It's time for the annual Christmas Gay Marriage fight! Long-assed blog post. Here are some miscellaneous points.

Whenever anybody says "organized religion" --and even Hitch does it sometimes-- I smell a rat. First because if it ain't organized, it ain't religion... Maybe it's advanced navel-gazing, but Belly Buttoneers don't get tax breaks, so who gives a fuck? Secondly, it's a wordy, deceptively offhand, never-challenged (until now!) way to pretend that you've surveyed the whole human experience and are doing your audience a timesaving favor by only talking about this one subset of people, the organized kind. You never hear someone talk about "organized" religion in one paragraph and then make a complementary point about another kind of religion in the next. It's bullshitting. It's plainly glib, and I hereby call the bluff.

(Ninnies often prattle that "I'm not religious, but I'm a very spiritual person," as if removal from the philosophy found in better faiths was going to improve their teenaged, pastels-&-potpourri cosmology. Catholicism [etc] may suck garden hose, but it's had a couple millenia of rigorous geniuses cranking their best efforts into it. You don't have the luxury of being your own Aquinas, nor can you pretend his brilliance hasn't forged a piece of your worldview, whether you're Christian or not.)

While I don't know you (Amy) and your boyfriend in person, it's not clear how your example applies ("more and more of us, committed but non-married partners, straight and gay"). This ain't personal, I'm jus' sayin'... If any two people who enjoy spending time together are supposed to get a full serving of a society's support and admiration for moving through the world as a unit, it's not likely that such support will be good for much. Society, whether issuing licenses at the courthouse or at the pulpit, ought to be able to ask for something in return.

A similar point came to mind in the last two words, "allocating rights." This is not an accusation, but lefties in particular tend to think of rights as something that come to us from government, and thus can be "allocated" like farm subsidies. But I think genuine rights are something you're born with... But you better be realistic about the eagerness by which your fellows will fight to defend them for you. Personally, I feel I have a right to a 1975 Ferrari Testarossa. No other taxpayer has ever even acknowledged this right, let alone offered to defend it, so I'm shit out of luck. And driving a scuffed Mitsubishi.

And I don't think calling people "bigoted" will help get me a Ferrari.

It's always curious why we don't get specifics with these anecdotes... Why Newsweek, which appears sympathetic but incurious, didn't name this woman's hospital. I have a theory! It's the feel-good issue of our times, and facts always complicate our enjoyment of these dramas. To wit: "...filmmakers were also on hand, recording the ceremony for Equal Rights Washington, an advocacy group..." (Have I mentioned lately that gays have the same rights that straights have to marry?) I would of course support the rights of such a couple to make hospital, funeral, and financial arrangements for each other... And might even picket the institutions that prevented them from doing so.

But we're never invited to do that, are we? For some reason, advocates prefer we move directly to making a fundamental change to one of the oldest customs in human civilization, one perhaps as ancient as burying our dead...

Pasadena.

You know, Crid, for all that lengthy harangue you neglected to address the issue that gays aren't allowed to marry someone of the same gender. (I've been biting my tongue against your ridiculous claim that they're allowed to marry; yeah, but only someone they wouldn't want to. How about we make a law everyone can only marry someone that doesn't turn them on physically and see how far that flies?)

Bottom line, your argument applies -- maybe -- to straight couples who choose not to marry but it doesn't apply to gays simply because the option to wed or not to wed is taken away them.

I will concur that we are looking at two different issues here: those who can legally wed and choose not to and those who can't. And, please, for the love of god (pun intended), don't give us that shit about they have the right to marry every bit as much as they do. It's tired and no one's buying it.

All that said, anyone should be able to give anyone else they trust (lover, sister, best friend, etc.) right of attorney, health care proxy and it's just plain pure logic that if they do, legally wed or related by blood or not, that person should be allowed at their side while they lay dying. Frankly, it's my sister I wouldn't want there and I'm appalled they would let her in but not my friends.

All that said, anyone should be able to give anyone else they trust (lover, sister, best friend, etc.) right of attorney, health care proxy and it's just plain pure logic that if they do, legally wed or related by blood or not, that person should be allowed at their side while they lay dying. Frankly, it's my sister I wouldn't want there and I'm appalled they would let her in but not my friends.

Well-said, Donna.

TO: Amy Alkon
RE: This Sort of Thing....

....is easily cleared up without going for 'marriage'.

Got a doctor?

Didn't you fill out a form when they took you on as a patient?

Didn't that form indicate who should be notified in the event of a medical emergency?

Why not have the name(s) on that form be the proof of whether or not a hospital should allow someone access?

Regards,

Chuck(le)

> gays aren't allowed to marry
> someone of the same gender.

Right; because if they could, it wouldn't be marriage, would it? If the Boston Marathon allowed motorcycles for 2008, it would be silly to call it a foot race.

