Massachusetts Makes History
While we're arguing about whether it's OK to tell teenagers that homosexuality is not a sickness, Massachusetts made history yesterday when senators and then House members voted to reject a constitutional amendment that would have defined marriage in that state as only a union between a man and a woman.
Here's the Boston Globe's editorial on the matter:
That is a great editorial.
Here's the Boston Globe's editorial on the matter:
AFTER WEEKS of intense lobbying and endless speculation about who might vote how, a joint session of the Legislature made blessedly quick work yesterday of a proposed constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage. In a State House mobbed with revved-up campaigners on both sides of the issue, lawmakers took a quarter hour to dispatch the proposal by a decisive margin. The vote was a victory for decency and civil equality, and underscored Massachusetts' long history of protecting individual rights.
Advocates of the constitutional ban needed only 50 of 200 votes to advance their cause to the ballot; they mustered only 45. More significantly, 151 legislators voted no on the amendment, leaving no doubt that proponents lacked the required 25 percent of the constitutional convention. Taken with the significance of the moment, legislators embraced after the vote, and some shed tears on the House floor.
House Speaker Salvatore DiMasi, Senate President Therese Murray, and Governor Deval Patrick all deserve credit for their efforts to rally opposition to the ban. But the honor roll includes the names of all 151 lawmakers who voted against the measure. (Please see the roll call on page B7.) Lawmakers in much of the rest of the country have sought to outdo each other in the virulence of their opposition to same-sex marriage. Supporters of marriage equality should be proud of this Commonwealth, where a three-fourths majority of lawmakers recognizes that committed same-sex couples, like their opposite-sex counterparts, deserve the protection of the laws.
After the defeat of the amendment became evident, the cheering among supporters gathered in the State House went on and on and on; the sense of relief was palpable, because the stakes were so high. Had the amendment gone to the ballot, an ugly, bitter battle was inevitable. Had the measure passed, the damage to the rights of gay and lesbian residents of this state would have been grievous.
Meanwhile, people who dislike same-sex marriages have suffered no personal harm whatsoever from the defeat of the ban. Even so, yesterday's vote is unlikely to resolve the issue for good. Proponents of the marriage ban could well mount another petition drive. But amending the nation's oldest constitution is an arduous process by design, and it generally takes a couple of years at the least.
Time is on the side of equality. The state's first same-sex married couples have already celebrated their third wedding anniversaries. With each year that passes, it becomes ever clearer that the sky will not fall; that the institution of marriage has been strengthened, not weakened; and that giving everyone the right to marriage makes Massachusetts a happier place overall.
A Good Day for Marriage
That is a great editorial.
posted by JimK at 12:21 PM
27 Comments:
"Massachusetts made history yesterday"
Oh, they do that all the time. Remember the historic 1972 presidential election when they were the only state to go for McGovern. Similar situation.
They're always on the wrong side of history.
Anonymous annoyingly (again) said:
"They're always on the wrong side of history."
With, for example, the Mayflower compact?
rrjr
"With, for example, the Mayflower compact?"
I'm talking the current generation, Robocop.
BTW, I thought you didn't like Puritans. Have you converted?
Historic is too mild a word. This is an earth-shaking development. A never-to-be-forgotten moment.
They'll have to add a whole day to Gay History Month for this one.
Yeah, I think they were one of the first states to overturn the ban on interracial marriages too - always on the wrong side of history...
"they do that [make history] all the time. Remember the historic 1972 presidential election...They're always on the wrong side of history...I'm talking the current generation, Robocop."
No you're not. You mentioned both "1972" (35 years ago) and the "current generation." For your information several "current" members of the Massachusetts House of Representatives were not born until after 1972.
You're just avoiding Robert's question. You like what the Puritans did so much you'd probably like to replicate it today. Instead of the Salem witch trials, you'd be thrilled by the MCPS gay trials.
"You're just avoiding Robert's question."
What question is that?
Scroll up to Robert's single reply on this thread and read it.
You mean his rhetorical question about the Mayflower Compact?
It was probably on the wrong side of history since it had monarchist sentiments.
Andrea- not anon
NO, non-nutty, Nutty doesn't want gay trials- he'd go straight to the stake-or maybe stoning- because it is in the Bible
Boston Globe editorial,
Had the amendment gone to the ballot, an ugly, bitter battle was inevitable.
