SF throws down the gauntlet to Cali

[Imran Siddiqui]

The situations weren't comparable. The Alabama case involved a state official violating the U.S. Constitution by improperly establishing a religious doctrine on government property.

SF is not violating the Constitution, and is in fact undertaking this act precisely to challenge the constitutionality of the state's law prohibiting same-sex marriage.

If they wanted to challenge the state's law then the courtroom is where to go. Passing a law in direct contravention of state law is not, and suffers EXACTLY the same criticisms as Judge Moore. I'd imagine California has its own Supremecy Clause and thus the law is violating California's Constitution. Even if California's state law is struck down, it will not change the fact that SF's law during the period before California's law was struck down is unconstitutional under state law, probably making all these marriages null and void, but they can go back and do it again if they want.

I see the second case as SF enforcing federal constitutional law, which is violated by California state law.

You seek enforcement of the law by going to Court to get it changed. SF can't do this because it is a city and thus has no standing. It is hard to argue that you are enforcing the law by breaking it.

I work for the government. I am a christian. I may wear a cross or some religious article under my clothes. I am not allowed to force my beliefs on others. In my court there will be all manner of people. I must give them each a fair deal. I cannot be biased.

And in like manner, in California, you may not marry people of the same sex. You cannot be biased in this account and give people of same sex marriage licenses because it is against the law.

If you do not agree with that law, by all means, go to Court to try to get it changed. If the Court's do not agree with you, then go the route of civil disobediance if you wish, but going the route of disobediance before courtroom I see as invalid.

[Ben Kenobi]

As a measure of last resort.

so why are single people allowed to adopt?

Again, a measure of last resort. If no one wants to take a child, they should have someone to care for them rather than no one.

However, it is much easier to say that they will do better with both of their parents, then with anyone else.

And I would guess that (as others have said) having an abusive father would be worse than having no father and two mothers.

Depends again on other factors. However, this fails to address the point. The ideal is not having an abusive father, but having a father who loves and cares for you. Ideally, this will be much better for the child, than to be raised without a father.

Is it harmful in any other ways?

To the participants, I would also argue, they are harmed. They would have much higher incidence rates of disease, and infections. Their life expectancy would be substantially shortened.

[Adam Smith]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I'd like to the see people first try to change the law through the law (ie, court), rather than decide just to violate it without going to the courts.

I agree Imran. While some people might approve the tactics used by the City of San Fransisco, would they approve if the same tactics were used by the City of Houston? I would rather see the legal issues sorted through first in both cases.

Washington Post Editorial

Playing by Texas Rules

Wednesday, February 18, 2004; Page A18

THE SUPREME COURT has announced that it will review the constitutionality of the death penalty for people who were children when they committed their crimes. But don't expect Texas to stop executing juvenile offenders while the court does so. The Lone Star State has scheduled, through the end of June, the executions of four convicts for crimes committed while they were still underage. Unless the courts step in and stop these executions, Texas could end up killing people only to find out later that those executions violated the Constitution.

It should not take a court order to force the state to delay these executions until it knows whether they are legal. But Texas, in its unrivaled enthusiasm for capital punishment, sees few corners that it cannot cut to get convicts to the death chamber quickly. Texas has executed more than half the total number of juvenile offenders put to death in this country since capital punishment's reinstatement. And officials apparently see no reason to stop now that the high court may be having second thoughts about its decision years ago to uphold the practice. As Harris County District Attorney Charles A. "Chuck" Rosenthal Jr. put it to the Houston Chronicle, the Supreme Court's decision to hear the case "doesn't change anything." He added, "Until a court tells me differently, the executions are still on." It's time for the courts to tell Texas differently.

[civman2000]

Depends again on other factors. However, this fails to address the point. The ideal is not having an abusive father, but having a father who loves and cares for you. Ideally, this will be much better for the child, than to be raised without a father.

What does the ideal have to do with anything? In the ideal case it may be that parents of different gender are always better than the same, but in the real world, is there any reason not to allow both, because either can be either good or bad, depending on the character of the individuals involved?

To the participants, I would also argue, they are harmed. They would have much higher incidence rates of disease, and infections. Their life expectancy would be substantially shortened.

How???

[Pax]

The Pledge of Allegiance

The last change in the Pledge of Allegiance occurred on June 14 (Flag Day), 1954 when President Dwight D. Eisenhower approved adding the words "under God". As he authorized this change he said:

"In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America's heritage and future; in this way we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever will be our country's most powerful resource in peace and war."

