*** marriage opposed 2-1

Smeg Head

Diabloii.Net Member
*** marriage opposed 2-1

Posted on Mon, Feb. 09, 2004

In Poll, Most Oppose *** Marriage

WILL LESTER
Associated Press


WASHINGTON - A majority of Americans say they don't want laws in their states that would legalize same-sex marriages, according to a poll taken after the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruling in favor of such marriages.
The Massachusetts high court, in an advisory opinion, said last Wednesday that gays are entitled to nothing less than marriage and that civil unions will not suffice. The opinion could set the stage for the nation's first legally sanctioned same-sex weddings by the spring.

In polling conducted by the National Annenberg Election Survey, people said by a 2-1 margin - 60 percent to 31 percent - that they oppose any similar law legalizing same-sex marriage in their states.

Still, they were cool to the idea of a federal constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriages.

In the poll, 49 percent of those polled were opposed to such an amendment, while 42 percent favored it.

Those results suggest *** marriage could be a tricky issue for candidates this election year.

The White House is still reviewing the issue, President Bush's spokesman said Monday. Some conservative groups have been strongly encouraging the president to get involved.

"If activist judges continue to try to redefine marriage, without regard to the voice of the people, then the only alternative will be a constitutional process," said spokesman Scott McClellan.

When asked how long the White House review would last, he said, "I don't know that I'd put any arbitrary timetable on it."

Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, the front-runner for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination, said last week: "I believe and have fought for the principle that we should protect the fundamental rights of *** and lesbian couples - from inheritance to health benefits. I believe the right answer is civil unions. I oppose *** marriage and disagree with the Massachusetts court's decision."

The Annenberg poll of 814 adults was conducted Feb. 5-8 and has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

Source

Anybody else with me in thinking this will be a huge political issue this election?
 

Yaboosh

Diabloii.Net Member
"If activist judges continue to try to redefine marriage, without regard to the voice of the people, then the only alternative will be a constitutional process," said spokesman Scott McClellan.

The fact that 42% of those polled supported an Amendment banning *** marriages show just how little those people know about their country and constitution. God, next thing you know they will want the patriot act as the 28th.
 
If this poll's findings are and remain accurate, *** marriage probably won't be a huge issue. No sane politician would campaign on a platform that runs counter to what is overwhelmingly the will of the voters. It does seem that if Bush seriously pushes for an amendment, that could come back to haunt him.
 

Dark Matter

Diabloii.Net Member
Source: http://slate.msn.com/id/2085127/

Originally Posted July 2003 said:
Critics and enthusiasts of Lawrence v. Texas, last week's Supreme Court decision invalidating state anti-sodomy laws, agree on one thing: The next argument is going to be about *** marriage. As Justice Scalia noted in his tart dissent, it follows from the logic of Lawrence. Mutually consenting sex with the person of your choice in the privacy of your own home is now a basic right of American citizenship under the Constitution. This does not mean that the government must supply it or guarantee it. But the government cannot forbid it, and the government also should not discriminate against you for choosing to exercise a basic right of citizenship. Offering an institution as important as marriage to male-female couples only is exactly this kind of discrimination. Or so the *** rights movement will now argue. Persuasively, I think.

Opponents of *** rights will resist mightily, although they have been in retreat for a couple of decades. General anti-*** sentiments are now considered a serious breach of civic etiquette, even in anti-*** circles. The current line of defense, which probably won't hold either, is between social toleration of homosexuals and social approval of homosexuality. Or between accepting the reality that people are ***, even accepting that gays are people, and endorsing something called "the *** agenda." *** marriage, the opponents will argue, would cross this line. It would make homosexuality respectable and, worse, normal. Gays are welcome to exist all they want, and to do their inexplicable thing if they must, but they shouldn't expect a government stamp of approval.

It's going to get ugly. And then it's going to get boring. So, we have two options here. We can add *** marriage to the short list of controversies—abortion, affirmative action, the death penalty—that are so frozen and ritualistic that debates about them are more like Kabuki performances than intellectual exercises. Or we can think outside the box. There is a solution that ought to satisfy both camps and may not be a bad idea even apart from the ***-marriage controversy.

That solution is to end the institution of marriage. Or rather (he hastens to clarify, Dear) the solution is to end the institution of government-sanctioned marriage. Or, framed to appeal to conservatives: End the government monopoly on marriage. Wait, I've got it: Privatize marriage. These slogans all mean the same thing. Let churches and other religious institutions continue to offer marriage ceremonies. Let department stores and casinos get into the act if they want. Let each organization decide for itself what kinds of couples it wants to offer marriage to. Let couples celebrate their union in any way they choose and consider themselves married whenever they want. Let others be free to consider them not married, under rules these others may prefer. And, yes, if three people want to get married, or one person wants to marry herself, and someone else wants to conduct a ceremony and declare them married, let 'em. If you and your government aren't implicated, what do you care?

