TritonRider said:Quoted message said:From: Steven Bornfeld [email hidden]
Quoted message said:Check those laws, esp. those in Ohio and Louisiana.
Steve
Steve I'd say that those laws at least in part were the response to the fact
that they expected to have Gay Mariage rammed down their throats. Reaction -
overeaction, and so it goes.
When Vt. aproved Civil Unions there was some noise and another vote, but it
was NOT a huge nationwide issue. When the Supreme Court here in Ma. declared
that marriage was legal due to OUR constitution that didn't have to blow up
either. The most of the rest of the country thinks we're off the deep end
anyway. What triggered the HUGE backlash was the activists screaming that they
were going nationwide now.
Extremism breeds extremism. They had to have EVERYTHING now, they and we, got
nothing. Even worse than nothing.
Pure stupidity IMO.
Bill C
I think I understand what you're saying here.
In my opinion, there are two issues involved, in this instance in
conflict with each other.
On the one hand, there are normal civil rights for homosexuals. The
religious right presents these as "special rights" since there are no
specific laws defending the rights of heterosexuals. This is, of course
true. But I think a good case could be made that since homosexuals
historically have been singled out for discrimination in housing, in the
workplace, etc., that the fundamental right to life, liberty and the
pursuit of happiness has not applied to gays.
On the other hand, marriage is not only a social institution, it is
also a religious sacrament. So laws defining marriage in heterosexual
terms can be seen as protection of religious rights, ie: protecting the
sacrament.
Personally, it would be easier for me to believe this is the true
motivation of the religious right if it were to support the guarantee of
basic rights, including rights regarding the workplace, employee
benefits for dependents, rights of survivorship and inheritance, etc.
So the battle for gay marriage is cast in terms that both sides can
view as being an abrogation of their own agenda. For me, this means
that probably the use of the work "marriage" in federal statute should
not be used. If basic rights associated with the workplace, inheritance
etc. were guaranteed to legal partners, then the dispute could be
viewed as a civil rights issue and not a religious issue. Opposition to
rights for domestic partners and their families could then be seen for
the bigotry it is, without clouding the issue with religion.
BTW, I don't know that you've heard this, but you appear to me to be in
basic agreement with Dianne Feinstein and Barney Frank on this issue.
This is from Friday's NY Times:
Some Democrats Blame One of Their Own
By DEAN E. MURPHY
SAN FRANCISCO, Nov. 4 - A year into his job, Mayor Gavin Newsom could
hardly be more popular. A survey last weekend put his approval rating
among San Franciscans at 80 percent.
Polls show that a mainstay of the Democratic mayor's support has been
his stance on same-sex marriage. But with his party reeling from Senator
John Kerry's defeat on Tuesday, Mr. Newsom's decision in February to
open City Hall to thousands of gay weddings has become a subject of
considerable debate among Democrats.
Some in the party were suggesting even before the election that Mr.
Newsom had played into President Bush's game plan by inviting a showdown
on the divisive same-sex-marriage issue.
Most of the talk has been behind closed doors. But when Senator Dianne
Feinstein, a fellow Democrat and Newsom supporter, answered a question
about the subject at a news conference outside her San Francisco home on
Wednesday, the prickly discussion spilled into the open.
"I believe it did energize a very conservative vote," Ms. Feinstein said
of the same-sex marriages here. "I think it gave them a position to
rally around. I'm not casting a value judgment. I'm just saying I do
believe that's what happened."
"So I think that whole issue has been too much, too fast, too soon,''
she added. "And people aren't ready for it."
Kate Kendell, executive director of the National Center for Lesbian
Rights, who was a witness at the first same-sex marriage at San
Francisco City Hall, said she received a flurry of angry e-mail messages
on Thursday from people upset about Ms. Feinstein's public dressing down
of Mr. Newsom.
The topic was also raised with Mr. Newsom himself at a news conference
on Wednesday and when he was a guest on a radio talk show here Thursday
morning. He said he had no regrets.
Some of his backers were less restrained. In an interview, Ms. Kendell
accused Ms. Feinstein of looking for "easy scapegoats."
"Shame on Senator Feinstein and other Democratic leaders for latching to
the most facile and shallow of explanations for the results," she said.
"What Mayor Newsom did really accelerated the conversation and the
movement, and I will never accept an analysis that says a leader who
stands for equality and fairness and who has the courage of his
convictions is doing the wrong thing."
One openly gay member of Congress, Representative Barney Frank of
Massachusetts, disagreed. Mr. Frank was opposed to the San Francisco
weddings from the start and told Mr. Newsom as much before the
ceremonies began. He urged the mayor to follow the Massachusetts path,
which involved winning approval for the marriages in court before
issuing licenses.
In a telephone interview on Thursday, Mr. Frank said he felt vindicated
by the election results. In Massachusetts, every state legislator on the
ballot who supported gay rights won another term. By contrast,
constitutional amendments against gay marriage won handily in 11 states
- including Ohio, an important battleground - in large part, Mr. Frank
said, because of the "spectacle weddings" in San Francisco.
Mr. Frank said Mr. Newsom had helped to galvanize Mr. Bush's
conservative supporters in those states by playing into people's fears
of same-sex weddings.
Had the Massachusetts approach been followed, he said, "I think there
would have been some collateral damage'' in the election, but "a lot less.''
"The thing that agitated people were the mass weddings,'' he said,
adding, "It was a mistake in San Francisco compounded by people in
Oregon, New Mexico and New York. What it did was provoke a lot of fears."
"He created a sense there was chaos,'' Mr. Frank said of Mr. Newsom,
"rather than give us a chance to show, as we have in Massachusetts, that
this doesn't mean anything to anyone else."
Some conservative opponents of same-sex marriages concurred. Though the
backlash against gay weddings was kick-started by court rulings in
Massachusetts - and even earlier in Alaska and Hawaii - opposition
resonated with a much broader group of conservatives after Mr. Newsom
put San Francisco at the heart of the debate, said Jordan Lorence, a
lawyer with the Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian group that sued to
block the marriages here.
The California Supreme Court eventually declared the 4,000 or so
weddings invalid, but the images of same-sex couples' embracing in San
Francisco were permanently etched in the public's mind, Mr. Lorence said.
"The court decisions have been the triggers, but Mayor Newsom definitely
accelerated the reaction," Mr. Lorence said. "I think we can get 10 or
15 more state constitutional amendments in the 2006 and 2008 election
cycle, and maybe even more, because people feel so strongly about this."
In a telephone interview, Mr. Newsom acknowledged that he had taken some
heat from fellow Democrats. But he said the criticism was off the mark.
Mr. Bush decided to use gay marriage as a political wedge well before
the weddings in San Francisco, the mayor said, and the issue had already
been politicized by the court rulings in Massachusetts.
Mr. Newsom offered no apologies.
"If you think something is right,'' he said, "you have a moral
obligation to act.''
Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company | Home | Privacy Policy |
Search | Corrections | RSS | Help |
--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001