"An ugly, bitter battle"? Or, it could have been a vigorous, healthy debate...nay, why would anyone want that?? LOL!
Had the measure passed, the damage to the rights of gay and lesbian residents of this state would have been grievous.
And what percentage of the state would that be? Even taking Kinsey's completely discredited figure of 10 percent, that is still only 1 in 10 (and we all know now that the actual figure is more like 4-5%). "Grievous"? For children now and in the future that are intentionally denied a father and a mother that is a grievous.
Meanwhile, people who dislike same-sex marriages have suffered no personal harm whatsoever from the defeat of the ban.
Now remind me...how is it that liberals are suppose to be broad-minded? The above comment is reflective of a narrow, constricted view of marriage as a public institution.
Even so, yesterday's vote is unlikely to resolve the issue for good. Proponents of the marriage ban could well mount another petition drive. But amending the nation's oldest constitution is an arduous process by design, and it generally takes a couple of years at the least.
While it is too early to tell, I hope people of courage and principle will step forward and with the 1/4 of the state legislature help inform and educate the public as to the public purposes of marriage. It is a big job, but alot is riding on it.
Time is on the side of equality. The state's first same-sex married couples have already celebrated their third wedding anniversaries.
"On the side of Equality"??? Good grief, who writes these editorials?
With each year that passes, it becomes ever clearer that the sky will not fall; that the institution of marriage has been strengthened, not weakened; and that giving everyone the right to marriage makes Massachusetts a happier place overall.
Happier for who? For the children intentionally denied a father or a mother???
Odd, but the same thing was said about no-fault divorce...that it would make everyone happier. Has it?
And if this suppose to "strengthen" marriage, why is it that many of the academic/activists on the issue of same-sex "marriage" are the same ones that are previously on record as opposing marriage as too oppressive, patriarchal and bourgeois? Did they just all of the sudden change their mind, or do they know something that they are not letting on to at this moment? As the "Church Lady" from SNL would say...."how convenient!"
A Good Day for Marriage
Few expressions are as Orwellian as this one.
And then Jim writes,
That is a great editorial.
For who? For a few adults perhaps, but I suspect they will find this to be a pyrrhic victory...
This editorial struck as...what's the word?...oh, yeah, obtuse.
A very sad day for a public understanding of marriage that is rooted in nature...a sad, tragic day.
The really ridiculous aspect is that gays don't really care about traditional morality, could care less about the concept of marriage. Having forsaken traditional morality, they see little reason to be committed to a marital relationship.
This is just a part of an agenda to destroy traditional societal standards.
Anon says:
"Having forsaken traditional morality, they see little reason to be committed to a marital relationship."
And you know this because.....?????
Oh, I see, you have concluded that gay people want to be able to marry so that they can cheat on their spouses.
Fascinating analysis.
Orin said "For children now and in the future that are intentionally denied a father and a mother that is a grievous."
Orin, allowing gays access to marriage doesn't deprive any child of a mother or a father. No heterosexual couple is going to divorce because the the gay couple down the street gets married. Its nonsense for you to suggest otherwise. If you really cared about children you'd be all for equal marriage for same sex couples as one third of them have children, children who would benefit from having married parents just as much as children of heterosexuals do. Its clear from that fact that its not about whats good for children, its about oppressing gays regardless of how many children it hurts.
Orin said ""Meanwhile, people who dislike same-sex marriages have suffered no personal harm whatsoever from the defeat of the ban."
Now remind me...how is it that liberals are suppose to be broad-minded? The above comment is reflective of a narrow, constricted view of marriage as a public institution.".
Once again orin, put up or shut up - explain cause and effect step by step how anyone is harmed by the gay couple down the street getting married or admit you're solely motivated to oppose equal marriage by animus.
Orin said "And if this suppose to "strengthen" marriage, why is it that many of the academic/activists on the issue of same-sex "marriage" are the same ones that are previously on record as opposing marriage as too oppressive, patriarchal and bourgeois?".
Now you're just making stuff up. No one who supports equal marriage for same sex couples opposes marriage as "oppressive, patriarchial, and borgeois".
Orin, injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. If governement can use arbitrary reasons to treat gays as less than equal then you have no security in believing you won't be next.
Anonymous at June 15, 2007 8:02 PM
Anonymous, if the gays who are getting married didn't care about traditional morality they wouldn't be getting married. People who wants an open relationship aren't general going to burden themselves with a legal committment to one person.
