As Maine goes ….
… so goes the country.
At least that’s what they used to say. Somehow, I think it’ll be a long time before certain other states follow Maine’s example.
AUGUSTA, Maine — Maine’s governor signed a freshly passed bill Wednesday approving gay marriage, making it the fifth state to approve the practice and moving New England closer to allowing it throughout the region.
New Hampshire legislators were also poised to send a gay marriage bill to their governor, who hasn’t indicated whether he’ll sign it. If he does, Rhode Island would be the region’s sole holdout.
The Maine Senate voted 21-13, with one absent, for a bill that authorizes marriage between any two people rather than between one man and one woman, as state law currently allows. The House had passed the bill Tuesday.
Democratic Gov. John Baldacci, who hadn’t previously indicated how he would handle the bill, signed it shortly afterward. In the past, he said he opposed gay marriage but supported civil unions, which provide many benefits of marriage.
However, with five states having now approved gay marriage, a major constitutional test seems inevitable.
Under the Defense of Marriage Act, passed in 1996, states are not required to recognize same-sex marriages that might be legal in other states. Georgia, for example, could and no doubt would refuse to recognize the marriage of a gay couple who wed in Maine and moved to Atlanta.
However, there’s an obvious tension if not contradiction between that law and the Constitution, which requires states to give “Full Faith and Credit … to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.” It would be interesting to watch an allegedly “strict constructionist” Supreme Court twist and turn trying to redefine that language to halt gay marriage from going national.
In many ways, though, the fight is pretty much over — the culture and the law are both changing with amazing speed. For example, I have strong doubts that the Defense of Marriage Act would be passed today — even its chief sponsor back in the day, former U.S. Rep. Bob Barr of Georgia, has since apologized for his role and urged its repeal.
And as Barr goes, so goes the country. At least on this one issue.
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Guides
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2009 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
269 comments Add your comment
Mrs. Godzilla
May 6th, 2009
4:08 pm
FABULOUS!
I Report/ You Whine
May 6th, 2009
4:13 pm
It does get cold up there.
ew
Waronxmas
May 6th, 2009
4:17 pm
Don’t worry Whiner, you won’t have to move. Eventually you’ll be able to marry your beau right here in Georgia too
Smootches!
RW-(the original)
May 6th, 2009
4:19 pm
It’s funny how when we used to debate the merits of a Constitutional Amendment defining marriage the conservatives that supported an amendment would say it was because DOMA would never be able to justify itself in a legal challenge due to the “full faith and credit clause.”
Of course that argument was roundly pooh poohed by the liberals here and now that it’s obvious the conservatives were right Jay B comes along and acts like it’s some big lib revelation.
Note: I’m not using “here” as Jay B’s blog, I’m defining “here” as the AJC.
RW-(the original)
May 6th, 2009
4:21 pm
Cool! I didn’t even use the word “here” but it was supposed to be between “marriage” and “the” in line 2.
(IHB)
getalife
May 6th, 2009
4:22 pm
Well, Oklahoma has voted for sovereignty:
“Oklahoma legislatures expected to declare
its sovereignty from the United States
——————————————————————————–
Although Gov. Brad Henry vetoed similar legislation 10 days earlier, House members have again approved a resolution claiming Oklahoma’s sovereignty. This one does not need the governor’s approval. The state Senate is expected to agree some time soon.”
I doubt they will pass this law.
Reebok
May 6th, 2009
4:40 pm
Women’s rights, Civil rights, now Gay rights…the arc of history inevitably moves towards equality. Next up, New Hampshire.
RW-(the original)
May 6th, 2009
4:47 pm
Despite the link not sounding like it the following is safe for work.
Iowahawk’s exclusive topless photos of infamous homophobic hatemonger who has the audacity to publicly oppose gay marriage and who hypocritically professes to be a Christian.
ByteMe
May 6th, 2009
4:47 pm
RW: Even if it became a state constitutional amendment, the Constitution of the United States would trump… same as it did back in Jim Crow’s day.
We are fam-il-y!
ByteMe
May 6th, 2009
4:49 pm
RW: Turns out they’re pretty sure that the semi-nude photos and interviews without approval means she will get her Miss CA crown taken from her. It’s all in the pageant contract that she signed.
I guess she needed to be a bigger martyr.
RW-(the original)
May 6th, 2009
4:49 pm
BM,
Who said anything about a state constitution?
RW-(the original)
May 6th, 2009
4:53 pm
BM,
Who said anything about a her?
