The Seattle Sonics/Storm co-owners Tom Ward and Aubrey McClendon were busted by Dan Savage’s Slog yesterday as blogger Josh Feit reported that the two together have funded Gary Bauer’s Americans United to Preserve Marriage to the tune of over $1 million.
Talk about enthusiastic supporters of the effort to “protect marriage” — the WNBA team owners opened their wallets for the failed presidential candidate and moralist with a contribution of $250K the day Bauer’s group was formed.
Feit called the Sonics/Storm front office and asked Sonics/Storm spokesperson Tom Savage what was the deal.
I asked Savage what a gay friendly team like the Storm had to say about two of its new owners, Tom Ward and Aubrey McClendon, kicking in $1.1 million to Gary Bauer’s anti-gay marriage 527, Americans United to Preserve Marriage.The mouthpiece said he’d get back to him and lo and behold, no call was forthcoming. As the storm clouds rolled in (pun intended), someone eventually had to come out of the tornado shelter and talk to the media.I was clear with him what I thought: It’s a direct affront to a big bloc of Storm fans to know that ticket sales are going into the pockets of men who were funding (or started it would seem) an anti-gay marriage group.
Read the lame spin after the flip.
This was in the Seattle PI:
“People are entitled to have their views, they are not views that I happen to agree with but they are not trying to impose them on anyone out here,” [Sonics’ spokesperson Jim] Kneeland said.WTF ever. As we all know, women’s pro basketball teams have a large lesbian following, so how does this jibe with the views of these owners? That doesn’t sound like they cater to their audience by supporting bigots like Bauer. You can kiss those loyal fans goodbye.“I won’t argue that some of the owners may have more conservative political views than the norm out here, one of the things that they agree to when they bought the team is that they would leave their politics at the state line.”
And any attempt to say that these men were leaving their politics at the state line butts up against this bit of business — records show that Bauer’s outfit was given four donations totalling $625K in the fall of 2004 (during the height of state amendment battles) from McClendon, and Ward doled out $425K in the fall of 2004 and the fall of 2005. Keeping Gary’s boat afloat to promote amendments during election cycles was the objective.
The whole purpose of Americans United to Preserve Marriage is to foist their beliefs and worldview on the whole country; otherwise what would Gary and his bible-beating friends have to do all day — talk about the state of each other’s marriages? There’s a thought…
More about Bauer’s activities from Jon @ Perrspectives:
Bauer ran for President in 2000 and has been at the forefront of the religious right’s fight against civil rights and marriage equality for gay Americans. Bauer has also been a fixture at conservative events such as Justice Sunday and the so-called Values Voters Summit. The latter right-wing hate-fest included Bishop Wellington Boone proclaiming “I want the gays mad at me,” attacks on “faggots” and “sissies,” and one speaker’s declaration that ” the gay rights movement was inspired from the pit of hell itself.” Bauer himself vociferously opposes same-sex marriage and protections against workplace discrimination and hiring, while encouraging gay Americans to “get out of a destructive lifestyle.”Jon also notes that there is a fierce debate over whether public financing should be used to build a new basketball arena for the Sonics — this news should certainly have an impact on that front.
157 Responses to “Why are Seattle Sonics/Storm owners bankrolling Gary Bauer’s outfit?”
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
“why-are-seattle-sonicsstorm-owners-bankrolling-gary-bauers-outfit”
Because marriage is between one man and one woman, and we don’t need radicals tring to change the definition after 4,000 yrs of tradition.
hope this answers your question
Gee Jasper, what else has 4000 years of tradition?
Slavery
Male supremacy
Authoritarian religion
And we seem to have figured out that those were bad ideas…
Just because something is traditional doesn’t mean it’s good, J-man. There are lots of traditions that weren’t such good ideas at all.
Oh, and have a nice day.
So…Then you would advocate that I try to blackball or otherwise protest and harrass someone who contributes to that National Foundation for the Arts that displays religious symbols that have great significance to me, in a jar of piss? Or protesting outside art gallaries that display art projects made of dung that are titled for the Modonna with child? We can harrass the people that donate to these private organizations and harras those who manage the facilities?
This opens up a whole new line of social conflict! We can require everyone to publically list their private donations, and if an individual takes offense to what one of his neighbors donated to, he can take action through the use of “free speech”. Just declare a “Day of Political Correctness” when everyone has to announce publically their charities.
Next target are the churches, I assume. People donate to them, and we know how they discriminate against people who do not believe in God! They need to be taken out! People should be outraged! They even criticize gays (look how they persecuted those gay bishops who had sex with altar boys)! And they demean women (no female Catholic Priests)!
/sarcasm
Well, polygamy was the standard form of marriage for most of human history, yet we managed to change THAT definition of marriage. Something about human rights, changing cultural norms, and economic development.
Except, of course, when it wasn’t - does the word ‘polygamy’ mean anything to you? Only stopped in Judaism since the 11th century, which falls 3100 years short of your deadline. Even Martin Luther himself let it go on a little bit, moving that deadline up even closer. Never mind Mormonism and Islam. So, clearly, the traditional definition of marriage has nothing to do with one man and one woman.
Why are you still here, anyway?
Then you would advocate that I try to blackball or otherwise protest and harrass someone who contributes to that National Foundation for the Arts that displays religious symbols that have great significance to me, in a jar of piss?
If you are offended by their actions, absolutely. That’s free speech, no quotes.
Oh yeah, don’t forget the change from arranged marriage to the notion of romantic marriage - that really only dates to what? one-hundred-plus-some-change years ago…
Hell, in societal terms, that’s turning on a dime.
The intent from the begining is: one man and one woman, the polygamy argument is a red herring.
I love how Christianists ignore the parts of the Bible they don’t like. No, no, God only meant for men ever to have one wife at a time, and I like bacon!
Interesting that trolls like tehehe can’t distinguish between a boycott and harassment. For them, the response to something you don’t like is not lawful protest, or an economic boycott; no, you might as well start in with the death threats.
Jasper, those 4,000 years of history are in large parts poorly understood, and marriage was about property rights and ownership and inheritance. We threw that out already when we decided it was about love.
Too late, in other words. Your traditional marriage is already gone, and good riddance.
And since it’s now about love, not inheritance and property, why do you want to prevent two people who love each other from getting marriage? Why do you hate them?
Jasper,
*the* intent? Whose intent would that be, then?
So, uh, homosexual marriage was OK up until 1993 BCE? Even if you’re a moron young earther that leaves 2,000 years of righteous homo woopee right?
Actually, I can find traditions of legal homosexual unions as recent as 400 years ago in Italy. 1000 years ago in the silk houses of China. 2000 years ago in the Sacred Band of Thebes. And don’t get me started on who (or what) the Egyptians were porking 3000 years ago.
But that’s what I get for reading books. I actually know where the anti-homosexual tenets of Judeo-Christo-Islam originated from (and when, try 2700 years not 4000). Same place as the prohibitions against prostitution came from: the temple harlots of Astarte who were competing with the Yahweh cult in ancient Cannan.
“*the* intent? Whose intent would that be, then? ”
the creator of the universe
“Actually, I can find traditions of legal homosexual unions as recent as 400 years ago in Italy. 1000 years ago in the silk houses of China. 2000 years ago in the Sacred Band of Thebes. And don’t get me started on who (or what) the Egyptians were porking 3000 years ago.”
unions- yes marriage-no
I must confess, I just do not understand the religious objection to gay marriage. I mean, sure, I understand their real reasons for opposing it: they hate and fear gay people and want to keep them as second-class citizens. But I don’t understand what they think their argument is.
Most marriages aren’t regarded as valid by most religious people. Christians don’t recognise Hindu marriages as valid, etc. If I get married in a civil ceremony, I’m not really married as far as the church is concerned, right? But the campaign for gay marriage isn’t a campaign to say that religions have to alter their doctrines. It’s an argument about civil rights and civil law. If we win, the churches won’t think that married gay couples are really married, but that’s just what they think about any marriage ceremony they don’t perform anyway. What is their point?
Uh, Jasper?
About the 4000 years of tradition….
So the frack what?
If you don’t want to change your view of marriage, don’t. I, however, do. My right.
And, FWIW, we desperatly need radicals changing and challenging our definitions of social structures. Elsewise, we stagnate.
Yeah I can’t really see any reason anyone would oppose gay marriage other than pure spiteful nastiness. It’s a civil institution. It has nothing to do with your religion. Cripes.
“they hate and fear gay people and want to keep them as second-class citizens”
no they don’t. In my catholic church, homosexuality is not a sin in itself, we have many gay priests who wonderful loving people. It’s the homosexual act that is opposed, just like if I commited adultery..its the smae thing.
” It’s an argument about civil rights and civil law”
no, it’s not. gay people can get married, just not to the same sex. I can’t marry my mother or my dog.
I’can’t get a drivers license if I’m not yet 16 yrs, etc.
FWIW, Sarcastro, the stuff about temple harlots doesn’t exactly come from reliable sources (although you are correct about the likely source of those prohibitions).
I wonder if the Christianists also advocate that marriage be a contract, rather than a sacrament. I mean, that’s how the Jews have done it for thousands of years, so it must be God’s way.
