Mildred Loving died last week. She and her late husband, Richard, were at the center of a 1967 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that struck down laws forbidding interracial marriage in some 17 states.
Last year, on the 40th anniversary of the decision, she reflected eloquently on the case. An excerpt:
“My generation was bitterly divided over something that should have been so clear and right. The majority believed that what the judge said, that it was God’s plan to keep people apart, and that government should discriminate against people in love. But I have lived long enough now to see big changes. The older generation’s fears and prejudices have given way, and today’s young people realize that if someone loves someone they have a right to marry.
“Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don’t think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the ‘wrong kind of person’ for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people’s religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people’s civil rights.
“I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard’s and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That’s what Loving, and loving, are all about.”
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- okobserver on Open thread 11/23
- okobserver on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- okobserver on Open thread 11/23
- okobserver on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- HLP on Open thread 11/23
- okobserver on Open thread 11/23
169 Comments
I can add no more to this, than what I have just read….
Bless them….it was a ‘tough road to hoe’.
“I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard’s and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That’s what Loving, and loving, are all about.”
Three cheers, ma’am. We’ve come a long way but, obviously, we still don’t have the freedom to marry for all. What a disgrace, in the 21st century, no less.
Some one clear my fuzzy memory on this subject. Was that the woman who got the despicable statement from a Judge was something like, “You married? Not in this state your not.” (in reference to the inter-racial marriage.
Is that the same woman? I remember it ticked off a lot of people when they heard that.
“I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry”
I remenber judges claiming that they had full rights to marry – as long as within their race. This was the status of the law where I grew up.
“as long as within their race”
And now the last remaining barrier is same sex.
I remenber judges claiming that they had full rights to marry – as long as within their race. This was the status of the law where I grew up.
Soon to be Virginia Supreme Court Chief Justice, Harry L. Carrico wrote an opinion for the court upholding the constitutionality of the anti-miscegenation statutes and, after modifying the sentence, affirmed the criminal convictions.
Ignoring United States Supreme Court precedent, Carrico cited as authority the Virginia Supreme Court’s own decision in Naim v. Naim (1955) and also argued that the case at hand was not a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause because both the white and the non-white spouse were punished equally for the “crime” of “miscegenation”, an argument similar to that made by the United States Supreme Court in 1883 in Pace v. Alabama.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia
We’re seeing this exact same stupid argument being made against “gay marriage” today. Some things never change.
“but, obviously, we still don’t have the freedom to marry for all…this exact same stupid argument being made against “gay marriage” today.”
No one, including gays, are being denied the freedom to marry someone of a different race.
Marriage is defined as a personal union between individuals of the opposite sex. If gays choose not to do that fine, there are other avenues available for them. This racial marriage story is not the same subject as ‘gay marriage’, which is a non-entity.
“No one, including gays, are being denied the freedom to marry someone of a different race.”
You can’t make this stuff up.
Boxlock will deny to the death that it was exactly conservatives like him–James J. Kilpatrick the conservative columnist–who fought Loving tooth-and-nail to have the right to marry.
Hypocrisy, thy name is Conservative.
Brainlock. Not Boxlock.
“No one, including gays, are being denied the freedom to marry someone of a different race.”
And, back then, “No one, including gays, are being denied the freedom to marry someone of the same race.”
WS,
““as long as within their race”
And now the last remaining barrier is same sex.”
Not quite. In Kansas, transexuals are legally the gender listed on their birth certificates for purposes of identication cards, driver’s licenses, etc., without regard to any gender identification or surgery. That also includes marriage licenses. For example, an MTF transexual may only marry a woman, or an FTM trans. Curiouser and curiouser!
Personally, I think Homosexuality is wrong. But so what? I think living together without marriage is wrong, too. THe state has no compelling interest in prohibiting either. If Gays/Lesbians want to get married, let them. If transgenders want to get married, although I found that extremely wierd, who cares? Let them.
For example, an MTF transexual may only marry a woman, or an FTM trans. Curiouser and curiouser!
“You may now kiss the nucleotide. . .”
lj,
” If transgenders want to get married, although I found that extremely wierd, who cares? Let them.”
Try to remember that although you might think it’s extremely weird, they don’t see it as any weirder than any other marriage. I’ll let you decide how weird that is.
I’m so glad that the woman in the case stated GAYS are included….hopefully the blacks who don’t think it is the same will hear that from her.
As for Box, what an ass.
I’d bet my paycheck my ass is not half the size of your’s P_mama.
Here P_mama, see what the Supreme Court has to say about marriage:
In a day when legislators are fighting over the legitimacy of same-sex marriages, and activist judges are claiming constitutional sanction in their redefining of marriage, and the rank and file citizens of these United States are embroiled in a polarizing culture war, the words of bygone U.S. Supreme Courts are refreshing. For example, in the 1885 case of Murphy v. Ramsey that addressed the legitimacy of polygamy, the high court declared:
“For certainly no legislation can be supposed more wholesome and necessary in the founding of a free, self-governing commonwealth, fit to take rank as one of the coordinate States of the Union, than that which seeks to establish it on the basis of the idea of the family, as consisting in and springing from the union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony; the sure foundation of all that is stable and noble in our civilization; the best guaranty of that reverent morality which is the source of all beneficent progress in social and political improvement”
So who determined that in order for us to be complete, we have to allow marraige for “all” as a society?
What is the reason for marraige, anyway, I ask?
Is it not for husband and wife intimacy (of which sexual relations is only one part)?
Is it not for procreation? To raise a family?
Where do we stop with giving marraige to all?
A man to a man?
A women to a women?
A man to a man to a man?
Where?
“What is the reason for marraige, anyway, I ask?”
It is to bring a host of legal protections to the couple. Sex can easily be had outside of marriage. However, the state (Caeser) recognizes the institution and provides those protections.
Political_mama,
You are the first to name call tonight. Do you have to resort to that?
The lady in the article only had an opinion about same-sex marraige, that’s all.
Her being black should not have anything to do with it.
bth,
That is certainly part of it with legal protections, but the two I mentioned are the primary reasons.
“It is to bring a host of legal protections to the couple. Sex can easily be had outside of marriage. However, the state (Caeser) recognizes the institution and provides those protections.”
No argument there.
And those protections are primarily to protect the family, including children.
There are plenty of legal protections available for gays, including trusts, power of attorney-both financial and medical, etc., without conferring marriage.
So what about procreation?
American
Posted May 6, 2008 at 6:03 pm | Permalink
So what about procreation?