Taxpayer
May 6th, 2009
4:56 pm
Now, you just wait one minute. Listen to me because I’ve got something to teach you, teach you about yet another Republican that his bit the dust and licked Rush’s boots clean again. hehehe
Now, what has Rush taught you guys to say to the public about gay marriage. Surely he has an educational message for you to deliver to the people on that topic on his behalf. What has he instructed you guys to teach the people. By the way Rush, those are some mighty spit-shined shoes you’re sporting. How do you do it.
ty webb
May 6th, 2009
4:59 pm
RW,
great link. Funny how the left never criticizes the “hate” or “intolerance” from their own side.
RealityKing
May 6th, 2009
5:02 pm
And yet, some still wonder why the south looks down at the moraless north and west. Not to mention that most of those here in the south are, like Jay, actually from the north and west. So according to Jay statistics, everyone that grew up in the south hates the moraless big cities or most of those that moved here do..
@@
May 6th, 2009
5:03 pm
Eeewwww
Puff Pasties.
georgian by birth floridian because I'm lucky
May 6th, 2009
5:07 pm
Mrs. Godzilla,
I just read that you do not approve of my name.
Sorry I will consider altering it to something stolen like an old movie.
I guess a tough name like Godzilla would be useful.
You are quite cold-blooded though so I guess it fits.
Was not being snarky this morning either.
getalife
May 6th, 2009
5:11 pm
Well, whiner is already taken.
I Report :-) / You Whine :-(
May 6th, 2009
5:18 pm
Don’t worry Whiner, you won’t have to move. Eventually you’ll be able to marry your beau right here in Georgia too
Smootches!
I don’t swing on the limb, Nancy, but thanks for asking.
~~~~~
Women’s rights, Civil rights, now Gay rights…the arc of history inevitably moves towards equality. Next up, New Hampshire.
So how do you blacks feel about your struggle for freedom being compared to sexual deviancy?
Hahhahahaahahahaha, aahhh, yes, one day you will learn about these liberals.
Maybe.
Dennis
May 6th, 2009
5:22 pm
It is a state issue so if the residents of Maine or Iowa or where ever don’t like it they can indicate that at the next election.
Although it will directly not impact me, I will vote no if the question is asked in Georgia. I favor some other mechanism.
Meanwhile it will be interesting when the divorces, alimony demands, home ownership, retirement accounts and other battles over material things hit the courts.
It will be sad though when the fights over children begin. I fear morality issues will be prevalent in those battles. I hope not, but people are people.
Midori
May 6th, 2009
5:23 pm
Ty,
why do you assume a liberal did that?
that sounds like something up your party’s alley.
regardless — another big boobed hypocrite bites the dust.
and another one down,
and another one down,
another one bites the dust!
I Report :-) / You Whine :-(
May 6th, 2009
5:23 pm
The issue: Atlanta officials fear their $4 billion sewer overhaul will unravel because of difficulty borrowing the money they need to keep it going. So far Atlanta has borrowed more than $2.6 billion for the program.-Urinal
Borrowed?
Borrowed?
I thought the Atl was the tax paying champions of the county in which they pollute?
They whine about Marta, they whine about Grady now they whine about their Urinal’s.
eewwwww.
Midori
May 6th, 2009
5:23 pm
now, if only a state would make it legal to marry rubber women……..
Midori
May 6th, 2009
5:24 pm
and Andy just whines.
Period.
N.J,
May 6th, 2009
5:29 pm
Good News all you tax haters. Just heard on the radio that the state may have to raise taxes because of unemployment. There are almost ten percent fewer tax payers
RW-(the original)
May 6th, 2009
5:34 pm
Midori,
You may want to click that link at 4:47 and see just who the big boobed hypocrite is before you continue spitting on the grave.
georgian by birth floridian because I'm lucky
May 6th, 2009
5:37 pm
Midori,
Ahhhahahahahahahaha, way to look at the link.
Or are you prepared now to actually call Obama a hypocrite now too.
ty webb
May 6th, 2009
5:37 pm
Midori,
If you had clicked on RW’s link(You know, the blue words) you would realize how ignorant your 5:23 post is. And I don’t have a party. Sorry. Just wanted to point out the left’s hypocrisy.
Kamchak
May 6th, 2009
5:37 pm
Spoiler alert
It’s Obama at the beach
Mike
May 6th, 2009
5:39 pm
Is it still a “wedge issue” when liberals talk about it?
ty webb
May 6th, 2009
5:39 pm
Some people are just so ready to fire that they forget to load the gun.
GayGrayGeek
May 6th, 2009
5:40 pm
Dennis @ 5:22 – You’ve obviously moved to Georgia sometime after 2004, right? The Republican’t’s and their Talibaptist followers pushed a Marriage “Protection” Amendment to the Georgia state constitution that year, so there’s nothing left for you to vote on.