Actually Jasper, in the traditions of people actually on this continent… the Inuit were sometimes short on men. So a girl would be selected to live as a man. She’d dress as a man, hunt with the men, marry a woman. That was unusual, but not unheard of.
And I don’t give a shit about the Bible as far as deciding laws based on it. I’m even Christian, and I do not want laws to be based on the Bible. Especially not your wrong-headed interpretation of it.
You, as secular athiest enforce yout beliefs on society all of time. (you practically own the public square).
As a religous person, I can bring my beliefs to the table as well.
What happened to the ‘no boring trolls’ rule?
Amazing that rights for Christians, that is the first amendment right to the FREE Exercise of our religion (yes, that is in the first amendment, right BEFORE freedom of speech - funny how people forget this). Anyway, our Freedom to exercise our right seems to be what all anti-marriage between one man and one woman; anti-life (pro-abortion folks) etc. etc. seem to be really taking an exception to. Call it what it is - rights and freedoms for everyone EXCEPT those with faith in the bible and in God. Hummm, where have we seen this before. Oh, and those who want to still push for abortion, same sex unions etc. and want to call themselves Christians? They obviously want to redefine Christianity also. Please, leave our religion alone, go make your own religion, that’s ok these days, but please leave Christ’s name out of it because these are not issues he supports. I continue to pray for all those with such mistaken and very harmful (especially to themselves) beliefs. God bless you, Mona Lisa
So, these owners don’t have the right to donate to whatever organization they wish. lest they come under attack? Rights? Freedom? Oh, that’s right, only if they are “politically correct” in supporting gay rights and abortion. tsk, tsk, so limited - where’s the tolerance?
Mona Lisa, you’re the one twisting Christ’s message from one of love and acceptance to hatred and exclusion. Not me.
no, it’s not. gay people can get married, just not to the same sex. I can’t marry my mother or my dog.
The government cannot set up statutory mechanisms for a contractual relationship, and then deny that contract to certain potential contractees on an arbitrary basis. It has to provide a rationale or promulgating a legal structure that allows only male-female civil marriage, or it is infringing its citizens’ rights to equal protection and due process. As the Massachusetts Supreme Court demonstrated, that state could not provide such a rationale that would stand up to even cursory examination under its constitution. Given the correct test case, I believe the SCOTUS will eventually make the same determination vis-a-vis the federal constitution. Then DOMA will be repealed.
The days of bigotry are numbered.
Jasper, while you’re bringing your religious beliefs to the table, why don’t you go commit abominations with some shellfish?
“It has to provide a rationale or promulgating a legal structure that allows only male-female civil marriage, or it is infringing its citizens’ rights to equal protection and due process.”
Andrew, I’m dating these twin girls and we all want to get married. We love each other very much. Do we qualify too?
The intent from the begining is: one man and one woman, the polygamy argument is a red herring.
If by “a red herring” you mean “a point that I’m going to conveniently ignore since it is pretty damning evidence that my wrong-headed notion of what marriage was like in the past is a complete fabrication, and proves my claim that marriage has been the same for 4,000 years false,” then, yes.
Yes it is a red herring.
i wouldn’t say a lot of times it’s pure hate or fear of someone who is different. what about the large majority of homophobes who either are in the closet or have a large inclination towards being gay that they would not be able to suppress if their phony hatred weren’t driving them on a daily basis?
I am all for gays and lesbians being every bit as miserable as married heterosexuals. Let them marry, it is a non-issue. The WNBA is sport that nobody cares about, nobody watches and chronically loses money every year. Eventually it will be extinct, as a bad business investment.
You people are too narrow in your thinking. Most Christians have no problem accepting the idea of “gay unions” that provide all of the legal protections and rights of marriage. This is no problem at all. That is why it has passed in five states and more are coming.
It is the Muslims, the Buddists, the Hindus, etc. that advocate execution for gay sex and the thought of legal “unions” is justification for Jihad (look at Osama’s writings, and those of Zawahiri).
The only protection that Christians seek is to preserve the title of marriage, which does have historic religious roots, for heterosexual relationships/unions.
We can call gay unions “enlightenments”. Gay couples can be “enlightened” in an “enlightenment ceremony”. They can exchange vows, have children, and have all the writes of others who are “joined”. People can say they will be attending their son or daughter’s “enlightenment”.
What is the objection to this? Aren’t we “in” to preserving cultural heritage? (don’t tell me about “Canaan”, I am talking about tradition here in American culture). Let’s “celebrate diversity” and give a positive spin to gay unions by calling them something other than marriage. Can’t we all get along? Is this compromise asking too much?
Gays, however, can choose to “fight rather than switch”. It may take some time, but they evetually may win and get courts to require that gays be “married” like heterosexual couples. Just be aware that this will not forever endear them in the hearts of the rest of humanity.
People who oppose gay marriage are not afraid of gays. There are very few people who are “homophobes” (less than 1/10 of acrophobes). Rather, it is gays who are Chritophobes. You don’t see Crhistians hiding their identity or “staying in the closet”.
…which is why people donate millions of dollars to PACs that do nothing but argue against infidelity, and major (unnamed) political parties go entire election cycles literally having the hatred of infidelity as a driving force for getting out the votes of their party members.
see!!
Andrew, I’m dating these twin girls and we all want to get married. We love each other very much. Do we qualify too?
Not under the current scheme. Polygamy is the next logical hurdle under marriage rights, however. Assuming we’re talking about consenting adults, I think that individuals in polygamous relationships would have a basis to attack the dualistic dimension of civil marriage once DOMA and its miniature state progeny are repealed by order of the federal courts. The hurdle such individuals would have to confront is statutory rather than constitutional, however. States would likely offer the “But It Will Be Haaaard” argument. Namely, that rewriting every state family law statute and regulation to accomodate more than two individuals would be a monumental undertaking. While disruption to an existing legal scheme is one factor courts can weigh, I’m not sure it can be the meat and potatoes rationale for infringing on a constitutional right.
Again, assuming we’re talking about consenting adults and a contract that is not entered into under threat of violence or other retribution. (Which may be the case in some fringe religious groups in the U.S. that practice non-civil polygamy.)
Mona Lisa: Nobody is stopping you from freely exercising your religion. You’re free not to get abortions. You’re free not to marry a same-sex partner. What you’re not (or, at least, ought not be) free to do is force your religious beliefs on other people by preventing them doing things just because your religion prohibits them.
And the owners have the right to donate their money. Did anyone here say that they shouldn’t have been allowed to donate? No.
The fact that they have the right to donate doesn’t mean that they’re above reproach, though. Freedom is a two-way street. They can donate to hate-mongering groups if they want, but I have every right to call them on it, and say “Hey, you support a hateful organization with politics that I find objectionable.”
You’re participating in the same thing, by the way.
Pam made a post. You didn’t like it, and you’ve now voiced that opinion. Does that mean that you don’t think that Pam has the right to post whatever she wants on here? Or else she comes under attack? Rights? Freedom? Does she only get that if she’s “politically correct” in opposing gay rights and abortion? Does your criticism mean that she’s limited?
Where’s the tolerance?
I think Fred said it better than me. Sometimes you have to believe what’s in front of your face, with reality, rather than what the text says. Honey, that text has its own rightous flaws. It also contains some of the most beautiful things a human can be. It is also missing some things that could never have been forseen by the people of that time.
Should we discount the bible? No.
Should we rely on it for all of our worldly information and knowledge? Also no.
Side note: don’t get me started on ablative translation errors… jasper, those languages have whole cases and tenses that our upstart English doesn’t have…
You, as secular athiest enforce yout beliefs on society all of time.
I think Jon Stewart covered this one a while ago.
“If they legalize gay marriage, does that mean I have to… marry… gay?”
Jasper, your church doesn’t have to recognize gay marriage if it doesn’t want to because it is a religious institution. But the U.S. government is not a religious institution. It is (well, ideally) a secular institution put in place by men of varying religious beliefs. This is a country full of people of varying religious beliefs. If you don’t want gay marriage in your spiritual community, you don’t have to accept it within that community. If another spiritual community wishes to recognize gay marriage, they should be able to do so within their community. The government should not enforce one decision over the other — i.e., it should not ban gay marriage all together, and it should not force spiritual communities to recognize gay marriage if they disagree with it. That’s it. End of story.
Amazing that rights for Christians, that is the first amendment right to the FREE Exercise of our religion (yes, that is in the first amendment, right BEFORE freedom of speech - funny how people forget this).
Free right to practice religion does not equal free right to force religious practices on others, which is what a lot of the Christian Right wants to do. There is no law saying a spiritual leader can’t tell his parishoners that the church doesn’t approve of gay marriage or abortion, but it is NOT his right to enforce this on non-parishoners — atheists, agnostics, or even other spiritual groups. Why is this so hard to understand? Practice your religion how you want within your spiritual community, but don’t expect the government to enforce every single spiritual mandate within your community.
And for the record, I’m Christian and for gay marriage and against a Christian-run government. Let Caesar have what is Caesar’s.
