A tale of same sex marriage

[Ravenstorm]

A first hand account. Enjoy. And remember, no one's forcing you to read it.



They Can’t Take This Away From Me
by Beren deMotier


I was married in the morning. There were no rose petals to walk on. No bridesmaids all in a row. No dress that I’d spent six months searching for, and then another three having buyer’s regret over. No mother-in-laws bickered before our big day. In fact, I went down the aisle holding a toddler and said vows covered in cracker crumbs.

It was a great day.

It all started the night before when my spouse of seventeen years got a call around six from our good friend and neighbor, also a lesbian, who said she had heard our county, Multnomah County, was going to start issuing same-sex marriage licenses the next morning. It was a call to arms for my wife, who has always been reluctant when it came to the whole wedding thing. She didn’t want to have a commitment ceremony, but has always said that if they made it legal, she’d be one of the first in line.

She put her money where her mouth was. No sooner did she hang up the phone and give me the news than she was calling around to find out what we needed to get a license. Then she called our friend back and said she was going to go down and see if there were forms in the lobby. She and our friend piled into our van, and picked up another close friend eager to pledge her troth, three 'grooms' off to check out the licensing situation.

The rest became history. There were no forms available, only a locked door when they got to the county building. But reporters were already there and while the three of them were standing there, one of the reporters asked if they were the first ones in line. They looked at each other and without speaking made a decision. "Yes!" they responded, 'We are."

As one of them said later, who’d have thought three middle-aged women would have been first on that dime.

The brides were called and provisions were brought down, along with children to visit. Then yet another friend arrived, and the four of them spent the night waiting, not for rock concert tickets, or for the sixth Harry Potter book, but for the opportunity to make their marriages legal. Mind you, these were no fly by night couples, early in love, and jumping into a life of wedded bliss (not that I would deny anyone the opportunity to do so). Between us we have eight children and seventy years of committed relationship. That’s something to celebrate.

While the 'wives' took the children home and tried to snatch some sleep, reporters interviewed my wife and our friends, filmed them singing "I’m Getting Married In the Morning" and matched them up mistakenly in news reports (creating cross-breed couplings that would never work).

I got the call at five in the morning that we needed to be part of this experience. So I slapped on my face, equivocated for thirty seconds over what to wear, woke the children, bundled them up in layers for the forty-two degree cold and caravanned down with the other brides-to-be. Our twelve-year-old was thrilled to miss school. Our nine-year-old was pretty excited about the Krispy Kreme donuts being delivered by excited supporters. Our one-year-old was confused but surrounded by friendly faces he recognized. They were all deliriously happy we were getting married. We didn’t let the protesters get us down, though they were loud. But there was too much love, hope, and excitement in the air as the line of couples stretched around the block and the supporters kept the donuts, coffee and flowers flowing, to let anyone rain on our parade.

Finally they let us into the building, couple by couple. We knew that it was official. That the news conference had been held by the County announcing the decision, and that we weren’t going to be fobbed off at the last moment. But it was still surreal. A sleepless buzz ran through us as we handed over our filled-in forms, paid the sixty dollars and received in return the right to marry -- which we had every intention of doing as soon as possible.

Everyone was in smiles. Our kids were beaming. We were on a cloud nine that carried us past the protesters and down to the Unitarian Church where we and our friends were married in a hastily brought together ceremony that couldn’t have been more perfect. Our dearest friends were there with us already. The church ladies made us bouquets to carry. Our sons carried the rings, our daughters bunches of flowers. The minister was crying. We were crying through our friends’ ceremonies. Two of our mothers were there, and they were crying. The vows felt just right. We meant every word and more, as if our entire history had led to this day when we would declare our love. It was exactly right to be covered in crumbs, in our jeans, and not exactly sparkling clean, because that’s just what happens when you love someone and become the mothers of three.

Whether the legal marriage stands is another question, which we will eagerly follow, doing all we can to hold it in place. But whatever happens, whatever the voters, the lawyers, the state Supreme Court and our anti-gay marriage Governor decide, they can’t take this, our experience, our commitment, our marriage, away from us.


Raven

[HarmNone]

Thanks for posting that, Raven. It is a touching, heart-warming tale. I wish them all the luck in the world. May their dreams be ever alive and in the process of being lived. :)

HarmNone, with tears in her eyes

[Snapp]

Wonderful story Raven! It's so sad that people are denied something that so many take for granted.