Anonymous asked me:
"BTW, I thought you didn't like Puritans. Have you converted?"
Where did you get the idea that I didn't like Puritans? I've never said anything of the sort. You're putting words in my mouth, or confusing the actual me with your own misguided notions of what LGBT people are like (cf. David's response to your bigoted statements of LGBT morality).
American Puritanism has evolved: the modern-day outgrowths of the American Puritan movement are the Congregationalists and the Unitarian-Universalists. Go figure. Amsterdam and Geneva were the Calvinist capitals of Europe. The Republican party after the Civil War was the party of racial Equality. Institutions and people change over time. I love the Puritans for what they have brought us.
Silly anonymous. Go back in your tunnel.
rrjr
Randi writes,
Orin, injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.
Gee, I think I read that on a bumper sticker the other day...sorry, but I try to think a little more deeply about issues such as this...certainly more deeply than can be expressed in a bumper sticker (bumper stickers...whether of the Left or Right variety, do not strike me as possessing much thought, hence my '85 VW Jetta only sports one which reads, "Too Many Books, Too Little Time"...though I do have another for my favorite burger spot, In-N-Out Burger).
If governement can use arbitrary reasons to treat gays as less than equal then you have no security in believing you won't be next.
But it is not arbitrary...the standard is the same for a heterosexual, a homosexual, or a bi-sexual seeking a marriage license: one MAN and one WOMAN.
Now I say this knowing full well that this will likely send you into a rage, and that you will say I am a mean, nasty, malicious, mean spirited, vicious, homophobic, bigoted, bible-thumping, narrow minded, wanna-be theocrat (phew! that is quite a list, eh?...sorry, but since I believe in diversity and inclusion, I wanted to make sure that no adjective was left behind). Well, I think a marriage license is a little like a license to say, cut hair, that is a Cosmetology license. In order to receive a Cosmetology license an applicant must show that they qualify by demonstrating the competencies required for the license. In turn, the applicant that receives the license may or may not use that license.
I can't wait for the first man to seek a marriage license to marry two women (with the requisite ACLU lawyer in tow)...on what rational, non-arbitrary basis will gays and lesbians exclude polygamists merely desiring their love to be validated??? End marriage "discrimination"? Ok, but where will it end?
Time to mow the lawn again...sigh.
Orin said:
"no adjective was left behind."
I think we should evaluate adjectives annually on their competencies in order to reform writing standards.
Orin, you're using the slippery-slope argument, which you know as well as I do is not particularly valid. Polygamy won't be allowed because it is almost invariably unfair to the women involved: just look at the practices of sects which encourage polygamy. It's a specious argument.
rrjr
Orin said "I try to think a little more deeply about issues such as this".
Obviously not. If you had thought deeply about this then you would have explained cause and effect step by step as to how allowing the gay couple down the street to marry deprives any child of a father or a mother or admitted that it doesn't. Your "no child should be deprived of a father or mother" bumpersticker thinking is the epitome of of a superficial lie.
Orin said "But it is not arbitrary...the standard is the same for a heterosexual, a homosexual, or a bi-sexual seeking a marriage license: one MAN and one WOMAN".
The standard is not the same, sex discrimination in marriage allows heterosexuals to marry whomever they love most but deprives gays of the right to marry whomever they love most. If a man has a right to marry a woman, a woman deserves the same right to marry a woman. If a woman has the right to marry a man, a man deserves the same right to marry a man. Your specious argument can be applied to voting, next election how about no one is allowed to vote Republican, they'll all have the equal right to vote Democrat - sound fair to you?
Orin said "on what rational, non-arbitrary basis will gays and lesbians exclude polygamists merely desiring their love to be validated???".
On the basis that its impractical and ill-advised. Its hard enough to make a relationship work with only two people in it let alone than with three or more. Experience has shown that multiple partner relationships are fraught with problems - just look at the Mormon communities where child brides are married against their will and young men are thrown out of their communities because there's too much competition for wives.
Orin, your hypocrisy is highlighted by the fact that you say marriage should be decided by a public vote but you don't oppose judges having made the decision that overturned the ban on interracial marriage. To you the judges have no right to decide unless they make a decision you agree with then its okay. By your logic on same sex marriage the judges were wrong to overturn the ban on interracial marriage, it should have been put to a popular vote and that being the case the ban would never have been overturned seeing as at that time the majority of the public was in favour of a ban on interracial marriage.
