Advertisement

Register for free to remove this ad

The essay was writen in Feb-May of this year for my Government class. It's kind of long and needs to be updated and fixxed (Really bad at grammer and spelling.) This doesn't take into accound the Mass Gay marriages that much because it became legal the week after I passed this in.

Try to guess what I got on it? I don't think he took my terrible grammer into account that much.

It's long, like 6-7 type 12 font in Word, so if you aren't going to read the WHOLE thing, then don't bother posting because you don't know all the facts.

Gay Marriage Legal Battle The fight for gay rights in America has been a lengthy challenging one that mirrors the fight of African American rights movement of the 1950 and 1960s. Both have had their up and downs, but at the same time it takes on some of its own characteristics. After the events and court rulings of the black civil rights movement, and in light of some of the court rulings as of recent there is no legal reason why homosexuals should not have all the legal rights as others do, and every reason why they should. The only reasons why they don’t is fear of change, the unknown and the propaganda the powerful political people. The rulings should not have just applied to one minority, but all citizens of what is titled “a free nation”. This nation has never fully been fully free, the White House and Capital building were built by slaves, and it will never fully be free because there’s no such thing as a perfect democracy, but that doesn’t mean we can just give up. The nation as a whole needs to let freedom ring and over time freedom will happen for more people. There have been setbacks through, a major one being Plessey vs. Ferguson. It ruled that “separate but equal” is legal, it is never equal but it took more than a half a century before the ruling would be over turned. A school in Topeka, Kansas was the reason for the undoing of the Plessey vs. Ferguson ruling. There, like many other places at the time, had segregation in most public places, including school. One student there stood up like many others across the nation at the time. The case was heard by the different of courts and finally by the Supreme Court under the title Brown vs. The Board of Education. They unanimously ruled that “separate but equal” was not legal. Would the president of the United States then call the nine justices “radical activists”? Or would it have to be five judges or less to be considered “activists ”? It would not be the end to segregation, that would take many more years, but it was a step in the right direction for equal rights in this country then and now. The “separate but equal” rulings had a huge effect, even now with this discussion of with civil unions. Many think that civil unions are fine and give all the rights of marriage to homosexuals. They do no give all the rights, in one state the rights can be the completely different than another. The words “civil union” can be changed and interoperated differently, just like marriage meaning “the legal union of two people in wedlock” in Webster’s Dictionary and “the legal union of a man and women as husband and wife” in American Hertitage Dictionary. Even if they meant the exact same thing it should be considered illegal because it would make homosexuals separate from heterosexuals. The difference from the African American Civil Rights Movement to the Gay Civil Right Movement is that African Americans were denied many more right; they were kept from going to the same school as whites, drinking and eating at the same places, even voting. It was much worse for African Americans and they were fighting for many more rights, but one thing unites the two movements and as much as separates the people about it, the meaning of marriage. The question of mmarriage is as old as the ritual itself. The issue comes from the irgonant throught that marriage is a religious matter and a family building one when it is certainly not. No where does it say that a couble have to be married in order to have children except the Bible which cannot be and is not a legal United States document. The Bible is not a legal docoment for many reasons, the major one being that the Constitution gives freedom from religion and following the Bible would go against it. The other is worse in ways, if we followed the Bible we would have to follow all the evil rules in it like, “do not mate different kinds of animals. / Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed. /Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material” . Maybe we should follow those rules plus others like the eating of shimp is an “abomination” , just like homosexuality, and if someoone works on a Sunday “must be put to death” . There is one rule we saddly followed for a long time, “[i]f you want slaves, buy them from other nations” . All that did not stop a judge from basing his decistion on what “God wanted”. In 1958 a loving couple from Washington DC got married. The husband was white and the wife was black. In D.C. there was no problem with that, but they moved to Virgina a year later which, like many other States of the time, had laws banning interrational marriage. There were brought up on trail for breaking that law go loving each other. Obviously they were found giulty when the judge gave his reasoning he wrote, “Almightly God created the races white, black, yellow, Malay, and red, He placed them on separate continents. And for but the interfedence with His arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that He seperated the races shows that He did not intend for the races to mix” . He, the jugde mind you, not God, then sentenced the Lovings to leave Virgina and never come back with a 25 year sespended sentence or a year in jail. The Lovings moved back to Washington D.C. and in 1963 they filed suit. The case moved through the court system until reached the Supreme Court under the title Lovings vs. Virgina, the judges ruled that the ban was unconstittusional, just like how the Massachusetts Supreme Court has done with homosexual marriage. There is no difference between wanting to keep the ban on inter-racial marriage and the ban on homosexual, but some do not want to admit that and try to stop it at all costs. While homsexuals have fought their way by court completely legally public opion is still based on false assumions that are spread by the powerful closeminded old fasion bigots. The truth must get out sometime but it is mcu more chaleging for that to happen with gays then african americans because African Americans had much higher number. There were more blacks fighting for rights than there are gays. It also does not help that some gays are too fearful to speak out because theyare afraid of what will happen to them. Their voices must me heard and with the new focus on the gay rights movement it has Battling against the closeminded racists whites of the south was a long enduring one that lasted more than a lifetime for some. Court cases and protest filled the Afrian American civil rights movement. They could not speak out by voting because there were laws banning blacks from voting. The laws were based on fear, humans have always and will always fear things that are new and different to what they are taught growing up. The Jim Crow Laws were just that, laws based on fear that turned into a mindset and a lifesytle. It is happening again today. For