[SpunGirl]

Thanks for posting that, Raven.

It just goes to show that while they didn't need a piece of paper to make a strong marriage and a happy home for their families, they deserve the right to the same legal protections just as much as any hetero couple does.

-K

[Galleazzo]

Hey, I'm up late and on now because I had some bad news and can't sleep.

But seeing that made me feel better, like there's someone who thinks the world's finally gone right.

Thanks, Raven, I needed that.

[Nakiro]

Sounds like a great tale.

My opinion on the whole gay marriage thing though:

The government shouldn't be involved in any religious aspect of marriage. That minister that married those women, if he wanted to do that a long time ago, he should've been able to do it and the state should have recognized their right to be a commited couple.

If the/a church doesn't want to marry a homosexual couple, that's fine. I can understand that. BUT the government has no role in saying that two individuals can't share the rest of their lives together and be given the same legal protection as two other individuals. To base such a decision on SEX alone is descriminatory and, in my opinion, unAmerican.

It was a good story.

[ThisOtherKingdom]

I skimmed it. I didn't bother reading the entire story because I don't need convincing.

[Edited on 3-28-2004 by ThisOtherKingdom]

[Ravenstorm]

It wasn't something to be convincing so much as something that was touching and heart warming.

Raven

[DeV]

what Nakiro said made tons of sense.

[Tendarian]

Just curious is there any place now that is still doing gay marriarges? And the other question is of those that were stopped did their marriage become null and void? I also heard that in one of the places where it was stopped (somewhere in new york state maybe?) that a couple of the "newly weds" filed a law suit after they stopped doing it and made their marriage illegal. Is that still going to trial? I wish the supreme court would just make a ruling either way.

[ThisOtherKingdom]

Originally posted by Ravenstorm
It wasn't something to be convincing so much as something that was touching and heart warming.


I'm sure it was. My point was that I'm already completely for gay marriage, and my eyes glaze over with boredom reading that the same as they would on story about a straight marriage.

[Tendarian]

Originally posted by ThisOtherKingdom
I'm sure it was. My point was that I'm already completely for gay marriage, and my eyes glaze over with boredom reading that the same as they would on story about a straight marriage.

Quit being so romantic or im gonna cry.

[Vesi]

Weddings make me all teary and stuff. Thanks a lot Raven. Now I have to redo my eyes. <sniff>

Vesi

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by Tendarian
Just curious is there any place now that is still doing gay marriarges? And the other question is of those that were stopped did their marriage become null and void? I also heard that in one of the places where it was stopped (somewhere in new york state maybe?) that a couple of the "newly weds" filed a law suit after they stopped doing it and made their marriage illegal. Is that still going to trial?

There's been so much activity on this subject all over the country, that I may be confusing a few states and/or get some facts wrong so take it with a grain of salt:

The civil marriages in California have stopped by court order. The CA Supreme Court is deciding on whether or not to hear the case immediately or require that it go through lower courts first. There is no question that if will end up in the supreme court eventually as, whoever might win in lower courts, will appeal it all the way up the ladder.

The marriages in ST. Paltz NY performed by the mayor also stopped once he was slapped with an injunction and had criminal charges filed against him. Two Unitarian ministers then took over and married same sex couples. They too had charges filed against them. Other Unitarian ministers have taken over for them in turn. So far no charges have been filed.

Same sex weddings were performed in NYC by a Christian minister and a rabbi. Neither were charged. Several lawsuits have been filed in NY charging the ban is unconstitutional so it will undoubtedly end up in the NY Supreme Court.

Massachusets. The Supreme Court has spoken and beginning in May, same sex marriage will be legal no matter what.

Various states: I know in Florida for certain and Virginia but others as well, lawsuits have been filed by same sex couples and those will also most likely end up in their individual Supreme Courts.

Oregon: I think same sex marriages are still happening. I could be wrong though. A lawsuit is also heading towards their Supreme Court.

I do not believe that any of the marriages have officially been declared by any court as invalid. Conservative groups are arguing that they are, however that has yet to be decided.


I wish the supreme court would just make a ruling either way.