—————
We will get our meat and babies from test tubes.
Hopefully, no one will confuse them at the factory.
Political_mama, bth, Rage,
So what about procreation?
So what about procreation?
What about it? We’re talking about individual rights here. Or would you favor mandatory procreation, as a condition of marriage?
Boxie,
“For certainly no legislation can be supposed more wholesome and necessary…..”
Gee, that quote was almost as cute as the ones various advocates used to justify slavery and racism and antisemitism and antipapism and all the other hatreds Americans felt entitled to at some point in our history. You conservatives seem so fu*kin’ alarmed that someone might take away your precious prejudices!
Am,
“So what about procreation?”
If you don’t think we’re already doing enough reproducing, go stand in line for a port-a-potty at Riverfest next week.
Why would anyone object to “gay marriage?”
Really.
Less than four percent of the population is gay – how exactly does a gay marriage affect YOUR marriage?
And is your marriage so weak that someone else’s marriage has an impact on yours?
Really.
What is your objection – discount the Bible or “tradition” – we are a secular nation – on what basis do you object to two unrelated consenting adults being married?
Jed,
First of all I didn’t ask you, now did I?
Rage – you jump to conclusions.
How will same sex marraiges procreate within there own abilities and not by going to another source?
“So what about procreation?”
Yeah, what about it?
Today I am celebrating my first anniversary to a woman. We are both widowed, and we married after child bearing years.
No legal problems, however, since it is a heterosexual marriage.
Dumb question. Dumb argument.
“How will same sex marraiges procreate within there own abilities and not by going to another source?”
Since when is the ability to procreate a prerequisite for marriage?
“WSClark
Posted May 6, 2008 at 7:57 pm | Permalink
Why would anyone object to “gay marriage?”
Really.
Less than four percent of the population is gay – how exactly does a gay marriage affect YOUR marriage?
And is your marriage so weak that someone else’s marriage has an impact on yours?
Really.
What is your objection – discount the Bible or “tradition” – we are a secular nation – on what basis do you object to two unrelated consenting adults being married?”
It won’t effect a marraige directly, obviously.
It will effect marraige overall.
And since there are “Less than four percent of the population is gay” why should we allow such a major change in our society because of such a small and insignificant number.
“No argument there.
And those protections are primarily to protect the family, including children.
There are plenty of legal protections available for gays, including trusts, power of attorney-both financial and medical, etc., without conferring marriage.”
Bullsh*t. Every one of those protections has to be negotiated seperately, while in marriage the protections are assumed. Also, companies can legally discriminate against gay couples. In fact, some state constitutions now mandate it. And some in government are determined to try to interfere with municipalities who do recognize domestic partnerships, such as that nitwit Lance Kinzer.
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2008/feb/20/house_considering_challenge_lawrences_domestic_par/
WSClark
Posted May 6, 2008 at 8:12 pm | Permalink
“How will same sex marraiges procreate within there own abilities and not by going to another source?”
Since when is the ability to procreate a prerequisite for marriage?”
You are jumping to conclusions.
My statement was that it was one of the two main reasons to get married, along with legal protections.
“It will effect marraige overall.”
How?
“why should we allow such a major change in our society because of such a small and insignificant number.”
How is it a major change and why should we discriminate against such a small portion of the society?
“My statement was that it was one of the two main reasons to get married, along with legal protections.”
Jeez, all this time I thought you were supposed to get married because you were in love. Damn.
My bad.
“It won’t effect a marraige directly, obviously.
“It will effect marraige overall.”
Why, because you will be aware of the legal recognition of marriages you don’t approve of? [FE]What a burden![/FE] These marriages already exist. Even though they aren’t legally recognized same gender couples have made the “for better or for worse” pledge.
“And since there are ‘Less than four percent of the population is gay’ why should we allow such a major change in our society because of such a small and insignificant number.”
Because your claim for a “major change in our society” is rhetorical, not actual. Plus, the changing society argument could be and was used against other people trying to have the same rights to enter into commitments as most others, as the late Mildred Loving understood all too well.
You are on the wrong side of this, “American”, period.
“ksagnostic
Posted May 6, 2008 at 8:08 pm | Permalink
“So what about procreation?”
Yeah, what about it?
Today I am celebrating my first anniversary to a woman. We are both widowed, and we married after child bearing years.
No legal problems, however, since it is a heterosexual marriage.
Dumb question. Dumb argument.”
That’s great and congratulations, by the way.
And you can always adopt.
Same sex relationships, within themselves, are unable to procreate, from a pysiological viewpoint.
“You are jumping to conclusions.
“My statement was that it was one of the two main reasons to get married, along with legal protections.”
But not at all a relevant requirement for getting married if you are in a heterosexual relationship, si it is an irrelevant argument. You introduced it, no fair trying to squirm out of it now by trying to claim that it was just “one” reason. If that reason is not a requirement, it is irrelevant as a reason for objecting to same sex marriage.
“Same sex relationships, within themselves, are unable to procreate, from a physiological viewpoint.”
So are we, now. So what?
And gay couples can adopt too, ya know (and I know some very well adjusted kids from gay marriages).
“You are on the wrong side of this, “American”, period.”
I don’t believe that I am.
The fact that same sex relationships, within themselves, are unable to procreate, from a physiological viewpoint is proof that I am correct.
This really has nothing to do with race, religion, ethnic group or gender.
“But not at all a relevant requirement for getting married if you are in a heterosexual relationship, si it is an irrelevant argument. You introduced it, no fair trying to squirm out of it now by trying to claim that it was just “one” reason. If that reason is not a requirement, it is irrelevant as a reason for objecting to same sex marriage.”
Procreation is not a requirement (your word) for marriage, but one of the two main reasons that many people get married and it is good for society.
Jed,
Throttle down big boy, you’re getting a little excited there.
The primary definition of marriage by ‘Webster’ is; “:the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law.”
That’s just the way it is, and always has been, why mess with what’s work fine for thousands and thousands of years?
Now if Bruce and Bruce what to ‘unite’ they can simply form the ‘Bruce & Bruce Family Marriage Living Trust’, each being trustee and guarantor, with power of attorney over all aspects of each other. There you have it, and without offending 70% to 80% of the population, that consider traditional marriage something more.
Wow, just look at all the advantages. This way the various states marriage laws don’t interfere with their wishes, whether they stay together or not.
And if they really mean it they can make it a irrevocable trust as opposed to a revocable one.
“Same sex relationships, within themselves, are unable to procreate, from a pysiological viewpoint.”