homosexuals it is growing by the day because the fearful people are the political leaders of the United States. At the State of the Union Adress on January 22, 2004 President George W. Bush spoke aboout sending “the right messages to our children” , and then went on to say that “[o]ur nation must defend the sanctity of marriage” and then called for a Constitutional Amendment baring gay marriage. Does that mean “the right message” to send to our children is that it is okey to discriminate towards gays? That could not be the case through because shortly after while speacking about religion Bush said that he opened grants to faith base charities “so people of faith can know that the law will never discriminate against them” . So it’s fine to discriminate towards gays, but it is wrong to discriminate towards people of religion? In America it should be wrong to discriminate towards anyone. The State of the Union Address of 2004 was a major one against gay rights. Not only did the president speak out saying it was okey to discriminate against homosexuals and called for an ammendment of hatred he called the Massachusetts Supreme Court jugdes “activist”, the first of what would be many times, for “redefining marriage” . Once again marriage has no real meaning, it is just a legal term, or it was until 1996. In 1996 the “Defense of Marriage Act” was sweaping through Congress. It was aimed to stop gay rights from spreading from State to State by declaring “[n]o State… shal be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judical proceeding of any other State…respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex” , which in english means that no State has to recognize any gay marriages or civil unions in other States. Clinton said that if Congress passed the act he would sign it. President Clinton did this not because he agreed with it, but because it was an election year and he believed it would give more religious votes for his re-election. On September 21, 1996 Cliton signed the Defense of Marriage Act and appualed homosexuals, he reply to them “Who you gonna call, Bob Dole?” . There is one major flaw with the Defense of Marriage Act, it is completely unconstitutional by going against Article IV Section 1 The Full Faith and Credit Clause. It says “Full faith and credit shall be given in each State to the public acts, records, and judical proceedings of every other State” . The Defense of Marriage Act just throws that out the window and it cannot to that without a Constitutional Ammendment and why Bush is trying his hardest to get one started. Also this year, like in 1996, it’s an re-election year and Bush needs to look strong on something. The economy is not the greatest, Iraq is getting worse and worse by the day, he needs to try something so he is using gay as a political tool like Cliton did in 1996. Bush has to know that the amendment would never be voted on in Congess before this years election, and even if it was the States could not vote on it this year. The scared closemind, old thinking politictions must stop it elsewhere, at the root of the “problem”, the State of Maasachusetts. Massachusetts polls show that the residents are split 50 / 50, polls are not the most reliable but thts all we have, and to some that is all we need as an excuse to try and block gay marriage and “let the people speak”. When the Supreme Court ruled that there is no reason why homosexuals should not be aloud to marry under the State Constitution the judges gave the Letislature six months to act. Act they did, At the Constitutional Convension the gay marriage amendment was 7th to be heard, but the first 6th were pretty much just passed by quickly so the discussion on gay marriage could be brought up. It took two months of flip flopping before an amendment that would ban gay marriage and allow civil unions based its first step before becoming law. The ruling heated up the battle on both sides and started a chain recation of gay marriages from San Francisco to Organ and New York, and an outcry from the anti gay marriage side that picked up more press. Gay marriage foes try to say that it’s another example of homosexuals by passing the laws to get the “homosexual agenda” across. All that is an example of is a peaceful way of protest, protesting is not against the law. African Americans used it 40 years ago to get their voises heard and in view, the same is going on today. Homosexuals followed all the law, the couples sued and it went to court. The court’s job is to make sure the the other branchs of government stay in check and that’s what the case is this time, Governer Romney and President Bush are the ones leading the fight that is bording on illegal. Bush trying to pass an constitutional ammendment is not illegal, trying to pass one based on discrimination and what his god wants probably is, but no one has ever tried that before. What Governer Romney is just wrong, and in some ways and very well could be against the limits of his job. Romney tried everything to get the judges to change their discision, he asked the Attorney General Thomas Reilly to ask the court for a stay, Reilly refused to ask, even though he is against the courts disision, because he thinks the court has made up their mind. Romney then tried to ask for a stay by appionting a special committee to to do so, the commottee failed. Asking for a stay did not work so the only thing left is to fire the jugdes. What a lovely leason this teaches the kids, we have to discriminate to protect the children, and now blackmale to get your way. State Repasentitive Emile J. Goguen started proceedings to have the four judges fired, he did not say what for. Arline Isaacson, the co-chairwoman of the Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus said there is “no rational basis for removing any of these judges” , yet the “pro gay side” is still considered the raditical ones. After all that did not work they did not give up they continued there closeminded ignorant fight. Romney now said that Massachusetts is now going to follow a discrimintory law from 1913 that bans people out of Massachusetts the right to marry if the marriage would be viod in the couples home State. Romney’s spokesman, Eric Fehrnstorm, came out and said, “The governor feels an obligation to carry out the law as it exists” and went on to say “The governor does not have the luxury of choosing which laws to enforce and which ones to ignore” . To the unknowing it makes it seem that the governer is the good guy, but in realility it is just the governers propaganda. The truth is that for almost three decades the State of Massachusetts told city and town clerks not to follow those giudelines. The most resent was a 1995 document that reads “A clerk cannot and most not question the citizenship or legal status of a marriage applicant” . It does look like Governor Romney can choose what laws to enforce and what ones to ignore, but “[h]e took an oath to enforce all the laws of the Commonwealth. Romney does not seem to be doing that, so maybe he can be impeached for lieing under oath. Polititions lieing to get there way, the spreading of hate propaganda, and doing anything to get stop gay marriages from happening will not end soon, but the fight will continue, the battle has only become. In time the discrimination will end, and with gay marriages beginning on May 17 equal rights for homosexuals has taken its biggest step towards realility.