> I've been biting my tongue
> against your ridiculous claim
> that they're allowed to marry

Aw baby, just once I wish someone would give me a forehand volley on this, and say out loud that you want to make a sweeping, fundamental change to an ancient practice. But no supporter of 'gay marriage' has
ever done so, and there's a reason for that. Knowing they're going to face resistance, they'd rather dodge a reasoned, thoughtful argument and just kinda slip it under the door with big sad eyes, silently pursed lips and a drop-tilted chin, as if 'you know what I mean'. But no, we don't, and that's the worst way to do law, anyway.

> because the option to
> wed or not to wed is
> taken away them.

No; nothing's been taken from anyone. They never had the option to marry each other, because "weddings" are for one each of a male and a female. Get the picture? And there are other parameters. Can't be closely related; gotta be sane; gotta be old enough, etc.

It's amusing to me that you decided to do multiple paragraphs on this and dodge the issue multiple times. The point wounds so deeply, you'll beg me to stop ("for the love of god"). But you'll never, ever face it head on. That's cowardice, and it's instructive about the nature of mobs.

> I'm appalled they would
> let her in but not
> my friends.

Again, I'd be on your side. But if this was someone you cared about, I'd expect you to make some effort beforehand, even if you couldn't get precisely the certification you wanted. Tort law is all about this: The fact that a circumstance is hurtful, perhaps unlawfully so, doesn't mean you have no responsibility to mitigate its damage to you. Before the flood, had this couple made any, any arrangements for each other at all? Couldn't this happen to straight unmarrieds as well? The article makes it sound like they'd never made any effort to let the world know that they had any union at all. If nothing else, this is a story with a happy ending; the legislature came through. It's not an argument for gay marriage.

I can't believe it... Pelto made a useful, relevant, non-smartass comment!

Dear Snowballs in Hell: Hang on, boys! You never know! Anything can happen!

TO: Crid
RE: You...

....are 'projecting' again, compadre.

Merry Christmas,

Chuck(le)
[God is not dead. He is alive and working on another ambitious project.]

We knew it couldn't last. Dear Satan: you'll get sponges in the stocking tomorrow.

TO: Crid
RE: Cuidado, Compadre

"Dear Satan: you'll get sponges in the stocking tomorrow." -- Crid

Last time someone pulled something like that, whatever it was that came at me wound up getting it's wings pulled off of it.

The screaming reminded me of a demented crow.

Regards,

Chuck(le)

Isnt it great how at this time of year at a time when there is peace on earth and god will to men we can use arbitry millena old religious definitions to treat people we dont like like shit

Fucking hypocrites, if your going to make the argumet that marrige is a religious institution then you cant ignore the fact that the ecular government gives people involves in a religous contract certian benifits.

First it violates the constitution, second more than half of all marriges between straight couples have nothing to do with religion

Its moments like these that I wish there wre a god, because god sends more holier than thou hypocrites to hell than he does people who have sex

Enjoy the holiday co opted from the pagans your whore of babalyon chuch stole after slaughting men women and children

Yer a fun guy, Loojy!

Christmas pisses me off, in fact it was christmas and the way 90% of self described christians treat it that first lead me to question my

As far as the subject at hand if two guys or two gls or a guy and a gal who arent married want to give their signifagant other all the responsibilitys and privilages that married couples do they should be able to.

Personally I agree that it shouldnt be labeld marrige, and quite frankly most current marriges should be labeld as marriges either

"All that said, anyone should be able to give anyone else they trust (lover, sister, best friend, etc.) right of attorney, health care proxy and it's just plain pure logic that if they do, legally wed or related by blood or not, that person should be allowed at their side while they lay dying."

Anyone can, with a little advance planning. If you're in a long-term relationshi (same-sex or otherwise), its foolish not to.

TO: lujlp
RE: And So They Can

"As far as the subject at hand if two guys or two gls or a guy and a gal who arent married want to give their signifagant other all the responsibilitys and privilages that married couples do they should be able to." -- lujlp

It's called a "Power of Attorney". And you can even do it yourself, in the comfort of your own home.

However, you'll need to go to a state certified Notary Public to sign it in the presence thereof and make it legally binding.

Very simple.

No priest or marriage license required. Let alone a bloody test.

Hope that helps.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Life is really much simpler than most people seem to think.]

P.S. That applies to most things that can transpire between two adults, i.e., not involving a third party, e.g., children of one or both adult(s).

Your results may vary, depending on the state you live in.....

P.P.S. About the State's involvement in 'marriage'

"if your going to make the argumet that marrige is a religious institution then you cant ignore the fact that the ecular government gives people involves in a religous contract certian benifits." -- lujlp

I agree. The State is sticking its nose into turf that is not its own, in my honest opinion.

It seems that the concept of 'Separation of Church and State' has been modified over the last 200+ years to mean the State can meddle in religion, but not the other way around.

And maybe that's a good thing. But I'm not certain about that. Especially on issues about how a church or minister cannot be outspoken about political issues or candidates.

I can understand the guise against military personnel expressing politically charged opinions as members of the military, instead of private citizens. Therefore the punishments under the UCMJ for doing such.

But churches? Ministers? Congregations?

I'm not particularly pleased with the government muzzling THEM. They've not sworn to accept the punishments of the UCMJ.

