criminals and were used to justify such actions as firing employees and taking children away from loving parents.

Gay and gay-friendly voters should be especially alarmed that President Bush has cited Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas as his models for future Supreme Court nominees.

Anyone who is tempted to think there are no important differences between the presidential candidates, or who is thinking about supporting a third-party candidate, should think about Antonin Scalia’s bitter dissent in Lawrence, which drips with contempt for the justices who voted to overturn the infamous Bowers v. Hardwick decision, which had allowed states to treat gay men and lesbians as criminals.

The same Scalia wrote a venomous dissent to the 1996 decision in Romer v. Evans, which overturned an antigay amendment to the Colorado constitution. In a case concerning an employee fired by the CIA after he revealed he was gay, Justice Scalia claimed that the employee should not even be able to have a court consider his constitutional claims.

Imagine a Supreme Court with one, two, or three additional Scalias. Imagine those denunciations of gay equality being majority opinions rather than angry dissents.With a Scalia-Thomas majority on the Supreme Court, marriage equality would be a distant hope, and a return to other forms of institutionalized discrimination would be an imminent threat.

Equality for gay Americans is one of many crucial issues that are now hanging by a one- or two-vote thread on the Supreme Court, including enforcement of voting rights and other civil rights, privacy and reproductive choice, environmental protection and more. In fact, there is an aggressive and regressive legal movement to return the United States to a pre–New Deal approach to the Constitution, when states’ rights trumped the protection of individual liberties.Much of the social justice progress of the last half-century could be reversed.And a hard-right Court could prevent future progress by rejecting progressive, pro-equality legislation.

So in the final weeks before the election, talk to your friends, family, and colleagues. They might disagree on some issues and might even be squeamish about the idea of gay and lesbian couples getting married, but they should all consider the far-reaching impact of the next president’s Supreme Court nominees on equality for gay and lesbian Americans.

Ralph G. Neas is president of People for the American Way, a national civil rights and civil liberties organization that advocates for full legal equality, including marriage equality, for gay and lesbian Americans. Visit www.pfaw.org.

posted in Assault on Marriage - 2 replies

Boycott Straight-Only Marriage

David — Wed, 28 Jul 2004 21:02:38 GMT

Title says it all, I guess. What do you folks think of this proposal: those of us who are straight but support marriage rights for gays should boycott the whole institution of marriage until such a time as its "definition" is expanded to not discriminate against gays.

My rationale is that I wouldn't feel right enjoying the benefits of marriage while knowing that those same benefits are being denied to others who deserve them just as much as I do.

Also, a government that continues to practice this sort of religious intolerance is not one that I can respect as a moral authority on this matter, so I don't want or need its approval and recognition for my romantic relationships.

I'm picturing people who feel this way making a public statement something like:

"We are a straight couple, very much in love, and want to get married, but as long as our gay friends are unable to marry, we wouldn't feel right enjoying the benefits that they are being denied. We feel that by marrying, we would be endorsing, or even contributing to, this discrimination, and we refuse to do that. So until they are able to marry, we won't either."

Of course, for maximum impact, it's got to come from couples who really would intend to get married otherwise. And for them to actually stand by that would be a huge sacrifice, but then, that's what makes it such a powerful statement.

Thoughts?

posted in Assault on Marriage - 5 replies

Future Existence of Society

harlan — Tue, 17 Aug 2004 01:21:30 GMT

This is in response to the "Reverend." If you are so worried about the future of the world and society, I would think that you would be happy that some people are not being forced to marry heterosexually and produce children, as homosexuals and bisexuals were in the past. We have over 6 Billion people in the world. So many of our problems today are the result of human overpopulation.

I know that you have a direct line to whatever being you think created the world. I am sure It would tell you to take measures to decrease human overpopulation.

Meanwhile, we have the "religious" folk, who are still caught up in the tribal thing, and think that for a woman not to have as many children as possible, is an affront to the creator.

posted in Assault on Marriage - 1 reply

An open letter to Mayor Gavin Newsom

BonnieMargay — Fri, 13 Aug 2004 08:05:35 GMT

12 August 2004

Mayor Gavin Newsom
City Hall Room 200
1 Carlton B Goodlett Place
San Francisco CA 94102-9991

Wonderful Mayor Newsom,

Although the California Supreme Court invalidated our
marriage license this morning, we wanted to thank you
again for issuing it to us in the first place. Your
heroic stance against discrimination was and is an
important message to our nation.

