posted on October 1, 2004 11:23:25 AM
We haven't had a gay thread in past couple of hours so.....
Amendment to bar same-sex marriage defeated in House
By David Espo
Associated Press
Published October 1, 2004
WASHINGTON--The House on Thursday rejected a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, the latest in a string of causes advanced by Republican leaders in the run-up to Election Day.
The vote was 227-186, well shy of the two-thirds needed for approval of an amendment that President Bush supports but the Senate scuttled in July.
"God created Adam and Eve, He didn't create Adam and Steve," said Rep. Roscoe Bartlett (R-Md.) on behalf of a measure supporters said was designed to protect an institution as old as civilization.
Democrats countered that Republicans were motivated by election-year politics, particularly because the Senate vote ended any immediate chance that the amendment could go to the states for ratification.
Rep. Steny Hoyer of Maryland, the Democratic whip, accused GOP leaders of "raw political cynicism" and said they hoped to "create the fodder for a demagogic political ad."
Bush issued a statement expressing disappointment with the vote's outcome.
"Because activist judges and local officials in some parts of the country are seeking to redefine marriage for the rest of the country, we must remain vigilant in defending traditional marriage," the president said.
The measure drew the support of 191 Republicans and 36 Democrats. Voting against it were 158 Democrats, 27 Republicans and one Independent.
Republican House members from Illinois voted for the measure, except for Reps. Judy Biggert and Mark Kirk, who opposed it. Rep. Jerry Costello was the only Illinois Democrat to vote yes; his fellow Democrats voted no, except for Rep. Danny Davis, who did not vote.
The debate on the gay marriage amendment came a day after the House voted 250-171 to overturn a 28-year municipal ban on handgun ownership in the District of Columbia. And last week, Republicans forced a vote on legislation to protect the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance from court challenge. It passed on a 247-173 vote.
While both of those measures face uncertain prospects in the Senate, they--along with the same-sex marriage proposal--appeal to voting groups whose support Republicans are counting on in the Nov. 2 elections. Recent surveys in battleground states in the presidential race indicate that roughly one-quarter of Bush's supporters say moral or family values are uppermost in their minds.
The gay marriage amendment said marriage in the United States "shall consist only of a man and a woman." It also would have required that neither the U.S. Constitution nor any state constitution "shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman."
DICK CHENEY SUPPORTS MY RELATIONSHIP: People ought to be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to
Let's have a BBQ, Texas style, ROAST BUSH
------------------------------
YOU CAN'T HAVE BULLSH** WITH OUT BUSH.
------------------------------
posted on October 1, 2004 11:48:32 AM
WHAT ? A republican controlled Congress failed to pass the Amendment ? Looks like Bush's support in Congress in on the slide too.
posted on October 1, 2004 09:55:10 PM
Lots of flooding in the south. From twelve and linda crying their eyes out over another loss which was designed to create a separate America. It seems that the republicans can't even muster enough bigotry to do this.
"Years from now people will look back on this debate with the same incredulity as we do today for the ban on interracial marriage" said Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D- NY).
"If any member of this House feels that by letting gay and lesbian couples who love each other marry it would somehow endanger or threaten their own marriage would they please explain how that could be. Any takers," Nadler challenged GOP lawmakers.
Bigots are miserable people. Prevent Bigotry through Education.
posted on October 2, 2004 05:45:22 AM
HR33133
would put a stop to the full faith clause in the instance of homosexual marriage... two states have already passed state constitutions... to not allow homosexual marriage, many other states have bans... so those getting married in MA have no legal standing in those states... once HR3313 passes, the USSC would have no standing on the issue...
First they would have to rule on that bill and I firmly believe they wouldn't hear the case and let the states decide...
just like "under god"... they did exactly what I said they would do and not hear the case...
posted on October 2, 2004 05:53:33 AM
Proposed law would let gays wed, adopt
Items compiled from Tribune news services
Published October 2, 2004
MADRID, SPAIN -- Despite vociferous opposition from the Roman Catholic Church, Spain's Cabinet proposed legislation Friday that would give homosexuals the right to marry and adopt children.