We are not one nation under god we are the melting pot we have more than one religion in this country. It's not fair to give one religion power over any of the others.

Love of your mother is a different kind of love. unless you're kinkier than I thought. Frankly, I don't really care if you marry your mother or not.

The last time I got married I only needed an official for the ceremony. It really does not matter how many people witness it. Like I said if you don't want to see it don't go to the ceremony. Stand outside and protest how they are going to hell. Preach to them on the way in and on the way out.

Christians should not abandon their principles nor their missionary spirit. Go forth preach the word. Christians should abandon their tendency to make their beliefs into laws that everybody else has to follow.

I already said they the founders would have voted against gay marriage and for slavery IMO. They would have voted for a lot of other things that are wrong. Still there words were right. Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of happiness. Our country is a work in progress. We can build on those ideas or we can make laws that turn this country into the Christian Holyland very similar to Iran. Another intolerant country.

The don't ask don't tell policy was a compromise. Gays are prohibited from military service. Cases come up all the time where people get kicked out for their sexual preference. They love their country. They want to serve but they are not allowed to because of their lifestyle.

Being oppressed is not living. Not being allowed to live the way you want is not living. It's waiting. Waiting to die. That's the compromise right. We allow the gays to die slow and never be happy.

Has it been determined that homosexuality caused aids?

[Ben Kenobi]

What does the ideal have to do with anything?

It has everything to do with it.

Or perhaps I could go with a more statistical base that shows children do better with their mother and father than they do with anyone else.

either can be either good or bad, depending on the character of the individuals involved?

Just as it is unfair to gage all marriages by the ones that are abusive, it is also unfair to only look at those gay relationships that are good.

That's a fallacy of testimony, which can be circumvented by looking at either the average, or the ideal.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
It's not. Children are the one of the biggest benefits of marriage, so those gays fail to derive this benefit from their union.

YOU MORON!



Marriage between heterosexuals is not contingent upon fertility or intent to have children, as we've pointed out fifty billion times in the past. SHUT THE FVCK UP ABOUT IT ALREADY!!!!!!!!!!

(Ming: please ban BK if he says that again. This is infinitely worse than Kidicious in the profit = unfair tax threads.)

[Ben Kenobi]

Marriage between heterosexuals is not contingent upon fertility or intent to have children,

Not my argument, Skywalker.

I argue that children are one of the benefits that society derives from marriage. Do you deny this statement?

[Kuciwalker]

Ergo, society should deny marriage to those who can't or won't have children.

[Pax]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Not my argument, Skywalker.

I argue that children are one of the benefits that society derives from marriage. Do you deny this statement?

My kids get on my damn nerves

[Ben Kenobi]

The findings of a study just published in the British Journal of Psychiatry (December 2003) suggest higher incidences of illegal drug usage, alcoholism, psychological problems, and violence in the gay community than in the general population.

"Gay men and lesbians reported more psychological distress than heterosexual women, despite similar levels of social support and quality of physical health," the researchers reported (p. 556).

The controlled, cross-sectional study was conducted in both England and Wales. No European study in mental health, according to the researchers, has ever before recruited over a thousand gay and lesbian participants.

Surveying a total of 1,161 men (656 self-identified gay, 505 self-identified heterosexual) and 1,018 women (430 self-identified as lesbian, 588 self-identified as straight), the researchers said their main goal was "to compare psychological status, quality of life and use of mental health by lesbians and gay men with heterosexual people."

The researchers found that homosexual males and females both tended to score higher on scales of psychological distress than did their heterosexual counterparts. Further, they were found to be more likely to have used recreational drugs and to have inflicted deliberate harm upon themselves. Gays of both genders were also found to have consulted mental health professionals more frequently than the straight participants.

Additionally, the researchers found that the lesbian participants were the most frequent victims of physical intimidation and violence. Lesbians were also found to be "more likely than heterosexual women to drink excessively."

But bullying at school, the study noted, was reported no more often by gay men than by heterosexual men. Reports that gay men and lesbians are disproportionately vulnerable to school harassment "are often taken at face value," the researchers noted, with researchers failing to draw a comparison to heterosexual students, who--at least in this study--were found to suffer similar high rates of school bullying and harassment.