“Polygamy is the next logical hurdle under marriage rights, however. Assuming we’re talking about consenting adults, I think that individuals in polygamous relationships would have a basis to attack the dualistic dimension of civil marriage once DOMA and its miniature state progeny are repealed by order of the federal courts”
thank-you, that’s what we traditionalists are afraid of; clever lawyers trying to destroy our way of life.
thank-you, that’s what we traditionalists are afraid of; clever lawyers trying to destroy our way of life.
Your way of life wouldn’t be affected at all by legal recognition of gay marriage or polygamous marriage. It’s no skin off your nose if individuals of the same sex or more than two individuals get married.
Conversely, feel free to limit your potential marriage partners to solitary females. No skin off my nose.
Let’s “celebrate diversity� and give a positive spin to gay unions by calling them something other than marriage. Can’t we all get along? Is this compromise asking too much?
Personally, I don’t see that gay marriage needs a positive spin, nor do I think that calling them something different does that anyway. I’ll find it a lot easier to get along when the roadblocks to equality stop saying things like “Let’s just call it something different.”
If you have to call it something different, then it isn’t the same. If the only difference you want is the name, and “it’s just a name” then why don’t you “compromise”? If it’s just a word, then you shouldn’t give a damn if same-sex couples want to call it a marriage. If they’re getting married, let them call it a marriage.
Gays, however, can choose to “fight rather than switch�. It may take some time, but they evetually may win and get courts to require that gays be “married� like heterosexual couples. Just be aware that this will not forever endear them in the hearts of the rest of humanity.
What you really mean is “this will not forever endear them in the hearts of the homophobic bigots who are out to ensure that they don’t gain the rights and privledges that we afford to the good straight couples.” When same-sex couples win the right to marriage, there are going to be plenty of people who are going to be quite pleased with that.
There’s a lot of power in words, and pretending that “it doesn’t matter what you call it” is untrue, and insulting. If it doesn’t matter, let the homophobes give some ground. They’re the ones preventing people from enjoying rights, not same-sex couples.
Mona Lisa, you’re making a fundamental category mistake.
Nobody is telling you that you can’t practice your religion. Nobody. You can go to church every day if you want. You can believe things that many of us consider preposterous, such as life after death. You can think that your religion tells you not to be gay, or to get married to another woman. You know what? That’s just fine. Nobody’s going to force you to have hot lesbian sex. Or marry another woman.
So nobody’s forcing secularism on you. We’re just refusing to allow you to force your religious beliefs on us. We think it’s just fine for gay people to get married, and you have no argument outside your religious beliefs to oppose it, except for ridiculous arguments like “tradition”. So when you’re arguing against gay marriage, you’re trying to impose your religious beliefs on us, and believe us, you wouldn’t like it at all if we tried to impose our religious beliefs on you — so do us the same courtesy.
The more I read from fundies (of which jasper is an excellent example), the more I come to the conclusion that the only recourse we have is to remove them from the breeding population. Sterilize them, take their existing children, and let them die out.
Sadly, because I care about rights and freedoms, I can’t condone such a legal action.
See how that works, fundies?
Not everything you believe needs to be enshrined in law.
Mona Lisa: You say “but please leave Christ’s name out of it because these are not issues he supports.”
Did Christ actually speak to any of these issues? If so, I certainly don’t remember.
It certainly seems that the one dragging Christ’s name into it is you, as Christ’s message and his actual words had nothing to say that would support your position.
Always the uber-Christians dragging Christ through the mud and then blaming someone else for it. In fact, most evangelical religion in the United States has completely disregarded Christ’s message entirely and mangled it to a point where it is now unrecognizable amidst all of the divisiveness and hate that loud-mouthed “Christians” love more than chocolate.
And fyi, I’m a Christian. Funny that you seem to have nominated yourself as the decider of who is/is not a Christian. Seems more like God’s job, but then again, what do I know?
It is very likely that this disclosure will affect whether or not the new stadium is built. The team is already asking for $300 million from the state for the new arena. On the same day that they ask for the money and release sketches of the proposed arena, this information comes to light. They already faced a skeptical state legislature - one that is about to approve domestic partnership rights for homosexuals - and now this is added to the packet of considerations. Let’s face it, the boys from Oklahoma are out of synch with the values of the Seattle metro area.
The Storm has a large number of lesbian fans. A columnist in the sports pages of the Seattle Times put it well today when he said (paraphrasing here) that he didn’t think Storm fans - straight or gay - would feel comfortable at games knowing where some of the profits from the game (not to mention the subsidized stadium) were going. I’d have to agree. It may not sink ticket sales, but expect a protest. Seattle has already rejected the stadium via popular vote and they are unlikely to take paying for the new one - in Renton - lying down, especially if bigots are part of the management of the team.
We’re a gay-friendly area of the country in the Seattle area. This will not sit well with anyone.
jasper Because marriage is between one man and one woman, and we don’t need radicals tring to change the definition after 4,000 yrs of tradition.
hope this answers your question
It would certainly have answered my question if I had been asking “Is jasper a moron?” but as an answer to the real question it lacks substance.
Just guessing here: you sound like one of those Christian types. But I don’t suppose you’ve ever read the Bible, have you? Your type never do. The time has now come for you get out your lavishly-bound magic fetish book, open it up, and read it. Have a look at First Samuel 25 and thereabouts, and then get back to us concerning your “one man and one woman for the last 4,000 years” razzmatazz.
Mona Lisa Biberstein said:
Lisa, if I may call you Lisa, you should be so incredibly grateful that we don’t live in a theocracy. Being oppressed is a Christian duty. You should get down on your knees every day and beg God to let there be more than 2 people in the Senate who aren’t professing Christians. You should be weeping and gnashing your teeth that a non-Christian can’t be elected president. It should be humiliating for you that Christians hold almost all of the political and most of the economic power in this country.
Christianity was never intended to be a major political power. Paul’s Christianity wasn’t; Jesus’ “Christianity” most certainly was not. It’s incredibly, awfully difficult for Christians to be oppressed in America these days, and if you get that opportunity, you should be damned grateful.
Me, I don’t want to see Christians oppressed. I’d like to see them free to live their lives and practice their faith in peace and hopefully harmony with their fellow man. I’m also not particularly thrilled about the idea of living under the rules of a faith I don’t believe, but hey, I live in the society in which I live.
“The government should not enforce one decision over the other — i.e., it should not ban gay marriage all together.”
this is a democracy, if I want to fight and support marriage, I have a right to petition the government and call my congress man/woman.
“Free right to practice religion does not equal free right to force religious practices on others, which is what a lot of the Christian Right wants to do.”
I don’t have leave my beliefs at the door either… You don’t leave your secular beliefs at door? do you? so, just because I’m a catholic, please don’t say I have to.
Just because the government accepts into law one of my beliefs doesn’t mean they’re endorsing my religon.
Jasper, is it right that the government allows divorced women to remarry when Jesus calls it adultery? Divorce and the remarriage of divorced people is against Catholic marriage law. Does this mean that the government is persecuting Catholics and other Christians against divorce?
(I’m afraid Jasper will just say “Actually, yes, the government should ban divorce”, but I might as well try)
“Jasper, is it right that the government allows divorced women to remarry when Jesus calls it adultery?”
No, no-fault divorce it not right, it’s harmed our society. But, it is law, the secularist won that battle. The church allows exceptions called anullments.
jasper (you know, you’re insulting the intelligence of rocks when you use that name), when the government accepts a law based solely on your beliefs, they are endorsing your religion. The only basis for banning gay marriage is the religious objection to it.
“jasper (you know, you’re insulting the intelligence of rocks when you use that name), when the government accepts a law based solely on your beliefs, they are endorsing your religion”
jasper is my pup’s name.
I didn’t say “solely” on my beliefs. My religon is against murder and the government accepts that murder is wrong. Are they endoring my religon?
So, Jasper, you are 100% fine with me enacting my beliefs into law and sterilizing you?
Great! I’ll even clean the hedge clippers!
And sorry, but your religion is just fine with murder, so long as you kill who your leaders say you should kill.
Jenna said:
Not murder, killing. Murder is when you kill people whom God doesn’t want you to kill — that is, unjustified killing. Killing is when you are doing it righteously.
What practical definition does that make? Well, it makes homicidal religious fanatics feel a lot better about themselves.
jasper is an idiot. in another thread where he brought up this “4000 year old tradition” crap, tons of people pointed out to him that marraige is WAY older than that, not to mention it’s been changing forever, and certainly hasn’t always been between one man and one woman. yet here he is, making the same stupid claim again.
boooooring
“So, Jasper, you are 100% fine with me enacting my beliefs into law and sterilizing you?”
Call your congressman/woman, petition the government, you have every right to do this just like I do.
jasper said:
Jasper apparently doesn’t believe that people should have any rights aside from those granted them by majority (or leading minority) rule. That’s fine, but it’s diametrically opposed to the principles of our government, and those of most other Western countries.
Since he’s so far outside the mainstream of political thought, being a radical democrat or authoritarian, can we ignore him now?
I didn’t say “solely� on my beliefs. My religon is against murder and the government accepts that murder is wrong. Are they endoring my religon?
Nope. The rationale for laws prohibiting murder can be established without appeals to religious revelation or authority.