In fact, there is nothing to stop any of this from happening now. And a lot of it does happen. But only certain marriages get certified by the government. So, in the United States we are about to find ourselves in a strange situation where the principal demand of a liberation movement is to be included in the red tape of a government bureaucracy. Having just gotten state governments out of their bedrooms, gays now want these governments back in. Meanwhile, social-conservative anti-gays, many of them Southerners, are calling on the government in Washington to trample states' rights and nationalize the rules of marriage, if necessary, to prevent gays from getting what they want. The Senate Majority Leader, Bill Frist of Tennessee, responded to the Supreme Court's Lawrence decision by endorsing a constitutional amendment, no less, against *** marriage.

If marriage were an entirely private affair, all the disputes over *** marriage would become irrelevant. *** marriage would not have the official sanction of government, but neither would straight marriage. There would be official equality between the two, which is the essence of what gays want and are entitled to. And if the other side is sincere in saying that its concern is not what people do in private, but government endorsement of a *** "lifestyle" or "agenda," that problem goes away, too.

Yes, yes, marriage is about more than sleeping arrangements. There are children, there are finances, there are spousal job benefits like health insurance and pensions. In all these areas, marriage is used as a substitute for other factors that are harder to measure, such as financial dependence or devotion to offspring. It would be possible to write rules that measure the real factors at stake and leave marriage out of the matter. Regarding children and finances, people can set their own rules, as many already do. None of this would be easy. Marriage functions as what lawyers call a "bright line," which saves the trouble of trying to measure a lot of amorphous factors. You're either married or you're not. Once marriage itself becomes amorphous, who-gets-the-kids and who-gets-health-care become trickier questions.

So, sure, there are some legitimate objections to the idea of privatizing marriage. But they don't add up to a fatal objection. Especially when you consider that the alternative is arguing about *** marriage until death do us part.
Edit: I added initial paragraphs.
 
There's really no way to insure responsibility for offspring within a family unit that isn't legally recognized as one, as far as I can figure.
 

Technetium

Diabloii.Net Member
DM: That's the very argument I've been pushing for in almost every debate we've had on this subject. Nice to finally see someone else like-minded.

IDuped: There are loads of heterosexual couples with children who aren't married as it is. If that argument were to be used, then we'd have to push for making it illegal for unmarried couples to have children, just to be consistent.
 
Technetium said:
IDuped: There are loads of heterosexual couples with children who aren't married as it is.
I just think it would be a much greater burden when no union is ever legally recognized and DNA testing and custody battles become the norm rather than the Springer episode status these cases currently enjoy.

It kinda feels like the anarchy version of family to me, and I just don't see a solid enough legal mechanism in place to deal with this for me to jump on board at this point.
 

Anakha1

Banned
One step forward, two steps backwards. Thank you conservatives, soon we'll be back in the dark ages in terms of ideological freedoms.
 
IDupedInMyPants said:
I don't get how the will of the people supporting the status quo is two steps backwards.
That is a typical reaction from the left if they don't like conservative opinions. No particular reasoning lies behind it.
 

Smeg Head

Diabloii.Net Member
Anakha1 said:
One step forward, two steps backwards. Thank you conservatives, soon we'll be back in the dark ages in terms of ideological freedoms.
Huh? It's liberalism thats fueled the moral decay of today's society. THAT's taking two steps backward. Not defying thousands of years of normal behavior.
 

Anakha1

Banned
MixedVariety said:
That is a typical reaction from the left if they don't like conservative opinions. No particular reasoning lies behind it.
Don't presume to know my mind when you don't have any clue about what you're talking about.

I don't get how the will of the people supporting the status quo is two steps backwards.
By keeping people in the dark ages about acceptance of things that have been around for thousands of years. By denying people equal status and equal rights. Every time something good happens, like the allowment of equal marriage rights in Ma. someone comes out and tries to shove the movement of equality even further back.

Huh? It's liberalism thats fueled the moral decay of today's society. THAT's taking two steps backward. Not defying thousands of years of normal behavior.
Please. I think it's well established that the historical norm is not necessarily the good thing. And landing social decay on liberalism is hardly a rational idea or even a plausible one. I'd expect more than such a simplistic answer from you, Smeg. Racism is historically normal behaviour, as is slavery, torture, murder over minor disputes, genocide, ****, etc. Historical norms are not always, or even frequently, a beneficial thing. I've never heard of people getting lynched because of the colour of their skin or their sexual orientation over liberal values. It's not even a valid argument. And why shouldn't we defy thousands of years of "normal" behaviour? Who says we were right all this time. And historically "normal" behaviour isn't even an accurate term, given that homosexuality has existed for thousands of years.