So freakin’ what. What difference does that make.
WHAT is the REAL objection to gay marriage?
And if you quote from the Bible or claim that as a justification, you are willfully forgetting that we are a secular nation by design.
So what is it?
“The fact that same sex relationships, within themselves, are unable to procreate, from a physiological viewpoint is proof that I am correct.”
I’ve already demonstrated that this argument is irrelevant. If you really want to pursue this line of argument, you are arguing that those of us who are past child bearing, or for that matter those of us who are “fixed” should not get married because we are unable to procreate. Since heterosexual marriages are not objected to even though it is understood beforehand that the partners will not be able to procreate, that is not a valid reason for objecting to same sex marriage.
The point is, is that heterosexual married couples can choose to have children, within themselves, but gay couples, whether married or not, are unable to.
“but one of the two main reasons that many people get married and it is good for society.So a heterosexual couple that cannot procreate is BAD for society?”
So a heterosexual couple that cannot procreate is BAD for society?”
“within themselves, but gay couples, whether married or not, are unable to.”
Why is this important?
Hey Boxlock. A majority of the people probably also objected to interracial marriage like the Lovings’ at one time, so maybe they should have entered into a relationship based on an irrevocable trust as well.
And again, the mere fact that a couple has to go to a lawyer and create a trust to have the successorship rights that are assumed in marriage is a form of discrimination. Period.
And I don’t give a rat’s ass what 70% of the population thinks (and that percentage is declining, a guarantee you).
“WHAT is the REAL objection to gay marriage?”
You still haven’t answered the question.
“ksagnostic
Posted May 6, 2008 at 8:31 pm | Permalink
“The fact that same sex relationships, within themselves, are unable to procreate, from a physiological viewpoint is proof that I am correct.”
I’ve already demonstrated that this argument is irrelevant. If you really want to pursue this line of argument, you are arguing that those of us who are past child bearing, or for that matter those of us who are “fixed” should not get married because we are unable to procreate. Since heterosexual marriages are not objected to even though it is understood beforehand that the partners will not be able to procreate, that is not a valid reason for objecting to same sex marriage.”
I am not saying you shouldn’t get married if you have found someone you want to spend the rest of your life with and you can’t have children.
Certainly, the rest would apply. Or you could adopt.
“The point is, is that heterosexual married couples can choose to have children, within themselves, but gay couples, whether married or not, are unable to.”
That’s not a point. And you avoided mine, American.
My wife and I, within ourselves, can not choose to have biological children (we each have our own kids as it is).
You’re arguing from design, and it is a dumb argument. Same sex couples can adopt, they can theoretically access the same methods to having children that different sex couples access when they are unable to have biological children.
You have no point, you have no argument. You assume that your point is self evident, but that is because you are unable to step out and look at your point from outside your assumptions.
That’s your problem, you shouldn’t make it the problem of others who have done nothing to you.
“I am not saying you shouldn’t get married if you have found someone you want to spend the rest of your life with and you can’t have children.”
No, you aren’t saying I shouldn’t get married because I have found someone I want to spend the rest of my life with, but you are saying that to others on the basis of an irrelevant biological design argument.
“WSClark
Posted May 6, 2008 at 8:34 pm | Permalink
“but one of the two main reasons that many people get married and it is good for society.So a heterosexual couple that cannot procreate is BAD for society?”
So a heterosexual couple that cannot procreate is BAD for society?””
You misquoted me. Please quote accurately. See above.
Of course it is always better to be able to have children WS.
Descendents are good to have, don’t you think!
“Of course it is always better to be able to have children WS”
No it isn’t.
“WHAT is the REAL objection to gay marriage?”
You still haven’t answered the question.
“WSClark
Posted May 6, 2008 at 8:46 pm | Permalink
“Of course it is always better to be able to have children WS”
Why is it not better to be able to have children?
What an asinine comment, that marriage can only be figured as natural because they can procreate. What a total crock. What about women and men who are sterile, what about older couples? None of them can have children, naturally. So what is your problem?
Nope, its a really sorry pathetic excuse to even try to say the reason why we should have marriage between men and women is for procreation. We obviously can procreate without it. I don’t see a ban on that. Nope, it’s cover for the biblical definition which is what the neocons try to avoid because they know that it simply doesn’t fly by secular govt standards.
It’s such a sad argument I can’t believe anyone with intelligence would even attempt it.
Because it is not ALWAYS better for a couple to have children. Namely, if they can’t afford it, if they’re drug users, or alcoholics, or abusive.
“WSClark
Posted May 6, 2008 at 8:46 pm | Permalink
“WHAT is the REAL objection to gay marriage?”
You still haven’t answered the question.”
Let me answer a question with a question.
What is the REAL reason for approving of gay marriage?”
Political_mama
Posted May 6, 2008 at 8:48 pm | Permalink
Try reading the thread above for your answers.
“Why is it not better to be able to have children?”
Oh, Hell, I don’t know – age, financial stability, health, existing children, retirement, yada, yada, yada.
“What is the REAL reason for approving of gay marriage?””
Because I refuse to discriminate against anyone for any reason.
Easy.
“WSClark
Posted May 6, 2008 at 8:55 pm | Permalink
“What is the REAL reason for approving of gay marriage?””
Because I refuse to discriminate against anyone for any reason.
Easy.”
So you totally accept everybody, for everything and for all time? No-discriminating?
Discriminate
dis·crim·i·nate
–verb (used without object)
1. to make a distinction in favor of or against a person or thing on the basis of the group, class, or category to which the person or thing belongs rather than according to actual merit; show partiality: The new law discriminates against foreigners. He discriminates in favor of his relatives.
2. to note or observe a difference; distinguish accurately: to discriminate between things.
–verb (used with object)
3. to make or constitute a distinction in or between; differentiate: a mark that discriminates the original from the copy.
4. to note or distinguish as different: He can discriminate minute variations in tone.
–adjective
5. marked by discrimination; making or evidencing nice distinctions: discriminate people; discriminate judgments.
“Political_mama
Posted May 6, 2008 at 8:50 pm | Permalink
Because it is not ALWAYS better for a couple to have children. Namely, if they can’t afford it, if they’re drug users, or alcoholics, or abusive.”
You are making a good point here, and I agree it may not make it the ideal.
“So you totally accept everybody, for everything and for all time?”
Based on genetic attributes, yes.
Why would I discriminate against someone based on attributes that they were born with?
“WSClark
Posted May 6, 2008 at 8:54 pm | Permalink
“Why is it not better to be able to have children?”