The rationale for laws prohibiting same-sex marriage, however, cannot.
Incidentally, prohibitions on same-sex marriage are not, strictly speaking, establishment clause violations, nor is this generally claims raised by parties challening such prohibitions. The violations are of equal protection and due process. Of course, there is a religious element to the fear and bigotry that underlies such prohibitions, but I will grant the good faith assumption they were not enacted with the intent to establish religion, nor is this even the substantive effect. They’re just plain old civil rights violations.
“jasper is an idiot”
- when people resort to name calling, it’s a good sign that they’re losing an argument.
From jasper: “Rather, it is gays who are Chritophobes.”
jasper, could you do me a favor and leave the sweeping generalizations out of the argument? If and when you hear one of us say something like “All Christians are homophobic” (like iain unfortunately did, in saying that religious folk “hate and fear gay people and want to keep them as second-class citizens,” which simply isn’t true for all religious folk, or even all people with a religious objection to same-sex marriage), you should absolutely call us on that kind of gross generalization. But it doesn’t make it any more logical or right for you to turn the tables and say that all of us homosexuals are Christophobes.
For one thing, that ignores the considerable number of homosexuals who are themselves Christian (like I am). It also ignores the considerable number of homosexuals who really couldn’t care less about Christians. And then there are the considerable number of homosexuals who love and support Christians, despite holding different religious viewpoints themselves.
““Rather, it is gays who are Chritophobes.â€?
I don’t know what your talking about, I didn’t say this.
well, i wasn’t trying to argue with you. i was only pointing out that you’re an idiot.
Oh, my apologies, jasper- that line actually came from tehehe. Funny that I would confuse the two of you…
“Nope. The rationale for laws prohibiting murder can be established without appeals to religious revelation or authority.”
how can they be “established”, explain please
“The rationale for laws prohibiting same-sex marriage, however, cannot.”
how do you know? sure they can.
(I would be curious, though, to know how same-sex marriage destroys your way of life.)
Hey fundies (jasper): you know what else the Bible is against? Long hair on men (read, what is it, 1 Corinthians). So all those pictures of long-haired Jesus? Blasphemy. You’re going to burn in hell.
BTW: why did marriage become a sacrament for the R. C.’s only in, what, the 12th c.? Why were the Anglo-Saxon clergy allowed to marry before the 12th c.? You want to argue tradition, you have to take account of its variations. Of course that would require basic literacy skills and a repugnance for idleness, neither of which you have.
OK, you’re insulting your dog’s intelligence.
As for establishing murder laws without religion: People have a right to life. Murder violates that right. People have a right to expect their government to protect their rights. Therefore, people have a right to expect their government to protect them from murder. Laws against murder protect people from murder. Therefore, people have a right to expect their government to pass laws against murder.
Did I use religion? Did I even mention religion.
For those of you didn’t get the memo…
Don’t Feed the Trolls!
It may seem like a good idea, but it won’t generate interesting discussion and it only encourages them.
“The rationale for laws prohibiting same-sex marriage, however, cannot.�
how do you know? sure they can.
So lay it out for us, Jasper. Lay it on out without resorting to religion or tradition. Prove it.
Before you begin, let me remind you that same sex marriage does not cause unemployment, nor does it cause longer wait lines at hospitals.
Go.
The 4000 year old marriage argument is moronic to say the least. Even in the US in the last two centuries there has been significant changes to laws regarding marriages. There is a good Wikipedia article on this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Civil_Marriage_in_the_US
Some highlights:
1900 - All states now grant married women the right to own property in their own name
1967 - Supreme Court overturns laws prohibiting interracial couples from marrying (Loving v. Virginia).
1975 - Married women allowed to have credit in their own name.
Marriage is not a static institution. I wonder if there were people in 1965 saying “Marriage has been the same for 4000 years, and interracial marriage is against God!” I bet there was. Too bad homophobes don’t get that their separate but equal rhetoric about gay marriage is just as offensive now as the racist arguments were then.
“BTW: why did marriage become a sacrament for the R. C.’s only in, what, the 12th c.? Why were the Anglo-Saxon clergy allowed to marry before the 12th c.? You want to argue tradition, you have to take account of its variations. Of course that would require basic literacy ”
This is beside the point. For my own religon, I follow the teachings from Rome and Pope (the 1st pope was St Peter). They have changed some things (i.e. vatican 2).
Except this troll is so obviously harmless (4000 years of straight marriage?). Besides, I think we’re engaged more in troll baiting than troll feeding.
If age of traditions is what matters, then sorry, Jasper, but we Jews have decided that you can’t be Christian anymore.
We’re taking our scripture back, see, and without it, you can’t justify your own. So you should just pack up and go home.
What? You say we can’t do that? But we’re the older tradition!
(Close-captioning for the humor-impaired: Flew is not serious.)
Jeffery, you didn’t answer my question… why do people have a right to life? how is this established?
If the religious people don’t want to recognize gay marriage or mixed racial or mixed nationality marriage that’s there right.
Religion should have absolutely no say in “anything” outside of their buildings, or for their non members.
Oh, and Flewellyn, we pantheists and animists and Hindus are taking back the places we originally lived. You can have the Sinai. (Also not serious.)
Hey, no problem, Jeffrey. WE can live together peaceably. I mean, you guys aren’t exactly out to tell us we’re no longer valid, and as far as I know, polytheists and Jews haven’t been at odds for at least a couple thousand years.
“but we Jews have decided that you can’t be Christian anymore.”
you have a right to your beliefs, call your congressman to see if he can create a bill.
Jasper: Right to life can be established several ways. First, an ontological argument that humans necessarily have the right to life (I don’t particularly like that one, but it exists). Or you can say that we have all rights that we don’t surrender to the government. Or you can say that all rights are legal and social constructs that we agree are necessary and useful to base our laws on. Or you can say that our conception of certain rights arises necessarily out of our evolution. Or you can mix two or more of these arguments, like I do.
ie. without a god to tell me people have a right to life, i couldn’t figure it out!!!
What about me? I’m Christian, but I also to a limited extent follow Buddhist teachings as well. Do I have to go back to… wherever it is that Christians are being sent to, or do I have to go to China or India?
I’ve never been to India, so I’d certainly be interested in there. China is fun, wouldn’t mind there either. I guess China would make more sense because I’m really into that whole Zen thing that’s so trendy these days.
ie. tradition only matters if it’s the MAJORITY’S tradition. the majority should have the right to rule over the minority. since jews are minorities, you are meaningless.
Jasper, my brother in law baked an apple pie for the family last night. It was very tasty. I didn’t think of you, but reading your comments reminds me of it for some reason I can’t quite…
Oh yeah.
Piehole.
Shut it.
Karl (ABD) Steele wrote:
The R.C. is your church jasper. Which also sort of undermines the 4000 tradition argument (again).
“First, an ontological argument that humans necessarily have the right to life (I don’t particularly like that one, but it exists). Or you can say that we have all rights that we don’t surrender to the government. Or you can say that all rights are legal and social constructs that we agree are necessary and useful to base our laws on. Or you can say that our conception of certain rights arises necessarily out of our evolution.”
No Jeffery, you are wrong! they come from our Creator and the founders agreed.
DOI:
—We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness
No Jeffery, you are wrong! they come from our Creator and the founders agreed.
Which is why there’s no mention of God in the Constitution.
Oops!
Which one is the Law of the US, Jasper?
And, BTW, do you have any documentary evidence on Paul being the first Pope? I know that’s the tradition, but I’d love to see some, you know, documents?
BTW, long hair? Stop avoiding the question. Blasphemer.
“ie. tradition only matters if it’s the MAJORITY’S tradition. the majority should have the right to rule over the minority. since jews are minorities, you are meaningless. ”
yes, the majority can rule over the minority if the laws that its passes are within the boundries of the constitution. That’s what democracy is. Or a constitional republic…
“And, BTW, do you have any documentary evidence on Paul being the first Pope? I know that’s the tradition, but I’d love to see some, you know, documents?”
pay attention while you’re in class! I said St Peter, not Paul. Yes, the vatican has doucuments. Ask any Jesuit.
The majority can rule over the minority???
Stay in school, jasper.
Jasper,
you want me to take seriously your religiously-inspired beliefs? Prove to me the existence of this God whose work you claim to be doing. Provide me evidence for that deity’s existence. Only once you’ve convinced me of that existence will I take any arguments you base on it seriously. Got any evidence?
the majority can rule over the minority…That’s what democracy is.
Given that our system of government was specifically designed to prevent this as its primary goal, you’ve essentially just said in your best teacherish voice that yes, black is white and bears exclusively shit outside the woods. I know objective reality isn’t really your cup of tea, but try to at least garner a nodding acquaintance with it once in a while. Mkay?
First of all, it’s JEFFREY. Second, that’s the Declaration of Independence. Wonderful document, full of inspiring stuff, but completely irrelevant to US law, and how “the founders” viewed legal rights. Besides, I’m not necessarily talking about the US. Neither the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, nor France’s Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen use religious language of any kind, and they don’t lose any of their validity.
