Same-sex marriages gradually gain legal ground

[leekohler]

Good news.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/la-na-gay-marriage-law4-2009may04,0,4246217.story



When Maine's highest court ruled two years ago that lesbians Marilyn Kirby and Ann Courtney could adopt the two children they had cared for since 2001, the man who has led the state battle against gay marriage for 25 years got a glimpse of the defeat now looming.

"There's a sense people have -- a sense of inevitability -- and a tremendous sense of frustration because of the history of the gay rights fight in Maine," said Michael Heath, executive director of the Maine Family Policy Council.

He was referring to rights incrementally accorded to gay couples that have led to virtual equality between same-sex and heterosexual unions -- a significant trend occurring in Maine and other states where gay marriage remains banned, experts on both sides of the issue agree.

Those rights are expanding as legally married gay couples relocate to states that don't allow same-sex marriage, forcing courts, legislatures and employers to deal with the resulting issues of custody, divorce, inheritance and end-of-life decisions.

The adoption ruling in Maine had the effect of granting parental rights to same-sex couples. By the time the Legislature adjourns for the summer, experts expect Maine to become the fifth state to legalize same-sex marriage -- 11 years after voters banned it.

In New York, which doesn't allow same-sex marriages but recognizes those conducted elsewhere, recent court decisions have granted a divorce to two gay men and surviving spouse benefits to another.

In California, federal judges have twice overruled decisions by the federal government to deny healthcare coverage to gay employees' legal spouses, teeing up a constitutional challenge to the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which forbids federal benefits for same-sex couples.

Same-sex marriage is legal in Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont and Massachusetts, which began the trend five years ago. (Iowa issued its first marriage licenses April 27, a few weeks after its Supreme Court gave approval; weddings in Vermont will begin in September.) Within a year, Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey and New York will probably follow suit, say sexual orientation scholars at the UCLA School of Law's Williams Institute; New Hampshire's Senate approved a same-sex marriage bill Wednesday.

And as more same-sex couples wed in places where it is legal, the administrative fallout in other states is expected to keep expanding.

"The courts are going to have to wrestle with these issues as more and more states make it possible for people to marry," said Toni Broaddus, executive director of the San Francisco-based Equality Federation. "People don't stay in the same state for their whole lives anymore, so the courts in states without marriage equality are going to have to address these issues."

The recent moves in New England and the heartland to legalize gay marriage appeared to reinvigorate campaigns for passage of same-sex marriage bills in Maine, Maryland and Hawaii. Rights advocates predict the tide will eventually sweep even into some of the 30-plus states that have passed laws or constitutional amendments defining marriage as between a man and a woman.

"A body of law is emerging because it has no choice. Cases have been filed and they have to be decided one way or another," said Joseph Milizio, a Long Island lawyer specializing in gay and lesbian representation.

[yg17]

http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g122/yg17/HelenLovejoy_t630.jpg


Just kidding Lee :D

[leekohler]

Haha! Way to b e the first response! Love it! :D

[jav6454]

inb4 harsh comments on how gays marriages and religious statements...

Really, people 21st century, love thy fellow man.

[ViciousShadow21]

lets try and keep this a friendly argument leekohler and others. im tired of being sarcastic and mean. i think if we can all keep our tempers under control we could actually have a better discussion about this.

that being said what i meant when i posted that comment in the other thread is that we live in an age where gay couples and being gay is still prejudiced against quite a lot. this is backed up by what happened in California. Also that there are only 4 states in the US and as far as i know, could be wrong, 7 countries that allow it as well. Like i said before if i were going to start a county i would absolutely allow gay ppl to get married. But unfortunately we live in a country where the gay community was looked down upon for a long long time. See Milk.

In a perfect world gay couples could adopt kids, and those kids would be free of ridicule, but in the world that we live in this is sadly not the case in my experience. Now im not saying that i dont think that gay couples should not be allowed to adopt until all this gets resolved. if that were the case it would never get resolved. those first or second generation kids are going to have to clear the way and make it ok to have gay parents. that is just the way that it works. just like the first interracial couple and so on.

[NT1440]

Really, people 21st century, love thy fellow man.

I think thats what were trying to get to ;)

[Eanair]

Good news indeed. :)

[KompleX]

i don't understand how you can say that same sex marriage is gaining ground when the majority of states do not recognize same sex marriage, and even the few states that are considering recognizing it, it's not a sure win.

then again, i'm a pessimist, so feel free to give me the boot! :D

[EricNau]

i don't understand how you can say that same sex marriage is gaining ground when the majority of states do not recognize same sex marriage, and even the few states that are considering recognizing it, it's not a sure win.

then again, i'm a pessimist, so feel free to give me the boot! :D
Gaining is the key word, I think.

[Eanair]

i don't understand how you can say that same sex marriage is gaining ground when the majority of states do not recognize same sex marriage, and even the few states that are considering recognizing it, it's not a sure win.

then again, i'm a pessimist, so feel free to give me the boot! :D

It's not gay marriage exactly, but they're small steps in the right direction - small recognitions of their partnership, even if not being deemed marriage right now.

