Home > Gwinnett > Rick Badie / My Opinion > Archives > 2008 > June > 24 > Entry
Equal rights just a dream for gay pairs
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
“They met 14 years ago at a gathering of the “Friday Night Group.” It used to be a group of gay women who’d gather on Friday nights, share potluck and have intelligent discussions.
Susan and Betsy Byers have been together ever since. They have two children - Dylan, 11, and Justin, 3. Lilburn was their home for several years till they moved to Decatur.
I’ve known the Byerses since Miles, my 12-year-old, and Dylan were toddlers. They met one summer day at Lilburn Park. Been buds ever since.
From what I’ve seen, the Byers clan is a family, their love just the same as yours or mine. Susan and Betsy are as “married’ as any heterosexual couple. But because they are a gay couple, they are denied the benefits and protection of marriage - things such as survivor benefits through Social Security and the right to make health care decisions for each other.
Last week, California became the second U.S. state, behind Massachusetts, to make marriage licenses available to same-sex couples. On May 15, the Supreme Court of California overturned the state’s ban on such marriages; the decision took effect June 16.
Unlike Massachusetts, California does not have a residency requirement for same-sex couples. Susan says hordes of female couples and male couples in Georgia (estimates put the number at about 25,000) will feel inspired to exchange vows on the West Coast.
“Absolutely,” she told me. “People are already talking about it.”
The Byerses have already tied the knot once, back in 2004 during a trip to California, Betsy’s home state. At the time, Gavin Newsom, the mayor of San Francisco, had ordered city clerks to perform same-sex marriages. His decision to ignore state regulations that defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman is what, ultimately, led to the recent state court ruling that legalized same-sex unions.
Susan and Betsy have no plans to join the estimated 68,000 out-of-state couples from across the country who are expected to say “I do” in California. For one thing, it’s cost prohibitive. Secondly, while gay nuptials may be emotionally symbolic and bring newlywed bliss, a California marriage license won’t mean diddly in Georgia.
“We would have no legal recognition here ‘cause there is a constitutional amendment against [gay marriage],” said Susan, a vocational rehabilitation counselor for the state Department of Labor. “It doesn’t bring us legal rights here; the only reason we [got married] in ‘04 was because we were there.”
The Byerses, like gay couples nationwide, have learned to dot their i’s and cross their t’s. When the couple travels out of the state or country, they pack legal papers, such as medical power of attorney documents. If something were to happen to one spouse, the other would have no legal rights without them.
“You have to take all these extra steps in order to protect your family,” Susan said. “There are [thousands] of federally recognized rights that heterosexual couples have that we don’t. You have to be prepared for battles.”
I’ve yet to figure out the harm same-sex marriages supposedly do to the institution of traditional marriage. Heterosexuals are already doing a fine job of cracking its foundation, given the country’s high divorce rate.
Here’s a way to preserve the sacred union between a man and a woman: Make it illegal to get a divorce.
So much for sanctity.
And so much for equal rights for all.
Rick Badie’s column appears on Sundays, Tuesdays and Thursdays. Contact him at 770-263-387
Permalink | Comments (80) | Post your comment | Categories: Rick Badie
Comments
By D
June 24, 2008 8:50 AM | Link to this
Rick, you hit the nail on the head… nothing harms marriage more than divorce. And why we’re on the topic, these laws in Georgia, including our Constitutional Amendment, that won’t allow the state to recognize these marriage certificates would seem to go against the Full Faith and Credit clause of Article IV of the United States Constitution. I thought the US Constitution was supposed to be the supreme law of the land. So much for that theory.
By Katie
June 24, 2008 9:11 AM | Link to this
If two people are happy together and want to get married, who cares what sex they are. It’s not my business what they do in their bedroom.
By Michael H. Smith
June 24, 2008 9:38 AM | Link to this
If marriage is a right as you apparently believe Mr. Badie, then why do states license this - as you would have it - so-called right?
Norcross, on another blog correctly pointed out marriage is not protected under the U.S. Constitution, with good reason.
More to the point: You are born with your rights. That is why rights are called inalienable. Governments do not and cannot give you, your rights.
Like all other government granted “privileges” it is the “right” of government to set the conditions that apply to receiving said “privilege”, as in this case a marriage license. Marriage is a “privilege” even for heterosexuals - you can’t marry the man of your choice either Mr. Badie.
Are you confusing what is “a right” with what is “a privilege” Mr. Badie?
By D
June 24, 2008 10:18 AM | Link to this
Michael H. Smith — have you forgotten the 9th Amendment?
“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
Meaning just because the Constitution doesn’t specifically protect the “right” of marriage, means it can’t be denied either.
By Jane
June 24, 2008 10:22 AM | Link to this
You argument lacks validity. According to the National Organization for Women the right to marry has been recognized by the Supreme Court as a fundamental right under the United States Constitution. All couples, lesbian and gay and heterosexual, deserve the legal protections afforded by marriage. Currently, same-sex couples in committed relationships are likely to pay higher taxes than married couples. They receive no Social Security survivor benefits upon the death of a partner despite paying payroll taxes. They are denied healthcare, disability, military and other benefits afforded to heterosexual couples. Without a will, they often pay estate taxes when a partner dies, including significant tax penalties when they inherit a 401K pension plan from a partner. They are denied family leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act Children of same-sex couples are penalized by marriage discrimination. More than 1 million children are currently being raised by same-sex couples in the United States, according to the 2000 census. Many lesbian and gay parents, however, are unable to assume full legal parenting rights and responsibilities, and in most states, there is no law guaranteeing a non-custodial, biological or adoptive parent’s visitation rights or requiring child support from such a parent. Without the ability to establish a legal relationship to both parents, these children are left without protections such as Social Security survivor benefits. According to the Advocate, American citizens continue to be denied the right to marry because of their sexual orientation while their families are deprived of access to the 1,138 federal rights, protections, and responsibilities automatically granted to married heterosexual couples.
