This might sound really naive on my part, but these issues just seem to be against the basic civil rights of being citizens of our country.
This is why I disagreed with the reasoning of the Supreme Court decision last year- I think it would have helped us more to have had the ruling under the Equal Protection clause that Justice O'Connor supported versus the Privacy ruling by the remainder of the majority.
The case could be more directly linked to supporting equal rights for the GLBT community if the case would have been ruled under Equal Protection.
I like Al Sharpton's reasoning behind the issue- take religion out of it- this is a civil rights issue.
Full Version: Its official: Bush Plans to Endorse Marriage Amendment
QUOTE
CPT_Doom:
And I really believe this vote, and the entire Bush/Cheney move to the right recently, will backfire on the Republicans. It certainly did in '92, and even though the Republican convention will be full of \"compassionate conservatives\" and not the anti-gay rabble-rousers at the '92 convention, the message is still out there.
As Cheryl Jacques noted in an interview, there are a lot of straight people out there with gay friends and relatives, and they don't like seeing their friends and relatives trashed in the halls of government.
It could backfire...but I'm not entirely convinced that the Democrats are able or willing to make the case FOR same-sex marriage and against the bigotry and hypocrisy of the GOP, as compared to dancing around the constitutional issue.And I really believe this vote, and the entire Bush/Cheney move to the right recently, will backfire on the Republicans. It certainly did in '92, and even though the Republican convention will be full of \"compassionate conservatives\" and not the anti-gay rabble-rousers at the '92 convention, the message is still out there.
As Cheryl Jacques noted in an interview, there are a lot of straight people out there with gay friends and relatives, and they don't like seeing their friends and relatives trashed in the halls of government.
Every time dick Santorum says something like this quote from him -- "I would argue that the future of our country hangs in the balance because the future of marriage hangs in the balance" -- I want to hear a Senator or other elected official counter with these simple words: "Senator Santorum, that is a LIE."
It won't be the so-called moderate Arlen Specter, though, since he voted with Santorum and the other liars.
QUOTE
mdphl:
Arlen Specter proved again that he is a spineless nothing.
Especially sad because he has a gay son.
Arlen Specter proved again that he is a spineless nothing.
...and we know this how, exactly?
kick,
I think the reason the privacy rling was so important is because the Equal Protection ruling would have allowed sodomy laws to stay in place. The Equal Protection argument was presented because the TX law applied only to gay people. the SCOTUS could have ruled that sodomy laws in general are OK, but they cannot apply only to gay people. This would not have been as big a voctory as the privacy one.
I think the reason the privacy rling was so important is because the Equal Protection ruling would have allowed sodomy laws to stay in place. The Equal Protection argument was presented because the TX law applied only to gay people. the SCOTUS could have ruled that sodomy laws in general are OK, but they cannot apply only to gay people. This would not have been as big a voctory as the privacy one.
Also, Kick, the majority ruled in favor of both the equal protection and privacy grounds, it is just that 5 justices supported the privacy position and 6 justices supported the ep argument. So even if the privacy protection is somehow overturned someday, god forbid, we still have the ruling on equal protection.
And I honestly cannot fathom how gays and lesbians getting married harm children, to me that is the nastiest part of the argument. Doesn't it help the children that gays and lesbians either give birth to or adopt? A stable two-person relationship is better for the children, right?
I also wanted one of the senators to get up and say why the rush? Shouldn't we see if the gay marriages in Massachusetts actually harm traditional marriages? Before we amend the Constitution shouldn't we see if there is actual harm done? Of course that wouldn't fly because we know that there would not be any harm shown.
Preaching to the choir....
And I honestly cannot fathom how gays and lesbians getting married harm children, to me that is the nastiest part of the argument. Doesn't it help the children that gays and lesbians either give birth to or adopt? A stable two-person relationship is better for the children, right?
I also wanted one of the senators to get up and say why the rush? Shouldn't we see if the gay marriages in Massachusetts actually harm traditional marriages? Before we amend the Constitution shouldn't we see if there is actual harm done? Of course that wouldn't fly because we know that there would not be any harm shown.
Preaching to the choir....
Thanks, guys. I try to be in the know- but I don't always get the clearest picture. Not my area of expertise- its why I pose the questions- only dumb question is one not asked, eh?
QUOTE
I also wanted one of the senators to get up and say why the rush? Shouldn't we see if the gay marriages in Massachusetts actually harm traditional marriages? Before we amend the Constitution shouldn't we see if there is actual harm done? Of course that wouldn't fly because we know that there would not be any harm shown.
Or how about one Senator to get up and make the same argument I used in my letter to all the Senators (well, I tried to write to the entire Senate, but too many Senators hide behind web-form systems that only allow you to contact them if you are a constituent). Gay people have been in relationships for years. We are now accepted by many of our families, most of our friends, many of our employers and a lot of our communities. In fact, those communities that are most gay-friendly also are the communities that are thriving economically. If this supposed damage from gay marriage were to occur, wouldn't it already have happened, as gays have marriage already, in all but the legal sense?
Did you all notice that 3 dems voted for the amendment?
Miller (D) GA
Nelson (D) NE
Byrd (D) WV
And six rep. voted against the amendment. Very interesting.
Campbell ® CO
Chafee ®RI
Collins ®ME
McCain ® AZ
Snowe ® ME
Sununu ® NH
Edwards (D) NC and Kerry (D) MA did not vote.
Miller (D) GA
Nelson (D) NE
Byrd (D) WV
And six rep. voted against the amendment. Very interesting.
Campbell ® CO
Chafee ®RI
Collins ®ME
McCain ® AZ
Snowe ® ME
Sununu ® NH
Edwards (D) NC and Kerry (D) MA did not vote.
QUOTE
Joe in Philly:
...and we know this how, exactly?
Because I met Sen Specter's gay son some years ago. He was sorta dating a friend of mine.
...and we know this how, exactly?
And to think some here doubted me when I said this amendment would never make it out of Congress. The time is not yet ripe. Will it be? Well, here's how this amendment just may yet be passed out of both houses of Congress...
A gay couple gets married somewhere--Massachusetts or otherwise--then moves to another state, where they, with the ACLU pushing them along, hunt down a liberal federal judge. Said judge rules that the Constitution's Full Faith & Credit Clause mandates that the couple's gay marriage be granted the same full legal recognition that straight marriages receive. This effectively strikes down the DOMA.
When such a ruling occurs, and I'd bet the farm it will, then will a bunch of people rise up and demand an amendment be passed. Sometimes it takes an event more dramatic than simple posturing by Senators, and one judge granting gay marriage to a continental nation just might be that catalyst which causes such an uproar.