[Wotan31]

In a perfect world gay couples could adopt kids, and those kids would be free of ridicule, but in the world that we live in this is sadly not the case in my experience. Now im not saying that i dont think that gay couples should not be allowed to adopt until all this gets resolved. if that were the case it would never get resolved. those first or second generation kids are going to have to clear the way and make it ok to have gay parents. that is just the way that it works. just like the first interracial couple and so on.
Experimenting on children just seems so... wrong. Why expose them to such trauma for selfish personal reasons? Further, it is standard practice for a mother to be the nurturing and receptive parent while the father enforces rules and issues discipline. Yin and Yang. They work together as a system. Two yins or two yangs creates an unbalanced family, and I believe it has potentially harmful effects on the development of a child. I could never vote in favor of such a thing.

A great thing about the US is a persons right to choose whatever lifestyle he or she wants to live. In Islamic rule nations, it is illegal to be gay, and punishable by death even. Can you imagine someone being tried, convicted, and executed on charges of homosexuality? Sounds preposterous doesn't it? Happens regularly, and I'm glad it doesn't happen here.

The government originally created tax breaks and other incentives to promote traditional marriage. It seems a bit misguided to think that gays are somehow "entitled" to these same benefits. That's on the same level as saying single people should be entitled to those same benefits. After all, why should the law discriminate against those who intentionally chose not to marry? And what about pet owners? Having a dog is almost like a relationship, you have to care for it, and groom it and feed it, just like a family member right?

Legislation such as California's proposition 8 is a great step in the right direction, and will hopefully serve to prevent the unwarranted trauma and suffering of many children.

[Eanair]

Experimenting on children just seems so... wrong. Why expose them to such trauma for selfish personal reasons? Further, it is standard practice for a mother to be the nurturing and receptive parent while the father enforces rules and issues discipline. Yin and Yang. They work together as a system. Two yins or two yangs creates an unbalanced family, and I believe it has potentially harmful effects on the development of a child. I could never vote in favor of such a thing.

More faulty reasoning with no viable arguments.

If the two parents have to work together as a system, what about single parents - those who have been divorced or widowed? Would that not also have "potentially harmful effects on the development of a child"? By your logic, we should remove children from single parent households as well.

[Wotan31]

If the two parents have to work together as a system, what about single parents - those who have been divorced or widowed? Would that not also have "potentially harmful effects on the development of a child"? By your logic, we should remove children from single parent households as well.
No, removing a child from a single-parent household is not the right answer, but there are studies that show potential for developmental harm to children raised by a single parent. Your reasoning is faulty and you have no viable arguments here.

[Eanair]

No, removing a child from a single-parent household is not the right answer, but there are studies that show potential for developmental harm to children raised by a single parent. Your reasoning is faulty and you have no viable arguments here.

Please link to such studies.

You claim that a balanced family must have a mother and father, otherwise, it would subject the child to developmental trauma. If this is your claim (family must have a mother and father), then a family with a single mother or father is similarly not balanced. And as you wish to not subject children to such trauma of an unbalanced family, then you must either remove the child from such an unbalanced situation and place him/her in the proper balanced situation, or force the single parent to marry a partner of the opposite sex to restore the lost balance. You've now claimed that you do not wish to remove a child from such a household as it's not the right answer. You will then instead promote forced marriages of the single parent?

If we must enforce gays to not children to protect the welfare of the children, surely we must enforce marriage of single parents to protect the welfare of the children.

Having a dog is almost like a relationship, you have to care for it, and groom it and feed it, just like a family member right?

Ahh, another reference to the animals.

You know, the anti-gay marriage folks always say how perverted the gays are. But it's always them who start talking about people having relationships with animals.

And they think we're weird.

[jmann]

I like New York's policy on Same-sex Marriage, It's a nice halfway point. I wish more states did that at least. :(

[Tomorrow]

No, removing a child from a single-parent household is not the right answer, but there are studies that show potential for developmental harm to children raised by a single parent. Your reasoning is faulty and you have no viable arguments here.

I think it might be fair to say that a single parent raising a child isn't necessarily the "ideal," but I can't agree that it's per se bad. I was raised by a single mother until I was 5, and I turned out fine. Stop snickering.

[Wotan31]

Please link to such studies.

"Single parent families are at a higher risk of poverty than couple families, and on average single mothers have poorer health than couple mothers.[2]

Single parenting is strongly associated with an increased risk of a number of negative social, behavioral and emotional outcomes for children."

Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_parent#Effects). Studies are linked at the bottom of the page.

Ahh, another reference to the animals.

You know, the anti-gay marriage folks always say how perverted the gays are. But it's always them who start talking about people having relationships with animals.

And they think we're weird.
Eww, I didn't say a sexual relationship. :eek: That's disgusting. Why do gays always accuse pet owners of bestiality?