By BobG
June 24, 2008 10:27 AM | Link to this
Marriage isn’t a right, Rick; it is a government-sanctioned privilege. And your gay friends have the same access to this privileged status as do I— they can marry someone of the opposite sex and achieve the privileged status.
“Marriage” is also a spiritual union, but it’s going to be a little difficult to get the Creator of that “privileged status” to sanction a same-sex hook-up.
By Michael H. Smith
June 24, 2008 10:46 AM | Link to this
Correct BobG, marriage is a government-sanctioned privilege and it falls under the 10th amendment to the U.S. Constitution which gives the States the “right” and authority to grant that privilge based upon any conditions a State determines applicable to its’ license.
A license to marry is a protected “Right of the State” under the U.S. Constitution not a protected “right of the individual”.
Tenth Amendment:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
By D
June 24, 2008 10:54 AM | Link to this
BobG — as far as going back to the spiritual definition of marriage, you need to remember that this nation and it’s constitution were not founded and written by devout Christians, but rather by Deists who believed in the Enlightenment and in the idea of “Nature’s God.”
By Cindy
June 24, 2008 10:56 AM | Link to this
Dance around the facts and play nicey-nice all you want but getting married somewhere that allows it doesn’t make it anymore correct than being in a garage makes you a car.
Everything in the world isn’t gray.
By Flex
June 24, 2008 11:05 AM | Link to this
What groups were responsible for the passages of these mean-spirited anti-gay amendments? Rise up against them and crush their cause! Also, you must behave like the officials in California. Be upfront with your cause. Don’t hide the fact that you support gay marriage, because you’ll never get ahead when you’re on the defensive, like the gay community in Florida. These ignorant fascists want you to feel defeated, and don’t want you to have the willto fight. You’re better than them, and you have everything to lose by staying idle. So, please help fight by contributing to equality California. Once the anti-gay amendment is hopefully defeated in November, we’ll proceed to demand equal benefits from the federal government. From that point. Then everybody, even in Georgia, will be able to marry the person that they choose, through The fight here in California. Be well.
By D
June 24, 2008 11:37 AM | Link to this
It’s only a matter of time before the courts recognize the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution of the United States and then it will not matter.
By MJK
June 24, 2008 11:38 AM | Link to this
When I read Rick’s column this morning I figured the gay bashing would be happening fast and furious. I’m pleased so see that isn’t the case.
What I have never understood is how validating marriage between members of the same sex would in any way invalidate anyone else’s marriage. And if it didn’t impact or invalidate my marriage, why would I care?
By Michael H. Smith
June 24, 2008 11:41 AM | Link to this
Funny how in 2004 eleven States, one of which was left coast ultra-liberal Oregon that voted solidly for John Kerry, passed marriage protection amendments or statues.
~
According to the Heritage Foundation:
Since the legalization of same-sex “marriage” in Massachusetts, 27 states adopted a constitutional amendment preserving traditional marriage on a ballot.
States that protect traditional marriage
In both Constitution and statue 24 states
In statue only 17 states
In Constitution only 3 states
In total………………………… 44 states
~ IMHO
You have to wonder when something fails so consistently at the ballot box can only win in two courts.
If protection of traditional marriage is ever offered as an amendment to the U.S. Constitution it will be ratified.
Till then “the privilege” of a marriage license will remain germane to the States. If the U.S. Supreme Court should take away this Right of the State it would create a Constitutional crisis.
By Bill
June 24, 2008 11:57 AM | Link to this
Why is it a surprise that most of the country is backward on this issue of equality. This is the same country that elected George W. Bush - twice!
The blood is on your hands people. When are you going to realize that it’s meant to be liberty and justice for all?
It will take another generation to die out before we see any headway. Thank God your children will be more enlightened.
By D
June 24, 2008 12:04 PM | Link to this
I have to agree with Bill that our children will be more enlightened. Why must individuals like Michael H. Smith fight so hard for something so backwards like this? Once people become more enlightened that same-sex marriage is neither a bad thing, nor detremental to American Society they will see that we can, as a nation, move forward.
Remember, that were it not for liberals, we would be singing “God Save The Queen” prior to the cricket matches.
By D
June 24, 2008 12:05 PM | Link to this
I have to agree with Bill that our children will be more enlightened. Why must individuals like Michael H. Smith fight so hard for something so backwards like this? Once people become more enlightened that same-sex marriage is neither a bad thing, nor detremental to American Society they will see that we can, as a nation, move forward.
Remember, that were it not for liberals, we would be singing “God Save The Queen” prior to the cricket matches.
By Paul
June 24, 2008 12:17 PM | Link to this
Actually, marriage is under the purview of the church, whereas civil union falls under the governmental domain. In any case, neither my marriage nor society would be threatened by the unions of gays or lesbians.
By Dan Poirier
June 24, 2008 12:19 PM | Link to this
The right to marry is generally recognized as an international human right - as noted in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Also in California we have laws which guarantee equal access to gay people to all state privileges - which makes moot the argument about rights vs. privilege in our state.
By Paul
June 24, 2008 12:22 PM | Link to this
Actually, marriage is under the purview of the church, whereas civil union falls under the governmental domain. In any case, neither my marriage nor society would be threatened by the unions of gays or lesbians.
By Michael H. Smith
June 24, 2008 12:24 PM | Link to this
Liberals just so happened to passed a gay marriage ban in very, very, forward thinking ever so enlightened Oregon, in other liberal forward thinking states as well and they’re still singing God bless America - at least most of them do, with the exception of few like Rev. Wright.
This is a bedrock issue with most Americans of every political stripe, as sadly the Democrats found out in 2004. They moved toward the center in 2006 by running “blue dog” candidates (conservative Democrats)and won. But, should this become an issue in 2008 it will be interesting to see which enlightened party candidate sets-off the most firecrackers within their own house.