"It's called a "Power of Attorney". And you can even do it yourself, in the comfort of your own home.

However, you'll need to go to a state certified Notary Public to sign it in the presence thereof and make it legally binding."

Right sentiment, but needs a little clarification. The rules of authentication vary from state to state. Some require witnesses and/or notaries. Others do not. Or even better, do what I (and other purdent estate planning attorneys) always do - insist on witnesses AND notarized signatures.

Ah, nertz. You beat me to it.

Not - going - to - get - involved.

Merry Christmas all. Even those who are mindlessly bigoted about teh Gay. Ten day old is gurgling, almost six year olds bouncing, We're done opening presents.

Oh, ten day old smiled - probably gas. Insanity rules the day.

> mindlessly bigoted

See, that's what this is really all about. The need to look down on others is a powerful and nearly universal human desire. In these years, this one's a freebie for people who don't want to think it through. It's a lot of fun to call someone a bigot.

Again you are all missing the point,

I do vs hunndereds of leagle forms that may or may not cover every contigance and still wont get you past the nurse to your partners death bed unless you happen to carry the breif case with all your notarized leagal documents at all time

Providing your copy wasnt washed away in the flood that killed your lover

PS its easy to call someone a bigot when they are acting in a bigoted manner

It's a lot of fun to call someone a bigot.

Actually it's not. Especially as I actually like you much of the time.

What would be fun, would be a world free of bigotry.

I like you too, except when you're wrong... Wrong, wrong, wrong....

Y'know, if Amy believed in God, we'd buy here one of these: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2Ke1VWhZJA

Amy - what's a "committed relationship"? Please form your answer in a way that emergency rooms all over America will understand, AND which provides them legal protections when critical decisions about care are rendered.

By the way, the State not only has the immediate need to understand who you are legally bound to, it does not restrict the act of "marriage" to Christianity or any other faith. The argument that marriage is repugnant to the Constitution is a non-starter.

You could pass a law saying all dogs will now be called cows, and not a damned one will ever moooo. This is the problem with the idea of gay marriage, it is not possible in the mind of most of the people in this world. Because they see the meaning of marriage as a union between a man and a woman. That meaning has been defined by ten thousand years of humans deciding that it was best for one man and one woman to stay together and create a family. Funny thing, they didn't have the gay blade to tell them what was smart and what wasn't. If they did, we would probably never have survived. I would bet that if all of you who are mocking this whole idea would think about it honestly to yourselves for a few minutes, you could see why a species always on the edge of extinction, and homo-sapiens were definitely on the edge for a looonnnngggg time, could advocate such an idea. IT COMMON FUCKING SENSE! You have to have people pro-create in order to have more people and therefore have a better chance of survival! Evidently, common sense was a lot more common back then than it is now. The whole reason that man came up with marriage was to create some kind of commitment to make that bond last. Even these primitive peoples knew that there was great benefit to the clan for a couple to bond and stay together within the clan. This is where the origins of marriage come from.

So that is why marriage has been so important to man. Why is gay marriage important to gays? If you say it is for equality, equality of what? They are not going to breed, the only way they could ever have children is to adopt, but that is NOT THE SAME RELATIONSHIP AS A MARRIAGE!!!!! So why all the fight about calling it the same thing? The answer is that they seek ligetamacy.

If gays want the same benefits as married people, I don't think that most people, including myself, have a problem with that. If a couple lives together for years, and one is dying, or whatever fate befalls them, I don't think there should be any problem at all with that significant other, if not a wife or husband, having the same rights as a surviving spouse.

The problem here is that gays want their relationships to legally be called marriages. Why? I think it is because they want to re-define marriage. They want to legally define marriage as any relationship between two people regardless of sex, or intent or history. If they succeed in doing that, then marriage really means nothing. If you can change the name of a dog to a cow, the dog may not moo, but you don't really think of it as a dog anymore, do you? And why would they want to do that? It's because they don't like the idea of 'marriage' being a normal relationship and 'gay marriage' being viewed as something else. As much as they will protest that they feel the same no matter what anyone else thinks, this constant push to re-define marriage shows how they are lying and really are not settled with their own feelings about their relationships.

Look, people should have rights regardless of their sexual preference. Gay people are now having children and creating families. (Some gay people are not creating families, same as some married straight people.) But gay people raising children together, openly, is different than it's ever been. I just think it's so weird and silly when heterosexuals think allowing gays to marry somehow disturbs the institution that is much more disturbed by the fact that people now marry largely for love (and divorce when love is gone) and the fact that we live a really long time now.

Let's call it "people who love each other coupling up with a legal document given then by the state and being allowed certain rights," for the sake of those above like Bikerken who get all bent out of shape at the modernity of the thing. Gay couples should be allowed rights allowed straight couples. There should be a civil coupling allowed to any two people who want it. All you people that disturbs can go have a wedding in that lovely church that teaches homosexuality is wrong. And call it a marriage. Until you get divorced. Which isn't going to happen because gay people have somehow ruined your wedding.