Finally, “the founders” were not demi-gods, nor were they prophets. They were people trying to take the best of English law and mix it with ideals of the enlightenment. Don’t appeal to “the founders” as an authority and expect me to swallow it.
Casey, why do think we vote on politicians, bill’s, referendums, etc. The majority wins.
Would you like to go to a dictatorship? move to Cuba
Jasper, still no answer to my question. In response to Andrew, you said that the rationale for forbidding same sex marriages can be given without resorting to religion. Still haven’t heard your answer to that. I’m beginning to suspect you don’t have one.
I know, it’s a difficult question, but you keep at it. Come back when you’ve got one.
“ideals of the enlightenment.”
oh, I see…..
All pointless troll debates aside,
THE REAL issue with the new owners of the Sonics/Storm having a history of donating money to such pointless hate groups is they are currently asking the local government and tax payers here in Seattle to fork up the majority of funding for a posh new stadium for the team.
A stadium from which they want to keep all the incoming profits.
Being that this IS Seattle, a fairly progressive city when it comes to recognizing that GLBT people deserve basic human rights such as marriage, it is relevant that the profits from a new stadium would eventually end up in the pockets of the likes of Gary Bauer.
The owners can choose to donate or support whatever political or crazy organization they want, but they also want millions of public dollars from a community that for the most part doesn’t support such hate groups.
Yes, jasper, the enlightenment. You know, that philosophical movement that opposed religion and is the basis for liberal democracies?
Yeah the Dark Ages were way cooler…. are you psychotic?
“Jasper, still no answer to my question. In response to Andrew, you said that the rationale for forbidding same sex marriages can be given without resorting to religion. Still haven’t heard your answer to that. I’m beginning to suspect you don’t have one.
I know, it’s a difficult question, but you keep at it. Come back when you’ve got one. ”
I’ve done some research, Andrew may be correct. Outside of religon or a belief God, Creator, there may be no reason.
“Nope. The rationale for laws prohibiting murder can be established without appeals to religious revelation or authority.”
how can they be “established�, explain please
Murder violates violates the right of an individual has to their own life as granted to them under natural law. Give us a difficult one.
“The rationale for laws prohibiting same-sex marriage, however, cannot.�
how do you know? sure they can.
It’s been tried. And those who argued as such failed. Goodridge v. Department of Public Health is the highest-profile example.
“I’ve done some research, Andrew may be correct. Outside of religon or a belief God, Creator, there may be no reason [for banning same sex marriage].”
Amazing! A troll with a brain! Admittedly, a gecko brain, but a brain nonetheless. Keep up the research, jasper, and you might evolve to the point that you can have rational conversations with your dog.
*yawn*…boring trolls
i can not explain our gov’t to you in one post, jasper, it’s complicated. you should take some american gov’t classes, it will help. as Ugly In Pink stated, though “our system of government was specifically designed to prevent [the majority ruling over the minority] as its primary goal”
if you don’t believe in going to school, here’s some links that will help you educate yourself:
Minority Rights article
Majority Rule
Minority Rights
Minority Rights, Majority Rule
Andrew,
what kind version of Nature Law are you refering to? as there are different variations.
Just because there is a law that only religon believes in doesn’t necesarily make that law unconstitional or an endoresment of that religon.
That’s why the supreme court of Mass is by itself and the rest of the country has rejected SSM.
The reason the owners have a right to do what they are doing is the same reason you can find in the next article—-they have a right to their extra farts—if that is what the want to do. Yes, you are right –Will–what a bunch of boring trolls.
“and you might evolve to the point that you can have rational conversations with your dog.”
I do already, he’s one of my best friends.
what kind version of Nature Law are you refering to? as there are different variations.
The kind the undergirds the moral basis for all liberal democracies since the Enlightenment, as someone upthread previously mentioned.
Just because there is a law that only religon believes in doesn’t necesarily make that law unconstitional or an endoresment of that religon.
Actually it does make an infringement of a civil right unconstitutional if the rationale is solely based in religious revelation or authority. If a lawyer quoted the Bible–or the Quran, or the Diamond Sutra, or an oral legend about Coyote–in their legal brief in support of same-sex marriage prohibitiions and made no reference to facts, they would rightly be laughed out of court.
That’s why the supreme court of Mass is by itself and the rest of the country has rejected SSM.
I would venture that the rest of the country has “rejected” same-sex marriage due to anti-homosexual bigotry. Massachusetts stands alone because of the strongly protective stance its state constitution takes towards individual rights, and because the state supreme court reached a critical mass of justices who recognized the legal imperitive in the expansion of marriage availablity to same-sex couples.
With all due respect only Darwinists have any logical and empirical credibility. I prefer survival of the fittest. That is the most accurate representation of what actually is. Religion is for the weak and foolish.
“That’s why the supreme court of Mass is by itself and the rest of the country has rejected SSM.”
Y’know, you’re right. When the supreme court ruled in Brown v. Board, it was all alone too, so we need to go back to segregation. And when it ruled that anti-miscegenation laws were illegal, and it was all alone, it was wrong! Thank you for clearing that up.
**Chokes back laughter, goes back to tuna sandwich.**
Concerned Parent
Feb 28th, 2007 at 3:01 pm
Jasper, still no answer to my question. In response to Andrew, you said that the rationale for forbidding same sex marriages can be given without resorting to religion. Still haven’t heard your answer to that. I’m beginning to suspect you don’t have one
****************************
Totally excluding religion from the discussion, the US has a cultural heritage of recognizing “marriage’ as a union between heterosexuals. There is no such tradition for homosexuals. This existed long before there was any law regarding “marriage” in the secular world. In fact, secular law regarding marriage post-dated the tradition of marriage.
Just as we have legal terms that provide “descriptions” for all things (male and female for example, or husband and wife), why should there NOT be different terms for heterosexual unions and homosexual unions? It is descriptive. It is not pejorative. If you say your daughter is “married”, the person you are conversing with knows that she is in a permanent relationship with a man. To say your daughter is “enlightened” would mean that she has a female partner in a committed relationship. Why would this be considered “unequal”? Niether term is pejorative or carries any connotation of being “less worthy” or substandard.
The insistence on using the term “marriage” for homosexual unions is merely “political correctness” run amok. It completely undermines the openly stated concerns of homosexual that all they want is “the same rights are other married couples”. They list the 1,100 rights that “married” couples have that gays are denied. So if we give you all of the rights, then you still claim “inequality”. On what basis? Just because we recognize such a union by using a different descriptive term that designates a different type of relationship?
Maybe we should dispense with the terms of male and female and merely call everyone “human”. We can do away with daughter and son. Husband and wife. brother and sister. Aunt and uncle. etc. Does this enrich our life or enrich our society? Does it contribute to communication in daily life? Does it enhance equality? Does it make our society “more fair”?
Homosexuals contantly tell us in public forums that they are “different”. They “were born that way”. They would not wish to be homosexual, but had no choice. Well, if there is a “difference”, shouldn’t this difference be acknowledged? They say they are homosexual, gay or lesbian, why not have a terminology that recognizes the difference in their relationships? Why are they afraid of their own sexual orientation or terms used to describe that orientation? Who is afraid here, the heterosexuals or the homosexuals? You claim to want laws to be non-discriminatory for sexual orientation, but then you want to deny the orientatios human to human relationship?
You have your laws. You will have your rights. We just ask that the term for heterosexual unions be “marriage” and that a different term be used to describe homosexual unions that are a newly recognized “tradition” that seeks to be established. Since heterosexuals are willing to asceed to all of the demands of homosexuals with one small exception, why can’t there be a compromise?
Can’t we all just get along?
How kind of you, Jasper, to graciously concede that I have the right to my beliefs.
But you see, that’s my whole point: you don’t have the right to yours anymore! We’ve revoked your religion, so you can go home now.
(NB: Yes, I’m still joking.)
[…] I Love Troll-Baiting Check out this exchange between me (and some other enlightened folk) and a lonely troll. Published in: […]
Totally excluding religion from the discussion, the US has a cultural heritage of recognizing “marriage’ as a union between heterosexuals.
Cultural heritage is not a sufficient rationale for laws that infringe on citizens’ rights to equal protection and due process. Justice Scalia’s shallow and tortuous protestations to the contrary notwithstanding.
“Side note: don’t get me started on ablative translation errors… jasper, those languages have whole cases and tenses that our upstart English doesn’t have…”
Mugg,
I agree with you totally on this. I find the idea of the Christian/King James Bible as the definitive, unyielding word of god to be ludicrous in the extreme. I can accept (most of) the ten commandments, the Golden Rule, and the Beatitudes as divinely inspired. The rest is the meanderings og old men interpreting the words of other old men.
The King James Bible was “translated” in the early 1600. The same time as Shakespeare. Most of us speak English as our native tongue and I defy people to read Shakespeare and be able to tell what all the words he uses mean in context. Knowing THAT, I’m supposed to just accept on faith that a bunch of English priests, probably using latin translations of Greek or Aramaic translations of the original Hebrew texts could get things correct by praying? That dog don’t hunt at all. There is no way that they could come remotely close to the true meanings of the words/tenses/syntax while working from second/third/fourth generation documents, more than 1600 years after first publication of the originals in languages that were not only NOT their native tongues but were no longer extant.