DoggoneGA
May 6th, 2009
5:41 pm
“Meanwhile it will be interesting when the divorces, alimony demands, home ownership, retirement accounts and other battles over material things hit the courts.
It will be sad though when the fights over children begin. I fear morality issues will be prevalent in those battles. I hope not, but people are people”
Why do you think it will be any different from the same issues that confront a “traditional” couple when THEY get divorced?
I Report :-) / You Whine :-(
May 6th, 2009
5:41 pm
Aahhh, yes, an atmosphere of love pervades under the cover of the “big tent-”
Democrats said that while unrelated, Specter’s comments to the New York Times Magazine this weekend indicating he would support former Sen. Norm Coleman’s (R-Minn.) disputed re-election bid against Al Franken have angered many Democrats.
“Sen. Specter better watch comments like these. They won’t help him in the caucus,” a Democratic leadership aide said, adding that the comments have “caused a lot of heartburn in the caucus.”
Catfight!
Grrrrrrrrr, hissssssss, hisssssss.
hahahahahahaha, made for each other.
GayGrayGeek
May 6th, 2009
5:42 pm
Meanwhile, my hubby and I will just stay here in Canada where we have full civil rights as a couple until DOMA is struck down and our civil marriage is recognized in all 50 states. Until then, my batty, crazy aunt in the coalfields of West Virginia will have more “say” over me and my welfare than my husband of 15 years (as of May 25
).
pat
May 6th, 2009
5:43 pm
Every where gay marriage has been put to a vote it has been shot down in flames. Bottom line, the people don’t want it so it will not happen in the end. Not even obama supports gay marriage.
The main problem I have, aside from Maine, is that most of the time the mandate has come from the judicial branch. I.E. it is legislation from the bench, which is a problem. As congress does not have the right to hold court, nor does the judicial branch have the right to legislate. In other words in places where it has been put to a vote and shot down, the judicial branch came in on their white horse and overrode the will of the people…That may be fine for things you agree with, but what happens when they do it to something you don’t? It’s a slippery slope.
I think it will die, because I believe ultimately, since the vast population does not support gay marriage, it will go by the way side. In the meantime judges must not be permitted to legislate, whatever the issue is.
Now that being said I’ll cut yall a deal. I’ll support gay marriage, hell I’ll support polygamous gay marriage, hell I’ll support bestial marriage with an inbred goat, hang a rainbow flag outside my house and everything thing if you stop kill babies. You help stop the murder of unborn and just born children and I will support gay marriage with full fury. Deal?
zip
May 6th, 2009
5:43 pm
I lived in Maine for a few years. I knew some hetero couples that looked like same sex couple. Really hairy ones. Scary.
ByteMe
May 6th, 2009
5:45 pm
Yes, pat, and in every southern state where mixed-race marriage was put to a vote… oh, never mind, you probably will think “it’s different this time.”
I Report :-) / You Whine :-(
May 6th, 2009
5:47 pm
Oh well, at least lawmakers are redoubling their oversight efforts, right? Wrong. The Washington Times reports that when the House Committee on Science and Technology’s subcommittee on investigations and oversight held hearings on the matter, “Just three of the 10 members bothered to show up for the subcommittee’s second meeting, dramatically titled ‘Follow the Money Part II.’ “
Maybe they know what’s happening with the Porkulus Money and really, really don’t want to “know” what is happening with the Porkulus Money.
Plausible denial, eewwww
Dave R
May 6th, 2009
5:49 pm
“Marriage” should be what is allowed by a church, not by a government. It should be between you and your God, not your state and/or Federal Government. The only role Government should have is defining whether someone is old enough to marry and take on that responsibility.
That being said, anything that keeps another lib like GayGrayGeek in Canada can’t be all that bad . . .
DoggoneGA
May 6th, 2009
5:51 pm
“You help stop the murder of unborn and just born children and I will support gay marriage with full fury. Deal?”
Contracts with the demonstrably insane are not legally binding.
Kamchak
May 6th, 2009
5:52 pm
The blue word link about big boobs was taxpayer’s @4:56
Who will be the next supplicant to the visage, voice, and vestige of the Republican party?
ty webb
May 6th, 2009
5:54 pm
ggg,
What rights do I have as a heterosexual male in Georgia, that a homosexual male in georgia doesn’t have?
Taxpayer
May 6th, 2009
5:55 pm
Christianity Today: In the last month, same-sex marriage has become legal in Iowa and Vermont. What do you think about same-sex marriage at a state level?