There is no doubt what the US Supreme Court would say. It is discrimination and unconstitutional. Why do you think there's the push for an Amendment and all this talk about 'activist judges'? It is the duty of the Supreme Court to judge whether a law violates the Constitution which is the law of the land.

There is really no question in anyone's mind that when, not if, it gets to them, it will be struck down. That's why they are trying to change the Constitution. If it wasn't unconstitutional in the first place, there'd be no need for an amendment.

Raven

[TheEschaton]

Can the U.S. Supreme Court hear a case charging an amendment as unconstitutional, and overturn the amendment?


HOw the hell did slavery and prohibition get struck out? The Congress had to overturn the amendment that they passed?

-TheE-

[Artha]

here is no doubt what the US Supreme Court would say. It is discrimination and unconstitutional.

I don't know. They said affirmitive action was OK, so they obviously don't have a problem with all discrimination.

[TheEschaton]

They struck down quotas as unconstitutional, Artha.


-TheE-

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by TheEschaton
They struck down quotas as unconstitutional, Artha.And yet, race is still a required field on college applications. :?:

[Artha]

No they didn't, TheE.

They said it could still be taken into account, but that it could not be a major percentage, IE: 20 points on a scale that takes 100 to get in.

[GSTamral]

You know, I've got to chime in here, this story did make me think a little bit. It was touching, and to be honest, I personally believe (albeit not that strongly) that there is nothing wrong with gay marriage.

But then I do have to realize something. Whether or not gay marriage exists in this country does not affect the country in my opinion. Given all of the other things this country needs to have done, I cannot say that the issue of gay marriage should even be on the radar. If it was legal already, thats great, but it's not, and honestly, there are so many more important things to consider, especially when we are living in a system of status quo, and I personally do not know of any country that supports and has legalized gay marriage to begin with (not that I have done any research either).

It is nice that two people, and other gay couples had a life-changing experience to call their own. But in the grand scheme of things and priorities, I can't say I give a shit enough to actually push for legislation either way.

[GSTamral]

You know, just for the record. I've always been fond of animals, especially big cats, and a few years ago, a neighbor of mine moved out of their home and into a another home, leaving his housecat behind. I thought of the act as incredibly cruel, and to this day I don't know if the cat is alive.

It personally affected me that they were able to do what they did to a helpless housecat. But it would be unprudent, selfish, and quite stupid in my eyes, if I were to expect congress or such a body to debate the damn issue and waste time in making laws. It simply doesnt matter enough.

As long as civil unions retain the majority of economic and legal rights granted to married couples, the argument to me, will simply fall on deaf ears until we have taken care of the issues regarding terror, the economy, people and children who have to go hungry every night, children who cannot get a proper education because teachers are not being held responsible for their work, and so many other things that are just simply more important than whether or not a gay couple can be married. I'm sorry to say, but it truly is that simple in my eyes. I don't care much for symbolism, and the symbolic being married is nice, but it just doesnt matter enough to me right now.

[DeV]

Big reason why I plan on never being married, be it to a man or woman. Marriage is in the gutter as it is right now, 48% of marriages last, 52% don't. I agree with most of Tamral's points. I also don't think government has any right to determine if they feel gay marriage should be legal or not. I for one agree there are more pressing matters in Congress that need to be addressed.

I am a firm believe in human rights though, and while I feel there are pressing matters that need to be address as a tax paying, voting citizen I feel the government just doesnt have a place when it comes to issues such as this.

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by GSTamral
As long as civil unions retain the majority of economic and legal rights granted to married couples...

Except they don't. The federal government has no civil union provision at all. There are 1049 federal benefits automatically bestowed on straight couples when they get married. They are not conferred on people engaged in a state civil union because federal law does not recognize civil unions.

Further. Most states have no civil union provision at all. Only a very few have managed to implement some form of civil union and even then, they confer only a fraction of state benefits that marriages do.

So if you're thinking the only problem is the 'seperate but equal' one? It's not. They're not equal, they're not seperate, they don't exist at all except in an extremely small number of places where they barely exist. That's what this issue is about: not just what they're being called.

Raven

[ElanthianSiren]

Originally posted by GSTamral
You know, just for the record. I've always been fond of animals, especially big cats, and a few years ago, a neighbor of mine moved out of their home and into a another home, leaving his housecat behind. I thought of the act as incredibly cruel, and to this day I don't know if the cat is alive.