Oh, Hell, I don’t know – age, financial stability, health, existing children, retirement, yada, yada, yada”
If a person is in their later years, then this may not be a good time, but if they do?
WS, You are not getting my point.
You discriminate for and against people everyday!
I have seen it here on this blog.
What does procreation have to do with marriage? Why is it even a point of discussion regarding inter-racial or gay marriage? What the Hell difference does it make?
Goog night all!
Enjoyed the discussion and debate.
“You discriminate for and against people everyday!”
Based on genetic attributes?
No.
“What is the REAL reason for approving of gay marriage?”
Two adults who love each other should be able to have a legal commitment and the priveleges that go along with that. Gay people have as much right as anyone to love and have a life partner. It has absolutly no negative impact on our society whatsoever, except in the minds of bigots.
Let me answer a question with a question.
What is the REAL reason for approving of gay marriage?”
————
Because it is the right thing to do. I approve of all of age people having the ability to spend their lives in either legal joining or according to their religious beliefs with the person they choose. It’s a civil rights issue.
ksagnostic posted, speaking of the Lovings’
“so maybe they should have entered into a relationship based on an irrevocable trust as well.”
I don’t know about “should”, but they certainly could, my wife and I have, but for estate reasons. The Lovings were male and female, man and wife. A whole different situation than gay unions.
ksagnostic again;
“And I don’t give a rat’s ass what 70% of the population thinks (and that percentage is declining, a guarantee you).”
Maybe…maybe not. It won’t change that much in your lifetime.
Hey, American Idiot:
Legal Dictionary: Discrimination
Discrimination law covers incidents of unequal or unfair treatment based on a person’s age, disability, gender, national origin, race, religion, and sexual orientation, and other personal characteristics. Discrimination can occur in many aspects of everyday life — including applying for a job, renting an apartment, getting a promotion at work, and access to restaurants or stores by customers with disabilities.
http://public.findlaw.com/library/pa-discrimination-law.html
Thus it is–obviously–definition 1 we’re talking about. Although that should have been obvious from the context, as what you’re advocating is “unequal or unfair treatment based on a person’s age, disability, gender, national origin, race, religion, and sexual orientation, and other personal characteristics.”
Speak it sista Mary!
Mary – well said.
“A whole different situation than gay unions.”
How? How is it different? The same arguments are used now to discriminate against gays that were used fifty years ago to discriminate against African Americans.
It’s all the same – discrimination is still discrimination regardless of what you call it.
Traditional marriages, male and female, have been shown to be a better, healthier, nurturing environment for children on the whole. I’m talking about statistical averages, not anyone’s specific situation so don’t get bent if that’s not your experience.
That is why traditional marriage is recognized legally as well as spiritually.
“The real issue is not one concerning any infringement of rights. Rather, it is about what heterosexual marriage can offer society that other forms of relationships cannot.
Married heterosexual unions are not simply a legal invention with an associated bunch of benefits. Committed, enduring heterosexual unions have an intrinsic value which enables them to provide a number of reciprocal benefits to any society. It is the reason why flourishing societies have always acknowledged the importance of marriage and family and accorded it a level of preferential support. It is a vital part of the social estate.
The social benefits of committed, exclusive heterosexual unions include the generation of children and the raising up of future citizens; a supportive and safe environment for the nurturing of these children; two parents who are biologically connected to their child and who are willing to sacrifice themselves for the sake of that child; two complementary parents who can provide appropriate gender role modeling; and an inter-generational connectedness within families and societies where parents are encouraged to save and provide for their children and grandchildren.
Such unions also provide a mechanism for effectively connecting children to their fathers, a longing of every child, and also for ensuring a fairer distribution of the parenting burden. Nation-states have regularly supported exclusive heterosexual unions because as a type, these unions have the capacity to contribute to the society in an essential and substantial way. Children may seem optional for spouses; they are not optional for societies.”
“Traditional marriages, male and female, have been shown to be a better, healthier, nurturing environment for children on the whole.”
And if there are no children involved, what is the objection?
(I disagree with your premise, but that is a topic for another debate.)
WSClark, Posted May 6, 2008 at 9:23 pm
“A whole different situation than gay unions.”
“How? How is it different?”
Just read my post at 9:34 pm…
That’s how it’s different Clark…you are so full of it you make me laugh.
Political_mama
Posted May 6, 2008 at 9:18 pm | Permalink
Let me answer a question with a question.
What is the REAL reason for approving of gay marriage?”
————
Because it is the right thing to do. I approve of all of age people having the ability to spend their lives in either legal joining or according to their religious beliefs with the person they choose. It’s a civil rights issue.
===============================================================
I believe that Political mama may be addressing the point. The problem is that the government took over an area that I believe should be left in the religious sector. The government should have never got into giving Marriage Licenses to anyone. The state should only give Civil Unions Agreements to all and let the church, where marriage was originated, marry those whom they chose.
Looks like a pretty civil discussion on a volatile subject. Congratulations.
Also one that you can talk about until the cows come home and no one is likely to change their minds.
Am,
“Jed,
First of all I didn’t ask you, now did I?”
Nope, but you posted it on the board and so it’s fair game for all!
“The point is, is that heterosexual married couples can choose to have children, within themselves, but gay couples, whether married or not, are unable to.”
Actually, reproductive scientists are on track to perfect that within the next few years.
Since some of you insist on having an outlandish number of kids, it makes reproduction a non-issue. You want life to be valued, but doesn’t value always relate to the supply? Personally, I wish the reproductive scientists would concentrate on solving overpopulation rather than adding to it, but if reproductive ability is your standard for human value, then they only need to do it once and you’ll be forced to acknowledge the humanity of gay people.
Nice plagiarism there Box. Gays can raise children better than certain heterosexual couples. Single moms are better than a father that molests his child. And again marriage is NOT for procreation only, it is a contract between two people who are in love. Heck Box, you almost act as if we should go back to arranged marriages where the sex was only for procreation. Love? Ha- it was a wealth bargaining tool.
No marriage isn’t anything like it used to be and thank God for that. I do take comfort in the knowledge that someday, someone will look at comments like yours and they’ll laugh at your beliefs as ridiculously as we look at that judge’s belief.
Don’t you know by now Jed, they’re procreating for God’s kingdom. They don’t care about anything else.
You’re right RA. And if a religious group sanctions gay marriage, then they should be allowed to be married.
“That’s how it’s different Clark…you are so full of it you make me laugh.”