Sorry but gay marriage is not a civil right. Gays are not being discriminated against any more than would be bigamists are. You cannot equate the black civil rights movement with the agenda of gay marriage. The two are not the same. You are born black there is no conclusive proof that you are born gay or there is a gay gene. That being said it isn't discrimination in the sense you wish to define it.

This country decided over a hundred years ago that the practice of bigamy would not be tolerated, despite the Mormon church having it as one of their tennants. It took many years of failed applications for Utah to become a state as a result until they finally changed their state constitution banning the practice. Bigamy is a choice, it is a behavior even though all parties involved are "loving consenting adults" same as is being gay. No other state in the union wanted to be forced to recognize unions that were contrary or an abonination of their societal views.

Now there is no outcry to stop curtailing the religous practices and beliefs of members of the Church of Latter Day S aints. There are sects and individuals in Utah that refuse to obey the restrictions and take multiple wives. Despite this civil disobedience and it involving consenting loving adults it is still illegal. Just as gay marriage is.

Being gay is still defined by behavior being black is not. You could be a man attracted to men all your life but if you never went through the physical act of love with a member of the same gender who would rightly consider you gay or a homosexual? That said you can begin to define the limits of your argument.

Seperate but equal was flawed and was used by the Nazi's during Nuremburg to say the way they treated their Jews was not much different than the way American's of the day treated our blacks. That alone shows the heinous historical nature of the error. Being gay has no such mirror of history. Other than sodomy laws, which also effect straight couples, no law, group of laws or practices effectively discriminate against homosexuals, just homosexual practices.

There are no gays denied admittance to restaurants, denied use of public transportation, denied employment, held back for promotion, or given an inferior education. To the contrary the New York public school system has implimented a special school for GLBT students that surpasses the education of normal NYC schools under the guise of "fairness" and "protection" from the general student body. They've decided that "seperate but equal" does apply if it benefits the minority. Wouldn't some or all of these things have to take place for your claim of "seperate but equala" to have any bearing?

If you look at civil unions I can make plenty of rational reaons as to why they should be allowed. Take into account the case of two widowed sisters living together. One sister owns the house and has the majority of financial assets yet passes away first, isn't it the right and noble thing to make tax, inheritence and insurance benefits pass on to the survivng sister as though she were a spouse? Of course. That's an argument you could win with nearly every American unless the sum of money was deemed "too much" and that the surviving sister would "benefit unfairly from a reduced inheritence tax". But then you're into a socialist argument, not one of legal standing.

The only measure you can use to define homosexuals, gays, lesbians or bisexuals is their behavior. It takes sex with the same gender to define the role. You can think or suspect you're gay but until you actually do it aren't you "curious"? Until then what rights or protections have I garnered under anti-discrimination laws? You can't go to a judge and say "These guys beat me up. I once thought about being gay and really am, at heart, give them extra time for a hate crime."

By the same measure suppose I loved threesomes and loved being with two women, the same two women, and that's the only way I could truly enjoy sex. Despite our wishes and the fact we'd consumated our relationship dozens if not hundreds of times I can't marry them both. Even if all of us wanted it.