Amazing how these so-called broadminded liberty loving liberals view so narrowly others who don’t think like them, as backwards.
Anyway who needs to bash gays when hetro-bashing is so much more enlighten fun. LOL
By jct
June 24, 2008 12:29 PM | Link to this
As a gay person the term ‘same sex marriaige’ has always bothered me. I want marriage rights, period. I want my partner to inherit my stuff, visit me in the hospital, protect our property without have a lawyer in back pocket all times.
Marriage is a contract that comes with responsibilities. Period.
Churches should not be bothered by this because they set the expectation of who can get married at the church. Even if I was straight, I could not get married in a Catholic church because I am not Catholic. So what, that is not a big deal to me.
I just wish people could get over this subject already. It’s about marriage, period.
By What're you, an idiot?
June 24, 2008 12:34 PM | Link to this
“Liberals just so happened to passed a gay marriage ban in…”
“…hetro-bashing is so much more enlighten fun.”
I think “happened to pass” and “enlightened fun” would be gooder English.
By Michael H. Smith
June 24, 2008 12:48 PM | Link to this
Sorry English teacher, here is the edited version - how dare I violate the rules of grammar when in discussion of laws?
Liberals just so happened to pass a gay marriage ban in very, very, forward thinking ever so enlightened Oregon, in other liberal forward thinking states as well and they’re still singing God bless America - at least most of them do, with the exception of few like Rev. Wright.
This is a bedrock issue with most Americans of every political stripe, as sadly the Democrats found out in 2004. They moved toward the center in 2006 by running “blue dog” candidates (conservative Democrats) and won. But, should this become an issue in 2008 it will be interesting to see which enlightened party candidate sets-off the most firecrackers within their own house.
Amazing how these so-called broadminded liberty loving liberals view so narrowly others who don’t think like them, as backwards. Anyway who needs to bash gays when hetero-bashing is so much more, enlightening fun? LOL
Happy proofreading: :)
By What're you, an idiot?
June 24, 2008 12:58 PM | Link to this
Go easy on the commas, Einstein.
Try reading it out loud to yourself before hitting Post.
By Michael H. Smith
June 24, 2008 1:03 PM | Link to this
yada, yada, yada…
By Yes, he's an idiot
June 24, 2008 1:14 PM | Link to this
‘nuf said.
By Michael H. Smith
June 24, 2008 1:35 PM | Link to this
At least this idiot can use his own name, can’t say that much for the other idiots that have problems identifying the difference between a State right and the individual’s “privilege” to obtain a State issued license.
Go for the gusto gay marriage proponents. I doubt you will win this argument. You have a nation of “so-called idiots” to convince not me alone. So far you haven’t done very well.
Mo’ than a ‘nuff said - improper grammar and all.
PS. Love and kiss, kiss, Woodrow etc. but we simply disagree on marriage as a right.
By annandale
June 24, 2008 1:37 PM | Link to this
Who defines marriage? What are the benefits of marriage? Are we mixing sexual relationships with marriages? Homosexual relationships are unnatural in that the body’s physical do not allow for normal sexual intercourse between congruent bodies. All one has to do is to take a look in the animal kingdom. Homosexuality left to itself cannot propagate or procreate life and hence cannot advance society biologically. No off-spring can be produced from such relationships unless some artificial means are used or the parties involved resort to “cheating” and either adopt children or obtain children by other means than by mutual sexual copulation.
The ideal family construct consists of a father and mother and the children produced by that union.
So we are mixing up the definition of marriage, with the rights imposed by the government to those it grants a marriage license with those who practice sexual acts that are unnatural.
A man may love his grandmother, does that then give him the right to marry her? What about her rights to receive benefits? Two sisters live together, one is healthy and able-bodied and the other is ill with dependent care needs, they love each other. What about their rights for sharing benefits and possessions? Is a marriage license the means to accomplish this?
Do not stop there, what if three people want to get married to each other at the same time, how about a person having multiple spouses at the same time, what about people who immigrate here from other countries who have more than one wife, and such marriages are considered legal in those countries? Should they be denied the legal rights of marriage here?
In a marathon race there are many competitors, and only the winner gets the first prize, even though all the other competitors ran the same distance and invested as much in the training. Should they not get a prize too, why should there be any differentiation between them? They all worked just as hard, ran to the best of their abilities.
So lets make sure that we are all inclusive- marriage can be between any number of persons or types of persons. Why should the homosexuals be selfish and not champion marriage rights for those who want to have multiple spouses.
Is it wrong for a man to marry his sister? his brother? his father? his aunt? just so that they can receive benefits and legal recognition of the traditional male-female form of marriage.
Let us be fair and equitable in our self gratification. Marriage for all, no holds barred.
Consider the ant you sluggard, who having no kings or governments….
By TW
June 24, 2008 1:57 PM | Link to this
Wisely written, annandale
By Bruce Wilcox
June 24, 2008 1:59 PM | Link to this
“Actually, marriage is under the purview of the church,” so Paul, my wife and I do not have a Marriage License because we were married by a Judge? Ever hear of the seperation of church and state?
The last right wingnut conservative Republican Congress spent, wait, wasted so much time trying to push a Amendment to say exactly that a marriage is between a man and a woman? During a time of war, a failing economy, the right wing felt this Amendment was more important and yet they wonder why they got voted out. And what happen to being a strict constitutionalist that is the bedrock of the Conservatives?
This one I love, “27 states adopted a constitutional amendment preserving traditional marriage’, ever wonder why? All those states believed “All men were created equal,” way back then and actually foolish enough to put it in their State Constitution.
Why all this hassle with a 50% traditional divorce rate? Fear, fear of something different and fear of the unknown. The Conservative powers discovered fear is the most effective tool in controling it’s followers, we see how well it works.
