Wait, what year is it again?

[Champagne]

Kerry backs state ban on gay marriage
Says amendment must provide for civil unions
By Jason Johnson (mercilessly stolen and altered from Patrick Healy and Frank Phillips of the Globe Staff) 3/7/1965

TOLEDO, Ohio -- Presidential candidate John F. Kerry said yesterday that he supports amending the Massachusetts Constitution to ban gay marriage and provide for civil unions for gay couples.

In his most explicit remarks on the subject yet, Kerry told the Globe that he would support a proposed amendment to the state Constitution that would prohibit gay marriage so long as, while outlawing gay marriage, it also ensured that same-sex couples have access to all legal rights that married couples receive.

Speaking via satellite from un undisclosed location in Kenya, Senator Kerry said, "I believe that we as Americans must uphold the sanctity of marriage or else risk the consequences of seeing society as we know it crumble into decay. Marriage is a strict union between one man and one woman--and perhaps an intern or two--and changing that definition would cause a mass reprint of all the dictionaries in the country. Do you have any idea what sort of economic upheaval that would cause?"

When prompted for further explanation of his views on civil unions, Kerry stated, "If the Massachusetts Legislature crafts an appropriate amendment that provides for partnership and civil unions, then I would support it, and it would advance the goal of equal protection. Equal protection for gays, while keeping them separate from marriage, is an idea that I feel very strongly about. In fact, I intend to use 'Separate But Equal' as one of my campaign slogans."

He has said he would oppose any amendment that did not include a provision for civil unions. "I think that you need to have civil union. That's my position. Otherwise, you would have uncivil union. And with uncivil union there would be no civility. And with no civility there'd be no civilization. There we'd be with an end to civilization, all because of those filthy, dirty, rotten gay people--not that there's anything wrong with being gay."

When asked about the heartache and familial diruptions caused by many suppressed gay individuals entering into heterosexual marriages only to have them collapse, the senator suggested adding strict heterosexual testing as a prerequisitve for getting married. "If you have ever touched the privates, or seen the privates, or talked about the privates of someone of your same sex, then you should be denied marriage just in case you're gay and don't realize it." Every national sports organization in the country is expected to protest.

Billy Bob Buchanan of Podunk, Arkansas said, "If them queers can get married, then my whole relationship with Bertha Rae would done come apart. I couldn't love her any more than what I done do, but I know I'd love her less if Peter Johnson and Rod "Peter Eater" Dickson down the road got hitched. I just don't think I could handle it." Bertha Rae was unavailable for comment as she was recovering at a local hospital from a drunken beating at the hands of Billy Bob the night before.

Many feel that Senator Kerry is unqualified to weigh in on this incendiary topic, citing his oft mentioned tendency to flip-flop on major issues. In 1996, Kerry voted against a federal law defining marriage as a union only of a man and woman, saying it amounted to gay-bashing. Senator Kerry's detractors have also pointed out that most of his campaign time has been spent bashing President Bush instead of taking a detailed stand on his own issues. They claim that, when pressed on many topics, he tends to avoid answering the question by calling attention to the President's failure as a leader. The senator angrily denies these charges.

"I'm a 9 year veteran of marriage. I've spent almost a decade on the front lines of marriage. Can President Bush say the same? Why has he failed to release copies of his marriage license? Why does he categorically deny that he avoided his duty as a heterosexual male by giving Miss Bush a "promise ring" instead of actually marrying her? Where's the proof that he's really married?" He then threw his wedding ring in protest.

Kerry's remarks were in reference to a statement made public on Wednesday. His campaign hired an independent panel of investigative reporters from St. Mary's High School for the Not-So-Gifted to further research the matter of President's Bush's alleged marriage and, after scouring the hundreds of leads available, the crack team assembled the following scathing indictment against the President.

"I'm 83 years old, and I remember every engagement ring I've ever sold," said Marvin "Old Blind Man" McGraw, owner of one of the forty-one His & Hers Pawn Shops--not to be confused with the thirty-seven Hers & His Pawn Shops--outside of one of the military bases where President Bush did or did not serve as a member of the National Guard during the Vietnam War. "And I can tell you right now that I have never seen that man here before. Where are my pants?"