No argument for gay marriage I've yet seen comes close to standing on its own two feet where if I changed "gay" to "bigamy" people wouldn't summarily dismiss the idea as absurd.

I'm a conservative and I have no problem with the concept of 'gay' marriage.

First of all I believe that in a free society, we have the right to enter into contracts with anyone we choose, as long as they are of legal age of consent and of sound mind. With that premise, if I were to engage into a 'marriage' contract with another person, it should be no ones business whether that person is a man or a woman, or an alien. The basic legal issue here is with property rights. In corporate mergers, properties are 'merged' into one whole which is completly analagous to the 'merging' or 'marriage' of two persons and their property. The pertinent legal issue is who retains said property rights when one party dies, leaves, or sells out to another party.

Bigamy or poligamy, for that matter, should also be legal. Basically, any type of behavior that does not infringe on my rights as an individual ARE constitutionally protected, unless they are regulated by the state, or any local authority as illegal. We need to be very careful with the powers we so freely give to the federal government. Soon they may be telling us we can only marry other americans, or only those in our own age group, or race, or religion, or social class. I exaggerate for emphasis, obviously, but when government starts making lists of things we are allowed to do, we may already be in deeper trouble than we realize.

Howdy, I took the liberty of proofreading it for you since you did have quite a few spelling and grammar mistakes. You still need to proofread it again, but this should give you a good start:


Gay Marriage Legal Battle

The fight for gay rights in America has been a lengthy, challenging one that mirrors the fight during the African American rights movement of the 1950 and 1960s. Both have had their up and downs, but at the same time it takes on some of its own characteristics. After the events and court rulings of the black civil rights movement, and in light of some of the court rulings as of recent, there is no legal reason why homosexuals should not have all the legal rights as others do, and every reason why they should. The only reasons why they do not is fear of change, the unknown and the propaganda of the powerful political people. The rulings should not have just applied to one minority, but all citizens of what is titled “a free nation”. This nation has never fully been fully free, the White House and Capital building were built by slaves, and it will never fully be free because there is no such thing as a perfect democracy, but that does not mean we can just give up. The nation as a whole needs to let freedom ring and over time freedom will happen for more people.

There have been setbacks through, a major one being Plessey vs. Ferguson. It ruled that “separate but equal” is legal, it is never equal but it took more than a half a century before the ruling would be overturned. A school in Topeka, Kansas was the reason for the undoing of the Plessey vs. Ferguson ruling. There, like many other places at the time, had segregation in most public places, including school. One student there stood up like many others across the nation at the time. The case was heard by the different courts and finally by the Supreme Court under the title Brown v. The Board of Education. They unanimously ruled that “separate but equal” was not legal. Would the president of the United States then call the nine justices “radical activists”? Or would it have to be five judges or less to be considered “activists ”? It would not be the end to segregation, that would take many more years, but it was a step in the right direction for equal rights in this country then and now.

The “separate but equal” rulings had a huge effect, even now with this discussion of civil unions. Many think that civil unions are fine and give all the rights of marriage to homosexuals. They do no give all the rights, in one state the rights can be the completely different than another. The words “civil union” can be changed and interpreted differently, much like marriage’s meaning. For instance, in Webster’s Dictionary the meaning of marriage is “the legal union of two people in wedlock” and in the American Heritage Dictionary it means “the legal union of a man and women as husband and wife.” Even if they meant the exact same thing it should be considered illegal because it would make homosexuals separate from heterosexuals.

The difference from the African American Civil Rights Movement to the Gay Civil Right Movement is that African Americans were denied many more right; they were kept from going to the same school as whites, drinking and eating at the same places, even voting. It was much worse for African Americans and they were fighting for many more rights, but one thing unites the two movements and as much as separates the people about it, the meaning of marriage.
The question of marriage is as old as the ritual itself. The issue comes from the ignorant thought that marriage is a religious matter and a family building one, when it is certainly not. No where does it say that a couple must be married in order to have children except the Bible which cannot be and is not a legal United States document. The Bible is not a legal document for many reasons, the major one being that the Constitution gives freedom from religion and following the Bible would go against it. The other is worse in ways, if we followed the Bible we would have to follow all the evil rules in such as, “do not mate different kinds of animals, do not plant your field with two kinds of seed, or do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.” Maybe we should follow those rules plus others like the eating of shrimp is an “abomination,” just like homosexuality, and if someone works on a Sunday “must be put to death.”

There is one rule we sadly followed for a long time, “[i]f you want slaves, buy them from other nations.” All that did not stop a judge from basing his decision on what “God wanted.” In 1958, a loving couple from Washington D.C. got married. The husband was white and the wife was black. In D.C., there was no problem with that, but they moved to Virginia a year later which, like many other States of the time, had laws banning inter-racial marriage. They were brought up on trial for breaking that law for loving each other. Obviously they were found guilty, when the judge gave his reasoning he wrote, “Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, Malay, and red, He placed them on separate continents. And for but the interference with His arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that He separated the races shows that He did not intend for the races to mix.” He, the judge mind you, not God, then sentenced the Lovings to leave Virginia and never come back with a 25 year suspended sentence or a year in jail.