I think it might be fair to say that a single parent raising a child isn't necessarily the "ideal," but I can't agree that it's per se bad. I was raised by a single mother until I was 5, and I turned out fine. Stop snickering.
I agree, never said it was "bad". Only that it has a higher potential for problems. I'm sure the majority of children raised by single parents are perfectly fine too.

[EricNau]

No, removing a child from a single-parent household is not the right answer, but there are studies that show potential for developmental harm to children raised by a single parent. Your reasoning is faulty and you have no viable arguments here.
The studies to which I believe you are referring are not relevant to this discussion.

Yes, many single-parent households are less than ideal due to a myriad of variables, including cultural surroundings and socioeconomic conditions, but not because of the single parent specifically.

Assuming all parties are worthy of adoption (be it a single parent, opposite-sex, or same-sex couple), I have yet to see any research that indicates one parental situation is preferential over the other.

In other words, if all variables are controlled except for the gender and the number of parents (1 or 2), then there is no significant advantage or disadvantage to any situation.

[yg17]

Experimenting on children just seems so... wrong. Why expose them to such trauma for selfish personal reasons? Further, it is standard practice for a mother to be the nurturing and receptive parent while the father enforces rules and issues discipline. Yin and Yang. They work together as a system. Two yins or two yangs creates an unbalanced family, and I believe it has potentially harmful effects on the development of a child. I could never vote in favor of such a thing.

Maybe in Leave it to Beaver it's that way. My mom was always the one enforcing my rules and disciplining my siblings and I, and my dad never cared what we did and we could get away with anything with him. And we turned out fine.

In a gay couple, couldn't one parent be nurturing and the other one be the discipline? There's no rule that says the woman has to be one thing and the man can be the other.

[Eanair]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_parent#Effects"

"Single parent families are at a higher risk of poverty than couple families, and on average single mothers have poorer health than couple mothers.[2]

Single parenting is strongly associated with an increased risk of a number of negative social, behavioral and emotional outcomes for children."

The [2] article source link is broken.

As for your second quote, if you read the actual article the quote is from, here is the entire passage:

Single motherhood appears to be a strong risk factor in negative social, behavioural and emotional outcomes for children. Some argue that this is due specifically to the absence of a male parent.(8) However, there is strong evidence to suggest that these negative outcomes are the result of the age, educational, economic and social isolation disadvantages that often accompany single motherhood.(9)

http://www.aph.gov.au/LIBRARY/Pubs/RN/2001-02/02rn41.htm

It is not the single parenting itself, or the lack of a father itself, that causes such negative outcomes - it is the age, education, and economic/social isolation that some single mothers have that contributes to the negative outcomes. Such disadvantages (young parents, lack of education, economic/social isolation) are not restricted to single parents. Such socio-economic problems can be found in heterosexual families as well.

Additionally, the same article also says this:

With regard to lesbian parenting, studies tracking the long-term progress of children of lesbian mothers have revealed no significant differences between them and children of heterosexual mothers along any of the following key developmental dimensions:

* Gender development: children of lesbian parents are no more likely to have confused or unconventional gender identity or behaviour, or to have gay or lesbian sexual orientation.

* Self-esteem and emotional wellbeing: the behaviour, intelligence, psychiatric and emotional condition of children of lesbian parents is within the normal range.

* Social development: children of lesbian parents are within the normal range of confidence, and have positive peer relationships. They are no more likely to be teased or bullied than children of heterosexual mothers.


And then the same article goes on to say this:

Overall, though, the existing evidence indicates that the sexual orientation of parents does not appear to be a determinant of the success of a child's development. Nor does the presence of a father appear crucial for normal development. The available evidence, therefore, does not support the developmental assumptions mentioned earlier.

Eww, I didn't say a sexual relationship. :eek:

Neither did I.

[iPhoneNYC]

It's clear that this country is on the way. East coast/west coast/ now middle state. The hard part has been won, it just a matter of time for all states.

[Eanair]

The edit function to add another quote isn't working for my last post, so here's more:

The same article goes on to finish with this:

Developmental research consistently reports that it is the quality of family processes, rather than the nature of family structure (e.g. single, same-sex, or heterosexual couple parents) that is most important to the adjustment of the child.

http://www.aph.gov.au/LIBRARY/Pubs/RN/2001-02/02rn41.htm

[leekohler]

The [2] article source link is broken.

As for your second quote, if you read the actual article the quote is from, here is the entire passage:



http://www.aph.gov.au/LIBRARY/Pubs/RN/2001-02/02rn41.htm

It is not the single parenting itself, or the lack of a father itself, that causes such negative outcomes - it is the age, education, and economic/social isolation that some single mothers have that contributes to the negative outcomes. Such disadvantages (young parents, lack of education, economic/social isolation) are not restricted to single parents. Such socio-economic problems can be found in heterosexual families as well.

Additionally, the same article also says this:



And then the same article goes on to say this:





Neither did I.

Annoy a conservative: use facts and logic.


Legislation such as California's proposition 8 is a great step in the right direction, and will hopefully serve to prevent the unwarranted trauma and suffering of many children.

