kitz6 61F
1045 posts
5/18/2006 4:56 am

Last Read:
5/29/2006 11:25 pm


This is one of THOSE issues people. Virginia is contemplating one of those "NO GAY MARRIAGE" laws. I recommend voting NO - that is to say that "Let them enjoy it too."

1. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness doesn't ONLY apply to certain people - but to ALL of the people.

2. Would YOU marry someone the state ORDERED you to or conversely NOT marry someone you wanted to if the state ORDERED you not to?

3. Who someone marries is YOUR business??? After all do you want the state, or your neighbors, looking into YOUR affairs? I think NOT. So why would you want to sneak peeks into their bedrooms?

In all of these sorts of situations, the best thing to think about is "What if this law applied to you?" Let Freedom Ring!

mundarikos 41M
423 posts
5/18/2006 6:15 am

a tricky topic Ms. Kitz.
some will find the concept of legalized gay marriage tough and i am as yet undecided on the issue, but, i do believe firmly that same sex partners should have the same benefits as "normal" couples.

broadly speaking i would have no objection to their being a legalised unification or commitment ceremony and the law recognising this because i do understand why some would be insecure about the linking of a marriage ceremony and its religious overtones being applied to same sex marriages.


_Safira 54F
11260 posts
5/18/2006 7:45 am

Kitz ~ As you may or may not know, this is an issue very near and dear to me. I sit on the Board of EPW and am a member of the HRC. I was actually their "voice" at Gay Pride in 2004:

"It's not about sexual orientation. It's about love; it's about equality. Vote NO to the Marriage Amendment!"

I am a Christian. I am bisexual. I am a PTA president. I believe in and fully support polyamory. I am a Band Mom. I am a Hedonist. I am an American who would never want to live anywhere else and would defend my country and her freedom to the death, by whatever means necessary. I am a peace activist. How can anyone define and categorize ME?

And while we are never guaranteed happiness, only its pursuit, the playing field to obtain it SHOULD be even for all of us ... not just those who fall within a certain "church-defined" state. Can we remember that in our great country there is a separation of Church and State for a reason?

*stepping-off of my soapbox*

Thanks for "listening" ...

Safira {=}

This is my blog - Comes With Warning Labels. There are many like it, but this one is mine.


Phineas2005 49M
854 posts
5/18/2006 10:30 am

Thomas Jefferson first wrote to a Baptist community in Danbury Connecticut that there is a separation of the church and state to protect the churches from the state.

What does it mean to "establish" a religion? Liberals today believe the government establishes a religion if a nativity scene is placed on a town square at Christmas. But the framers had a much different understanding. They had in mind the Church of England: a formal union of political and ecclesiastical authority in the hands of the state.

A majority of people think the phrase "separation of church and state" is part of the constitution. However it does not appear anywhere in that document.

For a century and a half this first amendment stood as intended. In fact it was hardly referenced. The federal government passed no laws establishing a national religion.

Then in 1947 something changed. Ewing Township in New Jersey had been using the public bus system to get the school children to school. The township had been reimbursing the parents of the children to pay for the bus trips. But of course, some of those children were sent to Catholic parochial schools and were taught religious teachings on premises. Mr. Everson objected, the case reached the Supreme Court and became known as Everson v. Board of Education.

The court ruled in favor of the Township - they could continue to reimburse even Catholic parents without violating the constitution. However the majority opinion was written by Justice Hugo Black. Black indeed wrote for the majority but he slipped into the opinion a view of his own that was entirely contradictory to the ruling of the court. Yes - inconsistency in the same ruling. He added the new principle:

The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach.

This was a new and previously unknown legal principle.

Justice Black had been a member of the Ku Klux Klan in the 1920's, when the Klan was deeply resentful of the growing influence of Catholicism in the United States.

Black's son has written the book "My Father" and explained that his father shared the Klan's dislike of the Catholic Church:

The Ku Klux Klan and Daddy, so far as I could tell, had one thing in common. He suspected the Catholic Church. He used to read all of Paul Blanshard's books exposing the power abuse in the Catholic Church. He thought the Pope and the bishops had too much power and property. He resented the fact that rental property owned by the Church was not taxed; he felt they got most of their revenue from the poor and did not return enough of it. (Hugo Black Jr, "My Father," p 104, 1975.)

So I always find ironic when Liberal or Leftest wave the flag of the so called wall of separation of church and state, alining them with anti-government (Liberals love government, more the better) ideas and an ideas that orginated from Ku Klux Klan.

Please vote, and listen to Kitz and Safria, they bring up important points, but also listen to people have the other side, their point are also just as valid.

Laws are the morals of the people in a republic. It is the people, not a certain church nor the gay activists. Both have all the right and we should have the respect for both sides.

*stepping-off of my soapbox*

Thanks for "listening" ...

BTW-this was cut and paste from many legal blogs I belong too. I ann't that smart

_Safira 54F
11260 posts
5/18/2006 2:01 pm

And I'm not a Liberal or a Leftist ...

This is my blog - Comes With Warning Labels. There are many like it, but this one is mine.


rm_TexNVa 50M/50F
376 posts
5/18/2006 3:00 pm

If there is supposed to be separation of Church and State, why should the State define marriage for the Church?

Shouldn't the Church be free to define marriage as they see fit?

Isn't a government law making gay marriage legal a violation of this principle?

Wouldn't a government law making gay marriage illegal be an equal violation of this principle?

Gay marriage should be legal. Why shouldn't they have to put up with the pain and suffering a wife inflicts? Lose half their assets in the divorces? Have a bunch of custody battles?

They're just getting over as it is.

kitz6 61F

5/18/2006 5:55 pm

The word 'marriage' and it's definition is NOT the sole property of the Church. No one said that the Church had to marry anyone not of their denomination. Justices of the Peace, Judges, etc can do a legally binding marriage just as well.

BTW Phineas -- the separation was to protect The Church from being corrupted by holding powers of the State. Remember when I said that being Catholic was at one time TREASON and therefore a capital offense meaning they killed you for it? And vice versa or perhaps you think religious wars were all about something other than temporal power? Would you like your house run over by an M1 Abrams tank simply because you missed Sunday services? THAT is why we have separation - no other reason.

A Federal law would NOT violate any Church rights since Churches can pick and choose their congregations. The State must grant equal rights to all since all are citizens and entitled to equal protection under the law. Therefore if you can marry where you will - so can others. We all have these rights or none of us have these rights.

lowellgk 53F

5/18/2006 8:09 pm

In most countries in the world, even most heavily Catholic countries, marriage occurs at City Hall and then is blessed at the church. The distinction of marriage and a religious ceremony is clear to them...why can't we get it straight?

I agree with most everything said here - all people deserve the protections and benefits of making a legal commitment to another person. Nothing is internationally recognized except a true marriage - civil unions are NOT the same thing.

Many of you know I have a personal connection to this issue - I have a sibling who was one of the litigants in the case to allow same sex marriage in Ontario - a right that has now existed for two years. I stood with my sister 20 years ago when she spoke her "vows" to her partner, I stood with her at Toronto City Hall when she became her legal spouse two days after they passed the law, and I stood with her in the church when the bishop and 400 of their friends blessed their civil union.

Of course, I've informed her she's not allowed any more weddings. Three is my limit!

Phineas2005 49M
854 posts
5/19/2006 10:57 pm

    Quoting _Safira:
    And I'm not a Liberal or a Leftist ...
Your a lady with a bunny shirt!

wilenkrazyslut 50F
2 posts
5/25/2006 4:52 pm

kozlowski is that you?!?!?!? oh my god its been years!

Become a member to create a blog