Parliament was expected to approve the legislation promptly, making Spain the third nation to legalize gay marriage.
"This proposed law ... removes a centuries-old barrier," Justice Minister Juan Fernando Lopez Aguilar said at Moncloa, the prime minister's office and residence and site of the weekly Cabinet meetings.
The proposal has been endorsed by the ruling Socialist Party.
Gay advocacy groups were supportive of the measure. "A child adopted by a homosexual couple is a child who is wanted, a child who is loved," said Carlos Alberto Biendicho of the Popular Gay Platform.
DICK CHENEY SUPPORTS MY RELATIONSHIP: People ought to be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to
Let's have a BBQ, Texas style, ROAST BUSH
------------------------------
YOU CAN'T HAVE BULLSH** WITH OUT BUSH.
------------------------------
posted on October 2, 2004 05:54:50 AM
Oh look the ignorant, woman hating, homophobic Archie Bunker, aka twelvepole, chimed in....."Move to Spain if you don't like living in the US"
DICK CHENEY SUPPORTS MY RELATIONSHIP: People ought to be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to
Let's have a BBQ, Texas style, ROAST BUSH
------------------------------
YOU CAN'T HAVE BULLSH** WITH OUT BUSH.
------------------------------
posted on October 2, 2004 07:08:14 AMwould put a stop to the full faith clause in the instance of homosexual marriage
It could not put a "stop" to it. It would take a Constitutional Amendment to put a "stop" to it. Even if the Congress attempts to close the jurisdiction, it can not erase nor prevent the application of over 200 years of law.
There are also equal protection and due process issues with not recognizing same sex marriages. First and foremeost, a state could not recognize marriages from a state that has same sex mariages. Not recognizing same sex marriages from other states will also create havoc in civil law at every level.
All state Constitutions are also subserviant to the US Constitution. Just because the USSC may have their jurisdiction limited does not mean that the state courts can ignore the US Constitution.
Any attempts to nullify marriages from one state in another is rife with problems that the Congress can not resolve.
they did exactly what I said they would do and not hear the case
Apparently you either don't know what you said or you don't know what the USSC actually did - either way you don't know what you're talking about. They did hear the case. They did not rule on the merits of the case. It was ruled that the Doctor lacked standing to bring the case. All that is now needed is a person with standing and they will hear it.
posted on October 2, 2004 07:20:51 AM
People of the US don't want homosexual marriages, congress could not get Constitutional admendment... congress sponsored bill HR3313, that would NOT ALLOW the USSC to hear a case on the homosexual marriage issue... only the states would have that decision... are you to young to remember that drinking laws were not the same from state to state? Only reason it was changed was for federal highway funds.
There has been precendent before for not following other states laws. A it will be in this case.
`No court created by Act of Congress shall have any jurisdiction, and the Supreme Court shall have no appellate jurisdiction, to hear or decide any question pertaining to the interpretation of, or the validity under the Constitution of, section 1738C or this section.'.
posted on October 2, 2004 08:52:43 AM
twelvepole - Read this article this morning and thought of you and your statements that gays can change their sexual orientation. Thought it might interest you....maybe others too.
posted on October 2, 2004 09:23:02 AM
Something to think about regarding marriages
By Nina Pineda
(New York-WABC, August 13, 2004) — So what do you do if you suddenly find out your spouse is gay? Well, it happens more often than you may think.
Nina Pineda is here with that part of the story.
It's estimated that 2 million couples in this country are in similar marriages as the McGreevey's, in which one spouse is gay. So many people may understand all too well just what Mrs. McGreevey may be going through.
Peggy, Straight Spouse Network, NYC Chapter: "I thought the reason why our relationship was not what I wanted was my fault."
