An article worth reading

[JohnnyV]

Just a piece of current events from our sister station, gay.com:

http://www.gay.com/news/article.html?coll=news_articles&sernum=2006/06/03/1&page=1

J

[leizy]

welcome to election year politics. it won't pass, but it pisses me off to be used, and not get to enjoy the experience! as a polyamory advocate also, i get pissed off at the number 1 + 1 = marriage, regardless of gender. I love the hypocritical statements that "human history (and the Bible) support the union of one man and one woman..." - in fact, in history, societies that recognize polygamous (as more than two people, not necessarily one man and multiple wives) actually far outnumber those that limit marriage to 1+1.

[canuckotter]

i get pissed off at the number 1 + 1 = marriage, regardless of gender.
Expanding marriage to recognise the practical reality of gay marriage isn't a big issue legally speaking. The law already doesn't care about gender most of the time (in theory, practice obviously is something different) so having a married couple of the same sex doesn't have a big impact on existing law. Allowing polygamy or polyandry or whatever other terms we want to come up with for 3+ people in a marriage means rewriting a ton of other law.

Sorry to the poly folks, but it's not happening any time soon. :(

[leizy]

I dunno - already happened in the netherlands, a civil union between 3 people. The UU church is behind it quietly - they're one of the primary originators and supporters of gay marriage rights. The original lawsuits in Mass. were brought by UU members. Maybe not marriage, formally, but civil union? I think probably. A wonderful article, available online, somewhere, but here's the abstract, by Elizabeth Emens, a law professor, arguing that compulsory marriage laws are doomed...
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=506242

Monogamy's Law: Compulsory Monogamy and Polyamorous Existence

ELIZABETH F. EMENS
University of Chicago - Law School

[wanderingrichard]

what an absolute anal , idiot! this guy gives all texans everywhere a black eye every time he opens his mouth!

"As this debate goes forward, we must remember that every American deserves to be treated with tolerance, respect and dignity," he said. "All of us have a duty to conduct this discussion with civility and decency toward one another, and all people deserve to have their voices heard."

that comes out one side of his ass, but yet there he is talking about an Ammendment to the US Constitution to ban same sex marriages?? oh puleeze!

pppppsssstttt!! hey! georgie!! oh , sorry, i meant POLLYANNA! you can't have it both ways, bitch! and you've already proven who you're in bed with anyways.. be glad to see your ass get out of office. :soapbox:

[citystyleguy]

what an absolute anal , idiot! this guy gives all texans everywhere a black eye every time he opens his mouth!

"As this debate goes forward, we must remember that every American deserves to be treated with tolerance, respect and dignity," he said. "All of us have a duty to conduct this discussion with civility and decency toward one another, and all people deserve to have their voices heard."

that comes out one side of his ass, but yet there he is talking about an Ammendment to the US Constitution to ban same sex marriages?? oh puleeze!

pppppsssstttt!! hey! georgie!! oh , sorry, i meant POLLYANNA! you can't have it both ways, bitch! and you've already proven who you're in bed with anyways.. be glad to see your ass get out of office. :soapbox:

hey, wr thanks for restoring my faith in texans!

for me, his words and deeds are like farting in church, ignorant, unwanted, and stinks to high heaven! :rolleyes:

may he reap as he sows!

[wanderingrichard]

yeah, sometimes i think the only original idea he ever had was marrying laura..let's just say he is steadily giving credence to that fat, monied ,liberal , buffoon, michael moore and the book title " stupid white men."

[anne27]

One of the people on gay.com posted links to organizations fighting this proposed crap.

http://www.aclu.org
http://www.hrc.org
and
http://www.au.org

It's worth your time to follow the links and send your local politicans your views on the issue!

I guess I should post them as a topic, so more people see them.