Amy - what's a "committed relationship"? Please form your answer in a way that emergency rooms all over America will understand, AND which provides them legal protections when critical decisions about care are rendered. By the way, the State not only has the immediate need to understand who you are legally bound to, it does not restrict the act of "marriage" to Christianity or any other faith. The argument that marriage is repugnant to the Constitution is a non-starter.

We should have a civil agreement like France does with the PACs, for two people (like Gregg and me, who are a consistent couple but do not believe in marriage) to declare their partnership for matters such as hospital care and being able to carry on in an apartment.

What's repugnant to the Constitution is making marriage unavailable to a set of people in society because it upsets all the churchies. And I'm guessing it's not us atheists who are all in a dither about letting gay couples marry.

These two women in the article, why should they have rights any different than those of my friends Lydia and Sam, who are married and in love (but have no children).

bikerkan given the number of ANIMALS who mate for life, this alone dispels your reasoning for humans DECIDING on the definition of marrige

Thanks, lujlp, long day yesterday on early deadline. And furthermore, about adopting -- many heterosexuals do as well. If rights should only go to people who have kids biologically, well, there are a lot of marriages to be annulled, huh?

Those of you arguing against allowing gays to marry are dinosaurs, and, I'm guessing, have belief, sans evidence, in god.

Amy, if you want parity with a marriage license, you're going to have to go a lot farther. Probate courts have to be able to decide what to do with property, family court has to decide on custody of children - or you if you become incompetent, banks have to know if they can release funds to a survivor... and one party has to know what happens to that situation when the other decides to "cheat" or terminate the relationship.

There are hundreds of situations where the State has a fundamental interest - and of course the affected parties benefit from having a legal routine.

Think about the word, "commitment" for minute. You have made it clear that your relationship can be dissolved at any time. While I do not wish that you find that necessary, and hope you find your guy endlessly worthwhile, just what about a deal which can be halted with a "Get out" is worth the attention of the State? Actually... how is that "commitment" at all?

I have it on good authority that if you file taxes as "Married" one time, you must show the IRS a court order or death certificate to file any other way subsequently. See how far the term "commitment" affects government?

I have no problem with civil unions with the same rights as marriage for gays. My only objection is calling it a marriage, because it doesn't fit the definition. My little brother was gay, he died of aids in 1987. He also dated a star out there in Hollywierd. I'm going to say who and dredge that up again. So it's not like I haven't ever seen the other side of the story.

But I'll say this, they have been allowing gay couples to get 'married' in some northern European countries and marriage has dropped off to a trickle because it doesn't really mean anything to them anymore. About three quarters of their children are being born to unwed mothers, and that's just not good for any society.

Yeah, I'm a dinosaur, I admit it, I don't care. Not everything in life is meant to be changed to fit somebodys new ideas. But you are definitely entitled to your opinion.

> This is where the origins
> of marriage come from.

Is there evidence for that, or are you making it up? I think marriage has all sorts of origins and purposes that have nothing to do with that.

> Look, people should have
> rights regardless of their
> sexual preference.

Should child predators teach kindergarten? Why do you want to sexuality to be a get-out-of-jail-free card? Sex has consequences, whether you like it or not.

> is different than it's
> ever been

First, there's nothing new under the sun. But as seen from outside the home, that's probably true. Yet making you feel good about child-rearing homes ain't what this is about. The tongues wagging so furiously about gay marriage are the same ones that prattled, just a few years ago, about how 'divorce is better for the children .' They were wrong (and fascist) then, and they're wrong (and fascist) now.

> Let's call it "people
> who love each other

That, that, that, is the worst conceit of our age... That we can look into other people's hearts and know that they're feeling the right things to allow this or that policy to apply. It casts government as an omniscient psychotherapist, and imagines that psychochology represents the greatest achievement in human exploration.

Y'know, everyone enjoys a stroll through the Borders self-help section now and then. And psychology practitioners tend to be verbal, somewhat rational, approachably-milquetoast personalities who talk about things which are of course of interest to everyone. But that doesn't mean they should be running the shop.

> I'm guessing it's not
> us atheists who are all
> in a dither

Guess again, hybrid-breath!

> given the number of ANIMALS
> who mate for life, this
> alone dispels your reasoning
> for humans DECIDING on the
> definition of marrige

Loojy, know this on Christmas Day: I adore you. This is not meant to be backhanded. Your spelling and typing give the appearance of a man who's batshit insane, which somehow makes your ideas easier to consider dispassionately. Specifically: Dogs drink from puddles! We're not supposed to do whatever animals do, because we're not just animals. Sagan and his missus wrote a book about this once. Second, I don't know what you were trying to say by emphasising the word DECIDING. Marriage is a human creation, we can do what we want with it. Amy's right: God won't care, and neither will her gay poodle.

> if you file taxes as
> "Married" one time

Excellent point, Raddy, and right on target... Since people here seem to think marriage is only about getting "Free Stuff!™" from government.

More later, I gotta go to a thing.

Bikerken,

Gay marriage is legal in the Netherlands, Belgium and Spain (in Europe). Which of these are the countries where marriages have dropped off, etc.?