Nonsense – what do children have to do with it?
Is it a requirement that heterosexual couple reproduce?
Is it a requirement that heterosexual couples have the ability to reproduce?
Is it a requirement that ANY married couple reproduce?
If not, then why is children an issue?
“And if there are no children involved, what is the objection?”
Outie,
“Also one that you can talk about until the cows come home and no one is likely to change their minds.”
No, they won’t, but when bigotry and stupidity go unchallenged, the society ends up bigoted and stupid.
Political_mama
Posted May 6, 2008 at 9:46 pm | Permalink
Don’t you know by now Jed, they’re procreating for God’s kingdom. They don’t care about anything else.
You’re right RA. And if a religious group sanctions gay marriage, then they should be allowed to be married.
=============================================================
Exactly, they would be “MARRIED” per xx religion not some state.
Back to the subject of this thread, I suppose that I am prejudiced in that I honestly would not like it if my daughter would tell me she was going to marry or even was involved with a black man. I wouldn’t stand in the way, but I would think it a terrible idea for a number of reasons.
And of course, there should be no laws prohibiting it.
Well I appreciate your honesty there Out, but why on earth would you be so against it? What number of reasons could you possibly have that are even remotely legit?
“would not like it if my daughter would tell me she was going to marry or even was involved with a black man”
Why? A good, educated hard working black man or a no-good, lazy alcoholic white man?
Why would the black man be off-limits?
P=Mom,
Yeah, and the more they overpopulate the sooner the whole human race gets to god’s kingdom. Math doesn’t seem to be their strong suit!
I know some wonderful gay parents and many really awful straight parents…being a loving, effective parent has nothing to do with a person’s sexual orientation. Another point to consider is that gay couples have to plan their families, they don’t become parents by accident..for a child, being planned and wanted also enhances his/her well being.
If two people love each other, what the hell does the color of their skin have to do with anything?
And if I hear anyone say “it’s not fair to the kids”, I’ll scream.
The only reason “it’s not fair to the kids” is because of the bigotry in this country…BIGOTRY is the problem, not someone being of mixed race.
mary’s on a roll tonight.
Well, I’m not gonna lie about it. For one thing, I know how hard it is for mixed race couples and children. I would see it as an unnecessary complication to my daughter’s and grandchildren’s lives. Not that I couldn’t possibly come around to a different viewpoint.
I bet there are a whole lot of people who won’t admit it who would react the same way.
OK, Outlander..AAAAAHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!
P_Mama posts;
“No marriage isn’t anything like it used to be and thank God for that. I do take comfort in the knowledge that someday, someone will look at comments like yours and they’ll laugh at your beliefs as ridiculously as we look at that judge’s belief.”
Again, maybe…maybe not. But you’ll never get the satisfaction as it won’t happen certainly in you life.
And nice for me, it won’t happen in mine.
And, “No marriage isn’t anything like it used to be”, statistically marriages are far worse off today than they use to be. They used to actually be about commitments and lasting relationships. Today it’s more about convenience, until it isn’t anymore and then it’s over. And who get hurt, as always…the innocent children.
That’s a really old argument, so old its the same one my grandparents used when my aunt married her black husband.
And those kids are doing well. I did watch how racism hurt them though. But that wasn’t because of what they did, it’s because of awful racist white people.
Outie,
We’ve evolved a large number of separate gene pools for a reason, but while complete homogenation is a bad idea genetically, a certain amount of fresh DNA is also required. What do we do about it? Nothing. The mechanics of attraction seem to handle it quite nicely.
Your daughter will fall in love with whoever she falls in love with, and you’ll accept him or her or lose your daughter. It’s as simple as that!
“I bet there are a whole lot of people who won’t admit it who would react the same way.”
Naw, most people are bit more enlightened – especially the younger generation.
I have five mixed race nieces and nephews and my granddaughter is (a bit more than) half Native American – they all are doing very, very well.
For those under the age of thirty (or so) race is much less of an issue than it was years ago.
outlander,
I agree with you, and for the very same reasons. I would not have tried to prevent it but I would worry greatly about the added stress on the family and children.
“I agree with you, and for the very same reasons.”
Please admit that it is really about black and white and not about “the children.”
Just as the objection to gay marriage has nothing to do with “the children.”
Call it as it is…………………
The state should only give Civil Unions Agreements to all and let the church, where marriage was originated, marry those whom they chose.
Precisely. It’s a civil contract. The other part–with the religious connotations–is not the business of government, and never has properly been the business of government in America.
Much as some would like a return to the Ecclesiastical Courts, it’s not consistent with the founding principles of this nation.
We don’t need, say, the Baptist church to recognize marriages performed by the Catholic church, or visa-versa. And neither would likely approve of a marriage performed by “Elvis” in Vegas. And they don’t have to.
But just as “marriage” isn’t the business of the state, a civil contract between consenting adults is not the business of religion.
Gotta go. Thanks everyone.
I don’t know, Box. I think it’s a good thing that women have more options and can escape a bad marriage if they need to.
I grew up Catholic and I knew a lot of couples who stayed together when it would have been better for both had they split up. Nothing is black or white when it comes to relationships.
If my daughter hadn’t left her abusive husband, I would have had to kill him.
“Call it as it is…………………”
Okay Clark…you’re stupid.
Big day of inservices tomorrow…night all.
Me too, past my bedtime. G’nite all!
Mary,
Saw your post just as mine finished going up.
I agree with you on all points, and that it isn’t black and white. Pardon that pun considering the thread.
Glad you didn’t have to ‘kill’ him, ha.
Good night!
“Okay Clark…you’re stupid.”
And Box, you are obviously a gay hating, homophobic racist.
But, other than that, I am sure that you are a wonderful guy.
Boxie,
“statistically marriages are far worse off today than they use to be.”
Well, that’s statistics for you. I used to see an awful lot of miserable, sometimes abusive marriages that stayed together because divorce was somehow worse than getting beaten. I heard the tales of those of my grandparent’s generation about “philandering” husbands and noted the popularity of victorian brothels among married men, and how partners who both wanted a divorce were denied one because all legal actions had to be contested, and how people who wanted a divorce hired detectives to follow their spouses in hopes of catching them in “flagrante dilecto.” I’d say those marriages were far worse than most I see today!
Well Clark, your wrong on the first point, but right on the second.
Damn, you’re getting better.
Keep reading and maybe it will continue.
I think it is that they don’t want their family genes tainted with THOSE people.
I don’t understand how older people can’t see why their thinking is so wrong. But they hold to that like crazy.