When the charges were brought before the President, he laughed and said whatever Karl Rove told him to say. When the charges were brought before Karl Rove, he laughed and said, "Those silly Democrats. They're really reaching at straws now, aren't they? Of course these allegations are unfounded, untrue, and completely unprovable once their star witness is removed from the picture."

Early Friday morning, "Old Blind Man" McGraw was found dead in his burned down pawn shop. Local police will investigate once they return from an unexpected departmental trip to Hawaii, but as of this printing, the case is still being ruled an accident.

Jason Johnson is a political consultant for no one fortunately and can be reached via e-mail at champagne@vt.edu (http://mailto:champagne@vt.edu).

[Elizabeth]

The government shouldn't have the right to say who should or should not marry, unless it's putting someone in danger or someone is being taken advantage of (like minors, for instance).

I mean, whether you're for or against gay marriage, this is something I would hope everyone could agree upon..

If not, consider that there are SOOO many bigger battles out there for us to fight for and care about rather than if two grown, mature people [of the same sex] decide they want to wed one another. I mean, COME ON. This used to be the land of the free. If they aren't hurting anybody, let them do what they want. Jeez. How about we feed and clothe hungry children first? I refuse to believe that our country is in such excellent condition, that we can have enough leisure time to nit-pick at the bedroom attitudes/behavior/moral lives and decisions of free American citizens.

Elizabeth


:tinker:

[Champagne]

Well said, and I wholeheartedly agree. Just let PEOPLE (gay, straight, or otherwise) marry, and then move along to other important issues like fixing the bajillion dollar deficit we've got or something.

[justafan]

Originally posted by Elizabeth@Mar 8 2004, 03:45 PM
If not, consider that there are SOOO many bigger battles out there for us to fight for and care about rather than if two grown, mature people [of the same sex] decide they want to wed one another. I mean, COME ON.
I agree, land of the free should be more inclusive with rights for all of us(especially when removed from religion - separation of church and state) because religions are the biggest hindurance of legalization of gay marriage. That being said, the people that are fighting and need to be fighting this are the people in favor of gay marriage are being denied their right to do so legally. The defendants against that are not fighting anything, they are resisting change and trying to keeps things status quo. So until things change time does need to be spend clearing this up (just like other issues in our past - racism, sexism, etc. etc.)But I know what you meant ... :bigthumb:

I thought the article was interesting and sometimes funny, but was there a year typo at the beginning or towards the end? It says 1965 at the beginning and 1996 towards the end, it confused me a bit. I gotta go back to class though...

get my ed-ju-ba-kay-shun

[Poetdude]

I could not agree more. This is another example of just how screwed up our government's priorities are. They waste all of their time, energy, and resourses on all of the petty trivial things like this, while issues that are far more urgent and important seem to get completely ignored! Elizabeth, you are so right here. Who really cares what 2 consenting adults, (gay or straight), do in their personal lives. If two grown people are happy being together, and it is what they both want, LEAVE THEM THE HELL ALONE!

I think their time---not to mention their money---would be much better spent trying to feed the hungry...or provide affordable health care to the sick...or build housing for the homeless!

You realize of course that the driving force behind all of this "anti-gay" rhetoric is the so-called conservative "religious" community. Now, I don't have to tell you where I stand on the issue of religion. My opinions on that have been fully expressed in previous posts. But I will say that issues like this are the REASON why I hold the opinions that I do about religion.

Most of the so-called "religious" people who are behind this are not doing it because they care about other people's salvation. When it comes right down to it,
most of them couldn't care less about matters of the spirit. In fact, a vast majority of them would not know the real God if He walked up next to them and bit them!

The reason that they are doing this is because their religion has so effectively brainwashed them into believing that their way is the ONLY right one, that they are willing to resort to any means---including this kind of manipulation---to force others to confom to their belief system! And they could care less about the pain and suffering that they cause, because they can hide behind the Bible and use the name of God to justify their actions! As far as I am concerned this is nothing short of BLASPHEME! The God that I know commands us to LOVE EACH OTHER UNCONDITIONALLY, and NOT TO EVER JUDGE!