Look up Conservative and Liberal, I’d rather be a Liberal.
By Lily Toad
June 24, 2008 2:01 PM | Link to this
Whether marriage is a right or a privilege is irrelevant. If it is a privilege, why should it be restricted by the group that demands special rights for its own members — mixed sex couples?
Also, the fact that a majority votes to restrict marriage for mixed sex couples should not impact the law. What if in 1954 the voters could determine whether schools should be desegregated?
By Mark
June 24, 2008 2:01 PM | Link to this
Gay marriage is wrong. It’s disgusting and vile. It’s a mental affliction, and should not be allowed.
By SFChristo
June 24, 2008 2:03 PM | Link to this
Hello from San Francisco,
You can debate about rights v. privs. and all that. But the reality is, if courts don’t act to protect the minority, then the states don’t tend come around on their own. Ex: womens’ right to vote, ending slavery, interracial marriage.
Surveys used to show that a vast majority of people opposed interracial marriage. Once it was forced by the courts (originally by only ONE vote), then peoples’ attitudes started to change.
Every year roughly 1.1% of the population comes around and supports same sex marriage. That has been the trend. Right now 51% of californians would vote AGAINST the amendment. We’ve already had these marriages for four years in Mass. New York state is going to recognize these marriages.
I will marry my partner of 10 years on July 2nd. Its going to happen. The marriage will still be valid even if they pass the amendment in November.
Like it or not, we will all see reversals in the bans against these marriages. I hope it happens in my lifetime.
By Kathy
June 24, 2008 3:03 PM | Link to this
With any luck the so called ‘Protect Marriage Act’ won’t even make it to the ballot.
http://www.metnews.com/articles/2008/legcomm061708.htm
By fedupingwinnett
June 24, 2008 3:12 PM | Link to this
where’s LT been?
By Cindy
June 24, 2008 3:35 PM | Link to this
blocked? bored? vacation?
By gttim
June 24, 2008 3:51 PM | Link to this
“Funny how in 2004 eleven States, one of which was left coast ultra-liberal Oregon that voted solidly for John Kerry, passed marriage protection amendments or statues.”
And eventually those laws will be tossed, just like laws allowing slavery, laws that outlawed birth control, laws that segregated schools and laws that outlawed interracial marriage. See Michael H. Smith, as time marches on, your type of bigotry, and bigots like you, die off. Every new generation is more liberal and more accepting of others. They do not need to hate others to feel good about themselves. In a decade bigots like you will be looked upon with disgust, just like the bigots in pictures with the Little Rock Nine when they integrated Central High School in Arkansas. History will not treat you or your kind well. You will be remembered for what you really are.
By fedupingwinnett
June 24, 2008 4:49 PM | Link to this
let’s hope he’s not being blocked….
By Elizabeth
June 24, 2008 6:03 PM | Link to this
In Zablocki v. Redhail (1978), Loving v. Virginia (1967) and Skinner v. Oklahoma (1942) the US Supreme Court held that marriage is a fundamental right.
By Elizabeth
June 24, 2008 6:03 PM | Link to this
In Zablocki v. Redhail (1978), Loving v. Virginia (1967) and Skinner v. Oklahoma (1942) the US Supreme Court held that marriage is in fact a fundamental right.
By D
June 24, 2008 6:18 PM | Link to this
Just remember Lawrence v. Texas a few years ago.
To Mark: What’s so disgusting and vile? Maybe you have forgotten that 35 years ago, the American Psychological Associaton declared that homosexuality IS NOT a mental disorder!!!!
Everyone else: just give it time, we, as Americans, will go back to our fundamentals and the idea that “All Men Are Created Equal.” If people don’t want to believe that, I move that destroy the document that proclaims that.
By D
June 24, 2008 6:20 PM | Link to this
Just remember Lawrence v. Texas a few years ago.
To Mark: What’s so disgusting and vile? Maybe you have forgotten that 35 years ago, the American Psychiatric Associaton declared that homosexuality IS NOT a mental disorder!!!!
Everyone else: just give it time, we, as Americans, will go back to our fundamentals and the idea that “All Men Are Created Equal.” If people don’t want to believe that, I move that destroy the document that proclaims that.
By truthteller
June 25, 2008 1:27 AM | Link to this
I’m loving the reactions to this topic.
(1) We’ve had someone quote the National Organization of Women clearly the most sexist organization ever in creation. They are man haters to their core and believe marriage to be equal to slavery.
(2) Then we have people from San Francisco chime in. Get this straight (pardon the pun) we don’t give a hoot in hell what you think. This is Georgia. San Francisco isn’t a city…it’s an experiment…nothing more.
(3) How many of you still believe that 50% of marriages end in divorce? You’ll believe anything. That statistic came from it being observed that the number of divorces in a year was roughly half of the marriages in that year…BUT when you THINK about it what about the marriages that were already in existence? When you calculate the percentage correctly it’s about 18%…no more.
(4) This nation was founded upon the Bible and its teachings (and I’ll just ignore all of the God-bashing comments that will come from those who swallow the ACLU kool-aide). Homosexuality is clearly and absolutely against what the Bible teaches. I hate it for you but it is what it is. Homosexual marriage is a contradiction in terms. You can have two homosexuals sign a document. Who cares…that makes it a marriage about as much as signing a receipt makes me a credit card.
By Just saying
June 25, 2008 5:57 AM | Link to this
Truthteller, many don’t live by the bible and it’s not all about you. Psst, this nation was not founded on the Bible, pick up a history book. Also, SF is more of a city than Atlanta will EVER be, you should check it out.
put your bong down, the bible is a very nice story but that’s it*
By Sayme
June 25, 2008 7:03 AM | Link to this
I feel like I want to throw up. After reading some comments. This is a disgusting topic.