Wurzelbacher: At a state level, it’s up to them. I don’t want it to be a federal thing. I personally still think it’s wrong. People don’t understand the dictionary–it’s called queer. Queer means strange and unusual. It’s not like a slur, like you would call a white person a honky or something like that. You know, God is pretty explicit in what we’re supposed to do–what man and woman are for. Now, at the same time, we’re supposed to love everybody and accept people, and preach against the sins. I’ve had some friends that are actually homosexual. And, I mean, they know where I stand, and they know that I wouldn’t have them anywhere near my children. But at the same time, they’re people, and they’re going to do their thing.
In the vein of George W. Bush and Michael Steele, Joe the Plumber also indicated that he wouldn’t run for public office until the Lord had given him a cue. “God hasn’t said, ‘Joe, I want you to run.’ I feel more important to just encourage people to get involved, one way or another. If I can inspire some leaders, that would be great.” Joe added: “I don’t know if I want to be a leader.” – Colorado Independent
DoggoneGA
May 6th, 2009
5:56 pm
““Marriage” should be what is allowed by a church, not by a government”
Marriage is, and has ALWAYS BEEN, a legal contract bound by the laws of THE GOVERNMENT. It primarily exists to protect the legal rights of children and either spouse in the inheritance of property in the event one of the spouses dies…or for the protection of the childrens inheritance should both parents die.
It is HOLY MATRIMONY that is a “church marriage.” You can be married in any church you choose, that will agree to marry you, but if the presiding clergyperson does not sign that marriage license, you are NOT LEGALLY MARRIED. And until you GET a signed marriage license you will not be legally married…no matter how much your chosen church asserts that you have entered into a state of holy matrimony. It still ain’t a marriage until it’s legal.
DoggoneGA
May 6th, 2009
5:57 pm
“What rights do I have as a heterosexual male in Georgia, that a homosexual male in georgia doesn’t have?”
I can’t believe someone STILL has to ask that question. YOU have the right to legally marry the person you love. A homosexual man does not have that right.
maxwell
May 6th, 2009
6:00 pm
Gay marriage..
Personally I don’t know if it’s a good thing or bad. What I do know it doesn’t effect me in the least. So in my humble opinion…have at it!
fearless fosdick
May 6th, 2009
6:06 pm
Ty … Isn’t it time for your nap? As the day wears on your comments become downright stupid!
“What rights do I have as a heterosexual male in Georgia, that a homosexual male in georgia doesn’t have?
HarDeHarHar…You’re not serious are you Ty?
DoggoneGA
May 6th, 2009
6:06 pm
“Personally I don’t know if it’s a good thing or bad. What I do know it doesn’t effect me in the least. So in my humble opinion…have at it!”
That’s really the whole point…and why FINALLY same-sex marriage is beginning to be legally recognized. It’s NO ONE’S business, but the couple’s and the government’s.
Mike
May 6th, 2009
6:12 pm
“YOU have the right to legally marry the person you love. A homosexual man does not have that right.”
Well, in a more literal way, he has the right to marry a woman. A homosexual man has the same right.
What you are talking about changing the definition of marriage.
maxwell
May 6th, 2009
6:15 pm
Mike .. Please enlighten me. Where is that definition of marriage carved…and, as a bonus who carved it?
Just curious……
Midori
May 6th, 2009
6:17 pm
ok, you’ve got me. I didn’t click on the link. So sue me.
I just assumed that’s what the conversation was about. Again, sue me.
However, if the world were powered on ignorance, Ty and his howling pack of brothers in arms would very shortly end any and all energy crisis experienced in the country.
Redneck Convert
May 6th, 2009
6:17 pm
Well, it’s for dang sure Maine ain’t a place I want to go on vacation. Or Iowa neither. This all started when they let Those People marry White people. Next thing we see will be men lined up to marry goats or horses or cows. Like the fellow wrote in the AJC a few decades ago, Why do the heathen rage?
Bunch of preverts. Have a good night everybody.
getalife
May 6th, 2009
6:17 pm
cons lost another one but the young are turning away from religion.
After they have witnessed all the hatred and hypocrisy, who can blame them.
Midori
May 6th, 2009
6:18 pm
P.P.S. — I’ve learned the hard way not to click on wing nut links.
N.J,
May 6th, 2009
6:18 pm
What I find amusing about those who attempt to assert that Leviticus in the Bible says that homosexuality is an abomination is that while the passages which appear to by anti-gay in the bible are the result of translation and are not necessarily so in the original greek,aramaic or hebrew. There are some translations which do not at all directly refer to all homosexuality but rather to a particular sex act which at the time was ritual prostitution committed in the pagan temples. In the original languages, the sections which are said to be prohibiting male homosexuality are very close in meaning to the sections which prohibit pagan ritual prostitution.
