| Author |
Message |
    
themp
Citizen
Username: Themp
Post Number: 471
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, February 5, 2004 - 1:13 pm: |     |
I hear tell the GOP will use this gay marriage business to charge up the base. A Constitutional Ammendment to protect the Sanctity of Marriage. This is even more noble than the flag ammendment. But you know what? I don't think it's such a great idea for the GOP. Might backfire. There are a lot more gay people than flag burners (I don't really know any flag-burners. There's no "Anarchist Eye for the middle Class Guy" on TV).
They will have to put up with a lot of "We're fabulous get over it" rallies, and a few of the more civilized, post-Biblical Fundementalists Republicans might balk at taking this entirely seriously. I mean, isn't God keeping track of everyone's sanctity, not the State?
Just out of curiousity, I'd love to hear from anyone whose marital sanctity has been compromised by the gayness in MA. Mine seems intact. Can you get it insured like an underground oil tank? |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 845
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 5, 2004 - 1:33 pm: | |
I agree. The GOP may hurt themselves if they don't conduct their side of the debate with dignity and respect for all involved.
Not that I'm a big fan of moderates or moderation, but I hope we don't see the debate represented by over-the-top Greenwich Village Halloween Parades on the one side, with mouth-breathing fundamentalists on the other. But as this is an election year, the extremes tend to be front and center. |
Sylad
Citizen
Username: Sylad
Post Number: 192
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, February 5, 2004 - 1:41 pm: | |
I don't think this will be a huge issue election issue. Kerry has stated that he does not support gay marriages, but he does support civil unions. I think that most states are going to allow civil unions. I heard that the % of the population that is gay is something like 5%, on the national level, how many of them want to get married???, How many of the ones that want to get married vote? |
JJC
Citizen
Username: Mercury
Post Number: 203
Registered: 12-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, February 5, 2004 - 1:48 pm: | |
Check out the WH website today (news) - does not look like "dignity and respect" are on the menu. |
bobk
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 4545
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, February 5, 2004 - 1:52 pm: | |
There is an article in the NY Times today indicating Bush is expected to announce his support for the anti-gay amendment within the next few days. Rove and the other political advisors feel it will motivate the religious right to vote in greater numbers than they did in 2000.
While this sort of thing can backfire, especially among women, it can also win the election for GW. Remember the Bushes have always played hardball in their election campaigns.
I have spent a fair amount of time in the late 90s and early 00s in the south and midwest. What we consider normal is a long way from what is acceptable in those areas. |
Tom Reingold
Citizen
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 2018
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 5, 2004 - 1:55 pm: | |
I hear you, bobk. We should not delude ourselves into thinking we hold a majority opinion on this. But will this really swing votes for people who think Bush has been a disaster for the economy?
Tom Reingold the prissy-pants
There is nothing
|
Dave
Citizen
Username: Dave
Post Number: 6313
Registered: 4-1998
| | Posted on Thursday, February 5, 2004 - 2:02 pm: | |
I'm so happy after launching a pre-emptive war against Iraq based on faulty intelligence, Bush is about to do the same to Americans at home.
The line forms on the left for Log Cabin Republicans wishing to switch parties. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 846
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 5, 2004 - 2:06 pm: | |
Bush has the same position on this as any viable Democrat candidate. He's even allowed for civil unions -- he called them 'legal arrangements' -- that would be embraced by individual states (not just the courts).
Don't just be angry at the republicans. There's plenty of democrats who are strongly against gay marriage -- start with the black community. If that weren't the case, Kerry would perform a gay wedding on his yacht off Nantucket with a live feed to CNN tomorrow. Sure he'd have to flip his position, but he's already done that on Affirmative Action, cap gains reductions,.etc. |
Dave
Citizen
Username: Dave
Post Number: 6314
Registered: 4-1998
| | Posted on Thursday, February 5, 2004 - 2:13 pm: | |
quote:Don't just be angry at the republicans. There's plenty of democrats who are strongly against gay marriage
Sadly, this is true. |
Michael Janay
Citizen
Username: Childprotect
Post Number: 164
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 5, 2004 - 2:37 pm: | |
Unfortunately cjc's statement is very true.
I firmly believe its none of the governments business who you can marry.
If you want to be mad at the "government" be mad at them, but don't claim that it would be any different with a Dem controlled government. Clinton signed DOMA. This not Bush vs. the gays. unfortunately, this is not a partisian issue.
Yes, this is something that staunch conservatives rally around. But no Dem has come out for full fledged marriage... not even Howard Dean who basically started the whole "civil union" movement.
No one is switching parties over this, I doubt it will even be a serious voter swing... Neither Presidential candidate will endorse full marriage, the dem candidate might oppose an ammendment with some language like "I believe in the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman and I support civil unions between same sex couples... but we do not need a constitutional ammendment on this issue, while Bush and the GOP will say something like "I believe in the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman and I support civil unions between same sex couples... we need a constitutional ammendment on this issue. Pols swing with the majority.
|
harpo
Citizen
Username: Harpo
Post Number: 1120
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, February 5, 2004 - 2:50 pm: | |
Ooops! I was putting my 2 cents in the wrong thread.
I don't expect the Dems to stick to their opposition to same-sex marriage, and they should be applauded and rewarded for it. Sure George Bush will come out for a constitutional amendment, and then run like hell from the issue at the GOP convention in New York City. Isn't the Taliban pushing a constitutional amendment against just this sort of thing in Afghanistan? It's not going to be hard to paint the opponents of same-sex marriage as intolerant at worst and confused at best about the American tradition of separation of church and state, and to paint George Bush as no real conservative, sicne he wants to rewrite the constitution to intrude into bedrooms, marriage counseling, etc.