By D
June 25, 2008 8:06 AM | Link to this
Truthteller: Just to reinforce wat Just saying said, your point number 4 is completely FALSE. This nation was founded by people who believed in the enlightenment, not by fundamentalist Christians. This nation was founded on religious freedom and the freedom to believe other than what the Bible says.
Sayme: What is so sickening about this topic? This is something that is very much in the forefront of many people’s lives these days. People want equal treatement. They are entitled to that by their Creator. Our founding documents promise life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If you disagree, you should go to the National Archives and burn that document.
By Bruce Wilcox
June 25, 2008 8:57 AM | Link to this
I have always wondered how the section of the Declaration of Independence that states, “…”among the powers of the earth, the seperate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God entitle them…”, became the Christian God?
Further if this nation is indeed founded on bible, why is God never mentioned in the Constitution? The only time religion is mentioned is the First Amendment and under Article VI -3 “…no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust…”?
Matter of fact seems quite the opposite.
By Michael H. Smith
June 25, 2008 10:32 AM | Link to this
I do disagree and I’m not going to burn the Declaration. No rights are being denied in this marriage issue that is clearly germane to the States. I had to meet the same conditions in this State as any other person to obtain a license of marriage. Wherever people get this crazy notion that “rights are licensed” are the ones that should burn “that document”, which clearly states that rights are unalienable. Governments cannot therefore issue a license on rights endowed by a creator. I didn’t need a license to live, didn’t need a license for liberty nor did I need a license to pursue happiness but I sure as heck had to get a license for marriage from a State.
As I’ve always said this will go to the U.S. Supreme Court, though gay marriage proponents do not want it to get there too quickly. The case is inevitable where two States by court decisions have created gay marriage as no different from traditional marriages where the others states only recognize marriage as the union between a man and a woman. There is no doubt opposite sex marriage is different from same sex so-called marriage in terms of biology. Justice Scalia in past opinions made little waste of words excoriating the matter of procreation as a valid interest of the State to defend traditional marriage. The Justice did challenge procreation as a means test adequately to dismiss it on case by case bases and group by group, though not with respects to gender to gender.
What was missing from Justice Scalia mot was this question: Is it not of a particular interest to the State and the Court to uniquely promote the natural creation of life which only occurs between opposite genders i.e. men and women?
By Bruce Wilcox
June 25, 2008 11:06 AM | Link to this
Conservatives, the rugged individuals (snicker) who demand to control everyone elses lives. After banning gays from being happy maybe they could move on to arranged marriages.
By Michael H. Smith
June 25, 2008 11:07 AM | Link to this
You know I have a follow-up question if the answer is no.
If the State and Court has no particular interest in the natural creation of life which only occurs between opposite genders then why does the disinterested State and Court extract money from my pocket to provide State sponsored child welfare, where the State and Court says it has no interests to protect?
By Truthteller
June 25, 2008 11:19 AM | Link to this
My statement regarding the founding of this country is completely and totally accurate. Pick up a history book? That’s a laugh. I COLLECT antique books. I own and 1850 webster dictionary with a 40 page self written history about Noah Webster and his conversion to Christianity. Ever read a copy of Washington’s farewell address? I have copies in books that were written less than 15 years after his death.
Thomas Jefferson didn’t establish a wall to keep religion out of government…read his writing…it was a one way wall that let in the morality and standards but prevented government from establishing a particular DENOMINATION as supreme.
Where did the founders get the idea of a three pronged system of government? There was no such system currently in use to copy from. Came straight from the Bible if you read the writings of the founders.
Homosexual marriage (again a contradiction in terms) is wrong because it is against the founding principals of our nation. Rant, whine, cry, stomp you feet all you wish but that’s the way it is. If you don’t like it either get over it or Delta is ready when you are.
San Francisco a great town? Whatever. What a laugh. I wouldn’t make a trip to SF for cash money.
By Politics Aside
June 25, 2008 11:19 AM | Link to this
Gay marriage is wrong. How do I know? Look what happened after all those gay marriages in California to the dikes in the midwest flood plains.
I think that settles the issues once and for all.
Next topic: Forcing the Axels of Weasels (Big Three Automakers) to comply with legislated CAFE standards instead of weaseling their way out of it.
Obama 08: 4 the Access of People to force the Axles of Weasels to stop dancing to the Axis of Evil’s tune.
By Bruce Wilcox
June 25, 2008 11:21 AM | Link to this
That makes no sense what-so-ever Mr. Smith.
If the state has an interest, they can limit the number of children you have, sterlize people they deem not fit and a host of other neat social engineering programs the conservatives love so well.
By Bruce Wilcox
June 25, 2008 11:31 AM | Link to this
Truthteller, our Constitution is the rule, God is never mentioned, why is that? One would think that a country founded on God would have at least on reference to him.
Nature’s God is the Christian God? I’ll bet a lot of Native American Indians would disagree, as long as many signers of the Declaration of Independence.
Should be easy enough for you too address the issues I raised.
By D
June 25, 2008 11:46 AM | Link to this
It should never be the place of the government to legislate morality. Laws against murder, rape, battery, robberty, etc are not morality laws. Those laws are there to protect other individuals, but as far as gambling, prostitution, marriage, etc, government needs to step out. Neither the Constitution of the US nor Georgia should be amended to limit the rights of individuals — which means the same-sex marriage ban in the GA Constitution needs to go.
Morality should be taught by the parents, not the state, even if, Heaven forbid, it is someone like Jais above. Now, if Jais were actually to act on what he/she wrote, he/she would rot in prison for harming another individual. In the mean time, since the purpose is marriage is, in Michael H. Smith’s view, simply procreation, outlaw all sexual relations outside of marriage and outlaw all sexual relations in marriage that are not strictly for procreational purposes. Oh wait, Lawrence v. Texas pretty much shut down that idea. 9th Amendment… right to privacy, right to marriage… all men are created equal and they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Who are we, as a society, to tell anyone that this does not apply to them????
