posted September 15, 2004 03:50 PM              

This amendment is an unnecessary and ill-advised attempt to use the Constitution as a tool of bigotry and discrimination. It would deny the right to marry to gay and lesbian couples and in doing so obliterate the family rights that many same-sex couples -- and unmarried heterosexual couples -- and their families now have. This is wrong regardless of it being an election year or not -- and the proposed amendment should be stopped cold.

Furthermore, the proposed amendment would reverse the constitutional tradition of protecting individual freedoms. None of our constitutional amendments restrict individual freedoms. The proposed amendment, by contrast, would deny all protection for the most personal decisions made by millions of people in committed long-term relationships and force states to adopt discriminatory policies.

Take Action! Urge your Representative to protect the Constitution by opposing this amendment.

Click here to get more information and to take action:
http://www.aclu.org/LesbianGayRights/LesbianGayRights.cfm?ID=9977&c=101

2) Stop Congress from Stripping Power from the Judicial Branch

Congress is attempting to seize power from the judicial branch with highly controversial legislation that would prohibit all federal courts established by Congress from even hearing cases concerning the Pledge of Allegiance and the First Amendment. Rather than spending the few weeks left this session on legislation designed to address the many critically issues facing our country, the Republican leadership is planning to fast-track this proposed legislation to the House floor.

The judicial branch plays an important role in reviewing legislation and ensuring that it is consistent with the Constitution. By tying the hands of the federal courts, Congress is trying to restrict the courts role as a system of checks and balances, and thereby limiting the ability of the courts to protect the Constitutional rights of all Americans.

This is not the first court-stripping bill this year. In fact, Members of Congress has been aggressively pursuing court stripping this session in several areas and may expand their focus even further. We need to stop this trend before federal courts are prohibited from hearing cases on everything from gun control to abortion

Congress needs to focus on real priorities and stop its relentless attack on courts and the Constitution. This is a perversion of proper legislative process and needs to be stopped.

Take Action! Congress should not be allowed to stop the federal courts from protecting the constitutional rights of all Americans.

posted September 15, 2004 04:28 PM            

I am against same-sex couples raising children - as for marriage, I could care less, except as it relates to the former, which by extension makes me against it I suppose.

posted September 15, 2004 04:43 PM              

Am too brain-numb right now since I'm on three hours of sleep to write anything that makes sense, so- ditto to what you guys said X).

posted September 15, 2004 04:56 PM            

The second reason is this: I have known many people with gay parents, now admittedly, in every one of their situations, the parents were married in a hetero relationship, and one of the parents decides part-way into it, "oh nm, I'm actually gay"...every person I've known who has been through such an experience was totally screwed up by it in terms of their own sexuality - it turned their worlds upside down, as divorce often does, but added a more confusing element to the mix. They had greater difficulties in relationships than anyone else I've known except children of abuse and molestation (no I'm not equating molestation to being raised in a gay household). Often these kids are encouraged or even pushed towards gayness by their gay parent (in one instance, a girl's mother finds out she's gay, divorces, then several years later, when this girl is decidedly hetero, with a live-in bf I might add, her mother an her mother's lover keep inviting their daughter to dinner and inviting young single lesbians, hoping to get them to hook up, even though she's told them in no uncertain terms that she's not gay).

Now I realize that all parents can try and force their ideals onto their children, hell hetero parents do it to their gay children. I disagree with that equally (like knowing your son is gay, but inviting hot chicks to dinner when he's over for dinner - it's disrespectful).

Until society changes, I think it's just unfair to the child. But then again, so is growing up in an orphanage - or an abusive hetero household, etc, so it is a conundrum for sure..

posted September 15, 2004 07:42 PM              

Sooo, let's see here.

Being raised by gay parents isn't normal. But then, most children in the US aren't really raised in normal households anyhow. Broken marriages, living with different relatives, having to go from one parent to another- I would say that that can be just as stressful to a child as being raised by gay parents. I think Bush is really kidding himself when he talks about keeping the sanctity of the family household.

If a child were raised by hetero parents for most of his/her childhood, then yeah, it would be a big shock for them if suddenly one of their parents turned gay. I agree. But if that child were raised by gay parents from the beginning, that wouldn't be the case. But then, I really agree with you that society would make it very unfair for children raised by these parents. Because, even though I love the idea of two people in love being able to raise a child that they love, it's really not that easy at all.

I've never actually looked at it this way, but I think you have a point, Isis. I don't think the world is really ready for same-sex parents, and until they are the children raised by them are going to be constantly ridiculed/etc. Man, that ****** me off.

posted September 15, 2004 07:53 PM              

If same-sex couples bow down under this grip of society, how are they ever going to make society aware of their deserved rights? Why not tell all of the right-wingests to go shove it and let them live their own lives, raise their children, and have the freedom that they're entitiled to as a citizen of the United States? Should they just be doormats and expect culture to shift for them? Or should they stand up and take action into their own hands?

But then, on the other hand (let's pretend I have three hands here), is it fair to sacrifice someone's childhood for these equal rights? What do we put first, the happiness of those kids' lives, or the entitled freedom for homosexuals?

posted September 15, 2004 07:58 PM              

That's why I don't agree with Isis necessarily. I understand why she sees it that way, as a lot of people do. (hmm.. that's kinda like talking about you like you're not in the room... but you're NOT in the room BUT you're kinda in the room. I dunno... just kinda struck me as odd)

But... if we don't chage society, society will never change.

posted September 16, 2004 10:38 AM              

quote:

---

Regardless, then it brings up the philosophical question of whether or not we have the right to decide to risk screwing up thousands of children on the altar of progression. Which of course isn't an argument for doing nothing either - I guess I'm just stuck in a loop

---

posted September 16, 2004 12:39 PM              

It's funny. I get mail from Brain Baird (my rep) all the time! LOL. Calls, emails, written letters. I won't leave that poor man alone

posted September 17, 2004 11:32 AM            

marriage - n the ceremony, act, or contract by which a man and woman become husband and wife; a wedding; a close union.

