Washington D.C. Council passes the first round of same-sex marriage votes.

[Monarchist]

The offensive on tradition continues, unabated, as the glorious Tolerance Divison, 5th Liberal Army Corps, pushes into occupied territory. A strong flanking maneuver caught the enemy off guard yesterday, bringing down the entire first defensive line of the foe. The generals are just now meeting in their tents and dugouts for the final planning. An artillery bombardment of sensitivity and justice shall commence on the coming H-Hour, D-Day. Let the multicultural love-fest spread across the world!

Source: http://www.mercurynews.com/politics-...nclick_check=1

Los Angeles Times


Posted: 12/01/2009 08:36:03 PM PST
Updated: 12/01/2009 09:36:30 PM PST


WASHINGTON — The District of Columbia Council took a major step Tuesday toward joining New Hampshire, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont and Massachusetts in legalizing same-sex marriage.

In the first of two votes, the council passed a bill 11-2.

Although the outcome was expected in the heavily Democratic district, the move remains controversial because of opposition from socially conservative churches.

"Today's vote is an important victory not only for the gay and lesbian community, but for everyone who supports equal rights," Councilman David Catania, who is gay, said in a statement. "Gays and lesbians bear every burden of citizenship and are entitled to every benefit and protection that the law allows."
The most vocal opposition came from the Catholic Archdiocese of Washington. Archbishop Donald Wuerl has warned that legalizing same-sex marriage would force the church's social-services arm to scale back its efforts in the city.

The law, as passed Tuesday, would not make churches perform same-sex marriage ceremonies, but it would require employers doing business with the city, including churches, to provide health benefits for married same-sex couples.

Church officials have said providing those benefits would violate their religious beliefs.
In order to legalize same-sex marriage, the council must vote again to pass the bill, which is expected to occur Dec. 15. After being signed by Mayor Adrian M. Fenty, it would be sent to Congress for review.

Well, what now? It seems that a vote for this agenda in the capital of the United States of America will send messages across the country. What happens in the District of Columbia rarely stays there, in this post-states-rights age. I am personally disgusted by the Catholic Church's refusal to continue giving private, social aid in the city if this passes, however. Just because a bunch of insane liberal homosexuals want to pass marriage doesn't mean you have to stop helping the poor...

I love Catania's propaganda, though. "Catania, who is gay," is all you really need to know. It should have been voted on by a council of entirely a-sexual, non-voting people. Then again, I suppose Democracy is too evil to allow such things as fairness.

[Justice and Mercy]

The offensive on tradition continues, unabated, as the glorious Tolerance Divison, 5th Liberal Army Corps, pushes into occupied territory. A strong flanking maneuver caught the enemy off guard yesterday, bringing down the entire first defensive line of the foe. The generals are just now meeting in their tents and dugouts for the final planning. An artillery bombardment of sensitivity and justice shall commence on the coming H-Hour, D-Day. Let the multicultural love-fest spread across the world!

Oh, they're trying to let the gays get married.

Yeah, you're not making too big a deal out of this at all, are ya?

[s.rwitt]

because a bunch of insane liberal homosexuals want to pass marriage doesn't mean you have to stop helping the poor...

If you think about it, and I've said this a few times, any conservative should support gay marriage. There is nothing that goes more against the conservative ideal of what government should be than the belief that the government should be able to tell two consenting adults that they cannot get married.

[Justice and Mercy]

If you think about it, and I've said this a few times, any conservative should support gay marriage. There is nothing that goes against the conservative ideal of what government should be than the belief that the government should be able to tell two consenting adults that they cannot get married.

Excellent post.

But, even more importantly, the decisions are being made on a local/state (in this case, local) level rather than a national one, which would be un-Constitutional.

[Monarchist]

Oh, they're trying to let the gays get married.

Yeah, you're not making too big a deal out of this at all, are ya?

I never said I wasn't. This is a big deal.

If you think about it, and I've said this a few times, any conservative should support gay marriage. There is nothing that goes more against the conservative ideal of what government should be than the belief that the government should be able to tell two consenting adults that they cannot get married.