By D
June 25, 2008 12:08 PM | Link to this
Floods in the midwest a result of gay marriage in California? I have never laughed so hard. You think that punishing some of the most conservative people in this country for the actions of one state are relatated. Wow, let me catch my breath. I don’t see natural disasters abound in Canada where same-sex marriage is legal. Oh, wait, we have a governor that prays for rain when it is in the forecast and low and behold it actually rains. Wow.
By truthteller
June 25, 2008 12:20 PM | Link to this
Bruce Wilcox…
God is all over the Constitution. Read the writings of the founders (not just for the sake of this arguement but they are FANTASTIC reads to understand what patriots they were). Read how they prayed over what they were doing. Understand where they got the system of government from. Read Washington’s Farewell address. Read a copy of Noah Webster’s Spelling dictionary (pg. 37 I believe..can’t remember off hand). One of the sentences used for spelling is “Good men obey the laws of God”. Elementary readers being nothing more than copied passages from the old testament.
the word “GOD” doesn’t have to appear in the document for it to be based on Biblical principals.
Again, not just for the sake of this arguement…Read Washington’s farewell address. You’ll understand why it was quietly taken out of school reading assignment. Absolutely delicious reading.
By Politics Aside
June 25, 2008 12:25 PM | Link to this
Readers of this blog: The trolls here are tyring to drown me out when I point out about our historical sacrifices we made as the yankees took axes to the boweeveled cotton industry of the south for our freedom to access government and apply justice for all.
Readers of this blog: dont let the trolls’s axioms of drivel make you forget how the yankees took axes to boweevelists for the access of people to stop the axles of weasels who dance to the axis of evil’s tune!
if you do, then we’re finished.
By Bruce Wilcox
June 25, 2008 2:36 PM | Link to this
truthteller, I cannot buy the arguement that God doesn’t have to be mentioned in the Constitution, the very base of our government, for it to be so.
I suggest you research the Albany Conference of 1754, Ben Franklin used the Iroquois Confederacy as part of the Albany Plan was used in writing the Articles of Confederation, which kept the States together from 1781 until the Constitution. It was the first time that all the colonies had been together.
Also the US Treaty with Tripoli, 1796-1797, where in one section it reads quite clearly, “Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.”
I could offer more, but you believe what you want to believe, no matter what history says.
By Pompano
June 25, 2008 3:12 PM | Link to this
My question for the group - why are there comments blaming only ‘Conservatives’for the Gay marriage ban in GA? The amendment passed by almost 75%. It appears to me - based on that number - that the opposition enjoys a rather broad penetration within the general public.
Rarely do the citizens of this state agree to anything in such proportions.
By D
June 25, 2008 5:02 PM | Link to this
Pompano:
Actually, that 75% is based on the number of voters who actually turned out, which therein lies part of the problem. From the statistics I have researched, and I will go with the highest number just to give it the benefit of a doubt, only 57.38% of Georgians turned out to vote in 2004. http://elections.gmu.edu/VoterTurnout2004.htm
Multiply that by 75% and it shows a mere 43.04% support…. much less convincing when you look at it that way. The other thing that bothers me about the 2004 election is that same-sex marriage was already banned in this state by statute. Putting it on the ballot was merely a ploy by the General Assembly to pull the Christian Right to the polls to ensure a strong turn out for bush’s reelection. It was totally unnecessary to have it on the ballot.
One other thing that amazed me was that I saw an ad for Sen. Obama on the TV the other day. Georgia is fair game in this Presidential election and I think we may be very surprised where those 15 electoral votes go this year.
The tide is turning, and it will just be a matter of time before that ban is overturned in Georgia.
By truthteller
June 25, 2008 5:16 PM | Link to this
D: The ban will not be over turned and you idiot…it was put on the ballot because justices like Sears were just itching to overturn it and could have.
Oh and don’t get your hopes up with NObama in Georgia..He won’t win by 10%. Not a chance. No way. Ain’t happening. Nope.
Bruce Wilcox: “…no matter what history says”. Okay…who’s ignoring what…In order for you to maintain your position you have to ignore Thomas Jefferson’s 1806 speech about the wall. You have to ignore Washington’s farewell address (read paragraph 27…too long to post here). You have to ignore clear fact of where the idea of a three-pronged system of government came from…etc…you’re trying to be the first person to ever dig his way out of a hole. Good luck with that.
BTW…sure the word “God” can not be found and it be based on His principles. You don’t see the word “church” or “state” in the amendment that supposedly creates a wall between church and state do you? Can’t have it both ways.
By D
June 25, 2008 5:48 PM | Link to this
Oh forgive me, truthteller… seeing that Justice Sears voted to UPHOLD the amendement when it was challened… I am such an idiot…. I didn’t realize that she wanted to get rid of the statute so bad that she would uphold the amendment. http://www.gasupreme.us/pdf/s06a1574.pdf
Don’t get the signs wrong. I am not saying Sen. Obama will win Georgia, but Sen. McCain will have to fight to win them. Georgia is no longer the solid red state that voted to put a moron in the White House for 8 years now and as its population is becoming more diverse, I feel the people will find out who is trying to keep this state in the 1950s and vote them out (Sunday Sales, not recognizing civil unions/marriages/whatever from other states etc.)
Oh, and the idea of a Republic — which is what the United States is — comes from Rome, not the Bible. Take a few American History and Government classes.
By Bruce Wilcox
June 25, 2008 6:29 PM | Link to this
truthteller, speeches, speeches, when I’m talking about the Constitution, Treaties passed by the US Senate and Ben Franklins Albany Plan, give me a break. You’re trying to put in personal opinions of a few as proof that this counytry is founded on the bible, weak, a very weak defense.
“The ban will not be over turned and you idiot”, spoken like a true Christian truthteller, or would that be hypocrite?
