The Big Gay Marrige Debate Merged!!!! PART ONE

I just saw this moments ago and wanted to share with the rest of you. Looks like Bush might not have such an easy battle on his hands here.

 

thats really good news!

not only for you guys in America, but for us in Australia too, coz John Howard seems to follow Bush in everything he does. if he sees that Bush is failing he might back down a bit.

Howard is trying to do the same thing as Bush - amend the constitution.

 

The Reuters quote says it all. From what I've seen on the Net and in the papers, there are lots of Democrats and Republicans who would prefer not to vote on the issue at all for a variety of reasons.

I don't have anyone in my life I want to marry, but I do want to have the choice to do so.

If you take a step back and look at it logically--I know, I know, very few people will--there's no compelling reason not to let same-sex couples marry. Yes, it would "change" marriage, but that's not the first time marriage has been changed. We used to have laws in this country forbidding interracial marriage. The country didn't topple, and there were no plagues of locusts.

I think we'll eventually see same-sex marriage legally recognized everywhere or nearly everywhere, but it just won't come to pass during an election year. I plan to vote against Bush by voting for Kerry, and encourage all progressive Americans to do likewise.

 

Bush is unbelievable. That's great to hear though. Go to johnkerryisadouchebagbutimvotingforhimanyway.com. I so wis I could vote, because I'm so sick of Bush and his asshole-ness. Life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness is entitled to everyone, and marriage is included in the pursuit of our happiness. It cannot be forbidden because of your gender.

 

Well, we won this battle, but we still have a long way to go. Let's keep up the good fight!

 

It is rather interesting to see how far the Republican's misjudged this issue. The truth behind it all, IMHO, is not as much about gay marriage to many of them. It is also about state rights. Because of the recent court rulings, this issue has been set up to run in the state sphere of control. Congress hates giving anything to state control, and especially the republicans. As a result, the Senate has issued this as a challenge to State Rights as much as a ban on Gay Marriages.

With this said, however, I am very interested in the whole idea that gay marriage will destroy the institution. Look around. The institution is already in a pretty sad state of affairs. Affairs being one of the key words. My parents generation was very much into the idea of "Till death do us part." Now adays, however, most people getting married hope they will get past 5 years.

Here, however, is what I wonder about. Where do they think we came from? Were we imaculate conceptions? We have parents. We have mothers and fathers who were married. Does anyone truly believe that our parents don't want us to be able to marry? Do our parents think that we would destroy the institution of marriage? Heck, anyone who would want to get married has probably already introduced their lover to their parents, and hopefully the parents like their son- or daughter-in-law to be.

It is rather strange, actually. Most of the time we think of the gay community as only being 10% of the population...not enough to swing any vote, but here is the thing. We aren't just 10%. We aren't just gay men and lesbians. The gay community, in truth, is far larger. It is our Brothers and Sisters, our Fathers and friends, and, probably most importantly, our mothers. I've seen the look of murder in my mothers eyes when someone threatens her baby boy. Who is truly insane enough to face a mob of angry mothers protecting and fighting for their child?

Let them bring it on. My mother will teach them a lesson.

 

Unfortunately, my mother is one of the people attending these "sanctity of marriage" rallies while I'm outside waving protest signs. I wish all mothers would fight as hard for their kids as your mom does for you.

 

Exactly!

Bush is such a fucking asshole. Oh man that pisses me off that he tries shit like that. Oh well, good news for now!

 

In New Zealand there is a big debate about the concpet of Civil Unions at the moment. A Bill has been put before parliament and has had its first reading and is currently under review by a select committee. (it has to survive two more readings and votes).

There is a party in parliament called United Future, the head of which is Peter Dunne. United Future oppose civil unions... they get support from the Christian Heritage party and are very big on "families" which they define as "a man and woman with their kids" (not a direct quote but quite an accurate summation).

There are two bills up for discussion at the moment. the Civil Unions Bill introduces the concept and institution of a civil union and the relationships (statutory references) bill changes existing legislation to include civil union-ised couples.

This is an email a group of us have written to the honorouble Peter Dunne about his attitude towards the Civil Unions Bill and the Relationship (Statutory
References) Bill. We just thought you guys might be interested.

I'll post the rest of the correspondence next.


-Tamsyn

--- Tamsyn **** <pulsating_bung_eye@yahoo.com.au>
wrote:
> Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2004 23:07:53 +1200 (NZST)
> From: Tamsyn ****
> <pulsating_bung_eye@yahoo.com.au>
> Subject: Re: Civil Union Bill
> To: peter.dunne@parliament.govt.nz
>
Dear Sir,

I am writing on behalf of a group of concerned New Zealand youth who are worried about your stance on the Civil Unions Bill and Relationships (Statutory
References) Bill.

We were reading through a copy of the Listener (May 15, 2004) and read your advertisement stating your opinion on the Civil Unions Bill.

You said:

"That the governement rates this issue ahead of more pressing social and economic concerns speaks volumes about its sense of priority."

In this particular case we completely agree with you. It does speak volumes about the governments sense of priority. The government is finally taking democracy and equal rights seriously.

Over ten years ago, when the government changed the Human Rights Bill to stop discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, they committed themselves to finally giving people who do not fit into your definition of what the social norm should be, equal rights and recognition. The Civil Unions Bill is the first step to these equal rights and recognising that everyone has a place in our society.

Another quote from your advertisement is:

"...a government that imposes its prejudices on New Zealanders..."

