Change? It Begins With Gay Marriage

Since we live under a large media peach pit here in Georgia, most other media are busily embracing the reality of gay marriage this week. “Change” is indeed the operative sentiment underfoot in America when traditional, and I do mean traditional, media are beginning to portray gay marriage in, gasp, actual human terms. From citizen journalist, Dan Treul, writing for OffTheBus:

On a day when the Obama campaign announced the appointment of Brian Bond and Dave Noble to its high-level national election team — both men prominent advocates for the LGBT communities — there was another signal perhaps of the readiness around the country for change, even across the stereotypically staid Midwest. On the heels of news coming from California, newspapers here showed a restrained objectivity toward– and, in some cases, excitement about — gay marriage, an issue that only years ago was considered taboo. Even papers owned by the traditionally conservative-leaning Gannett Co. dedicated considerable column inches to the matter, and more significantly, in a decidedly non-provocative manner.

Full column here. One must assume the once-great culture tea leaf readers, such as Newty G, are scribbling all kinda footnotes to that Contract With America about right now. My suggestion? Let’s hope fear-mongering on the right as a campaign strategy continues. Step it up even! Bring it on! Nowadays, in this wired and fired nation of ours, such nonsense provides terrific material — for the folk who know how to use computers.

84 comments

  1. Taft Republican says:

    Yeah, that’s great, SpaceyG. Except it’s against the law in Georgia. So move to California – at least for 4 or 5 months.

    Ain’t states’ rights grand? Especially when the people get to speak, instead of judges.

  2. Chris says:

    Gays wouldn’t be getting married if it weren’t for Gay Marriage.

    Oh, err, I’ll stop spamming other threads now

  3. Chris says:

    Georgia should recognize California Gay Marriage licenses when San Francisco recognizes Georgia’s concealed carry permits

  4. Chris says:

    I’ve been talking up the NRA/HRC legal dream-team idea for awhile. No one wants to pursue the “full faith and credit” angle.

  5. dorian says:

    `When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’

    `The question is,’ said Alice, `whether you CAN make words mean so many different things.’

    `The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master – – that’s all.’

  6. Taft Republican says:

    Conservatives fear legalized gay marriage in California and Massachusetts precisely because they are more inclined to believe that the U.S. Constitution (read: Article IV, Section 1) should always be followed. Which is why, ultimately, the question will have to be resolved constitutionally — that is, probably with an Amendment.

  7. heroV says:

    or we could go with civil unions for gay couples, because “separate but equal” is awesome, right?

  8. drjay says:

    oh, and see my 1227pm post from the “keith gross does not know how old he is thread”…

    i believe it was intended for this thread instead…

  9. GOPeach says:

    Gay Civil Unions – FINE!

    Gay Marriage – NO WAY!

    “Separation of Church and State” -remember?

    Time for THE CHURCH to keep the STATE OUT!

  10. FinanceBuzz says:

    First, they are not getting “married.” The California Supreme Court can call it what they want, but you cannot make a pig a dog by calling the pig a dog. It’s still a dog. Marriage is between a man and a woman and a law can only change the legal definition of such.

    Second, what concerns me is that the we could see attempts for “married” gay couples to force their “marriage” on other states by suing to have it recognized. That is why the only solution is an Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. That is the only way we can be sure that some activist judge San Francisco, Boston, or Vermont can force their agendas on the rest of this nation.

  11. Roy says:

    Yes, gay marriage is such a massive threat! More so than Osama bin Laden, the oil crisis, and the recession! And it’s obviously to balme for the 40 to 50% divorce rate of male female marriages.
    How ’bout this? People should mind their own G.D. business and stay outa other peoples. After all, turning your grudges into law is what Hitler and Stalin were famous for.

  12. jsm says:

    “People should mind their own [–] business …”

    Yep, including government. They should leave institutions alone that they didn’t create and don’t have the right to define.

    Webster’s 1828 definition sheds some interesting light on what has been known as “marriage” for centuries:

    MAR’RIAGE, n. [L.mas, maris.] The act of uniting a man and woman for life; wedlock; the legal union of a man and woman for life. Marriage is a contract both civil and religious, by which the parties engage to live together in mutual affection and fidelity, till death shall separate them. Marriage was instituted by God himself for the purpose of preventing the promiscuous intercourse of the sexes, for promoting domestic felicity,and for securing the maintenance and education of children.

    Marriage is honorable in all and the bed undefiled. Heb.13.

    1. A feast made on the occasion of a marriage.

    The kingdom of heaven is like a certain king, who made a marriage for his son. Matt.22.