By Rebecca
June 25, 2008 8:58 PM | Link to this
To Paul who said, “In any case, neither my marriage nor society would be threatened by the unions of gays or lesbians.”
Look at Canada, where Christian ministers and media are being sued, and are losing, for proclaiming what the Bible says about homosexuality.
The same sort of persecution is beginning here, where in Arizona, a Christian photographer who declined to shoot a lesbian ‘wedding’ was fined $6000 for discrimination.
Over and over you will find examples of how an increase in “gay” privileges and protections results in religious persecution.
By truthteller
June 25, 2008 10:56 PM | Link to this
Bruce Wilcox said “You’re trying to put in personal opinions of a few as proof”…
SAY WHAT???
Wait…you’re right…I’m just quoting a few people…People like George Washington our first President, Thomas Jefferson, our 3rd president…just men who were intimately involved with the creation of our nation. You’re right…what do they know compared to you…
If you want to be a hater feel free but you’re swimming in a pool all by yourself. Good luck with that.
Answer this…if you say that God has to be mentioned in the constitution for you to believe that it is based on His principles how can you also support the interpretation that the 1st amendment speaks to the seperation of church and state when the words seperation, church and state are not found in the amendment?
D…I do agree…we are a constitutional republic but the three pronged system of our government was not in existence when our government was created. There was no model and I would suggest you stop reading your history books upside down.
And a suggestion…read your link before you post it. The ruling was not on same sex marriage itself but rather was on consitutionality of the text of the admendment…nice try…not really.
By Bruce Wilcox
June 25, 2008 11:07 PM | Link to this
Rebecca, isn’t the whole basis of democracy is that the minority has equal protections as the majority?
‘Gay’ privileges, would that be like the womens privilege to vote, a Black or a Native American having the same privileges as all others?
As far as your religious persecution goes, never heard of any, check Urban Legends.
By D
June 25, 2008 11:55 PM | Link to this
truthteller: do you really believe the justices would have upheld the constitutionally of the amendment if they were eager to overturn the ban? I think not.
As far as the separation of powers that you keep mentioning as Biblical, the Roman Republic had a similar separation of powers. I would like to know what history books you are reading that suggest that this was a totally new concept in 1787. I also want to know why you feel so very strongly about this that you want are willing to forego the concepts of the Declaration of Independence (and I know this has no bearing on the law), Article IV of the Constitution, Amendments I, IX, and XIV? And since you previously mentioned that marriage is a “privilege,” I suggest you read the text of the 14th Amendment.
We cannot base our system of government on the views of the individuals that hold the offices of that government. Say what you want, Washington’s farewell address, for example, has absoutley no bearing on the law of this land. Since you bring it up, though, Washington warned against political parties but obviously that didn’t last. Give us some basis in law for your arguments and stop being so hurt that your way of thinking is becoming the minority way of thinking. The great thing about this country is you are allowed to have your view.
By Bruce Wilcox
June 25, 2008 11:57 PM | Link to this
Isn’t it true truthteller that the beliefs of a few shall not rule the majority?
You want to believe that personal opinions of a few supercede the writen documents that this country is based on, I cannot accept that.
The Declaration of Independence uses the terms, “Natures Laws and Natures God’, no mention of a Christian God, sorry. As I pointed out our guiding Constitution never mentions God, but in two places gives all the freedom to believe or not.
The Treaty of Tripoli states under Article 12, that this country was not founded on Christian principles, the Treaty was passed by our Senate.
The Albany Conference of 1754, Ben Franklin used the Iroquois Confederacy as part of the Albany Plan which was used in writing the Articles of Confederation. Quick explanation, Franklin was trying to get the 13 (but some say only 11 or 12 showed up) colonies to work as one instead of each going out on their own. One of the items to be discussed was trade with the Native Americans. The Iroquois Confederacy consisted of five different tribes with many different clans, the day of the meeting there were 13 different representatives for the colonies awaiting the Chiefs, one showed up. At first they were insulted, then the Chief explained all the clans and tribes discussed it and all agreed on what they wanted and what they would except, they only needed one Chief to represent them.
Franklin used this as a prime example why the colonies should join together as one, and like the Iroquois, speak as one against England.
Add the Roman and Greek Empires both who had great influence on our Constitution. If you want to believe our Constitution comes from the bible so be it, that is your protected right. If I want to use fact, that too is protected.
Sorry for the long winded explanation, it is my last on this subject, there will be a test on Friday.
By Michael H. Smith
June 26, 2008 2:23 AM | Link to this
The State has an interest in promoting and protecting life, as well as an interest in the opposite gender pairing that is known to procreate life. The State has no interest in limiting the numbers of children or any other such idiotic unconstitutional non-sense contrary to irate liberal blather spewed in a worthless defense of something the State has no interests in promoting or protecting simply for the gratification of a same gender pairing that has never been known to procreate a single life.
By Michael
June 26, 2008 5:53 AM | Link to this
Rights? Feel how you might about gay unions, but please stop with the Constitutional rights arguement. I wonder how many of you realize that while there is a right not to be discriminated against while voting there is no Constitutional right to vote?
By D
June 26, 2008 6:05 AM | Link to this
Ok, so, Michael…..
The state wants to promote and protect life and yet we still practice capital punishment….
I hardly find it “liberal” to say the state should, therefore, not allow other types of relationships simply because it does not find that they exist for other purposes.
Under your argument, the state would need to force married couples to procreate, even against their will and I may well end up with 15 siblings rather than the two that I have.
Marriage, is in it’s basic sense two things. 1) A promise between two individuals to love each other in sickness and in health, forsaking all others as long as they both shall live. 2) A binding contract which allows one person in that contract to make necessary decisions for the other when the second party is unable to, and to receive the financial benefits and inheritance upon the death of the other partner.
I hardly see anywhere in that definition anything about procreation.