The Lovings moved back to Washington D.C. and in 1963 they filed suit. The case moved through the court system until it reached the Supreme Court under the title Lovings vs. Virginia, the judges ruled that the ban was unconstitutional, just like how the Massachusetts Supreme Court has done with homosexual marriage. There is no difference between wanting to keep the ban on inter-racial marriage and the ban on homosexual, but some do not want to admit that and try to stop it at all costs.
While homosexuals have fought their way through court completely legally, public opinion is still based on false assumptions that are spread by the powerful, close-minded old fashioned bigots. The truth must get out sometime but it is much more challenging for that to happen with gays than African Americans because African Americans had much higher numbers. There were more blacks fighting for rights than there are gays. It also does not help that some gays are too fearful to speak out because they are afraid of what will happen to them. Their voices must be heard and with the new focus on the gay rights movement it has.

Battling against the close-minded, racists whites of the south was a long, enduring one that lasted more than a lifetime for some African Americans. Court cases and protests filled the African American civil rights movement. They could not speak out by voting because there were laws banning blacks from voting. The laws were based on fear, humans have always, and will always fear things that are new and different to what they are taught growing up. The Jim Crow Laws were just that, laws based on fear that turned into a mindset and a lifestyle. It is happening again today
.
For homosexuals it is growing by the day because the fearful people are the political leaders of the United States. At the State of the Union Address on January 22, 2004, President George W. Bush spoke about sending “the right messages to our children,” and then went on to say that “[o]ur nation must defend the sanctity of marriage” and then called for a Constitutional Amendment baring gay marriage. Does that mean “the right message” to send to our children is that it is okay to discriminate towards gays? That could not be the case though because shortly after, while speaking about religion, Bush said that he opened grants to faith-based charities “so people of faith can know that the law will never discriminate against them.” So it is fine to discriminate towards gays, but it is wrong to discriminate towards people of religion? In America, it should be wrong to discriminate towards anyone.

The State of the Union Address of 2004 was a major attack against gay rights. Not only did the president speak out saying it was okay to discriminate against homosexuals and called for an amendment of hatred, he called the Massachusetts Supreme Court judges “activist,” the first of what would be many times, for “redefining marriage.” Once again, marriage has no real meaning, it is just a legal term, or it was until 1996.

In 1996, the “Defense of Marriage Act” was sweeping through Congress. It was aimed to stop gay rights from spreading from State to State by declaring “[n]o State… shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State…respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex,” which in English means that no State has to recognize any gay marriages or civil unions in other States. Clinton said that if Congress passed the act, he would sign it. President Clinton did this not because he agreed with it, but because it was an election year and he believed it would bring more religious votes for his re-election. On September 21, 1996, Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act and appalled homosexuals, he replied to them “Who you gonna call, Bob Dole?”

There is one major flaw with the Defense of Marriage Act, it is completely unconstitutional because it goes against Article IV, Section 1, The Full Faith and Credit Clause. It says “Full faith and credit shall be given in each State to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other State.” The Defense of Marriage Act just throws that out the window and it cannot do that without a Constitutional Amendment and that is why Bush is trying his hardest to get one started. Also this year, like in 1996, it is a re-election year and Bush needs to look strong on something. The economy is not the greatest, the Iraq war is getting worse and worse by the day, he needs to try something so he is using gay as a political tool, like Clinton did in 1996.

Bush has to know that the amendment would never be voted on in Congress before this years election, and even if it was the States could not vote on it this year. The scared, close-mind, old thinking politicians must stop it elsewhere, at the root of the “problem”, the State of Massachusetts. Massachusetts polls show that the residents are split 50 / 50, polls are not the most reliable but that is all we have. To some, this is all we need as an excuse to try and block gay marriage and “let the people speak”. When the Supreme Court ruled that there is no reason why homosexuals should not be aloud to marry under the State Constitution, the judges gave the Legislature six months to act. Act they did, at the Constitutional Convention the gay marriage amendment was 7th to be heard, but the first 6th were pretty much just passed by quickly so the discussion on gay marriage could be brought up. It took two months of flip-flopping before an amendment that would ban gay marriage and allow civil unions passed its first step before becoming law.