But mostly what is going to kill this issue for the my-religious-sentiments-should-be-law-for-everbody crowd is the onslaught of TV pictures starting in May of happy couples getting married in Massachusetts, with their loving, adopted kids as ring-bearers and flower girls, the grandparents and relatives beaming and weeping for joy, everybody hugging, the sweet interviews on the Today show, the celbrity nuptuals, with catering and fashion advice from Carson et al ----- Everybody in America loves a happy wedding couple. Period.
If I were Karl Rove, I'd get my guy out of the way of that moving train.
bobk and Tom,
I see no evidence that women are more inclined to be against same-sex marraige. In fact, women are traditionally more accepting of homosexual relationships.
cjc,
I've seen you post more than once that the "black community" is against gay marriage. There is no uniform view in the black community about gay marriage or anything, and plenty of blacks hear precise echoes of the same threadbare arguments that were used in the failed attempt to uphold "miscengenation" laws in America and they recognize this as a clearcut civil rights issue.
What's with all these crocadile tears that it's "other" people who are against same-sex marriage to such an extent it would determine their Presidential vote or for a constitutional amendment? Most people don't want to fight about this. I expect to see any number of people flip their positions on this issue as they take time to think and hear more voices in support of it, and realize they'd just rather NOT side with the narrow-eyed evengelicals. There is no intellectually defending not giving gays and lesbians their equal rights under the law in America, unless one really does want a Taliban style theocracy in this country. Ending this nonsense is long overdue. And it won't be just drag queens saying so, believe me.
|
Brett
Citizen
Username: Bmalibashksa
Post Number: 655
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 5, 2004 - 2:58 pm: | |
She has nothing to do but read her bible, write letters and VOTE. |
harpo
Citizen
Username: Harpo
Post Number: 1121
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, February 5, 2004 - 3:05 pm: | |
I doubt that woman is against same-sex marriage. A lot of men who put on a suit every day are going to try argue against same sex marriage from behind the image of a woman my mother's age. But my mother, who has nothing better to do than watch CNBC, write letters and VOTE, would never vote for a candidate who opposed same-sex marriage. Yes, she was raised on the Bible, but she's just lived too long, seen too much and is too honest to pretend at her age that her take on sex ought to be everybody's. She felt that way about Bill Clinton too and that's why he didn't get run out of office. She's not mucking up the Constitution with sexual language.
|
bobk
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 4547
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, February 5, 2004 - 3:05 pm: | |
Harpo, for the record my post was indicating that the amendment and the hate initiative may well backfire with women. I agree, they tend to be more accepting.
To be honest, you are, what my favorite 20th century American Spiro T. Agnew called and "effete interlectual snob".  Unfortunately, what you see as self evident isn't so clear to the vast unwashed masses of Bible thumping, church attending folks, both white and black. |
harpo
Citizen
Username: Harpo
Post Number: 1122
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, February 5, 2004 - 3:13 pm: | |
Bobk
Sorry to misread your other post but I trust I'm not misreading your insult this time, which I find offensive and unnecessary. It is you who are the intellectual snot who thinks working class people are bigots, not me. And it is me who is taking exception in this thread to the constant portrayal of "other" people who are agaisnt same-sex marriage, which is making me very suspect that the people doing the talking are the ones who feel that way and are projecting their feelings onto other people. To be honest, whenever YOU post "to be honest" as a prelude to your remakrs, it's almost a certain sign you are about to say something totally insincere, capped off with a happy face to mask the underlying nastiness and intent to insult and hurt. No?
|
Brett
Citizen
Username: Bmalibashksa
Post Number: 657
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 5, 2004 - 3:17 pm: | |
harpo you make a good point but I still have to disagree.
You mother sounds better then mine. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 847
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 5, 2004 - 3:21 pm: | |
harpo, your generalizations of evangelicals being the only people against gay marriage isn't accurate. Sorry to have reality intrude, but:
"A poll released by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press (search) on Nov. 18, the day of the ruling, indicated 60 percent of blacks opposed gay marriage.
When asked if they favored legal agreements with many of the same rights as marriage, 51 percent of blacks were opposed."
No uniform view by blacks on anything? They just happen to vote 90% of the time for democrats? O...K...
I won't even begin to talk about stupid unintellectual Catholics, as you no doubt view them.
If I could legalize gay marriage and leave it at that, I would. But there's a ream of issues beyond that started to come to the fore after the TX sodomy ruling. Most people don't want to fight about this? Maybe that's true, but that's only because it's a difficult issue. So let's drop it?
Please discuss how you can allow gay marriage, then have anyone force their religious beliefs down the throat of Muslims who want multiple wives -- or polygamists in the US who now are before the courts not with a 15 year old 2nd or 3rd wife, but one who willfully entered into that marriage as an adult? Are you wearing a turban by not allowing that?
Let's have the Town Council pass a resolution on this -- they're all smart. They did a doozy on the war.
We can all applaud the Dems when they switch their view on this, much as we all have since Democrats filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
|
harpo
Citizen
Username: Harpo
Post Number: 1124
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, February 5, 2004 - 3:24 pm: | |
My mother is working class.
|
mfpark
Citizen
Username: Mfpark
Post Number: 193
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, February 5, 2004 - 3:28 pm: | |
The real threat to the institution of marriage is divorce. The number of divorces dwarf the potential number of gay marriages. Divorce is undermining the very moral foundation and meaning of marriage.
I say, ban all marriages so we can protect the sanctity of marriage and stop its erosion from divorce.