The only thing I found supporting your statements comes from stuff Bill O'Reilly said (including that you can marry a duck?!? in The Netherlands). Stuff that's been pretty conclusively shown as total misrepresentative crap.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200606080003

Personally as much as I think homosexuals should be able to get married if they want to, I'd much rather we bring back real marriges

I'd love to have half a dozens wives and 20 or so femle servents I could fuck,

I'm offically changing my position lets bring back real religious marriges right away

I know a couple of teenages I can buy cheaply fom their parents

Thats right I forgot most of the belivers out there in the world today dont know shit about the origions, traditions, dogma, and history of their own faiths

Crid, I enjoy your posts greatly, and yes my spelling sucks, odly enough the more complicated the word the better I am at apelling it, Plus Im slightly dyslexic, an insomnic, and work odd hours alway trying on the fly

Now the leagal and 'spritiual' aspects of marrige are creations of men, but so is the word green

My point - some things simply "are" whether or not they're added to, or more greatly defined by a sentient species

Biology created a system in us to pass on our genes and gaurd those best able to do so, the result was a comitment
AS mankind progressed from a transitory species to a more urban setting we started coming up with rules for behavior to beter fit our new settings

Personally I think marrige is a religious sacremnet - given its definition by most religions as such a marrige should have no bearing on secular or legal matters

The system is broke the easiets way to fix it is to let any legally rational human enter into what ever kind of contract they wish to with any other legal rational human

But we wont do that with out making the quote unquote undesirables jump thru a shit load of hoops

Tel me do you really think its fair that a gay couple has to fill out hunnderes of legal documents to get the same considerations a hetro couple gets by filling out one?

> spelling sucks, odly enough
> the more complicated the word

Sincerity trumps tidiness!

> do you really think its
> fair that...

No, but there are things that are more important than having everything be perfectly fair.

No, but there are things that are more important than having everything be perfectly fair.

True enough, but an archaic definition of marrige isnt one of them

TO: lujlp
RE: Have Briefcase. Will Travel.

"I do vs hunndereds of leagle forms that may or may not cover every contigance and still wont get you past the nurse to your partners death bed unless you happen to carry the breif case with all your notarized leagal documents at all time" -- lujlp

Therein lies the need to have a state statute passed that will required hospitals to recognize what I proposed (above).

The point being that, as someone here pointed out, you may as well lie about your relationship. The hospital will likely not throw you out in an emergency. What if they were wrong?

Can you say, "Law suit"? I knew you could.

So, if a state statute requires hospitals to admit people identified on a doctor's form as people to be notified, the hospital is obliged to accept them at face value, until they can prove otherwise.

Why you being so 'obtuse' about this?

Was there a personal experience somewhere the rest of us are not aware of?

Merry Christmas,

Chuck(le)

TO: Amy Alkon
RE: Give Us Our RIGHTS!

"Look, people should have rights regardless of their sexual preference." -- Amy Alkon

True.

And they do.

But, please, show me WHERE in the Constitution of the United States it is a right to get 'married'?

Therein lies the crux of this matter.

It's not, repeat NOT, in there. And YOU know it.

Maybe we DO need an amendment that addresses 'marriage'.

The question is, who is going to write it? And what will it look like?

RE: Proper Perspective

Maybe one of the factors in the writing and ratification of such an amendment would be the social impact.

Seriously. We're just figuring out, scientifically, the aspects of homosexuality in a number of areas. We're like so many blind-men trying to describe an elephant.

However, would you REALLY want to endanger a child by giving the care of such a precious person to someone who would abuse them?

Do homosexuals abuse children? Ever hear of a group titled NAMBLA?

NAMBLA and some street fairs in San Francisco have done more damage to the homosexual cause than one hundred Reverend Phelps. Not to forget the on-going case about the homosexual rape of teenage boys in Missouri...or was it Arkansas.

There are a lot of other 'indicators' out there.

RE: Back On-Topic....

....access in a hospital during a medical emergency.

I think the idea of using doctors records instead of a marriage license will remove this particular problem.

But it is up to the people in the various states to deal with it.

Personally? In spite of me predilections about homosexuality or co-habitation, I see nothing in that old Book that would object to this approach. Others might. But I don't.

Merry Christmas,

Chuck(le)

Chuck you are right there is no constitution right to marrige

However there is a constitutional right to equal protection under the law

If a mand wife is allowed access to his belongings and corpse upon death due to one legal document
Then gay ouples should have the same document them selves

Chuck asserts, "Do homosexuals abuse children? Ever hear of a group titled NAMBLA?"

Child safety is too important to gloss over the facts in favor of sensationalism. I took thirty seconds to research this on the internet, and within two minutes found a credible study that refutes the gross mischaracterization you made, with substantial facts.

The web site of the Child Molestation Research and Prevention Institute presents research that suggests child molesters are most often straight-identified, married "family" men and are most likely to molest step/adopted/foster/ neighboring children (to whom they have access and influence, but no direct blood relationship).