Correct me if I am wrong but United Future is part of the government, yes? If so, are you not trying to impose your party's prejudices on the rest of New
Zealand? While New Zealand has Christian roots in its Pakeha history, this should not influence the governing of the country. New Zealand does not
combine church and state and the religious implications of "the sancitity of marriage" inflicts religious principles onto a society that is both democratic
and multi-cultural.


After looking at your website, we found an interesting point which we'd like to bring up with you.

Your website says that some of United Future's key principles are as follows:

"4.1.5. A modern multicultural society which encourages social harmony and unity through respect for individual differences and cultural diversity
and...
4.1.5.2. Which encourages responsible citizenship based on mutual respect;
4.1.5.3. Where the framework and rule of law applies equally to all."

Excuse us, Mr Dunne, but doesn't your opposition to the Civil Unions bill contradict your party's principles?

Furthermore, again in response to your advertisement in the Listener, about "community demand for the legal recognition of civil unions", the following
statistics show that there is in fact strong support for equal rights and recognition in New Zealand.

A One News/Colmar Brunton poll had 46% of New Zealanders supporting Civil Unions and just 34% against.

A 3 News poll had over 50% of respondents supporting Civil Unions.

An AC Neilsen poll of 1000 voters had 68% of New Zealanders supporting Civil Unions, and just 30% against.

A Stuff (stuff.co.nz) poll of over 4000 people had over 50% supporting Civil Unions.

Thus the firm community support for the Civil Unions Bill is clear.

Please, Mr Dunne, take seriously your responsibility to the people of this country as just one representative in our democracy.

Please join us in opposing the silliness that is opposing the Civil Unions Bill and the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill.

Yours Sincerely

Tamsyn ***
Danielle ***
Gary ****
Jessica ****
Hikurangi ****
Rachel ****
Josh ****
Tamara ****

 

This is his reply and my reply to him. I love how he didn't address any of the issues that I brought up.... though I kinda did the same thing. I am yet to receive any reply to my reply to his reply... I use the word reply too often...

*****


--- Peter Dunne <Peter.Dunne@parliament.govt.nz>
wrote:
> Dear Tamsyn Clemerson,
>
> I am afraid you have not done your homework all that
> well.
>
> It is certainly true that I oppose the Civil Unions
> bill, and intend to continue opposing it as
> dishonest and unnecessary. But it is not true that I
> oppose the Relationships Bill, which I voted for and
> intend to continue supporting.
>
> My reasons are simple. I have long fought against
> discrimination in all its forms and see the
> Relationships Bill in many senses as the culmination
> of the Consistency 2000 project that began in the
> mid 1990s. I think it is very difficult, if not
> impossible, to argue credibly against that, and I
> will certainly not be attempting to do so. When you
> take the time to talk to people about what they are
> seeking in this area, it is clear that they want the
> removal of discrimination.
>
> The Civil Unions Bill is different. It is the
> Marriage Act in all but name, and therefore
> introduces effective same-sex marriage. The
> dishonesty is that its proponents claims (i) that is
> not not same-sex marriage, when the legislation is
> in fact identical and (ii) that ii is necessary to
> remove discriminations against non-married couples
> when in fact that is what the Relationships Bill
> does. Thus, it is not a human rights issue.
>
> I think the best outcome for all New Zealanders
> would be for the Relationships Bill to pass and the
> Civil Unions Bill to be defeated.
>
> Yours sincerely,
>
>
> Hon Peter Dunne
> MP for Ohariu Belmont
> Leader, United Future
>
> UNITED FUTURE - FOCUSING ON FAMILIES
> More information at www.unitedfuture.org.nz
>
>


My Reply:

Dear Mr Dunne

If your main issue with the Civil Unions bill is that
it is dishonest (and that is the message that I have
understood from your email), would you support a Bill
which introduced marriage for everyone, irrespective
of gender, so that discrimination in our society would
cease?

Thank you

Tamsyn Clemerson

 

Yes! I kjust read in this week's paper: Nova Scotia has joined Manitoba, the Yukon, BC, Ontario, and Quebec in allowing same-sex marriage in the province!Yess! We're gettin there, Canada!

 

Sweet!!

Didn't know Manitoba had joined....
Well, half of the provinces (and territories) down and 1/2 to go !

 

YAY GO CANADiA.

Lets hope the rest of the world takes note.

 

Spain did this too. Yay them. But yay Canada too. I guess it might distract from the whole moosefucking thing for a bit if nothing else.

 

yet another issue the US can't seem to make head nor tails of, while other countries nearby (whether in geography and/or society) are working towards equality.

 

So did Saskatchewan!

 

I wonder how long it will take the United States?

 

Roar, I doubt it'll happen in this century in the US. Since bush took office, the US seems to be going backwards in lots of things compared to the rest of the world.

 

In Wisconsin an amendment is being pushed through congress that would ban not only same sex marriage but also civil unions. I met today with staff of both my district representatives, rep. Sheryl Albers and Rep. Dale Schultz. I urge any of you from Wisconsin to do the same. Look up their phone number. All that you have to say is, "I do not support the amendment that bans marriage equality." Do not think that a staff member is any different then speaking directly to the representative. They take notes on everything and will document the call.

Jonathan Dedering
www.savewisconsin.org

 

i personally don't care if it passes or not...bur i do like the fact..that religious org will not be forced to marry them if they choose not too...by saying these it wipes out alot of the right wing religious argument..that there religious belifs are being violated