Call me, Crazy. You might be the only one who understands. |
harpo
Citizen
Username: Harpo
Post Number: 1125
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, February 5, 2004 - 3:36 pm: | |
cjc,
Since I was raised a Catholic, you really don't want to hear my views, I'm sure.
I'll make you a bet that 51 percent of blacks are not going to vote against same-sex marriage, or vote for George Bush because he endorsed an anti-same-sex amendment.
As I said in my other posts to you, I recognize that it is not just evangelicals who oppose same sex marriage. A lot of intellectuals do too. Please note (for the umpteempth time) that I am saying it is intellectuals who have trouble thinking clearly about this issue.
You'll be aghast to learn I've never seen any legal basis for laws against polygamy, especially since we have no laws against longtime mistresses, etc. I do support laws requiring consenting adults and sex, but that isn't relevant to same-sex marriage any more than it is to opposite sex marriage.
I certainly hope that if there is a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriages this town will go on record as opposing it, and the TC doesn't tell us it's too busy deciding parking issues to stand for the rights of its own citizens.
Democrats changed from being the foul racists they were in 1964. They were applauded and rewarded for that and the country is the better for it. I would have thought that was past argument. I hope they don't repeat their 1964 mistake. |
Ukealalio
Citizen
Username: Ukealalio
Post Number: 423
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 5, 2004 - 3:37 pm: | |
I wish we could hear from Dick Cheney on this issue, since he should be able to get first hand knowledge from his gay daughter. Unfortunately, it seems him and his wife are in denial about this important issue. |
themp
Citizen
Username: Themp
Post Number: 472
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, February 5, 2004 - 3:43 pm: | |
Democrats might dance around this issue, but I don't think that is the same as supporting a Constitutional ammendment. |
harpo
Citizen
Username: Harpo
Post Number: 1127
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, February 5, 2004 - 3:52 pm: | |
themp,
I agree. And they can find ways to oppose a Constitutional amendment without coming out in support of same-sex marriage. But I hope they have more get up and go than that!
|
bobk
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 4548
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, February 5, 2004 - 3:56 pm: | |
Harpo, I admit to getting carried away and forgot you tend to be kind of sensitive. I have to find a reason from time to time to use a Spiro T. quote. He had a way with words imho.
For the record I am a very strong supporter of civil union / domestic partnership legislation and agree with Senator Kerry's no vote on the Defense of Marriage Act. Voting against it was kind of like voting against mom, the flag and apple pie. It took some courage, even for a Senator from a liberal state.
I admit to being more ambivalent about gay marriage since, while a non-practicing atheist, all those years of being sent off to Sunday school may have had more of an effect on me than I care to admit. I also believe that legislation is a better way to handle this issue than through the courts. When I say this I do it with full understanding that an awful lot of gay and lesbian people do not want a second class form of "marriage", but turning the subject into part of a presidential election debate will probably lead to more and more open discrimination.
|
harpo
Citizen
Username: Harpo
Post Number: 1129
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, February 5, 2004 - 4:05 pm: | |
bobk,
Thank you. I forgot you somtimes forget how quick I am to take umbrage. Actually, it wasn't Agnew who had a way with words. It was his speechwriter: Wm. Safire.
I wouldn't worry too much about this being a very important part of the presidential campaign. It's one more headache Karl Rove doesn't need on top of his multiple migraines, and while they will send their smoke signals to their "base", the GOP would rather NOT see a repeat of the infamous gay-bashing convention of 1992 that cost Pappy the election (among other things). |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 848
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 5, 2004 - 4:05 pm: | |
harpo -- we do have laws against mistresses:
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/grossman/20031216.html
If you are redefining the definition of marriage, how can you say multiple partner marriages aren't on the table? Just by saying "oh...we're not asking for that" doesn't end it, as I see it.
And I'm not suggesting blacks will wholesale shift to Bush over this issue. As this no doubt will be a close election, anything that turns people out or off -- particularly the vital black vote for Democrats -- makes this an issue if it's prominent. I know people vote for politicians that are entirely against their principles. Look at the hardline Catholics that send Teddy Kennedy back year after year. |
harpo
Citizen
Username: Harpo
Post Number: 1131
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, February 5, 2004 - 4:18 pm: | |
cjc,
I think it's time we got rid of laws against mistresses, too, now that you draw my attention to it.
What "defintion" of marriage am I redefining? Why would any one think there is a need for a constitutional amendment if there were already a definition? But you miss my point: It's fine with me if multiple partner marriages are on the table. I really don't care. I imagine some people would be happier that way. Like Kate and Spencer.
As an aside, a friend of mine recently saw the movie about the architect Louis Kahn, who maintained 3 separate families. Shows if you have enough money and prestige, you can get away with it!
While we are puzzling Teddy Kennedy and hardline Catholics, we can also puzzle middle class income earners who vote for George Bush!
|
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 1923
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, February 5, 2004 - 5:04 pm: | |
anybody watch "Law And Order" last night. Ripped from tomorrow's headlines, apparently.
I kinda doubt anybody puts words in Fred Thompson's mouth. Taking what he says as what he believes, I paraphrase, "I don't care one way or another because it's not my business. Leave it up to the states, because if the federal government gets involved it'll end up like Roe v. Wade.'
Interesting. |
harpo
Citizen
Username: Harpo
Post Number: 1136
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, February 5, 2004 - 5:05 pm: | |
I saw it. They do ambiguity well.
|
drewdix
Citizen
Username: Drewdix
Post Number: 468
Registered: 7-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, February 5, 2004 - 5:16 pm: | |
cjc
ok, perhaps you can be uniform about the black vote being democratic. But your claim was about a black aversion to gay marriage. Where did you get that? I'm curious.