You allowed us to be married at San Francisco City
Hall, to actualize the full and crucial value of
marriage equality, to take part in an activist
adventure that still makes our hearts flutter with the
overwhelming atmosphere of love and dignity we
experienced in your beautiful city. For six months,
you afforded us the exquisite hope that loving
activism could defeat discrimination, that we too
could be validated in our union by a defender of
justice, and that our love might be acknowledged by
the law.

Thank you especially for inspiring similar activism in
Washington, New Mexico, and New York, that has
miraculously brought discrimination to a halt in
Washington state.

We will not be demoralized by this verdict, but
energized to fight for love, equality, and justice
with all our hearts.

Bless you,

Bonnie Margay Burke

=====
"It doesn't matter how strong your opinions are. If you don't use your power for positive change, you are, indeed, part of the problem." ~ Coretta Scott King

Are you as outraged as we are that our marriage license has been invalidated? Take action with just a few clicks at
http://www.hrcactioncenter.org/actioncenter/advocacy/b_margay-137168

Save the world every morning with just a few clicks!
eActivism made easy at http://members.cox.net/bonnie_margay/

posted in Assault on Marriage - 0 replies

Trouble in another tribe

Tedster — Wed, 11 Aug 2004 05:33:04 GMT

The person that I am referring to is called Anderson

http://www.tribe.net/tribe/servlet/template/pub%2Ctribes%2CViewThread.vm?threadid=ef68d5e6-3dca-4937-9a8a-97c1deb43a32&_message_resource=info.post.created&tribeid=076f9e56-be6a-4f97-a6f3-2665d62ca32e

posted in Assault on Marriage - 0 replies

same sex marriage poll, voice your opinon now

tiffanyrose — Fri, 18 Jun 2004 21:29:06 GMT

Governor Schwarzenegger has a phone poll for the electorate.

Call (916) 445-2841

On the phone tree, Press #2 for "Voice your opinion."

Press #1 for Same Sex Marriage. (Gender Neutral)

Press #1 to support gay marriage in California

posted in Assault on Marriage - 2 replies

Massachusetts...

lillie_nyte — Fri, 21 May 2004 14:15:51 GMT

It is now legal for same-sex couples who are residents of Massachusetts to marry.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120212,00.html

posted in Assault on Marriage - 0 replies

"An idea whose time has come"

bridgetmckenna — Mon, 26 Apr 2004 18:45:35 GMT

The other night I went to hear a speech by Dr. Wayne Dyer. He's a motivational-type speaker writer, and not known for having anything to say about Gay rights one way or another, but he opened his speech on the subject of "An idea whose time has come," and used Gay marriage as an example. He said that not only was there was no justice in denying rights to one segment of the population that are enjoyed by others, and cited other great ideas such as women's suffrage and the abolition of slavery as examples, but that when it was the time for a great idea it could not be stood against. "I don't care where you stand on this personally," he told his audience, "but when an idea comes along like this one; an idea whose time has come, you had best be on the side of the angels." Even in a liberal sort of town like Seattle I can't imagine everyone in the audience was with him on this, but if anyone wasn't, he sure gave them something to think about.

posted in Assault on Marriage - 0 replies

Re: "Man-Dog Marriage" satire from Village Voice

Tue, 30 Mar 2004 11:38:18 GMT

Here's a satire (let me stress that again, this is *satire*) article from the Village Voice.

http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0412/goldstein.php

posted in Assault on Marriage - 9 replies

Views from 25th St. (San Francisco)

amor — Tue, 13 Apr 2004 03:23:07 GMT

on marriage and its aftermath...posted to this tribe's photo album.

posted in Assault on Marriage - 0 replies

NPR coverage of Gay Marriage

Thu, 25 Mar 2004 17:01:14 GMT

While driving to work this morning, I heard some coverage of Gay Marriage on NPR. First they had a Gay man who's been with his partner for 16 years giving reasons why he wants to have the right to get married. Then they had a Conservative from one of the organizations opposing Gay Marriage explain why he's against it. The whole reason: the sole purpose of marriage is the propagation of the species. Here are links to the two segments, let me know what you think.

http://www.npr.org/features/feature.php?wfId=1791280

http://www.npr.org/features/feature.php?wfId=1791282

posted in Assault on Marriage - 4 replies

Legalizing Incest, Neocons and Other Matters

Daniel — Sat, 27 Mar 2004 09:34:29 GMT

I just need to get a few things off my chest here...