Remember the post where I spoke of my past experience with my church and how they treated me when they discovered I was gay? I came close to suicide because of the experience! These people are the primary cause of self-loathing among gay people, because many buy into the rediculous garbage that these people are spreading, and they believe that they are evil because they are gay! That is what the "religious" community is teaching them. Now, I don't know about you, but to me, whenever someone CLAIMS to represent God, then they should conduct themselves in a GODLY manner! And that means HEALING the pain and suffering of others, NOT being the CAUSE OF IT!

Whenever we have discussed issues of religion here, Coz has often spoken about the way that some people misuse and abuse religion. I think this is just the kind of thing that he was referring to. In the time I have been here, I have come to greatly respect the opinions that Coz has expressed...particularly on the subject of religion. There is a lot of wisdom in the things he has said regarding religion...and I think his views are very similar to my own!

Oh well, those are just my opinions on the subject. I apologize to anyone I may have offended.

Peace,
Poetdude

[onegalacticwino]

I could be wrong in the grand scheme of things, and I respect the different opinions, but I personally disagree. I have nothing against homosexuality ... my Dad is actually gay (no kidding). But I feel that no one's rights are being fronted. Anyone can marry -- as long as it is by the definition of what marriage is. Marriage is between man and woman. Marriage should be helpful to a society, although it seems to be weary and beaten down at the moment. Marriage straddles government, religion, society, tradition, etc -- so I don't think it's necessarily wrong for the government to have a say.

Civil Union's, fine. Or even better, let's come up with something other than marriage that they can live with -- a new tradition or word all their own for a gay union -- one that requires it be the same sex! Think of the power to open people's minds? Instead of trying to fit a square peg into a solid, long-standing circle whole -- let's celebrate the differences with a completely new idea!

But just like, by definition, Girl Scouts should only be for girls, Honor Roll for strong students, marriage should remain heterosexual. Not everyone fits into every group -- there is some good to that, to our differences. Not every division is negative.

Well, at least that's my current take ...

Peace

[justafan]

Originally posted by onegalacticwino
Anyone can marry -- as long as it is by the definition of what marriage is. Marriage is between man and woman. Marriage should be helpful to a society, although it seems to be weary and beaten down at the moment.

Civil Union's, fine. Or even better, let's come up with something other than marriage that they can live with -- a new tradition or word all their own for a gay union -- one that requires it be the same sex!

Instead of trying to fit a square peg into a solid, long-standing circle whole -- let's celebrate the differences with a completely new idea!


Paragraph 1 above: definitions can and do change with time, that should have no bearing on what is or is not right to do. And many people around would consider this to be a grave injustice, not letting some people marry whom they choose. Marriage should be helpful to a society... Hmm. It tries to be, but is it to ours? That shouldn't need to be a defining characteristic of marriage, or so I think. Allowing gay marriage isn't hurtful to the sanctity of marriage, hell I feel it could only strengthen it at this point...
sidenote: Some cultures in the 20th century actually used gay practices to keep the amount of kids down, one tribe would act gay for 364 days of the year and once a year the men and the women would meet together and do the doing... so in that respect it was extremely helpful to their society...

Paragraph 2: To me, and I am not upset in the least nor trying to offend anyone, but that seems unecesary bordering on derogatory. There is no point in further deliniating M/F vs M/M F/F marriages. It just doesn't make sense for me to do that, considering that would be like a half step of equality when all that is trying to be done is taking the entire one step that is wanted.

Paragraph 3: Goes along with two, why would this step be necesary? Circles change. Squares change. Marriage is marriage no matter who is taking part in it to me. To me it would be unfair for a new word to be made for it, all that would do is carry on stereo-types that need to end sooner rather than later for the good of all people(in my opinion).


No harm meant though, just discussing things a bit...

[Champagne]

Originally posted by justafan@Mar 8 2004, 08:41 PM
I thought the article was interesting and sometimes funny, but was there a year typo at the beginning or towards the end? It says 1965 at the beginning and 1996 towards the end, it confused me a bit. I gotta go back to class though...
Ermm...that was the entire point of this topic (check out the name of it). I read a REAL article (in the Globe Staff written by Patrick Healy and Frank Phillips) about Senator Kerry's opposition to gay marriage. He's for civil unions but not gay marriage, so it just made me think of "separate but equal" from the Jim Crow era. So I took the article and parodied it, making a reference to 1965 because of the Civil Rights Movement and threw in some other current political hot topics as well. Throw in a blender, add a bit of The Onion for good measure, and viola: one satire piece written by me and shared with the members of this forum! :)

[justafan]

that is what I though, I was just kinda checking.. :bigthumb:

[onegalacticwino]

Thanks for the comments, and no harm meant here either -- good discussion. This is a sticky subject, and I am still trying to sort through the sides. I see the "separate but equal" comparison, but something just feels different about it to me. But that's not a solid retort, is it, so there's definite something to it?

