California Gay Marriage Ruling Sparks New Debate

Maude Gonne

Sun, 18 May 2008 22:08:27 +0100

Maude Gonne is one of Sharon's relatives. The Rising was a family affair, the Tower, a place to escape from. Sharon, however, married her poet. - Lisa Thompson

Leigh

Sun, 18 May 2008 21:57:26 +0100

We welcome this discussion. A civil dialogue is precisely what is missing in so much of the public debate over marriage. You may be interested in this TS-Si Editorial: The Overlap Between Civil Unions And Religious Marriage http://ts-si.org/content/view/2194/995/ - Sharon S. Gaughan

Cathleen & Mary

Sun, 18 May 2008 21:42:06 +0100

Thank you so much for your wonderful story, a kin to our own. You said: P.S. note for Sharon Gonne. Is that an Old Gael nomen that tinkles in out ears? There are as you in our kindred's town nearby. 'tis so - Maude Gonne is my ancester on my father's side. People say I bear her likeness, but weathered now and ne'r so pretty in the first place. But oh we share the spirit. You email is - well, we know - so feel free to write and we shall share tea and old stories to our delight. Paisean do beatha saoil! - Sharon S. Gaughan

It is what it is but pick it apart if you want...

Sun, 18 May 2008 21:41:25 +0100

certainly you have much company in that regard - Leigh

Mercy

Sun, 18 May 2008 21:24:18 +0100

A sprited debate about us. My partner and I don't belong to any GLB whatever. From what we see the Irish kind are a touched zany as yours. We have been together, herself to herself, for 20 some years since we tied our aprons together. We make no fuss but wait in our door for the day when we can be married. We each tried it with bad men and found love on the rebound, joining ourselves and our children in a glorious family. We are so proud. This bein Eire, we may not live to see the day when Church and country pass our union. No matter as our union was blessed from the start. Our children and grandchildren will see the day because our fathers and mothers fought for justice and it shall be ours. Bless you all. Cathleen and Mary P.S. note for Sharon Gonne. Is that an Old Gael nomen that tinkles in out ears? There are as you in our kindred's town nearby. - Cathleen Hoolihan

Legitimacy

Sun, 18 May 2008 18:32:24 +0100

... Children are neither ligitimate or illigitimate, they simply are. The idea that a child is less worthy because of the marital state of the parents is an unenlightenedd superstition that arose when wives were the property of their husbands. The basic fact in any birth is that, without DNA testing, the only person who is 100 percent sure the child is theirs is the mother. Perhaps to ensure the sanctity of marriage, DNA tests should be run on all newborns and when the newborn DNA does not match the Husbands, the marriage should be dissolved and the newborn given to some barren scum or discarded. - Lisa Thompson

Leigh

Sun, 18 May 2008 17:58:23 +0100

Thank you for your comments, adding to what has become an interesting discussion. You said several interesting things. Let me take them one at a time. What we call marriage is NOT as simple as the historical recognition of a basic human drive to unite with another human being. If that were the case, same sex marriage would have been legal throughout time in all countries. Based on that reasoning, we would not have democracy at all, including freedom of the press, assembly, and a number of other rights we hold dear. The opposite is true. In reality the true meaning of marriage was for the legitimacy of children. It was not long ago when a woman that gave birth out of wedlock was scorned. In all countries throughout the world, marriage has been reserved for the union of a man and a woman to give legitimacy to their offspring. What about the legitimacy of children born into a family with gay and/or lesbian parents? Or children who come with one parent prior to the same-sex union? In the USA, the Religious Right and other religious fundamentalists have been consistent on that point. That is why they oppose so-called gay adoption, etc. Additionally, and I think more to the point, marriage has been an important part of family life with or without children. To be consistent, should we ban marriage between heterosexual couples who do not pledge their intention to have children. There are many childless couples around the world who are that way out of choice, quite apart from questions of infertility. I am sorry that it doesn't fit the gay agenda, ... I have no idea what the "gay agenda" might be and I am in a same-sex relationship. If you mean same-sex marriage as an agenda item, there are a lot of heterosexual people who support same-sex marriage as simple justice. ... and certainly anyone has the right to love, hold and cherish anyone or any sex they want to, but that does not, and should not mean that the rest of the world need to recognize that as marriage in the form that has been established throughout time. I assume that is a misprint and you meant to say that traditional marriage is the preferred form. Anyway, my place as a mother to our chldren has not been invalidated by my relationship. The kids grew to maturity as caring, upright people - they do not care one way or another. Our son, a marine, is headed into his second Iraq tour and readily acknowledges both of us as his mothers. Anyway, it still comes back to our democracy. In some countries, such things are decided by authoritarian fiat. Here in the USA, we have a decision making process that contravenes tyranny. Even so, I live in a state (Virginia) that has two laws and a constituional amendment in place to prevent me from marrying my partner and ensuring orderly transaction of what is, after all, private business, while protecting our estate planning from outside interference. Other states have taken different actions and - in the larger sense - the matter is still undecided. Tradition can be a fine thing, unless it adds shackles to the blindfold worn by justice. - Sharon S. Gaughan