Homosexuals have been raising kids for decades. The only people traumatizing them are the ignorant fools who refuse to deal with reality. Here's an idea- why don't you talk to some of the people in this forum with same sex parents and see what they think?

[DZ/015]

It is about time that homosexuals are getting married. Let them suffer like the rest of us.;)

As a heterosexual atheist, I really do not care if 2 men or 2 women get married. As a resident of MA, gay marriage is legal. Society has not collapsed as a result. I even have taught my children, it may not be right for you, but it is right for them. Don't judge others as you do yourself. Let everyone live their life as they see fit as long as no harm is done.

And Lee, if you weren't a dude, your views on gun ownership would make me want you, bad.

[ZiggyPastorius]

Annoy a conservative: use facts and logic.



Homosexuals have been raising kids for decades. The only people traumatizing them are the ignorant fools who refuse to deal with reality. Here's an idea- why don't you talk to some of the people in this forum with same sex parents and see what they think?

I have a single parent...who is a lesbian!

And look at how messed up I am, Lee.

;)

[Eanair]

As a heterosexual atheist, I really do not care if 2 men or 2 women get married. As a resident of MA, gay marriage is legal. Society has not collapsed as a result.


Some think that because MA has had gay marriage for so long, it's what prompted CT to follow. Being our neighbors, they know that MA hasn't collapsed or otherwise imploded, so it's easier to argue that gay marriage won't cause sudden societal meltdown.

Hooray for a fellow M******* from Taxachusetts. :) ;) (meant in the most affectionate way, of course)

[ViciousShadow21]

I was born and raised on the south shore in Massachusetts. then went to school in Boston. and have not noticed any implosion or explosion of the social structure. having traveled around quite a bit to other states and countries i cant really say that there is much difference in the amount of gay couples. i went to a music school so we had a good number of the gay community and there were always about the same amount of gay ppl at the colleges i visited around the country and around the world.

my point is i think for those that are against it feel that by allowing gay ppl to get married and raise families the way straight couples do, is acknowledging they are equal. i believe that the word tolerance is used for a reason. to me it is a negative word. that up until this point the conservatives were happy just tolerating the gay community. but now that they are demanding equal rights they feel threatened. it is silly to believe that allowing gays to marry is going to cause more ppl to become gay. it's just scary for them to see their "sacred" institution (i always use the Britney Spears example, god what an idiot) be open to ppl of the same sex. it's how they feel superior to them. and now that it's slowly slipping away they are lashing out.

[DZ/015]

but now that they are demanding equal rights

Here is where I step in the deep doodoo. I don't view this as equal rights. A gay man may marry any woman that will have him. Same as any straight man. Same for women.

This is not an equal rights issue. For millenia, marriage was arranged around the consolidation of money and power. Not love. Still is in many areas around the world.

However, I don't believe 2 men or 2 women should be prevented from being married in the eyes of the state. If 2 (or 3 or more) people wish to be in a relationship, it is not my business. The state should recognize such unions. Forcing a church to is wrong, but the state is different. It is a reflection of the citizens. Marry whomever you wish. It matters not to me.

[leekohler]

.

And Lee, if you weren't a dude, your views on gun ownership would make me want you, bad.

I'm cute. Does that help? ;)

[mactastic]

Annoy a conservative: use facts and logic.
Actually, as we've seen, it's "*enrage* a conservative: use facts and logic." :p

[leekohler]

Moments ago during the debate over marriage equality legislation in Maine, Rep. Sheryl Briggs, a Democrat of Mexico, took the floor to express her opposition to allowing same-sex couples to marry.

She also revealed that her daughter is a lesbian.

Briggs said that she has known about her daughter for 15 years, and that she regards her daughter’s sexual orientation as a choice. The representative tearfully announced that she made her own difficult choice to oppose marriage equality.

“Blame it on my upbringing, or the good book, but the deepest part of my soul tells me that this is wrong,” Briggs said. “I can’t change how I feel. These feelings run very deep. I have kept this secret within me for 15 years, but because of who I am, and where I am today, and as a member of this legislative body, ethically, it is my duty, and my responsibility, to publicly say to my daughter, that I do not support her way of life."

”I have no choice. I have to hit that button,” Briggs said.

http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid82261.asp

So- sexuality is a choice and religion isn't? Wow- just wow. I hope she's prepared ot lose her daughter. If my parents did something like this in public, that would pretty much be it.

[iGary]

Moments ago during the debate over marriage equality legislation in Maine, Rep. Sheryl Briggs, a Democrat of Mexico, took the floor to express her opposition to allowing same-sex couples to marry.

She also revealed that her daughter is a lesbian.

Briggs said that she has known about her daughter for 15 years, and that she regards her daughter’s sexual orientation as a choice. The representative tearfully announced that she made her own difficult choice to oppose marriage equality.

“Blame it on my upbringing, or the good book, but the deepest part of my soul tells me that this is wrong,” Briggs said. “I can’t change how I feel. These feelings run very deep. I have kept this secret within me for 15 years, but because of who I am, and where I am today, and as a member of this legislative body, ethically, it is my duty, and my responsibility, to publicly say to my daughter, that I do not support her way of life."