I am not saying that Webster is the final judge of what marriage is. I had just never looked it up before.

Anyway, I agree with the issue of energy balance that someone brought up. I also agree with LG that the mind is masculine and that the soul is feminine ... I believe that each individual Spirit is also masculine or feminine. The reason I feel this way is that I believe in the idea of Twin S-elves. We are all all halves of a whole, which would be the perfect combination of male-female energy. If our Spirits were neither male nor female, there would be no need to unite with another spirit to be whole. My idea of a "whole" spirit is best symbolized by the yin-yang.
The white half is the male, with a black dot to represent the soul which is always female, and the black half is the female with a white dot to represent the mind which is always male. Each half remains individual, and complete in his/herself, but together, they make the whole. I don't believe in androgeny, neither for ourS-elves, nor for "God". To me, "God" is a unit ... a yin-yang God and Goddess, like ourselves. They are One, the perfect one. Which is why I believe male and female came into existence here on Earth in the first place, in their image. I just don't see why, logically, there would be a need for both if God was just a singular male or female, or even an androgenous being ... if he or it or whatever could create life on his own, then certainly he could've created us in his image as singular beings able to reproduce alone as well. I also believe that perhaps that is why Christians have a commandment to honor our Mother and Father, microcosm/macrocosm.

These are just my personal views on the matter ...

Now, seeing as how I believe this, I am against gay marriage ... which is why I'm not having one
In all seriousness, though, I can't say whether or not there should be laws banning or allowing it. I really don't know. People have free will is all I can say. Perhaps you didn't choose to be gay consciously in this life, but I do feel it was a choice that was made, in-between lives, by yourself. Why? I have no idea.

When it comes to children, my natural instinct is to feel that gay couples should not be able to raise children. Nevertheless, I realize that is just my opinion and I cannot say that I would agree with a law banning same sex couples from adopting. There would probably be as many good gay parents as there are good straight parents, proportionatly.
I just wish that the homosexuals I knew would accept the fact that I believe it is not the highest ideal, not correct. I still think they should have equal rights yada yada, but why can't I think it's wrong? It's my mind, my thoughts ... it's my soul, my feelings ... why should they conform to what anyone else, majority or minority, thinks or feels? <boggle>
If anyone wants to think or feel I'm wrong then that's absolutely fine with me. Just respect my right to be wrong in your eyes, and I'll do the same for you.

posted September 17, 2004 04:05 PM              

It's nothing personal at all, just giving you my view.

posted September 18, 2004 12:43 AM            

I never said that I agreed that there should be laws banning same-sex marriages.
I just said that I don't think same-sex relationships (well, sexual/marital relationships) are the "highest ideal". I honestly don't know whether such laws are appropriate or necessary. I did, if you recall, mention Freewill. Regardless of whether or not anything at all is right or wrong or high or low or whatever ... we can essentially each choose to do whatever we want and reap what we sow karmically, regardless of man-made laws. It's that simple to me.
BTW, just because I may believe that someone does something I feel to be "wrong" does not mean that I am judging that person to be bad. I believe it's fine to judge deeds, thoughts, words, feelings, etc by whatever yardstick you please, but judging a person by your personal standards is nobody's right, IMO.

posted September 18, 2004 01:44 AM              

You have basically admitted that one can be screwed up having same-sex parents, but also that one can be screwed up by having straight parents. So why shouldn't one have same-sex parents?

The reason same-sex parents should have children is that same-sex couples never have children by accident; it is, of course, always perfectly deliberate, and therefore they are better equipped to deal with all the things children bring along.

Same-sex couples only rarely try to force their sexuality on their children. It is without a doubt safe to say that straight parents force their sexuality on their gay/lesbian children much more often than same-sex parents do on their straight children. Case in point- my own str8 mom and her "But can't you please by straight?" reaction to my coming out.

You seem to believe, Isis, that children adopted by gays and lesbians will be somehow disadvantaged. They are not at all disadvantaged. They learn the important qualities of acceptance and tolerance at home- qualities, I might say, that certain of us are sorely lacking in.

posted September 18, 2004 04:06 AM            

quote:

---

...same-sex couples never have children by accident; it is, of course, always perfectly deliberate, and and therefore they are better equipped to deal with all the things children bring along.

---

That is a perfect example of fallacious logic, specifically, post hoc/ ergo propter hoc, aka 'correlation implies causation'. Ex: Ice-cream sales are strongly (and robustly) correlated with crime rates. Therefore, ice-cream causes crime.

Deliberately having a child has absolutely nothing to do with being a good parent. Plenty of bad parents "deliberately" had children. Having them by accident or not, in and of itself has nothing to do with being better or less able to "deal with all the things children bring along". There is no correlation, either statistical or otherwise to support that statement.

While fallacious logic has a nice latin name for that specific fallacy, I call it, "pulling an argument out of your ass"; an argument which is I might add, based on nothing but your own opinion, which in turn is based on your own (subjective) observations.