The actual impetus for this study was, as noted in the paper itself, that "little is known about the mental health of gay men and lesbians living in Europe...almost all data is North American and there are few data for Europe."

Termed the "Sexuality and Well Being Study," the research was conducted by a team headed by Michael King, M.D., Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Royal Free Campus, London; Eammon McKeowan, Ph.D, of the Royal Free and University Medical School, London, and James Warner, M.D., Department of Psychiatry, Imperial College, London.

Among the very detailed findings reported, the doctors and their associates present the following statistical data:

Gay men were almost ten percentage points more apt to suffer mental disorder (44% to 35%) than heterosexuals, with almost the same relative rate for lesbians compared to straight women (44% to 34%).

Homosexual men are less likely than heterosexual to be involved in a steady relationship with one partner (48.4% to 38.9%), with the divergence in the statistic for women being considerably smaller (37.5% for lesbians, 35.7% for heterosexual women). Both gay men and women were found to live alone more often than the straight respondents.

Concerning drug use, 52% of homosexual men and 44% of lesbian women reported such activity within a 30-day period preceding their interview, as contrasted with 45% and 33% of the straight men and women, respectively.

38% of gay men and 31% of the lesbians admitted having been physically attacked during the preceding five years, with the rates for heterosexual men and women once again being proportionately lower, despite their much larger representation in the population. Lesbians were the group reporting the highest rates of actual physical harm and/or bullying behavior at the hands of another.

54% of the homosexuals and 56% of lesbians had inflicted harm upon themselves, as opposed to 41% of straight men and 50% of straight women.
The research team found that 63 of the gay men and 14 of the lesbians had considered therapy to change their sexual orientation, although only 15 of the men and 2 women said they had actually undergone some reorientation treatment.
In speculating about the reasons for the higher level of psychological problems, the researchers offered the commonly proposed theory that social discrimination could be a source of the problems. But they added that they were not suggesting--as did Bailey (1999) in a prominent prior study--that the higher level of mental disorders could be because homosexuality might constitute a "developmental error."

However, the researchers did note that "gay men and lesbians may have lifestyles that make them vulnerable to psychological disorder. Such lifestyles may include increased use of drugs and alcohol."

The study, which was conducted between September 2000 and July 2002, was the largest ever attempted in Europe.

References:

Bailey, J.M., "Commentary: Homosexuality and Mental Illness," Archives of General Psychiatry, October 1999, vol. 56, no. 10, 876-880.

King, M., E. McKeown, J. Warner, A. Ramsay, K. Johnson, C. Cort, L. Wright, R. Blizard, and O. Davidson, "Mental Health and Quality of Life of Gay Men and Lesbians in England and Wales, British J. of Psychiatry (2003),183, 552-558.

http://www.narth.com/docs/symptoms.html

[Ben Kenobi]

should deny marriage to those who can't or won't have children.

We've been down this road, Skywalker..

One of the benefits.

Not the only one.

Try again.

[Ben Kenobi]

That's the whole purpose of a seperation of the church and state, to preserve religious freedom.

PA:

Your post does not deal with my point.

[Agathon]

Sky - profit is unfair tax.

[Pax]

Having to live in shame because of who you are might cause a little stress in someone's life. It might cause a person to drink or use drugs. Having to sneak around to be who you are. Having to not tell your family. The stress can be attributed to the pressure from society. The drug use can be attributed to efforts to deal with the stress.
Ben, why don't you talk to some gay people. get to know them before you judge.

[Pax]

Kids usually don't admit they are gay for fear of being picked on. People who the group feels to be gay are singled out and picked on. Whether they are gay or not. The group always picks on the other. I've seen this my whole life. Look at that case with Colorado Kicker.

[Aeson]

First off, SF was wrong in the implementation. I agree with the intent though.

The parental capabilities of a gay couple have nothing to do with the issue of whether or not they should be allowed to marry. If you feel one way or another about those capabilities, the proper issue that they apply to is gay adoption. It's ludicrous to argue that gay marriage is right or wrong based on their ability to raise children because gay marriage does not in and of itself lead to gay couples raising children.

[Ben Kenobi]

It's ludicrous to argue that gay marriage is right or wrong based on their ability to raise children because gay marriage does not in and of itself lead to gay couples raising children.

So again, you run afoul of my earlier point, that one of the important benefits society derives from marriage is children.