On Marriage:

Ultimately, I am for not for legalized gay marriage. In fact, I am not for any. As quoted from the description of this tribe, the "complacent assumption that marriage is somehow defined by religious dogma" is in fact true. Outside of religious/cultural context, marriage is just a contract legal about inheritance.

Why are legally married couples taxed differently and receive benefits by the employers is beyond me. Additionally, why a man cant marry his male lover, brother, ten different women including his sister or his own father - at least in terms of legal reasons - is beyond me.

So, let's get it straight. Marriage is a social construct about a personal "commitment" between two or more persons. Whatever that means. Why should the law even be on the business of certifying "commitments"?

On Neocons:

Neocons, contrary to the description of this tribe, are not "assaulting marriage". In fact, it has been argued that neoconservatives are nothing more than assertive Wilsonians. What does that mean? That means they will impose, even militarily, the trinity of the Western ideal: Universal Individual Human Rights, Liberal Democracy and Capitalism. They place faith in Francis Fukuyama's thesis that these ideals are the end point of human development.

It would be a hyperbole, but a truth in any case, to say that a Neocon would invade a country to impose the legality of gay marriage.

posted in Assault on Marriage - 0 replies

Bush says you CAN be fired for being gay.

bridgetmckenna — Tue, 23 Mar 2004 23:29:50 GMT

http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2330397&l=23801

posted in Assault on Marriage - 1 reply

The Speech W. SHOULD Have Given

Wed, 24 Mar 2004 19:05:49 GMT

Hey,
Here's the speech the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank, believes Bush should have given on the proposed marriage ammendment.

The Federal Marriage Amendment: The Speech the President Should Have Given

by Mark David Agrast
March 22, 2004

My fellow Americans, the institution of marriage faces many threats, from financial insecurity to the stresses of work and everyday life, to a culture that often seems to devalue the importance of responsibility and commitment. That is why I have proposed a "healthy marriage" initiative to help couples develop the skills and knowledge they need to form and sustain healthy marriages.

Some people believe that the institution of marriage is also threatened by the prospect that some of our states and localities will permit gay and lesbian couples to participate in it. They have urged me to endorse a constitutional amendment that would end these experiments in the states and define marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

I don't mind telling you that a lot of pressure has been brought to bear on me to endorse the amendment, and a number of my key advisers have urged me to do so. But after much soul-searching, I have concluded that that would be the wrong thing to do.

I respect the personal convictions of those who support an amendment, and I personally share their discomfort about the prospect of same-sex marriages. I also support the right of religious denominations to define marriage for religious purposes, just as the states define marriage for civil purposes. But that right is not threatened. And as your president, I do not have the luxury of indulging my private feelings. I am the president of all the people, including our gay and lesbian fellow citizens. Laura and I have many friends — including prominent members of my administration — who have children and other family members who are gay or lesbian. They want the best for their children — as do we all. And I cannot find it within myself to say to them that the desire of their children to marry poses a threat to our society that it takes a constitutional amendment to avert.

The Constitution was not intended to settle every controversy in our society or to codify the passions and prejudices of a transient majority. In fact, it was designed to restrain those passions from getting out of hand.

The November election will be closely fought, and it is tempting for me to turn this divisive issue into a political opportunity. But I am the president first, and a candidate second. As president, it is my responsibility to defend the Constitution. And to do what I can to bring our nation together, not to drive us apart; to heal our differences, not to exacerbate them.

I believe profoundly in the institution of marriage. I believe it encourages fidelity and mutual reliance and leads to responsible behavior in a world in which too many people take such matters lightly. And I have to say that while I am personally uncomfortable with the idea of a marriage between two men or two women, it is hard not to be impressed by the determination of so many in the gay and lesbian community to embrace the responsibilities of marriage at the very time that it is so threatened.