The ruling heated up the battle on both sides and it started a chain reaction of gay marriages from San Francisco to Oregon and New York, and an outcry from the anti-gay marriage side that picked up more press. Gay marriage foes try to say that it is another example of homosexuals by passing the laws to get the “homosexual agenda” across. All that is an example of is a peaceful way of protest, protesting is not against the law. African Americans used it 40 years ago to get their voices heard and in view, the same is going on today. Homosexuals followed all the law, the couples sued and it went to court. The court’s job is to make sure the other branches of government stay in check and that’s what the case is this time, Governor Romney and President Bush are the ones leading the fight that is boarding on illegal.

Bush attempting to pass a constitutional amendment is not illegal, trying to pass one based on discrimination and what his God wants probably is, but no one has ever tried that before. What Governor Romney wants is just wrong, and in some ways could very well be against the limits of his job. Romney tried everything to get the judges to change their decision, he asked the Attorney General Thomas Reilly to ask the court for a stay. Reilly refused to ask, even though he is against the courts decision, because he thinks the court has made up their mind. Romney then tried to ask for a stay by appointing a special committee to do so, the committee failed. Asking for a stay did not work so the only thing left is to fire the judges. What a lovely lesson this teaches the kids, we have to discriminate to protect the children, and now blackmail to get your way.

State Representative Emile J. Goguen started proceedings to have the four judges fired, he did not say why. Arline Isaacson, the co-chairwoman of the Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus said there is “no rational basis for removing any of these judges” , yet the “pro-gay side” is still considered the radical ones. After all this did not work, they did not give up, they continued there close-minded, ignorant fight. Romney said that Massachusetts is now going to follow a discriminatory law from 1913 that bans people from outside of Massachusetts the right to marry if the marriage would be void in the couple’s home State. Romney’s spokesman, Eric Fehrnstorm, came out and said, “The governor feels an obligation to carry out the law as it exists” and went on to say “The governor does not have the luxury of choosing which laws to enforce and which ones to ignore.” To the unknowing, it makes it seem that the governor is the good guy, but in reality it is just the governor’s propaganda. The truth is for almost three decades the State of Massachusetts told city and town clerks not to follow those guidelines. The most recent was a 1995 document which reads “A clerk cannot and must not question the citizenship or legal status of a marriage applicant.” It does look like Governor Romney can choose which laws to enforce and which ones to ignore, but “[h]e took an oath to enforce all the laws of the Commonwealth. Romney does not seem to be doing that, so maybe he can be impeached for lying under oath.

Politicians lying to get their way, the spreading of hate propaganda, and doing anything to stop gay marriages from happening will not end in the near future. The fight will continue, the battle has only begun. In time, the discrimination will end, and with gay marriages beginning on May 17th, equal rights for homosexuals has taken its biggest step towards reality.

Excellent comments B and David85.

I read your whole article. Excellent stuff but I'd like to add some things. The reason why some gays don't come out of the closet is that they're waiting for the ball to drop and things to take a backward step. Let's be honest here. They turned the hose on Blacks and I'm sure some "Christians" wouldn't mind doing the same to gays or beating them if the clock were turned back and potentially gays might be the first especially the public one's who've come out of the closet.
I'm sorry for being overly Pessimistic but I see it only two ways for this: We evolve and become a better society and let "Gay Marriage" become legal or just dissolve "Marriage" in the governmental sense and change it to "Civil Unions" OR we backslide. cringes.
There may be a gay gene PAD though I do believe that some childhood or young adult experiences may incline who would be a regular straight person towards Bisexuality and if you're a woman that's just the ticket. ;-)
Sorry, sorry I can't resist but I wouldn't be surprised if situations like that lead to it though there may be true Bisexuals.

As long as we are choosing who can and cannot get married, I'd like to vote that Republicans can't get married. I hate them. Don't let them get married.

Kinda sounds ridiculous, doesn't it? That's what it sounds like to me every time I hear someone say that gay people can't get married.

Why, oh why did I come back to this board? Every time I come here it's only filled with PAD telling us the "facts". I'm baffled with the amount of time he spends trying to "inform" us about the world. Please find something better to do...

Originally Posted by ZForce915 As long as we are choosing who can and cannot get married, I'd like to vote that Republicans can't get married. I hate them. Don't let them get married. Kinda sounds ridiculous, doesn't it? That's what it sounds like to me every time I hear someone say that gay people can't get married. Why, oh why did I come back to this board? Every time I come here it's only filled with PAD telling us the "facts". I'm baffled with the amount of time he spends trying to "inform" us about the world. Please find something better to do...

Hahah, I like that rule, no Republicains can marry, we can't let them bread, it will be the down side of socity. lol

I have been gay all my life and never had a "gay experiance" until last September. Why the hell would I choose to be gay? So I have no rights? So I have to put up with the bullshit said about gays? Get a Brain PAD.

A comic on the Tonight Show went, "Half of marriages end in divorce and you don't let gays marry, so they aren't the problem. If Bush wants to ban something ban devorce" and the crowd went wild.

