Reply With QuoteI can picture him in a harness with a ball gag.
For
Against
Bauer did not exactly get a 'resounding endorsement' when he ran for prez!
He's got to be the polar opposite of photogenic!
I can picture him in a harness with a ball gag.
Dallas uber alles
Bring on the Gimp!!!Originally Posted by Columbus Civil
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcont...2.7a85398.html
Here's what the social conservatives are taking up next...and sounds like they have a much larger agenda.
Gay marriage foes tackle divorce next
After Prop 2 success, conservatives also push national amendment
08:07 AM CST on Thursday, November 10, 2005
By ROBERT T. GARRETT and WAYNE SLATER / The Dallas Morning News
AUSTIN – Texas social conservatives want to translate their resounding victory on a gay marriage ban into broader results: reducing the state's divorce rate and passing a nationwide amendment to prevent same-sex unions.
Rep. Warren Chisum, who wrote the amendment, Proposition 2, endorsed by Texas voters by a ratio of more than 3-1, said Wednesday that it's too easy for spouses to split up. The state should consider repealing or modifying its no-fault divorce law, the Pampa Republican said.
"Gee whiz, our divorce rate's higher than New York," Mr. Chisum said. He proposed that between now and their next regular session in 2007, lawmakers study ways "to make marriage thrive more in our state."
Meanwhile, leaders of the pro-amendment campaign said Tuesday's vote should add momentum to the drive to have Congress pass a federal constitutional amendment outlawing same-sex marriage.
"This is a pretty strong message to Congress and the Senate before they vote on a marriage-protection amendment," said Kelly Shackelford of the Plano-based Free Market Foundation. "Most politicians are not going to want to stand up for the duty of standing in front of a steamroller."
Texas became the 19th state to place a gay marriage ban in its constitution with an overwhelming vote Tuesday, 76 percent to 24 percent. Just one of Texas' 254 counties – Travis, home of traditionally liberal Austin – voted against it.
In Dallas County, about two-thirds of voters endorsed the amendment, and in Harris County, nearly 73 percent did. Support was stronger in suburban counties such as Denton and Fort Bend but most fervent in the state's rural areas: East Texas voters registered nearly 90 percent approval.
Gay rights activists
Gay rights activists expressed disappointment and vowed to closely watch both the Legislature and the courts for possible "misuse" of the amendment.
"We have to hope that the people who oppose gay rights won't try to make this amendment more than it is," said Ken Upton of Dallas, a top attorney for the gay rights group Lambda Legal. "It's been represented to be about marriage, so let's see if they'll follow through with that."
Mr. Upton said supporters of gay marriage "don't have any plans on the horizon" to attack the amendment in federal court. He said his side expects to be playing defense, resisting lawsuits that challenge domestic partner benefits for employees of Travis County and the city of Dallas.
The amendment prohibits the state and local governments from recognizing any status similar to marriage, and opponents have expressed alarm that clause could mean a sweeping ban on benefits shared by gay couples.
While Mr. Upton and other gay rights advocates had predicted amendment supporters would next seek to ban gay foster parents and adoptions by gay couples, Mr. Chisum said he won't.
"They may fear we're going to beat them over the head with this deal, but that's certainly not my intent," he said. "I intend to treat them with respect and listen to their issues."
Cathie Adams, president of the conservative Texas Eagle Forum, said she favored a ban on gay and lesbian foster parents that the state House passed this spring. But, she said, "Until there are some changes in the Senate, that might have to wait a while."
She endorsed Mr. Chisum's call for a review of the no-fault divorce law, which took effect in 1974.
"It is a system that is broken," Ms. Adams said. "Men, women and children are getting hurt with that current law, with revolving-door marriages."
Supporters of Proposition 2 said that during debates, they regularly heard gay rights activists cite Texas' divorce rate. Texas had about 3.9 divorces for every 1,000 residents in 2002, a higher rate than New York (3.4) or Massachusetts (2.5), according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Mr. Chisum said he planned to ask House Speaker Tom Craddick, R-Midland, to convene a panel to examine no-fault divorce, longer waiting periods for marriage applicants and "covenant marriage," an idea tried in three other states.
A covenant marriage provides an alternative to the traditional marriage contract for couples who oppose no-fault divorce or who want to demonstrate a stronger commitment. Couples selecting a covenant marriage must get premarital counseling and may divorce only after a separation of two years or after proving adultery or domestic abuse.
