Missouri anti-gay marriage const. amendment headed for victory

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


No, I'm sorry, that's just not true.

http://encyclopedia.adoption.com/entry/waiting-lists/370/1.html

http://www.americanadoptions.com/adopt/how_long

"That should be encouraged," implies that preferential treatment will be given in order to encourage such action.



No, I'm saying that a child will be best off having two married parents, of which there are many willing to adopt the child. AMA is engaged in social activism here, and not in the best interests of the child.



It's still a bald faced assertion if they lack studies to confirm their statement that science supports them.

You just have zero clue how adoption works, don't you? People wishing to adopt build a "wishlist" of stuff they want in a prospective child. From your own website, http://www.americanadoptions.com/adopt/how_long:

"You need to decide what is important to your family in your adoption plan. Obviously, the more flexible an adoptive family is with their adoption plan, the more exposure they will receive to incoming pregnant mothers, thus reducing their waiting time. For example, 65 out of every 100 birth mothers smoke during their pregnancy. Therefore, families not accepting of smoking preclude themselves from 65% of the possibilities."

The reason why there are long waiting lists should be perfectly obvious. First, children aren't given out like candy at a 7 eleven. Adoption agencies (hopefully) do thorough checks on prospective parents for suitability, and this takes time. Second, as mentioned above, would-be adoptive parents pick and choose what they are looking for in a new child - not entirely like buying a new car. Cold analogy? Yes, but that's reality. Third, adoption agencies are businesses. They don't have access to every single possible child awaiting adoption, so their clients have to wait until they can make a match. There are other reasons too, but these are just the most obvious.

If you cared to check your other site a little more closely, you may have stumbled upon this:

http://statistics.adoption.com/adoption_from_foster_care_1999.php

"Based on current AFCARS estimates released January 2000, there are approximately 520,000 children currently in foster care in the United States. Of these, 117,000 are eligible for adoption. (US HHS, 2000)"

Most of the non-adopted children come from ethnic minorities or are disabled, and many are older.

As for your "preferrential treatment" BS, there is no such implication. The AMA is stating that they should encourage the powers that be gays should be allowed to adopt. The article makes no other claim, explicit or implicit, and there's certainly no hint that they endorse this over any other situation other than parentlessness.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by DanS


Who knows? It goes back thousands of years for sure. Did my German ancestors have more than one wife? When did my Welsh ancestors start availing themselves of common law marriage? But in any event, this doesn't even matter to me. That's just the way it is. Like the sky is blue.

People used to justify slavery because that was "just the way it is."


Anyway, about your benefit to society. Why does there have to be concrete benefits to all of society in order to undo injustice to a minority group?

If there had not been any concrete benefit to society to abolish Jim Crow laws, then we should never have abolished them in the first place??

[DRoseDARs]

Doesn't this now open the possibility for a challenge in the US Supreme Court?

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=1&u=/ap/20040812/ap_on_re_us/gay_marriage_calif_12

Calif. Court Voids S.F. Same-Sex Marriages

34 minutes ago


By DAVID KRAVETS, Associated Press Writer

SAN FRANCISCO - The California Supreme Court on Thursday voided the nearly 4,000 same-sex marriages sanctioned in San Francisco this year and ruled unanimously that the mayor overstepped his authority by issuing licenses to gay and lesbian couples.


The court said the city illegally issued the certificates, since both legislation and a voter-approved measure defined marriage as a union between a man and woman.


The justices separately decided with a 5-2 vote to nullify the 3,995 marriages peformed between Feb. 12 and March 11, when the court halted the weddings. Their legality, Justice Joyce Kennard wrote, must wait until courts resolve the constitutionality of state laws that restrict marriages to opposite-sex couples.


The same-sex marriages had virtually no legal value, but powerful symbolic value. Their nullification by the high court dismayed Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon, the first same-sex couple to receive a marriage license in San Francisco.


"Del is 83 years old and I am 79," Lyon said. "After being together for more than 50 years, it is a terrible blow to have the rights and protections of marriage taken away from us. At our age, we do not have the luxury of time."


About a dozen gay and lesbian couples, some wearing wedding dresses and tuxedos, waited on the steps of the Supreme Court building, and some cried when the decision was read.


The court did not resolve whether the California Constitution would permit a same-sex marriage, ruling instead on the limits of authority regarding local government officials.


Anti-gay-marriage groups hailed the ruling, saying Mayor Gavin Newsom acted prematurely.