I am also concerned about the children of these relationships. Because while some people are fond of saying that same-sex couples cannot procreate, the truth is that there are many thousands — perhaps millions — of children in this country born to or adopted by gay and lesbian couples.

And that is a fact that I cannot ignore. Those children did not choose their parents, any more than other children do. And they are entitled to every advantage we can give them that will enhance the happiness and stability of their lives. They are entitled to know that their president will not take actions that make life more difficult for them by adding to the financial burdens or social stigma that they and their families may already experience.

America is a good and generous country. Our greatness stems from our ability not only to tolerate but to celebrate our diversity. Even more than this, it stems from our shared devotion to democratic values compared to which our differences are of little account. Whatever their background, whatever their orientation, Americans believe profoundly in hard work, fair play, equal opportunity, and the dignity of every human being.

I do not know where our national conversation about same-sex marriage will lead. Different states may well reach different conclusions, and that is as it should be under our federal system. But wherever we end up, I hope that we can have that conversation in a spirit of mutual respect that is consistent with those shared values. As president, I have a responsibility to do all I can to ensure that that conversation does not degenerate into the kind of intolerance that has too often been visited on those in our society who are different. That is why I will not lend the prestige of the presidency to the effort to write into the Constitution language that would single out a group of our fellow citizens for second-class status.

I realize that some of my supporters will be disappointed with my decision. But I have searched my conscience and must do what is best for the country, regardless of the political consequences. May God bless you, and may God bless the United States.

Mark David Agrast is the senior vice president for domestic policy at the Center for American Progress.

posted in Assault on Marriage - 0 replies

Lampooning the Marriage Amendment

bridgetmckenna — Fri, 19 Mar 2004 02:44:23 GMT

http://www.whitehouse.org/dof/marriage.asp

From the same wonderful folks who brought you Landover Baptist Church and Mrs. Betty Bowers.

posted in Assault on Marriage - 3 replies

Put THAT in your pipe and smoke it.

Denise — Mon, 22 Mar 2004 04:38:59 GMT

*Nader supports the Gays, and the Gays should support Nader*

I was doing a little research to support my new "Vote For Nader!" cry, and I found this little blurb on his opinion of gay marriage at http://www.votenader.org/issues/index.php , along with drugs, medical coverage, education, Iraq, etc. etc.

"Ralph supports equal rights for gays and lesbians, including equal rights for same-sex couples. He opposes President Bush’s proposed constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriages as adults should be treated equally under the law on this matter. Ralph believes that by attempting to mandate inequality Mr. Bush is leading the country in the wrong direction.

"Ralph agrees with Marie C. Wilson, the president of the Ms. Foundation, who recently said: “The most important thing is really having equal rights. It’s not about the marriage. It’s having the same rights that you would get if you were married.” Ralph also believes that love and commitment is not exactly in surplus in this country and should be encouraged. The main tragedy of marriage, what undermines marriage, is divorce, as Mayor Richard Daley of Chicago recently said.

"Ralph supports full equal rights for gays and lesbians. While civil unions are a step in the right direction under current federal and state law they do not afford equal rights. There are 1,049 federal rights that go only with marriage. In addition, at the state level, a civil union is only recognized in the state where it occurs, while marriage, and all the rights that go with it, is recognized in all the states. Thus, the only way to ensure full equal rights is to recognize same-sex marriage.

"In more than 200 years of American history, the U.S. Constitution has been amended only 17 times since the Bill of Rights – and in each instance (except for Alcohol Prohibition, which was repealed), it was to extend rights and liberties to the American people, not restrict them. For example, our Constitution was amended to end our nation’s tragic history of slavery. It was also amended to guarantee people of color, young people and women the right to vote. The amendment urged by President Bush (called the Federal Marriage Amendment) would be the only one that would single out one class of Americans for discrimination by ensuring that same-sex couples would not be granted the equal protections that marriage brings to American families."

Now what homosexual wouldn't want a president that felt that way?
The people that I know are basically "Anybody But Bush," and that being the case, why not Nader? I personally don't think that Kerry has the balls to face public criticism on doing what needs to be done. Nader faces it everyday by outright charging the air with controversial views.
A few people that I've told to "VOTE FOR NADER!" have said that they would except that there's no way that he can win. Obviously, with everyone in that mindset, ther IS no way that he can win. So here's my argument:

*---Would you rather vote for the guy that will win, or the guy who will do the better job? (And by better job I mean more public oriented than corporate oriented)

Even with Nader being the bleeding heart that he is, Congress would keep his extreme left-wingedness in check, allowing for more liberal legislation to be passed while seeming conservative in comparison to Nader himself.

