I present without (much) comment the following from the governor of Maine, John E. Baldacci:
“I have followed closely the debate on this issue. I have listened to both sides, as they have presented their arguments during the public hearing and on the floor of the Maine Senate and the House of Representatives. I have read many of the notes and letters sent to my office, and I have weighed my decision carefully,” Governor Baldacci said. “I did not come to this decision lightly or in haste.”
“I appreciate the tone brought to this debate by both sides of the issue,” Governor Baldacci said. “This is an emotional issue that touches deeply many of our most important ideals and traditions. There
are good, earnest and honest people on both sides of the question.”
“In the past, I opposed gay marriage while supporting the idea of civil unions,” Governor Baldacci said. “I have come to believe that this is a question of fairness and of equal protection under the law, and that a civil union is not equal to civil marriage.”
Welcome to the inevitable progress of American society.
Cue wingnut outrage in 3, 2 …
Bravo to Gov. Baldacci!
He had the opportunity to be swayed by his personal feelings – which he has shared on many previous occasions – or to follow the will of the people of Maine and their elected representatives.
He chose the higher road – that he is a servant of the people, not their lord-protector.
Perhaps Gov. Pawlenty can take note when his state's Supreme Court hands down its verdict on Coleman -v- Franken in the coming weeks.
I present this with no comment
http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/?rn=…
I guess the fact that you didn't overtly gloat is supposed to be a blessing, Karl?
I was saddened by this story today, but I don't believe the story is over, either. The Supreme Court of California wasn't actually ruling on gay marriage itself, but on the legality of the ban that was voted upon. They found it legal, but they did uphold the marriages that took place, thank goodness.
The issue will be on the ballot again, and even though sometimes these kinds of civil rights changes move two steps forward and one step back, progress will, thankfully, continue to be made.
I'm a Californian, and, as I keep telling my gay friends, though this particular battle for same sex marriage may have been lost, the war has really already been won. Exit polls on election night clearly showed that younger voters (under 30) were against Prop. 8, and the younger the voters the bigger the majority who opposed it.
Here's a handy graph I found on a libertarian blog (For the record, I'm not a libertarian myself):
http://www.positiveliberty.com/2008/11/prop-8-by-…
Or you can check out California's Capitol Weekly, where back in December, a demographer named Hans Johnson was quoted thusly: “When you look at the age structure, there is no doubt that sometime in the next 10 years, the voters of California will accept, in the majority, gay marriage.” (I'm sure that's a deliberately conservative estimate)
The Capitol Weekly article, by Malcolm MacLachlan, also contains this interesting statistical information: "According to the group Religious Tolerance, 90 percent of Americans disapproved of interracial marriage when it was first legalized by the California Supreme Court in 1948. Nineteen years later, when the U.S. Supreme Court legalized the practice, 72 percent of Americans still disapproved. The magical 50 percent threshold wasn’t crossed until 1991-a change of 50 percentage points in 53 years. [Support for gay marriage is also growing at about a point a year.] Coincidentally, people born in 1991 start voting next year."
http://www.capitolweekly.net/article.php?_adctlid…
Stacy: Those are phenomenal statistics. I didn't realize that attitudes against interracial marriage thrived for so many years.
Mindy,
Absolutely. Prop 8, while perhaps odious, was and is legal, and that is all the court ruled on. Had they overturned it, then everyone would be screaming "Activist Judges! Legislation from the bench!" And they would be right.
Opponents of Prop 8 were blindsided by the Mormons. It was an ugly fight and it in fact wasn't fair in the strictest sense, but there are rules and procedures in this country. We could all learn something from this.
I vented spleen once at a NARAL canvasser soliciting contributions because I was upset over their lethargy immediately after Roe v Wade. I told her I wanted them to buy politicians, just like their opponents, and stop wasting my time with half measures. What ought to have happened immediately after Roe was the nationwide push for state laws upholding Choice. There should have been dozens of initiatives locking it down—instead everyone went home, fat dumb and happy, as if one ruling was the end of it.
It will be the same with this.