Sounds doubtful but I'll stand corrected. |
drewdix
Citizen
Username: Drewdix
Post Number: 469
Registered: 7-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, February 5, 2004 - 5:17 pm: | |
...and yes. gay marriage, multiple wives/husbands... go for it. Alright?
(Discussed at length last month here). |
Chalmers
Citizen
Username: Chalmers
Post Number: 38
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 5, 2004 - 5:36 pm: | |
From a purely semantic view, sanctity is defined as "the quality of being holy." No matter how one feels about the rights of same-sex couples to marry or form civil unions, isn't it a little troubling for the government to take any sort of position on what is "holy" or not? |
Addy
Citizen
Username: Addy
Post Number: 37
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 5, 2004 - 5:46 pm: | |
Bush is doing the equivalent of that wacko in Alabama refusing to remove the Ten Commandments from his courthouse.
Dreaming of getting a Tom Keane Republican in the Whitehouse one day.... until then we have to deal with moronic assholes like Bush or intelligent degenerates like Clinton. |
guessagain
Citizen
Username: Guessagain
Post Number: 17
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 5, 2004 - 9:51 pm: | |
I'll take intelligence over moronic anytime.
Northern Republicans are a non-entity in their party. The South has risen, again, and until the right thinking Republicans of the North realize that, the party ain't gonna change.
|
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 850
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 6, 2004 - 9:29 am: | |
drewdix -- it's a Pew Research Poll. Taken when the TX Sodomy ruling broke. I cited it earlier in this thread.
harpo -- I'm not saying YOU are redefining marriage. I'm saying that the issue of the definition of marriage can or will be redefined if you open alter it with adding same-sex marriages to that definition, if not multiple marriages.
As for not caring about multiple marriages, I'll try that for a while and get back to you. Perhaps we were too rash when Utah joined the Union, and we can learn from the Middle East.
How about any -- and I mean ANY -- consenting adult can get married to whoever they want to? That takes the pressure off some in AR, TN and WV I think. Who disagrees with that? |
drewdix
Citizen
Username: Drewdix
Post Number: 470
Registered: 7-2001
| | Posted on Friday, February 6, 2004 - 12:29 pm: | |
Not I.
Until you mix chromosones and cause a health risk. Is that a contradiction?
ok thanks for the Pew reference. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 852
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 6, 2004 - 12:50 pm: | |
Confining behavior and arrangements based on health risks? People take risks in having kids all the time. And if there is a health risk that is realized -- abort it. Be it Downs Syndrome, other defects....it's not a problem. It's not guaranteed you'll get a defect -- just a higher probability from what I know.
I did see an article about the Saudi royal family getting a little tight genetically. Can't marry outside the bloodlines.
Anyway....what if the consenting adult is closely related but sterile, thereby eliminating that problem. Is that OK? We could write that into the law long as we're in there. |
drewdix
Citizen
Username: Drewdix
Post Number: 472
Registered: 7-2001
| | Posted on Friday, February 6, 2004 - 1:33 pm: | |
what's to stop me from doing that now?
To harken back to the earlier thread:
to the extent that these issues do not arise now, it's absurd. To assume a flood of new pairings will happen because gay marriage could be legalized is contortionistic thinking; there are legal decisions made based simply on probability |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 854
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 6, 2004 - 1:47 pm: | |
What stooping you from doing that now? Try marrying your sterile adult sister. In NJ. And the polygamist who's case in UT's Supreme Court (?) is just an aberration.
What's the intellectual, and not religiously guided moral, objection to that?
There is none. It should be legalized.
And if you think these cases won't come before the court in today's wacky, litigous society, you're dreaming. |
JJC
Citizen
Username: Mercury
Post Number: 206
Registered: 12-2002
| | Posted on Friday, February 6, 2004 - 1:57 pm: | |
This is what happened last time this subject was discussed. Degenerated into cousins marrying bags of frozen asparagus. Wha? This is about gay marriage. |
bobk
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 4568
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, February 6, 2004 - 2:00 pm: | |
cjc is hung up on marriage customs. I think he has a thing for his first cousin. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 856
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 6, 2004 - 2:26 pm: | |
OK, ok...let's keep it simple. Thinkin' is hard, paw!
It's only about gay marriage. There will never be another challenge.
|
harpo
Citizen
Username: Harpo
Post Number: 1156
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Friday, February 6, 2004 - 3:58 pm: | |
I think I saw that couple on TV.
cjc, I've thought about it hard and I don't really care if somebody marries their sterile sister. Why do you?
(I'm presuming you haven't got your eye on this dame.)
|
drewdix
Citizen
Username: Drewdix
Post Number: 473
Registered: 7-2001
| | Posted on Friday, February 6, 2004 - 4:30 pm: | |
I think that's my point as well, phrased better. |
Brett
Citizen
Username: Bmalibashksa
Post Number: 667
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 6, 2004 - 4:38 pm: | |
I know I’m going to make a lot of enemies here but at least I’ll be honest.
I don’t think that Gay couples should be allowed marry. I think that is something that a man and woman do when they are creating a family. I don’t hate gays or think that their going to hell or any of that. I just think that marriage is a holy institution that shouldn’t be changed. I won’t discriminate with respect to jobs, housing or even friendships. It’s just what I think. I know the face of marriage has changed over the years and there are billions of divorces and separations, but my parents have been married for 35 years and that is something that’s one reason I’m proud of them.
I do think that a gay couple should get all of the legal benefits of a married couple.
So what ever the percentages are that are against this (I’m obviously the only one on MOL). I am one of them. And I hope I didn’t offend anyone. I just wanted to tell you that there are relatively normal people out there (I’m classifying myself as one) that are not happy with the situation.