Push for national ban
On a wider scale, other backers saw the Proposition 2 vote as a boost to the effort to amend the U.S. Constitution. Colorado-based Focus on the Family said the tally showed Americans believe marriage should be the union of a man and a woman.
"And yet, without federal constitutional protection, marriage continues to hang in the balance," the group argued.
Although a similar effort last year led by President Bush stalled, conservative lawmakers say they hope the amendment will come to a vote in Congress. No timeline has been scheduled, but Mr. Shackelford said social conservative leaders hope the Texas vote "puts an exclamation point" on the urgency of Congress to act.
Charles Cook, a political analyst and editor of the Cook Political Report, said factors beyond the Texas vote would probably have more influence on whether Republican leaders take up the measure next year.
"Whether it was 65 percent or 80 percent, I don't think these numbers are surprising to anybody," he said. "We knew Texas would vote this way."
A federal amendment would need the support of two-thirds of those voting in each House and then have to be ratified by three-quarters of state legislatures (38).
Mr. Shackelford said he anticipates that the same coalition of pastors and social conservative leaders that pushed for the victory in Texas would be crucial to winning state ratification.
E-mail rtgarrett@dallasnews.com or wslater@dallasnews.com
Dude, let it go.
Why, "Dude"? This is a very important issue to many of us, and Tuesday's vote is not the end of the issue. If you read through the article you will see what other issues they are going to tackle based off of Tuesday's vote.
Last edited by slfunk; 10 November 2005 at 01:35 PM.
Mr. Shackelford's file photo
I agree with this.She endorsed Mr. Chisum's call for a review of the no-fault divorce law, which took effect in 1974.
"It is a system that is broken," Ms. Adams said. "Men, women and children are getting hurt with that current law, with revolving-door marriages."
Dallas uber alles
Let what go?
Our right to live our lives as we choose?
Our right to protest violations of that right?
Under *no* circumstances should *anyone* "let it go"! The only thing standing between the right-wing extremists (who shamefully cloak themselves in a shroud of "Christian" values) and an Iranian-styled theocracy is the people like us who will not let it go.
I was outvoted 9 to 1 in my home county. But I'm not letting go of my values. Not my values as a Christian -- that God loves us all, even me. Nor my values as an American -- that we all have rights that neither Man nor Government can take away.
Even if you are in a minority of 99 to 1... if you are in the right, you must not let it go!
As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals... Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience's sake. - B. Obama 1/20/09
Sorry guys, I just thought that should have been a new topic and not in the previous one.
I probably misunderstood... for some reason, this topic lends itself to jumping to conclusions, making rash decisions, and generally turning off the frontal lobes of the brain.
As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals... Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience's sake. - B. Obama 1/20/09
No problem, brother.
Cole if the government basically told you that you cannot marry the person you love and beyond that will do everything in its power to see that you cannot even live together peacefully, would you, "let it go" ?
I'm surprised that they are continueing the fight with divorce next.
Would this be another Proposition to be voted on later?
Listen to the Dividing Line, Pirate Christian Radio, CARM, White Horse Inn and RTS University the most nowadays.....
If the intention of the current administration is indeed to strengthen traditional marriage, then they should propose this as a constitutional amendment.
Dallas uber alles
If the intent of the current administration is to strenghten traditional marriage, divorce laws should have been included in the Proposition 2...I wonder what the outcome would have been if that were the case.
The article say the next objective is to eliminate gays as foster and adoptive parents...
What this group is saying is that gays aren't fit to raise kids, however, they will be glad to take gay tax money to raise their own. Oh, and that money will be used teach in schools that homosexuality is a sinful aberration.
Why limit it to person. What if I want to marry two people. The gov says I cant but why not? I think if a man can marry a man, I should be able to marry two people.
I am ashamed, i am saddened. Maybe some of us (including myself- a gay man) should just go back in the closet and not come out.
im speechless, dont know what to say.
I have no problem with polygamy, as long as all parties consent and are of legal age.
Dallas uber alles
Im soooo DONE WITH THIS THREAD!!Why limit it to person. What if I want to marry two people. The gov says I cant but why not? I think if a man can marry a man, I should be able to marry two people.
Why, isnt this logical. If marrigae is not defined, why not allow more changes?
I'm not talking about marriage per se, just the right to be granted a civil union by the state. I have no problem at all with marriage remaining between one man and one woman.