”I have no choice. I have to hit that button,” Briggs said.

http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid82261.asp

So- sexuality is a choice and religion isn't? Wow- just wow. I hope she's prepared ot lose her daughter. If my parents did something like this in public, that would pretty much be it.

The silly thing about most people's aversion to homosexuality is that it's about as basic as "it grosses me out."

If she was my mother, I'd be done.

[leekohler]

The silly thing about most people's aversion to homosexuality is that it's about as basic as "it grosses me out."

If she was my mother, I'd be done.

That's a pretty terrible thing to do. I honestly could not find a way to reconcile that. To do that because of a belief is simply unforgivable.

[iJohnHenry]

I have a single parent...who is a lesbian! ;)

Damn!! How is that possible? You're Mom is cute. :D

Of course, being single is a personal choice.

Lee, if you ever get married, I volunteer to stand-up for you/give you away, whichever is appropriate. http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g158/MouseMeat/Smilies/MMafter03.gif

[Queso]

That's a pretty terrible thing to do. I honestly could not find a way to reconcile that. To do that because of a belief is simply unforgivable.
Oh, but of course it's forgiveable. It's always forgiveable if you invoke The Good Book™ or some other crap that allows you to abdicate responsibility for your own actions :rolleyes:

Well Sheryl, that's one less present to buy this Holidays.

[ViciousShadow21]

…The Good Book™ or some other crap…

haha nice.

[Iscariot]

Forcing a church to is wrong, but the state is different.

Is anyone advocating forcing the church to do such a thing, or is this just a slippery slope argument?

[Zombie Acorn]

Although gay marriage becoming legal won't affect me I have to relish the pain it is going to cause Christians when gay marriage is legal around the states, especially since it doesn't directly affect them either but they act like the world is going to crumble.

[Kardashian]

Someone will probably cut my head off for this - but I don't believe in Same-Sex marrige.

I believe in 'marriage' - and that it should be open to all.

Why call it same-sex? We shouldn't separate each other more.

Just me :)

[adrianblaine]

I have to relish the pain it is going to cause Christians when gay marriage is legal around the states, especially since it doesn't directly affect them either but they act like the world is going to crumble.

I'm just wondering if you really lump all Christians into one big group. I think it's been established that there are quite a few who do not hold that view. I guess I'm curious if you wouldn't mind saying "some Christians" instead...

[Zombie Acorn]

Someone will probably cut my head off for this - but I don't believe in Same-Sex marrige.

I believe in 'marriage' - and that it should be open to all.

Why call it same-sex? We shouldn't separate each other more.

Just me :)

It probably will be called plain "marriage" in the future, right now you have to say "same sex marriage" because its a hot button issue and then everyone knows what you are talking about.

I'm just wondering if you really lump all Christians into one big group. I think it's been established that there are quite a few who do not hold that view. I guess I'm curious if you wouldn't mind saying "some Christians" instead...

I know there are some Christian groups who accept gay marriage, I didn't mean to infer that all Christians were against gay marriage (obviously as there are gay Christians).

There are Christians who would rather stab their eyes out than see gay people getting married however.

edit: and I double posted again, mods are going to kill me :o

[Kardashian]

It probably will be called plain "marriage" in the future
With a bit of luck.

[todd2000]

as a member of this legislative body, ethically, it is my duty, and my responsibility, to publicly say to my daughter, that I do not support her way of life."

”I have no choice. I have to hit that button,” Briggs said.

http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid82261.asp

So- sexuality is a choice and religion isn't? Wow- just wow. I hope she's prepared ot lose her daughter. If my parents did something like this in public, that would pretty much be it.

I heard about this before, what a B***h. To do that to your own daughter in public, or in private for that matter is just wrong. I agree lee, I think shes about to lose a daughter.

Here is where I step in the deep doodoo. I don't view this as equal rights. A gay man may marry any woman that will have him. Same as any straight man. Same for women.

This is not an equal rights issue. For millenia, marriage was arranged around the consolidation of money and power. Not love. Still is in many areas around the world.

However, I don't believe 2 men or 2 women should be prevented from being married in the eyes of the state. If 2 (or 3 or more) people wish to be in a relationship, it is not my business. The state should recognize such unions. Forcing a church to is wrong, but the state is different. It is a reflection of the citizens. Marry whomever you wish. It matters not to me.

This most certainly is an equal rights issue. Straight people have the right to marry the person they love, and get all of the hundreds of Federal, and State benefits that come with being married. Gay people DO NOT, end of argument!

As for the Church, nobody is going to "force them to marry gay couples. The fact that everyone always conveniently leaves out is that churches never have, nor will they be required to marry anyone, gay straight or otherwise. A church can decline to marry anyone for whatever reason they want.

Someone will probably cut my head off for this - but I don't believe in Same-Sex marrige.

I believe in 'marriage' - and that it should be open to all.

Why call it same-sex? We shouldn't separate each other more.