I've put up a new post at which to continue this (tangential for here) Proposition 8 discussion: Mormons Win in California, For Now
Enjoy it while it lasts, Karl. Because it won't. The enlightened attitudes that brought down slavery, interracial marriage bans, segregation & child labour will be stronger & more numerous with each succeeding generation of voters, and there's not one thing any raving horde of bigoted bible-bastardising motherfuckers can do about it. This war will be won and this decision upholding Prop 8 is delaying the inevitable. 5/50 will be 50/50 in our lifetime.
From your keyboard to God's ears, Hank!!!
What happened to all of our intellectual rigor and social decorum? Looks like other people's ideas just don't matter to some people.
Even if more states, by one means or another, get to Hanks "more civilized perspective" for a definition of marriage, "Gay" marriage will always have that modifier and qualifier attached to it, sorry if that upsets some people.
I'm not trying to win anything, I've all along just stated what I believe the best definition of marriage should contain. There is that one element missing from any marriage that is entered into with full knowledge that the physical act of fertilization can/will never be a consummated between the partners.
Lessen a perfectly rational definition of a physical, social and legal covenant and you may as well say that the next generation of mechanical sexually interactive devices are going to be your biological parents.
As pleasurable as it may be the parties involved, it is not even what nature fully intends from the physical aspects of why gametes are involved in the process. Separate sex entirely from the possibility of conception between a man and a woman and you do not have the best definition of a marriage.
Those who wish to settle for less should be willing to accept the qualifiers attached to their lessened redefinition.
Karl: It takes a little effort at first, but you can do it. Think marriage, not "interracial marriage," not "gay marriage." You hold the key to your own prison.
Karl, I entered into my marriage, with a man, with the "full knowledge that the physical act of fertilization can/will never be a consummated between the partners."
We both entered into our marriage knowing this fact. I had no uterus. It had been surgically removed, before my marriage, to save my life because I had cancer. No amount of trying could have achieved fertilization, and we both knew that.
Yet we married, in a church, with the blessing of the priest and our families and friends. And even though we ultimately divorced after 14 years, we remain friends and don't regret any of it – especially the daughters we brought into our family.
Should we have had a qualifier? Barren marriage, perhaps?
Karl writes:—"Separate sex entirely from the possibility of conception between a man and a woman and you do not have the best definition of a marriage."
Why? That's like saying those folks, heterosexual, who simply had the "misfortune" of being unable to conceive, by definition have a lesser union. Isn't that a bit presumptuous? Can not the other bases of relationship matter just as much, perhaps even more? What about those folks who are constitutionally incapable of parenting, but nevertheless fall in love and stay in committed relationships? Have they had lesser marriages? And sticking with them for a moment more, the same sorts who, because they bow to social pressure (and there is a LOT of social pressure to have kids, especially at a young age, 20 to 30), have children the presence of which destroys the initial relationship because the parents, other than biological requirements, simply don't have the personal capacity to parent? Would they in any way have met the standard of a fulfilled marriage simply because they reproduced?
On the flip side, I must admit that, to my mind, the only reason to enter into modern marriage as we know it, is simply for the all the legal ramifications and for the benefit of the children. But that's social and legal, not spiritual or moral. Had we opted to have kids, there is no question that we would have gotten married with full court splendor. But only for the legal protections.
Your critique presumes there is a "complete package" involved in marriage that necessarily includes kids. It undervalues all the other aspects of such unions and discounts the shortcomings for many people of completing that package. Which would indicate that your opening assumptions are flawed.
Intellectually rigorous enough for you?
If a Eunich had attempted a marriage in the past that could have been called a sexual expressionship, the degree of that commitment to be called a marriage would have been compromised, but the intent to raise adopted children within a typical heterosexual marriage standard would not lessen the degree of commitment to the ideals of marriage.
Karl, did you know that homosexual behavior is COMPLETELY natural for many animals, including Humans?
Even though "gametes are not involved in the process", homosexuality is still a VITAL part of Mother Nature's plan.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_disp…
Are you calling me a eunich?! Wow. That's a first.
So if we'd entered into our marriage comfortable in the knowledge that we could not have children the old-fashioned way and therefore would remain contentedly childless, we'd have had "less" a marriage? But adoption made it OK because we were heterosexual? Oh. Well. Glad you cleared that up for me.
The term eunuch is biased towards males, maybe they need special rights so females aren't excluded from the group.
