Now this is beyond arguing that marriage is for heterosexuals.. This is just mean-spirited...
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/05/25/vi....ap/index.html

RICHMOND, Virginia (AP) -- Gay activists in Virginia are toying with a new motto for the state: "Virginia is for lovers. ..Some restrictions apply."

Gays and lesbians are angry and even threatening to leave the state over a new law that will prohibit civil unions and could interfere with contracts between same-sex couples.

Some legal experts call it the most restrictive anti-gay law in the nation.

"I won't buy a home in Virginia. I'm done," said Bo Shuff, a 30-year-old gay rights activist who has rented in the Washington suburb of Arlington for the past two years.

Edna Johnston, a lesbian who has scuttled plans to move her historic preservation consulting business from Washington to northern Virginia, said: "It's not a signal, it's a message: `You're not welcome."'

The new law is an amendment to the state's 1997 Affirmation of Marriage Act, which prohibits same-sex marriages. The amendment extends that ban to civil unions, partnership contracts and other "arrangements between persons of the same sex purporting to bestow the privileges or obligations of marriage."

Virginia's attorney general and other supporters say the law provides a needed safeguard for the institution of marriage.

But some legal experts say the law is so vague that it could interfere with powers of attorney, wills, medical directives, child custody and property arrangements, and joint bank accounts.

"For the Virginia legislature to go as far as they did, knowing that this is probably unconstitutional, to me it is a political statement," said Henry F. Fradella, a law professor at the College of New Jersey who specializes in gay rights law. "I have not seen anything quite so radical."

The bill's sponsor, Delegate Robert Marshall, a Republican, said the law is aimed at preventing same-sex couples from acquiring the benefits of marriage through other means.

One state, Massachusetts, has legalized same-sex marriage. Civil unions are legal in Vermont, and California and Hawaii have domestic partnership laws that provide certain legal rights to gay relationships. New Jersey has a partnership law taking effect July 1.

"Civil union is a proxy for marriage and domestic partnership is a proxy for civil unions," Marshall said.

Virginia Attorney General Jerry Kilgore, the likely GOP nominee for governor next year, has said he believes the law will pass constitutional muster.

Conservative groups such as the Family Foundation have praised the law, which passed the GOP-controlled legislature by a veto-proof margin after Democratic Gov. Mark R. Warner tried to make it less restrictive.

Warner said the bill interferes with people's right to enter contracts and violates the 14th Amendment guarantee to due process and equal protection. He said constitutional scholars urged him to veto it.

"I think the courts will show that it's unconstitutional," Warner said. "This bill went way beyond gay marriage and civil unions."

The state's leading gay rights organization, Equality Virginia, is discussing options for challenging the law, which takes effect July 1.

But some gays say the piling on of anti-gay legislation is starting to wear them down.

Virginia is the only state where companies not large enough to underwrite their own insurance policies are prohibited from offering domestic partner benefits. The state also bans joint adoptions by same-sex couples and refuses to list the names of same-sex couples from other states on the birth certificates of children adopted here.

Lawmakers also shot down attempts this year to rewrite the state's anti-sodomy law to conform with the U.S. Supreme Court decision that struck down a Texas law against gay sex.

Barry Parsons, a 39-year-old lawyer, left Virginia for Washington in 1999 so he and his partner of 12 years could adopt a baby. He said Virginia could suffer economically if more professional gays like him move out.

"I went to law school in Virginia and the state of Virginia invested a substantial amount of money in my education," Parsons said. "After four years I left and that's when my income started to pick up. Now all my taxes are going to D.C."

Brad Haransky, a 43-year-old director of membership for a Washington lobbying firm, said he and his partner moved to Virginia three years ago to escape the city. Now they are thinking about moving back.

"If every gay person said, `We're out of here,' we'd crash the market big time," he said. In some neighborhoods in Arlington, he said, "every third or fourth house is gay-owned."

Victoria Cobb, lobbyist for the Family Foundation, called this a "ridiculous threat."

"This reminds me of the Hollywood elite's reaction to Bush being elected," she said. "Virginia has always elevated marriage over all other relationships. Traditional marriage is undeniably beneficial to the economy."

Yes, well, Virginia ahs been wrong on the marriage thing before *cough* Loving v. Virginia *cough*

"Gays and lesbians are angry and even threatening to leave the state over a new law that will prohibit civil unions and could interfere with contracts between same-sex couples."

Now, to isolate just this little snippet of an article heavily pregnant with controversial issues, I'd say that Gays and Lesbians leaving the State is exactly what supporters of such legislation want. Gays are very much a social minority, and I seriously doubt that leaving is going to do much to harm Virginia's economy in the long run. So, gay couples leave, small-minded busy-bodies dance for joy around their cowboy hats. Battle won. Scratch one for sexual bigotry.