Before I get bashed to hard remember I was just being honest.
|
maplewood fan
Citizen
Username: Mplwfan
Post Number: 59
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 6, 2004 - 5:24 pm: | |
Here is what the Bible says about marriage - it never mentions that marriage is "ordained by god".
12 Biblical Principles of Marriage
1. Marriage consists of one man and one or more women (Gen 4:19, 4:23, 26:34, 28:9, 29:26-30, 30:26, 31:17, 32:22, 36:2, 36:10, 37:2, Ex. 21:10, Judges 8:30, 1 Sam 1:2, 25:43, 27:3, 30:5, 30:18, 2 Sam 2:2, 3:2-5, 1 Chron 3:1-3, 4:5, 8:8, 14:3, 2 Chron 11:21, 13:21, 24:3).
2. Nothing prevents a man from taking on concubines in addition to the wife or wives he may already have (Gen 25:6, Judges 8:31, 2 Sam 5:13, 1 Kings 11:3, 1 Chron 3:9, 2 Chron 11:21, Dan 5:2-3).
3. A man might chose any woman he wants for his wife (Gen 6:2, Deut 21:11), provided only that she is not already another man’s wife (Lev 18:14-16, Deut. 22:30) or his [half-]sister (Lev 18:11, 20:17), nor the mother (Lev 20:14) or the sister (Lev 18:18) of a woman who is already his wife. The concept of a woman giving her consent to being married is foreign to the Biblical mindset.
4. If a woman cannot be proven to be a virgin at the time of marriage, she shall be stoned (Deut 22:13-21).
5. A rapist must marry his victim (Ex. 22:16, Deut. 22:28-29) - unless she was already a fiancé, in which case he should be put to death if he raped her in the country, but both of them killed if he raped her in town (Deut. 22:23-27).
6. If a man dies childless, his brother must marry the widow (Gen 38:6-10, Deut 25:5-10, Mark 12:19, Luke 20:28).
7. Women marry the man of their father’s choosing (Gen. 24:4, Josh.15:16-17, Judges 1:12-13, 12:9, 21:1, 1 Sam 17:25, 18:19, 1 Kings 2:21, 1 Chron 2:35, Jer 29:6, Dan 11:17).
8. Women are the property of their father until married and their husband after that (Ex. 20:17, 22:17, Deut. 22:24, Mat 22:25).
9. The value of a woman might be approximately seven years’ work (Gen 29:14-30).
10. Inter-faith marriages are prohibited (Gen 24:3, 28:1, 28:6, Num 25:1-9, Ezra 9:12, Neh 10:30, 2 Cor 6:14).
11. Divorce is forbidden (Deut 22:19, Matt 5:32, 19:9, Mark 10:9-12, Luke 16:18, Rom 7:2, 1 Cor 7:10-11, 7:39).
12. Better to not get married at all - although marriage is not a sin (Matt 19:10, I Cor 7:1, 7:27-28, 7:32-34, 7:38). |
anon
Citizen
Username: Anon
Post Number: 952
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Friday, February 6, 2004 - 6:16 pm: | |
This is not on the main topic but I cannot let the re-writing of history go unchallenged. Democrats were not "foul racists" in 1964. The Democratic President, Lyndon Johnson, sponsored the Civil Rights Act. The Democratic controlled Congress passed it. The Southern Democrats opposed it and filibustered, but those are the folks who then became Republicans, or whose supporters became Republicans and replaced them with republicans when they retired. The GOP Congressional Leadership, notably Everett Dirksen, supported the Civil Rights Act. The GOP Presidential candidate, Barry Goldwater, opposed it on the grounds that it interefered with business owners' rights and States Rights.
Now gay marraige. Being for "civil unions" and against gay marraige means favoring sex outside of marraige. I hope that Tim Russert, Bob Schieffer, or someone else in the interview business confronts a politicain with that notion. "So, Senator X, doesn't that mean that you support extra-marital sex?" |
Ukealalio
Citizen
Username: Ukealalio
Post Number: 430
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 6, 2004 - 6:20 pm: | |
Gotta love the bible, makes, "Sex and Drugs and Rock and Roll", look rather tame.
I'm gonna get me a few more wives, a couple of concubines and I got dibs on Linda Fiorrentino (as far as I know she was never married so back off). Only problem is, after we complete our,"biblical" duty and stone all the married women who were not virgins, there won't be too many women left (especially after killing all the poor women who were raped in town).
Maybe those darn Pagans were wiser then we thought. |
bobk
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 4572
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, February 6, 2004 - 6:50 pm: | |
Anon, I have meant to post about 1964 ever since Cjc did his post. I agree. I sometimes wonder how the GOP continues to have Lincoln Day Dinners with the changes that have taken place in the party since Nixon's Southern strategy.
To be fair, when the Civil Rights Act came up for renewal Barry Goldwater supported it becasuse in his opinion it had worked.
And personally I am all in favor of consensual sex out side of marriage, but please don't tell Mrs. K. |
rckymtn
Citizen
Username: Rckymtn
Post Number: 226
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, February 6, 2004 - 10:14 pm: | |
I thought this was a very thoughtful opinion article on this topic, one that acknowledges both the human side of the issue, as well as the legal and democratic side.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110004647 |
harpo
Citizen
Username: Harpo
Post Number: 1160
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Friday, February 6, 2004 - 11:30 pm: | |
I was the one, not cjc, who used the term foul racists to describe Democrats in 1964. I should have said some Democrats (or 1864).
|
Montagnard
Citizen
Username: Montagnard
Post Number: 404
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 6, 2004 - 11:32 pm: | |
You must be joking.
