02-25-2004, 09:51 PM
Read the public law passed in 1996. A short summary for you:
"In 1996, Congress overwhelmingly passed the Defense of Marriage Act to define marriage under federal law as a legal union between a man and a woman as husband and wife. President Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act into law after it passed the House 342-67 and the Senate 85-14. In all, 38 states have passed similar defensive of marriage laws - demonstrating an overwhelming consensus for protecting the institution of marriage."
At hand is the matter of the other 12 states, who if they pass a similar law will follow the federal lead, and if they don't, will set up yet another test of State versus Federal authority, as well as State versus State authority. Pres Bush's recent comment regarding "full faith" across state lines raises a significant concern for some citizens in all 50 states: some feel "whatever" and some feel "yay" and some feel "ya wanna jam what down our throats?"
A similar but quite different federal state dispute is still ongoing in Oakland regarding the California Law allowing medicinal marijuana and a Federal law forbidding it.
Go Fish, Nico, but do your homework first, alright? As to everyone watching the US: what is with you people, can't you think for yourselves? :P I hear the Kiwis can, what about the rest of you! (Mild sarcasm there)
What appears undetermined, as yet, is the issue of the mayor of San Francisco's jurisdiction and if he can deliberately break State Law by his own discretion without accountability. That will play out in the next few months, I am sure. Depending on the outcome of that, he may have set up thousands of couples to be a) law breakers and B) subject to a revocation of their recently granted marriage licenses. Not sure how that will play out. I can only see a lot of hate and discontent either way. Or, his decision may end up supported.
Not everyone in California is gay. Not everyone in California is against gay marriage, nor is everyone in California against civil unions that are not marriage. The sound byte nature of the current round of foaming at the mouth on this topic is not really worth commenting on, on either side.
If Gay marriage is in time declared valid, then I suggest that polygamy may well follow.
When it comes to custom, it has far more street cred historically across all cultures than gay marriage could ever hope to. Ya see, it's not a Christian or even an American thing. Marriage is a custom and social onvention that crosses all cultural lines, even though its details vary immensely from place to place and country to ountry. What happened to my dowry of 7 cattle when I got married? :D (Yes, I paid for my own wedding.) Oops, wrong country, rogue, ya get no cattle!
I am not all that big a fan of multiple wives, given the challenge of just keeping one good woman happy. However, for those who can swing it, and those women who are alright with that, can anyone tell me why polyandry or polygamy is in any way, shape, or form less valid than same gender "marriages" which have little to no historical or cultural basis? They are, to my way of thinking, more valid in a universal sense.
Or maybe the world is once again just changing massively.
Nico, may I suggest that you take your gay marriage to the Sudan and see if they honor it, lad. I'd be interested to see how it works out. Who knows, it might be totally copacetic there! :o If so, the beer is on me. :D
"In 1996, Congress overwhelmingly passed the Defense of Marriage Act to define marriage under federal law as a legal union between a man and a woman as husband and wife. President Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act into law after it passed the House 342-67 and the Senate 85-14. In all, 38 states have passed similar defensive of marriage laws - demonstrating an overwhelming consensus for protecting the institution of marriage."
At hand is the matter of the other 12 states, who if they pass a similar law will follow the federal lead, and if they don't, will set up yet another test of State versus Federal authority, as well as State versus State authority. Pres Bush's recent comment regarding "full faith" across state lines raises a significant concern for some citizens in all 50 states: some feel "whatever" and some feel "yay" and some feel "ya wanna jam what down our throats?"
A similar but quite different federal state dispute is still ongoing in Oakland regarding the California Law allowing medicinal marijuana and a Federal law forbidding it.
Go Fish, Nico, but do your homework first, alright? As to everyone watching the US: what is with you people, can't you think for yourselves? :P I hear the Kiwis can, what about the rest of you! (Mild sarcasm there)
What appears undetermined, as yet, is the issue of the mayor of San Francisco's jurisdiction and if he can deliberately break State Law by his own discretion without accountability. That will play out in the next few months, I am sure. Depending on the outcome of that, he may have set up thousands of couples to be a) law breakers and B) subject to a revocation of their recently granted marriage licenses. Not sure how that will play out. I can only see a lot of hate and discontent either way. Or, his decision may end up supported.
Not everyone in California is gay. Not everyone in California is against gay marriage, nor is everyone in California against civil unions that are not marriage. The sound byte nature of the current round of foaming at the mouth on this topic is not really worth commenting on, on either side.
If Gay marriage is in time declared valid, then I suggest that polygamy may well follow.
When it comes to custom, it has far more street cred historically across all cultures than gay marriage could ever hope to. Ya see, it's not a Christian or even an American thing. Marriage is a custom and social onvention that crosses all cultural lines, even though its details vary immensely from place to place and country to ountry. What happened to my dowry of 7 cattle when I got married? :D (Yes, I paid for my own wedding.) Oops, wrong country, rogue, ya get no cattle!
I am not all that big a fan of multiple wives, given the challenge of just keeping one good woman happy. However, for those who can swing it, and those women who are alright with that, can anyone tell me why polyandry or polygamy is in any way, shape, or form less valid than same gender "marriages" which have little to no historical or cultural basis? They are, to my way of thinking, more valid in a universal sense.
Or maybe the world is once again just changing massively.
Nico, may I suggest that you take your gay marriage to the Sudan and see if they honor it, lad. I'd be interested to see how it works out. Who knows, it might be totally copacetic there! :o If so, the beer is on me. :D
Cry 'Havoc' and let slip the Men 'O War!
In War, the outcome is never final. --Carl von Clausewitz--
Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum
John 11:35 - consider why.
In Memory of Pete
In War, the outcome is never final. --Carl von Clausewitz--
Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum
John 11:35 - consider why.
In Memory of Pete