I suppose the analogy was missed because of the shock value. The simple facts are that a sterile human still possesses some degree of a sexual drive is obvious. That any person should be deprived of the rights to raise children for this reason is also wrong. That a person should however wish to think sexual expressions of such a person can unite two people into one flesh as in "the two shall become one" is not even wishful thinking.
Mindy, I was not calling you a female eunuch. I do not seek to deride anyone or any group of people other than myself and the groups I consider myself to be apart of. I am not a eunuch and I was not deriding anyone else who is.
In "pre-medical" days it was obvious why certain males couldn't have children. Cruel masters or benevolent kings could make males into eunuchs. Sexual criminals were often castrated to keep them out of some of their own harms way.
I was describing the simple physical impossibility of a eunuch to consumate a marriage, and raise children of their own biological origin.
If all we want to believe is that the ideal of marriage can be anything short of that the entire standard should be dropped entirely since it is biased against some people from day one, or two etc…
Which I guess is what most gay and lesbian organizations are all about when it comes right down to it.
A state-issued marriage license has nothing to do with whether a couple has children. The state certainly doesn't require children to be married. On the other hand, many religions urge couples couples to have many children.
I think that it's once again important to distinguish between A) the bundle of legal rights associated with "marriages" recognized by governments (which is content neutral regarding child bearing) and B) the attitudes of many religions toward marriage. To fail to make this distinction, as Karl is doing, confuses the conversation.
If a religion wants to preach that 80-year old couples don't have REAL or MEANINGFUL marriages, that is their prerogative. In the eyes of state governments, though, if you qualify for a license and there was a wedding, that is that. Marriages don't differ in DEGREE or QUALITY in the eyes of the state. If you're legally married with children, it is not somehow a BETTER marriage (in the eyes of the state) than a marriage without children.
Those who are opposed to gay marriage conflate these two approaches. I think that this dispute can be largely resolved if we make state marriage licenses available to all couples, gay or straight. Then, for those wanting to add "God" or a duty to have children to the definition of marriage, they are welcome to have their marriage ceremony in their church, so that they can then declare to the world that, yes, their marriage is valid pursuant to their state government, but it is also a "marriage in the eyes of God," or however they want to frame it. Then they would be free to go strutting around bragging that their marriages are "better" because they are "blessed by God," or that their have a more meaningful marriage because their church encourages them to have children. They are, of course, free, to go around engaging in whatever divisive activity they choose. The First Amendment certainly allows pointless speech and divisive speech. And equally important, the First Amendment prohibits governments from taking sides on religious issues. Whether a marriage is better because it is approved by "God" is a religious issue.
But, Karl, go read the marriage laws of any state. There is no suggestion that a marriage is "better" because a couple can reproduce or does reproduce.
Karl’s idea of what makes a marriage complete also belittles marriages between older individuals (some of whom are widows/widowers, and can in no way be faulted for marrying past the point of fertility).
The two shall become one flesh.
A marriage that loses or tries to refute this principal is missing a significant part of the fabric and functionality. You might wish to call something less than heterosexual marriage with the intention of conceiving and raising children as perfectly fine. Others have a right to hold that other lesser concepts are not equal, that may sound crude and uncaring, but that's just the physical realities of the definition.
Trying to change the definition puts qualifiers upon the ideal.
Any marriage that loses sight of the fact that nature designed heterosexual gametes to become one flesh are sorely trying to make the natural world into something it is not.
Karl, once again you are placing our LAWS into the framework of the Christian bible – which is FORBIDDEN by our constitution. I realize that many laws do, in fact, coincide with ideals from that book, just as many laws coincide with the holy books of all religions. Because the underlying ethical code by which most of humanity lives is the same, regardless of which religion believes it came up with an idea first.
Religions want their members to go forth and multiply so that more little zealots can be raised. But that has nothing to do with laws. Westerners are appalled at laws like China's one-child policy, for instance, wherein the government involves itself in something we see as highly private and individual – the choice of family size. The number of children, from zero to way too many, is not, in our culture, any business of the state.
If a religion encourages kids, then great. People who choose not to have children, straight or gay, should marry in a church not quite so judgmental of lifestyle choices. And many churches, I assure you, will ultimately welcome and perform gay marriages, as some already do, because they are open-minded enough to understand that mutual, committed relationships born of love are to be celebrated, regardless of their manifestation.