"Act now to defend marriage in your state", "Beware of activist judges" - this was a one-sided and completely self-serving article by Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney.
From a purely social standpoint, for many years there's been nothing to stop gay couples from having public celebrations of their commitment to each other. What's been missing are the practical legal rights that married couples take as a matter of course.
If you believe that people should be treated equally under the law regardless of their sexual orientation, then you have to accept gay marriage, regardless of what you might think of it personally.
In the end, you either believe in equal rights, or you don't. |
ros
Citizen
Username: Ros
Post Number: 121
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, February 6, 2004 - 11:35 pm: | |
"The pro-Bush red states, especially those in the rural South, have a far higher divorce rate than Al Gore's blue states. This is the Bible Belt? Actually, it's more like the Divorce Belt, where the pro-marriage president's staunchest supporters tend to congregate...
"Divorce rates among conservative Christians were much higher than for other faith groups," pollster/researcher [George] Barna says flatly...
The five states with the highest rates of divorce -- 50 percent more divorce than the national average -- all went for Bush in 2000...
Twenty-seven percent of adults are divorced across the legendarily devout South, pollster Barna found. As for the liberal Northeast? That's the region with the lowest divorce rate, 19 percent.
-- Ellis Henican, New York Newsday, January 16, 2004
It should be noted that one of the red states is Nevada, home of the quickie divorce.
Still, an intersting statistic
|
anon
Citizen
Username: Anon
Post Number: 954
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Saturday, February 7, 2004 - 9:28 am: | |
If there is going to be a "Defense of Marraige" law shouldn't it prohibit drive in chapels and the other nonsense that goes on in Nevada.
ISN'T THE FACT THAT GAY PEOPLE WANT TO GET MARRIED A RATHER STRONG EXPRESSION OF A PRO-MARRAIGE ATTITUDE? |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 859
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 9, 2004 - 9:26 am: | |
bobk, harpo and others -- I understand your wanting to run away from the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the role that Democrats played in filibustering that. Yes....but now those states and people are republicans, you say. Right. Sure. Robert "Sheets" Byrd is their leader. And your allusions to LBJ I think are intended to show how truly progressive and democratic he was. But the real LBJ would not live up to your hope.
www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=975&FS=Master%2Bof%2Bthe%2BSenate
The man you loved N-jokes in private. Who only pushed for the Civil Rights Act not because of any love of his fellow "N", but because he wanted to be a national politician and president some day.
Lincoln Day dinners are aptly named. But don't worry. The fix is in that enough people believe that Republicans are racist that you don't have to worry about it. Those black church burning ads and the James Byrd ads will continue. |
bobk
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 4589
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, February 9, 2004 - 9:33 am: | |
Cjc, so your point? Harry Truman was also racially prejudiced and by all accounts was an anti-semite. Yet he intergrated the armed forces and voted to establish Israel as a Jewish state. Sometimes public acts speak louder than private words.
|
ashear
Citizen
Username: Ashear
Post Number: 948
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, February 9, 2004 - 10:11 am: | |
The majority of democrats and republicans in the Senate in 1964 voted for the civil rights act. The fillibuster was led by a small group (in the end 23 dems (out of 63) and 6 repubs (out of 33) voted against cloture, though not all of them were active in the fillibuster). But the reality is that the Repubs used race, and southern whites fear of blacks, to get elected in the south to the very seats of those who opposed the act. They have encouraged and used racism as a political tactic. While there were dems who were racist in 1964 the majority supported the Act. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 860
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 9, 2004 - 11:08 am: | |
I've seen the light. Ashear and anon are right. It's republicans -- and not democrats -- who are racist and use race politically as they always have.
Republicans are racist. The fact is the democrats -- 1/3 of them -- voted against the civil rights act versus 1/7 of republicans -- but republicans are racist. Charles Rangel is not a racist. Spike Lee said it's impossible for him to be one. Senator Ernest Hollings -D,SC and governor of the state when they put the Confederate Flag all over the capitol -- he's not racist. The confederate stars in the AR state flag (which so far has escaped the scrutiny of non-racist Jesse Jackson who does not use race as a political tactic) are not racist. Nixon was a racist. Sure, sure, I've heard about all that affirmative action stuff, but we know he really was a racist and anti-semite like Truman, but Truman is OK, as is LBJ, but Nixon is not, because their public policy was better than Nixon's public policy with the same belief system of racism underneath. Cruz Bustamante is not a racist, despite what he said cuz he apologized.
Only republicans use race for political advantage in a bad way. That's why they're all about school choice in Washington DC. Which is also why black church-burning ads, and James Byrd dragging death ads in TX are necessary. Reams and reams have been written about their accuracy.
To sum it up -- the democrats were not foul racists in 1964 when they opposed the Civil Rights Act. They were in reality republicans, like today's republicans, and would eventually become republicans. But the republicans who did oppose the act WERE foul racists and still are today. There's a distinction.
Boycott Lincoln Day Dinners, unless they recognize that Lincoln was in reality a Democrat. |
bobk
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 4590
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, February 9, 2004 - 11:13 am: | |
Cjc, nice rant. One of the better ones I have seen recently. 1964 is getting on ancient history. As you bud, or alter ego (?) Straw puts it, Boring. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 861
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 9, 2004 - 11:58 am: | |
Hey, bobk -- thanks for the kudos. Nice Lincoln Day line -- sure to appear somewhere on the stump soon. Really cut me off at the knees. Look, I can honestly deal with the shortcomings of my side. Try it yourself sometime. You could use your "to be fair" line with credibility. Amaze your friend(s).
