Wedding Nixed After Bride and Groom Brawl

If you don’t believe me, look at Europe.

Okay, let’s look at Europe.

Around the world, countries are coming to terms with how to treat homosexual couples - and the trend in many is toward liberalizing laws.

We are not legislating, ladies and gentlemen, for remote unknown people - we are expanding opportunities for the happiness of our neighbours, our work colleagues, our friends, our relatives.
–Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, Spain

In 1989, Denmark became the first European country to pass laws allowing homosexual couples to register themselves as a partnership and receive the same housing, immigration and pension rights. Norway passed simliar legislation in 1993 and Sweden approved same-sex marriage a year later, but did not allow couples to adopt children until 2002.

And that’s just for starters.

Europe is miles ahead of the US on this issue. But enough about doing what’s right. Let’s look at some of the often-cited reasons for banning gay marriage.

Let’s make sure we’re all talking about the same traditions. We must be talking about traditional marriage in the United States since using a religious definition of traditional marriage would create a law “respecting the establishment of religion.” So are we talking about the definition of marriage at the beginning of this country when women were viewed as property of their husbands? Or do we mean traditional marriage as it was defined as a privilege only for whites, and not freed slaves? Or a privilege only for same-race couples? Interracial marriages were only legalized in the South as recently as 1967 in the Loving v. Virginia case, and by “activist” judges nonetheless, who overturned the law despite popular disapproval of these marriages. The arguments used against interracial couples sound eerily similar to those used against same-sex couples today. The definition of marriage has never been written in stone. In all the uproar over protecting the sanctity of marriage, the public should be clear on exactly what they are protecting.

Marriage Fight Comes to Texas

CalCon: It’s a solemn commitment to each other and to have and raise children.

Let’s take the second point first. You’re saying that if you can’t have children, you shouldn’t be married? Tell that to Bob and Liddy Dole. (If you can tear Bob away from the studio where he’s recording another ad for Viagra, that is, but that’s another argument altogether.) Tell it to the increasing number of couples who marry but never have children, whether by choice or due to procreation issues. (And the flip side of this coin is, in fact, lesbian couples who either came to the relationship with children or conceive of children through articial means; does this arguement apply to these couples, meaning they should be married, by inverse logic?) Andrew Sullivan said it best: “Childless heterosexual couples feel… what gay couples now feel, which is that society is diminishing the importance of their relationships by consigning them to a category that seems inferior to the desired social standard.”

And what of committment? What you’re saying is that two adults shouldn’t be free to make a committment to one another? How is this not discriminatory? Today, 3 to 5 percent of our people — gays and lesbians — are locked out of marriage, “one of the most stabilizing, enriching institutions in our society,” according to Jonathan Rausch. He continues, “Right now, Americans are deciding the shape of marriage—the basic legal and social framework of family—for years to come.” Further, “married people are healthier, happier, more prosperous, more secure; they even live longer. To shut millions of Americans off from those benefits is to inflict a very real harm.” It’s not just a religios issue, its a moral issue. And it is immoral to discriminate. Period.

Finally, Carlos, you are so wrong when you say:

it is also not the jurisdiction of the courts

You see, it is the jurisdiction of the courts. Just look at a couple of simple facts: You go to the county courthouse to get a marriage license. If you don’t want a religious ceremony, you go to a Justice of the Peace. And if it ends, as nearly 50% of all heterosexual marriages do, you go to divorce court.

There are 1,047 rights and responsibilities granted to married individuals, and telling our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters that they are not entitled to these rights is simply wrong. To our brothers and sisters, I say, hang in there: the news is good. The percentage of people who view gays and gay marriage as a favorable thing is increasing. In fact, many predict in 20 years, gay marriage will be just another part of life in the US, and just like elsewhere when gay marriage has been accepted, it will mean equality for all, and nobody will even question whether or not it was a good idea. Just like allowing interracial marriage. Just like every other acceptance of civil rights.

Just like normal.

Really?

I’m not a fan of double talk so I’m going to speak bluntly with the hope of encouraging the GOP to do the same. This all comes down to the fact that homosexuals are considered inferior and abnormal in the eyes of the conservative movement.

I would have more appreciation for this useless debate if the proponents of a constitutional ammendment came forward and said “Dude, you’re not like me, you don’t have access to the same rights as me.”

We are 25 years into the fight against AIDS, a fight whose progress was grossly delayed under the watch of a conservative government.

By allowing gay marriage, or hell, civil unions, we are offering stability to a group of people who are otherwise unstable. Offer people a chance at normalcy, at convention, and you would see how communities can thrive.

Are we really making the most use of our legislative freedoms and capabilities to debate whether two adults can commit to each other?

I invite any honest conservative to spend a day with my partner and I and our families so they can see what just how threatening we really are to the moral fiber of this country.

For all the flag toting and pride the conservative segment of our contry takes in America’s “liberty” they seem to be more focused on limiting as many people’s liberties as possible.

That being said, it is also not the jurisdiction of the courts, which his infamous gang of legal thugs decided to ignore in his own state and declare social change from the bench.

And who is this monster to be preaching to anyone? A walking murderer, souse, philanderer, socialist and all-around ne’er-do-well has all the moral authority of any skid row bum. It’s just unfortunate the turkey was born with a platinum spoon in his mouth.

As far as his rant against the “Republican” Congress goes, the House generally tends to keep a little to the right. The Republican senators, in their rush to win approval from their collegues on the left (outer space, in Kennedy’s case) and from the drive-by media, have left all semblance of standing for something, anything, and have taken the Clintonesque road of seeing which way the wind is blowing. Because they only do so in the senate, it’s always blowing to the left.

The day the nation has to receive and revere its moral authority from MA is the day a revolution will begin. I would just as soon take moral preachings from Beelzebub. Same authority, ultimately.

My view is that the legislative process has always been the final arbiter of defining marriage.

While I would disagree with an elected legislature redefining marriage to include same-sex couples, it is much better than having a pope or a panel of imams decide.