So, VOTE NADER!

posted in Assault on Marriage - 3 replies

A Letter to Dr. Laura

heatheroni — Thu, 18 Mar 2004 18:41:18 GMT

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 Law and how to follow them.

1. 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?

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 cleanliness - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

4. Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed 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?

5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath.
Exodus 35:2. The passage clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

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 Leviticus v. 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, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Your devoted disciple and adoring fan.

posted in Assault on Marriage - 4 replies

you goin' straight to hell, bubba, and do NOT pass go

cDub — Thu, 18 Mar 2004 17:46:12 GMT

The next time your friendly local wingnut says that god hates fags, here's the place to help them understand that they are going STRAIGHT to hell for eating shrimp and other crustaceans: www.godhatesshrimp.com - for we know for a fact that GOD HATES SHRIMP

posted in Assault on Marriage - 1 reply

UN definition of marriage:

discopunk — Tue, 16 Mar 2004 20:56:39 GMT

It turns out that the UN provides spousal benefits to the multiple wives of its polygamous employees (mainly from Islamic countries). But Islamic countries and the Vatican oppose benefits to same sex partners:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61437-2004Mar15.html

posted in Assault on Marriage - 0 replies

What the Bible says about marriage...

lillie_nyte — Sun, 14 Mar 2004 02:05:24 GMT

Congressman Jim McDermott: What the Bible Says About Marriage

From the Congressional Record, quoting Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA) (Feb. 25, 2004):

Mr. McDERMOTT . Mr. Speaker, the President's presidential prayer team is urging us to ``pray for the President as he seeks wisdom on how to legally codify the definition of marriage. Pray that it will be according to Biblical principles.''

With that in mind, I thought I would remind the body of the biblical principles they are talking about.

Marriage shall consist of a union between one man and one or more women . That is from Genesis 29:17-28.

Secondly, marriage shall not impede a man's right to take concubines in addition to his wife or wives . That is II Samuel 5:13 and II Chronicles 11:21.

A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin . If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed . That is Deuteronomy 22:13.

Marriage of a believer and a nonbeliever shall be forbidden . That is Genesis 24:3.

Finally, it says that since there is no law that can change things, divorce is not possible, and finally, if a married man dies, his brother has to marry his sister-in-law. Gen. 38:6-10; Deut 25:5-10

Source: http://hnn.us/roundup/entries/3782.html

posted in Assault on Marriage - 5 replies

Seattle Times 9 March 2004

bridgetmckenna — Tue, 09 Mar 2004 22:16:13 GMT

By Lornet Turnbull, Keith Ervin and Bob Young
Seattle Times staff reporters

STEVE RINGMAN / THE SEATTLE TIMES
Demonstrators yesterday march down Fourth Avenue in Seattle on their way to the King County administration building, where same-sex couples were denied marriage licenses.

The whirlwind that has swept the gay-marriage issue across the country blew into Seattle, where six gay and lesbian couples yesterday sued King County after being denied marriage licenses and the mayor said City Hall will recognize same-sex marriages.

The suit, filed in King County Superior Court on behalf of the 12 people by Northwest Women's Law Center and the national gay-rights advocacy group Lambda Legal, is the first to challenge Washington's 1998 Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as a union of a man and a woman.

It comes as momentum around this controversial issue continues to build:

• Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels took two steps to recognize gay marriage in the city. First, he issued an executive order that directed all city departments to recognize the unions of gay city employees who marry elsewhere. Second, he proposed a city ordinance that would extend rights to gay married couples, including a requirement that contractors and suppliers who work with the city have to offer benefits to gay couples.

