Well gay marriages have been legal in Massachusetts for a year now and for some reason society has not collapsed.
This hot button issue. which many credit as leading the Republicans to victory in 2004 elections, has lost some steam since it was used to whip Christian Conservatives into a holy frenzy of frothy rabid goodness that led 11 states to pass anti-gay legislation.
It looks like it may be turning around, at least in one state. The Massachusetts Legislature just voted 157-39 against the proposed constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage and overturn the court ruling in the state.
How could this happen - wasn't gay marriage a threat to the very fabric of our society? Wasn't it the slap in the face of traditional marriage that would make all heterosexual marriages null and void? I guess none of that happened.
So how do you account for this seemingly 180-degree turn in the attitude toward gay marriage in Massachusetts? Let's hear from one of the co-sponsors of the proposed amendment. "Gay marriage has begun, and life has not changed for the citizens of the commonwealth, with the exception of those who can now marry," said state Sen. Brian Lees, a Republican who had been a co-sponsor of the amendment. "This amendment which was an appropriate measure or compromise a year ago, is no longer, I feel, a compromise today."
Well what do you know about that? Adam and Steve got married and nothing bad happened to anyone.
I guess I would like it if this event somehow opened people's eyes to the fact that all the gay marriage doomsayers were manipulating people and not actually threatened. Or that two people getting married regardless of their orientation is a fine thing and not in any way dangerous or confusing for society. But I suspect it will just be business as usual, combined with looks of disgust at the Massachusetts liberals and their hell-bound married gay pals.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Realist
"Kudos to Massachusetts - I'm proud of all of you, now hopefully for your next trick you can chuck that poo-head governor of yours and send him on his way."
Just the way the the Massachusetts court decision sent John Kerry on his way?
That is what got the vote out for Bush.
BTW, did Bush ever thank the court?
2 - Rudicus
No, he was far too busy thanking Ohio for rigging another election win for him.
3 - Jamo
The reason gay marriage is a problem for me is that it gives special rights to homosexuals that I as a straight man don't have.
Allowing gays to marry opens the floodgates for people to believe that they should be allowed to marry whomever they want which is wrong. It's a snowball effect which will eventually have an impact on the very fabric of society if it escapes the boundaries of Mass. and now California.
4 - Jamo
And the election rigging comment, Rudicus, has run it's course. It's time to accept that your boy lost and think to the future -- this is one of the biggest problems with liberal thinking and particularly the democratic party.
5 - Dr. Kurt
Whaaat? What special rights are denied to us straight men? I married whomever I wanted to, unfortunately... perhaps mariage should not be a civil act at all, with none of the 1000 plus special rights that accompany it. It amounts to that which conservatives claim to hate, social engineering.
6 - Jamo
You married a woman because, yes, you wanted to but also because the law says that people must marry a person of the opposite sex who is not a relative. As long as the person you want to marry falls within those guidelines then yes, you can marry whomever you want.
If we allow homosexuals to marry whom they want then we have to let heterosexuals marry whom they want. Do you really want a bunch of people who are married to their siblings having kids?
7 - Rudicus
And what problem would that be? The problem with lying, cheating and stealing? Yeah those darn liberal values really are cumbersome. How exactly does the truth run it's course? The memory of not one but two stolen elections - not sour grapes, but literal theft, as in the same kind that spur regime changes in third world countries - does not go away. Are you suggesting that there is a time limit for complaining? There is no statue of limitations on complaining about corruption, and no time limit on holding people accountable for cheating. George Bush is a pretender to the throne and now after he's successfully botched every single one of his agenda items, people are finally starting to see what happens when you put an unqualified moron in office just because he is a gay hating redneck christian like the people who voted for him.
8 - Rudicus
Jamo,
Now you're just being ridiculous.
9 - Silas Kain
Ah, the old bait and switch: let two guys marry and next thing you know you'll be able to marry your mother. Bullshit. Can I get any clearer than that?
