Obama wins - and so do the bigots

[cottmann]

Obama has won but so have the bigots as constitutional bans on same-sex marriages look like passing in every state which held a referendum on the issue. Respect for human rights - NIMBY in the USA!

Yes. A note for regret among the euphoria. I guess it just hasn't been argued well enough.

[Bob]

So somebody that disagrees is a bigot? Hardly, at least in my view.

Thousands of years of cultural history and practice throughout the world have recognized marriage as a union between a man and a woman for procreation. That's what the vast majority of people throughout history in almost every nation have thought and recognized. I don't want to be the same as "them" and I suppose I ought to start whining that I and my male partner are being discriminated against because we poor dears can't have babies and can't even menstruate.
Woe is us.

[Lunchtime O'Booze]

So somebody that disagrees is a bigot? Hardly, at least in my view.

Thousands of years of cultural history and practice throughout the world have recognized marriage as a union between a man and a woman for procreation. That's what the vast majority of people throughout history in almost every nation have thought and recognized. I don't want to be the same as "them" and I suppose I ought to start whining that I and my male partner are being discriminated against because we poor dears can't have babies and can't even menstruate.
Woe is us.

thousands of years ? I thought they just shacked up with each other until religion stuck it's nose into the whole business.

[Marsilius]

Thousands of years of cultural history and practice throughout the world have recognized marriage as a union between a man and a woman for procreation.

Hence heterosexual couples intending not to have any children - or unable to do so - should not be allowed to marry?

[TrongpaiExpat]

So somebody that disagrees is a bigot? Hardly, at least in my view.

Thousands of years of cultural history and practice throughout the world have recognized marriage as a union between a man and a woman for procreation.

There were thousands of years and cultural history institutionalizing slavery too yet that all changed. Time for a change.

I have met several gay men that have expressed their view that gays should not be allowed to marry. Their argument seems based on emotion (religion) rather than logic. The same arguments that once made biracial marriage a crime are used in gay marriage.

Personally, I think civil unions is the way to go and avoid all the emotional and religious baggage of the term marriage. A simple civil legal association, nothing more.

[Brad the Impala]

suppose I ought to start whining that I and my male partner are being discriminated against because we poor dears can't have babies and can't even menstruate.


When you die in the UK, you can leave your assets to your spouse free of tax. When homosexuals died, assets left to their partners, over a certain sum, were taxed. Worth moaning about? It was. The law was changed, and you can now leave your assets to your same sex Civil Partner free of tax. That's one example of the progress that has been made. Some will mock with menstruating jibes, but all can share the benefits.

[bao-bao]

I don't want to be the same as "them" and I suppose I ought to start whining that I and my male partner are being discriminated against because we poor dears can't have babies and can't even menstruate. Woe is us.

Which (I'm sure) reminds more than just me of Stan/Loretta's predicament in Python's "Life of Brian":

Stan: It's every man's right to have babies if he wants them.
Reg: But you can't have babies.
Stan: Don't you oppress me!
Reg: Where's the fetus going to gestate? You're going to keep it in a box?

I have met several gay men that have expressed their view that gays should not be allowed to marry. Their argument seems based on emotion (religion) rather than logic.

Equally, the argument that "marriage" is the only acceptable term, and that Civil Union / Civil Partnership is unacceptable seems not only to be based purely on emotion but to be extremely short-sighted (even, dare I say it, bigoted); had such alternative terms been used it is at least possible that they may have been acceptable to homo and heterosexuals alike.


The same arguments that once made biracial marriage a crime are used in gay marriage.

I hardly think so; those arguments were obviously based on racial, not physical/biological differences, and were resolved when it was decided (at least in theory) that all races/colours were essentially the same. The arguments differentiating between the sexes are based on clearly visible (in most cases) and undeniable differences. Unless you are saying that there are no such differences, or that such differences are so minor that there is no need for separate toilets, separate athletic events (currently horse riding is the only "mixed" event in the Olympics), etc, etc, your argument is fatally flawed.

So somebody that disagrees is a bigot? Hardly, at least in my view.

Thousands of years of cultural history and practice throughout the world have recognized marriage as a union between a man and a woman for procreation. That's what the vast majority of people throughout history in almost every nation have thought and recognized. I don't want to be the same as "them" and I suppose I ought to start whining that I and my male partner are being discriminated against because we poor dears can't have babies and can't even menstruate.
Woe is us.

I am with you Bob, all the way.