There is a lot of historical circumstance to back this up because the Talmud which is a record of rabbinical discussions pertaining to Jewish law, ethics, custom, and history, basically the commentary of ancient Jewish rabbis and scholars over centuries, only makes very minor mentions of homosexuality. There no case or discussion in this very exhaustive commentary and there are a few extremely minor mentions of homosexulity, no ancient gay Jew is brought before the community of scholars to be tried for homosexuality anad stoned to death, though we know that there were plenty of cases where people were brought forth for rulings on many other matters, including adultery. One would suppose with all the recording of people being stoned for adultery, as well as all of the records that exist about the concerns of the Jews that too many of their young were becoming too secularly Hellenistic at the time, there would be some record somewhere of someone being brought before a rabbinical court for engaging in homosexual acts. There aint none.
The discussions of it by the medieval commentators Tosefat and Asheri interpret it as meaning that it would be an abomination for a man to leave his wife and family to engage in a relationship with another man. The Talmud is almost completely silent about lesbianism. The only reference that is found is that a woman who has relations with another woman is not allowed to marry a Kohen, or a member of the priestly family.
What is known historically is that even among the ancient Jewish scholars, there was considerable argument about the prohibition Leviticus, and there was also considerable tolerance among the ancient Hebrews for gays. There was a little less toleration during the periods when the Greeks and Romans had conquered the area, but this was more intolerance of Greeks and Romans than homosexuals. The religious teachers and rabbis were concerned that young jews were becoming too hellenisticly inclined and leaving the religion of their parents.
As far as modern times go, since the ancients who lived under these rules a lot more frequently were not of a single mind or opinion on it, applying our own meaning to it is a little arrogant.
Actually DOMA has never actually faced a real legal challenge. I suppose the fact that the entire basis for DOMA is religious, and not social, it would also be a first amendment issue (the idea of “traditional marriage is almost absurd…there is no such thing, and historically, our current form of marriage is rather the exception than the rule. There have been many different views and forms of marriage thoughout history, throughout the world and more imporantly throughout western civilization even after it became Christian civilization. The legal convention of a single wife is relatively recent, even in the Christian world. In the medieval days it was not uncommon for nobles to have multiple wives, one in each one of the territories he held)
Tom
May 6th, 2009
6:18 pm
And the weak-minded Republiscum are absolutely threatened and terrified of this subject. All those “tough” gun guys and hunters and sports geeks
…you know, your average neighbor.
Mike
May 6th, 2009
6:20 pm
maxwell –
It’s not carved anywhere that I am aware of. It was written as law many moons ago as such. Webster’s dictionary defines is as:
“the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.”
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/marriage
I am disputing the contention that there is anything that a homosexual man is prohibited from doing anything that a heterosexual man is allowed to. They can both marry a woman.
DoggoneGA
May 6th, 2009
6:22 pm
“Well, in a more literal way, he has the right to marry a woman. A homosexual man has the same right.
What you are talking about changing the definition of marriage”
So? Marriage is a legally binding contract between 2 persons. A same-sex couple is 2 persons, just as is an opposite-sex couple. There’s nothing sacred about a legal marriage, and our Constitution protects the equal rights of ALL persons. So, and it will eventually be recognized nationwide, all persons have the right to marry the person they love…equal protection for ALL PERSONS.
Mike
May 6th, 2009
6:22 pm
Tom –
“And the weak-minded Republiscum are absolutely threatened and terrified of this subject. All those “tough” gun guys and hunters and sports geeks
…you know, your average neighbor.”
Wow, that’s a lot of anger. I guess that is the sign of a “strong-minded” person,
Do you boil down everyone into silly stereotypes, or just the people who dare not to vote the way that you do?
Also, do you say these things to your neighbors’ faces? Or do you just talk this way when you are anonymous?
DoggoneGA
May 6th, 2009
6:24 pm
“I am disputing the contention that there is anything that a homosexual man is prohibited from doing anything that a heterosexual man is allowed to. They can both marry a woman”
A gay person cannot marry the person they love. YOU can.
SuperDave
May 6th, 2009
6:24 pm
I’ll ask this again since no one answered it last time.
How exactly does gay marriage infringe on anyone’s constitutional rights, or freedoms?
Anyone, anyone?
Give me one, just one, non-religious argument why two consenting adults should not be allowed to enter into a legal marriage.