Jed,
Again, you are referring to individual situations not statistical averages and individual situations can easily be found outside the norm.
But thanks for the response.
Now….GOOD NIGHT, I mean it!!!
“Well Clark, your wrong on the first point, but right on the second”
So you won’t admit to being homophobic, but you do admit to being racist.
Great.
Do you kick autistic children also, Box?
Rage,
“The state should only give Civil Unions Agreements to all and let the church, where marriage was originated, marry those whom they chose.”
I’d almost agree to that, except that inevitably the rights of one group would gain more acceptance and eventually unequal rights. If we’re going to have equality, we’re going to have to dispense with distinctions and eliminate either marriage or civil unions.
“Since when is the ability to procreate a prerequisite for marriage?” [WS Clark]
It isnt Clark… however, that is where the entire anti-gay marriage issue is ultimately headed. They think if they can successfully make it illegal for gay couples to marry, then the next step is to require the ability to procreate. That will eliminate marriages such as mine, and ksagnostic… marriages where none of us are ABLE to procreate… for numerous reasons!!
There is a hidden agenda to all of this bigoted, hateful nonsense.
BTW, the Church has NEVER issued marriage licenses… It is ALWAYS the State who issues marriage licenses, and the State who dissolves marriages. The Church, technically, only “blesses” the Marriage. Thus, this spurious argument that the Church should “go back” to issuing marriage licenses, or that the Church gave up its “rights” to the government is not only wrong, it is DEAD WRONG!! Somebody needs to read some history!!
Boxie,
Of course I’m referring to individual situations. Everybody’s situation is individual, and a lot more pertinent than a stack of percentages. There’s an awful lot about humanity that sheer numbers doesn’t address, and to compare marriages of 60 years ago with marriages today by looking at the divorce rate is utterly meaningless. The whole society has evolved.
In fact, my current wife and myself, were married in Judges’ Chambers… No clergy present, except for myself. Witnesses were a Court Clerk, and a secretary.
Chas,
Actually up to about a century ago, reproductive ability was a criterion for marriages in Scandinavia and Scandinavian Lutheran communities here. There was a customary period of trial marriage for usually about a year, and if the woman wasn’t pregnant by then, they weren’t formally married, and went their separate ways.
Yes, Jed, I remember hearint something about that when I was in College in Lindsborg…
However, the Marrigae License still was issued by the STATE not by the Church. The Church blessed the marriage in the appropriate ceremony.
I noted earlier, that there was a dictionary definition given for marriage. Who the hell cares what the dictionary says? The Dictionary is not the Law of the Land!
Can any of you marriage bigots show where in the Constitution of the United States, Marriage is defined as a contract between a man and a woman?? I think not!!
If your CHURCH doesnt like it, then dont allow it… The CHURCH is in reality irrelevant in this issue.
There’s a gay guy who prances by here in pink hot pants, his nipple rings a bouncing as he jogs or more aptly minces. When I see him my normal reaction is to put one hand on my face, shake my head, and mutter a-r-r-r-g-h. Does that make me homophobic?
WSClark Posted May 6, 2008 at 10:15 pm
“And Box, you are obviously a gay hating, homophobic racist.
But, other than that, I am sure that you are a wonderful guy.”
My response;
“Well Clark, your wrong on the first point, but right on the second”
Then Clark at 10:22 pm;
“So you won’t admit to being homophobic, but you do admit to being racist.”
Clark, take some remedial English classes please.
When you accuse me of being “gay hating, homophobic racist”, the words ‘gay hating homophobic are used as adjectives, not nouns, in fact the whole diatribe is an adjective phrase.
My admission was to your ’second’ statement, “…I am sure that you are a wonderful guy”.
So thank you very much, but wise up with your English some.
No beber, it doesn’t make you homophobic in the derogatory sense.
It makes you normal.
What you observe is outside societal acceptance. And that person knows it and is trying to cause discomfort to satisfy a warped, perverse personality.
“ksagnostic again;
“‘And I don’t give a rat’s ass what 70% of the population thinks (and that percentage is declining, a guarantee you).’
“Maybe…maybe not. It won’t change that much in your lifetime.”
Wanna bet Boxlock? Things have already changed enormously (in 1967, a higher percentage of people opposed interracial marriage than oppose gay marriage now). And even if it doesn’t change in my lifetime, I am reasonably certain it will change in my children’s lifetime.
And the poll numbers back my claim.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_marp.htm
“I believe that Political mama may be addressing the point. The problem is that the government took over an area that I believe should be left in the religious sector. The government should have never got into giving Marriage Licenses to anyone. The state should only give Civil Unions Agreements to all and let the church, where marriage was originated, marry those whom they chose.”
This is actually historically incorrect (180 degrees so in fact). In Western society at least, marriage started out as a civic institution. To be perfectly vulgar about it, it was a purchase of brides by the husband of the groom (i.e., the dowry). The Catholic Church made religion into a religious institution, but that trend was actually rejected by the early protestants.
http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/ATLAS_EN/html/history_of_marriage_in_western.html
http://www.pflagsanjose.org/advocacy/hist.html
Marriage has sometimes been a religious institution, but it has always been a civic institution (and in some times and some places, there was little distinction between the two).
I agree with ksagnostic. Attitudes and morals change depending on deeper core beliefs and not always for the better.
I think I will see consential sex between man and dog legal in my lifetime.
Beber,
“There’s a gay guy who prances by here in pink hot pants, his nipple rings a bouncing as he jogs or more aptly minces. When I see him my normal reaction is to put one hand on my face, shake my head, and mutter a-r-r-r-g-h. Does that make me homophobic?”
By itself, no, but reactions like that seldom appear in a vacuum. Have you tried to get to know and maybe have a conversation or two with the guy? You might be surprised at how much you have in common. Besides, you don’t need to worry, that outfit was obviously intended to attract someone other than you!
RFL,
“I think I will see consential sex between man and dog legal in my lifetime.”
As long as both the man and dog are of legal age (in people years), and you show proof of consent and certificates of health for both partners, what’s your problem? Would such an arrangement tempt you to try an interspecies tryst?
ksagnostic
Marriage has sometimes been a religious institution, but it has always been a civic institution (and in some times and some places, there was little distinction between the two).
=========================================================================
Ksagnostic, I am not an expert in the Bible, you may be right but I don’t remember any place where people had to go to get a marriage license from the government, They just took a wife in “the eyes of God”. Not a domestic partner so I conclude that it was first a religious covenant. Am I mistaken?