Orin said:
"no adjective was left behind."
Robert writes,
I think we should evaluate adjectives annually on their competencies in order to reform writing standards.
LOL...do you teach writing?
Orin, you're using the slippery-slope argument, which you know as well as I do is not particularly valid.
Now if I were making an argument that people would rush out to marry their favorite pet then you would have a valid point, but the issue of polygamy is not theoretical.
Here is what Charles Krauthammer wrote a year ago,
As Newsweek notes, these stirrings for the mainstreaming of polygamy (or, more accurately, polyamory) have their roots in the increasing legitimization of gay marriage. In an essay 10 years ago, I pointed out that it is utterly logical for polygamy rights to follow gay rights. After all, if traditional marriage is defined as the union of (1) two people of (2) opposite gender, and if, as advocates of gay marriage insist, the gender requirement is nothing but prejudice, exclusion and an arbitrary denial of one's autonomous choices in love, then the first requirement -- the number restriction (two and only two) -- is a similarly arbitrary, discriminatory and indefensible denial of individual choice.
found here,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/
content/article/2006/03/16/
AR2006031601312.html
Yes, Krauthammer is conservative, but how is the argument he makes here incorrect?
Polygamy won't be allowed because it is almost invariably unfair to the women involved:
And what will we say to the man and two women (both clearly consenting) that want to be married?
just look at the practices of sects which encourage polygamy.
You make an assumption here that religion is the only motivating factor: it isn't. I read of a man in State of Washington that lives with two women; all are adults and fully consenting and accepting of the arrangement...just one catch: he can only be married to one or the other. So he periodically divorces one and then marries the other (it has been a while since I read the article, but I think part of the reason for this arrangement, other than he loves two women and two women love one man, is that one has health care issues).
It's a specious argument.
Only for those unwilling to see where this revolution is heading...
Try it..."google" polygamy...and you will get the usual number of links to religious crazies, but there are others with an interest in this that have no interest in religion at all.
Randi...what can I say? I left out that I am a lying, hypocritical...blah, blah, blah.
Sorry, beautiful evening here and I have a 13 year old daughter that needs some company.
TTFN.
Charles Krauthammer said if, as advocates of gay marriage insist, the gender requirement is nothing but prejudice, exclusion and an arbitrary denial of one's autonomous choices in love,
But that's not what advocates of marriage equality say. We (that would be Aunt Bea and other marriage equality advocates, not TTF who supports comprehensive and inclusive sex ed in MCPS) don't advocate for autonomous "choices" in love. We advocate for each person's autonomous "choice" of which person s/he wants to share the rest of his/her life with. Charles has abritrarily made a single choice into plural choices to fit his slippery slope argument.
Most of the cases of polygamy are not like Orin's example in Washington, which appears to be based on need of health care and might be a better argument for universal health care coverage than for polygamy. Most polygamist marriages are not "autonomous choices" but are ordered by religious sect leaders who threaten bannishment from the community for those who refuse to submit. One particular sect continues to force polygamy even though inbreeding is causing severe genetic problems as reported by The Phoenix New Times:
Forbidden Fruit
Inbreeding among polygamists along the Arizona-Utah border is producing a caste of severely retarded and deformed children
By John Dougherty
Published: December 29, 2005
Fifteen years ago, a strange-looking child suffering from severe physical maladies and acute retardation was brought into the office of Dr. Theodore Tarby.
The pediatric neurologist regularly deals with a wide range of serious childhood diseases as a doctor with the state-funded Children's Rehabilitative Services in Phoenix. Tarby says he quickly realized he was dealing with a very unusual condition that he could not diagnose.
He prepared urine samples and sent them to the University of Colorado Science Center's Dr. Steve Goodman, a professor of pediatrics who runs a laboratory that detects rare genetic diseases.
Goodman soon made a startling discovery: Tarby's young patient was afflicted with an extremely rare disease called fumarase deficiency.
"I had never seen a patient with it," Tarby says. "Right away I asked the parents if there were any other children with the same problem."
The parents said their daughter had cerebral palsy. Tarby asked them to bring the girl to him for an examination.
"As soon as I saw her, I knew she had the same thing as her brother," Tarby says.
The fact that fumarase deficiency had shown up in one child was startling enough -- there had only been a handful of cases reported worldwide. But now that it was appearing in two children in the same family was an indication it was being spread by a gene that was getting passed to the children by their parents.