We also have a tradition of hate crimes. Let’s all go beat up some blacks and Jews! tehehehe says its A’OK!
The owners can choose to donate or support whatever political or crazy organization they want, but they also want millions of public dollars from a community that for the most part doesn’t support such hate groups.
Thank you for keeping to the heart of this and not taking certain troll’s (piehole!) bait. Any word on what’s being said in these debates so far, and how they are going?
On the actual topic, the owners have the legal right to spend their money however they please, and everybody else has a right to criticize them for it, or to choose not to direct their dollars to their sports team. “Politically correct” is the new “STFU commie pinko”.
“I would venture that the rest of the country has “rejectedâ€? same-sex marriage due to anti-homosexual bigotry. Massachusetts stands alone because of the strongly protective stance its state constitution takes towards individual rights, and because the state supreme court reached a critical mass of justices who recognized the legal imperitive in the expansion of marriage availablity to same-sex couples. ”
again, this is not a civil rights issue. homosexual’s can marry, just not the same sex.
It wouldn’t be called marriage either.
….
brown v.s board: the courts had no basis for this, stating that blacks couldn’t have good schools just because no whites were present.
“But you see, that’s my whole point: you don’t have the right to yours anymore! We’ve revoked your religion, so you can go home now.”
no, because this is a violation of the constition. please, get with it…..
Wow. Just, wow. The depths of stupidity yet to be plumbed with regard to jasper never cease to amaze. This has got to be the work of a parody troll.
Whatever it is, though, it’s well beyond boring. Can’t we be rid of it?
The real christians (not the fake ones) will not let you people and the ACLU destroy this country.
There’s always France! or Cuba!
again, this is not a civil rights issue. homosexual’s can marry, just not the same sex.
The same things used to be said of blacks Americans and white Americans who wished to marry in certain states. They could marry, just not outside their race, so how is it that their rights were infringed?
You’re ignoring the position I’ve staked out upthread. If the state is going to be in the business of establishing a civil marriage mechanism through its laws, it must have a rationale based in fact for limiting the mechanism to certain types of participants. Age, for example. If the limitations are based in “tradition” rather than fact, and serve no legitimate state purpose–limitations based on race or sex, for example–then the issue is very much a matter of civil rights, specifically the rights to equal protection and due process.
You can disagree with these propositions if you like, and make a case for your disagreement. But if you’re just going to deny them without any attempt to refute them, then we’re just engaging in an Argument Clinic, aren’t we?
Luckily, both liberal democracy’s halting forward slouch and the tide of public opionion are on our side, not yours.
ROY WROTE: Personally, I don’t see that gay marriage needs a positive spin, nor do I think that calling them something different does that anyway. I’ll find it a lot easier to get along when the roadblocks to equality stop saying things like “Let’s just call it something different.�
If you have to call it something different, then it isn’t the same. If the only difference you want is the name, and “it’s just a name� then why don’t you “compromise�? If it’s just a word, then you shouldn’t give a damn if same-sex couples want to call it a marriage. If they’re getting married, let them call it a marriage.
The reason we need to call it something DIFFERENT is because it IS different. How? Marriage currently is between opposite sexes…..same sex couples getting married is NOT the same thing. Which is why your side has the opportunity now to have the same rights as “us” BUT you have to COMPROMISE and call it something like a “union”. If you still get the same right as traditionally married men and women, what do you care what it is called?? I think that this is what everyone who opposes same sex marriage has a problem with…..IT SIMPLY IS NOT THE SAME. For example, with regard to same sex couples - together they can have “a” (read singular) biological child from either one or the other homosexuals; where hetero’s have biological children that is biological to both of them…not just one. This is where the “union” of a man and woman comes into play. If you cannot see the difference it is because you have blinders on!
And for the record, it’s not just a “word”… to most people….it represents an “institution”.
Personally, I could care less. I can tell you this though, it does need a positive spin because you are the minority.
I would go to a poll and vote YES for gay “unions” OR civil “unions” on the behalf of the gay community. But, I would not go to the polls to support gay “marriage”…….ONLY because I think it should be referred to differently. As one person here pointed out…call it “enlightenment”….that way it would help us all be more politically correct when we get the invitation…we’d know right away what NOT to buy (hehe…that’s a bad joke).
I’m christian by the way….have had many gay friends and still do..and I’m Pro-choice (Though I personally would not have an abortion, I believe other women have the right to their bodies and what happens within that body without the government getting involved)…so I don’t vote my religion….I vote on what I think is best longterm for the country and it’s people…..and it’s best for you to give up this constant chatter and get it done. Otherwise, we have to hear the constant whining. Sounds like the gay community is jealous of hetero’s sometimes…they want what we hetero’s have but oO….you can’t change the name or we’ll be offended. Ba hum bug. Get over yourselves — you are homo’s and we are hetero….they are different. No better, no worse, just plain different.
These people have been trying to get state money for a new sports arena in the Seattle area. Otherwise they’ll take the Sonics to Oklahoma. Perhaps they should quit giving all their money to bigoted causes and spend it on their sport arena. Funny how these kind of people tend to be against welfare for a single mom or anyone poor for that matter, but sure don’t mind asking the gov’t for a handout to the tune of millions of $.
I’m not a fan of public money being spent on sports in the first place, but to think that we would be supplementing people with the kind of money these guys have got is disgusting. If conservatives really were fiscally conservative, they’d be disgusted. but we’ve all become all to aware of the hypocracy running around on the right side of the aisle. Do these guys know Ted Haggerd?
“The same things used to be said of blacks Americans and white Americans who wished to marry in certain states. They could marry, just not outside their race, so how is it that their rights were infringed?”
- equal protection. still one man and one woman.
“You’re ignoring the position I’ve staked out upthread. If the state is going to be in the business of establishing a civil marriage mechanism through its laws, it must have a rationale based in fact for limiting the mechanism to certain types of participants. Age, for example. If the limitations are based in “traditionâ€? rather than fact, and serve no legitimate state purpose–limitations based on race or sex, for example–then the issue is very much a matter of civil rights, specifically the rights to equal protection and due process.”
-”tradition” is part of who we are as a people, whould you be in favor of removing the 10 commandments from inside the supreme court?
Honestly, Jasper has grown on me to the extent that I’m now feeling “transboredom”: something so boring that it’s almost Zen fascinating.
…the tide of public opionion are on our side, not yours.
I think you’ve been in the ‘liberal bubble’ too much and not in the real world. Ya’ know the real world where just recently 11 states have overwhelmingly adopted state constitutional amendments prohibiting queer marriage……by the people……for the people.
I really don’t think the public is buying what you are selling.
tehehehe-
Do you really believe that the religious right wants gays and lesbians to have all of the rights of marriage except the right to use the word “marriage?” If this were the case, I would be able to adopt children in every state, visit my partner in every hospital, sign onto my partner’s health insurance without paying extra taxes regardless of the company she worked for, receive tax marriage benefits from the federal government, inherit the house without jumping through enormous legal hurdles, hold hands in public without having things thrown at me, my partner would be able to become a United States citizen and live with me and our children full time just by signing a document at the county clerks’ office, and the list goes on and on…
It would be fantastic if the only thing at stake were a word… but that is simply not the case, and everybody knows it. Laws are being passed in several states that are stripping gays and lesbians of rights like those listed above. This is not about a word. It is about equality.
‘â€?traditionâ€? is part of who we are as a people, whould you be in favor of removing the 10 commandments from inside the supreme court?’
Uhhh. Yeah…..
My very dearest Jasper,
You’ve mentioned more than once that you’re involved with twins and that the three of you would like to marry. Yet, when Andrew Wyatt mentioned giving polyamorous relationships — the very sort of relationship you claim to be in and wish to make formal — the rights and privileges of marriage, you attack him, accusing him of trying to destroy your way of life.
Could you reconcile this for us, please?
Warmest Regards,
Moira.
equal protection. still one man and one woman.
Huh? Now you’re just being incoherent.
-�tradition� is part of who we are as a people, whould you be in favor of removing the 10 commandments from inside the supreme court?
Since the Ten Commandments only appear in the Supreme Court as held by Moses on the courtroom friezes, in the context of numerous other lawgivers–including Muhammed!–I believe this lines up quite neatly with the Court’s own current compromise stance on displays of religious iconography in public buildings. I personally can live with such government building displays that broadly reference the legal and cultural legacy of Western civilization. And since no party has brought a case arguing the this element of the courtroom friezes is unconstitutional under the establishment clause, and the presence of the Ten Commandments in the Court is entirely non-controversial, your point is moot.
I suspect that you’re zig-zagging erratically back and forth between multiple topics, completely unrelated to the main topic of this thread in order to bait or get a rise out of me and the other participants in this thread. And you’re not even doing it particularly well. Thanks for playing.
What? Constitution, you say? You can’t retreat to that when you want to deny its protection to other people. You’ve already abrogated your moral right to argue based on Constitutional principles, because you clearly don’t think they should apply equally to everyone, on which point that document clearly disagrees with you.