No! .. you want marriage simply because...

Sun, 18 May 2008 15:45:08 +0100

What we call marriage is NOT as simple as the historical recognition of a basic human drive to unite with another human being. If that were the case, same sex marriage would have been legal throughout time in all countries. The opposite is true. In reality the true meaning of marriage was for the legitimacy of children. It was not long ago when a woman that gave birth out of wedlock was scorned. In all countries throughout the world, marriage has been reserved for the union of a man and a woman to give legitimacy to their offspring. I am sorry that it doesn't fit the gay agenda, and certainly anyone has the right to love, hold and cherish anyone or any sex they want to, but that does not, and should not mean that the rest of the world need to recognize that as marriage in the form that has been established throughout time. - Leigh

There is no logical basis for denying civil marriage to anyone.

Sat, 17 May 2008 13:27:48 +0100

Religions can believe whatever they wish. I don't speak for their gods, their gods don't speak for me. No one is saying that government must force any religion to change their core beliefs -- the Constitution of the United States allows anyone to hold private, dogmatically established religious bigotries. The State, however, does not have the right to establish a special class of citizenship for an entire class of citizens that denies those citizens the rights enjoyed by all other citizens. State establish laws recognizing marriage and granting certain rights must be available to all citizens. The least of us is just as worthy as the rest. Homosexuality is a normal birth variant in most all species, certainly within the primates. The human animal is no different. We are not exempt from evolution and our genetic heritage. Primates, especially human primates, pair bond, some serially, some forever. What we call marriage is the historical recognition of a basic human drive to unite with another human being, to share our lives and our hopes. To deny the reality of our existence is a path that only leads to repression, destruction, and state facism. The United States is a democratic republic whose constitution protects the least of us from any majority that might wish us harm. I defend your right to speak, to voice aloud your personal or religious beliefs, but I will not be silent in the face of tyranny. I will not let them win this time. Together, we will tame the savageness of man and make gentle the life of the world. - Lisa Thompson

Thomas Jefferson

Sat, 17 May 2008 12:45:21 +0100

Thomas Jefferson had eloquent penmanship and the constitution was surely the finest set of words ever written to define the struggle of a common people in its fight to self determination, yet even Mr. Jefferson himself was not willing to incorporate language that took on the issues of the day such as slavery and the rights of all men to be free. Mr. Jefferson never had to contend with the issues that this country faces today, corrupt government, corporate greed and power, and splinter groups such as the LGBT that want what they want at the expense of everyone else and regardless of the majority opinion which while willing to concede that gays should have all the same legal rights as anyone else, there is no real need to define it as marriage which has always been the holy union of a man and a woman. Gays tell you its all about equal rights but the real issue has nothing to do with the legal rights that could just as equally be bestowed with civil unions, no, gays want the word "marriage" just as the crossdressers want to usurp the word "transsexual", in their vein attempt to somehow legitimize their sexual preferences in the eyes of public opinion. Same sex marriage is nothing more than an attempt to further water down and blur the lines to allow further penetration by the LGBT into the halls of power. This is not about the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, its about the rights of the many to be infringed upon to serve the rights of the few and for us, its about being redefined back to our birth gender both in terms of the legal and wider social view of who and what we are. Same sex marriage will always be viewed by the majority as them and us, the real married people and those that call themself married by vote of the courts and the legal system. We can all swim together or we can all try to swim on the backs of others. The LGBT prefer the latter. I say NO! - Hell no! - Leigh

...