Tarby and a team of doctors from Barrow Neurological Institute at St. Joseph's Hospital in Phoenix and the University of Arizona College of Medicine in Tucson began researching the disease and soon discovered that fumarase deficiency was occurring in at least two other families living in the same isolated community that practiced an unusual custom.
Nearly everyone in Colorado City, Arizona, and the adjacent town of Hildale, Utah, was a member of a fundamentalist Mormon sect that practices polygamy and had long encouraged multiple marriages between close relatives.
By the late 1990s, Tarby and his team had discovered fumarase deficiency was occurring in the greatest concentration in the world among the fundamentalist Mormon polygamists of northern Arizona and southern Utah.
Of even greater concern was the fact that the recessive gene that triggers the disease was rapidly spreading to thousands of individuals living in the community because of decades of inbreeding.
Fast-forward to the present: About half of the 8,000 people living in the towns are blood relatives of two of the founding families that settled in the 1930s on the desolate high desert plateau against the base of the Vermillion Cliffs.
Religious leaders control all marriages in the community, and many of these relatives have married or likely will marry in the future. Some of these marriages will include parents who both are carriers of the fumarase deficiency gene, making it certain that more children will be afflicted with the disease.
"We have and will have a continual output of children with this condition," Tarby says.
In this isolated religious society north of the Grand Canyon, few secrets have been more closely guarded than the presence of fumarase deficiency. Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints elders, who control the community, have labored to keep the public from finding out why the disorder is manifesting. Many members of the fundamentalist community don't even know it's occurring...
...Medical experts say the incidence of the disorder will increase because the FLDS community is refusing to accept recommendations to reduce the likelihood of producing babies with fumarase deficiency. Tarby says he discussed the disease and its causes during a town meeting on November 18, 2004, that was attended by more than 100 FLDS members.
Tarby says he explained to the gathering at Town Hall in Colorado City that the only way to stop fumarase deficiency in the community is to abort fetuses that test positive for the disease and for the community to stop intermarriages between Barlows and Jessops, Barlows and Barlows and Jessops and Jessops.
Tarby says members of the community made it clear that neither choice was acceptable. Tarby recounts a conversation he had with a member of the Barlow clan in which he tried to explain why so much fumarase deficiency was occurring among Mormon polygamists.
"I said, 'You're married to somebody you're related to. That leads to problems.'
"The man's response was, 'Up here, we are all related,'" Tarby says. "They just don't worry about the effects of intermarriage."
Tarby says the disease could begin to show up in children at Warren Jeffs' new FLDS headquarters under construction on a 1,600-acre ranch outside of Eldorado. The FLDS already has moved several hundred men, women and children to the compound, many of whom very likely carry the fumarase deficiency gene.
The only long-term solution to the health crisis is for Barlows and Jessops to have children with spouses from outside the polygamist community.
"They have to outbreed," Aleck says.
But this is a very unlikely scenario for FLDS faithful, who practice a religious doctrine that requires men to be strictly obedient to religious leaders and requires women to give birth to as many children as possible to increase the sect's numbers...
http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/2005-12-29/news/forbidden-fruit/full
Aunt Bea writes,
Charles Krauthammer said if, as advocates of gay marriage insist, the gender requirement is nothing but prejudice, exclusion and an arbitrary denial of one's autonomous choices in love,
But that's not what advocates of marriage equality say.
So? Those in favor of same-sex "marriage" don't have to...all they see or apparently care about is their little part in all of this debate.
We (that would be Aunt Bea and other marriage equality advocates, not TTF who supports comprehensive and inclusive sex ed in MCPS)
Thank you for the disclaimer, though it is a curious coincidence that those of the class that support marriage "equality" and those of the class that support comprehensive and inclusive sex education overlap seamlessly.
Here I am reminded of what conservative critics once charged, that sex education would not be content to stop at the birds and bees...amazing.
don't advocate for autonomous "choices" in love. We advocate for each person's autonomous "choice" of which person s/he wants to share the rest of his/her life with.
Here again though it is not gays and lesbians fight, it is the fight of those in favor of rights and a legal status for polyamory. Once gays and lesbians achieve this (and yes, I can read the writing on the wall...it will happen), the next group WILL step forward and say, "hey, there were once two criteria for marriage; you (society) have given gays and lesbians a pass on the gender criteria, why not give us a pass on the two persons constitutes the correct number for a marriage?...besides, this is practiced in other parts of the world (an argument I am sure US Supreme Court Justice Kennedy will find agreeable)."