Dallas uber alles
Your not the one who should be ashamed. And going back in the closet would be the worst thing you could do (for yourself) It is defeats such as these that strenghten the gay community and brings us together
You sir, are an idiot.
(See what you get when I put my years of learning debate argumentation theory to work?)
This forum is proof that there is hope for the future, even amidst being "ground into dust" by the "righteous/faithful" again. The history of posts bear that out. What's hilarious (and maddening) is always having to go back to square one when the inevitable next "Adam and Steve" remark is made. C'est la vie".
With your years of debate, all you say is "You sir, are an idoit." Dont realise they taught that.
Simply asking a question does not make one an idiot. The question has relevance. I mean if we start allowing changes where does that end? Personally, I think marriage should be one man and one woman. I also think we should allow civil unions and define that as well. But what if one man wants to marry two or twenty women? What if farmer John decides he wants to marry his goat?
I wonder if people were worrying about goats voting when women's suffrage was attained.
Dallas uber alles
Thank you for backing me up.
If one man wants to marry multiple women (or one woman wants to marry mulitple men), and all parties agree (and are legally adults or have parental permission), and he/they can financially provide for everyone in the household, they should be able to do so.
Farmer John's goat can't give consent, and would therefore be ineligible to marry Farmer John.
I still have not been given a valid reason by people who are against gay marriage as to what harm it could possibly cause. Two men (or women) being married to each other does not affect anyone else whatsoever. My own marriage doesn't affect anyone other than my wife and I.
As I've stated before: There is no law that forbids two same-sex people from living in the same home. Viewed from the outside, there is no way to tell if those two same-sex people are a couple, or just roommates. There are many heterosexual marriages that are the same way.
If gay marriage is ever legalized, it will not be required, so straights will have nothing to fear.
If gay marriage is ever legalized, churches will not be required to perform gay wedding ceremonies, so there is nothing to fear there, either.
A gay couple getting married does not threaten one's marriage in any way.
What's to stop a couple, or group, from incorporating themselves? They'd have legal rights to the corporate assets at that point. Did I just find a loophole?
I can see it now, "Hi, we're Steve & Dean Gaycouple, Inc. Pleased to meet you."
Last edited by monogodo; 11 November 2005 at 12:04 PM. Reason: I had an additional thought.
So what if one man (a legal adult) wants to marry a 11 year old boy and has parental consent?
Has anyone read Robert Heinlein's The Moon is a Harsh Mistress? It describes several forms of "marriage" that bear little resemblance to the XX+XY that seems to be the current favorite of society.
The underlying premise is that the Moon is a prison colony (kinda like Australia, except with no natives), and the low ratio of women to men forced a bit of sharing. Not the "Penthouse Letters" kind, though -- the brutal conditions led to a highly enhanced sense of frontier civility (with offenders given the opportuntity to "breathe vacuum"). In Heinlein's vision, chivalry included both putting women on a pedestal *and* letting them speak.
The results of the harsh conditions and gender imbalance (along with a healthy disrespect for established authority) included concepts like "line marriage", in which a whole passel of guys 'n gals were "married" to each other in a rather complex web. This enhanced family stability, because divorces were virtually unknown (just spend more time with more compatible mates), and the line was self-perpetuating (family assets remained in the family). It also turned out to be a very efficient way to organize a rebellion, later in the book.
At one point in the story, the lead character visits Earth, only to be arrested in Kentucky after showing off his family photos (though it's unclear whether the local sheriff was more upset by the multiple partners or the variations in skin tone).
I first read the book as a teen... imagine my surprise to find out that Heinlein had made up the whole idea. I guess that's what happens when you let teenagers read whatever they want -- they get crazy ideas that the world might actually accept them (when their peers don't).
As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals... Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience's sake. - B. Obama 1/20/09
Same if the man wanted to marry my 11 year old daughter, I would think. Why would it be any different? I'd say no in either case.
As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals... Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience's sake. - B. Obama 1/20/09
This is a hypothetical, and somewhere some parent would give consent.
Is that right though, for a 11 year old to marry a legal adult? I suppose it all comes down to each persons morals and values.
But it has nothing to do with the gender of the persons involved, which makes it something of a red herring in this thread, don't you think? (although I think all the herrings are looking rather pinkish lately)
It should be noted (again) that the issue of sexuality and gender is all tangled up in the teasing we got in the locker room. For example, when an underage girl is seduced by an older man, we see that she's being taken advantage of... but until recently, I don't think I'd ever heard of the reverse. An underage boy in the situation would have been called "lucky", not "abused".
