In the following article from the Denver Post Reggie Rivers gives his opinion on the proposed marriage ammendment. It is nice to see someone outside the traditional gay publications voice a little common sense on the subject.

reggie rivers
Marriage amendment too intrusive
By Reggie Rivers, Special to the Denver Post


At some point, our elected officials have to realize that they can't legislate their way out of bad laws by passing more bad laws.

Congress, led in part by Republican Reps. Marilyn Musgrave and Tom Tancredo of Colorado, has proposed an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would forever deny homosexuals the right to marry - at least until and unless it was overturned by another amendment.

They're pursuing this amendment because courts have begun to strike down discriminatory state laws, and Congress is worried that this push toward basic fairness will sweep across the land and gay people everywhere will be treated as equal citizens.

The so-called Federal Marriage Amendment is more proof of just how poorly our leaders would perform if they were charged with writing the Constitution from scratch. Although our Founding Fathers were far from perfect, at least they were aiming at fairness and defending individual liberty when they crafted the Bill of Rights. The sponsors of this amendment are taking the exact opposite course.

As recent court rulings in Hawaii, Vermont and Toronto, Canada, have revealed, times are changing, and there's not much logic to support an official government position that marriage must be solely a union between a man and a woman. A Canadian appeals court ruled this week that the definition should be a union between two people.

In my view, the U.S. court rulings are merely invalidating laws that unconstitutionally restrict the rights of homosexuals, but opponents of gay marriage call this "judicial activism." They don't believe it's appropriate for judges to issue rulings that go against the will of the masses, so they're seeking to change the Constitution to take power away from the courts.

We should remember that the reason we have a Constitution is to protect us from the tyranny of the majority. Yes, we have a strong democratic tradition, and our legislatures and Congress generally pass laws that conform to the will of the masses - but when those laws run afoul of the Constitution, they rightly are struck down.

Our response should not be to change the Constitution.

Supporters of the Federal Marriage Amendment argue that marriage has long been one of the building blocks of society, and it's the preferred structure for raising children. They say that allowing gays to marry will destroy the sanctity of the institution by minimizing the importance of child-bearing.

The fallacy of this argument is that they're trying to take a social norm (yes, most people who marry do intend to have children) and turn it into the law of the land (people who marry must be able to bear children).

But what about other social conventions? Home ownership is an important societal building block. It fuels the economy, creates wealth and fosters stability. Most people who get married intend to eventually purchase homes, but does that mean we should make a mortgage the entry-level requirement for marriage?

The Federal Marriage Amendment purports to protect children but, ironically, kids are one of the most compelling reasons for permitting gay marriage. Many homosexuals have children from previous relationships, artificial insemination or adoption. And their kids would be better off with two legal guardians, breadwinners and caretakers.

The plain truth is that the state shouldn't have authority to determine who can marry and who can't. If we start legislating based on the general population's view of what's appropriate, we might see laws passed to forbid marriages between 50-year-olds and 20-year-olds, Jews and Gentiles, blacks and whites, U.S. citizens and non-citizens or convicts and free people.

Homosexuals are winning court battles over gay marriage because their arguments are logical and compelling. In a free society, each of us should be able to choose our mates without having big government intrude to approve or disapprove of our choices.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Former Denver Bronco Reggie Rivers (rivers@columnist.com) ) is the host of "Drawing the Line" Wednesdays at 8 p.m. on KBDI Channel 12. He writes Fridays on the op-ed page.

A logical argument from a conservative point of view...

Go Reggie!

I haven't found the original editorial (I'd like to write a
kudo to the author) but while looking I ran across another
enlightened in the Denver Post's Letters to the Editor which
I've included below.

Bob Dog


-----------------------------------------------------------------

Try tackling divorce
Re: "Marriage's champion," June 9, The Open Forum.

I was very disappointed after reading the letter by state Rep.
Dave Schultheis. First, marriage is not always between "one man
and one woman"; polygamy still exists in some cultures.