No, I don't believe that. If I were to go the liberty-loving route, I would say that conservatives should support no marriage laws. Saying "X, Y, and Z" can get married is just as bad as saying "only X can get married". Government should have absolutely no say in marriage contracts whatsoever, in my opinion. I'd leave it to individual churches, contract companies, and even families to sort that out. Despite my philosophical love for the freedom of the individual to choose what he does with himself, I can still oppose government trying to run anything. This measure is government trying to run marriage, and I hate that on any level.

[Justice and Mercy]

This measure is government trying to run marriage, and I hate that on any level.

Oh, now you're going to pretend that's the issue? What about that speech about the attack on "justice", "sensibility", and "tradition"?

[Admiral Piett]

I never said I wasn't. This is a big deal.



No, I don't believe that. If I were to go the liberty-loving route, I would say that conservatives should support no marriage laws. Saying "X, Y, and Z" can get married is just as bad as saying "only X can get married". Government should have absolutely no say in marriage contracts whatsoever, in my opinion. I'd leave it to individual churches, contract companies, and even families to sort that out. Despite my philosophical love for the freedom of the individual to choose what he does with himself, I can still oppose government trying to run anything. This measure is government trying to run marriage, and I hate that on any level.

Yes, but if states are hell-bent on overstepping their constitutional authority, it's only natural that people are calling on the feds to override them. What sickens me is not the left reactionism, but the people that continue to support these policies of repression in the name of Christian morals when they quite clearly have no Constitutional right to do so!

[Justice and Mercy]

Yes, but if states are hell-bent on overstepping their constitutional authority, it's only natural that people are calling on the feds to override them. What sickens me is not the left reactionism, but the people that continue to support these policies of repression in the name of Christian morals when they quite clearly have no Constitutional right to do so!

What? What are you talking about?

Ever read the 10th? How 'bout the 9th? Only the states have the Constitutional authority to write the laws regarding marriage. I may not agree with them, but the principle of localism and the rule of law are far more important than queers getting married.

[The spartan]

What? What are you talking about?

Ever read the 10th? How 'bout the 9th? Only the states have the Constitutional authority to write the laws regarding marriage. I may not agree with them, but the principle of localism and the rule of law are far more important than queers getting married.

By "only the states" I assume you mean "only by states until the Legislative or Judicial branches intervene"? I personally find it disturbing that civil rights have been up to referendum for so long. If there were referendums to deny straights the right to marry, people would be throwing a fit.

So how much longer till I can marry my dog? This is downright disgusting. But I really don't see this passing Congress anytime soon, especially with elections coming up next year. We all saw what happened with the abortion thing in the House and now Senate.

...Because marrying your dog is even remotely comparable? Where have I heard this before...where have I heard this before...oh ya! "If we let blacks marry whites, then next thing you know, I can marry my dog!"

[Admiral Piett]

What? What are you talking about?

Ever read the 10th? How 'bout the 9th? Only the states have the Constitutional authority to write the laws regarding marriage. I may not agree with them, but the principle of localism and the rule of law are far more important than queers getting married.

What are you talking about?

No where is there a single line in the Constitution that states that any power is left to the state. It specifically states that any power not designated to the central or state government is reserved for the people.

Marriage has not ever been something regulated by the state, but something regulated by the church.

[Stavroforos]

Would have preferred to have seem actual homosexual marriages being allowable under the law, at a federal level, but this is a start.

[Monarchist]

Stavroforos, forgive me for injecting yet more religion into this, but don't you think it's anti-Christian to allow gay marriage? I'm just wondering, considering Leviticus and all that.

Oh, now you're going to pretend that's the issue? What about that speech about the attack on "justice", "sensibility", and "tradition"?

Justice, common sense, and tradition can exist very easily outside government intervention. It is just to help an old lady cross the street. It is sensible to have the nuclear family at the basis of society. It is traditional to wear a suit or dress when you go out to dinner. None of these require the government to be just, sensible, or traditional!