This is when Melissa would go and adopt a new friend :) Anyone who leaves an animal behind with that much disregard should be shot in the head.

On gay marriage -- I support it very strongly not because I am gay. I'm happily hetero, but because

1. I don't think the government has any business sanctioning marriage.

2. I don't think the government should be in the business of telling people what to do from the standpoint of their interpersonal relationships. That is not the role of government in my mind.
The role of government is to make laws supposedly that keep people safe. Letting two lesbians or two gay men marry does not endanger anyone...
Now someone dramatically biblical could step in here and say it endangers morality yada yada yada, and I say that justice should not involve moral judgements. That's why there's that little clause about separation of church and state.

-Melissa

[DeV]

:thumbsup:

[MPSorc]

my thoughts, there are alot of things the government has its big nose in that it shouldn't, and people's love/sex life is one of them, these people have been waiting a long time for this, why should it be the government to deny them? If it goes against the law makers "morals" then they are wrong, because i believe that lawmakers should have morals but this kind shouldn't be one, morals against stealing, assaulting,ect.. "Crimes" should be their law making priority, and someone having sex or being gay should not be regulated by the government. It is like just about every state and even the military laws has some old dust covered law that states that the missionary position is the only approved sexual position and what not.

ok end rant. thanks.

[GSTamral]

The Government is not stepping into anybody's way. It depends entirely how you look at it. When the Government defined marriage laws, same sex couples were not a part of the process. It would require government to actively pass a law to allow for marriage by same sex couples. No law exists currently that bans it. However, no laws have been written to support it either. As individuals, gay people have the exact same rights as heterosexual people.

Marriage is an exception in which two people attain certain other priviledges and restrictions. Such an exception has not been made to allow for same-sex couples. So as for the government stepping in the way, it has been to this point the opposite. Some states have been going out of their way to legislate laws for civil unions, which grant some of the legal rights to gay couples within a state.

My argument is that states are wasting valuable time addressing an issue when there are more pressing issues to be debated. Once they are taken care of, then they can resume the debate. If anything I support the rights of a same sex couple to become married. I don't however, believe that it matters enough to warrant anything other than a dinner discussion right now, let alone a significant debate in a government body.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Ravenstorm

Originally posted by GSTamral
As long as civil unions retain the majority of economic and legal rights granted to married couples...Except they don't. Golly this sounds familiar. Wonder what time it is in Italy.:D:D:D
Originally posted by ElanthianSiren
I say that justice should not involve moral judgements.Justice is an inherently moral judgment. Why shouldn't we be allowed to hurt people? Why shouldn't we be allowed to steal?

Law is an entirely different entity and should be treated as such. The law is not justice, just ask Batman.

[Snapp]

Originally posted by GSTamral
My argument is that states are wasting valuable time addressing an issue when there are more pressing issues to be debated. Once they are taken care of, then they can resume the debate

In your eyes, that time will never happen because there will ALWAYS be something "more deserving." It's going to be a long process either way, I'd rather it get rolling now.

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm
Golly this sounds familiar.

You're right in that. It's all been explained, in depth in other threads so there's no point in debating it again from scratch in a thread that wasn't meant for that purpose. Suffice it to say I agree completely. The government should stop wasting its time and our money and this little civil rights fiasco resolve itself painlessly.

Raven

[ElanthianSiren]

Originally posted by LatrinsormLaw is an entirely different entity and should be treated as such. The law is not justice, just ask Batman.

Because the prohibition against marriage of same sex couples is hypocritical in view of the separation of church and state clause of the constitution. Murder harms people. Rape harms people. Assault harms people. Two gay men living as they choose in the privacy of their home does not harm people... that is unless the offended have their nose too deep in someone else's business.

Tamral is right in a way. The surpreme court should just recognize it, legalize it, make it binding, and everyone can decide freely who they want to marry and have sex with under the protection of the law.

Life is just way way way way too short to permit two people who love eachother from the freedoms afforded to other couples based on something that shouldn't even be a factor. That's like saying if you don't like it missionary, you're stigmitized.

-Melissa

edited to clear up just who was in whose business.

[Edited on Mon, March th, 2004 by ElanthianSiren]

[TheEschaton]

Ah, but Melissa, that would be a case of "activist judges" who would be "overstepping their boundries" and "interpreting the law"....

