GridStream Productions

Dude, I'm glad there's still a place in the USA where the politicians actually have the nuts to observe our constitutional freedoms in the face of religious fanatics like our dear George the Second and his pack of facist jerkoffs. Nice to see that not everyone in politics is ready to wipe their bums with the seperation of church and state and the rest of our civil liberties.

Read on, my friends...

PORTLAND, Oregon (Reuters) -- In a new twist in the battle over same-sex marriage roiling the United States, a county in Oregon has banned all marriages -- gay and heterosexual -- until the state decides who can and who cannot wed.

The three County commissioners had originally decided to start handing out gay marriage licenses this week but on Monday reversed that decision amid a growing firestorm of lawsuits across the country, and decided instead to put a temporary halt to all marriages.

Rebekah Kassell, a spokeswoman for Basic Rights Oregon, a pro-gay marriage group, told Reuters; "It is certainly a different way for county commissioners to respect their constitutional obligation to apply the law equally to everyone.



http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/West/03/23/m ... index.html

Too bad the Supreme Court couldn't have come to a similar decision amid the confusion of the 2000 Election - why did they not declare nobody won the election until things could be worked out?

you know i still cant understand the vendetta against same-sex marrage. it makes no sense at all to me, which goes for racism against all peoples. people are people! why cant we all just understand that? discrimation is useless and utterly immature. give these people their rights, america. [/b]

You all know Im a moderate republican (good on economy, bad on ethics), and I cheer this news. What I think, is that anyone can marry anyone, but take away the tax breaks for married couples unless they have children/adopt. That way, they can be more sure that the tax break is being used for what it should be used for.

My huge beef with the Defense of Marriage Coalition has to do with my unshakable belief that there should be a definate line between church and state as set down in the Constitution. People who would forbid same-sex marriages are, in my eyes, attempting to destroy that seperation by legislating their religion's set of ethical strictures in an unfair and unconstitional fashion.

If we continue to condone legislating morality, we futher erode the validity of the legal framework on which our rights and freedoms are based. We have already sold our rights to privacy and basic freedoms we take for granted (such as due process) for the illusion of safety from foriegn threats. Who are these pushy, loudmouthed jackasses to insist that the whole country piss on our constitution in the name of their religious morality? Why should we stand by quietly and allow them to do it?

You don't even have to like or agree with gay and lesbian relationships to recognize the importance of this issue. It's not so far off from a ban on interracial marriages, as was much more subtly pushed in my parents' time. Discrimination isn't just a racially targeted misconduct. I think a lot of these yabos conveniently forget that. Especially the Head Bully sitting in the White House prattling on about family values and ethics when he clearly understands and respects neither. Discrimination, hate and dishonesty are not values I wish MY family to hold.

I get so sick of hearing these jerkoffs howl and yammer about morality and ethics in an attempt to shame people into believing that it's fine to persecute those who do not share their beliefs or who do not meet their narrow and archaic standards of decency. They're no better than the extremist muslim-wannabes (REAL muslims are loving, peaceful people, not terrorists and murderers) in Iraq, if you think about it. Makes me glad I decided I wasn't going to have children.

Bah!

*climbs off her soapbox and throws herself down in a corner to be disgusted*

Ban all sort of marrage.

Make EVERYTHING A legal communion...or something.

But it sounds good, however, the beef I have against gay marriage, is that to do so, you literally are changing the documents and editing the legal papers to have a gay marriage. That basically justifys anyone else to do similar things.

And didn't the Constitution say blacks were only counted as 2/3rds of a person. We got rid of that mumbo jumbo - ya can't say you're against gay marriage cause we shouldn't have to write a new law. We write hundreds & thousands of new laws every day for inane reasons, but this would be to again broaden the scope of the freedoms we allow our citizens.

As teh Bootay points out, we seem to be loosing some of our rights & freedoms of late - if we must endure these losses, why can't we gain some other ones?

I'm not saying make a new law...I'm saying they would literally forge and change legal documents. It might seem minor, but again, that translates into letting anyone have the justification and reason to that.

hehe now heteros and homos are equal, for now, in portland. I've been there once, (portland) its a very very clean city.