Which (I'm sure) reminds more than just me of Stan/Loretta's predicament in Python's "Life of Brian":

Stan: It's every man's right to have babies if he wants them.
Reg: But you can't have babies.
Stan: Don't you oppress me!
Reg: Where's the fetus going to gestate? You're going to keep it in a box?

http://i281.photobucket.com/albums/kk216/ThaiRakThai/86440095_LMfeYrmk_rofl2.gif Thanks for the above bao-bao, it gave me a bloody good laugh looking back and remembering that part of the movie. For those of you that are unfamiliar with the movie The Life of Brian, or the Stan/Loretta's predicament part of it, you can check it out below.


Cheers,



George.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFBOQzSk14c

The problem with accepting domestic partnership rather than marriage is basically the same problem blacks had in America from 1896 until 1954 in being stuck with "separate but equal" rather than true equality. The US Supreme court ruled in 1954 that "separate is inherently unequal", thus ending the concept of separate being equal in American Constitutional law. Now we as gay people are suppose to accept that being separated from true marriage by the second class status of "domestic partnership" ...I think not!

Here are just a few examples of domestic partnerships being second class "marriages" in America

If one is married in America they can file income taxes jointly, which usually mean the married couple pays less income tax.

If one is married they are assumed in law to be one person for purposes of inheritance therefore no inheritance tax, if is in a domestic partnership when one partner dies the one left gets no break on inheritance tax, which can be up to 50%.

When married you pay no income tax on your partners health insurance benefit if it's perk of your employment, if you are domestic partners your partner's health insurance cost is added to your gross income for tax purposes, this can be up to 10,000US per year.

I could go on but you get the idea.....If it is different it ain't equal!!!!

It will be a long road in America to gay marriage being accepted in law and in the tax code, but if one is willing to give up now and call domestic partnership good enough gays will have settled for second class citizenship.

Those gays willing to accept domestic partnership rather than marriage are simple willing to accept the status of second class citizens. This is understandable; gays have spent their whole lives being second class citizens, so they know no better!

Hence heterosexual couples intending not to have any children - or unable to do so - should not be allowed to marry?I've always taken the Book of Common Prayer's definition of marriage and its purposes to be the last word on the topic. It may be time to have a more subtle definition of relationships than the binary one of married/single. Given all we know about the value of a stable relationship for bringing up children, there are arguments for having multi-step relationships, the final step - marriage - coming into effect only when a child is introduced into the relationship. I've always argued (hence my well-publicised opposition to "gay marriage") that a model designed for a patriarchal, property-based society is not appropriate for gay people (and many others). That, by the way, is also the position of the radical lesbian movement - possibly the only time you'll find me in agreement with a bunch of hairy-legged dykes

As Paul Keating, Australia's best (and most gay-friendly) prime minister of recent years, is reported to have said during the World Family Year "two gays and a cocker spaniel don't make a family". Personally I'd make "engagement" much more formal (somewhat like the old betrothal), and the status to which every couple of whatever combination of sexes can aspire - and which it would be relatively easy to end. The current laws on "common law marriage" or "civil partnership" could cover that. Hln Cluck's nanny state of Nw Zlnd has legislation that essentially says that if you're living together "as a couple" then you have a legally-binding relationship after a period of time (a year, I think) and both parties are expected to have taken independent legal advice and so on. A typical left-wing, prescriptive solution

Marriage, since it involved children, would be much harder to end and would still need the current "divorce" proceedings. "Marriage" would only be for those who have, or have had, children in the relationship. With those of us who believe that sex is more recreational than emotional, or who can hold multiple relationships akin to polygamy/polyandry, a further layer of complexity is introduced

The world is moving on from that binary notion of marriage; many gays are still fighting last century's battles

... duly considering the causes for which Matrimony was ordained.
First, It was ordained for the procreation of children, to be brought up in the fear and nurture of the Lord, and to the praise of his holy Name.
Secondly, It was ordained for a remedy against sin, and to avoid fornication; that such persons as have not the gift of continency might marry, and keep themselves undefiled members of Christ's body.
Thirdly, It was ordained for the mutual society, help, and comfort, that the one ought to have of the other, both in prosperity and adversity.

[Bob]

Lunchtime said: "thousands of years ? I thought they just shacked up with each other until religion stuck it's nose into the whole business."

Nah, they still shacked up together even after religion stuck its nose into it (and totally screwed up their brains) but then left us with feeling guilty about doing it! :cyclopsani:

bao-bao's comments:
Which (I'm sure) reminds more than just me of Stan/Loretta's predicament in Python's "Life of Brian":

Stan: It's every man's right to have babies if he wants them.
Reg: But you can't have babies.
Stan: Don't you oppress me!
Reg: Where's the fetus going to gestate? You're going to keep it in a box?