To illustrate what the Institute characterizes as the "average" child molester, the Institute recounts the facts behind the conviction of a straight, married man convicted for molesting twenty-three (23) girls, only one of whom originally reported the abuse.

Results of the study of over 4,000 adults who admitted to molesting children indicate that just over 1 million of the children who were abused were boys, while over 2 million of the children were girls (see page 5). This seems consistent with the claims made by the adults, that 70% identify as straight.

The Institute asserts, "the cause that leads to 95 percent of the sex acts against our children has already been discovered: an ongoing sex drive directed toward children." Their study, and results found by other professionals in related fields, suggest that boys who are sexually abused are more likely (than any other group) to become child molesters as adults.

The methodology, definitions and even funding for the study are available by clicking on the "Research and Publications" link of the Institute's home page. I have no affiliation with the Institute and did not know about it until I felt compelled by Chuck's comment to see if the facts support his assertion.

The danger in characterizing child molestation as the purview of homosexuals is that the casual reader may neglect to research the facts and effectively equip themselves to protect children.

So, all that ranting aside, how do I keep my sister out if she shows up? Trust me, my daughter is, sadly, not the bitch I am and will cave if they thrust their way in so we can't leave it up to her and I might not last until my grandson's old enough (he, at 4, has my question authority personality and is already bitch enough).

The arguments against gays marrying are utterly ridiculous and falling on deaf ears as far as I'm concerned because:

1) I'm not religious and marriage is not sacred; in fact, it is for fools but the gays have every bit as much right to be fools as the straights do and

2) I don't give a damn if the human race becomes extinct. The sooner, the better, the rest of the world would be better off. Besides, if you make that silly argument, better dissolve any marriage that doesn't produce an offspring within a certain length of time.

Donna, please hire a lawyer who can help you put as much in writing as possible. Let loved ones know where the writings are kept. Some hospitals, and hospital systems, have voluntary identification cards (like the grocery store "loyalty" cards) that will allow them to access your preferences - but I'm going to hazard a guess that in an emergency so much of this may come down to what you have in place (documents, etc), where (state, hospital) you receive care, and how they respond to what you give them. All you can do is everything you can do, and I think that starts with talking to a lawyer. You may find it enlightening to talk to your lawyer and someone at your local hospital about the hospital's protocols/ policies, where they come from, and what their execution looks like in everyday practice.

My partner and I have drawn up all the paperwork needed in our home state, but if one of us is hospitalized and the other is not notified, and that paperwork is not otherwise accessed, we may be s.o.l. My wedding ring should tip off hospital staff that someone other than my parents is in charge of my medical decisions, but if my parents show up and mention that I'm married to another woman, I don't know if hospital staff are legally required to inquire into whether or not my partner and I have completed the necessary legal documents. I have a home-made id card in my wallet that states my preferences and identifies my partner as having power of attorney, etc, but I have no way of knowing how things will actually go down in an emergency. I still lack a sense of security in this area, despite having worked with a lawyer to get all of my paperwork in order, and having a father-in-law who spent five decades working in the field of health law.

Exactly the problem. Rights tossed out like popcorn to those who marry are denied to those who would likely like to marry but cannot.

PS You might also check out NOLO Press' books, which have some of the legalities worked out for you -- but then you'd probably want to run whatever you fill out by a lawyer.

I need to clear up an impression I may have made in my earlier post. I referred to data in a way that it appears as if the over 4,000 men who self-identified as having molested children, collectively molested the roughly three million children I referred to in the same paragraph. That is not an accurate characterization of the relationship between the figures. I did accurately repeat, however, one of the (lowest) estimates of the numbers, and proportion, of male to female abused children.

About, "rights tossed out like popcorn": which of these [i]are[/i] in the Constitution?

I just want to make sure the list is brought up. [i]Legal issues have specific legal definitions.[/i]

TO: lujlp
RE: "Equal Protection", Eh?

"However there is a constitutional right to equal protection under the law" -- lujlp

The 'law', such as it is defined, tries to apply the concept of 'protection' to the whole of society.

Case in point....[Peronal]

My sister married an Iranian expat.

Guess what happened to my security clearance. Three guesses. First two don't count....

Get it? My 'career' takes second seat to the concept of the betterment of the whole of the United States.

The same applies to 'sexual orientation'....until solid, factual, peer-reviewed research proves otherwise.

And, as of yet, I've not seen anything that says people who are not birth-parents of a child, care more than birth-parents do for THEIR child.

This is especially self-evident, to the unbiased observer, in cases where the State takes control of a child.

Regards,

Chuck(le)

TO: Michelle
RE: True

"Child safety is too important to gloss over the facts in favor of sensationalism." -- Michelle

However, isn't it interesting that there is an interesting amount of 'sex' in the discussions of the homosexual community?

Indeed. It seems that everytime a homosexual gets into a 'discussion', it always seems to devolve into something about sex.

Why IS that?

And how are the most defenseless in the realm of sex?

Women like to talk about how 'rape' is all about 'power'. Who amongst us are the least powerful?