And we can't have that. Even though a judge's job is to interpret the law.

-TheE-

[ElanthianSiren]

Originally posted by TheEschaton
Ah, but Melissa, that would be a case of "activist judges" who would be "overstepping their boundries" and "interpreting the law"....

And we can't have that. Even though a judge's job is to interpret the law.

-TheE-

Yah, but TheE, this is my opinion, and my opinion is that a judge's job is TO JUDGE (omigosh!). I also don't like the three strikes BS that California has going for this same reason, though it's related only to this point.

-Melissa

[Hulkein]

<<Because the prohibition against marriage of same sex couples is hypocritical in view of the separation of church and state clause of the constitution. Murder harms people. Rape harms people. Assault harms people. Two gay men living as they choose in the privacy of their home does not harm people... that is unless the offended have their nose too deep in someone else's business.>>

Necrophilia doesn't harm anyone and yet it is illegal even if the person gave consent before passing. Sex with an animal doesn't harm anyone either. Laws are always passed because of moral issues. This point has been debunked again and again.

WARNING: This is not comparing homosexual marriages with either of these acts, it is only there to show that government DOES legislate moral things. This is the same way the current administration used this point and liberals took it out of context and acted as if they are comparing the two. I am not, thank you.

[Edited on 3-29-2004 by Hulkein]

[ElanthianSiren]

Originally posted by Hulkein
Necrophilia doesn't harm anyone and yet it is illegal even if the person gave consent before passing. Sex with an animal doesn't harm anyone either. Laws are always passed because of moral issues. This point has been debunked again and again.

Necrophilia often mutilates a corpse. That harms the corpse. Sex with animals harms animals. Sorry, doesn't fly with me. It's not the same point.

-Melissa

edit: There's a difference between two willing, consenting adults and passive participants.

[Edited on Mon, March th, 2004 by ElanthianSiren]

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by Hulkein
Necrophilia doesn't harm anyone and yet it is illegal even if the person gave consent before passing. Sex with an animal doesn't harm anyone either. Laws are always passed because of moral issues. This point has been debunked again and again.

You're right, your point has been debunked again and again. Neither a corpse nor an animal are capable of consent and further, corpses carry disease. And yes, animals are often injured by it. So it has indeed been thoroughly debunked.

Raven

[Hulkein]

Are animals injured when they are murdered for food? Or do they consent then? How about animals that actually initiate the sexual acts, like a dog often does? They are no more injured then a homosexual is while having anul sex.

[Tsa`ah]

You're grasping at straws by referring to necrophilia and bestiality.

An animal can not give consent, nor can a corpse.

Sex with a corpse endangers public health. There is harm.

Sex with an animal endangers the animal and public health. There is harm.

Neither can remotely or logically be compared to same sex marriages.

[ElanthianSiren]

Originally posted by RavenstormYou're right, your point has been debunked again and again. Neither a corpse nor an animal are capable of consent and further, corpses carry disease. And yes, animals are often injured by it. So it has indeed been thoroughly debunked.

Raven

Beatchya to it Raven :P

-Melissa

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by ElanthianSirenBeatchya to it Raven :P


And we haaaave a WINNAH!

Raven

[TheEschaton]

Hulkein, an animal does not give consent to be used as food, but it is conceivably plausible to argue that man needs to kill animals to survive, nutrition-wise. I don't think you could argue man's survival rests on his having sex with animals, though. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that that would only have a negative affect on the overall passing of genes bit.


-TheE-

[Galleazzo]

Originally posted by TheEschaton
Can the U.S. Supreme Court hear a case charging an amendment as unconstitutional, and overturn the amendment?

HOw the hell did slavery and prohibition get struck out? The Congress had to overturn the amendment that they passed?

No, and yes.

[Tendarian]

There is no doubt what the US Supreme Court would say. It is discrimination and unconstitutional. Why do you think there's the push for an Amendment and all this talk about 'activist judges'? It is the duty of the Supreme Court to judge whether a law violates the Constitution which is the law of the land.

There is really no question in anyone's mind that when, not if, it gets to them, it will be struck down. That's why they are trying to change the Constitution. If it wasn't unconstitutional in the first place, there'd be no need for an amendment.
Raven


I wish they would just hear the case and make a decision then. I agree with Tamaral that its not that huge of an issue so get it to them and have them decide instead of some judge in podunk california who has an agenda. Whatever they decide is fine with me.