Well, I was thinking of a toaster oven....

On a somewhat side note, I can understand fighting for some basic rights being given to everybody regardless of sexual preference, at least where it makes common sense. Hence, we ought to be able to drink out of any water fountain* and ride on any seat of the bus. And perhaps there's the territory of somewhat equal economic rights when it comes to the government providing equal tax treatment or an employer providing equal benefits (boy does it piss me off that I'm not getting maternity leave!).

*On second thought, the Colonel isn't allowed to use the same water fountain until he wipes the shit off his nose. :cheers:

[TrongpaiExpat]

The problem with accepting domestic partnership rather than marriage is basically the same problem blacks had in America from 1896 until 1954 in being stuck with "separate but equal" rather than true equality. The US Supreme court ruled in 1954 that "separate is inherently unequal", thus ending the concept of separate being equal in American Constitutional law. Now we as gay people are suppose to accept that being separated from true marriage by the second class status of "domestic partnership" ...I think not!

Here are just a few examples of domestic partnerships being second class "marriages" in America

If one is married in America they can file income taxes jointly, which usually mean the married couple pays less income tax.

If one is married they are assumed in law to be one person for purposes of inheritance therefore no inheritance tax, if is in a domestic partnership when one partner dies the one left gets no break on inheritance tax, which can be up to 50%.

When married you pay no income tax on your partners health insurance benefit if it's perk of your employment, if you are domestic partners your partner's health insurance cost is added to your gross income for tax purposes, this can be up to 10,000US per year.

I could go on but you get the idea.....If it is different it ain't equal!!!!

It will be a long road in America to gay marriage being accepted in law and in the tax code, but if one is willing to give up now and call domestic partnership good enough gays will have settled for second class citizenship.

Those gays willing to accept domestic partnership rather than marriage are simple willing to accept the status of second class citizens. This is understandable; gays have spent their whole lives being second class citizens, so they know no better!

Good points Tom but I guess there could be federal legislation defining a Civil Union with the same rights and benefits as marriage. It does seem the feds want to keep this hot potato under State venue.

It does seem the feds want to keep this hot potato under State venue.Maybe that's because it's what the Constitution says!

If one is married they are assumed in law to be one person for purposes of inheritance therefore no inheritance tax, if is in a domestic partnership when one partner dies the one left gets no break on inheritance tax, which can be up to 50%.




This is exactly what is provided by the UK civil partnership construct.




When married you pay no income tax on your partners health insurance benefit if it's perk of your employment, if you are domestic partners your partner's health insurance cost is added to your gross income for tax purposes, this can be up to 10,000US per year.

This is largely iirelevant in the UK as healthcare is paid through an employment tax called National Insurance. This covers free provision at the point of need, but note that it is paid for while you are in work and proportionally to earnings. Of course it is available to immigrant labour who are also funding it as soon as they receive legitimate wages. Private health insurance is largely used for add-on provisions like queue jumping by access to medical specialists private time. Having put my partner in an ambulance last Saturday and shared ski lodges in France with "busted" Scottish medics who took a delight in visiting French hospitals, where many things are better, I have some idea of what the NHS is worth. NuLabour have flung huge amounts of money at the NHS significant amounts of it in the direction of US owned IT development companies. Things are getting better but not necessarily in proportion to the spending.

I have a number of friends who have gone silently into Civil Partnerships mainly for fiscal reasons. They would have been embarrassed at the whole "wedding" thing and mostly have only invited close gay friends to celebrations, where there have been celebrations.

If one is married they are assumed in law to be one person for purposes of inheritance therefore no inheritance tax, if is in a domestic partnership when one partner dies the one left gets no break on inheritance tax, which can be up to 50%.




This is exactly what is provided by the UK civil partnership construct.




When married you pay no income tax on your partners health insurance benefit if it's perk of your employment, if you are domestic partners your partner's health insurance cost is added to your gross income for tax purposes, this can be up to 10,000US per year.

This is largely iirelevant in the UK as healthcare is paid through an employment tax called National Insurance. This covers free provision at the point of need, but note that it is paid for while you are in work and proportionally to earnings. Of course it is available to immigrant labour who are also funding it as soon as they receive legitimate wages. Private health insurance is largely used for add-on provisions like queue jumping by access to medical specialists private time. Having put my partner in an ambulance last Saturday and shared ski lodges in France with "busted" Scottish medics who took a delight in visiting French hospitals, where many things are better, I have some idea of what the NHS is worth. NuLabour have flung huge amounts of money at the NHS significant amounts of it in the direction of US owned IT development companies. Things are getting better but not necessarily in propotion to the spending.

