There is hope.!

[oxydolfan1]

"Frequently that is a problem, the outdated ways of doing things. Older generations have more time on their hands so they tend to get more involved in public policy. Like Voting."

That's actually not the case where I am, especially in the ethnically-based and working-class communities where war is the official religion, and any other agenda item on the neocon platform gets swept along for the ride.

Here, a large number of the young have bought into the "fear" trip, and it guides all of their other choices (as opposed to older people, who are much more concerned with the financial stability of the nation and are far more likely to wave off social issues with a "live and let live" attitude.

 

[peterh770]

Dan said: "Personally, I'd like to see the government out of the "marriage" business altogether. I think that any couple (M/F, M/M, F/F) who wants to have their relationship acknowleged by the state should be issued a civil union license. If that same couple wants to get "married", they would need to go find a religion that will sanctify their particular arrangement."

Perfectly stated! I couldn't agree more!

 

[red_october]

I too agree entirely with that concept.

Some people have complained that allowing gay marriage would force churches to compromise their moralities by forcing them to marry gay couples.
First of all I say "Big Fecking Deal" to this, the law gives the shaft to plenty of other churches and customs and I for one would dance with glee were the catholic church to be eradicated.
Second of all, I think that seperation of church and state is an important concept and that seperating the legal aspect (civil partnership, which could benefit many people such as longterm roomates, caregivers to the infirm, siblings living together, the elderly, etc) from the religious elements, is a very good thing. If some church wants to develop obscure criteria for marriage, let 'em -but the can't keep anyone away from the state's benefits, which is as it should be -maximum freedom for all parties involved.

 

[oxydolfan1]

"I for one would dance with glee were the catholic church to be eradicated."

Oh? Really?

Is this not a hate-filled comment of your own?

Would you make it of Muslims? Of Jews?

Then what makes you think it is an appropriate comment for this website?

 

[goprog]

remember years back when george jr. said "he heard thin

Well, he probably did. There's the internet we use and then
there's the other one he uses where God tells him to attack
Iraq. (Next he'll tell us it was a mistake and someone stole
God's password and hacked in and impersonated God - how was
poor George to know?)

 

[red_october]

Oxydolfan my hatred of the Catholic Church is my own and for my own reasons. They were not kind to me. I dislike all organized religions, to be honest, but I also recognize that they all have equal freedom to exist -but I expect to be free from their respective moralities. I did not mean to offend, merely to express my own disgust.

 

[oxydolfan1]

Then kindly keep your disgust and any further calls to "eradicate the Catholic Church" to yourself, please.

Many of us have had conflicted histories and very difficult times dealing with our own, and other, assorted faith traditions, the organizations that form their institutional bodies, and some of their more difficult representatives, but never is it right to show hatred toward those very institutions that give aid and sustenance to others (particularly health institutions, aid to the homeless, healthcare and AIDS hospice, etc.), not to mention some level of spiritual peace to those who choose to seek it, as well as freedom for those who choose not to.

There are many men and women in our communities who are deeply involved in their spiritual communities here. It means something to them.

And I'm sorry I yelled at you, and I'm sorry you had the bad experiences you mentioned. I'm sorry that so many in our communities have had such negative interactions.

As a gay man, practicing Catholic and (occasional) student of Kabbalah, I am probably oversensitive on this subject.

I apologize to the aw.org community for disrupting this conversation with my anger and not checking my ego.

Again, have a wonderful weekend!

 

[washertalk]

Am I the only one who sees that OxyScott has created a new date for August. That being
8/32/07

Kewl.

 

[earthling177]

Yeah, there are more posts above that one and I just noticed another one in the deluxe forum too. (Post# 234370-8/32/2007-00:49)

 

[goprog]

Dates

My guess is some glitch related to GMT.

 

[DADoES]

The date glitch happens occasionally when a post hits at the right time-frame during day/date changeover. I've seen it several times, but apparently some people haven't.

 

[red_october]

No offence meant, Oxy

I too extend my appology. There is no need for trivial squabling, especially under the happy announcement that sense has struck another community (or at least another judge).

 

[washertalk]

What a cute couple, both of them.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070901/D8RCARCO0.html

 

[goprog]

'"While some Iowans may disagree on this issue, I personally believe marriage is between a man and a woman," Culver said.'

So, you may PERSONALLY believe sex after 30 is a sin for all
I know. Big deal. What's your point?

"House Democrats need to start leading or get out of the way."

And what difference would it make? If they "led" towards a
fair and honest treatment of all individuals, I wonder where
the Repugnicans would be.

GRRR

 

[Unimatic1140]

The date bug has been with us since the Discuss-o-Mat went live. It happens for two hours one the last day of every month. I know how to fix it, it will take some reprogramming work, it's just a real low priority and I always forget about it.

Isn't that couple cute!!! Congratulations to them, how exciting to be the first couple to tie the knot legally outside of MA since the MA Supreme Court extended marriage rights to all.

 

[petek]

My guess is that the US will have to wait the same as what happened in Canada until the federal Supreme court basically over-rules the state Supreme courts as they did the provincial Supreme courts in Canada. What happened here is that Ontario,the largest by population along with a few others started granting SS marriages. Provinces and I'm not sure about States in the US do not have the authority to "define" what is a marriage..ie one man/one woman, that is a federal jurisdiction. The provinces are/were only granted the right to issue marriage certificates etc. The federal Supreme court didn't actually change the wordings what they did was "read into, the Canadian Charter of Rights regarding marriage being solely between one man/one woman was against the charter,,ie unconstitutional and that it must also apply to SS couples. Once they announced that finding it sent out a clear message to the rest of the provinces fighting it that try as they might to stave off SS marriage in their respective provinces they would lose the battle on the first case to make its way up the ladder to the federal courts.
Of course this created a brouhaha all it's own with the anti-crowd screaming that judges were making the laws and not elected officials. The pro side claiming as did the Supreme Court that they were NOT creating new laws only defining the existing laws in a non discriminatory manner

 

[petek]

What I also find most interesting when drawing parallels between Canada and the US since historically they have always been close and similar is how far Canada has progressed in the past 30 years socially whereas the US has not, other than the black/white issue. We went from almost puritanical, pre 1970's, to a point where I think we even out swede the Swedes who if you're old enough to recollect were always the country that seemed to be at the forefront of social equality and blase attitudes about nudity, sex etc. What's interesting is that in the year or so since the SS ruling it has pretty much become a non-issue anymore and people carry on carrying on as they always have.
I'm also surprised that the UK didn't actually "go all the way" and legalize SS marriage but went the "civil union" route which is just that a "civil union" not a marriage. Canada was even more puritanical than the UK ever was not that long ago.