    2. In a scriptural sense, the union between Christ and his church by the covenant of grace. Rev.19.

    http://machaut.uchicago.edu/?resource=Webster%27s&word=marriage&use1828=on

  13. heroV says:

    jsm, the problem is that marriage bestows benefits from the GOVERNMENT, regardless of your scriptural definition. How can you make such a logical blunder? Oh well, not surprising…

    Are you advocating repeal of EVERY SINGLE vestige of marriage and its attendant benefits/penalties from federal and state law for heterosexual couples?

  14. griftdrift says:

    That’d make it awfully hard to divide property. Unless you went back to when traditional marriage meant the women is property. Hmmmmmmm.

  15. Game Fan says:

    Roy
    I’m going to have to give a big thumbs down to gay marriage. Sorry bud. There’s no telling what they would try next if we allowed gay marriage. Besides, this way there’s none of that awkward pressure when one wants to commit and the other is hesitant.

  16. Tekneek says:

    I’ve seen data that suggests that anywhere from 40% – 60% of marriages end in divorce in the United States. I would say there are bigger problems there than whether gay people want to get married.

  17. jsm says:

    hero, I know what you’re saying. The problem, as I see it, is that government chose to recognize a “church” institution and connect a contract with it which provides ownership and privacy rights, affects taxation, etc. As I have said elsewhere on this board, government getting involved in marriage was a bad idea. It really is an establishment of religion issue (note that I did not use the cliche, “separation of church and state”).

    Any two people in this country should be allowed to make any contract they like between themselves, so long as it does not violate another’s constitutional rights. It’s just incorrect to designate the term “marriage” to couples that do not meet the characteristics of the institution as originally defined. In other words, government does not have the right to re-define the term.

  18. griftdrift says:

    The government shouldn’t have the ability to re-name its own contracts?

    Well at least that would get rid of all those silly acronyms congress comes up with.

  19. heroV says:

    sounds like this is a purely semantic issue for you. What if we just did a global search and replace for the word “marriage” with the word “union” and left everything else unchanged except for extending its benefits/penalties to gay couples?

  20. Demonbeck says:

    Change the law so all marriages in the eyes of the the government are called civil unions or civil contracts and then let churches decide how to perform marriages

  21. GOPeach says:

    Better yet –

    Just allow EVERYONE the SAME TAX BREAKS!
    Just allow EVERYONE the SAME INSURANCE RATES!

    We should not allow for discrimination over MARITAL STATUS!!!!

    Where did THAT come from anyway…. single moms/dads have it rough enough as it is!!!

    WAKE UP PEOPLE!!!!!

  22. jsm says:

    “The government shouldn’t have the ability to re-name its own contracts?”

    Since it used a name it did not originally define, it really should rename its contract. I can’t imagine that homosexual couples were seen as a potential issue when state governments first recognized marriage and licensed a connected civil contract.

  23. Bill Simon says:

    “There’s no telling what they would try next if we allowed gay marriage.”

    Right you are, Game Fan! “They” might try to legalize mixed-race marriage next!

    OH…WAIT…they did allow that…in 1967, actually.

    This is what the majority opinion stated in that 1967 decision:

    “Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.”

    The question is, from a LEGAL standpoint only (which is ALL that you can expect judges to apply to the concept of marriage) is “race” any different from “gender” or “gender orientation?”

  24. Bill Simon says:

    JSM,

    When “state governments” first recognized marriage, there were those states that prohibited inter-racial marriages.

    Think you still have a legal defense about your viewpoint now?

  25. Doug Deal says:

    Bill,

    I think this issue is stupid, but here is the difference.

    From your quote:

    Marriage is “Marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man, fundamental to our very existence and survival.

    Heterosexual marriage was basically the only only legally recognized and culturally accepted means (in the 1960’s as fornication was illegal and single parents shunned) by which the human species could be perpetuated.

    There is no such benefit in gay marriage.

    Now, I will go back to ignore mode. This issue and abortion, I am quite certain, will be argued by its zealots up until the very last moment before the giant astroid collides to wipe out the earth. Probably the whole thing could have been stopped too, but the people had the solution would have been barred from office because they weren’t “right” on the other two most important issues of our day.

  26. jsm says:

    “Think you still have a legal defense about your viewpoint now?”

    Yes – establishment of religion.