In addition, his obvious disdain for same-sex marriage is
offensive. I don't believe that same-sex marriage threatens or
cheapens the bond between my husband and me, nor does it lead
to the corruption of our nation.

The level of discrimination demonstrated by Rep. Schultheis is
entirely inappropriate for someone living in modern American
society, working in his position and possessing his level of
education.

If legislators want to preserve the sanctity of marriage,
perhaps they should start by looking at the very high rate of
divorce in this nation. Perhaps they should tackle issues such
as marriage between incompatible couples, or marriage for
money. These issues are all more likely to contribute to the
corruption of our society than same-sex marriages.

ROXI FINNEY

Loveland

-----------------------------------------------------------------

[Link added - Outsports moderator]

[ June 17, 2003, 09:24 PM: Message edited by: m1 ]

joetpa and Bob Dog,

Please note two policies of the Outsports discussion board that apply to your posts above.

First, when quoting a published article, you must include a link back to the original source, in this case the Denver Post.

Also, keep quotations brief. When quoting a lengthy article, do not transcribe the entire document. Quote only a brief passage, with a link back to the original document. (Similarly, when quoting an earlier post, delete all but the portion that's relevant to the point you're making.)

Thanks for your attention to these standards.

Regards,
m1
Outsports moderator

Uh oh. Noted, and apologies for it.


Bob Dog

Something we don't often talk about (even on this Board yet):

What about all the people that have been unnecessarily hurt in phony marriages, all the lies that have told (by spouses hiding their true orientation), all the alcohol drunk, and all the GLBT suicides because marriage between a man and a woman is what the heterosexual powers that be persist in bullying us into?

Absolute str8 power continues to corrupt this nation absolutely because the "Puritan few" can't embrace a flexible sexual philosophy on parenting by sane, caring adults who DESERVE CHILDREN and the RESPONSIBILITY of childrearing.

Bullies ALWAYS fear their victims: that's why they strike.

If all LGBT hate crimes stopped today, what "focus" could REALLY be put on the family?!?!?

What could Americans realize in terms of a solidified statement for the safe and decent rearing of our nation's youth, regardless of parental sexual orientation (so many loving LGBT parents are denied, when mentally ill, heterosexual parents are "socially acceptable" until they abuse...).

Logic will win eventually, but it may be WAY TOO LATE for our nation's children and our economic future, riddled with young adults raised with piss-poor, bigoted, and hateful parents who haven't yet grown up enough to realize that they can't control others' orientation(s).

- - - - -

You would think that kids would come first on these issues; but perpetually, the opposite is made obvious.

[ June 17, 2003, 09:30 AM: Message edited by: bluebird48234 ]

Oopps - sorry about that. Just thought it was an interesting article that I thought I would pass on.

Here is the link:

http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,3...1452214,00.html

the article is old, but interesting, and shows that rivers has always been progressive on this issue.

http://www.qrd.org/qrd/misc/text/lgb.in.sp...USTIN.STATESMAN

The idea of an ammendment is frighting and far reaching. I have read were one verison would also prohibit domestic partnerships, would could make same sex benefits a thing of the past.
One of the points I make when debating people who are for this is what a marriage means to a Roman Catholic. 1 shot at it, no divoice, no second marriage. Marriage = childern, therefore if some one is sterile either by choice or by nature they should not be allowed to get married. It is fun to watch them try to argue they way out of that!

They have absolutely no chance of changing the constitution.... zip... zero.

Let's hope so. If they can't do it for a good reason, they shouldn't do it for a bad reason...

Gator "I Love the Bill of Rights" Jamie

[ June 17, 2003, 10:22 AM: Message edited by: GatorJamie ]

bad dog--no bone

sorry, couldn't resist

Rivers is black, and one name away from that creep, Reggie White who needs a booster to spell his own name...

Maybe there IS Divine justice.

I dont see what being black has to do with any of this at all.

"I dont see what being black has to do with any of this at all."