Remember, too, that if the Senate still doesn't go along, the amendment isn't dead. There is another path to a constitutional amendment, one that might be possible depending on the level of a nationwide uproar.
A gay couple gets married somewhere--Massachusetts or otherwise--then moves to another state, where they, with the ACLU pushing them along, hunt down a liberal federal judge. Said judge rules that the Constitution's Full Faith & Credit Clause mandates that the couple's gay marriage be granted the same full legal recognition that straight marriages receive. This effectively strikes down the DOMA.
When such a ruling occurs, and I'd bet the farm it will, then will a bunch of people rise up and demand an amendment be passed. Sometimes it takes an event more dramatic than simple posturing by Senators, and one judge granting gay marriage to a continental nation just might be that catalyst which causes such an uproar.
Remember, too, that if the Senate still doesn't go along, the amendment isn't dead. There is another path to a constitutional amendment, one that might be possible depending on the level of a nationwide uproar.
QUOTE
RGMike:
\"Sorta\" dating? And which son? According to the Specter website he has two, Shanin and Steve. One (at least) is married...and made a contribution to the John Edwards campaign. QUOTE
Joe in Philly:
...and we know this how, exactly?
Because I met Sen Specter's gay son some years ago. He was sorta dating a friend of mine. ...and we know this how, exactly?
QUOTE
Specter's son, Philadelphia trial lawyer Shanin Specter, and Shanin Specter's wife, gave Edwards a combined $4,000 during the Democratic presidential primary, according to PoliticalMoneyLine.com, a database of Federal Election Commission records. Shanin Specter's law firm, Kline & Specter in Philadelphia, gave a combined $36,000 to Edwards over the past two years, the FEC records show.
Specter said he was unaware of the contributions.
''My son is his own man,'' he said. ''I don't tell him what to do and he doesn't tell me what to do.''
Specter said he was unaware of the contributions.
''My son is his own man,'' he said. ''I don't tell him what to do and he doesn't tell me what to do.''
[ July 14, 2004, 02:38 PM: Message edited by: Joe in Philly ]
QUOTE
bballrob
McCain's speech was pretty much a slam at Bush, and very eloquent at least in print. Good for him.... I was sorry to see that my independent republican senator, John Warner, voted for it....
MCCAIN STATEMENT ON THE FEDERAL MARRIAGE AMENDMENTMcCain's speech was pretty much a slam at Bush, and very eloquent at least in print. Good for him.... I was sorry to see that my independent republican senator, John Warner, voted for it....
QUOTE
Tuesday, Jul 13, 2004
....
“I refer to Federalist Paper 45 to explain my vote, in which James Madison wrote “the powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State Governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will for the most part be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects, which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State. I stand with Mr. Madison on this question, and against a federal marriage amendment that denies the states their traditional right and their clear opportunity to resolve this controversy themselves.”
I wish Warner had voted otherwise, but Virginia's other senator, George Allen, was a waste of time from the word "go." Hailing not from Virginia, but from the wealthy Los Angeles suburb of Palos Verdes, he seems not to know much about Virginia, unlike James Madison, who was born here. Allen is so confused that he appears on his website wearing a cowboy hat, bolo tie, and rodeo belt buckle, while holding the reins of a horse. Possibly the fashion faux pas is the result of a tragic misreading of "The Golden Book of Virginia," because it is otherwise unexplainable.....
“I refer to Federalist Paper 45 to explain my vote, in which James Madison wrote “the powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State Governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will for the most part be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects, which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State. I stand with Mr. Madison on this question, and against a federal marriage amendment that denies the states their traditional right and their clear opportunity to resolve this controversy themselves.”
McCain attended Episcopal High School in Alexandria, Virginia. He was quoted as saying his experience there prepared him to be a prisoner of war in Hanoi. I'm not sure that's a compliment.
Rally on the Capitol Grounds in a few minutes. Big thunderstorms on the way too, though. G*d is angry?
Originally posted by MIB:
QUOTE
And to think some here doubted me when I said this amendment would never make it out of Congress. The time is not yet ripe. Will it be? Well, here's how this amendment just may yet be passed out of both houses of Congress...
A gay couple gets married somewhere--Massachusetts or otherwise--then moves to another state, where they, with the ACLU pushing them along, hunt down a liberal federal judge. Said judge rules that the Constitution's Full Faith & Credit Clause mandates that the couple's gay marriage be granted the same full legal recognition that straight marriages receive. This effectively strikes down the DOMA.
No it doesn't. The Full Faith & Credit clause doesn't apply to marriage licenses. You should know this. From Sun Oil Company v. Wortman (1988): FF&C does not compel "a state to substitute the statutes of other states for its own statutes dealing with a subject matter concerning which it is competent to legislate."
A gay couple gets married somewhere--Massachusetts or otherwise--then moves to another state, where they, with the ACLU pushing them along, hunt down a liberal federal judge. Said judge rules that the Constitution's Full Faith & Credit Clause mandates that the couple's gay marriage be granted the same full legal recognition that straight marriages receive. This effectively strikes down the DOMA.
Let's hope, MIB, that at least by the time that happens part of the country, enough states that would defeat a constitutional amendment, will have seen that gay marriage is not the threat to society that the radical right claims. Maybe the issue will subside after the election and after marriage in Massachusetts and maybe NJ and RI and other states become old news.
I also see that the federal bench is becoming increasingly conservative, so that most circuit courts would overrule a district court ruling, especially if the state has a law against same sex marriage, on the basis that the "public policy" exception to the Full Faith and Credit Clause applies. And I think the Supreme Court would rule in a similar fashion. I also see that the gay advocacy groups are using state courts to attack marriage laws, not federal courts, at least at this stage.
The alternative that you mention, a constitutional convention, is terrifying and I believe would cause major upheavals in our country. All sorts of amendments could be proposed and passed at such a convention, dealing with religion, school prayer, abortion, and other hot-button issues. That would shake the foundations of our government, I hope and pray that an issue as minor as gay marriage would not trigger such a thing.
But for today, we have passed another minor hurdle, but a significant one.
I also see that the federal bench is becoming increasingly conservative, so that most circuit courts would overrule a district court ruling, especially if the state has a law against same sex marriage, on the basis that the "public policy" exception to the Full Faith and Credit Clause applies. And I think the Supreme Court would rule in a similar fashion. I also see that the gay advocacy groups are using state courts to attack marriage laws, not federal courts, at least at this stage.
The alternative that you mention, a constitutional convention, is terrifying and I believe would cause major upheavals in our country. All sorts of amendments could be proposed and passed at such a convention, dealing with religion, school prayer, abortion, and other hot-button issues. That would shake the foundations of our government, I hope and pray that an issue as minor as gay marriage would not trigger such a thing.