We hold up, as our cultural ideal, a two-parent, heterosexual couple with at least two children, hopefully one of each, a girl and a boy. Healthy. That is all fine and good, except that ideals and reality quite often just don't match up.
For example, time was when adoptees weren't told of their adoptions, and adoption wasn't discussed, because the prevailing belief was that a facade of a "typical" nuclear family was better for them than the truth. We now know how incredibly wrong and damaging that really was. Adoptees, who are nurtured with honesty and openness about their adoptions, are growing up to be incredibly resilient and emotionally healthy adults – now that secrecy is no longer prevails. As a culture, we've learned from our mistakes and corrected accordingly.
I have no desire to refute every single exception to an ideal. The same can be said for other ideals as well. Just scrub the concepts of ideals or altruisms entirely and then we can settle for the reality of what others think of any attempt to have any ideals.
Should the ideals of love be redefined into secular terms so that obvious selfishness is regarded as loving? (Is there someone that comes to mind?)
Should the ideals of peace be redefined into secular terms so that obvious aggressors are regarded as peaceful? (Is there someone that comes to mind?)
Should the ideals of joy be redefined into secular terms so that obvious malcontents are regarded as joyful? (Is there someone that comes to mind?)
Go ahead, describe every possible time and way that people get married with questions or uncertainties, hopes or doubts as to whether they can/will have children.
These physical realities, moral issues and value laden aspects of marriages are really based upon ideals that leave out a portion of what a full complete marriage can involve.
Having to settle for less in specific circumstances is not wrong, telling others it's okay to settle for less is like saying "I can't" or "I won't." This could be as much an attitude and a matter of will than a physical reality.
Civil Unions are basically trying to be secular and religious free constructs while marriages traditionally have been religious.
If people can not be satisfied with the options of what a civil union has to offer, then it is clear that they have more than the legalities and acceptance of secular principles in mind. They want to change the religious connotations ascribed to marriage by others than justices of the peace.
I have said over and over that civil unions will end up being legal documents that may give approval for peoples sexual relationships. Not all civil unions can be called marriages until the state starts promoting one form of religious interpretation over another.
Its clear Erich that you seek to turn a religious article of faith to many people into a secular one size fits all faithless legal construct that means less to the religious but much more to the secularists because of the degree it lowers the ideals of marriage for the religious.
In this matter atheists that claim to be irreligious are supporting the religious who wish to change the definition of the religion of others.
Karl, what the heck are you talking about? Marriage has never been exclusively a religious event. Traditionally, yes, the marriage ceremony has taken place in a church – or a synagogue, etc. It is not a Christian entity. And lots of people who marry in a church for tradition's sake don't look at their marriage as a religious entity. It is a union – period. You assume that your God won't "bless" a gay union, even if the couple in question believes and wants a church wedding. I assume your God is banging his holy forehead on his giant desk and saying, "No, no, NO! That is not what I said!" Because He is loving and honors love above all else.
As for this load of nonsense:
"Should the ideals of love be redefined into secular terms so that obvious selfishness is regarded as loving? (Is there someone that comes to mind?)
Should the ideals of peace be redefined into secular terms so that obvious aggressors are regarded as peaceful? (Is there someone that comes to mind?)
Should the ideals of joy be redefined into secular terms so that obvious malcontents are regarded as joyful? (Is there someone that comes to mind?)"
What on earth is all that supposed to mean? Why would defining love in secular terms make selfishness loving? What does not engaging any particular religion have to do with selfishness? What does not engaging any particular religion have to do with aggressive malcontents?
This makes absolutely zero sense. You obviously do not have a clue what 'secular' means, Karl.
Mindy
Regarding your response to Karl. Karl is absolutely right on target. You on the otherhand are terribly confused. I believe you have it backwards with regard to the constiution. The framers (including Jefferson's letter) was wrtiten to forbid governement from interfering with the bible (and the Church); since the constitution was originally based upon Christian foundations and values.
Secondly, lets look at this with simple logic.
Where do we get politics from? Ans: Laws.
Where do we get Laws from? Ans: Ethics.
Where do we our Ethics from? Ans: Morality
Who is the Moral Law Giver? Ans; Obvious!
-Rich
Rich12019: I will send $250 to you if you simply point to the place where the Bible is mentioned in the Constitution. Just point to the place and send me your mailing address.