I used 1964 in a side-note way, didn't expect it to go this far. |
Tom Reingold
Citizen
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 2045
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 9, 2004 - 12:00 pm: | |
cjc, dealing with your side's shortcomings is a form of moderation, which you seem to think is a vice. I find that bizarre, actually.
Tom Reingold the prissy-pants
There is nothing
|
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 862
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 9, 2004 - 12:09 pm: | |
I think your conclusion makes no sense at all. Moderation isn't a vice per se. Neither is cottage cheese. |
bobk
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 4592
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, February 9, 2004 - 12:14 pm: | |
Cjc, back in 1964 I was a card carrying Republican (actually I was to young to vote, but yah get the idea). I have posted about this before. One of the reasons for my views was the Southern Branch of the Democratic Party, whose behaviour you outline quite well.
1964 is an interesting year in the evolution of both parties. The GOP nominated Goldwater, who was one of the six Republicans who voted against the Voting Rights Act, by your own admission.
Right about the same time Bob Dylan was singing, "Times they are a changing..." and a few years later the GOP relinguished the high ground on racial issues under Tricky Dick............ |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 864
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 9, 2004 - 12:36 pm: | |
Republicans reliquish the moral high ground on racial issues while Democrats tout the advantages of living on The Plantation. It's a great marketing job, for the minorities in The Great Unwashed.
Harpo...nice to know you have no problem were you to boff your sister, mother or daughter provided they're all of the legal age of consent. Hey...sell tickets! |
tjohn
Citizen
Username: Tjohn
Post Number: 2222
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Monday, February 9, 2004 - 7:02 pm: | |
I just read a bit about LBJ. Sounds like a man I could vote for. Based on this snippet, he seems to combine the social consciousness of the Democrats with the fiscal responsibility of a Hoover Republican. This provides a nice contrast to the current administration that combines the social consciousness of the Inquistion with the fiscal responsibility of a credit card addict.
http://historicaltextarchive.com/sections.php?op=viewarticle&artid=613 |
TomR
Citizen
Username: Tomr
Post Number: 102
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Monday, February 9, 2004 - 7:53 pm: | |
For those of you who have labeled Messrs. Truman and Johnson as racists, (I think that characterization is a bit over the top for either of them) I gotta wonder: what's the problem with an elected representative who puts the good of our Republic above their own petty prejudices??
TomR.
Have we officially drifted off the thread topic yet? |
TomR
Citizen
Username: Tomr
Post Number: 103
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Monday, February 9, 2004 - 8:01 pm: | |
anon,
"If there is going to be a "Defense of Marraige" law..." (Sic).
Don't we already have such a law?
Along the same train of thought, I've been looking for the text of this wonderous exercise of Congressional and Executive authority, but so far have only found two sections: 1 USC 7 and 28 USC 1738C. Is there more to the act, or have I gotten it all?
Thanks for any help,
TomR. |
Montagnard
Citizen
Username: Montagnard
Post Number: 407
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 9, 2004 - 11:32 pm: | |
LBJ, America's first napalm president. Hold your nose when you vote. |
anon
Citizen
Username: Anon
Post Number: 962
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 10, 2004 - 9:03 pm: | |
Cjc, Did you really post: "Moderation isn't a vice per se."
And after talking about the Civil Rights Act of 1964?
In 1964, the Republican candidate for President, who opposed the Civil Rights Act, said in his convention acceptance speech: "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." |
harpo
Citizen
Username: Harpo
Post Number: 1201
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 10, 2004 - 10:30 pm: | |
cjc,
Did you really post: "Nice to know you have no problem were you to boff your sister, mother or daughter provided they're all of the legal age of consent" -- ? I didn't post anything like that. I said I didn't care what OTHER consenting adults do.
I also said SOME Democrats were racist in 1964 and said absolutely nothing about Republicans.
Why did you bring Charles Rangel into this discussion?
And you still haven't answered my question from above:
"cjc, I've thought about it hard and I don't really care if somebody marries their sterile sister. Why do you?"
|
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 887
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 11, 2004 - 9:06 am: | |
Oh.....it's others that can boff their sister and should be allowed to. You just don't ken to that yourself. I see. Well....you never know, harpo. You might change your mind, and wouldn't you like that action codified just in case?
Myself? Call it a feeling, but I here come out against marriage between siblings -- sterile or not. Hurts the gene pool, it's unseemly, and I'm an arrogant prude.
I also believe that a father shouldn't marry his adult son. I can't put my finger on why....I must be a victim of societal thinking that is backward.
I am in favor of multiple marriages, however. I think I could really make out with something like that, long as the pre-nup is negotiated well. If my child gets confused, I'll say 'go talk to your mothers."
PS -- Charles Rangel was brought with the discussion of racist Democrats because he is one. |
harpo
Citizen
Username: Harpo
Post Number: 1203
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 11, 2004 - 10:56 am: | |
cjc,
You specified "sterile" sisters.
Why are you calling yourself names?
And why do you call Charles Rangel a racist?
|
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 889
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 11, 2004 - 11:34 am: | |
Rangel's quote saying the modern KKK doesn't wear robes, but suits with red ties and they talk about tax cuts on Meet the Press is just one nugget I can toss out there.
Sterile sister or not -- why should that matter to you, harpo? Are you going to draw a line somewhere here?
Where do transsexuals come in on all this? Why were they left out? Are transsexuals on the outs for some reason? Were they ever embraced by their gay brothers and sisters? UK's Parliment is addressing that today in the wires, but not allowing transsexuals to marry in their 'new' gender. |
harpo
Citizen
Username: Harpo
Post Number: 1212
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 11, 2004 - 12:42 pm: | |
Guess I must be a racist too.