Just me :)

Nobody will cut your head off, your thinking rationally. Just call it marriage open it to everyone, and call it a day.

[leekohler]

I'm just wondering if you really lump all Christians into one big group. I think it's been established that there are quite a few who do not hold that view. I guess I'm curious if you wouldn't mind saying "some Christians" instead...

Christians allow "some Christians" to lump them into one group. Where's the loud, vocal opposition to extreme conservative Christians from other Christians? The silence is deafening. I'm sorry, but we rarely hear about it. I know not all Christians believe this, but it's their responsibility to speak up and be counted- not everyone else's. So they should get to it. They should organize and fight these fools. Ask moderate Muslims what happens when the radicals are ignored.

[iGary]

http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid82294.asp

[Queso]

http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid82294.asp
Another domino goes down. The DOMA is starting to look decidedly shaky.

[leekohler]

http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid82294.asp

Yes! Good news iGary! Thanks for posting that!

[localoid]

... Where's the loud, vocal opposition to extreme conservative Christians from other Christians? The silence is deafening. I'm sorry, but we rarely hear about it. I know not all Christians believe this, but it's their responsibility to speak up and be counted- not everyone else's. So they should get to it. They should organize and fight these fools. ...

This is exactly what I keep wondering about -- why the mainline churches don't stand up and speak to the issue, even if it would be something such as simply supporting the concept of legal civil unions that aren't "blessed" by the church.

But there are many issues today that the mainline denominations should be publicly addressing. But few seem willing to do so. And so, is there any wonder why many would think every that church in the U.S. believes the earth is 6000 years old and that science is the work of the Devil?

The mainline churches don't seem to want to get involved in any "hot" issue. Maybe they're afraid to "make waves", or maybe they're just afraid of the ultra-conservative Christians. Whatever the reasons, they seem to choose to bury their heads in the sand. I'm a married heterosexual male, so the issue of marriage equity isn't one of personal concern to me, but it is an issue that most reasonably minded people should be able embrace and support. About 150 years ago most citizens of the U.S. weren't black, but many were able to wrap their heads around the concept that slavery was wrong, with many were even willing to fight and possibly die in an effort to right that wrong simply because it was the right thing to do.

[Tomorrow]

Christians allow "some Christians" to lump them into one group.

Not really; the way it looks to me, it's mostly non-Christians who lump all of us into one group.

Where's the loud, vocal opposition to extreme conservative Christians from other Christians? The silence is deafening. I'm sorry, but we rarely hear about it. I know not all Christians believe this, but it's their responsibility to speak up and be counted- not everyone else's. So they should get to it. They should organize and fight these fools. Ask moderate Muslims what happens when the radicals are ignored.

It's no more my place to criticize extreme conservative Christians than it is to criticize liberal non-Christians. You're both entitled to your beliefs and opinions.

So many of these threads on MR degenerate into a playground battle of words between Christians and non-Christians, and everyone seems to polarize on extreme ends of the spectrum. Anyone who is seen as somewhere in between gets labeled a fence sitter, or wishy-washy, or some other insulting term. I know because it's happened to me a few times. It gets old to me, so I unsubscribe from those threads.

All things considered, I'm glad you made this post. It shows me that maybe some of you (and by that I mean non-Christians) do realize that at least on some level we don't all believe in all the exact same things.

[leekohler]

Not really; the way it looks to me, it's mostly non-Christians who lump all of us into one group.



It's no more my place to criticize extreme conservative Christians than it is to criticize liberal non-Christians. You're both entitled to your beliefs and opinions.

So many of these threads on MR degenerate into a playground battle of words between Christians and non-Christians, and everyone seems to polarize on extreme ends of the spectrum. Anyone who is seen as somewhere in between gets labeled a fence sitter, or wishy-washy, or some other insulting term. I know because it's happened to me a few times. It gets old to me, so I unsubscribe from those threads.

All things considered, I'm glad you made this post. It shows me that maybe some of you (and by that I mean non-Christians) do realize that at least on some level we don't all believe in all the exact same things.

If all anyone hears from Christians is the extreme view, while others say nothing, what is everyone else supposed to think?

And you should be strong enough to withstand some name-calling. If I shut up because people called me names, I'd never speak.

[localoid]

If all anyone hears from Christians is the extreme view, while others say nothing, what is everyone else supposed to think?

Exactly. The ultra-conservatives are the ones actively in the forefront, talking to the TV cameras. etc. and making their view known (loudly) to anyone who'll listen. They're usually very vocal, apparently because they're "mad as hell and can't take it any longer", blah, blah, blah.

The middle of the road and the liberal Christians need to get angry and start replying with a "I can't take this stupid $&!7 anymore" response and begin to distance themselves from those who refuse to be a part of the 21st Century.

I'm in the center of Appalachia, an area renown for it's redness, and yet I find more than 55% of the people here actually very liberal. But unfortunately, many of the locals aren't great critical thinkers. So, if some very organized group hands them a flyer or sends them an email explaining why "You need to do this -- for the children!" they're automatically "on board" with the program.