Any time people are denied their equality and equal rights for no good reason is two steps backwards in my opinion.
 

maccool

Diabloii.Net Member
Smeg Head said:
Huh? It's liberalism thats fueled the moral decay of today's society. THAT's taking two steps backward. Not defying thousands of years of normal behavior.
Yeah, free thinking has always been a pain in the ***. We should stop that and do whatever the government says. Because the government needs to control every aspect of out lives from the boardroom to the bedroom.

I don't think you understand what liberalism is, Smeg. You're just tossing it out as an insult. Weak.
 
Anakha1 said:
By keeping people in the dark ages about acceptance of things that have been around for thousands of years.
I think almost noone fails to accept homosexuality anymore. Homosexual marriage hasn't been around for thousands of years.

By denying people equal status and equal rights.
They have equal rights. Congress has passed no law abridging the rights of homosexuals. You are not Kunta Kinte. Oh no, you don't get marriage tax cuts or next of kin rights for your partner. Having kids saps up a lot more money than even a 100% tax reduction would free. Go take the ten seconds to get a will notarized. Next.

Please. I think it's well established that the historical norm is not necessarily the good thing. Racism is historically normal behaviour, as is slavery, torture, murder over minor disputes, genocide, ****, etc. Historical norms are not always, or even frequently, a beneficial thing.
I know this isn't for me, but I found it noteworthy that of these horrible evils of history, not one is a norm. They are all exceptions to normal human behavior.
 
Anakha1 said:
Don't presume to know my mind when you don't have any clue about what you're talking about.
Yowch, I guess I've been duly spanked.
The problem is, I do know what I'm talking about, I just can't figure what YOU'RE talking about. I found your initial statement about conservatives unusually (for you) opinionated, trollish and inflammatory, so I merely replied in kind.
 

Pain Probe

Diabloii.Net Member
Smeg Head said:
Huh? It's liberalism thats fueled the moral decay of today's society. THAT's taking two steps backward. Not defying thousands of years of normal behavior.
Well there it is... I submit what's considered "normal" changes over the millennia. Can you honestly say the american view of marriage over the last 20 years is the same it was, say even in the 1950s? Divorce used to be rare and a social blight.

My opinion is who cares. If gays want marriage what's the big deal? I've got some bad news for you. You can't stop it. You may have limited success in the short term but mark my words, *** marriage will be "normal" in the not so distant future.
 
MixedVariety said:
I found your initial statement about conservatives unusually (for you) opinionated, trollish and inflammatory, so I merely replied in kind.
Not to mention this thing says 60% of the population, not 60% of conservatives. If anything goes down you'll have plenty of people to thank or scapegoat on both sides of the fence, depending on your point of view.
 

Anyee

Diabloii.Net Member
Duped, here's something nice for you who says that hoomosexuals are never discriminated against:

Kansas has decided that it is acceptable to punish similar crimes of statutory ****/molestation differently depending on whether or not it was homosexual. The reasoning is a sound legal one (sic): the judge wants to "encourage and preserve the traditional sexual mores of society" by punishing two groups of people under the same circumstances differently.

This is from the article, btw

he ruling rejected an appeal by Matthew R. Limon, who was sentenced to more than 17 years in prison for having sex when he was 18 with a 14-year-old boy in 2000.

Had Limon's partner been an underage girl, he could have been sentenced at most to one year and three months in prison under the state's "Romeo and Juliet" law.
In other words, if two couples have underage consensual sex with all circumstances being equal, the *** couple will be punished more harshly just for being homosexual. Remember that the Supreme Court ruled a few months ago that it is not illegal to have *** sex. This is directly akin to punishing a black person and a white person differently for the same crime.
 

LunarSolaris

Diabloii.Net Member
With regards to *** marriages... what strikes me as particularly hypocritical about those opposed to it, is that many oppose *** marriage based on a moral "sanctity of marriage" foundation. The problem with this argument is that if people were truly concerned about the moral "sanctity" of marriage, then they'd also be opposing Las Vegas and the Elvis Wedding Chapel of Love and the mass-marriage stunts and the sky-diving marriage events... all of which (following the sanctity argument) would supposedly make a mockery of this sacred institution.

... and don't even get me started on the 50% + divorce rate hypocrisy.
 
Top