She only wants to be known as "Peggy," a former school teacher who spent 40 years with a man she considered her boyfriend. Although their relationship was never intimate, it wasn't until they both had retired, that she learned the truth.
Peggy: "I said, 'Are you gay?' 'Of course I'm gay, you knew all along.'"
Numbness, embarrassment, shame, all emotions Peggy felt. Although in hindsight she admits the signs were always there.
It doesn't only happen to women.
Daniel Forero: "I was suicidal.
Daniel Forero was devastated two years ago when his wife of eight years, and mother of his three children, revealed she was a lesbian. They're now divorced.
But after turning to the Straight Spouses Network, Daniel and Peggy both realized they were not alone. The group helps spouses deal with the pain, and be honest about the signs many ignore.
Carol Grever is author of "My Husband Is Gay." She was married to a gay man for 30 years, hers was one of the 85 percent of marriages that end when a gay spouse comes out of the closet. But figures show 15 percent of such marriages stay together.
Her advice to women like Mrs. McGreevey, as to whether she should stay or should she go?
Carol Grever, Author "My Husband Is Gay": "I think most of us felt we couldn't stay, it is untenable. You need to ask, what is in it for me?"
It's still not clear what decision Mrs. McGreevey will make about the future of her marriage. What is clear, though, is that she is not alone, and that there is help for her, and others like her.
DICK CHENEY SUPPORTS MY RELATIONSHIP: People ought to be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to
Let's have a BBQ, Texas style, ROAST BUSH
------------------------------
YOU CAN'T HAVE BULLSH** WITH OUT BUSH.
------------------------------
posted on October 2, 2004 09:37:20 AM
Linda here is a story about a boy who claimed "he was no longer gay" and then still realized he was
Finding a real cure
By Chris Bull
From The Advocate, September 26, 2000
As he listened to Peter LaBarbera speak, Wade Richards began to feel fidgety. LaBarbera, president of Americans for Truth About Homosexuality, was inveighing against gays and lesbians at a press conference in April, shortly before the Millennium March on Washington. Richards, a 21-year-old “ex-gay,” was there as LaBarbera’s trump card, testifying that he had changed his sexual orientation through intensive therapy and prayer.
“It’s time for parents [and] teachers to stand up to what the gay activists are telling about the lifestyle,” Richards said when it was his turn to speak at the event. But even as he uttered these words, he was having profound doubts about the ex-gay movement.
“My friends were still telling me, ‘Wade, you are gay. And that’s OK,’ ” Richards explained in an interview with The Advocate, his first since rejecting the ex-gay movement in July.
“I knew I was still gay, but the question for me was, What kind of life could I lead? You wouldn’t believe the amount of material LaBarbera has about the gay community in his office. He has so much pornography there. It all seemed very political and ugly.”
Richards, who grew up in rural Wisconsin in a conservative Pentecostal community, had quickly become an ex-gay poster boy. After participating in an ex-gay group in Memphis, Tenn., in his late teens, Richards was hired by a Los Angeles–based nonprofit Christian group for whom he traveled the nation touting the ex-gay movement to other teenagers and young adults.
But throughout this work, Richards felt the pull of same-sex attraction. While living in Los Angeles near West Hollywood, he began a romantic relationship with another young man. Then, during an appearance on a radio talk show with Wayne Besen, a spokesman for the gay group Human Rights Campaign, the doubts grew still more intense. After their appearance together, Besen, who had just compiled a book for HRC of stories from former ex-gays called Finally Free, said to Richards, “One day you will come out. When you do, call me, and we will not abandon you like the religious right will.”
“When Wayne said that to me, I was like, Hmm,” Richards said. “So I called him.” On July 13, Richards signed a warrant for Besen pledging that “his sexual orientation had not in fact changed, that he is and always has been a homosexual, and that he does not believe that ex-gay ministries can ever change an individual’s sexual orientation.”