[Stavroforos]

Stavroforos, forgive me for injecting yet more religion into this, but don't you think it's anti-Christian to allow gay marriage? I'm just wondering, considering Leviticus and all that.

I ignore the Old Testament because I consider it nothing more than prophecy concerning Jesus' arrival and Jewish myth and superstition.

It's not anti-Christian to allow gay marriage in secular institutions. It's anti-Christian to allow gay marriage in churches.

[Monarchist]

It's not anti-Christian to allow gay marriage in secular institutions. It's anti-Christian to allow gay marriage in churches.

Well, I'm glad we share that view. That reply, however, conveniently brings me to my point! Government should make no laws prohibiting or allowing certain traditions in society. It's between lovers, families, and their churches what they do with their time. Why should any government at any level be allowed to make writs on marriage and sex? I oppose same-sex marriage laws because I agree with the individual's right to do what he wishes with himself - if that includes marrying another man, so be it. It shouldn't be in any government's purview, however!

I see absolutely no reason why the government should be telling consenting adults that they can't get married, be they a man and woman, man and man, or two men and two women.

There is no legitimate reason why the government should be able to ban adults from marrying one another, even in the case of polygamy.

See above. I don't think government should be telling anybody anything about their private lives, unless they murder, steal, or destroy property. This has nothing to do with government, but the gay marriage pushers are making it a governmental issue.

Uh-huh.

You missed my point entirely.

Your problem is with the idea of gays getting married, not that the government is in charge of saying who is and isn't legally married.

See above, x 2. I myself am gay, so I do have some sympathy with their choices. Private lives should not be subject to a vote, however, nor to any edict. Why should I pay involuntarily-given tax money to enforce laws saying where men can legally stick it?

[Stavroforos]

Well, I'm glad we share that view. That reply, however, conveniently brings me to my point! Government should make no laws prohibiting or allowing certain traditions in society. It's between lovers, families, and their churches what they do with their time. Why should any government at any level be allowed to make writs on marriage and sex? I oppose same-sex marriage laws because I agree with the individual's right to do what he wishes with himself - if that includes marrying another man, so be it. It shouldn't be in any government's purview, however!

I don't think marriage should be any business of the government either. I think the State should recognize a couple as being in a civil union if that couple wishes to be joined in such a way, and if they want a religious marriage they can do that as well.

However, since government is involved in marriage, equality has to be applied there as well.

[Monarchist]

I don't think marriage should be any business of the government either. I think the State should recognize a couple as being in a civil union if that couple wishes to be joined in such a way, and if they want a religious marriage they can do that as well.

However, since government is involved in marriage, equality has to be applied there as well.

Yes, but that is the point, isn't it? I don't want the state to be involved in marriage, and the same-sex marriage pushers do. That's all. Equality is paramount when you are dealing with public dollars, yes, but that is also another problem with the system. Since equality is really the only measuring poll in terms of same-sex marriage law, why not give equal rights to other sexual issues? You know where I'm going with this. I don't care if a man has sex with a dog in his home, but when the government begins sticking its nose into anyone's private lives, the law puts itself in danger of allowing all sorts of sexual practices, under the guise of equality. Once tax money goes to government pet projects about who gets to tie what knot where, I am sickened beyond explanation.

There should be no government benefits for (or recognition of) marriage, in my opinion. The entire thing must be left up to people, and should has as much state involvement as when you urinate.

The government already is involved in marriage. Which is why gay marraige isn't legal in every state. Or polygamy for that matter.

That's primarily why I posted this article. I believe it shouldn't be that way, same-sex or opposite sex.

[Justinian]

It's not anti-Christian to allow gay marriage in secular institutions. It's anti-Christian to allow gay marriage in churches.

Finally someone sensible.

So how much longer till I can marry my dog?

Yes, because marrying an animal can totally be equated to marrying another human being you are in a committed and loving relationship with. I don't see how whether or not they have the same genitals as you makes any difference in the grand scheme of things. Your argument reminds me of something ... I'm trying to remember what it is, but it's like there's some kind of block in my brain which is rejecting completely illogical arguments. You'll have to explain it more to me.