Sat, 17 May 2008 09:48:24 +0100

My greatest fear is the suggestion of some in state legislation's that the issue of even post-ops should be revisited if the same sex marriage issue were to be considered by the federal legislators and even the state legislation's. One state rep. sometime ago used an attempt by a man who had surgery, (but never changed his birth certificate which was permitted in his birth state), to make a case that if marriage is not defined by birth sex then the issue of same sex marriage will never be clear. In that case a male, (I am not trying to insult him but that is how he presented himself to the county clerk yet was dressed la fem), and his girlfriend applied for a marriage license but the clerk was confused as I suppose I might be as well if a person presented as a female yet had legal identity as a male. The clerk refused to issue the license and it was then heard by a judge. The judge made a decision based on two concepts: 1. Since same sex marriage was not permitted in that state the application made with one being legally female and the other legally male could proceed and 2. The fact that both presented as female is not enough to change the matter from the fact that one was legally female and the other legally male even though both were physically female albeit one still legally male. But the interesting thing here is that the judge ordered the applicants to not enter into marriage if the 'male' was going to apply for change of legal identity to female. I am confused by this and other such cases and am wondering how in the end a federal law might deal with those who have had surgery. Would we be required to be identified as our birth sex or would our physical correction be the criteria. If some have their way we would be defined by our birth sex and male and female then would be just that, the issue of birth. So, if same sex marriage becomes a federal law how might we HBS born under that law be defined? Should I marry again would my sex be listed as male and therefore entering a same sex marriage? Or, if I was a lesbian post-op and wanted to marry a female would the marriage be looked upon as a man and a woman. And what about two post-op MtF; would they be listed as being two males? I expect that I will not live long enough to face that idiocy but you never know. I do know that our primary issue should be our right to be defined by our actual sex and not what we might have been in the past. Everyone of us no matter where we live should have that right and it should not be intwined with another groups assertions of rights or wrongs. Diane http://harrybenjaminsyndrome.org./ - Diane Kearny

Pamela

Fri, 16 May 2008 22:23:08 +0100

Democracy indeed can be a messy business. We can strive to influence the sequencing of debate and issue resolution, but we can not control it. Like it or not, the genie has emerged from the bottle: same-sex marriage is an important and current issue. It is on the front burner now and may well figure into the Presidential election. We can't control that but we can manage our own deportment. This may be uncomfortable to all of us who would prefer a different discussion at a different time. But let's remember that a very deep principle is involved: equal treatment before the law. The state I live in, Virginia, had a case that triggered the end of miscegenation: the Loving case. Should interracial marriage have waited until segregation was fully eliminated? Perhaos so, but perhaps the Loving case hastened the end of segregation. Perhaps affirming the rights of "all" people to equal treatment before marriage laws will hasten the end of nonsensical legal barriers that bedevil the HBS-born. - Sharon S. Gaughan

...

Fri, 16 May 2008 21:49:05 +0100

Unfortunately thanks to our "TG" friends, HBS people get dragged into the mess because the states don't want to recognise that we ARE Women/Men and treat us as such. Right now, my BC says I was born female and it's NOT an "amended" or "revised" one; Virginia issues a NEW BC. Theoretically, I could marry a male with no problems. The religious crowd of all stripes want to discriminate against us and all the politicians use the issue to gain some votes (not metioning the democratic contenders by name) on one side or the other. - Pamela

Declaration

Fri, 16 May 2008 20:25:31 +0100

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. For the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor. It is for us the living to be dedicated to the unfinished work which they who fought have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth. At the heart of that Western freedom and democracy is the belief that the individual man, the child of God, is the touchstone of value, and all society, all groups, and states, exist for his benefit. Therefore the enlargement of liberty for individual human beings must be the supreme goal and the abiding practice of any Western society. - Lisa Thompson

Leigh?

Fri, 16 May 2008 19:55:26 +0100

What do you mean? - Sharon S. Gaughan

No! - and Hell no!

Fri, 16 May 2008 19:48:19 +0100

...ugh .. did I mention No ? - Leigh