Even at the young age of 21, Richards has already spent years living in and out of the closet. A tumultuous childhood—his father left his mother when he was an infant—left him feeling vulnerable and depressed for much of his adolescence. When his classmates in high school learned he is gay, he was subjected to endless taunts and harassment, so he decided to seek help from an ex-gay group.
“The ex-gay movement was telling me that I needed to have male friends and to have heterosexual role models and to reconcile with my father,” he said. “I fit into their analysis of the causes of homosexuality perfectly. And I did need all those things to feel better about myself. The irony is that the movement helped me become a lot more confident and self-assured. I met a lot of good people there, people who would have laid down their lives for me, and that experience eventually gave me the confidence to come out.”
Richards also credits his father. “I called my dad up at one point and told him what was going on,” he said. “We were not really very close since he had left home. He said, ‘Son, some people are left-handed, and some people are right-handed. You should just be who you are. That’s OK with me.’ For my Harley-Davidson–riding dad to say that to me, well, it just lifted a huge weight off my shoulders.”
Today, Richards says he is finally at peace. He is preparing to begin classes at a technical school in Madison, Wis., where he hopes to form a nonprofit group called Stand Up, which will provide support for gay and lesbian youth. “I’ve been through so much in my life already,” he says. “But the one constant is that I am gay. I just want to spend some time being who I am.”
DICK CHENEY SUPPORTS MY RELATIONSHIP: People ought to be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to
Let's have a BBQ, Texas style, ROAST BUSH
------------------------------
YOU CAN'T HAVE BULLSH** WITH OUT BUSH.
------------------------------
Since animals are not influenced by society to change their sexual orientation, they are useful to support the belief that biological theories such as genes, brain and prenatal chemistry are the basis for homosexuality. When I was researching the effect of accupuncture I found this site...nothing about accupuncture but a good study of how biological theories relate to sexual preference in animals. This is an interesting study, first published in New Scientist....Homosexuality is Biological, suggests gay sheep study
"Sheep are particularly interesting because besides humans, they are the only animal where the males may naturally express exclusively gay sexual preferences. As many as one in 10 rams can be gay."
Linda's site has placed Rush Limbaugh in their Hall of Fame.
posted on October 2, 2004 12:03:32 PMare you to young to remember that drinking laws were not the same from state to state? Only reason it was changed was for federal highway funds.
There are many laws that are different from state to state. But it is not a valid comparison to a civil marriage contarct.
There has been precendent before for not following other states laws. A it will be in this case.
It is not abour "following other states laws", it is about honoring a civil contract executed in another state.
What will employers do with employee benefits when it transfers a same sex couple to a state that doesn't recognize the marriage ?
How will the IRS treat a same sex couple when they move to a state that doesn't recognize the marriage ?
What is the status of a married couple that is traveling through a state that doesn't recognize their marriage ? What will happen if there is an accident and one is killed ? The deceased family is now the responsible for the deceased if the marriage is not recognized. What if one or both are killed and life insurance beneficiaries and all other benefits are listed as just "lawfully married spouse" ?
Under the Constitution, how can the other states recognize non same sex marriages and not same sex marriages from the same state ? Or will they not recognize any marriage from the same sex marriage state ?
Taxes and estates and insurance benefits are just the tip of the iceberg of how screwed up patchwork marriage recognition laws would be.
That why there is a full faith and credit clause in the Constitution.
Do you think businesses haven't voiced their opposition to these Bills ? It would be a nightmare as big as the current local taxing system if some states were allowed to not recognize these marriages.
What about criminal cases ?
The Congress will have to remove jurisdiction from the whole Constitution and dissolve the Supreme Court before it can stop the courts from forcing the recognition of same sex marriages.
Something as ubiquitous and fundemental as marriage can not be carved out of Constitutiopn protections.
posted on October 2, 2004 12:07:47 PM
What will happen in a situation where the Federal government recognizes a same sex marriage but the state doesn't ?
This will have definite tax consequences.