"Instead of helping his cause, Mayor Newsom has set back the same-sex marriage agenda and laid the foundation for the pro-marriage movement to once and for all win this battle to preserve traditional marriage," said Mathew Staver, who represents Campaign for California Families in a lawsuit challenging the San Francisco marriages.


The justices agreed to resolve the legality of the San Francisco weddings after emergency petitions were filed by conservative interest groups and Attorney General Bill Lockyer.


"Ultimately, we believe when we deal with the issue of the constitutionality of same-sex marriage in California, Mayor Newsom's position will be vindicated at the end of the day," said Dennis Herrera, San Francisco's city attorney.


San Francisco's gay weddings, which followed a landmark ruling by Massachusetts' top court allowing gay marriage — prompted President Bush (news - web sites) to push for changing the U.S. Constitution to ban same-sex marriage, an effort that has become campaign fodder this election year.


The California court sided with Lockyer's arguments, ruling that Newsom's actions would sanction local officials to legislate state law from city halls or county government centers.


When the justices agreed to hear the case, they said they would decide only whether Newsom overstepped his mayoral powers for now, but would entertain a constitutional challenge — that gays should be treated the same as heterosexual couples under the California Constitution — if such a lawsuit reached the court.


Gay and lesbian couples immediately filed lawsuits making that argument, as did Newsom. The now-consolidated cases are unlikely to reach the California Supreme Court for at least a year or more. California lawmakers have refused to take a position on the matter.


Newsom argued to the justices in May that the ability of same-sex couples to marry was a "fundamental right" that compelled him to act. Newsom authorized the marriages by citing the California Constitution's ban against discrimination, and claimed he was duty-bound to follow this higher authority rather than state laws banning gay marriage.


The Arizona-based Christian law firm Alliance Defense Fund, a plaintiff in one of two cases the justices decided Thursday, had told the justices that Newsom's "act of disobedience" could lead other local officials to sanction "polygamists."


Newsom's defiance of state law created huge lines at City Hall by gays and lesbians waiting to be married, and ignited a firestorm engulfing statehouses and ballot boxes nationwide.

Missouri voters this month endorsed a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage — a move designed to prevent that state's judiciary from agreeing with the arguments Newsom is making in California.

A state constitutional challenge by gays in Massachusetts prompted that state's highest court to endorse the gay marriages that began there in May. A judge in Washington state this month also ruled in favor of gay marriage, pending a resolution from that state's top court.

Louisiana residents are to vote on the same issue Sept. 18. Then Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, Montana, Oklahoma, Oregon and Utah are to vote Nov. 2. Initiatives are pending in Michigan, North Dakota and Ohio.

Four states — Alaska, Hawaii, Nebraska and Nevada — already have similar amendments in their constitutions.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Doesn't this now open the possibility for a challenge in the US Supreme Court?

That's iffy. The California Supreme Court hasn't ruled on the legality of the California law, as the article states yet. This was a simply a ruling based on the fact that the court believed the mayor overstepped his authority. It was only a "ruling instead on the limits of authority regarding local government officials", and I'm not sure the Supreme Court would take up that case.

[Gibsie]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Well, it causes no harm to straight people, and it allows gay people to marry the person they love (making them happier)... so, overall, there's a benefit. It makes some people happier at no cost to anyone else.

Oh come now, it's long been established that if you made marriage available to gays, it would make straight people love their partners less. You'll have to ask someone else quite how that works, though.

[DanS]

Anyway, about your benefit to society. Why does there have to be concrete benefits to all of society in order to undo injustice to a minority group?

Because I don't view it as injustice. For my vote, you're going to have to justify it on practical grounds.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by DanS


Because I don't view it as injustice. For my vote, you're going to have to justify it on practical grounds.

But since you've basically admitted that you don't give a rat's ass about anything that doesn't have a dollar figure attached, particularly if those dollars are either going into or coming out of your pocket, there isn't much point in even trying to make an argument that would satisfy you.

Although maybe if every gay person that wanted to get married mailed you $10, you'd change your mind.

[Drake Tungsten]

Damn, should've read the thread...

Sorry.

[MRT144]

Originally posted by Kontiki


But since you've basically admitted that you don't give a rat's ass about anything that doesn't have a dollar figure attached, particularly if those dollars are either going into or coming out of your pocket, there isn't much point in even trying to make an argument that would satisfy you.

Although maybe if every gay person that wanted to get married mailed you $10, you'd change your mind.

That is a rip and a half

[DanS]

But since you've basically admitted that you don't give a rat's ass about anything that doesn't have a dollar figure attached, particularly if those dollars are either going into or coming out of your pocket, there isn't much point in even trying to make an argument that would satisfy you.

I don't think you've read my posts in this thread. I gave an example of a practical reason that doesn't have money directly attached to it.

I'm pretty surprised at the lack of imagination displayed on providing me good practical reasons to support gay marriage.

[Berzerker]

DanS -

Freedom of association? So marriage is like a club or political party now? Wow.

No, marriage is like...umm...marriage. Do you deny marriage is an example of freedom of association? If so, how does marriage violate freedom of association? Freedom of association is not limited to political parties or clubs, it includes friendships and marriages - when 2 or more people freely agree to associate or cooperate with each other.

Who knows? It goes back thousands of years for sure.

Not marriage in our society (remember, you said marriage in our society), it goes back to the Christianisation of Europe and 1 man, 1 wife. So marriage in our society is based on someone's religion and it was Christians who ascribed to that definition of marriage who drove Mormons west and later outlawed their religious practice of polygamy. The 1st Amendment was written to prevent one religious group from imposing their religion on others...

Did my German ancestors have more than one wife? When did my Welsh ancestors start availing themselves of common law marriage? But in any event, this doesn't even matter to me. That's just the way it is. Like the sky is blue.

I don't know about your ancestors, but marriage in our society does stem from Christianity.

Yeh, but they didn't win.

So your point is that because other Christians did win, we all must accept their definition of marriage? They didn't win morally and that matters...

Because I don't view it as injustice. For my vote, you're going to have to justify it on practical grounds.

So you believe in practicality, not freedom... Got it...

[Berzerker]

I'm pretty surprised at the lack of imagination displayed on providing me good practical reasons to support gay marriage.

I suspect most people are offended at having to give "good" practical reasons to defend their freedom since that is paramount to asking permission to live as they choose, but I've already explained that what you're doing is violating your own freedom of association.

It doesn't matter if you and I would never want to marry another man, what matters is you're doing away with everyone's freedom of association, even your own. I see that as a matter of practicality... The next time freedom of association comes under attack on another issue, you might want that freedom protected and given your willingness to do away with the freedom of association on this issue, you'd be a hypocrite. But so are most of these people pushing for "gay marriage", they want this freedom of association protected but if they have their way, many homosexuals will start suing businesses and property owners for refusing to treat them like other married people. Freedom of association for me, but not for thee...

[DanS]

Do you deny marriage is an example of freedom of association?

Yes. Rather, it is a state sanctioned and sponsored institution, with a legal carbuncle called common law marriage. The state can forbid you to marry whom you choose to marry. I don't know how the law managed with my polygamist great-great granduncle, though.

Not marriage in our society (remember, you said marriage in our society), it goes back to the Christianisation of Europe and 1 man, 1 wife.

I don't know that to be true. I don't know the history. Do you have anything to back up that assertion? Please note that many parts of Europe were converted only recently in the scheme of things. My Polish ancestors probably came into the fold in about A.D. 1000, for instance.

But in any event, it's all shrouded in the mists of time from my perspective.

[DanS]

I suspect most people are offended at having to give "good" practical reasons to defend their freedom since that is paramount to asking permission to live as they choose, but I've already explained that what you're doing is violating your own freedom of association.

Well, I suggest they get used to being offended, when myself and 70% of Missous (the plurality of whom are democrats) don't currently view it as a matter of freedom.

[Berzerker]

Yes. Rather, it is a state sanctioned and sponsored institution, with a legal carbuncle called common law marriage. The state can forbid you to marry who you choose to marry.

Is that a violation of freedom of association? You didn't explain how marriage violates freedom of association, you pointed out the state is already violating freedom of association.

I don't know that to be true. Do you have anything to back up that assertion? Please note that many parts of Europe were converted only recently in the scheme of things. My Polish ancestors probably came into the fold in about A.D. 1000, for instance.

I don't know what marriage practices existed prior to the Christianisation of Europe, but I do know that when Christianity began taking over it did so with a very heavy hand and some marriage practices outside of Christianity would have been outlawed. English common law may have begun before this mass conversion but it was heavily influenced by the new religion that took hold... It's clear to me that on some issues regarding marriage, the Christian religion defines marriage in our society.