Mrs. Godzilla
May 6th, 2009
6:25 pm
Georgia by birth, etc.
new here? (that “cold blooded” remark makes that obvious) Nice to have you join us.
I never saw Mrs. Godzilla vs. Mothra, can I borrow your copy of the dvd?
I most certainly did not say I did not approve of your name. What you read was that I thought it was too long and silly. I suspect you think mine is silly as well, but it has a great sentimental value in my family’s life. (you can’t imagine the giggles when the young ‘Zillettes heard “Godzilla, party of five your table’s ready)
As to being tough, oh my yes! Thank you. No namby pamby I. Thanks for noticing.
I disagree, I thought you were snarky. Frankly I can snark with the best of them myself! I got my Snarkasm merit badge from the Order of Obama myself.
……
I am so glad that “teh gays” are seeing such progress in attaining their full civil rights. It is a good thing.
Mike
May 6th, 2009
6:25 pm
DoggoneGA –
” Marriage is a legally binding contract between 2 persons”
Well, in five states that is true. In the rest, marriage is between a man and a woman. The five states that legalized gay marriage redefined marriage.
As the NYT said in the case of the Maine bill:
“Mr. Baldacci announced his decision to sign the bill about an hour after the State Senate gave final passage to the bill, which would codify marriage as a legally recognized union of two people regardless of their sex.”
ty webb
May 6th, 2009
6:26 pm
Fosdick,
Nice name calling. I am serious. You obviously have nothing important to add.
DoggoneGA,
It’s quiete simple.I don’t have any rights that any other male in georgia doesn’t have. I can marry whoever I like as long as that person is: of legal age, not related to me, and is of the opposite sex. The laws regulating marriage are applied equally. Semantics aside, I could care less about gay marriage. I’m all for letting homosexuals marry. I don’t believe it affects me at all if two people of the same sex love each other and want to marry. The whole equal rights arguement just doesn’t add up. I can’t marry a man, and neither can a homosexual male.
DoggoneGA
May 6th, 2009
6:27 pm
“I’ll ask this again since no one answered it last time.”
You aren’t holding your breath I hope. I’ve seen this discussed numerous times, on numerous forums and I’ve yet to see and anti-same-sex marriage proponent answer that question.
Nor can they intelligently answer these questions:
Why will the marriage of a gay couple affect YOUR marriage to the person you love?
And why will same-sex marriages affect YOUR marriage to the person you love?
Mike
May 6th, 2009
6:28 pm
SuperDave –
“Give me one, just one, non-religious argument why two consenting adults should not be allowed to enter into a legal marriage.”
I believe that when we allow the government redefining familial relationships that existed before said government, we open the door to the government redefining other family relationships, particularly the relationship between parents and children.
DoggoneGA
May 6th, 2009
6:31 pm
“The whole equal rights arguement just doesn’t add up.”
Actually is does…to those of us who can add.
“I can’t marry a man, and neither can a homosexual male.”
But you CAN marry the person you love. A gay person cannot. There is literally NO DIFFERENCE between the equal rights issues on this subject and the equal rights issues of misegynation. It’s just taking us longer to realize it.
Mixed-race couples can marry, just as same-race couples can. Someday, in a truly enlightened future, same-sex couple marriages will be just as recognized as mixed-sex couples. And the day approaches, whether some like it or not.
I for one will be truly glad when that day arrives.
maxwell
May 6th, 2009
6:36 pm
Mike…I’m aware that Webster has a DEFINITION for marriage as such. But, who cares what Webster has to say. If I relied on Webster to chart my daily course I’d be at least a year behind.
You can dispute anything you choose..that’s your right. As it is mine to say I find this totally a non-issue…
Enjoy life…Guys, girls, for what it’s worth you have my stamp of approval.
DoggoneGA
May 6th, 2009
6:36 pm
“I believe that when we allow the government redefining familial relationships that existed before said government, we open the door to the government redefining other family relationships, particularly the relationship between parents and children”
But no one is asking the government to redefine the REALTIONSHIP, only to recognize the legality of a same-sex couple, just as the legality of a mixed-sex couple is recognize. The RELATIONSHIP is still between the partners with no government involvement.
If you’re going to use a word like “relationship” in this discussion you better be sure it means what you intend it to mean. A “relationship” is nothing more or less than a connection or association.
Mike
May 6th, 2009
6:40 pm
DoggoneGA –
“But you CAN marry the person you love. A gay person cannot. There is literally NO DIFFERENCE between the equal rights issues on this subject and the equal rights issues of misegynation. It’s just taking us longer to realize it.”
Actually there is a big difference and shouting in caps does not change that.