And you can’t argue religious principle, because we (the Jews), who can rightly claim seniority to you Catholics, as well as “owning” the scriptural basis of your faith, have revoked your religion. To put this in terms you are likely to understand: nyah nyah.
Lest you think my talk of “revoking” your religion’s right to exist is silly and absurd…well, yes. Yes, it is absurd, and there is no reasonable and rational way that I could insist on doing so. That’s precisely the point.
It is, indeed, just as absurd as you attempting to claim Constitutional protection for your religious views, and then insisting that public policy enforce those views on others and thus deny them their religious views, as well as civil rights. The primary difference is, I am not serious.
Business owners have the right to throw large amounts of their business or personal money at whatever cause they want to. I have the right to never given them another dime and to make sure other people are making informed decisions about their spending also.
Sounds like what people are doing about this. If I know a business or its major ownership is giving large sums of money to causes that I feel are wrong or directly going against my self interest I will spend money elsewhere.
It’s way past time that churches and religious organizations should be taxed. Also Washington state taxpayers should not pay one cent towards a stadium. The taxpayers do not need to subsidize religious right wing wackos from Oklahoma. Move the team to Oklahoma please, sooner the better.
It’s interesting to see this discussion. I’ve been living in France the past year or so and they have PACs, which are basically civil unions. Also, interesting, is the fact that religion and government here are completely separate from what I understand. I’ve spoken to French people who tell me that they’re “married, but oh, we’re not really married because we’ve only had the church ceremony…we haven’t done it for the state (i.e. French gov’t) yet…”
And then you get the folks, who are PACsing. I had a friend once tell me that she was going to a PACsing party that weekend. It took me a minute to realize that she meant that her straight, secular friends were basically getting married via a PAC and celebrating their union.
If you want to get rid of marriage via the gov’t, then fine, toss it. As far as I’m concerned marriage is a religious institution and the gov’t shouldn’t be mandating it, churches should. However, you do need a viable legal alternative within the gov’t that’s inclusive of same sex couples. One that affords them the rights and privileges thereof. One of my most memorable moments here was after my French class when I spoke to a guy from Spain.
“So, why are you in France?” I ask him, expecting the usual response of work or school.
“My husband is French,” he says. “We’re waiting for my carte d’identité so that I can start work.”
Excuse me, that assumes facts not in evidence.
I really don’t think the public is buying what you are selling.
See this PEW report from about a year ago:
http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=273
And this summary of numerous recent polls:
http://www.pollingreport.com/civil.htm
Note that I didn’t say that public opinion was entirely on our side. The tide of public opinion is, however. Acceptance of civil unions and gay marriage corellates neatly with generation. Grim though it may be, much like racial bigotry, anti-gay bigotry will diminish with time as older citizens with “traditional values” pass on. Note also that Americans are becoming more secular and more non-religious, which also corellates with acceptance for civil unions/gay marriage.
You know, much as some have spent what seems an eternity explaining it all to me, I really cannot see where allowing Mabel and Louise, or Steve and Adam, marry, is going to damage, or even threaten, my own marriage at all.
As for the “way of life” argument, think of:
chattle slavery,
racial discrimination,
religious discrimination (and I mean *real* discrimination, such as Christians suffer in Saudia Arabia, not the “discrimination = being prevented from enforcing your viewpoint on all other citizens of the country”)
sumpuary laws,
the legal, undisputed rights of a nobleman to abuse his tenents any way they wished
Shall we go on and list some more examples?
Self-indulgent responses to people (because I know I won’t convince them, and so am preaching to the choir, only because it makes me feel better to tell them what I think)
Jasper no, it’s not. gay people can get married, just not to the same sex.
So if the situation were reversed, and the only “marriage” allowed (no social sanction for those who choose to engage in unions apart from the approved, but none of the bennies) were homosexual, you’d think that’s fair, because, after all, no one would be allowed to marry persons of the opposite sex, right?
I didn’t think so.
As for the “Everyone is denied the right to marry same-sex partners, it’s nonsense 1:If anyone is allowed to marry anyone they want, You are just as free to not marry anyone you don’t want to as I am. So that’s equal rights for all, and of a similar nature.
But the straights of the world (under your system have a right the homosexuals don’t. They get to marry whom they want. Those who aren’t straight have the right to marry someone they don’t have any sexual interest in. Great. Some equality there.
As for your polygamy question… I don’t see a problem with it, and (under the system you favor… a legal framework of limits, for legally recognised unions, and kitty bar the door for the rest) the only place you have legal problems, is Utah, and that because the Christians were appalled by the Mormon view of religion.
Mona Lisa Biberstien Hypocrite. You are complaining that you are being castigated for trying to force people to abide by your religious beliefs. In other words, if my freedom of religion isn’t curtailed, your freedom of religion is. Free to worship as you please is not the same as making me behave as your worship makes you behave.
I am leaving your religion alone, I just happen to want to see those things which are Caesar’s, left to Caesar. Irony… one of the things the Martyrs of the Early Church are revered for is not bowing to what they saw as false Gods, and trying to insist that they be allowed to worship as they saw fit, absent gov’t interference. Incense to an idol… only a problem because of their religious belief. The Romans saw it as social, participation in the rituals of the state. If the person making the offerering didn’t believe, so what? The gods didn’t care, they wanted what they wanted. If the gods didn’t exist, who cares? But if they did, and the offerings weren’t made… bad. So it’s just some insurance, and why can’t the Christians help the rest of us have some insurance.
You want to have your religion, I’m all for it. I just don’t want you to make me have it.
tehehehe No. the law makes distinctions, and Separate, but equal, isn’t. Lots of Christians (I’ll grant not most, if you like, but that’s not a real help, since that means most of you don’t care enough about the plight of “the least of these” to see to their rights) have made big deals about writing, and voting for, bans which prohibit even the least aspect of civil union parallels, even so far as to try and make void private contracts (sometimes by law, more often by boycott) of places like Disney, and Microsoft.
Just because most Christians ( at least many, to quote you) choose to “fight rather than switch” isn’t the fault of those who are being denied (and in some cases, as with the Salvaation Army demanding the right to accept federal monies, and still discriminate against people who are gay) actively, with organized intent.
When someone tries to curtail my rights, you’d better believe I’m going to fight. When someone is curtailing the rights of others, my religion compells me to fight for them.
And you can’t argue religious principle, because we (the Jews), who can rightly claim seniority to you Catholics, as well as “owning� the scriptural basis of your faith, have revoked your religion.
Jasper’s not a Catholic; he’s an apostate. He’s made it pretty clear he rejects Vatican II.
The reason we need to call it something DIFFERENT is because it IS different. How? Marriage currently is between opposite sexes.
Yeah, thanks for defining the problem for me. I’m actually already aware that marriage is currently between two people of opposite sexes. That’s sort of the whole issue, isn’t it? Same sex couples not being able to marry?
Which is why your side has the opportunity now to have the same rights as “us� BUT you have to COMPROMISE and call it something like a “union�.
You know what?
Fuck that.
My “side” doesn’t have to compromise. I’m sorry, but that’s total bullshit. Actually. I’m very much not sorry. We’re not talking about deciding what goes on a fucking pizza, so, no, I really don’t have to compromise here. We’re talking about people’s lives and the the, what is it? Thousand plus legal benefits?
You’ll excuse me if I’m a little bit unwilling to compromise here- right is right, and having a different set of rules for same-sex couples is wrong.
If you still get the same right as traditionally married men and women, what do you care what it is called??
Why do you? If two people want to spend their lives together, why do you give a rat’s ass what they call it? Stop trying to tell me that it’s not important that it be called a marriage, and that I should just be happy that same-sex couples might get thrown a bone in the form of civil unions.
For example, with regard to same sex couples - together they can have “a� (read singular) biological child from either one or the other homosexuals; where hetero’s have biological children that is biological to both of them…not just one.
That’s a non-issue, and you damned well know it. We let heterosexual couples get married, even if one or both are incapable of having biological children. The ability to have children is completely beside the point.
And for the record, it’s not just a “word�… to most people….it represents an “institution�.
Then, by gods, quit saying things like “what do you care what it is called??” I care what it’s called because it’s more than just a word. What we call things is very important, and when you suggest that same-sex couples don’t deserve to call their relationships marriages, you say a lot about what you think of them.
Personally, I could care less. I can tell you this though, it does need a positive spin because you are the minority.
It’s obvious that you could care less. You seem to care quite a bit. That I’m part of the minority is fine. I’m not interested in being popular, I’m interested in what is right.
and it’s best for you to give up this constant chatter and get it done. Otherwise, we have to hear the constant whining. Sounds like the gay community is jealous of hetero’s sometimes…they want what we hetero’s have but oO….you can’t change the name or we’ll be offended. Ba hum bug. Get over yourselves — you are homo’s and we are hetero….they are different. No better, no worse, just plain different.
I don’t really give a damn if you’re annoyed by the “constant whining.” I’m sorry that you’ve confused anger at injustice with jealousy.
It seems to me that people get offended in large part because the things you’re saying are offensive.