10 - Bill B
>If we allow homosexuals to marry whom they want then we have to let heterosexuals marry whom they want. Do you really want a bunch of people who are married to their siblings having kids?<
Huh?
If allowing non-related men and women to marry has not "snow-balled" into condoning/allowing incestuous marriage, why would allowing non-related same sex folks to marry bring that end about?
Why would extending the right of marriage to non-related same sex couples necessitate allowing opposite sex relatives to marry?
Am I missing something here? Where's the incestuous gay marriage lobby pushing for this right?
Pretty bizarre logic.
Of course I do believe it is already legal in some/many? states to marry certain distant relatives. I could be wrong.
11 - Rudicus
Well Silas as you well know from listening to Evangelical Christian Conservative homosexuality is only a gateway orientation into pedophilia and bestiality - so why they want the pretense of marriage is beyond me.
12 - Taylor Skinner
First off, comparing Homosexual marriage to pedophillic marriage is fallicious in its own argument.
It's completly legal to marry someone who's thirteen or what-not, you just need to wait five years. If you truly love the child for the sake of love, you can wait.
Homosexuals on the other hand, cannot wait. "Justice too long delayed is justice denied." There's not logical basis to deny homoseuxlas the right to marry. If you say that they cannot marry because it will lead to worse things, then you stop those worse things when THEY come--don't stop gay marriage.
Another fallicious syllogisim I've heard is the connection between gay marriage and animal-human marriage.
When the day comes that a dog can conciously and willfully sign a marriage liscence--being able to note his parental grandmothers madian name form memory--and vocally say "I do" at the altar, then I say let them marry. Considering some animals (such as parrots) can only do half of the criteria, I doubt that it'll be any time soon.
The last common connection I see I between incest and gay marriage. Come one, there's no logical evidence that allowing gays to marry will force us to allow related persons to marry. Incest kowingly causes harm to the children they produce and there are many reasons to disallow related persons marriage--medical or psychological or otherwise.
One thing I also often hear is "wait." America isn't "ready," or some other scapegoat reason. Dosen't this sound familiar. In the words of the great Martin Luther King Jr.: "For years now I have heard the word 'wait.' It rings in the ear of every Negro with a piercing familiarity. This 'wait' has almost always meant 'never.'...I guess it is easy for those who have never felt the stinging darts of segragation to say 'wait.'"
Sounds familiar.
He also said: "It is the strangely irrational notion that there is something in the very flow of time that will inevitably cure all ills," wich I believe is a common mistake of we Americans. We often tend to assume if we wait it out it'll just go away. Not so.
In the long-run, gay marriage is bennificial to many--homoseuxlas, families and friends of homosexuals, and their children--and harmful to none. Denying husbands or wives the right to marry is denying their children--adopted or otherwise--similar rights. So if you're not going to do it for us, the homosexual community, think of the children.
13 - Taylor Skinner
Two other good quotes by MLK Jr. I came across: "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly affects all indrectly."
"History is the long and tragic story of the fact that privileged groups seldom give up their privileges voluntarily."
14 - practical joe
"History is the long and tragic story of the fact that privileged groups seldom give up their privileges voluntarily."
Liberty, Equality, Fraternity; off to the guillotine with those Christians!
15 - DLR
Jamo is just trolling. Please don't feed the troll.
16 - Jamo
Silas -- It isn't the ol bait and switch, it's a very real and possible consequence that needs to be considered. Tell me what is stopping this next step? What will be stopping someone from going to his or her government and saying, "Hey, the gays can marry who they want, why can't I marry my sister, aunt, mother (brother, uncle, dad) etc." There are a lot of sick twisted freaks out there whether you want to admit it or not and I don't think it's ridiculous to be concerned with them. I'mn not ready to see this country turn into an anything goes do whatever you want kind of place.