Charles has abritrarily made a single choice into plural choices to fit his slippery slope argument.
Before you use the word arbitrary again you might consider refreshing your memory as to what the word means,
Arbitrary
Pronunciation:
\ˈär-bə-ˌtrer-ē, -ˌtre-rē\
Function:
adjective
Date:
15th century
1: depending on individual discretion (as of a judge) and not fixed by law the manner of punishment is arbitrary2 a: not restrained or limited in the exercise of power : ruling by absolute authority an arbitrary government b: marked by or resulting from the unrestrained and often tyrannical exercise of power protection from arbitrary arrest and detention3 a: based on or determined by individual preference or convenience rather than by necessity or the intrinsic nature of something an arbitrary standard take any arbitrary positive number arbitrary division of historical studies into watertight compartments — A. J. Toynbee b: existing or coming about seemingly at random or by chance or as a capricious and unreasonable act of will when a task is not seen in a meaningful context it is experienced as being arbitrary — Nehemiah Jordan
Take out the gender requirement, which gays and lesbians claim is arbitrary and discriminatory, and what is left? The requirement that marriage exclude everyone except two people couples? Come now, do you really think that on that progressive march to complete equality that such will have any chance of being upheld? On what basis? That you do not "like" polyamorous marriages? Tsk, tsk...that is not very progressive of you.
I can't wait...but please, don't be surprised.
Does anybody have a good explanation for why government is involved in defining marriage in the first place? Couldn't two people draw up a contract, awarding to one another some set of promises and privileges, and have that contract notarized or certified somehow? There would have to be some form of registration so the entities they deal with (hospitals, etc.) can look it up, but other than that, I don't know why any government, state or federal, has anything at all to say on this matter. American freedom is based on the assumption that people are smart enough to make their own personal decisions.
This seems to me like exactly the kind of case that Thomas Jefferson's "best than governs least" comment was intended to address. The question isn't whether this-or-that is the right thing to do, obviously some people do feel it's the right thing for themselves; the question is whether people should be allowed to make their own decisions about who to marry.
JimK
Hi Orin,
"LOL...do you teach writing?"
I've been a special ed teacher for 22 years, so I've taught writing, though it's been Algebra and Geometry for the past 7. But I'm making a change; I've been applying to teach Latin! The first question I get, of course, is why, after all these years, and I changing fields. I've had several interviews, but I hope I hear from someone soon, since in order to transfer schools I need to make a decision by July 2. Then my motto, I suppose, will be "no declension left behind."
Good to talk to you. I'll google "polygamy" and see what I get. Your example of the man who wants to provide health benefits is not all that bad of an argument in favor of polygamy, or at least arrangements where households can have collective benefits (I would like very much to be able to put my mother on my health insurance plan for example; the phone company lets me put her on my cell phone plan). Perhaps we should have some sort of civil arrangements for people who are financially dependent on one another (now that's an argument for 'civil unions'; interesting).
Good to talk to you Orin. I disagree with you, but you make good, polite points.
rrjr
Robert writes,
Hi Orin,
Hello Robert, good to talk to you...
"LOL...do you teach writing?"
I've been a special ed teacher for 22 years, so I've taught writing, though it's been Algebra and Geometry for the past 7.
You are a special ed teacher?!!! I love you! Well, let me put it this way, I love ALL special ed teachers since it was just such a teacher that taught me how to read (I was still functionally illiterate in the 3rd grade). I was in the Program for the Educationally Handicapped from part from 3rd grade thru 8th (Los Angeles Unified School District), and my teacher in elementary school was Joan Ellis. While I have issues with the public education system, I remain a vocal supporter in no small part because of a single teacher.
But I'm making a change; I've been applying to teach Latin!
Huh? I thought that was a "dead" language? LOL! My understanding is that it is making a modest comeback...well, good for you and for your students.
The first question I get, of course, is why, after all these years, and I changing fields.
Could it be that you feel there is more to be learned? As someone committed to a life of learning, I can understand making such a change.
I've had several interviews, but I hope I hear from someone soon, since in order to transfer schools I need to make a decision by July 2. Then my motto, I suppose, will be "no declension left behind."
Good luck and best wishes; keep me posted.
Good to talk to you. I'll google "polygamy" and see what I get.