Everything stems from race in Blue's world don't you know?

Oh i get it now,

he was black and "minister of D" is black... but really he's "White"... with his "white" name, that means that because the other guys is actually black, it's the white man keeping the black man down.

If its not race, its their astro-illogical sign. But tread lightly folks, we don't want anyone here being accused of calling blueby the N word again.

Hi i'm reggie white... and this is mrs. white... we're both gemini vegitarians. I graduated from the univ of tenn where i majored in... OH and the other day i built this church in the downtown...

Sheesh, do you guys know how to take a perfectly innocent conversation and turn it into a slugfest.

Three cheers for Mr. Rivers period

Ignorance is bliss, I guess.

- - - - -

Take your time, PhillyFan and GVF. Read the English (that IS your first language, correct?).

Just because you see a word referring to race does not mean that the sentiment refers to race.

Now, back to your homework...

I am thrilled to see a "regular" guy advocating for gay marriage, but I am shocked at his picture - who knew that Darius Rucker (from Hootie and the Blowfish) had a twin brother!

For once, we totally agree. There's no way these folks would get the necessary number of states to go along. The entire northeast (including New Hampshire), the pacific coast states, Hawaii, and about half the midwest would be against it. Not enough to ratify the amendment.

Also, Reggie Rivers has frequently posted progressive articles on homosexuality. This is yet another one. I wonder what Terrell Davis thinks?

Sorry, i had left my decoder ring in the cerial box yesterday.

Please tell me, what does reggie being black have to do with gay marriage?

I wonder if he thinks.

Most homophobes don't.

But then that's not what they're paid for if they're athletes.

Sorry, back to regularly scheduled programming.

Little bit late for me to chime in, but I used to listen to Reggie's radio show here for years. His veiwpoints were always gay friendly and supportive. Then when he was bumped, a lot of people were yelling "Where's Reggie" So he started his own show on PBS. I can't say it gets much viewership in a conservative state like CO, but I try to catch it, it is refreshing and he needs to run for office someday, but he would only win in the liberal District that is Denver.

But, taking Denver is all it really takes. Thinking back to Amendment 2 days, the anti-2 campaign focused on selling it to the 'burbs rather than trying to get out the votes in Denver. With a higher turnout of Denver voters (especially in the gay community), that bit of legislation would have never come to pass. But, back on topic, I'm pretty conservative on most matters and sometimes disagree with Reggie, but I really respect his viewpoint.

Huh? When did Terrell Davis become a "homophobe," because the logical causality of your sentences implies this.

I was asking because I've always though he was homo and would love to know his thoughts.

He's really handsome. I wonder if...naaahhh. There ARE straight men who are gay-friendly. I know this. There are many of them. Many. Man...

Syndicated columnist Ellen Goodman's touching reflection on wedding customs, politics and the North Star: Chasing the demons

What a terrific and touching column!....just a couple of days after Boston Herald sportswriter Ed Gray came out, we now see a writer for the Boston Globe supporting our community....it looks like a few media members in the Northeast are more in touch with themselves and society than many would have given them credit for.

Thanks for posting it and bringing it to our attention, RSB....for those who did not notice it at the bottom of her column, the author's e-mail addresss is ellengoodman@globe.com.

Really? Davis is family? Sorry about my misunderstanding fantomas. I assumed you were referencing homphobic behavior on his part. Just goes to show what false assumptions can lead to. I recall asking the same question about the closeted player "Steve Thompson" on another thread, in reference to Allen Iverson's gaybashing rap song. Sorry for my mistake. frown

I have just written both to Ms. Goodman, for her wonderful column, and to that gutless a**hole in the White House for declaring next week "Marriage Protection Week."

To quote from the White House's site:

But the real kicker is this one:

- unless they're faggots or dykes, of course!

I really have to wonder what Mary Cheney thinks about all this, and how she can still stomach being a part of a political family that is willing to sacrifice her and her relationship to lock-in the bigot vote.

White House Proclamation - ick!