• Immediately, Matthew Staver, president of a conservative legal group, said he would file suit today to stop the mayor. Staver's group, Liberty Counsel, is based in Florida and involved in lawsuits in New York and California opposing gay marriage.

posted in Assault on Marriage - 0 replies

arguments against gay marriage

alora — Thu, 04 Mar 2004 22:52:48 GMT

For entertainment purposes, I have been listening to conservative radio shows addressing the topic of gay marriage. Some of the most horrible arguments I have heard is that it will give a green light for child molesters to marry their young victims and people to marry their dogs. These slippery slope logical fallicies drives me incredibly insane.
How do people even manage to talk about that stuff without laughing at themselves?
What have you heard?

posted in Assault on Marriage - 9 replies

Top 12 Reasons Homosexual Marriage Should Not Be Legal

bridgetmckenna — Tue, 09 Mar 2004 07:16:10 GMT

1) Homosexuality is not natural, much like eyeglasses, polyester, and birth control.

2) Heterosexual marriages are valid because they produce children. Infertile couples and old people can't legally get married because the world needs more children.

3) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

4) Straight marriage will be less meaningful, since Britney Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage was meaningful.

5) Heterosexual marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are property, blacks can't marry whites, and divorce is illegal.

6) Gay marriage should be decided by people not the courts, because the majority-elected legislatures, not courts, have historically protected the rights of the minorities.

7) Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.

8) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

9) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

10) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why single parents are forbidden to raise children.

11) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and we could never adapt to new social norms because we haven't adapted to cars or longer life spans.

12) Civil unions, providing most of the same benefits as marriage with a different name are better, because a "separate but equal" institution is always constitutional. Separate schools for African-Americans worked just as well as separate marriages for gays and lesbians will.

Found on: http://www.drmomentum.com/aces/archives/001172.html

posted in Assault on Marriage - 0 replies

This is a happy joyful piece!

Brigitte — Sun, 07 Mar 2004 21:39:15 GMT

Is love great or what! ?

http://www.blah3.com/love.html

posted in Assault on Marriage - 0 replies

Corso's Marriage

amor — Fri, 05 Mar 2004 23:06:34 GMT

In RSVPing to a friend's wedding, the web form had a space in which I could pose any questions that I might have. I thought: what the heck, Dr. Hal's not here, so let's see what comes of *this* So I posted the opening lines from the Gregory Corso poem "Marriage":

Marriage

Should I get married? Should I be Good?
Astound the girl next door with my velvet suit and faustus hood?
[Despite my impertinence, I am still awaiting an answer. Meanwhile, here is the rest of the poem's opening stanza:]
Don't take her to movies but to cemeteries
tell all about werewolf bathtubs and forked clarinets
then desire her and kiss her and all the preliminaries
and she going just so far and I understanding why
not getting angry saying You must feel! It's beautiful to feel!
Instead take her in my arms lean against an old crooked tombstone
and woo her the entire night the constellations in the sky--

posted in Assault on Marriage - 5 replies

Divorce rates in Texas vs. Massachusetts

discopunk — Sun, 07 Mar 2004 02:03:01 GMT

Bush has been trying to work the cultural war against Kerry, especially on marriage. Of course, Massachusetts is set to allow gay marriage, while in Texas, the police were free to incarcerate gay couples, until one such Texas gay couple took it to the Supreme Court, in Lawrence vs. Texas.

So one would expect that in the family values state of Texas, where family values respect the sanctity of marriage, that divorce is less common than in Massachusetts.

Wrong. The divorce rate in Texas is more than twice as high as in Massachusetts (which has the nation's lowest divorce rate).

Of the 10 states with the lowest divorce rates, 9 of 10 are "blue states" (ie, they voted for Gore).

Of the 10 states with the highest divorce rates, 9 of 10 are "red states" (ie, they voted for Bush).

Source: http://www.divorcemag.com/statistics/statsUS2.shtml

The states with the lowest divorce rates are also those that are more tolerant.

Doesn't this knock down the conservative's argument that tolerance for gay marriage will make straight marriage meaningless?

posted in Assault on Marriage - 1 reply

Reasons for marriage

alora — Thu, 04 Mar 2004 22:55:11 GMT

I have, as of late, been in some pretty crappy relationships/dating situations which have changed my opinion on getting married completely. I wonder why, gay or straight, you believe marriage is important?
Don't get me wrong, I absolutely believe in civil rights for both gay and straight couples and I think this is one of the most exciting civil rights issues of my generation.
Still, why is marriage important?

posted in Assault on Marriage - 8 replies

Bette to Bush

discopunk — Fri, 05 Mar 2004 20:38:25 GMT

I received this email today:

[This is a letter from Bette Midler to President Bush, which she reportedly
distributed at one of her concerrts:]

Dear President Bush,

Today you called upon Congress to move quickly to amend the US
Constitution, and set in Federal stone a legal definition of marriage. I
would like to know why.