Also, if the state were to use marriage as the way to promote and protect life, it would not have programs designed to promote unfit mothers from simply popping out another baby into poverty for an increase in the welfare check.
This is not a liberal or conservative thing. This is about the right of two individuals to enter into a relationship that has absolutely no bearing on the types of relationships that you chose to participate in. One thing that conservatives who fight tooth and nail against this issue fail to answer is how does this couple’s relationship affect yours and why should you care about what they do?
Why, then, I ask myself, do people who have been divorced several times fight so hard to prevent two people from giving marriage a shot?
When I can receive a straight-forward answer that is not based upon the Bible or rule of law that is based upon Biblical teachings to that question, then I believe we may be able to come to some sort of agreement on this topic.
By Katie
June 26, 2008 6:07 AM | Link to this
I just don’t see what the big fuss is all about. If two people of the same sex want to get married, big deal. What they’re doing doesn’t effect anyone else. It’s their marriage… Why do people in this ‘free’ society feel the need to control what others do, especially when it has zero impact on them? Please don’t bring Jesus into this.
By D
June 26, 2008 6:18 AM | Link to this
Actually, other Michael (I assume you are different from Michael H. Smith)
You are partially right. We have no Constitutional right to vote for President or Vice President. That is bestowed upon us by the states as the manner of choosing the electors.
If you read the text of the Constitution, Article I states: “The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States” sounds like voting to me
Amendment 9 states: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” Could voting be one of these unenumerated rights? Amendment 15 states: “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.” No question here, it says the right to vote.
Amendment 17 states: “The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof….” Again, another allusion to the right to vote.
Amendment 19 states: “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.” Again, no question. It says the RIGHT to vote.
Amendment 24 states: “The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.” There it is again.
Amendment 26 states: “The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.” I think there’s little doubt by this time we have the right to vote.
By Katie
June 26, 2008 8:26 AM | Link to this
What is this, the game of ’ I know more about history and the Constitution’ than you do? We’re all familiar with the Constitution, must we nit pick it? It can be translated in many different ways.
By D
June 26, 2008 8:49 AM | Link to this
Actually, Katie, I wish it were that — no on really seems to be giving Constitutional backing to why they can justify banning same sex marriage — although I know it is now part of the GA constitution, which wouldn’t be there except for a religious right scare 4 years ago. I wish it were simply a Constitutional debate.
By Michael H. Smith
June 27, 2008 9:39 AM | Link to this
Okay “D” you want to travel the moronic path in this?
> The state wants to promote and protect life and yet we still practice capital punishment…. >
You bet, D, and the logic behind it is called “just cause”. People who are put to death by the state are a danger to the lives of others and the state is protecting life by ending the lives people who pose threats to the lives of others.
> I hardly find it “liberal” to say the state should, therefore, not allow other types of relationships simply because it does not find that they exist for other purposes. >
Name the relationships you feel that the State prohibits without “just cause” please, your statement is very capricious and to vague to address beyond the confines of discussing heterosexual and homosexual, however, the State not granting a license to marry does not prohibit any homosexual relationship. You’re not only being “liberal”, you’re being silly; even more so with your next statement.
> Under your argument, the state would need to force married couples to procreate, even against their will and I may well end up with 15 siblings rather than the two that I have.
>
Read this carefully, “D”, promote was the word I used I never implied or stated that the State should force procreation that is your asinine assertion in digressing the issue.
> Marriage, is in it’s basic sense two things. 1) A promise between two individuals to love each other in sickness and in health, forsaking all others as long as they both shall live. 2) A binding contract which allows one person in that contract to make necessary decisions for the other when the second party is unable to, and to receive the financial benefits and inheritance upon the death of the other partner.
I hardly see anywhere in that definition anything about procreation.
>
That is your definition of marriage. It is not my definition nor is it the State’s definition. Again you are trying to confuse the argument of purpose and your point 2 is in law legally challenged to say the very least.
I’m going to cut through the chase in dealing with your stupidity “D”, it is simply too boring and reiterate my argument on the purpose of why the State should be involved with marriage at all.
Justice Scalia’s opinion was based on an “every case” argument to invalidate optimal for procreation that most States use in their cause to defend their terms and conditions applied in granting a marriage license, which the States summarizes in the one word, optimal. My opinion and most of the States is appropriately based on a “any case” argument which in fact does validate the procreation argument that even Justice Scalia would have a hard time getting around when appropriately using gender pairs in the “any case” test not the “every case” test.
When women mate women does procreation ever occur naturally in “any case”? No.
When men mate men does procreation ever occur naturally in “any case”? No.
When men mate women or vice-versa does procreation ever occur naturally in “any case”? Yes, in fact procreation occurs very often in heterosexual pairs in many, many, cases.
My argument only asks for one case and still homosexuality and doubtless to say even Justice Antoine Scalia cannot provide that one case, in “any case”.
By D
June 27, 2008 7:30 PM | Link to this
Michael — enough. I will say the only “stupid” thing (since that is what I am according to you) is that I could expect an adult conversation without personal attacks.
You have failed to show anywhere in Constitutional law anything to back your case or any legitimate reason the state has to prohibit marriage between same-sex couples.
I will just point out one last thing about Georgia’s same-sex amendment, considering less than 60% of the popluation actually voted in that election, that means that less than 50% of Georgia’s eligable voters actually voted for the amendment.
Time will tell, and the way time goes, I believe I will be on the victorious side of this debate, and I will deal with your and truthteller’s personal attacks until that time comes. I am young and patient. I don’t know how old you are, but I suspect your intollerance will die out with your generation.
By Mark
June 29, 2008 1:32 PM | Link to this
I may be wrong, but I doubt it. A man putting another man’s penis in his mouth is plain disgusting.
By Pat
June 29, 2008 5:59 PM | Link to this
Mark, don’t knock it ‘til you’ve tried it. Or have you?