Can you say, 'children'? I knew you could.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea. -- Matthew 9:42; some Wag, around 2000 years ago]

P.S. To earlier comment about birth-parents....

There ARE people who are an exception to any 'rule'. Case in point, the couple who tried to sell their child for $30, as reported last week.

But then again, I think that any reasonably prudent individual would agree that they were REAL 'christians'.....

....what does Crid have to say about Satanism and selling of ones own children?

"It seems that everytime a homosexual gets into a 'discussion', it always seems to devolve into something about sex."

Chuck, it only *seems* that way - simply because our discussions about the Indigo Girls' latest album and "the community's" heroic feline spay/neuter efforts garner far less attention in the popular media.

TO: Michelle
RE: So It Seems

"Chuck, it only *seems* that way - simply because our discussions about the Indigo Girls' latest album and "the community's" heroic feline spay/neuter efforts garner far less attention in the popular media." -- Michelle

I'm not familiar with the 'Indigo Girls'

I'm thinking of all the discussions I've engaged homosexuals in over the last 13 years.

What the Indigo Girls have to do with such, I have no idea.

Or are you suggesting that the photos of some street fair in SanFran area were all just fun and games? In broad daylight. In front of children.

Again....

....I can't help but wonder what our Satan-calling friend, Crid, has to say about this....

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Evil has many tools, but a lie is the handle that fits them all.]

"Or are you suggesting that the photos of some street fair in SanFran area were all just fun and games?"

I'm suggesting it's a seriously skewed sample from which to make generalizations.

In light of that additional information, it sounds like it might have been more intellectually honest for you to have written, "[E]verytime a [I go to the Gay Pride Festival in San Francisco and talk to a] homosexual [I] get[] into a 'discussion', [that] always seems to devolve into something about sex."

That paints an entirely different picture - one where you like to go to Gay Pride parades in San Francisco and talk to gay men about sex. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

I'm now bowing out of this thread. Best, M

Chuck, as far as "in front of children," it's a parent's job to keep his child away from events that are inappropriate.

Furthermore, as somebody who knows numerous gay people, including gay parents, let me tell you that gay parents are just as boring as heterosexual parents. It goes with the (parenting) territory.

Very recently, I went to dinner at the home of the woman who raised two children with her female partner. Her two boys, one in college, and one in high school, grew up wealthy in Beverly Hills and are exemplary kids with fantastic manners and strong values. And the mother, by the way, is one of probably three conservative Republicans in Beverly Hills. If there's a parade, she's not in it.

Oh yeah, and as I've written before, people unthinking say "Gay men are promiscuous." The truth is all men are promiscuous, but gay men date and have sex with men, who don't get pregnant, and thus didn't evolve the same prohibitions against casual sex. Men will have casual sex much more readily that women will. So, the truth is, heterosexual men would be just as free easy as homosexual men...but for the fact that women won't participate.

Get it? My 'career' takes second seat to the concept of the betterment of the whole of the United States.

And you in no way find a problem or injustice with that.

All hail Juggernaut/the State!

When do we start raising our right hands in salute?

About, "rights tossed out like popcorn": which of these are in the Constitution?

The Constitution doesn't grant people rights; it established a government designed to protect them.

CIVICS. YOU FAIL IT.

Oh, bs, Chuck. I was raised by my birth parents. Well, until age 14 when my mother finally divorced my father despite her still fanatical religious belief (it only took her 20 years to get past that nonsense). I'd have rather been an abortion frankly. I'm sure birth parents are often great parents. I'm also equally sure that some people should never be parents. My parents, for instance, should not have one let alone eight and the only reason they had any was because their religion didn't allow birth control. Every child should be wanted. And I'm sure, given that, adopted parent(s) who actually love and cherish child(ren) are preferrable to ones who conceive without thought and don't have the capability in them to love and cherish as they should.

Michelle, thanks for the advice. Actually I do need to make an appointment with a lawyer for that and a couple of other routine legal matters and our union offers discount rates. Time to stop procrastinating. I hope you never need them but if you do, I hope your precautions kick in. I don't have to worry about my parents since (happily) they're dead but I wouldn't be surprised at siblings coming out of the woodwork. I consider my daughter and grandson the only family I have and other than them, my three closest friends are the only ones I'd want there and it horrifies me that someone can get in saying they're my sister but not my friend. I'll tip them off to say they're my sister. One of the three is black, though, so that could make it tricky.

Ayn, did you miss the "all people are created equal," bit? I didn't see a footnote, "except those in same-sex committed relationships." We give marriage rights to heteros, homos should be allotted them, too.

I just don't understand all the furor about how people fuck. Two people want to marry - ie, get state recognition of their union and the rights that come with - let them.

(Of course, I have a hard time squaring the belief, sans evidence, in god, too...which is where most of the opposition to letting gays marry comes from.)

Amy - I agree with you; I was referencing Radwaste who thought that the Constitution grants rights; it doesn't.

We give marriage rights to heteros, homos should be allotted them, too.

Unfortunately, this is sort of true. Really, we give them marriage privileges and all the benefits that entails; marriage never should have fallen under the purview of the State in the first place.