On the other hand, if you can get the opportunity to talk with them one on one, they will listen. And more often than not they will change their hastily conceived opinions once they've been made aware of the big picture. You just have to get them away from the "group think".

On the subject of marriage equity, the typical "knee jerk" reaction to the subject can almost always be changed if you can get them away from the maddening crowd. Why? Because almost all will have a least one gay relative, and being people who are usually fiercely loyal to "family" they normally accept their gay kinfolks without prejudice. Calm their fears about the non-existence boggy men, like the "the hidden gay agenda", and most will agree that ever person desires the right to love, happiness, etc. Then, at least, you have a "work in progress" that heading in the right direction. You can't change these folks minds by attacking them (or their thinking) as a "problem" -- you have to approach them on some kind of common ground.

And you should be strong enough to withstand some name-calling. If I shut up because people called me names, I'd never speak.

I always been far too self confident to let names or other's opinions bother me. But here in the Appalachian highlands many people are extremely sensitive and overly insecure and such folks are prime candidates for easy manipulation by the Overlords of Group Think and their minions. And so the saga continues... Maybe someday soon, logic will triumph over "stupid".

[Prof.]

A friend of mine asked me: "Brandon, what do you think they gays will do once they have the right to marry one another?"

My response was: "Get divorced like every other couple."

[leekohler]

A friend of mine asked me: "Brandon, what do you think they gays will do once they have the right to marry one another?"

My response was: "Get divorced like every other couple."

We'll live our lives more happily. And the wackos won't have to listen to us bitch anymore.

[Eanair]

A friend of mine asked me: "Brandon, what do you think they gays will do once they have the right to marry one another?"

They'll marry one another. :)

[Tomorrow]

Exactly. The ultra-conservatives are the ones actively in the forefront,...making their view known (loudly) to anyone who'll listen. They're usually very vocal, apparently because they're "mad as hell and can't take it any longer", blah, blah, blah.

Take a look at some of the liberal posters in this and other forums - it's not just the ultra-conservatives running their mouths.

The middle of the road and the liberal Christians need to get angry and start replying with a "I can't take this stupid $&!7 anymore" response and begin to distance themselves from those who refuse to be a part of the 21st Century.

Get angry at what, exactly? I wouldn't feel the need to distance myself from a group to which I don't belong if it weren't for people and their stereotypes who insist on grouping me in it. I feel how I feel, you feel how you feel, and they feel how they feel - if you want to categorize me, all I ask is that you do it correctly.

I always been far too self confident to let names or other's opinions bother me.

Even if their opinions are different from yours? I don't necessarily mean you in particular - hopefully everyone reading this thread will take a moment to ask themselves this question, look in the mirror, and answer honestly.

If all anyone hears from Christians is the extreme view, while others say nothing, what is everyone else supposed to think?

You wouldn't want someone to generalize that you have the same opinions as every other male, or every other homosexual, please don't jump to the conclusion that every Christian is identical with regard to their opinions. Nobody owes it to you to separate himself from a group into which you incorrectly lump him.

And you should be strong enough to withstand some name-calling. If I shut up because people called me names, I'd never speak.

At least get the names right, if you insist on name calling. In the meantime, I'll refrain from calling you and others names; it's a waste of time, and it doesn't exactly go very far toward bridging the ideology gap.

And if I wanted to call the kettle black, I could say that all homosexuals resort to name calling. But I'm reasonable enough to know that's not true.

[MacHipster]

The [2] article source link is broken.

As for your second quote, if you read the actual article the quote is from, here is the entire passage:



http://www.aph.gov.au/LIBRARY/Pubs/RN/2001-02/02rn41.htm

It is not the single parenting itself, or the lack of a father itself, that causes such negative outcomes - it is the age, education, and economic/social isolation that some single mothers have that contributes to the negative outcomes. Such disadvantages (young parents, lack of education, economic/social isolation) are not restricted to single parents. Such socio-economic problems can be found in heterosexual families as well.

Additionally, the same article also says this:



And then the same article goes on to say this:





Neither did I.

You assume the intellectually lazy actually take the time to research. :p

[leekohler]

Take a look at some of the liberal posters in this and other forums - it's not just the ultra-conservatives running their mouths.



Get angry at what, exactly? I wouldn't feel the need to distance myself from a group to which I don't belong if it weren't for people and their stereotypes who insist on grouping me in it. I feel how I feel, you feel how you feel, and they feel how they feel - if you want to categorize me, all I ask is that you do it correctly.



Even if their opinions are different from yours? I don't necessarily mean you in particular - hopefully everyone reading this thread will take a moment to ask themselves this question, look in the mirror, and answer honestly.



You wouldn't want someone to generalize that you have the same opinions as every other male, or every other homosexual, please don't jump to the conclusion that every Christian is identical with regard to their opinions. Nobody owes it to you to separate himself from a group into which you incorrectly lump him.



At least get the names right, if you insist on name calling. In the meantime, I'll refrain from calling you and others names; it's a waste of time, and it doesn't exactly go very far toward bridging the ideology gap.