But for today, we have passed another minor hurdle, but a significant one.
QUOTE
MIB:
A gay couple gets married somewhere--Massachusetts or otherwise--then moves to another state, where they, with the ACLU pushing them along, hunt down a liberal federal judge. Said judge rules that the Constitution's Full Faith & Credit Clause mandates that the couple's gay marriage be granted the same full legal recognition that straight marriages receive. This effectively strikes down the DOMA.
You say this as if it's a bad thing. That's the point. Either marriage is a right or it's not. If it isn't, the judiciary isn't going to make it a right. If it is, the judiciary can't deny it. Of course, it's not that simple. Reasonable people disagree on whether marriage is a right. I don't think reasonable people can disagree on whether same sex marriage is going to be the downfall of western civilization. Only unreasonable people can think it will be. Our judiciary is there to adjudicate what rights and responsibilities our citizens have. Particularly when the legslature and executive don't have the political courage to stand up for what is right, the judiciary has the responsibility to make those decisions. This is exactly why there are three branches of government and why it's so hard to amend the constitution. The judiciary tends to be slow to act and deliberate, while the legislature tends to be reactive, precipitate and capriciuos. Any time I hear about the supposed "activism" of judges, I know its hiding a poorly thought out political agenda.
A gay couple gets married somewhere--Massachusetts or otherwise--then moves to another state, where they, with the ACLU pushing them along, hunt down a liberal federal judge. Said judge rules that the Constitution's Full Faith & Credit Clause mandates that the couple's gay marriage be granted the same full legal recognition that straight marriages receive. This effectively strikes down the DOMA.
re bballrob's comment: "... why the rush? Shouldn't we see if the gay marriages in Massachusetts actually harm traditional marriages? Before we amend the Constitution shouldn't we see if there is actual harm done? Of course that wouldn't fly because we know that there would not be any harm shown."
The argument on our side is that the harm to "traditional" marriage is speculative, whereas the harm to gays and lesbians is real (taxes, custody, hospital visitation, and on and on). But this falls on deaf ears as long as you think that being gay is a choice. Anti-gay marriage proponents will bank on the speculative harm to het marriage because they don't want the govt to sanction an immoral choice. We deserve the harm because we have chosen an immoral lifestyle. You get certain rights and privileges if you choose "traditional" marriage" because it's good for society. Our choice isn't, so we shouldn't expect rights and privileges.
And they prove the harm shown by throwing up cod statistics of marriage and divorce rates, and the frightening scenario that more and more young people will choose to be gay or lesbian if the govt gives its stamp of approval to homo unions. Which will lead to a society where stable families are devalued and everything is just a bunch of gay people being totally gay.
With the more strident ones (Santorum), you do wonder if their belief that it's a choice is based on first-hand experience (and that they've chosen to enter into traditional marriages instead of giving into that voice in their head that tells them they want the cock). I wonder what Santorum's constituents make of the fact that gay issues figure so prominently on his agenda.
[ July 14, 2004, 05:12 PM: Message edited by: TomFord ]
The argument on our side is that the harm to "traditional" marriage is speculative, whereas the harm to gays and lesbians is real (taxes, custody, hospital visitation, and on and on). But this falls on deaf ears as long as you think that being gay is a choice. Anti-gay marriage proponents will bank on the speculative harm to het marriage because they don't want the govt to sanction an immoral choice. We deserve the harm because we have chosen an immoral lifestyle. You get certain rights and privileges if you choose "traditional" marriage" because it's good for society. Our choice isn't, so we shouldn't expect rights and privileges.
And they prove the harm shown by throwing up cod statistics of marriage and divorce rates, and the frightening scenario that more and more young people will choose to be gay or lesbian if the govt gives its stamp of approval to homo unions. Which will lead to a society where stable families are devalued and everything is just a bunch of gay people being totally gay.
With the more strident ones (Santorum), you do wonder if their belief that it's a choice is based on first-hand experience (and that they've chosen to enter into traditional marriages instead of giving into that voice in their head that tells them they want the cock). I wonder what Santorum's constituents make of the fact that gay issues figure so prominently on his agenda.
[ July 14, 2004, 05:12 PM: Message edited by: TomFord ]
"I wonder what Santorum's constituents make of the fact that gay issues figure so prominently on his agenda."
Need I say the cliche...Methinks....?
Its gotta be true. Not that we'll ever know for sure.
Need I say the cliche...Methinks....?
Its gotta be true. Not that we'll ever know for sure.
As for the Democrats support for gay rights and such, any sort of radical stance on an issue won't come in Congress. Just like with the Civil Rights movement, it will come through the Supreme Court. Right now, why should a Senator stand up and speak out for gay marriages, which could lose their re-election (and I'm not referring to their personal job, but the fact that a Republican would replace him/her chances are with a stance very against gay marriage). The Supreme Court, both nationally and in local areas are ruling favorable for gay marriages more often and seems to be favoring gay rights more so than taking them away. So right now, I would want a politician who might support gay marriage to stay quiet. It's a simple matter of whether we want them in Congress 'secretly' supporting it, or if they do vocally support gay marriage, they would just lose their seat probably.
Let the Supreme Court do the work......and the Democrats in Congress will do what they need to stop anything that takes away from those decisions to happen such as they have just done.
Let the Supreme Court do the work......and the Democrats in Congress will do what they need to stop anything that takes away from those decisions to happen such as they have just done.
Don't hold your breath. The Supreme Court is still reeling from its radical decision in Roe v. Wade, and I suspect the current lot will do everything to avoid ruling on gay marriage. Overruling a state's sodomy statute that wasn't really enforced is one thing. Saying gay marriage is okay--when large parts of the nation don't think it is--would be really going off the deep end for them. They're not as radical as we'd like to think they are. This isn't Civil Rights all over again, no matter what we think. We're a very small part of the population, and most people--even some gays--think that things are fine as they are.
[ July 14, 2004, 06:59 PM: Message edited by: TomFord ]
[ July 14, 2004, 06:59 PM: Message edited by: TomFord ]
I'm not saying this is going to happen tomorrow.....but I'm also not only speaking of the national Supreme Court. Look at Mass. as an example.
If someone brought that to the Supreme Court (which I would assume is happening), I don't know if they would overturn it. Keep in mind that the whole states rights thing comes into play (which kept some Republicans even not supporting it). I think the Supreme Court would let Mass. deal with it and wouldn't interfere with it at all! It's very easy for them not to deal with it and rule 'in favor' of gay marriage just for the lone fact of it being a marriage issue and that's dealt with in the states.