[ 05-25-2004, 11:02 PM: Message edited by: The Hierophant ]

The state's leading gay rights organization, Equality Virginia

first off, lets get one thing straight... the gay rights movement is not about "equality"
in marraige, we already have that. if any gay man wants to marry a woman, he has the same right as any straight man to do so. the gay marraige movement asserts that there should be an EXPANSION of rights, not an equality of them.

"If every gay person said, `We're out of here,' we'd crash the market big time,"

gays and lesbians make up around 2 percent of the national population. they arent necessarily the "most rich" or the "most powerful." they are NORMAL people. this is such an arrogant outlook that its ridiculous. if all the gays moved out of this country it wouldnt harm the economy in the slightest. every third or forth house in arlington? disagree, it doesnt even remotely agree with any statistic on homosexuality rates. why does the media insist on reporting opinions that simply arent true... oh yeah, thats right, most people don't bother to consider truth as opposed to opinion.

2 percent. Really.
Odd, since I've been trying for quite some time to find reliable statistics. Care to share your source of information? I won't dignify the rest of your post with a response, though I'm itching to, without it.

http://www.cathmed.org/publications/homosexuality.html

theres one source, its in there somewhere, the author of the page also backs everything up with scientific research reports.

but either way, here is a much better source which even recommends reading the pro gay rights legal brief for the court case referenced, because the PRO gay brief contains roughly the same figure i gave you (the average works out to two percent).

oh, heres some more facts for you, you can look up the 2000 census yourself if you dont believe me:

According to Census 2000 figures, there are a total of 106,741,426 households in the U.S., only 00.42% of those are unmarried same-sex households.

if youre going to debate the claim that homosexuals should be allowed to get married, thats fine, but lets at least get the terms and numbers down first...

Heh... it's still about equality. Men and women should have the same rights. If men can marry women, then women should be allowed to as well.

Rigggghhttt! That's a fact is it? Perhaps some gays don't declare the fact because of the bigots!

You think?

well, the fact that a pro gay legislation attorney cited the poll certainly lends it credence. the fact that you disagree with the numbers doesnt change the fact that its the most valid accounting out there.

You quoted it as "fact". I pointed out that I could drive a bus through it.

Likewise, you are now claiming that a "pro gay legislation attorney" cited it. Can we have a name or a link so that we can put it into some context.

the court case i cited above has the name of the case, lawrence v. texas. the brief is public record, if you think i'm lying YOU look it up. you havent PROVEN anything, other than to say that you doubt the source. thats not proof, its logical fallacy.

If you are going to present things as facts then you should provide a link to the source. I'm not going to bother to find it, I'll just treat it with the contempt it deserves.

BTW - you are very good at putting words into people's mouths. Where exactly did I say you were a LIAR?

Where did I say that I DOUBT the source?

<font color = lightgreen>Regardless of the exact number (the exact numbers are irrelevant in this instance), it suffices to say that homosexuals constitute a minority of the population. That being said, "gay marriage" is a minor social issue; the fact that so many people keep talking about it in the news is illogical. On the other hand, the hippies in the 1960s were a very small minority but captured a lot of media attention....
Homosexuals already have the ability to insure one another, own joint property, etc. and also have every other normal benefit of a traditional marriage except the ability to procreate. A marriage license is important to them, I don't doubt, but it really won't earn them any true victory. "Congratulations, Jim and Bob, you're now legally married. Now what?"</font>

Really? Where? Just curious.

[ 05-26-2004, 09:45 AM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

Donut, what exactly has gotten your rainbow panties in a wad this morning? It doesn't appear as if he's just making shit up. This is a "discussion" board, if you think someone's facts are questionable, go do your own damned research and refute them. Quit sitting back and (1) playing peanut gallery and (2) demanding forms in triplicate to back every fact asserted. Sorry to bash you about this, but it seems you're making a lot of hubbub over very little.

I think 2% could be accurate -- of course where I live, it's a lot more, and I'd say in the heart of the bible belt, it's a lot less. Of course people will always lie, but since censuses are anonymous, I don't know that it would be particularly succeptable to such lies/fraud.

If you are going to present things as facts then you should provide a link to the source. I'm not going to bother to find it, I'll just treat it with the contempt it deserves.

its a legal breif!!! im not going to take the time to research a legal breif and provide you a direct link when i already provided you the name and... wait, yes... the page number and the footnote number.

second, its a fact. its the best available statistic out there. if you need to treat fact with contempt in order to strengthen your arguement thats fine... so long as you understand that the 10% claim is bogus.

BTW - you are very good at putting words into people's mouths. Where exactly did I say you were a LIAR?

BTW, you seem to be good at the same, especially since i never claimed that you called me a liar. in fact, what i said was if you think im lying you can look it up. theres a very clear difference.