  27. ConservativeCaucus says:

    I am not going to get very involved in this discussion… I only wish to point out that inter-racial marriage is fundamentally different than same-sex marriage. The prohibition of inter-racial marriage was immoral and quite unfortunate. However, a marriage between an African-American man and an Asian or Hispanic or White woman (feel free to interchange the ethnic background of the different sexes) has absolutely nothing in common with two men or two women getting married.

  28. Bill Simon says:

    JSM,

    Thankfully we are a country founded and based on the Rule of Law, not on the Rule of Religion.

    If you are interested in living in a country where religious laws supercede the Rule of Law, then may I recommend you move to Iran, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Dubai, etc.

  29. jsm says:

    Bill, you’re smarter than this. Slow down and think about what I have said. I am referring to the first amendment, which prohibits the establishment of religion by our government. By recognizing a “religious” institution called marriage, government did, in fact, establish a solid connection to “religion.” I believe that this could successfully be challenged legally, especially in the light of recent events, and that government should have no direct tie to the “religious” institution of marriage. There are people everyday going through government required paperwork, blood tests, etc., before they are allowed to have their pastor, priest, bishop, or other religious leader marry them.

    So, no, I’m not “interested in living in a country where religious laws supercede the Rule of Law.” I think our government should back out of managing a religious ceremony, especially since it seeks to redefine it.

  30. Tekneek says:

    Wait a minute. Why do states require “marriage licenses” if these things are not regulated by the government? Why do they issue certificates of the marriages then? Why are there references to marriage in various legal and tax codes?

    If you didn’t want government involved in marriage, you are way behind the curve now. Good look removing it from just the IRS paperwork by the end of this year.

  31. Harry says:

    Sure the state needs to regulate marriage between man and woman. The Bible clearly proscribes same-sex activities, whether recognized by the state or not. If one doesn’t understand or adhere to biblical admonitions, then I can understand that state license of homosexual marriage would be of no concern. To those of us us who understand and adhere to the Bible, homosexual marriage is a concern.

    Why do I think this country is following in the historical footsteps of the children of Israel, committing the same errors, with the same identical and plainly obvious results soon to follow?

  32. Taft Republican says:

    Historically, there are three terms that can describe a marriage relationship: License, Contract and Coverture. Webster’s (1828) defines “license” as “Leave; permission; authority or liberty given to do or forbear any act… To permit by granting of authority; to remove legal restraint by a grant of permission.”

    “Contract” is defined as “An agreement or covenant between two or more persons, in which each party binds himself to do or forbear some act, and each acquires a right to what the other promises ; a mutual promise upon lawful consideration or cause, which binds the parties to a performance ; a bargain ; a compact.”

    “Coverture” (not to be confused with “covenant”, which implies equal footing as partners with equal responsibilities) is defined as “the state of a married woman, who is considered as under cover, or the power of her husband, and therefore called a feme-covert, or femme-covert.”

    Blackstone’s Commentaries (1.442-445. 1771) discusses Coverture at the close of the chapter, “Of Husbands and Wives.” But here’s how he opens this chapter:

    Our law considers marriage in no other light than as a civil contract. The holiness of the matrimonial state is left entirely to the ecclesiastical law: the temporal courts not having jurisdiction to consider unlawful marriage as a sin, but merely as a civil inconvenience. The punishment therefore, or annulling of incestuous or other unscriptural marriages, is the province of the spiritual courts; which act pro salute animae. And, taking it in this civil light, the law treats it as it does all other contracts: allowing it to be good and valid in all cases, where the parties at the time of making it were, in the first place, willing to contract; secondly, able to contract; and, lastly, actually did contract, in the proper forms and solemnities required by law.

    Our problem is that we have turned “marriage” over to the state, when “licensing” marriage is not supposed to be the purview of the state at all.

  33. BubbaRich says:

    Bill:

    Those state governments were EVIL, since GOD had already defined it so that inter-racial marriages were good. Moses had an interracial marriage before he murdered that Egyptian dude, so it was obviously right.

  34. Tekneek says:

    Oh, we should define our laws by the Bible. Are you really sure you want that? We certainly need to do away with our current US Constitution if we are going to live the Biblical life. How many people have you stoned, and how many stonings have you attended? Please don’t tell me zero, or you’ve really lost me on this “by the Bible” stuff.

  35. Bill Simon says:

    JSM,

    I’m with you on the concept of getting the government OUT of the marriage regulation business.

    If they do that, then marriage can be defined only by the various religions and/or non-religions that wish to sanction it.

  36. Bill Simon says:

    Game Fan,

    Whatsamatter? Getting nervous now that there’s been a prior USSC decision that might actually affect your “rock-solid” belief structure?