Two things about the article highlight the most important things you need to know about the gay rights debate:

First, the Catholic Church will be so offended if two men or two women can get married that they will "scale back social aid" in Washington DC. So in the eyes of the noble Catholic Church, you can make a political statement by withholding food and water from the homeless and not helping abused children and drug addicts, or offering shelter to all and sundry; and it is perfectly permissible to make this statement, because completely going against everything your religion claims to stand for -- loving your neighbor as thyself, turning the other cheek, et cetera -- because democratically elected representatives are making a completely un-religious decision is tit for tat.

Secondly, Catholic officials feel that gay marriage "impedes on their religious rights". There is simply no logical way this is possible; what POSSIBLE effect could two men or two women going to a justice of the peace and getting married have on ANY of your freedoms, much less your freedom to practice your backwards, hate-mongering bastard of a religion in your home or church or, indeed, anywhere you please? Do you lose the right of marriage of other people can get it? Did men lose the right to vote when women got it? Did white people lose their civil rights when they were granted to black people?

The entirety of the anti-gay rights movement is based on religion (primarily Christianity), whose entire anti-gay doctrine in the New Testament -- you know, the part with Jesus Christ? The part that you guys actually follow, not the part with 613 pointless laws you have probably never read, much less obeyed? -- is a few words from Paul. Paul, not Jesus; not even a disciple of Jesus's. Not even someone who ever MET Jesus. He has nothing to do with Jesus except what he says he has to do with Jesus.

Jesus talked about love and justice and peace. He never said that anyone should be excluded from anything, except the unjust and unloving from the kingdom of heaven. And he never said a damn thing about whether or not two men or two women should be allowed to marry.

Oh, I also think it's a wonderful piece of Christian arrogance that they assume marriage revolves around them. Marriage predates Christianity; marriage predates Jesus; and marriage certainly predates the foaming-at-the-mouth-with-homophobia Paul. Marriage is not and never was a religious ceremony until it was made so. Two Roman pagans got married for more or less the same reasons two Christians would get married today. Furthermore, when you get married in a church, that marriage has absolutely no legal standing in and of itself; the priest must also be an agent of the state who is enacting your civil marriage simultaneously. In the eyes of the law, you are not married even if you have a wedding in a church a hundred times, until an agent of the state says so. Religion need not enter the equation.

Those of you who oppose it because government shouldn't interfere with marriage -- marriage is a contract, and the legality and fairness of contracts is dictated by the courts in this country. Or would you prefer if the courts stayed out of contract law and did not allow unfair contracts to be appealed? It's why they exist. It's their purview; that's like saying the ATF should stay out of alcohol, tobacco and firearms, the FDA should stay out of telling people what foods and medicines are safe, and the IRS should stop making sure you pay your taxes.

Think about it this way: when you go to get a divorce, do you go back to the church you were married in and say "could Jesus please rescind my eternal proclamation of love and devotion", or do you go to a court?

[Justice and Mercy]

Justice, common sense, and tradition can exist very easily outside government intervention. It is just to help an old lady cross the street. It is sensible to have the nuclear family at the basis of society. It is traditional to wear a suit or dress when you go out to dinner. None of these require the government to be just, sensible, or traditional!

Uh-huh.

You missed my point entirely.

Your problem is with the idea of gays getting married, not that the government is in charge of saying who is and isn't legally married.

[s.rwitt]

Saying "X, Y, and Z" can get married is just as bad as saying "only X can get married".

I see absolutely no reason why the government should be telling consenting adults that they can't get married, be they a man and woman, man and man, or two men and two women.

There is no legitimate reason why the government should be able to ban adults from marrying one another, even in the case of polygamy.

[Exarch]

pffft
and the cam-whoring/attention seeking that is the gay marriage movement kicks off

who cares if gays want to get married
no one's going to stop 2 gays from tying the knot and committing sodomy
there's no use nor any point in this BS