Fortunately, this double standard is starting to change, and there have been some well-publicized cases. But as we move toward a society that truly gives men and women equal standing, we have to move through some areas where our old locker-room biases get in the way.
A hundred years ago, woman was man's property, and marriage was basically a contract of ownership. Now woman is man's equal, and marriage is a compact of mutual loyalty. With the act of posession removed from the act of sex, old legal definitions need to be re-examined. Unfortunately, the locker room still looms large over the discussion.
As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals... Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience's sake. - B. Obama 1/20/09
Marriage is defined. We'd like to change the legal definition to better reflect our culture.
No. It all comes down to our society's morals and values.
Our society approaches long-term sexual relationships with the values of companionship, mutual happiness, love and consent. Our society also values natural law to some extent, that one's rights end where another's begin. We also value recognizing our relationships through some civil institution.
Between these three facets of value, it's difficult to rationally legislate a ban discriminating against gay marriage.
A sexual relationsihp with an 11 year old is is taboo, and severely punishable, mostly because such a relationship would not likely be based on the mutual happiness which our society values. Additionally, we hold that a child has not the ability to consent, and such relationships cause psychological damage, meaning any pedophile's rights solidly end where the child's begin.
If you just think about things a little, you'll see all the slippery slope arguments against gay marriage are mostly thoughtless knee-jerk reactions.
But where does it stop? If you are going to expand the definition of marriage, where do you stop?
You don't stop until you secure every person's right to marry the knot-hole in uncle ted's oak tree. Is that the answer you're looking for?
If you're worried that our society will somehow in the next hundred years embrace interspecies relationships between men and oak trees (even the young sweet sapplings), stop worrying.
Our cultural trends don't indicate things are moving in that direction, because the environmentalists just won't have it. And if we were headed that direction... you couldn't stop it anyway.
I have had enough of people comparing my loving, stable relationship to animal and child rape. It is sickening to know that line of thinking is so deeply ingrained in our country's collective mindset.
Dallas uber alles
The female school teacher in Tennessee that raped her 13 year old male student only got 9 months in jail. If the sexes had been reversed, the teacher would have gotten 25 years.It should be noted (again) that the issue of sexuality and gender is all tangled up in the teasing we got in the locker room. For example, when an underage girl is seduced by an older man, we see that she's being taken advantage of... but until recently, I don't think I'd ever heard of the reverse. An underage boy in the situation would have been called "lucky", not "abused".
Last edited by Columbus Civil; 11 November 2005 at 02:04 PM.
Dallas uber alles
San Fransisco. I'm just guessing.
Listen to the Dividing Line, Pirate Christian Radio, CARM, White Horse Inn and RTS University the most nowadays.....
I'd argue that it's not so deeply ingrained, and can easily be dispelled with only a little rational thought. It's just, getting some people to think is more challenging than it sounds.
No, it's getting people to think like you. And that is much harder to accomplish.
I hope you don't think I am trying to make that comparison because I am not. I am simply playing devils advocate by introducing some discussion I have heard in the past. Even in that discussion comparisons were not being offered, it was a question offered up by a friend and child therapist I know. She had concerns about what our less than desirable adults would try to do to muddy the waters in defining something like this.
If the parents of that 11 year old boy consent to it, and the boy agrees, too, then yes, they should be allowed to marry, unless the state they live in has a minimum age for marriage (some do.
If you don't want your 11 year old son to marry an adult male, don't give your consent. If you don't want your son to even bin in a situation where an adult male could grow to love him and wish to marry him, keep him out of those situations, that's your job as a parent, not the government's job.
Here's a question for you: How would you react if your 11 year old son came to you and told you that he was gay?
But it is still the inferred notion that our union is as undesirable as a 50 year old man desiring sexual relations 10 year old girl or a defenseless puppy that bothers me. For you or anyone else to make that comparison shows an association in your mind, subliminal or not, that there is a commonality between my love and pedophilia or bestiality.
Dallas uber alles
I hope you're kidding. No one under the age of 18 has the emotional or physical maturity to engage in any kind of marital relationship. Very few under 25 do.If the parents of that 11 year old boy consent to it, and the boy agrees, too, then yes, they should be allowed to marry, unless the state they live in has a minimum age for marriage (some do.
Dallas uber alles
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks