Marriage "Defenders" Attacking Marriage

In a bizarre twist on the continuing battle against civil rights in the United States, the right-wingers who normally claim to be defending marriage when fighting marriage rights for gays are now seeking to undo hundreds of marriages.

Massachusetts conservatives (both of them) are working to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot that would repeal the Massachusetts Supreme Court's 2003 ruling that all Massachusetts citizens have the right to marriage. This would effectively void hundreds of marriages enacted since that time, and attack marriage as an institution in Massachusetts.

So those who claim to be defenders of marraige in other states are attacking it here in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

The most recent step towards getting this on the ballot has favored the anti-rights folks. The Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that it could legally be placed on the ballot - for more on the legal issues see article link below.

The amendment still would have to be approved by two sessions of the Massachusetts Legislature and a majority of voters in the state. This whole effort continues to prove the hypocrisy of those involved in fighting same-sex marriage.

CNN.com Article

Not from their perspective, however.

I don't think you can say that. Logically, if they're fighting against marriages already enacted, they're fighting - i.e., attacking - marriage. This really isn't a matter of perspective, it's a matter of logic. Though I do realize that's in short supply for these people.....

If its an illegitimate marriage in their mind how are the attacking it?

Because it's a legitimate marriage in the eyes of the law, and they are trying to get it to be illegitimate in those same eyes, ie. attacking.

Because it already exists and they seek to revoke it. No matter their view of it, if they seek to revoke it they're attacking it, logically. Their views on why they're doing it are irrelevant - if they're seeking to overturn marriages already enacted, they're attacking marriage. It's a simple logical progression.

ok lets think this through from their side instead of yours for a second, I'm just playing devil's advocate btw.

The marriages are between two people of the same sex which in thier minds are not marriages. So how are they attacking a marriage that in their minds doesn't exist?

They are attacking it, because it does exist. Their view of it is irrelevant. Did you read my post? You're saying the same thing with different words.

By your logic, if a sociopath believes other people aren't real people, he shouldn't be tried for murder.

I didn't say they weren't retarded, I was just stating thier point of view.

I am always interested to hear reasons why people don't believe gay folks should be allowed to marry. What's your reason, Billybob?

I don't think the term marriage belongs in government, its tied to religion too much. I think Civil Union should be the term and as for who can marry who, I don't really care.

Now I ask what made you think I was against it? If you notice I referred to them and their in the above posts, I never used the term I except to say I was just playing devil's advocate.

Well, you're the new conservative on the forums who's been making the rounds, so I assumed. Sorry.

lol its alright, it happens

My whole point is that regardless of their point of view, they are seeking to void hundreds of legal marriages in Massachusetts. Since that's their goal, it's clear to me that they're attacking marriage, which is deliciously hypocritical, since usually they claim to be defending it.

Seeking to define marriage in a state that doesn't have a legal definition is one thing. But seeking to restrict the legal definition of marriage in a state where it's already been expanded is another.


Excellent; that's exactly my view. But because actually seeking to revoke the word marriage from the legal language would give the radical conservatives even more ammo, I think it's important that we fight for equal marriage rights at this point.

*jumps up and down* I am a radical conservative so please refrain from making generalizations. I would suggest you use Anti-Gay Marriage. I am not saying revoke the institution just change the wording.

I haven't met many people who were against gay marriage who /aren't/ radical conservatives, Billy, which is whence I think that stemmed from.

In my opinion, it's a matter of the right of free contract; consenting adults should be able to marry who they wish, when they wish, and dissolve it similarly within the bounds of those contracts.

ok I can't resist posting this anymore.

"I've come to the conclusion that if it wasn't for the sex, I could be gay. Hell then your just hanging with your buddies"

Bill Engval
Here's Your Sign

OK, fair point. I've never run into a self-identified "radical conservative" who wasn't militantly against gay marriage, but I suppose there's a first for everything We're saying the same thing; I think we should keep the legal institution but eliminate the emotionally loaded word with religious connotations. We can have a legal concept based on the religious institution (there are good societal reasons to do so) without using the same word.

yeah I like to call myself an "enlightened radical conservative"

....

.....

......


There's nothing I can say that wouldn't be rude.

"If you can't say anything nice about someone, you must be talking about Hillary Clinton"
Jeff Foxworthy
Blue Collar Comedy Tour, Rides Again

Bleh.

"If you overquote the Redneck Comedy Tour, you must not have any original material of your own."

Phedre Aquitaine.

firstly, I am a self proclaimed redneck.
firstly err secondly for those keeping track, He said that on other albums and standup shows, plus he's a local celebrity
thirdly, my original material is highly sarcastic and some people may not be able to discern the intent of the statements
fourthly(?), I refrain from cursing and alot of the time thats how humor is expressed

It's going to be difficult in this day and age to find a comic you can quote without cursing.

How about Chris Roc- wait, no...

Just 41 years ago...

In 1965, Virginia trial court judge Leon Bazile sentenced to jail an interethnic couple who got married in Washington, D.C., writing:
Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.

from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miscegenation



Yes, I was born into a society that would abhor my own children.







How dare *anyone* try to control love between consenting adults.


It's the very definition of destructive, thoughtless, foolish and cruel self-righteousness. Destroy the dreams of lovers today! Society gains... ah... NOTHING!!!!


Not even religion to blame here. Religion is merely used as the blunt instrument of those with deep-seated irrational fears of those unlike themselves.