Same here...yeah, check it out, though like I said it is mostly those mormon fundies that will pop up. They are a wierd bunch...besides being more than a tad scarey.
Your example of the man who wants to provide health benefits is not all that bad of an argument in favor of polygamy, or at least arrangements where households can have collective benefits (I would like very much to be able to put my mother on my health insurance plan for example; the phone company lets me put her on my cell phone plan).
Private business can do alot of things...corporate statements banning discrimination within the company on the basis of sexual orientation - a good thing, IMO.
Perhaps we should have some sort of civil arrangements for people who are financially dependent on one another (now that's an argument for 'civil unions'; interesting).
Yes, perhaps...
Good to talk to you Orin. I disagree with you, but you make good, polite points.
I have a 14,228 foot peak less than an hours drive from my house (in fact, I can see it from my house). Longs Peak is right on the border of the Rocky Mountain National Park, though the main trail that accessings it is outside of the park. I have been looking for someone to hike it with me...it is a challenge, but doable as a day hike (challenge meaning striking out from the trailhead by 4 AM and the elevation climb, 4,850 over 8 miles - 606 feet a mile); mostly done due to late afternoon thunder storms). It is hikable from mid-July thru mid-September...let me know. Everyone I ask has an excuse...
Jim writes,
Does anybody have a good explanation for why government is involved in defining marriage in the first place?
That is one of the best questions ever...as it really goes closer to the heart of all of these disagreements. Alas, it is Father's Day and I must go now...but enjoy that coffee!
Orin said "Randi...what can I say? I left out that I am a lying, hypocritical...blah, blah, blah.".
Well, Orin, we can take that as an admission that you can't address the points I made. Once again I challenge you to either explain cause and effect step by step how allowing gays to marry deprives any child of a father or a mother, or admit you're spouting nonsense.
And to be consistent since you feel marriage should be decided by a popular vote let's hear you say that the judges in Loving vs Virginia never should have had the power to make the decision overturning interracial marriage, that it should have gone to a public vote which would have upheld the ban.
Orin said "Here again though it is not gays and lesbians fight, it is the fight of those in favor of rights and a legal status for polyamory.".
LOL Orin, I agree with you, its not gays and lesbians fight but given that then why do you keep bringing up polygamy everytime the subject of equal marriage for gays comes up?
Orin said "Once gays and lesbians achieve this (and yes, I can read the writing on the wall...it will happen), the next group WILL step forward and say, "hey, there were once two criteria for marriage; you (society) have given gays and lesbians a pass on the gender criteria, why not give us a pass on the two persons constitutes the correct number for a marriage?...".
Nonsense, this hasn't happened in the countries that have allowed same sex unions, its been decades in some western European countries and there has been no big push for polygamous unions.
And once again, the answers you choose to avoid are obvious - relationships with two people are hard enough to make work without trying to make one work with three or more people in it. The problems in polygamous marriages are obvious and contrary to your baseless assertions it is not gay marriage which is used to justify such relationships, its religion. Its almost exclusively the religious that push for polygamous marriages, its the bible that sanctifies and justifies polygamous marriages - stop falsely blaming this on gays.
Until I started educating myself about the curriculum revision to include a few facts about LGBT people, I never gave marriage equality much thought. But after several years of study and after meeting hundreds of lesbian and gay families, I have concluded that marriage equality is a civil rights issue. What motivates me to seek marriage equality is my strong aversion to plain old discrimination coupled with the notion that every American has "certain unalienable rights" and deserves equal civil rights. If I can marry any man I choose, you should be able to also. If you can marry any woman you choose, I should be able to also. It's that simple IMHO.
Orin, you still haven't answered the questions raised last month on this thread:
http://www.teachthefacts.org/2007/05/gallup-this-is-good-news.html
Rather than telling us any concrete ways that same-sex marriage might harm children, it seems to me you've sidestepped to the tried and true method of the GOP: fear. That's what slippery slope arguments are all about, fear of slipping down down down. You can focus on fear if you want Orin. You might even join the Anon who likes to mention the slimiest practices to make the slope even slipperier. I don't buy any of it.
I'm with Mildred Loving on this one.
"On June 12, 2007, Mildred Loving issued a rare public statement prepared for delivery on the 40th aniversary of the Loving v Virginia decision of the US Supreme Court. The concluding paragraphs of her statement read as follows:
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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia
Post a Comment
<< Home