And if I wanted to call the kettle black, I could say that all homosexuals resort to name calling. But I'm reasonable enough to know that's not true.

Whoa, man- you misunderstood my post completely. I know that Christians are not all the same. I'm talking abut others who end up lumping everyone together and why that happens. You can't say that Christians as a group don't bear any responsibility for how they're perceived. It's at least 50/50. And when did I call you any names?

[Tomorrow]

And when did I call you any names?

You didn't - you just told me I should take it like a man ;) No harm done. :)

[leekohler]

You didn't - you just told me I should take it like a man ;) No harm done. :)

What I meant by that was, we get called and compared to some pretty horrible things that have nothing to do with us. It's a daily occurrence for us. If I walked away from that all the time, nothing would ever get done.

[localoid]

Take a look at some of the liberal posters in this and other forums - it's not just the ultra-conservatives running their mouths.

I wasn't talking of this forum. I was speaking about the need for rationally minded "Christians", primarily those from the mainline denominations, to publicly voice their opinions, especially within their local communities as well as on a broader level, etc.

From my experience, Churches usually consist of some people on the left, some people on the right, along with some falling in the middle. The middle of road group is the category in which I've found the most open-minded thinkers, but unfortunately they're often the ones who are the least vocal. That is what I feel needs to change -- these folks need to learn to speak to what they think is the simply "the right thing to do".

I'm an Absurdist, so personally I put both the beliefs of Christians and Atheists into the "can't be proved with certainty" category. But regardless, I believe the open discussion of issues and the expression of different points of view can be a good thing, especially if its among people willing to actually listen willing to at least try to understand how other see the issue or issues.

Get angry at what, exactly? I wouldn't feel the need to distance myself from a group to which I don't belong if it weren't for people and their stereotypes who insist on grouping me in it. I feel how I feel, you feel how you feel, and they feel how they feel - if you want to categorize me, all I ask is that you do it correctly.

I wouldn't pretend to know enough about you and your thoughts, feelings, etc. to desire to "group" you into any category. But there are many organized groups that I get to know fairly well thanks to their national/regional ad campaigns, literature and so on. Some such groups give me the distinct impression that they are primarily about promoting intolerance via fear mongering.

Frankly, I don't believe intolerance should be tolerated. Intolerance and bigotry is "teh stupid" that needs to be put down -- not by censoring, but via admonishment by one's peers. And I cannot understand why anyone would want to demonize science or believe the Bible was intended to be "God's science book".

Even if their opinions are different from yours? I don't necessarily mean you in particular - hopefully everyone reading this thread will take a moment to ask themselves this question, look in the mirror, and answer honestly.

Again -- open, honest discussion is good. But it rarely happens because each side of a given issue sees the other as a "problem" that needs to be "dealt with" (perhaps with a bulldozer, etc.) rather than trying to persuade the other to some sort of better understanding of their viewpoint. Until each side is at least willing to listen openly, neither side can understand the other's motivation. Typically, fear is the primarily motivates that frames most people's thinking. They don't think that much about the issue -- they just react to it. Frank discussion among reasonable minds tends to break down the fear-based knee-jerk reactions and rational discussion then becomes possible...

[Rodimus Prime]

how does it work if they 2 people have a same-sex marriage then move to a state that does not allow it and then worse want a divorce.

For example Texas does not recognize any same-sex marriages. If they moved to Texas they would have trouble getting a divorce if they wanted one because Texas does not recognize the marriage to begin with and therefor will not grant a divorce. (nor will they give any benefits to that partner either)

[leekohler]

how does it work if they 2 people have a same-sex marriage then move to a state that does not allow it and then worse want a divorce.

For example Texas does not recognize any same-sex marriages. If they moved to Texas they would have trouble getting a divorce if they wanted one because Texas does not recognize the marriage to begin with and therefor will not grant a divorce. (nor will they give any benefits to that partner either)

They have to go back to the state that performed the marriage.

[designgeek]

A friend of mine asked me: "Brandon, what do you think they gays will do once they have the right to marry one another?"

My response was: "Get divorced like every other couple."

Exactly. Because in America "The Sacred Institution" is really only sacred for the first few years or until either one or both parties agree that mutual habitation was a bad idea. I always wondered how the people against this could say that divorce is ok but two people that want to spend the rest of their lives together is not ok. Britney Spears' ten minute marriage is the one that's damaging instead of that of the two guys I used to work for that have been married for 15 or 16 years.

First PRSI post btw.

[leekohler]

Exactly. Because in America "The Sacred Institution" is really only sacred for the first few years or until either one or both parties agree that mutual habitation was a bad idea. I always wondered how the people against this could say that divorce is ok but two people that want to spend the rest of their lives together is not ok. Britney Spears' ten minute marriage is the one that's damaging instead of that of the two guys I used to work for that have been married for 15 or 16 years.

First PRSI post btw.

And it was a good one. Thanks for the support.

[yg17]

They have to go back to the state that performed the marriage.


That would be an awkward plane ride :eek: