City of San Francisco issuing marriage licenses to gays, weds 1 couple so far...

[JohnT]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
and think about this, the book of sinners also promotes incest since after the flood, noah and his relatives must have been procreating with each other in order to spread the seed of humanity.

'Excuse me, little sister'
'Dont call me your sister. I am also your mother'

Next time I watch the film Chinatown, I'm going to look for post-flood parallels. Thanks for giving me new insights to one of my favorite films, LoA!

Didn't John Huston play Noah in his film The Bible? Isn't his character named "Noah" in Chinatown? I might be on to something here...

[Lawrence of Arabia]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
There is no right to be married, beyond that which the state chooses to grant.

wrong. marriage is a contract between individuals, or individuals and their church.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


If you recall, I supported the removal of the ten commandments based on the reactions of the Christians.

Remember my argument of idolatry?


Sure lots of strawmen getting kicked over. I bet that makes you feel good.

Indeed, especially considering that comment was not directed to you and was not about you.

Strawmen indeed, Bennyboy.

[Ming]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
And are the people responsible punished?
[quote]

Yep... but it still happens... and your question was about how gays are treated, not if people get punished for treating them like second class citizens.

So. Neither can I, unless I have their permission, and the state chooses to recognise the marriage.

Duhhh... and the state chooses to only recogise different sex marriages, not same sex... again, second class treatment.

One. If religions did not admit sinners into their churches, they would be empty.

I know... but you still won't let them get married... second class treatment.

Will gay marriage solve this problem, or should we enforce restrictions on bullying? THe latter would be far more effective.

Again... you asked for second class treatment examples... not on whether gay marriage will solve it.

And they can sue and receive legal recourse for doing so.

But that doesn't stop it from happening in the first place and is second class treatment.

But they are not required to disclose their preferences in order to join. Their preferences will not become an issue, unless they make it an issue.

Not if somebody outs them... plus, it's second class treatment that special rules are applied to them.

Divorce has been a problem for a long time, irrespective of homosexuality.

Good... you admit that your usual argument that it will effect straight marriages is a crock...

As usual BK... you ignore reality when people answer the questions you ask. You have yet to come up with a single logical reason against gay marriages... as happens in every thread. Does that mean you will stop posting in this thread, and just start doing it in another one until people shut you down again

[Asher]

San Francisco Officials Marry Gay Couples

SAN FRANCISCO - In an open challenge to California law, city authorities performed at least 15 same-sex weddings Thursday and issued about a dozen more marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples.

By midafternoon, jubilant gay couples were lining up under City Hall's ornate gold dome and exchanging vows in two-minute ceremonies that followed one after another.
"Today a barrier to true justice has been removed," said Gavin Newsom, newly elected mayor of the city considered the capital of gay America.

No state legally sanctions gay marriage, and it remains unclear what practical value the marriage licenses will have. The weddings violate a ballot measure California voters approved in 2000 that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

The move by San Francisco's mayor came as lawmakers in Massachusetts continued to debate a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage in that state, where the nation's first legally recognized same-sex weddings are set to take place this spring under a ruling from the Massachusetts high court.

The assembly-line nuptials began with longtime lesbian activists Phyllis Lyon, 79, and Del Martin, 83, who were hurriedly issued a married license and were wedded just before noon by City Assessor Mabel Teng in a closed-door civil ceremony at City Hall. The two have been a couple for 51 years. (image on right)

About 30 couples crowded outside the San Francisco County Clerk's office awaiting licenses, many arm in arm. One of the women, wearing a white wedding dress and veil, encouraged couples to shout out their names and how long they had been together.

"I understand there are wrinkles that need to be worked out, but as far as I'm concerned, we will be married," said Molly McKay as she and her partner of eight years, Davina Kotulski, stood at the clerk's counter.

During one of the weddings, performed before TV cameras, the vows were rewritten so that "husband and wife" became "spouse for life."

A conservative group called the Campaign for California Families called the marriages a sham.

"These unlawful certificates are not worth the paper they are printed on. The renegade mayor of San Francisco has no authority to do this," said Randy Thomasson, executive director. "This is nothing more than a publicity stunt that disrespects our state law and system of government itself."

San Francisco officials insisted the licenses are legally binding and would immediately confer new benefits in everything from health coverage to funeral arrangements.

California Attorney General Bill Lockyer had no comment.

The gay marriages were timed by city officials to outmaneuver the conservative group. The group had planned to go to court on Friday to stop the mayor's announced plans to issue marriage licenses to gay couples. But city officials struck first.

Lyon and Martin said after their brief ceremony that they were going home to rest and did not plan anything to celebrate. The couple seemed proud of what they had done.

"Why shouldn't we" be able to marry? Lyon asked.

The mayor was not present at the morning ceremony but later presented Martin and Lyon with a signed copy of the state constitution with sections related to equal rights highlighted.

The two official witnesses were Kate Kendell, director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights and former city official Roberta Achtenberg.

The conservative group fighting gay marriage has also sued to try to block California's domestic partner law, which then-Gov. Gray Davis signed in September.

That law expands the rights of gay couples in areas ranging from health coverage and parental status to property ownership and funeral arrangements.

[Spiffor]

Excellent

And still, I think it was a great symbol to first wed the two old lesbian activists. They have obviously waited for this day for their whole life

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by JohnT


Next time I watch the film Chinatown, I'm going to look for post-flood parallels. Thanks for giving me new insights to one of my favorite films, LoA!

Didn't John Huston play Noah in his film The Bible? Isn't his character named "Noah" in Chinatown? I might be on to something here...

The nasty Noah Cross- who's planning to make lots of money in a deal involving Los Angeles's water supply.

And whose son-in-law is murdered by being drowned.

Very droll.

Ixnay- I second your comment.

About time Kenobi found some new lines to spout- his current routine is mighty stale. Lost count of the number of times he's used 'everyone is free to marry a person of the opposite sex', as if that somehow magically explained away the inequality inherent by granting only heterosexuals the privilege of a legal recognised marriage.

Perhaps if he were just plain about it and said, 'sorry, the writings of some itinerant sheepherders from the Middle East 2000 plus years ago tell me homosexuality is wrong, therefore I oppose gay marriage' and have done with it, instead of concocting spurious 'secular' reasons for opposing gay marriage.

If he wants to live in a theocracy then Iran or the Vatican may have some use for him.

[Adam Smith]

I asked this question a couple of days ago and still have not seen an answer.

The man in Asher's post is holding a paper saying "Civil Unions are Separate and Unequal". If civil unions have the same substantive rights as marriage (adoption, inheritance, health care, taxes, etc., etc.), what is it about the mere nomenclature that makes them unequal?

[Asher]

Because it's simply a different societal status, even then.

It will never be equal unless homosexual couples are looked at exactly the same as heterosexual couples under the eyes of the law. Period.

[Drake Tungsten]

It will never be equal unless homosexual couples are looked at exactly the same as heterosexual couples under the eyes of the law. Period.

They would be; the only difference would be the name. I fail to see how civil unions aren't equal to marriage.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
They would be; the only difference would be the name. I fail to see how civil unions aren't equal to marriage.

Do they not teach you social science types the meaning of equal?

5.1 equals 5, the only difference being the 5.1 has .1 after it...

How can they be if one discriminates against homosexual couples? They would be equal if heterosexual and homosexual couples could each apply to both. See?

[Sava]

bwahawhahahhaahah suck it gay haters! (no pun intended)

I'm glad to see San Francisco is respecting the 14th Amendment.

[Drake Tungsten]

Do they not teach you social science types the meaning of equal?

I guess this means you can't come up with a real answer.

[Asher]

I already did, it just seems that you are incapable of reading it.

It's like saying my treehouse is equal to your treehouse, only I don't let any girls in. How is it any different?

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Asher


Oh come on, this isn't going to change anyone's mind for the worse. If you were against gay marriage before, you would be upset. If you were for it, you would be happy. If you were sitting on the fence, it helps some people realize that the gay stereotype of young and polygamous is lame and not true, and perhaps gays aren't as different as insecure Christian bigots make them out to be.

It's interesting isn't it?

Homophobics use negative stereotypes to rant about how gays are unstable and excessively obssessed with sex, yet these homophobics would not permit to establish stable relationships in the first place.