Marriage is a right; tax breaks, visitation, NOK and all that mess should never have been state issues in the first place.

Sorry!

ANd I am against marriage-privileging, but give it to one set...

Well, you know...and apparently, you actually do.

And I think marriage should be a church thing, where they are free to deny it to homos, redheads, and people with hairy moles, or anybody else who doesn't fit their bill.

State recognition of partnerships should be allotted to anybody who wants to partner up with another consenting adult in a permanent (heh - or permanent until divorce) fashion.

State recognition of partnerships should be allotted to anybody who wants to partner up with another consenting adult in a permanent (heh - or permanent until divorce) fashion.

I agree with you here too; I think we should move toward a "middle ground" of civil unions for everybody, which has the benefit of reducing the transaction costs of getting your attorney to set up POAs for everything under the sun (i.e. visitation).

People don't realize it, but once you get the welfare state involved in everything, you give folks' a wedge to deny what should be basic human rights (i.e. shack up with whom you want and live where you want). This issue along with a bunch of other hot-buttons (like immigration) always go back to the welfare state. *Sigh*

But, please, show me WHERE in the Constitution of the United States it is a right to get 'married'?

Yeah, again: CIVICS. YOU FAIL IT.

Or, to put it on more simple terms, maybe you can point out in the Constitution where you have the right to:

1. Engage in consensual sexual activity
2. Buy food
3. Speak. (be careful - I don't want to have to give you another "F" in civics)
4. Drink water.

you're not going to be able to. Wanna guess why?

"Amy - I agree with you; I was referencing Radwaste who thought that the Constitution grants rights; it doesn't."

Actually, I do not think that, and have made the point you repeat here before in this very venue. You have not only made an illogical statement, you are unaware of my posting history.

I understand that you should not be expected to read every post, but there is no logical progression from my question to your allegation; you should correct that.

I note that there is less here in the way of suggesting a solution than I thought would appear. I look forward to seeing someone post the steps necessary to provide equal protection under the law to the declared partner of any person, to satisfy the agencies I have mentioned above.

TO: Amy Alkon
RE: The Streets of San Francisco

"Chuck, as far as "in front of children," it's a parent's job to keep his child away from events that are inappropriate." -- Amy Alkon

So....

...you're saying that we need to check schedules of public events and KNOW that we should not be on a given street at a particular time. Eh?

Where I come from, you're not supposed to do some things on the public streets; blow jobs, butt-f***ing, etc., etc.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Every people get the governance they deserve.]

TO: Amy Alkon
RE: So....

"Men will have casual sex much more readily that women will. So, the truth is, heterosexual men would be just as free easy as homosexual men...but for the fact that women won't participate." -- Amy Alkon

....it all boils down to 'supply and demand', eh?

Well...I guess that's the case if you're an atheist.

Regards,

Chuck(le)

...you're saying that we need to check schedules of public events and KNOW that we should not be on a given street at a particular time. Eh?

Yeah, try not to be an irrational idiot parent, please.

We're asking you to apply the Common-Sense test and not demand that you and your precious little ones just be allowed to walk wherever you please just because of what they might see; likewise, we're asking that you stop encouraging legislation to make the whole world "kid-friendly".

Seriously, what parent would think he's entitled to take his children to a Gay Pride Parade in SF and think "Hey, these people aren't acting how I want them to act! WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN?"

So, yeah, in short, check the goddamn schedule. And stop whining, for Christ's sake, else your kids get some kind of giant sense of self-entitlement where they think everyone's lives have to stop for them.

Yes, Chuck, Ayn Randian is precisely right. There's a gay pride parade in SF. If you, in typical backward religious fashion, try to instill gay shame and all the other goodies in your children, when the gay parade is scheduled...stay home!

TO: Amy Alkon
RE: Such Wonderful Logic

"Yes, Chuck, Ayn Randian is precisely right. There's a gay pride parade in SF. If you, in typical backward religious fashion, try to instill gay shame and all the other goodies in your children, when the gay parade is scheduled...stay home!" -- Amy Alkon

So if we get the City Fathers & Mothers to approve it, we can do what is normally against the law in the streets.

So....

....when can we start seeing Christian Pride Parades in San Francisco? Or Military Pride?

I understand the San Fran City Fathers & Mothers refused to let the Marines do something on the Streets of San Francisco last Fall.

But blow-jobs in the open are just fine.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Ever people get the governance they deserve.]

"They are not going to breed, the only way they could ever have children is to adopt, but that is NOT THE SAME RELATIONSHIP AS A MARRIAGE!!!!! So why all the fight about calling it the same thing? The answer is that they seek ligetamacy."

They don't "seek" legitimacy, it's those who wish to deny marriage to the gays that want to deny "legitimacy". Gay couples ARE every bit equal to straight couples, It is the same relationship as Marriage.

It's obviously no longer "all about children." Should sterile couples be denied marriage certificates?

If the people claiming it has anything whatsoever to do with "preserving Marriage" (a complete load of horse-shit) why not outlaw Divorce?