Like I said Right Winger, aka PAD, make up "facts", my favorite is when they get a Christain group to come out with a "study" saying gays can be "cured", I don't know from what, I feel fine.

The Federal Government came out and said that if gay marriages were legal in every State that the government would take in one billion with a "b" dollars a year in taxes and weddings happening. This is the same Federal Government not giving equal rights to gays and in fact now taking them away.

Again nothing but personal attacks and no one will begin to address any points I brought up.

You guys show up for a mental gun fight and you bring super soakers.

Well let's see, I already said that I was born gay, and it's a civil right and you just said "No you aren't" and "no it isn't"

Being gay is not defined as a bevarior, it hasn't since 1973, so where are you getting your info? You ass?

Like I said, I knew I was gay in 7/8th grade and I didn't do anything with a gu yuntil senior year, so there you go.

The sodomy laws did affect straights in 9 States, but it also just effected gays in 4, one of which is Texas and that is why it is no longer legal.

There are no laws saying that I cannot be fired because I'm gay, so they can fire be just because I'm gay.

Don't even get me started on the gay school thing in NYC, that is so wrong, instead of punishing the students making the problem they punish the gays, it's so wrong. What they do in one city doesn't mean everything to seperate but equal, they did it, and they shouldn't have. It's kind of like how the San Fran marriages weren't legal and they shouldn't have happened, hopefully the same will happen in NYC.

I civil union is a joke, it doesn't give all the rights as marriage, and it's still not equal.

I don't know what you are talking about super soakers, but this isn't a game. But if it was you just got slammed because people have counted you numberous times, you just don't want to belive it.

Originally Posted by David85 Well let's see, I already said that I was born gay, and it's a civil right and you just said "No you aren't" and "no it isn't" Being gay is not defined as a bevarior, it hasn't since 1973, so where are you getting your info? You ass? Like I said, I knew I was gay in 7/8th grade and I didn't do anything with a gu yuntil senior year, so there you go. The sodomy laws did affect straights in 9 States, but it also just effected gays in 4, one of which is Texas and that is why it is no longer legal. There are no laws saying that I cannot be fired because I'm gay, so they can fire be just because I'm gay. Don't even get me started on the gay school thing in NYC, that is so wrong, instead of punishing the students making the problem they punish the gays, it's so wrong. What they do in one city doesn't mean everything to seperate but equal, they did it, and they shouldn't have. It's kind of like how the San Fran marriages weren't legal and they shouldn't have happened, hopefully the same will happen in NYC. I civil union is a joke, it doesn't give all the rights as marriage, and it's still not equal. I don't know what you are talking about super soakers, but this isn't a game. But if it was you just got slammed because people have counted you numberous times, you just don't want to belive it.

Fight the good fight David. Just remember the whole world doesn't share the views expressed by PAD. What you do in the privacy of your home doesn't effect my life so I say do what makes you happy. And I'd like to think people like PAD (I keep using his name because he's so vocal here) really don't hate gay people, they just don't understand.

Originally Posted by PittsburghAfterDark Sorry but gay marriage is not a civil right. Gays are not being discriminated against any more than would be bigamists are. You cannot equate the black civil rights movement with the agenda of gay marriage. The two are not the same. You are born black there is no conclusive proof that you are born gay or there is a gay gene.

Sorry but interracial marriage is not a civil right. People preferring interracial partners are not being discriminated against any more than would be bigamists are. You cannot equate the black civil rights movement with the agenda of interracial marriage. The two are not the same. You are born black. there is no conclusive proof that you are born with a preferance for interracial partners or there is an interracial gene.

Originally Posted by eldad9 Sorry but interracial marriage is not a civil right. People preferring interracial partners are not being discriminated against any more than would be bigamists are. You cannot equate the black civil rights movement with the agenda of interracial marriage. The two are not the same. You are born black. there is no conclusive proof that you are born with a preferance for interracial partners or there is an interracial gene.

hahahaha

Good one.

Originally Posted by eldad9 Sorry but interracial marriage is not a civil right. People preferring interracial partners are not being discriminated against any more than would be bigamists are. You cannot equate the black civil rights movement with the agenda of interracial marriage. The two are not the same. You are born black. there is no conclusive proof that you are born with a preferance for interracial partners or there is an interracial gene.

marriage is defined as a bond between a man and a woman. The reason nobody is stopping interracial couples (that involve a man and a woman) is that they abide to the definition of marriage and so there is no conflict.

shit while we're bending the rules, i'd like to park in handicapped parking spaces. I think its kind of wrong that i dont get to park there but they do.

and damnit i'd like to compete in the special olympics while we're at it. is it my fault that i wasnt born "special" ?

obviously i was being sarcastic with the previous 2 statements, to try and make my point.

the special olympics was made for the "special", handicapped parking spaces were made for the handicapped, and marriage was made for straight couples.

i personally have nothing against gay people, or gay couples, but marriage was made to be between a man and a woman. Like PAD said, its not a civil right.