I have a number of friends who have gone silently into Civil Partnerships mainly for fiscal reasons. They would have been embarrassed at the whole "wedding" thing and mostly have only invited close gay friends to celebration if any.

This morning the BBC is reporting Gay protests against Mormon Temples in California as some activists believe that it was the mormon lobby that scotched the polls.

It does seem the feds want to keep this hot potato under State venue.Maybe that's because it's what the Constitution says!

The Constitution says what the Supreme court says that it says.

At a different time in history (1854) the Supreme Court decided the Constitution said that blacks were property not people. The logic that followed said that property has no standing in law and as such has no right come before the court. (Dred Scott) Thankfully that ugly period is behind us.

There are, at its most basic elements, two items in the Constitution that will at some future point in time be interpreted by the Supreme Court. Now that Obama will be the one to appoint any new justices to the court things are looking much better for Gay Marriage.

The first Constitutional issue for the court to decide what "equal protection of the law" really means. Are we as Gay people to be equally protected in our relationships or are we really second class people. The Supreme Court will decide what the Constitution says about that.

The second issue is the "full faith and credit" clause of the Constitution. The "full faith and credit" clause has always been interpreted to say that any legal contract entered into in one state is to have the full force of law in all states and territories of the United States. This is why straights can get married in Hawaii and run off to Las Vegas two weeks later and get a divorce that is valid in Hawaii. At some future date the Supreme Court is going to decide if a marriage contract in Massachusetts, Connecticut or California between gay people is a valid contract in Alabama and every other state. And once again, the Constitution says whatever the Supreme Court says that is says.

What's it got to do with gay marriage - nothing whatsoever, which is why I have deleted it; somehow my post on the Remembrance thread was duplicated here. Another glitch, perhaps, as I have noted this occurring with other posters elsewhere as well as an increasing number of duplicated posts (including yours!).

"...Take up our quarrel with the foe..."An understandable sentiment if penned in the midst of war, perhaps, but rather jarring for 90 years later.I don't have any quarrel with that line. The one I think, in the very long-term, is complete tosh is the one about breaking faith

Why?

I have a quarrel with both of you, as you both appear to have completely misunderstood the poem, the circumstances in which it was written, and what John McCrae meant by taking up the quarrel and breaking the faith.

Lt Colonel McCrae was not a jingoist, but a doctor and the son of a military doctor. He had taken part in the Second Boer War as an officer in the Canadian Field Artillery, from 1899 - 1904, and when he re-enlisted it was as a surgeon in the same unit. He wrote the poem in 1915, the day after he had officiated at the funeral of a friend and former student, Lieutenant Alexis Helmer, who had been killed by a shell burst.

He firmly believed that without reinforcements, sufficient manpower and the right equipment the war would be lost and additional lives lost on both sides - a sentiment many military professionals consider very true in today's major wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Whether you agree with these wars or not (and personally I support the former but condemn the latter), his sentiment still appears to be only too valid "90 years later".

The "faith" he referred to, as he made very clear in later poems and in letters and reported conversations, did not mean simply keeping the faith by ensuring that those who died did not do so in vain (as the expression goes), but meant that ultimately they were fighting to end all wars and make a repetition of such waste unnecessary. He was known to treat all casualties (Canadian, British, Indian, French, and German) equally, to the best of his ability, and he made his hope that "the guns" would "fall silent тАж some day, anon" very clear in another poem he wrote in 1918, shortly before he died of pneumonia:

The Anxious Dead

O guns, fall silent till the dead men hear
Above their heads the legions pressing on:
(These fought their fight in time of bitter fear,
And died not knowing how the day had gone.)
O flashing muzzles, pause, and let them see
The coming dawn that streaks the sky afar;
Then let your mighty chorus witness be
To them, and Caesar, that we still make war.
Tell them, O guns, that we have heard their call,
That we have sworn, and will not turn aside,
That we will onward till we win or fall,
That we will keep the faith for which they died.
Bid them be patient, and some day, anon,
They shall feel earth enwrapt in silence deep;
Shall greet, in wonderment, the quiet dawn,
And in content may turn them to their sleep.

Laurence Binyon, the author of the poem For the Fallen, who worked for the Red Cross on the Western Front in an ambulance unit, wrote the poem specifically about the British war dead, but when the fourth verse is read as the Ode to Remembrance at British and Commonwealth services it is read to commemorate all dead in all wars:

They shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old:
Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning
We will remember them.

Yeh but, yeh but, but yeh - what's it got to do with civil partnerships or gay marriage?