[ July 14, 2004, 07:16 PM: Message edited by: illini n milwaukee ]
If someone brought that to the Supreme Court (which I would assume is happening), I don't know if they would overturn it. Keep in mind that the whole states rights thing comes into play (which kept some Republicans even not supporting it). I think the Supreme Court would let Mass. deal with it and wouldn't interfere with it at all! It's very easy for them not to deal with it and rule 'in favor' of gay marriage just for the lone fact of it being a marriage issue and that's dealt with in the states.
[ July 14, 2004, 07:16 PM: Message edited by: illini n milwaukee ]
New GOP gay-ban tactics
QUOTE
Court powers could be taken away, says majority leader
By Jonathan E. Kaplan
Realizing that a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage faces little chance of passing soon, if ever, House Republicans yesterday discussed alternative approaches, including stripping federal courts of jurisdiction over the issue, passing a federal law to define marriage and using the appropriations process to ban gay marriage in Washington.
....
Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas) told reporters yesterday that he plans to use “jurisdiction stripping” measures to achieve other social policy goals as well.
....
The U.S. Constitution establishes only the Supreme Court but leaves it to Congress to “ordain and establish” the lower federal courts. Arguably, therefore, Congress has the right determine the federal courts’ jurisdiction.
“That [Supreme Court] building is the Taj Mahal. … Everybody should stay away from it,” he said about Congress’s past unwillingness to challenge Supreme Court decisions.
....
By Jonathan E. Kaplan
Realizing that a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage faces little chance of passing soon, if ever, House Republicans yesterday discussed alternative approaches, including stripping federal courts of jurisdiction over the issue, passing a federal law to define marriage and using the appropriations process to ban gay marriage in Washington.
....
Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas) told reporters yesterday that he plans to use “jurisdiction stripping” measures to achieve other social policy goals as well.
....
The U.S. Constitution establishes only the Supreme Court but leaves it to Congress to “ordain and establish” the lower federal courts. Arguably, therefore, Congress has the right determine the federal courts’ jurisdiction.
“That [Supreme Court] building is the Taj Mahal. … Everybody should stay away from it,” he said about Congress’s past unwillingness to challenge Supreme Court decisions.
....
Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Proceed to Consider S. J. Res. 40;
Federal Marriage Amendment
U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 108th Congress - 2nd Session
as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate
Vote Summary
Question: On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Proceed to Consider S. J. Res. 40 )
Vote Number: 155 Vote Date: July 14, 2004, 12:13 PM
Required For Majority: 3/5 Vote Result: Cloture Motion Rejected
Vote Counts: YEAs 48
NAYs 50
Not Voting 2
Vote Summary By Senator Name By Vote Position By Home State
Alphabetical by Senator Name
Akaka (D-HI), Nay
Alexander (R-TN), Yea
Allard (R-CO), Yea
Allen (R-VA), Yea
Baucus (D-MT), Nay
Bayh (D-IN), Nay
Bennett (R-UT), Yea
Biden (D-DE), Nay
Bingaman (D-NM), Nay
Bond (R-MO), Yea
Boxer (D-CA), Nay
Breaux (D-LA), Nay
Brownback (R-KS), Yea
Bunning (R-KY), Yea
Burns (R-MT), Yea
Byrd (D-WV), Yea
Campbell (R-CO), Nay
Cantwell (D-WA), Nay
Carper (D-DE), Nay
Chafee (R-RI), Nay
Chambliss (R-GA), Yea
Clinton (D-NY), Nay
Cochran (R-MS), Yea
Coleman (R-MN), Yea
Collins (R-ME), Nay
Conrad (D-ND), Nay
Cornyn (R-TX), Yea
Corzine (D-NJ), Nay
Craig (R-ID), Yea
Crapo (R-ID), Yea
Daschle (D-SD), Nay
Dayton (D-MN), Nay
DeWine (R-OH), Yea
Dodd (D-CT), Nay
Dole (R-NC), Yea
Domenici (R-NM), Yea
Dorgan (D-ND), Nay
Durbin (D-IL), Nay
Edwards (D-NC), Not Voting
Ensign (R-NV), Yea
Enzi (R-WY), Yea
Feingold (D-WI), Nay
Feinstein (D-CA), Nay
Fitzgerald (R-IL), Yea
Frist (R-TN), Yea
Graham (D-FL), Nay
Graham (R-SC), Yea
Grassley (R-IA), Yea
Gregg (R-NH), Yea
Hagel (R-NE), Yea
Harkin (D-IA), Nay
Hatch (R-UT), Yea
Hollings (D-SC), Nay
Hutchison (R-TX), Yea
Inhofe (R-OK), Yea
Inouye (D-HI), Nay
Jeffords (I-VT), Nay
Johnson (D-SD), Nay
Kennedy (D-MA), Nay
Kerry (D-MA), Not Voting
Kohl (D-WI), Nay
Kyl (R-AZ), Yea
Landrieu (D-LA), Nay
Lautenberg (D-NJ), Nay
Leahy (D-VT), Nay
Levin (D-MI), Nay
Lieberman (D-CT), Nay
Lincoln (D-AR), Nay
Lott (R-MS), Yea
Lugar (R-IN), Yea
McCain (R-AZ), Nay
McConnell (R-KY), Yea
Mikulski (D-MD), Nay
Miller (D-GA), Yea
Murkowski (R-AK), Yea
Murray (D-WA), Nay
Nelson (D-FL), Nay
Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Nickles (R-OK), Yea
Pryor (D-AR), Nay
Reed (D-RI), Nay
Reid (D-NV), Nay
Roberts (R-KS), Yea
Rockefeller (D-WV), Nay
Santorum (R-PA), Yea
Sarbanes (D-MD), Nay
Schumer (D-NY), Nay
Sessions (R-AL), Yea
Shelby (R-AL), Yea
Smith (R-OR), Yea
Snowe (R-ME), Nay
Specter (R-PA), Yea
Stabenow (D-MI), Nay
Stevens (R-AK), Yea
Sununu (R-NH), Nay
Talent (R-MO), Yea
Thomas (R-WY), Yea
Voinovich (R-OH), Yea
Warner (R-VA), Yea
Wyden (D-OR), Nay
US Senate
^^^
The thing that shocks me is the vote in our favor from Sununu of New Hampshire. He's sure to be raked over the conservative coals by the Manchester Union Leader about this vote.
What was he thinking?
I can understand why the other GOP Senators who voted our way, voted correctly. I expected no less of McCain, Snowe, Chaffee, Collins and Nighthorse Campbell.
But Sununu?
Who knew?
[ July 14, 2004, 11:32 PM: Message edited by: MPetrelis ]
Federal Marriage Amendment
U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 108th Congress - 2nd Session
as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate
Vote Summary
Question: On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Proceed to Consider S. J. Res. 40 )
Vote Number: 155 Vote Date: July 14, 2004, 12:13 PM
Required For Majority: 3/5 Vote Result: Cloture Motion Rejected
Vote Counts: YEAs 48
NAYs 50
Not Voting 2
Vote Summary By Senator Name By Vote Position By Home State
Alphabetical by Senator Name
Akaka (D-HI), Nay
Alexander (R-TN), Yea
Allard (R-CO), Yea
Allen (R-VA), Yea
Baucus (D-MT), Nay
Bayh (D-IN), Nay
Bennett (R-UT), Yea
Biden (D-DE), Nay
Bingaman (D-NM), Nay
Bond (R-MO), Yea
Boxer (D-CA), Nay
Breaux (D-LA), Nay
Brownback (R-KS), Yea
Bunning (R-KY), Yea
Burns (R-MT), Yea
Byrd (D-WV), Yea
Campbell (R-CO), Nay
Cantwell (D-WA), Nay
Carper (D-DE), Nay
Chafee (R-RI), Nay
Chambliss (R-GA), Yea
Clinton (D-NY), Nay
Cochran (R-MS), Yea
Coleman (R-MN), Yea
Collins (R-ME), Nay
Conrad (D-ND), Nay
Cornyn (R-TX), Yea
Corzine (D-NJ), Nay
Craig (R-ID), Yea
Crapo (R-ID), Yea
Daschle (D-SD), Nay
Dayton (D-MN), Nay
DeWine (R-OH), Yea
Dodd (D-CT), Nay
Dole (R-NC), Yea
Domenici (R-NM), Yea
Dorgan (D-ND), Nay
Durbin (D-IL), Nay
Edwards (D-NC), Not Voting
Ensign (R-NV), Yea
Enzi (R-WY), Yea
Feingold (D-WI), Nay
Feinstein (D-CA), Nay
Fitzgerald (R-IL), Yea
Frist (R-TN), Yea
Graham (D-FL), Nay
Graham (R-SC), Yea
Grassley (R-IA), Yea
Gregg (R-NH), Yea
Hagel (R-NE), Yea
Harkin (D-IA), Nay
Hatch (R-UT), Yea
Hollings (D-SC), Nay
Hutchison (R-TX), Yea
Inhofe (R-OK), Yea
Inouye (D-HI), Nay
Jeffords (I-VT), Nay
Johnson (D-SD), Nay
Kennedy (D-MA), Nay
Kerry (D-MA), Not Voting
Kohl (D-WI), Nay
Kyl (R-AZ), Yea
Landrieu (D-LA), Nay
Lautenberg (D-NJ), Nay
Leahy (D-VT), Nay
Levin (D-MI), Nay
Lieberman (D-CT), Nay
Lincoln (D-AR), Nay
Lott (R-MS), Yea
Lugar (R-IN), Yea
McCain (R-AZ), Nay
McConnell (R-KY), Yea
Mikulski (D-MD), Nay
Miller (D-GA), Yea
Murkowski (R-AK), Yea
Murray (D-WA), Nay
Nelson (D-FL), Nay
Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Nickles (R-OK), Yea
Pryor (D-AR), Nay
Reed (D-RI), Nay
Reid (D-NV), Nay
Roberts (R-KS), Yea
Rockefeller (D-WV), Nay
Santorum (R-PA), Yea
Sarbanes (D-MD), Nay
Schumer (D-NY), Nay
Sessions (R-AL), Yea
Shelby (R-AL), Yea
Smith (R-OR), Yea
Snowe (R-ME), Nay
Specter (R-PA), Yea
Stabenow (D-MI), Nay
Stevens (R-AK), Yea
Sununu (R-NH), Nay
Talent (R-MO), Yea
Thomas (R-WY), Yea
Voinovich (R-OH), Yea
Warner (R-VA), Yea
Wyden (D-OR), Nay
US Senate
^^^
The thing that shocks me is the vote in our favor from Sununu of New Hampshire. He's sure to be raked over the conservative coals by the Manchester Union Leader about this vote.
What was he thinking?
I can understand why the other GOP Senators who voted our way, voted correctly. I expected no less of McCain, Snowe, Chaffee, Collins and Nighthorse Campbell.
But Sununu?
Who knew?
[ July 14, 2004, 11:32 PM: Message edited by: MPetrelis ]
I'm not sure if it's okay to admit this, but I'm actually looking forward to the inevitable challenge to DOMA. It could open up a whole new can of worms, and provide new impetus to the marriage amendment. But all the current justices seem to have an acute sense of history, and I'm sure they would all be thinking about their legacies when such a decision--whether to uphold or strike DOMA--is made.
Yes, Neptune, we need a challenge to DOMA. Maybe not right now, but soon, I hope.
Every single time our opponents try to beat us back on this issue, they come out the losers, as witnessed by today's Senate vote.
One of the key things to come out of an attack on DOMA would be homophobes. Okay, their hatred of us too.
But that hate is not winning them vote or many more adherents.
And the more strategies we have on this, or any issue for that matter, the better.
Challenge DOMA, defeat FEMA, overturn sodomy laws, have the SF Mayor marry us, allow gay marriage in MA -- push, push, push the envelope.
Every single time our opponents try to beat us back on this issue, they come out the losers, as witnessed by today's Senate vote.
One of the key things to come out of an attack on DOMA would be homophobes. Okay, their hatred of us too.
But that hate is not winning them vote or many more adherents.
And the more strategies we have on this, or any issue for that matter, the better.
Challenge DOMA, defeat FEMA, overturn sodomy laws, have the SF Mayor marry us, allow gay marriage in MA -- push, push, push the envelope.
QUOTE
TomFord:
No it doesn't. The Full Faith & Credit clause doesn't apply to marriage licenses. You should know this. From Sun Oil Company v. Wortman (1988): FF&C does not compel \"a state to substitute the statutes of other states for its own statutes dealing with a subject matter concerning which it is competent to legislate.\"
Says who? TomFord? Hardly. Reread my post above, where I said that somewhere a federal judge will rule that the FF&C Clause does apply. The Constitution says whatever a federal judge says it says. One need only look at Roe v. Wade and other judicial abominations to realize this.
No it doesn't. The Full Faith & Credit clause doesn't apply to marriage licenses. You should know this. From Sun Oil Company v. Wortman (1988): FF&C does not compel \"a state to substitute the statutes of other states for its own statutes dealing with a subject matter concerning which it is competent to legislate.\"
Says the Supreme Court. Again, your scenario is: gay couple married in state X that allows gay marriages moving to state Y that doesn't allow gay marriages. And a judge (federal or otherwise) saying that state Y should recognize the marriage based on the Article IV's FF&C clause.
It would be overruled. The application of the FF&C clause to marriage licenses is a settled issue. Any federal judge who bases her ruling on this will be overruled based on the public policy exception. No state has to recognize a marriage in another state that is contrary to its own laws.
Think back to Penoyer (1878): "The State...has an absolute right to prescribe the conditions upon which the marriage relation between its own citizens shall be created, and the causes for which it can be dissolved." If West Virginia passes a rule that siblings can marry each other, such marriages don't have to be recognized in New York based on the FF&C clause. That's why certain states were able to have anti-miscegenation laws until they were overturned--not on FF&C but on Equal Protection and Due Process grounds. If what you say is possible, then anti-miscegenation laws would also have been overturned based on the FF&C clause, and they weren't.
If the SC takes it up, the ruling on gay marriage will most certainly not be based on the FF&C clause. Again, Sun Oil Company v. Wortman tells us that the FF&C does not compel "a state to substitute the statutes of other states for its own statutes dealing with a subject matter concerning which it is competent to legislate." Who wrote the opinion? Scalia in 1988. In fact, he's citing a 1936 case. The application of FF&C to marriage licenses isn't an oft-contested subject. No one will base his or her ruling on FF&C just because it's a gay marriage issue. It may come up, but it will be shot down as soon as the judge's clerk does an even a cursory check on the application of FF&C to marriage licenses.
Now, you have years more experience on this than I have, so please let me know if this is incorrect.
[ July 15, 2004, 05:44 AM: Message edited by: TomFord ]
It would be overruled. The application of the FF&C clause to marriage licenses is a settled issue. Any federal judge who bases her ruling on this will be overruled based on the public policy exception. No state has to recognize a marriage in another state that is contrary to its own laws.
Think back to Penoyer (1878): "The State...has an absolute right to prescribe the conditions upon which the marriage relation between its own citizens shall be created, and the causes for which it can be dissolved." If West Virginia passes a rule that siblings can marry each other, such marriages don't have to be recognized in New York based on the FF&C clause. That's why certain states were able to have anti-miscegenation laws until they were overturned--not on FF&C but on Equal Protection and Due Process grounds. If what you say is possible, then anti-miscegenation laws would also have been overturned based on the FF&C clause, and they weren't.
If the SC takes it up, the ruling on gay marriage will most certainly not be based on the FF&C clause. Again, Sun Oil Company v. Wortman tells us that the FF&C does not compel "a state to substitute the statutes of other states for its own statutes dealing with a subject matter concerning which it is competent to legislate." Who wrote the opinion? Scalia in 1988. In fact, he's citing a 1936 case. The application of FF&C to marriage licenses isn't an oft-contested subject. No one will base his or her ruling on FF&C just because it's a gay marriage issue. It may come up, but it will be shot down as soon as the judge's clerk does an even a cursory check on the application of FF&C to marriage licenses.
Now, you have years more experience on this than I have, so please let me know if this is incorrect.
[ July 15, 2004, 05:44 AM: Message edited by: TomFord ]
TomFord, I think you're right on this. Actually, I suspect it's more likely that a fed court would strike DOMA on substantive due process grounds a la Lawrence or Roe (and thus incurring MIB's wrath). I can't really see how you can escape the public policy exception to FF&C, since it is so amorphous.
QUOTE
MIB:
The Constitution says whatever a federal judge says it says.
There you have it - the Constitution says whetever MIB "says it says."
The Constitution says whatever a federal judge says it says.
Agreed Neptune. btw I liked your comparison of a gay person voting for Bush in 04 to a black person voting for Storm Thumond because he'd be good for the economy. There's a stand-up routine in there somewhere, with the pre-Civil Rights black person going on about how he's not single-issue voter. etc.
QUOTE
TomFord:
There's a stand-up routine in there somewhere, with the pre-Civil Rights black person going on about how he's not single-issue voter. etc.
Perhaps performed by Dave Chappelle?There's a stand-up routine in there somewhere, with the pre-Civil Rights black person going on about how he's not single-issue voter. etc.
Seriously though, this whole situation will lead to a seminal case that will serve as the gay Loving v. Virginia of our time--I wonder how courts will deal with the inevitable equal protection challenges to state marriage amendments. I could forsee a big time circuit split between the so called "activist" circuits (e.g. 9th) and the more conservative ones (5th, 11th). People are saying that the Supreme Court won't want to touch gay marriage, but at some point they be forced to resolve all the conflicting holdings.
QUOTE
TomFord, I think you're right on this. Actually, I suspect it's more likely that a fed court would strike DOMA on substantive due process grounds a la Lawrence or Roe (and thus incurring MIB's wrath). I can't really see how you can escape the public policy exception to FF&C, since it is so amorphous.
Actually, as I understand it, the scenario would have to go something like:Couple gets married in Mass, moves to another state, tries to argue DOMA is unconstitutional and the state has to recognize their marriage.
The Supreme Court, in that case, could not rule on whether the state's ban on gay marriage should be overturned, but rather whether DOMA should be overturned. DOMA does not dictate to states what their marriage laws should be. DOMA does 2 things - allows states to ignore other states' gay marriage and sets marriage at the federal level as man/woman.
The Supreme Court might overrule the second part of DOMA, defining marriage, on equal protection grounds, but, given precedents, would not compel the states to recognize the gay marriages of other states, because the states have long had the right to ignore marriages from one state that don't meet with their public policy - the couple would lose on those grounds.
To overturn the anti-gay marriage laws of all the other states, we have to have the Supreme Court rule that a specific state's anti-gay marriage law is a violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th (15th?) amendment. That is how anti-miscegenation laws were overturned. Such a ruling would nullify all the state-level anti-gay marriage laws, as well as the federal ones (although certainly a ruling that the federal definitino of marriage in DOMA was unconstitutional on equal protection grounds would cause one to question whether state anti-gay marriage laws would also be unconstitutional).
Roll Call!
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/a...rriage_rollvote
I called my Senators - Corzine and Lautenberg - and thanked them for voting NO.
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/a...rriage_rollvote
I called my Senators - Corzine and Lautenberg - and thanked them for voting NO.
Yes, CPT-Doom, that's how DOMA would be challenged--not on Full Faith & Credit but on Equal Protection and Due Process grounds. Which is what the anti-miscegenation Loving ruling was based on (it's the 14th amendment btw).