[wanderingrichard]

ok, president dumbshit [ no not dan quayle!] hasnt gotten his wish, yet, as we alll know from the other 2 posts that deal more closely with the gay marriage issue.. tonight on the daily show with jon stewart on comedy central, well it's the very 1st time i've actually watched jon for an entire show , and if he ever decides to get out of comedy, i think he'll make a good replacement for charlie rose.

also, today, in the state of washington, usa, the anti bestiality/anti sodomy law went into effect.. this law is the result of stupid people having sex with large critters.. one guy died from his trauma, let's leave it at that..until this law was passed, you could, under the law here, engage in bestiality, but not have a same sex partner..go figger.

regardless, i'm a member of a swingers group here thats pretty open and tolerant.. one of our more , umm, sick puppies?, posted a fake email to his state senator tonight on the group bbs. soon as i get permission from him, i'm going to post it here.. it's , well, perversely funny.. you'll love this guy.
catch y'all later
Rich

[12voltman59]

Fortunately--the much vaunted "Marriage Protection Amendement" went down, as predicted by most nearly every objective observer of the Senate, in much justified flames.

As has been pointed out in many quarters, this proposed amendment was nothing more than a way for Bush and the rest of the Republicos to give some red meat to one of their remaining "base" constituencies, namely, the fundamentalist/evangelical Christians in order to say that the thing had been brought up.

Come this fall, you will see in Congressional elections all over the nation, lines in adverts will say that "Joe Schmoe, your Conservative Republican Congressman voted for the Marriage Protection Act."

That all that this thing was--a sop to a constituency--it was just good old Karl Rove in action.

Thank God the thing did die before it really got anywhere---it would have just been an issue that would have further divided this nation during a series of battles in each of the 50 state legislatures in the coming years.

[woolleygirl]

What is the big freaking deal marrage is marrage regardless of sexual preferance. Bush needs to stay out of what he doesn't understand and can't control. :soapbox:. I see nothing wrong with our sociaty(opps) that gay marrage will affect it. What happend to our rights as free people to choose our religion, speech so now we can't choose our partner. We are only allowed to have the opposite sex as a partner we fuck that. Yes hon you are right he opens his mouth and gives Texans a black eye (that is where my roots are). Election year politics will not get that man far with everything else that he has done I really don't see him in for another term or well at least God I hope not.
:2cents:

What happened to loving one another regardless of who we are with whether it is man to man or woman to woman or good old Leave it to Beaver man to woman. I am married to a man but this you can't marry the one you are meant to be with ooooooooh just makes me mad :soapbox: .

Sorry I will get off my little box :( .

T

[canuckotter]

One of my favourite moments reading Wil Wheaton's blog...

"An interesting thing has happened since San Francisco started granting marriage licenses to same-sex couples: my marriage is just fine!

That's right. Even though there are thousands of gay and lesbian couples affirming their love for and commitment to each other, my marriage -- my affirmation of love and commitment to Anne -- isn't threatened at all. As a matter of fact, the only people who can really "threaten" my marriage are . . . well . . . the two of us."

http://www.wilwheaton.net/2004/02/this_ocean_will_not_be_grasped.php

It amused me, and it seems appropriate, so I figured I'd share. :)

[12voltman59]

It is something---I don't really understand how two people of the same sex who declare and affirm their love for one another within both the legal and spiritural boundaries of a "marriage" is a threat to the institution of marriage.

I think the thing that as good "Christians" they would have a problem with is people who are prolifiic and indiscriminate in their lovemaking--one of the reasons that "homosexuals are such bad people" by their way of thinking.

I know of a number of long term gay and lesbian couples. I had gone to a Unitarian Universalist Church for several years. We had a gay couple well into their 50s who had been together as a faithful and monogamous couple since their college days--a record that far surpases my own as a largely "hetero" person.

Not long ago--I finished up serving several months on my county Grand Jury. Between that experience and a former career as a probation officer--I saw tremendeously dysfunctional heterosexual people.

It is unfortunately all too common to have a young woman, say around 23 or so--she has 4 or 5 kids by 3 or 4 different daddies who is in all kinds of trouble, legal and otherwise.

Back in the 1980's I did a four year enlistment in on of our Armed Forces.

My God, at several bases I was assigned---the family housing areas--heterosexual family housing at these bases were jokingly called "Peyton Place" thanks to all the screwing around taking place.

I was a single guy and as such, I do have to admit that I was a recipient of the attentions and affections of several wives of sailors once the hubbies had departed on a aircraft carrier for long deployments.

What is more of a threat to the "institution of marriage" I ask--gays and lesbians or out of control heterosexuals?

And the bible thumpers are all up in a lather about "homo marriage."