Ichyro wrote:I'm not saying make a new law...I'm saying they would literally forge and change legal documents. It might seem minor, but again, that translates into letting anyone have the justification and reason to that.

So? Keeping an amandment, for the sake of keeping it is luticrous. If it's obviously an outdated law, change it. Just because it's in the Constitutuin doesn't mean it must never be changed.
Women weren't allowed to vote, they changed that because times have changed. Coloured people of any kind were not people, they changed that because it was obvious BS. Gay's can't marry, they should change that because it's stupid and backwards!
For a country that claims to be free. I sure do see a lot of contradictions. I'm NOT bashing America, I'm stating that your Constitution can, and must at some point be changed, like that of all countries.
America is about 300 years old, the rest of the world is over a thousand years old. As such, we've learned that our constitutions are not solid rock that can never be altered. America, apparenlty, has yet to learn this.

But America is free for all. Yet is it GOD who is promoted on the currency, it is Christianity that has to be your religion if you wish to represent the country, and it is heterosexuality your preferance must be if you wish to wed...
For a country so obviously hooked on religion, I have but one thing to say.
Your government and constitution, is going straight to hell!

I pity you all!





Tm

If the court says gay marriages are legal, that forces churches to marry gays, when a gay marriage is expressly against the Christian Faith.

Note: I don't mind gay marriages. But there shouldnt be anything from the goverment saying gay marriages are legal -- they need to use a different term, and not require it be done in a Christian church or anything, where many amrriages are typically held, else you are forcing the church to do something they wouldn't normally do/is against their beliefs, blowing the wall between church and state away.

The US goverment is separate from the church, the US goverment has a higher authority than the church.

Palla wrote:If the court says gay marriages are legal, that forces churches to marry gays, when a gay marriage is expressly against the Christian Faith.

Note: I don't mind gay marriages. But there shouldnt be anything from the goverment saying gay marriages are legal -- they need to use a different term, and not require it be done in a Christian church or anything, where many amrriages are typically held, else you are forcing the church to do something they wouldn't normally do/is against their beliefs, blowing the wall between church and state away.

This is not true. If the US Gov't rules that gay marriage is legal, churches are NOT forced to marry same-sex couples. Just like they aren't forced to marry mixed religion couples. It simply means that same-sex couples can be LEGALLY married and entitled to the same benefits as everyone else is. Marriage was a legal institution as long as it has been any other kind. It's a legal ownership process, to be blunt. "Marriage" is not just an Xtian term, it's a legal term. Making an adjustment in the word is merely another way to push someone's face in the dirt by legally acknowledging the supremacy of a single religion's representatives over the power of law and forcing it on the people. I find that idea blatantly offensive.

It's this flawed perception that muddies the water and makes otherwise reasonable and fair people participate in the discrimination and persecution of gay, lesbian and bi people.

Let me tell you a story about MY wedding. I, in my misguided youth, married a guy as young and stupid as I was. I did it in a public courthouse. Why, you might ask, would I be married by a Justice of the Peace in the same building in which criminals are tried? I'll tell you. Because the Church would not marry me unless I professed not just a belief in God, but THEIR flavour of that belief and refused to be baptised in their Church. Now, as we all know, marriage between men and women over the age of 18 is a legal institution. Has been since long before my time. But the Church was entitled to refuse to marry me, despite the fact that law permitted me to wed, and did so. They do it all the time, with no legal repercussion, as they are allowed. That's all good. It's part of their freedom of religion. And I have no ill feelings about it.

Now, if they are entitled to, and often do, refuse to marry people that do not share their flavour of faith, what, I ask you, might prevent them from CONTINUING to do so? The law does not dictate that you have to see a priest to be married. The law simply dictates that you file the appropriate paperwork and follow the legal system to achieve legal married status. If same-sex couples want to force an unwilling religious establishment to give them a ceremony, I say "sorry, back of the bus with the rest of us heathen". But that's not the issue. So let's not muddy the water, mkay?

Perhaps I was not clear. I am for gay marriage 100%, I'm just not in favor of people changing legal documents..not the constitution, but things like marriage documents and junk, to get around that.