  37. Tekneek says:

    I can understand you’ve had a hard time dealing with having to share restaurants, stores, bathrooms, and water fountains with people of other races. It’s too bad they let multiracial marriages become legal, too. Not to mention letting women vote and ending slavery. It’s been such a tough ride for some of you. No wonder you just don’t want to lose another round in this battle for civil rights equality.

    When I try to see it from your point of view, where you’ve been losing major battle after major battle and longing for the glory days of 150+ years ago… I can almost understand the dogged determination not to lose one more time.

  38. jsm says:

    “If you didn’t want government involved in marriage, you are way behind the curve now.”

    You’re right, Tek. This is one of those moral issues that slid under the radar a long time ago and hasn’t given people a reason to challenge it until lately. It came from the same mindset that produced blue laws. American society in the 18th and 19th centuries generally held certain morals, and no one challenged those morals being made into law. Now we see how this was a mistake, constitutionally, and laws need to change.

    Some Christians fear the loss of moral laws and see it as the secularization of America. I see it quite the opposite. I feel that promoting freedom for everyone also guarantees the freedoms of Christians and those of all other religions to worship and carry out their particular beliefs as they choose. If America is to maintain its heritage of religious freedom, it will be up to the people, not government. Although our government has clearly recognized God from day one, it cannot maintain for the people the values that Christian faith, or any other faith, teaches. If people reject those values that their faith teaches them and don’t live by them, then they’ll be lost. Government does not exist to put moral limits on society for my benefit.

  39. BubbaRich says:

    jsm:

    You are wrong. It IS part of the secularization of American government. And that’s a good thing. I’m not sure why you would even oppose that. Are you opposed to the secular government in Turkey?

    I’m pretty sure you don’t even understand what secular government means.

  40. heroV says:

    jsm, I’m confused, you say that government has no right to redefine marriage, but is the government going to force any church to perform a gay marriage that it does not want to?

  41. jsm says:

    “You are wrong. It IS part of the secularization of American government.”

    No, I’m not wrong, Bubba. I said the “secularization of America,” NOT it’s government. Read a little slower next time. And yes, I do understand the meaning of “secular government.”

    “…but is the government going to force any church to perform a gay marriage that it does not want to?”

    Huh? I don’t follow your logic, hero. Licensing something does demonstrate recognition of it. I’m not familiar with govt ever forcing any church to marry a couple it did not wish to marry.

  42. heroV says:

    So if the government isn’t forcing a church to marry a gay couple, how is it redefining that church’s definition of marriage? It’s not.

  43. jsm says:

    hero, show me in the Bible where marriage is referred to between two members of the same gender.

  44. jsm says:

    And btw, I personally don’t respect nor would I be associated with any “church” that marries homosexuals.

  45. John Konop says:

    Jsm

    I will say it is a very slippery slope not showing respect for another man’s religion. This is the problem in the Middle East. You have the God given right to disagree, but we do respect minority rights in America.

  46. Game Fan says:

    I’m thoroughly nonplussed by all the angst and the hype and the faulty logic surrounding the supposed “issue” of gay marriage which has suddenly garnered attention by the mainstream media. And so many “experts” go along for the ride which is even more amazing.

  47. BubbaRich says:

    Lemme guess, GameFan, are you the one with the long bulleted lists?

    It’s interesting you put that you’re anti-vaccination right before you complain about being called a “wacko.” Your complaints about Treaty Law and GMOs put you in a different area than GOPeach, at least.

    GOPeach seems to want to live in a Bronze Age Middle Eastern marriage.

  48. Game Fan says:

    GMO http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GMO
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimera
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminator_seed
    From a conservative standpoint, one problem many have is with the relatively new practice of allowing corporate entities to gain patents on DNA. And there’s many ancillary issues. I’m sure others have a religious view on this. I think the Pope recently condemned the practice genetic engineering although there’s plenty of ammo for us more “secular” types conservatives too.
    http://www.care2.com/news/member/120255679/667923

  49. Tekneek says:

    If I am not a part of your religion, why should I care what your religious text says about anything? Should I care simply because your religion may be in the majority and you will bring your tyranny down upon me for not playing along?

    Protecting the rights of more people only makes this country stronger, not weaker. It is the things we do that go against those concepts of equality and protection for all that weaken us (as a nation).

  50. Icarus says:

    “If I am not a part of your religion, why should I care what your religious text says about anything? ”

    Because the New Testament keeps me from stoning you, no matter how much you deserve it.

Comments are closed.