If you dissolve this connection, why should the state be under any obligation to recognise these relationships as marriages?

[Ben Kenobi]

Having to live in shame because of who you are might cause a little stress in someone's life.

despite similar levels of social support and quality of physical health

The article argues that the problems are not associated with the treatment, but rather, inherent problems.

Perhaps you ought to read the article, before rebutting, eh?

[Pax]

Ben Kenobi is right children are our future. How can we have Idi Amins, Adolph Hitlers.

Mass murderers, Pimps, Whores, Crack dealers and addicts.

[Aeson]

So again, you run afoul of my earlier point, that one of the important benefits society derives from marriage is children.

Marriage has nothing to do with children. A married couple may have children, they also may not. An unmarried couple may have children, they also may not. Procreation (ie. hetero sex or artificial insemination) is where we get children, not marriage.

[Ben Kenobi]

Ben Kenobi is right children are our future. How can we have Idi Amins, Adolph Hitlers.

Mass murderers, Pimps, Whores, Crack dealers and addicts.

Einsteins, Edisons, Ghandis, patriots, police officers, farmers and school teachers.

Care to continue PA?

[Agathon]

What about Schubert's, Tchaikovsky's, Turings, Wilde's, etc.

Or would these people be sent to homo re-education camps to be cured of their sodomite ways.

[Ben Kenobi]

Marriage has nothing to do with children.

Most of the children in the country are raised in families that have two parents.

So marriage and children, in the vast majority of cases are intertwined.

A married couple may have children, they also may not. An unmarried couple may have children, they also may not. Procreation (ie. hetero sex or artificial insemination) is where we get children, not marriage.

Again, I go back to the ideal. What is the ideal for having and raising children? Inside marriage. Yes, children may be born outside, and some marriages may not have children, but the ideal for both children and marriage, is for the two to be combined.

[Pax]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi




The article argues that the problems are not associated with the treatment, but rather, inherent problems.

Perhaps you ought to read the article, before rebutting, eh?

I did. I disagree with the finding.
Listen, children are not likely to admit that they are gay, until adulthood. Maybe not even then. They hold that stress inside until they release it. Even when they admit who they are they still suffer because of people who share some of your opinions. It's not possible for me to tell you exactly how it feels to be persecuted for being gay. I only witnessed it with a close friend. I myself was ostracized and suffered a little because, I refused to join the group so I must be gay also. If you are a Christian you should definitely love the sinner and hate the sin but don't kill the sinner.

I'm telling you if gays could be free a lot of findings in this study would go down.

[Ben Kenobi]

I disagree with the finding.

On what grounds? Personal opinion?

It's not possible for me to tell you exactly how it feels to be persecuted for being gay.

So why should we believe you over the study? What happens to one person, one friend of yours may not be the norm.

If you are a Christian you should definitely love the sinner and hate the sin but don't kill the sinner.

I agree. However, I have had the opposite happen. When I became a Christian, I had many friends turn away from me.

I am trying to argue that for the majority of people in a homosexual relationship, that they would be happier outside, rather than inside of one. By saying they ought to get married, we are consigning them to unhappiness.

[Aeson]

Again, I go back to the ideal. What is the ideal for having and raising children? Inside marriage. Yes, children may be born outside, and some marriages may not have children, but the ideal for both children and marriage, is for the two to be combined.

Your ideal. Are you suggesting that the US government should impose that ideal on all couples? That so we can reach that ideal, everyone must marry and have children. I think it would be ideal if no one had children, then we'd have solved all of humanities problems within a century. I'm not so egotistical to think that everyone should abide by my ideal though.

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Not life, liberty, and only the pursuit of Ben Kenobi's ideal of happiness.

Also, you are still ignoring the fact that whether or not a gay couple have children has nothing to do with whether or not they are married.

[Aeson]

By saying they ought to get married, we are consigning them to unhappiness.

This isn't about what they 'ought' to do. It's about allowing them to do what they want to do in the same relative manner that hetero couples are allowed to do so.

[MrBaggins]

Its obviously a ploy to unfairly keep on taxing gay people more.

[Aeson]

Most of the children in the country are raised in families that have two parents.

So marriage and children, in the vast majority of cases are intertwined.

They are still seperate issues. You can take any issues and link them, but it doesn't negate that marriage is about the union of a couple (hell, of a group even), and procreation is about the forming of life. Marriage does not form life.