I dont think they should wait, and I think local goverments should start instituing the equality of gay marriage to straight marriage, I just dont agree with editing documents (And I dont mean by voting and so on, I mean just editing it yourself. If we are to edit legal documents, then it needs to be more offical then done by the individual) by the individual, because it doesnt suit them.

Amendments arent changed by someone in a court house in San Francisio. Thats what Im trying to get at. I'm agnostic, leaning to eastern religons. I quite frankly would be giddy if I could punch every stupid christian that uses their belief as a reason to disallow gay marriage. Separation of church and state should exist, and everyone should be equal, at least in the basis of the law. That includes many things, and in my opinion, includes marriage.

Changing the amendments to fit the situation. Yes. Changing the law to make it fair and give Gays the full benefits of marriage. YES!

Editing documents, done by the individual. No. If you can just do it on a whim, for a marriage document, then someone could do the same for taxes, or for who knows what else.

We are Not a democracy. That I am also sure of. Were a republic, and I have a sneaking suspison, Bush will try and create a law to allow more than 2 terms. That is when I hope a revolution occurs.

Since communism wont come and facism wont, I think a revolution would not bring a worse form of goverment.

OK this is just my fairly uneducated mind speaking...

But I don't think binding laws or legal documents upheld by laws can be simply rewritten in the U.S. by single individuals in the government with no backing but their own idea. And anyway, I again state that if your arguement against gay marriage being instituted is not that you are actually against it, but against legal documents being rewritten - legal documents are rewritten all the time. Our country is partially founded on the fact that our first try at a law might be flawed. Hence all the amendments to the Constitution & stuff like a history of hundreds of thousands of laws that redefine what is currently the law.

Essentially this is supposed to be a free country as long as those freedoms you are welcome to don't step on other's freedoms very much.

waitaminute... so the church still has more legal authority in some areas? well i wonder what a federal wedding is like. might be nessesary.

Dragonfruit wrote:waitaminute... so the church still has more legal authority in some areas? well i wonder what a federal wedding is like. might be nessesary.

Are you confused about the difference between religious ceremony and legal marriage? It appears that way. Even devout Catholics have to go to the courthouse to file their papers before they go to the Church for their ceremony. Only difference being, the Catholics get to have a lovely ceremony in a beautiful setting presided over by a priest whereas we heathens do it all in a room too small for more than a few witnesses in an ugly, institutional building.

so the ceremonys not legal proof? its the institutional crap? and some say TV is educational....

hehe that would be funny, sitting in a buisness building with your fiance, and both of you sit together behind a table in front of a man in a buisness suit, not a robe. Theman hands you a pen, you write your sig, then you pass the pen to your fiance and she scribbles her sig. then the silence is broken, "...............................................................YOUR MARRIED!!! hehehe always wanted to say that." then you and your wife walk out the room holding hands.

SaintBootay wrote:

Dragonfruit wrote:waitaminute... so the church still has more legal authority in some areas? well i wonder what a federal wedding is like. might be nessesary.

Are you confused about the difference between religious ceremony and legal marriage? It appears that way. Even devout Catholics have to go to the courthouse to file their papers before they go to the Church for their ceremony. Only difference being, the Catholics get to have a lovely ceremony in a beautiful setting presided over by a priest whereas we heathens do it all in a room too small for more than a few witnesses in an ugly, institutional building.

In terms of religous ceremony, whats to say you have to have it in an ugly institutional building?

You could hold it outside, in some lovely place, and have it presided over by a priest, a rabbi, the equilvient for any religon or just your friends.

But in legal marriage, then I do not know.

Tacz wrote:...
What I think, is that anyone can marry anyone, but take away the tax breaks for married couples unless they have children/adopt. That way, they can be more sure that the tax break is being used for what it should be used for.

I disagree.. I don't have to pay state taxes for 2003 because of the man that I married in 2002, and he is divorcing me now.. but either way, I am getting money back, and I see it as a "Here, this is for the heartache that he has put you through. Go buy yourself something nice and try to forget about it."

Tax Breaks are good for some people.. I think I only got it cause I made next to nothing last year. Had I made more I might not have gotten it, or as much of one.