Politics, Marriage & the 21st Century

[LESjunkie]

So I'm posting this because we've had quite a few political and philisophical threads on this board...there are many intelligent and enlightening minds in this forum. *So let's talk about something that is augmenting more and more in the news....a civil rights movement persay...

Women's suffrage began this way. *
African American suffrage began this way.

In fact, almost all civil rights movements in this country had begun just like this one at hand...I predict that our country is going to have a major movement on its hands over the next, maybe 5-10 years? *I dont know the numbers, but the signs are all here...From Massachussetts to Ohio to San Francisco...to the white house to the constitution, marriage as we know it is going to be so very scrutinized...and im curious as to where everyone stands on this. *

The reason I am intrigued to post this was a recent episode of Real Time with Bill Maher, on HBO. *If you dont watch that show, I recommend you do....in my opinion, it's brilliant....sheer realism at its best...check it out. *I know his old show on ABC sucked....but his new -no holds barred-esque show on HBO is solid.

Anyway, I went and retreived the transcript of his Valentine's Day show, where he touched upon the subject of marriage. *Read this, and if you have the time, read it again and let it absorb...it was so intense the way he delivered these words....I wish I could post his voice orating, but this will have to suffice. *

------------------------February 14th, 2004-----------------
"And finally, New Rule, Special Valentine's Day Edition: You can't claim you're the party of smaller government and then make laws about love. On this occasion of this Valentine's Day, let's stop and ask ourselves what business is it of the state how consenting adults choose to pair off, share expenses and eventually stop having sex with each other. And why does the Bush Administration want a Constitutional amendment about weddings? Hey, why stop at weddings? Birthdays are important; let's put them in the great document. Let's make a law that gay people can have birthdays, but straight people get more cake. You know, to send the right message to kids.

Republicans are always saying we should privatize things like schools, prisons, Social Security. Hey, how about we privatize privacy? Because if the government forbids gay men from tying the knot, what is their alternative? They can't all marry Liza Minnelli.

You know, Republicans used to be the party that opposed social engineering. But now they push programs to outlaw marriage for some people and encourage it for others. If you're straight, there's a billion-five in the budget to promote marriage, but gay marriage is opposed because it threatens or mocks or does something to the "sanctity" of marriage, as if anything you can do in Vegas, drunk off your ass in front of an Elvis impersonator, could be considered sacred.

Half the people who pledge eternal love are doing it because one of them is either knocked up, rich or desperate. But in George Bush's mind, marriage is only a beautiful lifetime bond of love and sharing. Kind of like what his dad has with the Saudis. Please, I kid.

All right, but at least the right wing aren't hypocrites on this issue. They really believe that homosexuality is an abomination and a dysfunction that's curable. They believe that if a gay man just devotes his life to Jesus, he'll stop being gay, because that theory worked out so well with the Catholic priests.

But I have to tell you, the greater shame in this story goes to the Democrats, because they don't believe homosexuality is an abomination. And therefore, their refusal to endorse gay marriage is hypocrisy. Their position doesn't come from the Bible. It's ripped right from the latest poll, which says most Americans are against gay marriage.

Well, you know what? Sometimes most Americans are just wrong. And where is the Democrat who will stand up and go beyond the half measures of "civil union" and "hate the sin, love the sinner" and say loud and clear, "There is no sin; it's not an abomination and no one can control how cupid aims his arrows. And the ones who pretend they can usually turn out to be the biggest freaks."

The law in this country should reflect that some people are just born 100% outrageously, fabulously, undeniably, Fire Island gay! And they do not need reprogramming. They need a man with a slow hand!"
--------------------------------END------------------------------

Let's not just post our personal opinions here, but also share some predictions of progression. *I know this is a deep, touchy subject...dont participate if you dont feel like it....but I think we all can have an educated discussion without acting like breadbasket hicks or bible-belters here...we live in two (now three with Philly ) extremely cosmopolitan cities...

[joeygk]

In my opinion the whole debate boils down to 'freedom to contract.' Marriage is a contract btwn two people that confers certain governmental benefits. So long as the couple have the intent & capacity (i.e. legal age) to enter into a contract the government should have no say in the matter. Unfortunately, our current administration is relying on outdated religious definitions of 'marriage' thus creating separate classes of people under the law and violating fundamental principles of equal protection. Then again, what do I know?

*I think Margaret Cho said it best: "any government that would deny a gay man the right to bridal registry is a Fascist State!" :P

[LESjunkie]

religious definitions, yes...but also the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) of 1996. This is the Act which will be the focus of change for proponents of same-sex marriage, and there will need to be a supreme court case that sets NEW precedents that would override the two cases (used as the backbone for the DOMA). Here is a link to the Defense of Marriage Act.

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/leg23.htm

[joeygk]

The Supreme Court will have to weigh in eventually b/c of the full, faith & credit clause of article IV of the Constitution --- each state has to uphold the laws & statues of it's sister states --- therefore there will be tricky constitutional issues to tackle once states like Massachusetts legalize gay marriage. Under the Constitution the other states would have to recognize the marriages performed in Mass -- the Supreme Court has not yet ruled or even heard this case/controversy --- and that's why there is talk of a 'constitutional amendment’ b/c it will take the final decision out of the courts, who right now will be the final arbiter.

[endymion]

A funeral is how you note the passing of a human life. Different cultures all over the world and through history have handled the specifics differently, but some note of a person's passing is common.

A marriage is another fundamental rite of humanity. The specifics of marriage are different from culture to culture but almost every culture has this concept.

A basic function of a human society is to provide a way for people to acknowledge these basic rites of humanity. In Soviet Russia the specifics of marriage involved a bunch of paperwork and rubber stamps, that was how their society implemented marriage. In New Guinea it might involve piercing something, I have no idea.

In the US, marriage is a legal process that involves asking permission from the government. That's our tradition. That's what our society does to acknowledge the process of two people committing their lives to each other.

Denying any two people access to the process that our society uses to acknowledge marriage has only one purpose. It classifies an entire group of people as less than human. It tells a specific group of people that they are not as good as the chosen group and that they are not entitled to even the most fundamental experiences of life as a human.

I do agree that what we are seeing is akin to the birth of the civil rights movement. I also know that the conservatives are correct when they fear that there are legions of other 'deviant' forms of marriage slouching in the closet just itching to come out.

[JMT]

the way i see it, why not at least let gays get the legal and financial benefits associated and reserved for marriages, even if they cant be "allowed" to be literally married.

[LESjunkie]

id say that could maybe be a step but in the long run it is disgraceful. *Nowadays, we cant imagine women not being able to vote, and we surely cant imagine having "separate but equal" facilities for whites and blacks....

will there ever be a day when society will reflect, with comparable sentiment to suffrage, on American history and say, "oh my god, those idiots wouldnt let gays marry?" *???


Educate to Tolerate... *

[Apotheosis]

will there ever be a day when society will reflect, with comparable sentiment to suffrage, on American history and say, "oh my god, those idiots wouldnt let gays marry?" *???

definitely.

[ciaran_r]

i

will there ever be a day when society will reflect, with comparable sentiment to suffrage, on American history and say, "oh my god, those idiots wouldnt let gays marry?" *???

For sure, sex before marriage was strict in the catholic religion and a lot of people probably couldnt imagine it happening.

No one really gives a 2 cent now ;D

[web_norah]

gay people are humans, they pay taxes and if they choose to be married so be it....they are not harming anyone or whatever preference they choose, i am not anybody to judge ...