'Gay' Marriage Pushed to Center of US Political Debate

Voice of America News ^ | 15 February 2004 | Stephanie Ho

[MegaSilver]

Recent developments on both U.S. coasts have pushed the issue of marriage between two people of the same sex into American headlines. Authorities in San Francisco have officially married hundreds of gay and lesbian couples since Thursday. At the same time, lawmakers in Massachusetts failed to agree on an amendment to the state constitution that would have defined marriage exclusively as a union between a man and a woman. Drivers honking their support added to the party atmosphere in front of San Francisco's City Hall - where for the past few days, hundreds of same-sex couples have waited in line for hours to take their marriage vows and get official papers recognizing their union.

City mayor Gavin Newsom launched a campaign Thursday to recognize gay and lesbian marriages, as a direct challenge to California state laws that ban such same-sex marriage. Mayor Newsom ordered City Hall to remain open during the weekend and a national holiday Monday to cope with the unprecedented crush of marriage applicants.

The Alliance Defense Fund on Friday filed a lawsuit to try to stop the gay marriages in San Francisco. A California superior court judge has scheduled a hearing on the first working day after the holiday, on Tuesday.

Meanwhile, across the country, Massachusetts lawmakers rejected an amendment to the state constitution that would have defined marriage as strictly a union between a man and a woman. State lawmakers will take up the issue again next month.

The highest Massachusetts court last year struck down a ban on gay marriage as unconstitutional, and gave the state's lawmakers until May to fix the problem.

On the CBS program Face the Nation, television and radio commentator James Dobson spoke out against what he called efforts to undermine traditional heterosexual marriage around the country. Mr. Dobson especially blasted the San Francisco mayor, saying the official is going against the wishes of the majority of Californians who voted against same-sex marriage in a 2000 referendum. "What happened in California in the last few days has been an absolute outrage," he said. "I mean, the people of California passed a constitutional amendment indicating that marriage was between one man and one woman, by a 61 to 39 percent majority. And now this mayor comes along and just abrogates the law, and it is no longer rule of law."

Meanwhile, on Fox News Sunday, Democratic Massachusetts Congressman Barney Frank, who is homosexual, said legally recognizing gay marriages would not threaten heterosexual marriages. Congressman Frank added that same-sex couples would welcome the chance to be officially married in some states, even if their union is not recognized by all 50 U.S. states. "We had a situation in this country - we all now deplore it - where inter-racial marriages were allowed in some states and not recognized in other states. We have had situations where states have had differential rules on the age at which you could marry," he said.

Both houses of Congress are expected to discuss a proposed constitutional amendment banning gay marriages throughout the United States. A bill on that issue has already been introduced in the House of Representatives. Senate majority leader Bill Frist last week said the Senate will take it up soon.

[longtermmemmory]

There are private acts which are illegal. Smoking pot, torturing animals, etc.

The public distinction of the marriage instituion has serious merit. The point of marriage is to memorialize publicly the start of a new family. To memorialize the children raise of a pair publically.

Cruelty to animal laws are different from whom you pop orgasms laws. Love has never been a part of marriage law.

[asmith92008]

I never claimed that love is part of marriage laws. Indeed, love is not enough or there would be no argument against polygamy, incest or homosexual marriage. Nor is my point that marriage is not a public institution. It is a quintessentially public institution that forms the basis of our society.

My arguments focused on the enforcement of laws against homosexuality, adultery and other "private" acts.

[longtermmemmory]

ahhh

[tuesday afternoon]

That OutAbout link is pretty scary.

[Al Simmons]

"Those with no regard for Natural Law will never have any regard for a man made law, like Marriage. They have their agenda come HELL or high water. "

I have been seeing this disgusting story 24/7, including on Fox News - given I have small kids, you can imagine how I feel.

If, as I suspect, most Americans feel the same way about this invasion of our homes with this disgusting topic, the backlash can't help but work in the GOP's favor.

The leftist freaks, who get some sort of jollies from rubbing our noses in their filth, often do not appreciate how angry their outrages make us.

Personally I don't see how Kerry can win a single state GWB carried in '00 - and we know that voter fraud and the fraudulent early FLA call cost Bush a number of Western states to boot.

[Hillarys Gate Cult]

Even if gay "marriage" becomes legal, it will still be a farce.

Not only that you may end up paying for it in higher insurance rates. Does anyone think that the numbers on the national population of homos, risk of AIDS, etc, the homosexual lobby have been throwing at us for years will be taken at face value by the insurance industry for setting their rates? You can bet the farm as the answer is no.

Insurance companies will do tons of research setting up new actuarial tables for married people. My guess is that the tables for married gays will show a higher risk factor. That won't fly with them so they'll run to the courts crying unfair. Liberal judges will take their side as usual so the insurance companies will only have one choice. Raise the rates for everyone.

[Right_Handed_Writer]

I agree, man made and ordained by God. They claim belief in and a faithful following of God, but how? True faith, true following requires that you adopt the FULL set of those beliefs. If they can't do that for the basic foundation of their religion, they will never do that for any law passed by Congress that they also don't want to follow.

[willyboyishere]

If the Dems think they're going to make this some kind of defining issue between Kerry Vs. Bush, they're barking up the wrong tree: Kerry would seem like the consummate hypocrite if he suddenly became stridently pro-Gay marriage. This reminds me of another non-issue that got pushed to the forefront during the 92 election, and got dealt with in the opening days of the Clintoon Admin.: Gays in the Military: the net effect of the progressive Clinton's "don't ask, don't tell" program was that gays were drummed out of the military in ever greater numbers,and 99% of them were good soldiers sacrificed to the ambitions of the most two-faced pol of our time.
I hope the Repuiblicans figure out how to play this one: it would be a shame to let the Dems "steal" this issue that they would do nothing with anyway.