To me the reason for the amendment wasnt to circumvent the supreme court,it was to circumvent the smaller judges :)

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by ElanthianSiren
Murder harms people. Rape harms people. Assault harms people.That's exactly what I mean. You're implying that harming people is wrong (which I agree with, obviously) but by doing so you're using morality.

[DCSL]

I don't know about gay marriage being a small issue. It may be, but I think it's symbolic of a larger issue that's being passed all but unnoticed. In my eyes, the government has been seizing more and more power over the day to day lives of American citizens, more knowledge about what the day to day life of the individual is through what I personally think is invasive technology.

I've always been very pro America, very much I'd-rather-live-here-than-anywhere-else, very defensive of American freedom. But these freedoms are being chiseled away and I find it very frightening. And yes, even the gay marriage thing used to be a freedom, of a sort. Didn't Hawaii recognize gay marriage? If there's an amendment banning it, then won't Hawaii have to stop?

So yes, terrorists are a threat, global warming is a threat, et cetera, and I'd like to see them all dealt with. But the more immediate problem, the one closest to home (for me) is the government's inability to keep its fingers out of the pie. Anyone's pie. The gay issue pie is the one currently under attack most visibly, and to those that it means something to, it needs to be fought over with tooth and nail. I'm sure many more pies will follow.

(And to those that might react with the "Oh yeah?! Well if you hate America so much, then get out!" attitude, grow up.)

[Killer Kitten]

<<My argument is that states are wasting valuable time addressing an issue when there are more pressing issues to be debated. Once they are taken care of, then they can resume the debate. If anything I support the rights of a same sex couple to become married. I don't however, believe that it matters enough to warrant anything other than a dinner discussion right now, let alone a significant debate in a government body.>>

'More pressing'? What can be more pressing than your domestic partner becoming ill and unable to receive health care because you can't get your insurance company to cover him/her because the state won't acknowledge your marriage? Or your partner dying and their family ejecting you from the home you shared because your union was not 'legal' and they have more money for lawyers than you do? Or losing custody of your children because your partner (the biological parent) has died and his/her family has decided to take them away from you, succesfully arguing in court that their biological claim outweighs your adoptive one? Or in these bad economic times being forced to pay twice the taxes other people pay because the state won't acknowledge your domestic arrangements?

The story that started this thread was very touching, but there are cold hard practical protections that same sex partners are denied under our rather antiquated statutes governing domestic arrangements. This issue is downright urgent, affecting the lives of a great many American citizens in a very real and non sentimental way. It is definately worthy of the time and attention of our lawmakers and should not be relegated to dinner table debates.

Kimm/Tilone

[Killer Kitten]

Oh yeah.

:::points to DCSL's post:::

Well said.

Kimm/Tilone

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Killer Kitten
This issue is downright urgent, affecting the lives of a great many American citizens in a very real and non sentimental way.I have to disagree that gay marriage affects more people than terrorism. A nuclear warhead doesn't care who you go to bed with.

[Galleazzo]

More gay people got married in San Francisco alone in the last month than Americans who have died in terrorist attacks in the last century.

[DeV]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm
A nuclear warhead doesn't care who you go to bed with. Do you feel the same way about Social security? Is the war more imporant than that also?

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Galleazzo
More gay people got married in San Francisco alone in the last month than Americans who have died in terrorist attacks in the last century.I'm sure I don't need to point out to you that terrorism directed towards the United States is on a heavy upswing. I am glad that relatively speaking not a lot of people have died from terrorism. I'd like to keep it that way.
Originally posted by Darkelfvoid
Do you feel the same way about Social security? Is the war more imporant than that also?If by "the war" you mean anti-terrorism efforts, then yes. What good is social security if New York (which is what the majority of my family is too close to, from a defense standpoint) is a smoking crater? I suppose I could hope the terrorists go for D.C., but that seems a tad selfish to me.

I'm not suggesting the government drop everything and devote every resource towards anti-terrorism (as I stray farther and farther from the thread's topic) but without a clear grasp of the way government responsibilities are delegated, I can't say whether or not focusing on gay marriage or Social Security would excessively hinder the security of the nation. I'd have to guess the gay marriage issue at least has become a distraction, seeing as how the President wants to make a(n admittedly bogus) new amendment about the situation.