I think the Supreme Court will drag its heels for as long as they can to avoid it (Neptune's scenario of having to resolve conflicting circuit rulings sounds good, but how long would it take to get to that?). It's too radical a decision for the SC to say Mississippi has to recognize gay marriages on any grounds. There's a certain part of the population that just has to die before acceptance of gay marriage gets beyond 50/50, and until it does, the SC won't force it on the nation.
I really think the Court is burned out on the flak from Brown and Roe that they're not going to rule on something that so many states are dead set against recognizing. Don't Ask, Don't Tell, maybe--but that will get overturned because the military accepts gays (seeing it as a losing proposition from the experience of losing qualified men and women when they could least afford to), and not because the courts say they should (it's also a different discussion because of the greater deference courts give to military matters). Gay marriage, no way, or, at least not yet.
Bush really changed the tone of the battle. He could have left it alone, but now a good part of the population is all the more convinced that this is a great evil to be avoided. People may have been against it in a lazy, unformed way, but he's clarified and broadcast the arguments against it on a national platform. Now everyone knows that it's a threat to marriage as we know it, that civilization hangs in the balance, etc. It's a weird state of affairs--you have gay characters on national TV, with blue chip advertisers (a rather conservative group) giving their stamp of approval and yet the President telling the nation that it will all turn to hell if we allow those people (he won't even say the word gay or lesbian) to settle down, get married, etc. It's just so dumb, and history will judge him poorly for it.
What will help is Canada, and the Europe and even some South American countries accepting it. And then at some point we'll be shamed into joining the rest of the first world nations. But it's a long way away.
[ July 15, 2004, 08:03 AM: Message edited by: TomFord ]
I think the Supreme Court will drag its heels for as long as they can to avoid it (Neptune's scenario of having to resolve conflicting circuit rulings sounds good, but how long would it take to get to that?). It's too radical a decision for the SC to say Mississippi has to recognize gay marriages on any grounds. There's a certain part of the population that just has to die before acceptance of gay marriage gets beyond 50/50, and until it does, the SC won't force it on the nation.
I really think the Court is burned out on the flak from Brown and Roe that they're not going to rule on something that so many states are dead set against recognizing. Don't Ask, Don't Tell, maybe--but that will get overturned because the military accepts gays (seeing it as a losing proposition from the experience of losing qualified men and women when they could least afford to), and not because the courts say they should (it's also a different discussion because of the greater deference courts give to military matters). Gay marriage, no way, or, at least not yet.
Bush really changed the tone of the battle. He could have left it alone, but now a good part of the population is all the more convinced that this is a great evil to be avoided. People may have been against it in a lazy, unformed way, but he's clarified and broadcast the arguments against it on a national platform. Now everyone knows that it's a threat to marriage as we know it, that civilization hangs in the balance, etc. It's a weird state of affairs--you have gay characters on national TV, with blue chip advertisers (a rather conservative group) giving their stamp of approval and yet the President telling the nation that it will all turn to hell if we allow those people (he won't even say the word gay or lesbian) to settle down, get married, etc. It's just so dumb, and history will judge him poorly for it.
What will help is Canada, and the Europe and even some South American countries accepting it. And then at some point we'll be shamed into joining the rest of the first world nations. But it's a long way away.
[ July 15, 2004, 08:03 AM: Message edited by: TomFord ]
QUOTE
The B Man:
I called my Senators - Corzine and Lautenberg - and thanked them for voting NO.
I emailed my Senators and admonished them for representing Kansans by lying about the history of marriage -- you know, the bit about how for 5,000 years, in all cultures, marriage has always a sacred bond between one man and one woman. I also asked them to provide data supporting their argument that the FMA would protect marriage.
I called my Senators - Corzine and Lautenberg - and thanked them for voting NO.
QUOTE
I emailed my Senators and admonished them for representing Kansans by lying about the history of marriage -- you know, the bit about how for 5,000 years, in all cultures, marriage has always a sacred bond between one man and one woman. I also asked them to provide data supporting their argument that the FMA would protect marriage.
Interesting piece about the data, actually. This morning, PlanetOut is reporting that all the scare tactics about the collapse of straight marriage in Scandanavia is a bunch of hooey. According to a UMASS economist named Lee Badgett, in a report published by the Council on Contemporary Families and the Institute for Gay and Lesbian Strategic Studies, QUOTE
Heterosexual marriage rates in the Scandanavian country of Denmark actually increased after adoption of same-sex marriage. They are now the highest they have been since the early 1970s.
The majority of families with children in Scandinavia and the Netherlands are still headed by married parents. In Norway, 77 percent of couples with children are married and 75 percent of Dutch families with children include married couples. By comparison, 72 percent of U.S. families with children are headed by married couples.
Acceptance of same-sex partners has not weakened commitments to children. In fact, the average Scandinavian child spends more than 80 percent of his or her life living with both parents -- more time than the average American child.
\"In the end, the Scandinavian and Dutch experience suggests that there is little reason to worry that heterosexual people will flee marriage if gay and lesbian couples get the same rights,\" Badgett concluded.
planetout story The majority of families with children in Scandinavia and the Netherlands are still headed by married parents. In Norway, 77 percent of couples with children are married and 75 percent of Dutch families with children include married couples. By comparison, 72 percent of U.S. families with children are headed by married couples.
Acceptance of same-sex partners has not weakened commitments to children. In fact, the average Scandinavian child spends more than 80 percent of his or her life living with both parents -- more time than the average American child.
\"In the end, the Scandinavian and Dutch experience suggests that there is little reason to worry that heterosexual people will flee marriage if gay and lesbian couples get the same rights,\" Badgett concluded.
Granted, the fact that the report comes through gay channels will mean the anti-gay side will believe it, but presumably it could help argue the issue with those who can still think.
The one study that will settle it is something that proves you are gay from birth, and that it's not a choice. That will effectively end the discussion on unsupportable lifestyle choices. But every silver lining has a cloud, and this one would be abortion on demand once baby is identified as having the gay gene.
Tom, I do not disagree with your contentions above. I simply posted hypothetical scenarios. No one here, including myself, really knows exactly what would happen if the issue of gay marriage ever got to the Supreme Court.
But every silver lining has a cloud, and this one would be abortion on demand once baby is identified as having the gay gene.I wouldn't go there if I were you. I brought that up a while ago and was amazed by how many people here would still be in favor of abortion if someone decided to dispose of her baby simply because the child was gay. That IS the true definition of "pro-choice." After all, it would be the woman's choice to kill her baby if she found out in utero that it was gay. She can do it now legally if she doesn't like the sex or even the color of its eyes (yes, this IS legal, so there's no point disputing this), so what's to stop her from doing it if she found out the baby was gay? Sadly, nothing.
