On Mon, 17 May 2004 20:25:39 -0400, JDG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > At 10:55 AM 5/17/2004 -0500 Dan Minette wrote: > >A few months ago, JDG predicted that the recent push for gay marriages > >would trigger a massive backlash. The opposite seems to be happening. 51% > >of Americans favor either civil unions or actual marriage for gay people, > >while 44% favor no legal recognition. (28% favor marriages and 23% favor > >civil unions). So, it appears that civil unions, which were controversial > >10 years ago, is emerging as a new middle ground. > > Ahem. > > 1) I neve included oposition to civil unions in my predictions of backlash. > Indeed, I have consistently predicted that civil unions would likely > prove to be inevitable. > > 2) It should be noted that most pollsters view polling on this issue to be > notoriously unreliable.
Several newspaper polls in Massachusetts so that Gary marriage has clear majority support. Ahead of both civil unions and no rights. must be those notoriously unreliable polls. > > 3) We still have yet to see many major politicians endorse gay marriages. Politician have to consult those notoriously unreliable polls. > > 4) Whatever your position on gay marriage, today is unquestionably a sad > day for American democracy. Rights are not decided by majority vote. That is the purpose of the American system, particularly the judiciary. If rights were decided by majority vote than minorities would always be in fear of majorities. >An unelected judiciary has issued a law for > the State of Massachusetts that is completely contrary to what the > representatives and politicians of Massachusetts believed they were > agreeing to as part of passing that State's Constitution. Moreover, this > decision now appears likely to produce the ludicrous result of legalizing > gay marriages in Massachusetts for a period of 2-3 years, until "government > by the people for the people" can finally be restored by >referendum in 2006. It is unlikely that a marrriage once granted can ever be taken away. Would you agree that you were not married if a majority said you and your wife were too different? It is also highly unlikely that a majority in Mass. will vote to take this away. > > 5) For all the talk about gay marriages "strengthening" the institution of > marriage, I could only laugh when I read the comments of the very *first* > couple to get married in one Massachusetts town: In Vermont, the first state to recognize civil unions, most people initially had your reaction and opposed the law the legislature was forced to adopt under threat of gay marriages by their courts. That was two years ago. Now it is a non-issue. Same with mixed race marriages not that many years ago. Now people who don't mind being thought of as bigoted oppose mixed race marriages. > > Yarbrough, a part-time bartender who plans to wear leather pants, tuxedo > shirt, and leather vest during the half-hour ceremony, has gotten hitched > to Rogahn, a retired school superintendent, first in a civil commitment in > Minnesota, then in Canada, and now in Massachusetts, the first U.S. state > to recognize gay marriage. > > But he says the concept of forever is``overrated'' and that he, as a > bisexual, and Rogahn, who is gay, have chosen to enjoy an open marriage. > ``I think it's possible to love more than one person and have more than one > partner, not in the polygamist sense,'' he said.``In our case, it is, we > have, an open marriage.'' > > http://news.bostonherald.com/localRegional/view.bg?articleid=28184 Sorry, the first ones I saw were two lesbian couples in happy long-term committed relationships who now feel safe about visits to a hospital, healthcare benefits, inheritance, and adoption. I know of a nice couple in a very open marriage and i believe I know of another who make special exceptions. They are heteros. It takes all kinds. > > JDG - "Strengthening", Maru > GLD "strengthening liberty" maru
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