The Piss Christ referenced by TeHe2 is a perfect example of how anti-NEA conservatives rally those that have never set foot in an art museum to protest something about which they know absolutely nothing. They care only that a crucifix was submerged in a jar of piss and nothing about the artist’s intent. With Piss Christ, Serrano, a Catholic himself, was making a statement about the crass commercialization of the Divinity.
“The saturated, half-educated bourgeois wants no shocks or enlightenment from art, merely entertainment and a way of passing the time.”
Arnold Hauser, The Social History of Art
tehehehe: Or protesting outside art gallaries that display art projects made of dung that are titled for the Modonna with child?
Of course, the artist is a Catholic, and elephant dung is a medium with centuries of tradition in western art. But of course, sacred art is only sacred art if DaVinci and Michalangelo used the same media.
We just ask that the term for heterosexual unions be “marriage� and that a different term be used to describe homosexual unions that are a newly recognized “tradition� that seeks to be established.
The amendments which seek to “protect” marriage go beyond just the semantics, but also prohibit domestic partnership recognition as well.
jasper: Well, by “traditional” standards my wife and I are living in sin because our marriage was not consecrated by an ordained priest using a Christian sacrament.
Oh yeah, most christians are fine with gay people getting all the same rights, as long as they call it something elese. That must explain why they keep passing laws saying that any attempt to give gays rights similar to those of marriage is heretofor illegal.
Riiiiight.
“…marriage is heretofor illegal.”
Um, make that “henceforth”.
I haven’t read all the trolls and the baiting thereof in this thread, but here’s a line of argument I’ve found useful.
In trying to figure out what traditional marriage is “for”, look at the marriages that are described in the Bible.
The patriarch Jacob has legitimate children by four different women (Leah, Rachel, Zilpah, and Bilhah), is married to two of them (Leah & Rachel), and loves only one, Rachel. Clearly, then, marriage was not for children, nor was it for love.
What makes Jacob’s relationships with Leah & Rachel marriage? He paid a bride-price, and he got in-laws. In other words, marriage was about economics and social status — not about children, not about love.
Then look at the story of Ruth. Why does Ruth marry Boaz? Boaz likes her, yes, but there’s no particular indication that Ruth is in love with him. Indeed, one of the most romantic passages in the Bible is when Ruth says she will stay with Naomi; she says nothing to Boaz that is remotely comparable for love and devotion.
So why does Ruth marry him? She does it because without a man, she and Naomi are basically having to dumpster-dive. It is, foremost, a necessary economic relationship. There’s no hint that Ruth is motivated by a desire for children or even for Boaz personally: marriage is a matter of survival.
*That* is traditional marriage — and it is already dead. Stigmatizing same-sex couples will not revive the corpse of traditional marriage, though it may help keep it going as a shuffling zombie, feeding on human brains. Once unmarried women don’t starve, traditional marriage was doomed — this is just the clean-up phase.
I skimmed down here to post because the trolls in general and Jasper in particular are BORING!
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz…
Notable Absence - as i understand it, separate civil and religious ceremonies are not uncommon. I know Mexico and Italy both have 2 different ceremonies. One is for the state and for the benefits granted by the state. The other is for religion and for the benefits granted by religion.
I’d be fine with the civil ceremony being called a “civil union”. As long as any couple could then marry in their own ceremony. Lots of Christian churches already marry gay couples, I know my UCC married gay couples. And that was in Oklahoma City (scary, I know).
Quakers have been marrying same-sex couples for years.
It happens, or so I’ve been told, that the quirks of how Quaker do marriages (I’ll know better when we get around to do it, but I’ve never attended a wedding, despite having had two Quaker S/O’s [the one of whom is my present fiancee]) some of the early ones were legal marriages.
But I’ve not been able to confirm it, and I don’t understand the arcana well enough to be certain of the reasoning. I think it’s that because the Meeting as a whole is the officiant, and the license is somehow incorporate in the certificate the Meeting issues, all the bells and whistles were signed off.
I’d be fine with the civil ceremony being called a “civil union�.
As someone legally married (to a member of the opposite sex, even) in a civil ceremony, I object to this idea very strongly. You don’t get to say I’m not married.
Civil marriage ceremonies are not only just as legal as religious ones, they are *more* legal, because they are explicitly part of the legal system.
Marriage does *NOT* grow out of any one religion or of religion in general. It is a legal, social, & economic relationship that various religions have co-opted, but the religious meanings did not come first and they do not deserve more respect than the secular meanings.
Jeffrey
Feb 28th, 2007 at 1:57 pm
OK, you’re insulting your dog’s intelligence.
As for establishing murder laws without religion: People have a right to life. Murder violates that right. People have a right to expect their government to protect their rights. Therefore, people have a right to expect their government to protect them from murder. Laws against murder protect people from murder. Therefore, people have a right to expect their government to pass laws against murder.
******************************
As I recall, the “right to life” was a “right” that was established “by the Creator”. At least that is what our declaration of Independence said.
Are you bringing religion into the debate? If so, you will probably lose the debate.
I think we should adopt the laws that are on the books for most nations, especially developed nations, regarding gay marriage. It is prohibited. In fact, the Religion of Peace, the one true religion, practised by 1.5 billion people in the world and in almost half of the nations on earth, says homosexual content is punishable by death.
I’m a liberal, though, so I don’t think we should execute homosexuals. Heck, I want to grant them the ability to have civil unions. I am waaaaaayyyy out there in the leftist extreme compared to the majority of all of humanity!
Then there is this very tiny minority of utopians that want to reject the rest of all societies on earth and embrace a practice (homosexual marriage) that is considered morally repugnant by most people in other nations. I am greatful I live in a more tolerant society, or I would be ostracized just for supporting the idea of homosexuality, let alone “gay civil unions”!
Doctor Science, did you stop reading after civil union? Because I specifically said “As long as any couple could then marry in their own ceremony”.
One ceremony for the state - to be a “civil union”, one ceremony of your choice (christian, jewish, pagan, atheist, private with just the two of them, etc) to be “marriage”. People could choose to do one or the other or both. They could even do them both at the same time. The civil union ceremony would mainly be signing the license.
And of course what they choose to call themselves is up to them.
gay people can get married, just not to the same sex. I can’t marry my mother or my dog.
Why is it that any time a poster first tells us how great his holy book of christian fables is, you can be sure they’ll follow it up with a dirt-stupid argument like the one above? In other words, is it that the feeble-minded are naturally attracted to Christianity, or is that Christianity tends to dull the brain?
Terry: It happens, or so I’ve been told, that the quirks of how Quaker do marriages (I’ll know better when we get around to do it, but I’ve never attended a wedding, despite having had two Quaker S/O’s [the one of whom is my present fiancee]) some of the early ones were legal marriages.
Sorry, not true. Marriages in a Friends Meeting have to follow all the laws of the state they’re held in in order to be legal marriages. But it’s true that Quaker Meetings have often held a Meeting for Worship to marry a same-sex couple, if one or both of the couples were members or regular attenders: and the marriage would be as valid in religion as any mixed-sex marriage in a Meeting for Worship - but it would not be a legal marriage unless the Meeting was in a state (or a country) where the laws of the land permit legal marriage for same-sex couples.
I’ve heard that in the UK, where the government has tried to avoid religious criticism from Christian homophobes by not permitting same-sex couples who want to register their partnership to do so as part of a religious ceremony, Quakers are plotting in true Quakerly fashion to undo this by arranging to hold a Meeting for Worship in the registry office at the time of the civil ceremony. This could even work, if the registrar knows nothing about Quakerism. (”We just want all our friends to sit in silence for half an hour, thanks.”)
As always, the avoidance of religious criticism by running away didn’t work, either: Christian bigots still accused the UK government of “destroying marriage” by giving same-sex couples the ability to gain all the rights of marriage, without the name.
Why are Seattle Sonics/Storm owners bankrolling Gary Bauer’s outfit?
Freedom of Speech.
Maybe because like driving, Marriage isn’t a Right, but a policy approved of by the government to further the goals, continuance and growth of a society.
Marriages between blood Rh Factor incompatible couples are not given a license.
Marriages between close relatives are not given a license.
But gaia —
why should *my* marriage not be called a marriage? Why do all my rights and privileges not get automatically rolled into the long-standing legal tradition of “marriage”?
In other words, I think what you’re calling “civil union” should be called “marriage”, and the religious ceremony shouldn’t be called “marriage” but something else, probably “solemnization”. To get the legal rights of marriage, you have to get married. To get whatever rights & privileges are granted under a particular religious dispensation, the relationship has to be solemnized. Or “sanctified”, or whatever you like.
But since the law is civil, only civil marriages will be legal. This is the situation current in most (all?) European countries: only the civil ceremony is legally binding, but many (most?) couples have religious ceremonies, too.
If you wouldn’t immediately resort to insults and ad hominem attacks upon a given religion, your ‘arguments’ just might have more weight and credence.
You also might be able to avoid a common criticism of The American Left; i.e. that they have outright contempt for the religious and believe themselves to be superior to them, thus their opinions should be enacted into public policy, but those of the Devout should not. Because, after all, The Left know better than everyone else.
Umm, better not tell the SCOTUS, who have held that marriage is a fundamental right under U.S. lawUmm, do you have a cite for that?
In *this* country?