It seems like both sides are black and white -- I wonder where the come-together, compromising grey area would be?

[Poetdude]

Yes, this is definitely a sticky issue. There are very passionate feelings on both sides of this argument, and one must tread carefully when one deals with passionate feelings.

I can definitely see what you are trying to say here, Wino. But I think that is also part of the reason why this is such a difficult issue to resolve. People are getting too hung up on WORDS and their meanings.

Now, although I am gay, I certainly cannot speak for the entire gay community on this, but for me, the whole point of this is that gay people should have THE SAME rights and priveleges as their straight counterparts when it comes to their unions. We are NOT asking for special or preferential treatment here. We are simply asking for the right to have our unions LEGALLY recognized (they currently aren't), and to have the same spousal rights that marriage allows.

As long as we are allowed those rights, then personally, I would not care if you called it a "marriage" or if you referred to it by some other term. Because those labels are only words, and really don't matter very much.

I really don't see how allowing us that would be harmful to the "sanctity of marriage and family" as some people claim. As I said above, I feel that most of that attitude boils down to nothing more than religious semantics!

Again...that is just my opinion, and if I offended anyone, you have my sincere apologies!

Peace,
Poetdude

[Cozmo D]

Hmmm...I guess we should have foreseen the Welcome Room turning into On-Topic.

I for 1 totally agree. The government should have no say in whether I can marry my gay lover or my sister or my niece or my son or my three lovers from Utah or my mother or my...

[LumtheMad]

Coz is all about the love. Free or paid for.....

[Elizabeth]

Poet... I totally 100% agree with all the stuff you said up there (mainly post #1 of yours). BTW sweetie.. sorry I haven't called yet. I promise I will (someday)! :slap:

But if we are going to talk about the definition of marriage and whatnot, let me just say that... like most things, definitions change throughout time (I know that's usually a bogus cop-out thing to say, but it certainly applies in this instance). Marriage today occurs between many who it originally may not have.

We can even use me as an example if you like: me "marrying" Joshua is really just a ritualistic, cultural symbol that I feel I really want to go through. Neither of us is religious. Yet, marriage is considered a religious "institution". So... maybe he and I should not be allowed to get married. But you know what? --f--- that, 'cause we want to. Why? Because all our lives, we've witnessed marriages of friends, family, or even just heard our favorite fairy tales... and we wanted a piece of that happiness. Not because we were belonging to a church and it was the proper thing to do... but because we are in love, and in our culture that has become the way to legally bind one another as a symbol of this love. Who should deny this of me? And how many unholy, unloving people form unions every day? But no one's denying THEM anything.

:madrant:

love
Elizabeth

ps-- why do Christians still put up the pagan "Christmas" tree each year? Ritual. The meaning of the symbol is now associated with something else and brings a new or different joy. I don't hear the [majority of] Christians banning this. There's no Christmas-tree-bashing battles between government, clergy, and the public. Just another religious symbolism/meaning-changing analogy I'm throwing out there for kicks. Not that this symbol SHOULD be banned. I think it's a great example of change throughout time.

[Champagne]

Originally posted by Coz@Mar 9 2004, 08:05 PM
Hmmm...I guess we should have foreseen the Welcome Room turning into On-Topic.
Well, I certainly would have started this topic in On-Topic...

...but I had to jump through some hoops first. :)

[Champagne]

Originally posted by Elizabeth@Mar 9 2004, 08:15 PM
But if we are going to talk about the definition of marriage and whatnot, let me just say that... like most things, definitions change throughout time (I know that's usually a bogus cop-out thing to say, but it certainly applies in this instance). Marriage today occurs between many who it originally may not have.
Liked mixed race marriages, for example. They used to be illegal in most places because society's definition of marriage at that time only included one man and one woman from the same race. But the definition evolved as people finally started realizing the dehumanizing effects of such strict, narrow definitions. And I'm hopeful (if not overly optimistic) that we as human beings will pull through again and realize the dehumanizing effects of our current strict, narrow definitions.