You are correct that there is often an intertwined history of religion/morality/law/politics in many cultures, but you are absolutely wrong about the founding documents of the U.S. being for the purpose of protecting "the Bible." By the way, which Bible? I have some serious reservations about your ability to research the topics on which you've opined.
Rich12019 – you're joking, right? Oh, please say you are joking. Otherwise, I might have to accept that someone, somewhere, taught such flapdoodle to innocent children. Where did you go to school? Where did you learn your history?
You are flat-out WRONG. Our constitution was specifically NOT based on anyone's bible. Our founding fathers left Britain because they did not want to be ruled by the church. They sought to establish a government that would NOT be influenced or run by ANY religion, but would allow ALL religions to be celebrated by their members. Our constitution was based on common morality and human need – which existed long before the bible was written. Have you ever heard of Plato, Socrates or perhaps Aristotle? They chatted a bit about ethics and morality back in their day. Might be a good read for you.
You obviously have access to a computer. Please, do share some links so that we can see your sources for this little bit of fact-folly you've inserted here.
Mindy is posting liberal talking points, the sort of stuff being taught in schools about religion and politics by anti-religious, often atheistic folks with their own agenda to tear down the religious foundation of our laws, ethics, and morality.
People with a belief in religion do not rate their government as the most important influence in their lives, and this irks liberals who want government to be the one and only source for laws, ethics, etc. The founders drew on their religious beliefs to develop the declaration of independence, the constitution, and idea of justice and fairness.
But liberals want to redefine many things in the law, not just the definition of marriage. This is why religion has been historically eliminated by socialist and dictatorial governments. It is also why liberals want to eliminate religious influence completely, because it then makes government more important than some long-standing religious ideas. The Governor seems to have this position. Rather than deal with the morality of gay marriage from a religious perspective, it is easier to ignore religious beliefs altogether, and rule in favor of votes, power, and the importance of individuals in government to make decisions based on political correctness (expediency and power) rather than to understand the historical source of our laws and ethics, which came from religious beliefs, not from individuals promoting extant beliefs that served their own moment in time.
Gay marriage is an oxymoron. It is an attempt by the few to dictate the new meanings of words and concepts, to tear down what has served us well as a human race for thousands of years, so they can exercise their sexual urges toward those of the same sex, something that was considered illegal years ago. By pushing out religion, and filling the vacuum their own self-serving belief system they are the new liberal zealots, not those who understand the source of our laws. This is why Ann Coulter rightly tagged liberalism as a religion, it has all the attributes of long-standing religions, but the ethical foundation is new, it is moral relativism, it is do whatever makes you feel good, etc.
The liberal zealots are the fanatics who have adopted this church of Liberalism, a belief system that wishes to trump long standing religious beliefs. To them, nothing is absolutely okay, or absolutely wrong, and they are pushing this belief system on the rest of the country in an effort to substitute their own newly discovered "rights" to do whatever suits them.
The next thing we can expect, given this move to gay marriage, is an argument for three-way marriage, or why not a marriage between a farm animal and a human? What's wrong with that, if it makes the human happy, the liberal moral relativists would probably say "Gee, sounds okay to me" and without a solid foundation in morality and ethics, they could sell this warped view of marriage to the unsuspecting relativists like the Governor, who's analysis appears to be little more than to be based on political vote getting and popularity in a vocal group trying to promote "gay" marriage.
Religion looks down on gay behavior, so gay promoters have only one goal — eliminate religious beliefs. They are doing this with the aid of the ACLU, and with help from politicians who's major interest is reelection at any cost. Once you understand that gay marriage is being forced on many free countries by the liberal fanatics with an agenda to remove religion from societies, then you will understand almost everything they say and do to accomplish this goal.
Well, Rich, I just read the entire Constitution. No mention, anywhere, of God, Christ or the Bible. The single mention of religion is in the First Amendment. I read Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists, in which he first described the Wall of Separation between Church and State – and no, he does not discuss, in any way, our government protecting the Bible or Christian values. He verifies that religion is a private matter between a man and his God, and that the government should do NOTHING regarding establishing religion – as that is not its purpose.
I am assuming that was the letter you were talking about, but if it is another, please do share.
In addition, I want to understand what you mean when you say that "politics comes from laws." I don't quite follow that.