Rudicus, believing that the last two elections were stolen is representative of the kind of negative thinking that epitomizes your party. No election was stolen and no amount of fradulent moveon.org research can prove to any rational-thinking person that you are correct. Kerry lost because he had absolutely nothing holding his campaign together save for an overwhelming hatred of George Bush.
17 - RedTard
I personally believe that cultural issues have hurt marriage more than liberal initiatives but I can understand how some would attribute the erosion of the family to our meddling with long held traditions.
Many fear that allowing gay marriage will do at least as much damage to families as no-fault divorce appeared to do. I know it doesn't give much comfort to gays who feel they have been slighted, but many in opposition to your marriage are not rabidly homophobic, they're honestly worried about the future of the family.
18 - Bill B
>Many fear that allowing gay marriage will do at least as much damage to families as no-fault divorce appeared to do.<
As far as the damage that no-fault divorce has done-
What about staying in a hopeless marriage "for the sake of the kids".
I realize you're trying to say divorce is too easy, and that the family structure suffers from it, but can you honestly say that kids growing up in a household with parents who have no love for one another and quite possibly cheat and are at each others throats is a more nurturing family environment?
>I know it doesn't give much comfort to gays who feel they have been slighted, but many in opposition to your marriage are not rabidly homophobic, they're honestly worried about the future of the family.<
If the prospect of gay marriage is such a threat to the heterosexual family unit, than the family is in much more trouble than you think.
Exactly how would homosexuals being allowed to follow their inclinations and have their relationships recognized by the state threaten heterosexual marriage? The comparison of divorce and homosexual marriage is apples and oranges.
If you're concerned about the survival of the family, support legislation that supports families. Child care, health care, raising the minimum wage, paying a living wage to name a few.
You're wasting your energy and discriminating against a group of people based on your fears of what might happen. Gays can't marry now and fifty percent of marriages end in divorce. Newsflash: It's not because gays can marry. They can't.
19 - practical joe
“The Massachusetts Legislature just voted 157-39 against the proposed constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage and overturn the court ruling in the state.
How could this happen ?”
---
Here’s one possibility.
Shortly after John F. Kennedy became president, another John Kennedy in Massachusetts ran for the office of Massachusetts Secretary of State.
The new guy had not a modicum of experience, but no matter -- he was elected by a landslide.
The fact is that the people of Massachusetts do not have not a modicum of sense when it comes to politics.
In every election cycle, they re-elect the same crooks to their legislature.
Why they sometimes elect governors with common sense remains a mystery.
20 - Red State
"No, he was far too busy thanking Ohio for rigging another election win for him."
Keep drinking the kool-aid Rudicus.
21 - Michael J. West
Many fear that allowing gay marriage will do at least as much damage to families as no-fault divorce appeared to do.
What about fault-assigned divorce?
In all seriousness, ANY kind of divorce, whether no-fault or not, does the worst possible damage to the family in the present AND the future. Far more than gay marriage does. If anyone wants to seriously convince me that they're worried about the sanctity of marriage and the integrity of the family, they'll have to lobby as hard to criminalize divorce as they are to criminalize gay marriage.
I'm serious. If you're okay with divorce being legal in this country, then you're okay with the deterioration of the family structure. So that excuse won't wash for opposing gay marriage.
22 - steve
If homosexuals can marry...I should be able to have two wives. Lets throw out marriage rules all together
23 - Rudicus
I have a question.
Is anyone here who is opposed to same-sex marriage who is not a Christian or a member of another faith that claims homosexuality is sinful and/or wrong?
If so, can you explain your position and reasoning?
24 - Michael J. West
Lets throw out marriage rules all together
"'Til death do you part."
"What God has joined let no man put asunder."
As long as divorce is legal, marriage rules are optional anyway. So why will legalizing gay marriage change that?
25 - steve
I am for Civil Unions, against Gay Marriage. Marriage usually involves procreation, or adoption. I believe that it would be psychologically damaging to grow up in a Parent A/Parent B household. A child needs a balanced, stable home recieving input from a mother and a father