As to Sterile Sisters (could it be a band?), I've got no problem with laws that restrict marriage in hopes of preventing catastrophic illness, although now that I think about it, hasn't modern science given us the ability to accurately predict genetic risks for opposite-sexed strangers who might marry? Should we go back to giving people blood tests? Nah. Let the Fertile Sisters take their chances like everybody else, providing everybody's of The Age of Consent. Dump the incest taboo. Anybody who gets along that well with their relatives has my blessing.
As for transexuals, I don't get your point. If people undergo sex changes, they still have a gender, just the opposite one. As far as I know, anyone who changes their sex is now free to marry a person of their former sex.
Bonus question: Will we require the longtime spouses of transsexuals to divorce them if we amend the constitution?
|
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 892
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 11, 2004 - 12:59 pm: | |
You don't have to actually go through a sex-change operation to be classified a transsexual in the UK. Don't know what it is here. We ought to clear that up.
Anyone else up for dumping incest laws? Things are moving along nicely here, and I hope they are in MA too. |
rckymtn
Citizen
Username: Rckymtn
Post Number: 229
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 11, 2004 - 1:35 pm: | |
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine... NOT |
harpo
Citizen
Username: Harpo
Post Number: 1215
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 11, 2004 - 2:56 pm: | |
cjc,
Maybe you could make up some bumper stickers that read "Another Mother Against Incest" or some such. (How about "Another Brother Against Incest" for the guys?) I bet if everyone in Maplewood put one on their car, we'd make the evening news!
|
bobk
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 4630
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 11, 2004 - 3:10 pm: | |
Even better for a bumper sticker would be:
MAPLEWOODIANS FOR MULTIPLE MARRIAGES
|
themp
Citizen
Username: Themp
Post Number: 494
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 11, 2004 - 5:35 pm: | |
"The president has said that he is committed to doing what is legally needed to protect the sanctity of marriage," McClellan said. "And he has said, if necessary, he would support a constitutional amendment. That is what he has previously said. But at this point, we continue to look very closely at this issue. Obviously, if there are any updates, I will keep you posted."
There it is again - "protect the sanctity of marriage". I still don't get it. |
Tom Reingold
Citizen
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 2113
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 11, 2004 - 5:48 pm: | |
Very good point, themp. The government's take on what is holy is practicing religion, which is strictly prohibited.
But with all this talk of sterile sisters and such, it does seem to be time to ask why we, as a society, sanction marriage at all. Is it for economic stability, to procreate, or some other reasons?
Tom Reingold the prissy-pants
There is nothing
|
rckymtn
Citizen
Username: Rckymtn
Post Number: 230
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, February 12, 2004 - 4:45 pm: | |
Regardless of your position, this is not the way to win friends and influence people:
San Francisco Officials Perform Marriage of Gay Couple
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: February 12, 2004
Filed at 4:06 p.m. ET
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- In a bold political and legal challenge to California law, city authorities officiated at the marriage of a lesbian couple Thursday and said they will issue more gay marriage licenses.
Meanwhile in Massachusetts, legislative leaders met Thursday to try to find words that would ban gay marriage but legalize civil unions, expressing optimism as they reconvened their constitutional convention.
The act of civil disobedience in San Francisco was coordinated by Mayor Gavin Newsom and top city officials and was intended to beat a conservative group to the punch.
The group, Campaign for California Families, had planned to go to court on Friday to get an injunction preventing the city from issuing marriage licenses to gay couples.
Longtime lesbian activists Phyllis Lyon, 79, and Del Martin, 83, were hurriedly issued a license and were married just before noon by City Assessor Mabel Teng in a closed-door civil ceremony at City Hall, mayor's spokesman Peter Ragone said. The two have been a couple for 51 years.
Ragone said that beginning at noon, officials would begin issuing marriage licenses to any gay couples applying for one. One lesbian couple had already lined up outside City Hall, one of the women wearing a white wedding dress.
Lyon and Martin said after the brief ceremony that they were going home to rest and did not plan anything to celebrate. The couple seemed proud of what they had done.
``Why shouldn't we'' be able to marry? Lyon asked.
Thursday's marriage runs counter to a ballot measure California voters approved in 2000 that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
No state legally sanctions gay marriage, though Massachusetts could become the first this spring. The Massachusetts high court has ruled that gays are entitled under the state constitution to marry.
State lawmakers later passed a domestic partner law that, when it goes into effect in 2005, will offer the most generous protections to gays outside Vermont.
Mayor Newsom was not present for the wedding Thursday. The two official witnesses were Kate Kendell, director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights and former city official Roberta Achtenberg.
The Campaign for California Families did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
In Massachusetts, leaders said they hoped to finally reach an agreement after two other versions of a proposed constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage were narrowly defeated during the much-anticipated convention's opening day Wednesday.
``Things break down in this building by the minute, but it's going to be interesting,'' said Senate Minority Leader Brian Lees, a Republican. ``I'm cautiously optimistic.''
Massachusetts was thrust into the epicenter of the contentious social political, religious and legal debate over gay marriages in November when the state's Supreme Judicial Court ruled 4-3 that it was unconstitutional to ban gay couples from marrying, a decision that was reaffirmed last week.
``We're talking about a wide, wide variety of options and potential amendments,'' said House Speaker Thomas Finneran, an ardent opponent of gay marriage. ``Nobody's in a position, really, to insist on anything other than good faith efforts on all sides. We're open to all sorts of ideas.''
Any constitutional amendment would have to get 101 votes in the constitutional convention -- which is a joint session of the state House and Senate. It would have to get 101 votes again in the 2005-06 legislative session, and would then need the approval of voters in November 2006.
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page