[Nieninque]

Originally posted by GSTamral
My argument is that states are wasting valuable time addressing an issue when there are more pressing issues to be debated. Once they are taken care of, then they can resume the debate

If the heads of states were women, you would see some multi-tasking and more than one issue being addressed at once ;)

[Galleazzo]

I'm sure I don't need to point out to you that terrorism directed towards the United States is on a heavy upswing. I am glad that relatively speaking not a lot of people have died from terrorism. I'd like to keep it that way.
You sure do need to point out where you get that from. 9/11 aside, have there been more terrorist attacks over the last few years than the previous X number? What's your data? Dude, I was around for the Weatherman bombings, and that was a lot of attacks.

[DeV]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm
[quote]
I'm not suggesting the government drop everything and devote every resource towards anti-terrorism (as I stray farther and farther from the thread's topic) but without a clear grasp of the way government responsibilities are delegated, I can't say whether or not focusing on gay marriage or Social Security would excessively hinder the security of the nation. I'd have to guess the gay marriage issue at least has become a distraction, seeing as how the President wants to make a(n admittedly bogus) new amendment about the situation. The government can only blame itself. Latrinsorm, I understand the issue of anti-terriosm as a large and pressing matter, but people still have to live in this society and abide by the laws set forth by our government. If there is one group of people that are not being represenated properly then its not something to be over-looked. It has to be dealt with and not pushed to the side any longer. It may not be important to you, but there are millions of tax paying, voting citizens of this country that would tell you otherwise.

[Edited on 3-30-2004 by DarkelfVold]

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Galleazzo
You sure do need to point out where you get that from. 9/11 aside, have there been more terrorist attacks over the last few years than the previous X number? What's your data? Dude, I was around for the Weatherman bombings, and that was a lot of attacks. You don't think that us waltzing around the Middle East is going to have any repercussions?

[Galleazzo]

Maybe they will, but we've been stumbling around the Middle East for decades. I had my feet in Iraqi dirt last time around, and I kinda missed the wave of terrorist attacks that hit the US after that.

What you said wasn't that there MIGHT be a huge upsurge in attacks. You said there already had been. I just asked what those might be. Let us know any time.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Galleazzo
You said there already had been.Incorrect. I said this:
terrorism directed towards the United States is on a heavy upswing.I said there will be, if we fiddle around with same sex marriages or social security or national forests and take away from national security and anti-terrorism. As I've said, I don't know for certain that pushing through legislature about gay marriage will hinder the government's other activities. I'm not the President, I'm not in the government.

[Artha]

There were also lots of attacks in the 20s by anarchists. Usually bombs on wallstreet, but also spraying people in the face with acid and other nasty stuff.

[Killer Kitten]

quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Latrinsorm
A nuclear warhead doesn't care who you go to bed with.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bush got to have his war, his cronies got their fat contracts for cleaning up the mess. I think we're pretty safe from further terrorist attacks at this point. That is, until Dubya's popularity takes a dip or until he gets refused funding for something else he wants. Wonder what he'll think of as 'acceptable losses' this time.

I know I'm cynical. The question is... Who else reaped benefits from the 911 attacks besides Bush and his cohorts?

Kimm/Tilone

[Artha]

Haha. That's not cynical, that's almost certifiably insane.

[ThisOtherKingdom]

How is that insane? Houstin-based Halliburton, the vice president's former employer, won a contract last year to clean up Iraq's oil fields.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by ThisOtherKingdom
How is that insane?I personally thought the part that goes "I think we're pretty safe from further terrorist attacks at this point. That is, until Dubya's popularity takes a dip or until he gets refused funding for something else he wants." and implies that President Bush orchestrated 9/11 to increase his popularity was pretty damn insane, myself.

Sidebar: The Halliburton "scandal" has got to be the most played out thing I've ever heard, right up there with punk rock and hair bands.

[Ravenstorm]

It is pretty 'out there'. It's also off topic.

On topic - more or less - even some top Republicans are now moving away from the whole Constitutional amendment proposal. Not that they're now supporting same sex marriage but they're now remembering that they are in fact Republicans and that they nominally believe in less federal interference in state business.