What will happen to a Federal employee that is in a legal same sex marriage and he/she transfers to a state that does not recognize the marriage ?
Allowing some states not to recognize same sex marriage will create chaos.
posted on October 2, 2004 02:41:28 PM
The Federal govt does not recogize homosexual marriage the IRS has already said so.
In a clarification that threatens the viability of same-sex marriages, the IRS says homosexual couples cannot file joint tax returns because they would be in violation of the Defense of Marriage Act.
The IRS says the 1996 statute, signed by President Clinton, means "only married individuals under this definition could elect to file a joint tax return."
Seems pretty simple... it is not a complex issue and not a problem, a homosexual married in MA can't move anywhere right now... how would that change?
A company can allow whatever benefits they seem fit... that portion of your argument does not hold up.
A homosexual couple would have know that their shame marriage would not be valid in all states and that if they moved there, would have to obey that states law.... I can see why homosexuals would want this to be a complex issue, but it really is not.
posted on October 2, 2004 03:00:08 PM
By the time the ultra liberals work to get the Defense of Marriage Act over-ruled, I'd bet we'll be in the year 2006 which is when the Mass. judge's ruling might, itself, just be overturned. This may not be an issue at all.
posted on October 2, 2004 04:51:13 PM
It passes the house by a wide margin... even some of your reps from MI helped sponsor it...
When it passes the senate, the President will be sure to sign it... it is just that simple...
Homosexuals were wanting the states to decide... now they can without any outside interference... MO and La and even MI when it passes its new addition to the state constitution.... the states have taken a stand and chosen... but that is really not what you on the left had in mind and it is good that lawmakers seen through the homosexual agenda and made this bill.
You wanted the states to decide, now they can... oh but wait that's not the decision you wanted now is it? You thought let them pass their laws and the USSC will overturn them... but now there is a bill that can stop that.
posted on October 2, 2004 05:41:27 PMhe Federal govt does not recogize homosexual marriage the IRS has already said so.
Only the IRS has said it will not recognize the same sex marriages. But it is still a tax problem. In many states you are required by law to use the same filing status on both state and federal forms. So what happens when a same sex couple wish to file married joint in their state that recognizes same sex marriages and the IRS says they can't file married joint on their Federal return ?
I'll tell you what happens, a law suit for equal protection and due process, that could be started in a state court and end up Federal without any mention of Full Faith and Credit.
They'll easily win -- how can the IRS recognize my neighbors marriage and its tax benefits and not mine ? BOOM-- equal protection, the IRS must recognize the marriage, BOOM DOMA is ruled unconstitutional.
There is no way that a Bill can carve out the jurisdiction for same sex marriages without huge problems.
It would result in a morass of strange and unintendeed results.
a homosexual married in MA can't move anywhere right now
Sure they can. A lesbian has already gotten mattied and moved into a state that doesn't recognize their marriage. She went to court in that state over a child custody dispute. The court didn't recognize trhe marriage. It will begin moving towards the USSC very soon, and she will win.
A company can allow whatever benefits they seem fit... that portion of your argument does not hold up.
It's not that simple and it will create headaches to administer and will open the company for discriminations suits.
Company benefits are generally worded such as "lawfully married spouse", and the benefits apply to all persons married to an employee.
So what do they do ? Place a non-same sex marriage clause in the benefits and then face lawsuits and sanctions ?
Not only is allowing same sex marriages the right thing to do, it is the smart thing to do.
posted on October 2, 2004 05:47:24 PM
IRS can have done anything they have wanted for years, you think this case will be any different?
As I have said the left wants to make this as complex as possible and it really is not a complex issue... but the lawyers on both sides will be reaping the benefits and the anger and hatred will build to something far worse.
Do you really think that a state that does not want homosexual marriage will accept it? If it is forced fed, I predict more of a backlash against homosexuals and many many years of court battles...
Prevent Bigotry through Education.
Thought it might interest you....maybe others too.