Originally Posted by Cracka marriage is defined as a bond between a man and a woman.

By whom? When? Why?

Voting in this country was initially only possible for men. Freedom was a concept reserved only for whites. Is the initial state of affairs always the correct one?

Originally Posted by Cracka marriage is defined as a bond between a man and a woman. The reason nobody is stopping interracial couples (that involve a man and a woman) is that they abide to the definition of marriage and so there is no conflict.

And the reason why so manytried stopping interracial couples in the 50 and 60s was because of the same reasons being said for today.

Gay marriage will not bring the downfall or socity, that's been proven, it doesn't make kids gay, that's been proven. And it's none of anyways bussiness, that is given.

Originally Posted by eldad9 By whom? When? Why? Voting in this country was initially only possible for men. Freedom was a concept reserved only for whites. Is the initial state of affairs always the correct one?

according to our laws, this is the definition of marriage:

MARRIAGE. A contract made in due form of law, by which a free man and a free woman reciprocally engage to live with each other during their joint lives, in the union which ought to exist between husband and wife. By the terms freeman and freewoman in this definition are meant, not only that they are free and not slaves, but also that they are clear of all bars to a lawful marriage.

And the reason why so manytried stopping interracial couples in the 50 and 60s was because of the same reasons being said for today. Gay marriage will not bring the downfall or socity, that's been proven, it doesn't make kids gay, that's been proven. And it's none of anyways bussiness, that is given.

like i've said, the definition of Marriage does not that it is between 2 people of the same skin color, which is why interracial marriage is legal. But it does clearly state that it is between a man and a woman.

I'm not saying gay marriage is going to cause the downfall of society or make kids gay.

I could go compete in the special olympics and win every competition, and its not going to hurt anyone, but thats not how the special olympics were meant to be, and it wouldnt be accepted by people.

Like i've said before, i have no problem with gay marriage. I'm not gonna go out and protest for it, and i'm not gonna go and protest against it, but i'm just trying to explain, IMO, why its not legal, and why its not accepted in many places.

Most people are trying to make this seem like a civil rights issue when its really not.

"Our laws" Where does it say that in the Constitution? Where did it say that in a State constitution before DOMA? It wasn't there until President Clinton signed the unconstitutional law into affect in 1996 to help him get reeclected.

Like said above, when they said "men" in the original Constitution it was ment as only men, not mankind. You can change the meaning of words all you like, but it wan't there at one time until uninformed people changed them.

At one time in this country 42 States had a ban on interracial marriage, and it did say that you could only marry two people of the same color, that was ruled unconstitutional and so will marriage as long as Bush doesn't win re-election.

It will take far longer than that. You're underestimating the religious fundies. And sadly that includes politicians, who instead of serving the entire public see their office as a way to forward the cause of their faith (and the faithful, who also happen to be voters).

P.S. Christian miracle of the day:
http://patriotboy.blogspot.com/2004_...54682330861354

I find it intresting that the people that say "You aren't born gay, its a choice" are almost NEVER gay. I certainly know some gay people that say that they "knew" when they were younger and I just dont understand how anyone who isn't gay can say that its a "choice" if they aren't gay themselves.

I guess the question would be for straight people... can you become turned on by the same sex? Can you watch 2 men or two women having sexual relations and get aroused? Can you look someone of your same sex and become aroused? I'm pretty sure the answer is no, and logically I would assume that the same goes for gay people. Think about that before you make statements about the so called "gay-choice" and think about your "straight-choice".

Originally Posted by pumbaa I find it intresting that the people that say "You aren't born gay, its a choice" are almost NEVER gay. I certainly know some gay people that say that they "knew" when they were younger and I just dont understand how anyone who isn't gay can say that its a "choice" if they aren't gay themselves. I guess the question would be for straight people... can you become turned on by the same sex? Can you watch 2 men or two women having sexual relations and get aroused? Can you look someone of your same sex and become aroused? I'm pretty sure the answer is no, and logically I would assume that the same goes for gay people. Think about that before you make statements about the so called "gay-choice" and think about your "straight-choice".

About the only time I see the "choice" quotient come into play is when some girls play Lesbian to be popular or get attention. I'm not trying to take away from valid Lesbians here just says it attracts some girls to saying or playing Lesbian when they're not. On the other hand PAD I think you'd be hard pressed to find a GUY who would "choose" to be gay. Matthew Shepard anyone? GOD it's times like that I wish a woman would put a man in his place. Sorry that shit just pisses me off, all that shit being heaped on gay guys from men in general. Let's be honest here, the Homophobia is present for gay guys or they mainly get the physical brunt of it.