QUOTE
But every silver lining has a cloud, and this one would be abortion on demand once baby is identified as having the gay gene.
Oh man, that's just awful. Pro-choice as I am, that's just awful. btw, the nightmare scenario of abortions for the wrong eye color really is a fiction. I had a pro-life moment not too long ago, and I had it thrashed out of me by the mother of an ex-roommate who's a nurse. Anyway, that's another discussion.
[quote]Joe in Philly:
[quote]RGMike:
[quote]Joe in Philly:
...and we know this how, exactly? [/quote]Because I met Sen Specter's gay son some years ago. He was sorta dating a friend of mine. [/quote]\"Sorta\" dating? And which son? According to the Specter website he has two, Shanin and Steve. One (at least) is married[/quote][/QUOTE]
well, lotsa people "sorta" date, and I hear tell gay men are quite well known for it
It was Steve (thanks for the detective work, I was having a hard time remembering). He lived in SF for a while, then went off to Paris.
[quote]RGMike:
[quote]Joe in Philly:
...and we know this how, exactly? [/quote]Because I met Sen Specter's gay son some years ago. He was sorta dating a friend of mine. [/quote]\"Sorta\" dating? And which son? According to the Specter website he has two, Shanin and Steve. One (at least) is married[/quote][/QUOTE]
well, lotsa people "sorta" date, and I hear tell gay men are quite well known for it
It was Steve (thanks for the detective work, I was having a hard time remembering). He lived in SF for a while, then went off to Paris.
QUOTE
The one study that will settle it is something that proves you are gay from birth, and that it's not a choice. That will effectively end the discussion on unsupportable lifestyle choices. But every silver lining has a cloud, and this one would be abortion on demand once baby is identified as having the gay gene.
Actually, the "pro-family" movement already has their arguments ready for the moment a gay gene (or more likely, genes) is identified - "just because it's natural doesn't mean one should do it - look at alcoholism." They will not be stopped by something as simple as proving we are human.It would be interesting, though, just from a watching-them-suffer kind of way, to see whether the "pro-life" movement (basically the same as the "pro-family") would contort themselves to approve of abortion for this reason.
BTW, although I oppose abortion for frivolous reasons like eye or hair color or gender, I don't think there is much risk of many women aborting because of incorrect characteristics like being gay. Most health plans won't even pay for that kind of genetic testing (even if a test were developed), and the vast majority of women don't get any genetic testing. If it can't be seen through an ultrasound, it is not likely to be a factor in a woman's decision to keep her baby or not.
QUOTE
MIB:
I brought that up a while ago and was amazed by how many people here would still be in favor of abortion if someone decided to dispose of her baby simply because the child was gay.
Could you provide a link to that discussion, I dont recall reading that.
I brought that up a while ago and was amazed by how many people here would still be in favor of abortion if someone decided to dispose of her baby simply because the child was gay.
QUOTE
CPT_Doom:
If it can't be seen through an ultrasound, it is not likely to be a factor in a woman's decision to keep her baby or not.
You can't say this when the actual baby him/herself can be seen in the ultrasound. Have you seen, BTW, the most recent ultrasound advancement as published by the British lately? (See this.) It's stunning, simply stunning! As one member of the Chicago Sun-Times editorial board commented to fellow members, "What's this going to do to the abortion debate? It's going to change everything."If it can't be seen through an ultrasound, it is not likely to be a factor in a woman's decision to keep her baby or not.
[ July 15, 2004, 02:08 PM: Message edited by: MIB ]
QUOTE
RazorbackTX:
Could you provide a link to that discussion, I dont recall reading that.
As is mentioned several times here, it's all about "autonomy and privacy."Could you provide a link to that discussion, I dont recall reading that.
If a woman finds out her baby is gay, she MUST be allowed to destroy it, just as she is presently allowed to do so for any other reason at any point in the pregnancy. (Roe v. Wade, Doe v. Bolton).
QUOTE
MIB:
If a woman finds out her baby is gay, she MUST be allowed to destroy it, just as she is presently allowed to do so for any other reason at any point in the pregnancy. (Roe v. Wade, Doe v. Bolton).
Uh, ok, I meant the part where people were in favor of abortion because the kid was gay. Thats what I was wanting to check out.
QUOTE
RazorbackTX:
Could you provide a link to that discussion, I dont recall reading that.
As is mentioned several times here, it's all about \"autonomy and privacy.\"Could you provide a link to that discussion, I dont recall reading that.
If a woman finds out her baby is gay, she MUST be allowed to destroy it, just as she is presently allowed to do so for any other reason at any point in the pregnancy. (Roe v. Wade, Doe v. Bolton).
Read the link, Raze. I believe you misconstrued my original comments, though. I was referring to people still believing in a woman's right to choose to destroy her kid if she finds out the child is gay, not their belief that a child should be discarded if he/she is gay. If one is, indeed, pro-choice, one must support the woman's so-called right to kill her gay baby.
Sorry if I made it sound a bit unclear.
[ July 15, 2004, 02:12 PM: Message edited by: MIB ]
Sorry if I made it sound a bit unclear.
[ July 15, 2004, 02:12 PM: Message edited by: MIB ]
Renewed State Efforts Made Against Same-Sex Marriage
QUOTE
By JAMES DAO
Published: July 16, 2004
WASHINGTON, July 15 - The defeat of a federal constitutional amendment to prohibit same-sex marriage is spurring conservative groups to redouble efforts in a dozen states where similar amendments to state constitutions are likely to be on the ballot this year, proponents of the measures say.
....
Published: July 16, 2004
WASHINGTON, July 15 - The defeat of a federal constitutional amendment to prohibit same-sex marriage is spurring conservative groups to redouble efforts in a dozen states where similar amendments to state constitutions are likely to be on the ballot this year, proponents of the measures say.
....
Well, at least this might keep them from amending the federal Constitution for social purposes! Haven't they learned anything about how such an abysmal failure Prohibition was? 
The only responsible pro-choice position is that while abortion may be a necessary in some cases, it should be minimized wherever possible, mostly by bringing down the rates of unwanted pregnancies through edcucation and the availability of birth control. Unfortunately, one of the logical byproducts of the fact that fetuses and embryos are not people is that fetuses and embryos that carry gay genes are not gay people. It is no more immoral to abort a fetus or embryo with gay genes as one without. However, considering the fact that those most likely to abort a fetus or embryo with gay genes are also more likely to find abortion abhorent, I think if there is ever a test for gay genes it is more likely that child abuse among the religious right would be a far bigger problem than abortion of fetuses and embryos with gay genes.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.