The other morning I was watching a call-in show on C-SPAN. The call of one "good Christian woman" was telling. She started ranting and raving about the evils of homosexuality and how "if we don't do something about them (gays and others) soon, we are going to suffer God's wrath."

She of course had to do some "a quotin'" from the "Good Book."

It is really a thing in the bible thumper universe that all of our troubles today come from our supposed acceptance in this country of homosexuality and related sexual preferences.

You have this sick bastard preacher and his numb nut followers who show up at the funerals of men and women who die in Bush's "war on terror" because that is one sign of God's wrath for our acceptance of homosexuality as was the devestation of hurricane Katrina on the Gulf Coast according to Pat Robertson and Jerry Fatwell, I mean Fallwell.

They somehow think that by government decree--it is possible to wipe away the "evil scourge" of homosexuality in our land.

Assume for a moment that such at decree could work---I for one could not imagine life without the contributions of gays, lesbians, bisexuals, transgendered or whatever in the areas of literature, art, architecture, music, science, engineering, food, cinema, medicine and more. A large precentage of the best works in all of these areas have come from those who "ain't straight."

The world would be a dull, gray and boring place without their contributions.

The other day--I read a story about some city--I can't recall which one precisely. The writer was discussing the reviatlization of one that city's most blighted areas, a revitalization taking in place in no small part due to wealthy gay couples--this something that has happened in city after city here in America and elsewhere.

I lived in Savannah, Georgia for a number of years and that was certainly the case in that city.

John Berendt wrote the bestselling book "Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil" back in the 1990's that among other things, detailed how gay men were largely responsible for the saving of that wonder city's increbible architectural heritage.

The good "God fearing" white developers, in the name of making a profit and "urban renewal" in the 1950's, had overseen the wholesale destruction of thousands of structures that had been built over the course of Savannah's history--many dating from the era following the city's founding in 1733.

While not entirely the work of gays, but due in large part to them, the unique and beautiful nature of Savannah, Georgia has now been saved and enhanced thanks to them. For anyone who has visited Savannah and knows what I mean about how beautiful the streets of the city are around the squares that were saved--gay male couples are among those to be thanked for the preservation of those scenes.

Had the good hetero developers had their way--Savannnah would just be another homogenous, uninteresting and ugly place.

Without gays and the rest of us "who ain't quite straight"--this world would be a homogenous, uninteresting, dull boring and ugly place----not a place I would care to call home.... I sure as hell know I don't want to spend my days praising God, J-E-S-U-S or Allah or whatever....:2cents: :2cents: :soapbox: :bibounce: :bibounce: :flag4: :bipride: :flag3: :three: :cowboy: :smirlove2 :yinyang: :bounce: :devil: :grouphug:

[wanderingrichard]

ok i promised i'd post the hilarious response to the washington state law that just went into effect here, if i got permission from the originator.

he said yes, so here it is;


Mr. Ed Responds
Wed Jun 7, 2006 11:14 am (PST)
Senator Pam Roach
Olympia, WA 98666

Dear Senator Roach,

I want to thank you for passing a law making it illegal for humans to
force us horses to have sex with them. Aside from humans being
utterly unappealing physically, they are mostly too small, make truly
bizarre noises, and smell funny.

And the results of such unnatural unions are too gruesome to mention.
Fortunately these beings with human legs and horse's hind quarters
for heads are quarantined in buildings you call the congress and the
white house.

We horses have always been proud to provide society with glue, fiddle
bows, transportation, sport, and even the occasional horse meat
roast. But I must thank you for drawing the line at sexual
intercourse. It's not nice to fuck with horses.

Your big fan,

Mr. Ed, of course

:bigrin:

hope you had the same laugh and visuals i did
Rich

[Driver 8]

I dunno - already happened in the netherlands, a civil union between 3 people.
This story has been going around, but it isn't actually true (http://www.freedomtomarry.org/document.asp?id=3506). What inspired the story was a group of three Dutch people in a poly relationship who signed a "cohabitation contract" - but that doesn't confer the same rights as marriage; it's a private arrangement between three people.

Dutch law doesn't have civil unions, btw, although the term has turned up in some of the inaccurate reporting on the subject.

(And for those who love to flame, let me make it clear I'm not saying poly relationships shouldn't have rights - I'm just saying that this isn't an accurate representation of the current state of things in the Netherlands.)