Ksagnostic-from the link you listed.
“In most of Europe marriages continued to require a religious ceremony until the French Revolution in 1792 introduced the compulsory civil marriage. Germany followed suit in the 19th century when Bismarck diminished the influence of the Catholic church. Eventually, marriage before some magistrate or government official became the only valid form of marriage in most of the Western world. Religious weddings were still permitted, but only after the civil ceremony had taken place”
“Traditional marriages, male and female, have been shown to be a better, healthier, nurturing environment for children on the whole. I’m talking about statistical averages, not anyone’s specific situation so don’t get bent if that’s not your experience.”
Boxlock–
Please send me an email to pawzoff127 @ yahoo dot com. You can use a disposable email address. I’ve collected a number of peer-reviewed articles addressing the adjustment and children of same-sex couples. All the literature shows that being raised in a same sex environment does NOT cause more problems than being raised in a hetero one, that children of gay parents are NOT more likely to be gay, and that the largest problem that these kids deal with is occasional bullying. Which I went through before puberty, which about 99% of my science geek colleagues went through before college, you know.
Journal articles usually cost money, but since I’m a student I can access them for free. Anybody interested in reading the FACTS and the EVIDENCE can also send me an email.
Tara,
I would be interested in reading one or two of your choice of the best of those studies. I know that as a student, your time is fairly non-existent, so no hurry.
The E-mail address above doesn’t seem to work (Microsoft says they don’t recognize it), so mine is jedclosson@cox.net
“Chas
Posted May 6, 2008 at 11:34 pm | Permalink
I noted earlier, that there was a dictionary definition given for marriage. Who the hell cares what the dictionary says? The Dictionary is not the Law of the Land!
Can any of you marriage bigots show where in the Constitution of the United States, Marriage is defined as a contract between a man and a woman?? I think not!!
If your CHURCH doesnt like it, then dont allow it… The CHURCH is in reality irrelevant in this issue.”
Have you ever read the constitution?
It doesn’t say anything about murder in it either, but it is against the law.
American, why are you so afraid of gay marriage? How does it have any impact on you or your marriage? What is the issue if two people, adult and consenting, are allowed to marry?
For thousands of years the term ‘marriage’ has been used to describe the unifying relationship of a mutual committed man and woman, both in religious and secular terms.
Frankly, Gay’s can live and contract with each other in any way they want as far as I’m concerned. But the use of the term ‘marriage’ for Gay relationships degrades it in my opinion, and the opinion of the overwhelming majority of the population of the world.
Gays can pick their own unique term. Leave the meaning of ‘marriage’ throughout recorded history alone.
“Leave the meaning of ‘marriage’ throughout recorded history alone.”
Why?
Throughout recorded history, slavery has been practiced, but that does not make it right.
B-L – that is why I propose changing the terminology for ‘Caeser’s’ involvement – Union – for both homosexual and heterosexual. That way I don’t interfere in any way with religious issues.
bth,
Gay marriage is not a religious issue.
If anything it falls in line with evolutionary thinking and atheism.
“If anything it falls in line with evolutionary thinking and atheism.”
Pray tell, what does homosexuality, gay marriage and evolution have in common?
Really.
Sorry, and atheism……………….
Gay, atheistic evolutionary scientists?
American, why are you so afraid of gay marriage?
bth,
Gay marriage is not accepted by orthodox believers because it goes against the guidelines of scripture.
The empire of Rome certainly ended up being led by a Caesar (Nero) (who was gay) prior to it’s big downfall from within, not from without.
This was certainly an indication of the precursor he was of the downfall of Rome
bth Posted May 7, 2008 at 8:10 pm
“B-L – that is why I propose changing the terminology for ‘Caeser’s’ involvement – Union – for both homosexual and heterosexual. That way I don’t interfere in any way with religious issues.”
bth,
I can’t say I’d argue with that. Marriage presently and historically really is a legal, religious, spiritual covenant between a man and woman. If the meaning is left with that for all except the secular legal, I don’t care what term Caesar uses.
Good point.
It stems right out of the unisex movement of the sixties:
Gender blurring, etc, etc.
The anti-God, God is dead movement via Nietsche and his philosphies of atheism.
Man is the highest level of evolution and he is still evolving baloney.
“This was certainly an indication of the precursor he was of the downfall of Rome”
Gays caused the downfall of the Roman Empire?
Really?
“Gay marriage is not accepted by orthodox believers because it goes against the guidelines of scripture.”
American, why are you so afraid of gay marriage?
This is a secular nation by design – I’ll keep my science out of your church if you keep your religion out of my public square.
“bth
Posted May 7, 2008 at 8:10 pm | Permalink
B-L – that is why I propose changing the terminology for ‘Caeser’s’ involvement – Union – for both homosexual and heterosexual. That way I don’t interfere in any way with religious issues.”
The name change means nothing if you establish the same covenant agreement with homosexuals, as you do with heterosexuals.
Reposted, still waiting for an answer……..
American, why are you so afraid of gay marriage?
I’ve said it before and I will say it again.
If we allow gay marriage, at least it will stop the disgusting sex.
It happened when I got married.
I suspect there is something in the wedding cake, but I can’t prove it.
“WSClark
Posted May 7, 2008 at 8:43 pm | Permalink
“This was certainly an indication of the precursor he was of the downfall of Rome”
Gays caused the downfall of the Roman Empire?
Really?
“Gay marriage is not accepted by orthodox believers because it goes against the guidelines of scripture.”
American, why are you so afraid of gay marriage?
This is a secular nation by design – I’ll keep my science out of your church if you keep your religion out of my public square.”
This nation was founded by an overwhelming majority of God fearing Christians, who, being sinners, were not perfect, but believed in God.
Science supports religion and believers faith in God.
Science and Chritianity are not incompatible.
Stop quenching freedom of speech!
That is guaranteed in the constitution.
This is the public square.
Nero, as I see it, was a pre-cursor to the fall of Rome. Yes!
The Roman Empire imploded upon itself because of the debauchary and explicit behavior it was exibiting. It had completely and utterly lost it’s way. And it’s fall was prophecied to occur.
You see freedom isn’t free.
It came with a price.
Freedom comes with responsibility.
Justice is tempered with mercy.
If you only have freedom and mercy, that just doesn’t work.
There must be justice and responsibility to balance them.
“This nation was founded by an overwhelming majority of God fearing Christians, who, being sinners, were not perfect, but believed in God.”
So, they were also all white males, too.
“Stop quenching freedom of speech!”
