King said:
I don't think anyone in here said noone should be homosexual Sander. I wouldn't care. But I know a saying, "God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve." We were talking about this yesterday in class, and we have this kid who is really, I mean really touchy when it comes to religion. He is an anarchist by the way, and hates Christianity and Judiasm. Well, we were talking about gay marriages, and the majority of our class said it shouldn't be allowed and those judges need to get their asses back in line, and this one girl comments, "God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve," and that boy who is touchy, yelled "HEY!" He started to silently swear and looked really pissed and was staring at that girl the whole class. I thought he was going to kill her! The whole class couldn't stop laughing. It was frikin hilarious.
note the quote comes from the self-confessed current NMA idiot on the board.
King, read the comic. Think about it. Share it with your colleagues in grade school. Try to learn the moral lesson and hope that the wolfs and other predators haven't caught your scent yet.
An yes, another article from the Economist exactly on this topic. Damn these guys are smart. (King, take careful notes from smart people).
Gay marriage
State of the union
Nov 20th 2003 | BOSTON AND WASHINGTON, DC
From The Economist print edition
A Massachusetts court starts a national debate that poses problems for both the Republicans and the Democrats
ON NOVEMBER 18th, the Massachusetts Supreme Court ensured that gay marriage would be a galvanising issue in the 2004 election. By a four-to-three majority, the court ruled that a ban on same-sex marriage violates the state's constitution. “The right to marry means little,” the court declared, “if it does not include the right to marry the person of one's choice.”
Gay-rights groups described the decision as a “landmark”. Conservatives were furious. “We must amend the [federal] constitution,” announced Tony Perkins, head of the Family Research Council, “if we are to stop a tyrannical judiciary from redefining marriage to the point of extinction.”
The ruling was a significant advance on the most liberal regime so far. In 1999, the high court in another north-eastern state, Vermont, decided that same-sex couples were entitled to marriage-like benefits and protections, but it did not require them to be eligible for marriage licences, thus paving the way for the state's famed “civil unions” which the then governor, Howard Dean, signed into law in 2000.
There are some legal experts who think that the language of this week's ruling from Massachusetts is vague enough to permit a similar compromise “civil-union” solution. But they are in a minority. The ruling makes no mention of a legal equivalent and seems to require the legislature to permit gay marriage outright. The decision was written by Chief Justice Margaret Marshall, a former anti-apartheid campaigner, with the bold, confident tone of someone who knows she is making history. She gave the state legislature a short 180 days to take the steps “it may deem appropriate in light of this opinion”.
The ramifications stretch far beyond Massachusetts. In 1996, Bill Clinton signed the federal Defence of Marriage Act, which defined marriage as being between a man and a woman. If Massachusetts allows gay marriage it will start a legal battle that will surely have to be decided by the Supreme Court. The ruling also challenges similar defence-of-marriage laws in 37 states. For instance, a gay couple, married in Boston who moved to Dallas, could claim they were being denied equal protection under the constitution.
Whatever the legislature does next spring, opponents will have trouble blocking it. Governor Mitt Romney, a Republican, has vowed to fight for a constitutional amendment, defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman. But the soonest an amendment could be legally enacted is 2006. Many gay couples are already celebrating with glee, exchanging marriage proposals and popping champagne. “I'm proud to reside in a state whose constitution is so enlightened,” said state Senator Jarrett Barrios, one of a handful of openly gay state lawmakers.
One reason why some gay leaders have argued that civil unions offer a more pragmatic solution than marriage is the fear of a backlash. This is now happening. The ruling was denounced by Boston's new archbishop, Sean O'Malley. Despite its liberal reputation, the Massachusetts legislature has proved a tough laboratory for gay-rights issues. A bill to provide benefits for domestic partners of gay state workers has repeatedly stalled.
At the national level, the gay-marriage issue poses profound problems for both parties. The Democrats have the more immediate challenge. They do not want the 2004 election to be fought on the sort of cultural terrain that has proved so treacherous for their party over the past 30 years. Most Americans regard marriage as essentially a religious institution: more than 80% of them are married in a religious ceremony, and most religious institutions are opposed to marrying gay couples.
Gay marriage could provide the Republicans with a powerful lever to pry away working-class voters from the Democratic cause. Battleground states such as Ohio have been hard hit by the loss of manufacturing jobs, but they tend to be culturally conservative. It will also rally the Republican base. According to a new poll by the Pew Research Centre, Republicans oppose gay marriage by a ratio of more than five to one. In the 2000 election, some 4m Evangelical Christians stayed at home (which, argue Mr Bush's supporters, was one reason why the result was a draw). Gay marriage could be just the issue to make sure such folk turn up at the polls.
By contrast, likely Democratic voters are more divided on the issue: 39% support marriage rights and 52% oppose them. The more liberal wing of the party includes powerful interest groups such as Human Rights Campaign that regard gay marriage as the civil-rights issue of our time, and will not tolerate any fudging on the subject. But at the same time a quarter of all Democratic-leaning voters say that they “strongly” oppose gay marriage, including many blacks, southerners, old people and working-class voters. It would be hard to invent an issue better designed to divide elite liberals from Joe Sixpack.
The Democratic presidential contenders are already distancing themselves from the Massachusetts decision. The only candidates who have given their unconditional support are the no-hopers: Carol Moseley-Braun, Dennis Kucinich and Al Sharpton (who says that he would proudly perform a same-sex marriage ceremony). Wesley Clark, Dick Gephardt and John Kerry all oppose gay marriage, but support civil unions. John Edwards, Joe Lieberman and Dr Dean all oppose gay marriage and argue that states should decide whether to approve civil unions. Tom Daschle, the Democratic leader in the Senate, responded to the Massachusetts ruling by saying that he believed that the federal Defence of Marriage Act would pass constitutional muster.
Tomorrow's question
Yet the gay-marriage debate is far from risk-free for the Republicans. Most Americans may be against giving homosexuals the blessing of full marriage, but they are also uncomfortable with anything that smacks of intolerance. Polls show that around half the public think that gay couples should have the legal right to adopt children, and more than half think that they should have the same legal rights as married heterosexual couples when it comes to health benefits and inheritance.
To the distress of social conservatives, the White House has been making conciliatory noises to gay groups. George Bush will no doubt try to appear as tolerant as possible while drawing the line at gay marriage. But some of his supporters will be less than diplomatic. The Christian right speaks of a “homosexual agenda” that is designed to destroy the most fundamental human institution. Protesters have followed Dr Dean with posters that claim that “God hates fag enablers” and other less printable phrases.
Looking further into the future it is easy to see how such intolerance could cost the Republicans dear. The proportion of people who say that homosexual relations are “not wrong at all” has tripled, from 12% in 1973 to 32% today. Leading politicians such as Dick Cheney and Mr Gephardt have openly gay children. Openly gay characters pop up in sitcoms and movies. About half of Americans under 30 say they favour the legal right to gay marriage compared with only 22% among the over-65s. The Massachusetts decision will not only resound around the land in the 2004 presidential debate. Its echo will be carried for many years to come.