In your speech, you stated that this Amendment would serve to
protect marriage in America, which I must confess confuses me. Like you, I
believe in the importance of marriage and I feel that we as a society take
the institution far too lightly. In my circle of family, friends and
acquaintances, the vast majority have married and divorced - some more than
once. Still, I believe in marriage. I believe that there is something
fundamental about finding another person on this planet with whom you want
to build a life and family, and make a positive contribution to society. I
believe that we need more positive role-models for successful marriage in
this country - something to counteract the images we get bombarded with in
popular culture. When we are assaulted with images of celebrities of
varying genres, be it actors, sports figures, socialites, or even
politicians who shrug marriage on and off like the latest fashion, it is
vitally important to the face of our nation, for our children and our
future, that we have a balance of commitment and fidelity with which to
stave off the negativity. I search for these examples to show my own
daughter, so that she can see that marriage is more than a disposable whim,
despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

As a father, I'm sure you have faced these same concerns and
difficulties in raising your own daughters. Therefore I can also imagine
that you must understand how thrilled I have been over the past few weeks to
come home and turn on the news with my family. To finally have concrete
examples of true commitment, honest love, and steadfast fidelity was such a
relief and a joy. Instead of speaking in the hypothetical, I was finally
able to point to these men and women, standing together for hours in the
pouring rain, and tell my child that this is what its all about. Forget
Britney. Forget Kobe. Forget Strom. Forget about all the people that we
know who have taken so frivolously the pure and simple beauty of love and
tarnished it so consistently. Look instead at the joy in the beautiful
faces of Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon - 51 years together! I mean, honestly
Mr. President - how many couples do you know who are together for 51 years?
I'm sure you agree that this love story provides a wonderful opportunity to
teach our children about the true meaning and value of marriage. On the
steps of San Francisco City Hall, rose petals and champagne, suits and
veils, horns honking and elation in the streets; a celebration of love the
likes of which this society has never seen.

This morning, however, my joy turned to sadness, my relief
transformed into outrage, and my peace became anger. This morning, I
watched you stand before this nation and belittle these women, the thousands
who stood with them, and the countless millions who wish to follow them.
How could you do that, Mr. President? How could you take something so
beautiful - a clear and defining example of the true nature of commitment -
and declare it to be anything less? What is it that validates your marriage
which somehow doesn't apply to Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon? By what power,
what authority are you so divinely imbued that you can stand before me and
this nation and hold their love to a higher standard?

Don't speak to me about homosexuality, Mr. President. Don't tell me
that the difference lies in the bedroom. I would never presume to ask you
or your wife how it is you choose to physically express your love for one
another, and I defy you to stand before Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon and ask
them to do the same. It is none of my business, as it is none of yours, and
it has nothing to do with the "sanctity of marriage". I'm sure you would
agree that marriage is far more than sexual expression, and it's high time
we all started focusing on all the other aspects of a relationship which
hold it together over the course of a lifetime. Therefore, with the
mechanics of sex set aside, I ask you again - what makes a marriage? I
firmly believe that whatever definition you derive, there are thousands upon
thousands of shining examples for you to embrace.

You want to protect marriage. I admire and support that, Mr.
President. Together, as a nation, let us find and celebrate examples of
what a marriage should be. Together, let us take couples who embody the
principles of commitment, fidelity, sacrifice and love, and hold them up
before our children as role models for their own futures. Together, let us
reinforce the concept that love is about far more than sex, despite what
popular culture would like them to believe.

Please, for the sake of our children, for the sake of our society,
for the sake of our future, do not take us down this road. Under the guise
of protection, do not support divisiveness. Under the guise of unity, do
not endorse discrimination. Under the guise of sanctity, do not devalue
commitment. Under the guise of democracy, do not encourage this amendment.

Bette Midler

posted in Assault on Marriage - 0 replies