Who did that?
“This is the public square.”
No, it isn’t. The public square is a euphemism for government and government buildings.
“Nero, as I see it, was a pre-cursor to the fall of Rome. Yes!”
Because he was gay? Bullshit.
“Science supports religion and believers faith in God.”
Huh? Science is strictly fact driven – it supports nothing other than physical evidence.
“Science and Chritianity are not incompatible.”
What does that have to do with gay or inter-racial marriage?
WS,
I have never brought up interracial marriage.
Maybe you should read more carefully.
This is a public forum or blog so it is in the public square. It is not private and anybody who registers can participate.
Quit discriminating against the white Christian founding fathers.
Quit showing your prejudice against Orthodox Christians who believe in scripture.
Science is not only fact driven. Especially when it hasn’t been proven.
Quotes from the founding fathers:
John Adams
Signer of the Declaration of Independence and Second President of the United States
[I]t is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue.
(Source: John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Little, Brown, 1854), Vol. IX, p. 401, to Zabdiel Adams on June 21, 1776.)
[W]e have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. . . . Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
(Source: John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Little, Brown, and Co. 1854), Vol. IX, p. 229, October 11, 1798.)
The moment the idea is admitted into society, that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If “Thou shalt not covet,” and “Thou shalt not steal,” were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society, before it can be civilized or made free.
(Source: John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Charles C. Little and James Brown, 1851), Vol. VI, p. 9.)
John Quincy Adams
Sixth President of the United States
The law given from Sinai was a civil and municipal as well as a moral and religious code; it contained many statutes . . . of universal application-laws essential to the existence of men in society, and most of which have been enacted by every nation which ever professed any code of laws.
(Source: John Quincy Adams, Letters of John Quincy Adams, to His Son, on the Bible and Its Teachings (Auburn: James M. Alden, 1850), p. 61.)
There are three points of doctrine the belief of which forms the foundation of all morality. The first is the existence of God; the second is the immortality of the human soul; and the third is a future state of rewards and punishments. Suppose it possible for a man to disbelieve either of these three articles of faith and that man will have no conscience, he will have no other law than that of the tiger or the shark. The laws of man may bind him in chains or may put him to death, but they never can make him wise, virtuous, or happy.
(Source: John Quincy Adams, Letters of John Quincy Adams to His Son on the Bible and Its Teachings (Auburn: James M. Alden, 1850), pp. 22-23.)
Samuel Adams
Signer of the Declaration of Independence
[N]either the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt.
(Source: William V. Wells, The Life and Public Service of Samuel Adams (Boston: Little, Brown, & Co., 1865), Vol. I, p. 22, quoting from a political essay by Samuel Adams published in The Public Advertiser, 1749.)
“Quit discriminating against the white Christian founding fathers.”
How do I discriminate against white christian founding fathers?
“Quit showing your prejudice against Orthodox Christians who believe in scripture.”
Your religion is not my law.
“This is a public forum or blog so it is in the public square.”
No, it isn’t. The public square is a euphemism for government and government buildings. It is “public” as in owned by the public. This blog is owned by McClatchy.
“Science is not only fact driven. Especially when it hasn’t been proven.”
Fact as in commonly recognized scientific theory supported by evidence and peer reviewed. In science, virtually nothing can be “proven.”
A scientific theory is NOT just a wild assed guess.
As for the founding fathers – they were just men, human with human failings and human accomplishments. Yes, they were great men but they were not infallible.
“The name change means nothing if you establish the same covenant agreement with homosexuals, as you do with heterosexuals.” American
American, what I thought I was agreeing to was:
You don’t establish the same covenant…the marriage covenant remains exclusively with the man/woman marriage union.
Gay would have there own word and utilize secular legal means only. Again, like establishing a legal trust. That’s all I meant.
Boxlock,
Thanks. I agree now.
“WSClark
Posted May 7, 2008 at 9:39 pm | Permalink
How do I discriminate against white christian founding fathers?”
By labeling them bigots.
“This is a public forum or blog so it is in the public square.”
public square
noun
1. an open area at the meeting of two or more streets
2. a place of assembly for the people in ancient Greece [syn: agora]
“Fact as in commonly recognized scientific theory supported by evidence and peer reviewed. In science, virtually nothing can be “proven.””
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) – Cite This Source – Share This
the·o·ry
??i?ri, ????ri
Pronunciation Key – Show Spelled Pronunciation[thee-uh-ree, theer-ee] Pronunciation Key – Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun, plural -ries.
1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein’s theory of relativity.
2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
3. Mathematics. a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.
4. the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.
5. a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles.
6. contemplation or speculation.
7. guess or conjecture.
“By labeling them bigots.”
And when did I use the term “bigot” regarding the founding fathers. You are a god damned liar, American.
“This is a public forum or blog so it is in the public square.”
I used the euphemism for “government.” Get that through your fat head.
Why are you so damned afraid of gay marriage, American?
And American, no one, even idiots like you, consider evolution to be a “guess.”
WS,
There you go again, calling names and dicriminating against someone.
When you don’t have an argument, you call people names.
WS,
What are the “facts” of evolution?
Who was there to test it the theory?
WS,
Good night!
Thanks for the discussion and debate.
Have a good night.
“There you go again, calling names and dicriminating against someone.”
You accused me of using the term “bigot” regarding the founding fathers – I never even came close to using that term – you lied – therefore you are a LIAR.
“What are the “facts” of evolution?”
One hundred and fifty years of scientific evidence.
What do you have for creationism?
5,000 years of story telling.
End of discussion.
“Who was there to test it the theory?”
No one was there to test the theory of ancient constellations and galaxies, but they are still there.
No one was there to test the theory of the speed of light, but we know that it exists and can be measured.
The list goes on – the “fact” that no one was there is meaningless.
Am,
“American
Posted May 7, 2008 at 10:14 pm | Permalink
“WSClark
Posted May 7, 2008 at 9:39 pm | Permalink
How do I discriminate against white christian founding fathers?”
By labeling them bigots.”
What else should you call a group of men who wrote effusively on the value of liberty while owning and enslaving other men and women and their children?
Bigots is an apt description of such people, anthough the term Hypocrite also comes to mind.
One Trackback
[...] interracial marriage in some 17 states. Last year, on the 40th anniversary of the decision, she refhttp://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2008/05/loving-on-love-and-marriage/W-S/Forsyth Co. Schools to Introduce 3-Day Freshman Orientation WGHP GreensboroFORSTYTH COUNTY, N.C. [...]