Miscegenation prevented folks from marrying people of the opposite sex if they were not of the same race, something that was legal for people of homogeneous races. Allowing folks of mixed races to marry eliminated that barrier of folks of one sex to marry members of the opposite sex, creating equality for all without redefining marriage.
What you are talking about is changing the definition of marriage. There is a substantial difference.
Mike
May 6th, 2009
6:43 pm
DoggoneGA –
“But no one is asking the government to redefine the REALTIONSHIP”
Sure they are and shouting in caps does not change that. Currently in all states but five marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman.
“A “relationship” is nothing more or less than a connection or association.”
Yes and I was talking about a specific relationship: marriage, which was between a man and a woman for ages before the United States government existed.
fearless fosdick
May 6th, 2009
6:44 pm
Ty … Don’t get too serious on me now. You’re a hoot a minute!
” I can’t marry a man, and neither can a homosexual male.”
Cool Beans Ty…If you say so!
ty webb
May 6th, 2009
6:46 pm
DoggoneGA,
I like having this conservation. When I originally posted my question, I knew it would raise some ire. As I’ve said before, I support same sex marriage. It doesn’t matter who I WANT to marry or who I LOVE. Legally, I don’t have any rights that any other male in georgia doesn’t have.
Dave R
May 6th, 2009
6:46 pm
Doggone, you missed my point.
Who defines a “legal” marriage? The Government does.
My question is: “Why should they?”
Contracts such as wills define the split of assets and can even determine how a child is brought up following the death of both parents. Courts can decide custody if the couple decides to split up.
So again, what role does Government play in deciding that a couple is “married”, except to gain control over their money or lives? Why insert Government into this equation at all?
Mike
May 6th, 2009
6:49 pm
maxwell –
“who cares what Webster has to say”
I was responding a direct question about where it says that marriage is between a man and a woman and responded with the commonly accepted source for definitions of terms.
BTW: what is it with you guys and shouting in caps? Do you think it adds anything to argument?
Taxpayer
May 6th, 2009
6:49 pm
So, just to maintain the historically cast in stone definition of marriage, same sex marriage is a no-no, bi-racial opposite sex marriage is now OK, male asses can marry females, and vice versa… Dang, the conditionals that the church applies… and then trying to figure out just what one can do and ask for forgiveness later…it’s all so damned confusing. Is it still alright for a Republican to tap dance in the potty or for a Catholic priest to have his way with little boys as long as they don’t marry and why is Bill Clinton’s little indiscretion (after all it was with a female) such a big deal. We need some laws to clear up all these issues.
ty webb
May 6th, 2009
6:50 pm
Fosdick,
relax, I’m on your side of this issue. Don’t worry though, I’m sure there are others that we disagree on.
Mike
May 6th, 2009
6:51 pm
fearless fosdick –
“”” I can’t marry a man, and neither can a homosexual male.”
Cool Beans Ty…If you say so!”
Well actually, it is the law in all states but five that say so, not Ty.
Mrs. Godzilla
May 6th, 2009
6:53 pm
OK, let’s change the definition of marriage.
It’s not like it’ll be the first time. Abraham, David, Solomon – they certainly would define it differently than we do.
AmVet
May 6th, 2009
6:53 pm
Good stuff tonight – the back and forth.
This topic is not one I have a lot of “constructive” input on. (I know…)
So I”ll just wait until you folks have figured it all out, and check in later, K?
Mike
May 6th, 2009
6:55 pm
Taxpayer –
” Is it still alright for a Republican to tap dance in the potty or for a Catholic priest to have his way with little boys as long as they don’t marry”
Actually, Larry Craig was forced to resign in disgrace and there are few who are held in more contempt than child molesters.
We understand that you hate Republicans and religious people, but at least try not to rely on absurd straw men to illustrate that fact.
BTW: as such a defender of gay rights, I find it interesting that you put Craig’s harmless “cruising” on the same level as child molestation. I’d accuse you of comparing homosexuals to child molesters, if I didn’t know that you were such a tolerant guy
DoggoneGA
May 6th, 2009
6:56 pm
“What you are talking about is changing the definition of marriage. There is a substantial difference”
Here’s your chance to make a stab at what other with your opinion have failed at doing: WHAT substantial difference?
Mike
May 6th, 2009
6:57 pm
Mrs. Godzilla –
“OK, let’s change the definition of marriage”
This is the most constructive and honest way to frame the argument.
DoggoneGA
May 6th, 2009
6:59 pm
“Why insert Government into this equation at all?”
Because people don’t always make wills. Because wills can be changed if they are no longer valid. Because will can be upset if a judge rules so.