[Elizabeth]

Right on.

love
Elizabeth :rock:

[onegalacticwino]

The government should have no say in whether I can marry ... my sister or my niece or my son or my three lovers from Utah or my mother or my...

Just thinking out loud ... but Really, Coz? So a manipulative, sick father would have the government's ok to marry his daughter? And in incestual relationships, based on biology, the liklihood of serious birth defects is escalated? That should be allowed? And polygamy? So, for example, a husband who has a secret other marriage, like the ones you see on 20/20 ... would be within their rights?

Which begs the question: where DO you draw the line, the "defintion"? -- which from a legal standpoint, and insurance reasons, etc, has to be made.

I suppose the proponents of gay marriage would say: 2 non-family human beings? Not a bad definition ...

[Chief]

read it again wino..you will see his position....

[LumtheMad]

Read it again wino....is that anything like play it again Sam?


My opinion on this is simple. Everyone is untitled to happiness. Government is set up to regulate certain things. I don't believe this should apply but because we vote for people it's a topic which gets address. Toss it all in the big pile of BS political manuevering.

I stand by playing the Beatles Revolution....no not Revolution 9 that would not make me stand but probably cause some sort of massive head trauma.

[Cozmo D]

Originally posted by The Dude@Mar 10 2004, 03:48 PM
read it again wino..you will see his position....
Thank you Chief. ;)

My rather (though unsuccessfully) sarcastic point is exactly "where do we draw the line"?

If 2 people who are in love should automaticly be allowed to marry, and gender is not an exception, then what is? Why shouldn't a brother be allowed to marry his sister? After all, we have removed the birth-defect and all child-bearing arguments from the equation with same-gender marriages. First cousins, parent/child, if they're human and in love, what possible argument is left to disallow the marriage?

As for polygamy, aren't all arguments against it based on religion? Why can't a man love more than 1 woman, or a woman more than 1 man? Hell, why can't a person of any gender love more than 1 person of either or both genders? Why shouldn't the whole group of them be allowed to get married?

Hmmmmmm???

[onegalacticwino]

I can't speak for everyone on my side of things, but religion has NOTHING to do with any of my beliefs on marriage. I am not Christian, I have nothing against anybody's beliefs or lifestyles, Lennon's "Imagine" is my ideal ... but that is just what it is, ideal. As far as I'm concerned, anyone can marry anybody -- no problem there -- in the eyes of God, sure; their friends, sure. But not the government, in this case the states. AND FOR THESE COMMENTS, I'M LEAVING GAY MARRIAGE OUT OF THE EQUATION -- now I'm addressing these other additions to the stream.

Polygamy -- no, it's not only religious. You have employment benefits, insurance, taxes -- perhaps now is the time for the government to separate itself completely from the benefits of marriage such as inheritance, tax tables, etc. Currently, I sure as hell wouldn't want to work in a company with polygamists who have 12 children and 3 wives (not all that uncommon) -- there is no way I'm going to pay substantially more insurance costs because of someone ABUSING the system as far as I'm concerned. But also ... our CULTURE (role models, CHILDREN). You shouldn't take children out of the equation as easily as that.

Incest results in increased defects -- simple as that. And when it's a parent and child, there is some manipulation that is plain wrong -- I'm for protecting the children from this absue, because that is what it is. The governemnt should have rules requiring seat belts for our safety ... so they definitely should have rules prohibiting an incredible increase in birth defects. Maybe not for logical and consenting me or you, but for some of the "special" people like this:

Special $$ Person (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/040310/480/wxs12203100226&e=3)

I'm going to stop this rant. Things like this are going to take understanding from both sides -- not assumptions or pure passion ... or sarcasm. There actually might be logical counterpoints to your arguments -- just as there are to mine. I'm all for open-minded discussion, with the acknowledgement that people who have different opinions are not necessarily religious nuts, bigots, etc. There are more than two sides, there are interesting coutnerpoints, this is sticky but worth talking through ... :grouphug:

Peace