I hope the religious right has an aneurism over it.

Raven

[Killer Kitten]

<<I personally thought the part that goes "I think we're pretty safe from further terrorist attacks at this point. That is, until Dubya's popularity takes a dip or until he gets refused funding for something else he wants." and implies that President Bush orchestrated 9/11 to increase his popularity was pretty damn insane, myself. >>

Oh, I don't think he's quite smart enough to have orchestrated it. But allowed it to happen having found out about it...?

It didn't even have to be a malicious thing on his part. Say the guy really really believes that terrorists might just get ahold of a nuke but he can't get the U.S. stirred up enough to allow restrictions of certain freedoms 'for our own good'. Then he finds out about this little 911 plot. He weighs the odds, millions dead in a nuke attack versus a few thousand in this airplane scheme. Well those few thousand will be a helluva wake up call and potentially save the lives of millions. Acceptable losses and worth the sacrifice.

Pretty damn insane? Well maybe. Almost as insane as starting a war because somebody took a potshot at your daddy. Almost as insane as invading a foreign country and deposing their government without having a clue as to what you're going to do next. Almost as insane as taking office without having actually won the election. Almost as insane as police checkpoints being set up on our streets where cars are pulled over for no reason, searched, and all the occupants ordered to provide photo ID. In such an insane world is it no wonder that people can consider insane possibilities?

Kimm/Tilone

[Tendarian]

Im glad the left have their crackpots too.

[Galleazzo]

(shrug) "Is" ain't "will be," Latrin. Better luck next time.

The asshat Mormon guv'nor of Massachusetts tried to bully the attorney-general into going for a two year stay of the court order. It'd be "too confusing" for the gays who got married if it got reversed, doncha know.

The AG, who fought like hell to shoot down the court's decision, told him to fuck off. He said that the governor's arguments were political, there wasn't a single legit legal stance, he figured gays getting married'd know the score. He also figured more screwing around wasn't doing anyone any good, and it was time the asshats got a clue they'd lost the argument and moved on.

[KDLMAJERE]

Bush got to have his war, his cronies got their fat contracts for cleaning up the mess. I think we're pretty safe from further terrorist attacks at this point. That is, until Dubya's popularity takes a dip or until he gets refused funding for something else he wants. Wonder what he'll think of as 'acceptable losses' this time.

I know I'm cynical. The question is... Who else reaped benefits from the 911 attacks besides Bush and his cohorts?

Kimm/Tilone


I don't think the issue here is whether or not 9/11 was orchestrated for the benefit of the administration. I honestly don't believe this to be the case, and I'm fairly disillusioned.

The thing we can fault the administration for, however, is their focus on capitalizing on 9/11. Yes, they capitalized on the oil. It had a lot to do with why we went into Iraq. (Don't believe me? Why did we negotiate with North Korea that we KNEW had nuclear weapons and invaded Iraq with no evidence whatsoever that they possessed any chemical/biological/nuclear weapons aside from the ones we sold them in the late 1980's) Yes, they capitalized in it to allow them to rid themselves of the Taliban (themselves a creation of US foreign policy) and to rid themselves of Saddam (for trying to kill Bush's daddy and refusing to privatize their oil reserves....don't believe me? The first Executive Order Bush made in regards to Iraq was to open up their oil reserves to private US business). So the capitalizing on the tragedy has been deplorable, but I by no means think we can claim that it was orchestrated or allowed to continue by the current Administration.

But let's move beyond even that. The rising fundamentalism around the globe is a direct result of the latest Western-lead globalizations efforts. These terrorist attacks are not just random attacks targetted at the US out of envy. Many people seem to think this is the case, but the US is considered to be a bastion of evil in many places of the world. They would rather die than emulate us. In fact, these terrorist attacks are built upon a foundation of anger built by years of US/Western intervention in areas of the world that has been oppressive and damaging. (US backing of Israel for example). What is truly problematic about the administration, and the point that I think most needs to be criticized, is their blatant refusal to acknowledge that US action has been the source for so much of this rager that has manifested as violence. What we should be doing as a nation is looking back at what we've done to so many people in an effort to maintain US economic and political dominance (whoever told you that colonization is over..lied) and attempting to make amends.

Jesse, Querthose's Player

PS Legalize Queer Marriage