Remember, marriage is a legal contract. “Legal” always brings the government into it. Always. The government is already there in a “marriage.” What needs changing is not the government’s role, which has always existed, but only the definition of “marriage” that excludes same-sex couples.
There is no truly logical reason…nor is there a Constitutional reason…for that exclusion from a legal marriage.
Susan Myers
May 6th, 2009
7:00 pm
Oh no! The great gay pandemic of 2009!
http://democralypsenow.blogspot.com/2009/05/forget-swine-flu-gay-marriage-virus.html
Mike
May 6th, 2009
7:02 pm
DoggoneGA –
Maybe if I shouted in caps, you would understand my argument
Let me take it reeeeaaal slow:
1) At the time when miscegenation laws were still in effect, marriage was legally defined as between a man and a woman in all states of the Union.
2) People of mixed races were not allowed to engage in marriage, something that people of the same race were allowed to.
3) Miscegenation laws were overturned without redefining the legal definition of marriage.
4) Allowing people of the same sex to marry is not consistent with marriage as being between a man and a woman.
5) Same-sex marriage involves changing the definition of marriage being between a man and a woman.
Don’t know how much more plain I can make it for you.
Taxpayer
May 6th, 2009
7:03 pm
Nanny,
I don’t care what you accuse me of — it’s just more of your trash talk anyway.
Mike
May 6th, 2009
7:03 pm
DoggoneGA:
“What needs changing is not the government’s role, which has always existed, but only the definition of “marriage” that excludes same-sex couples.”
OK, so you do agree that we are talking about re-defining marriage. We are making progress.
Cherokee
May 6th, 2009
7:05 pm
Pat @ 5:43. Check out http://www.plagal.org
working on it…
Mike
May 6th, 2009
7:05 pm
Taxpayer –
I didn’t accuse you of anything. I was pointing out that you stated that gay sex is a moral offense.
DoggoneGA
May 6th, 2009
7:05 pm
“1) At the time when miscegenation laws were still in effect, marriage was legally defined as between a man and a woman in all states of the Union.”
Definitions can be changed, and in this case, NEED to be changed.
“2) People of mixed races were not allowed to engage in marriage, something that people of the same race were allowed to.”
And that was CHANGED.
“3) Miscegenation laws were overturned without redefining the legal definition of marriage.”
Definitions can be changed, and in this case, NEED to be changed.
“4) Allowing people of the same sex to marry is not consistent with marriage as being between a man and a woman.”
Quite right it’s no consistent…but definitions can be changed, and in this case, NEED to be changed.
“5) Same-sex marriage involves changing the definition of marriage being between a man and a woman.”
Yep, NOW you HAVE it…definitions can be changed, and in this case, NEED to be changed.
“Don’t know how much more plain I can make it for you.”
Definitions can be changed, and in this case, NEED to be changed. I don’t know how much more plain *I* can make it for YOU.
“Maybe if I shouted in caps, you would understand my argument”
I don’t particularly care about your opinion of my use of CAPS.
Dave R
May 6th, 2009
7:06 pm
Mike, we’re all having an intelligent conversation (a first for this blog) by and large. Leave Taxpayer out of it. You won’t get anything intelligent out of Mr. “Three Degrees”.
Susan Myers
May 6th, 2009
7:11 pm
Say whaaaaaat? What is this madness?! A politician using…reason and logic?!?! Passing laws based on the laws and not personal beliefs? Recognizing the separation of church and state?
Stop this insanity!
Taxpayer
May 6th, 2009
7:11 pm
I said no such thing.
fearless fosdick
May 6th, 2009
7:13 pm
Oh No…I feel like I have been lured into the Dusty’s two step…
Mike..Please pay attention on this one Okay?
Ty said “”” I can’t marry a man, and neither can a homosexual male.”
My point was it’s a ludricrous statement being why would a straight male want to marry a homosexual. In other words it’s moot!
Good night all..time for baseball
Susan Myers
May 6th, 2009
7:13 pm
Let me say congratulations to all the couples who can now take the next step just like any other couple in love. I share in your happiness.
Taxpayer
May 6th, 2009
7:14 pm
And, of course, where would we be if ManifestO DaveR were not here to chime in. The one and only blogger that has yet to figure out how to research a topic, post anything intelligent or provide links, relevant or otherwise.
Mike
May 6th, 2009
7:15 pm
DoggoneGA –
LOOKS LIKE WE HAVE TO AGREE TO DISAGREE
Dave R
May 6th, 2009
7:16 pm
Susan, go back to your dealer.
There is no Constitutional separation of church and state. Of course, that would still require you to actually READ that document.