Where did I say that I DOUBT the source?

well, you know, when you call a source contemptable and say that you cant believe it without a direct *ahem* internet link to it, that would generally be considered doubting the source. i could fake a legal breif and provide you a link if you want... or you could just look it up yourself and be sure of YOUR source... or hell, you could even order a copy of the complete breif from the supreme court.

Now don't be telling me what to do Timber, I know you're a bit of an old woman but the post of my mother has been taken.

I was just pointing out that there is a good reason why this particular statistic is questionable. I'm not demanding forms in triplicate but I WOULD like to know the context that this guy quoted the statistic. It's not a lot to ask really.

BTW - my panties are NOT rainbow coloured, just the normal white with brown stripes.

Interesting about your census being anonymous - ours isn't. Another small cultural difference that I was unaware of.

(damn - finished the sentence with a preposition, hope Melusine doesn't pick up on it)

Another small cultural difference of which you were unaware would be the preferred grammatic?

Such innane grammar rules are simply something up with which I will not put! [img]tongue.gif[/img] (plaigarism alert!)

[ 05-26-2004, 10:49 AM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

Just a reminder, I know this is a very controversial/sensitive topic, but as always, we need to keep it in perspective and debate the topic not one another. Try not to assume the worst about individuals just because you don't see eye to eye on a particular subject. It makes interaction easier. [img]smile.gif[/img]

And now that I have that image of Donut's panties in my head....ack!

<font color=skyblue>Maybe we should ask Ziroc if that can be a banning offence. I too have suffered mental stress because of it. </font>

No worries mate - I was temporarily blinded by the panties mental image anyway. Even if not, I think a preposition is a fine word to end a sentence with. I do it all the time myself ;)

*desperate attempt to lighten the mood of recently turned grim CE*

Some of *my* panties are rainbowcoloured though! [img]graemlins/heee.gif[/img]

[ 05-26-2004, 11:08 AM: Message edited by: Melusine ]

ROTFL! Mel, that almost took the other image away. :D

Larry...LOL! I'm on board with that one! ;) :D

Almost, huh? [img]graemlins/1pissed.gif[/img] What does Donut have that I haven't? No wait don't answer that. [img]graemlins/hehe.gif[/img]

On topic then, I think the count where I live is higher than two percent too, and I *definitely* don't believe that only a lousy 1.4 % accounts for the entire lesbian/bisexual part of the female population.
But I don't think statistics are that important. Why not allow gay people to have a marriage equivalent available to them? I haven't seen any problems with it in my personal experiences.

[ 05-26-2004, 11:18 AM: Message edited by: Melusine ]

Apologies for giving more information that people wanted.

On topic then, I think the count where I live is higher than two percent too, and I *definitely* don't believe that only a lousy 1.4 % accounts for the entire lesbian/bisexual part of the female population.

this poll does not account for anyone who has merely had some homosexual experience in their life, merely those who identify as straight through and through gay, lesbian or bisexual. the point i was trying to make, as has been enumerated here, is that this is an issue which does not affect a large part of the population, regardless of the faulty information out there.

Because every single gay person I know would cheerfully identify themselves as homosexual to a stuffed-shirt knocking door to door to make statistics, or a census taker. And I don't remember that question being on the census. Maybe it was on the detailed census? How many people got that? Was it evenly distributed all over the country? If it was, and if this is the case, it most likely does not account for the fact that homosexuals, like other minorities, tend to form neighborhoods. Ever been to the Village in New York?

By the way, thanks for backing me on this, Donut... I logged on, saw the number of posts, and wondered if the thread had degenerated by now. Apparently not, though we might be in danger... Ah, well.

And Prometheus, don't you think that the Catholic Medical Association is just a *little* bit slanted? I insted direct you to www.religioustolerance.org... Look around. Maybe you'll learn something, and certainly there's more accurate information about homosexuality then at your website. If you think I'm lying, look it up.

As for *your* insistence that we look up this legal brief ourselves, I say that the burden of proof lies with the prosecution. Bear in mind that I am close friends with the gay peer services coordinator at my school, an extremely knowledgable woman, and I myself have looked for reliable statistics on the percentage of homosexuals... She's admitted that no RELIABLE statistics exist.

In conclusion, I would like to know where you come off saying that the gay rights movement is not about "equality in marriage." What, do you suppose that the gay lifestyle is demanding more and more rights and eventually wants to turn the entire nation gay? Do you think gays have equal rights as straight people and instead are demanding that they have *more* rights than straight people? Do you think there's recruitment going on? Do you think gays are trying to push their lifestyle, so-called, on you?
If the answer to any of these questions is yes, I simply advise you to lighten up.

I wouldn't out myself to a total stranger. Even for statistics. For all I know they could be a raving loony "F@g Baiter" (Seen people chat about it, but so far only online) pretending to be 'polling'.

Out of all the gay people I know, only 2 would out themselves. One who is one of the most open people I know, and the other who would do it just to piss off the person if they were homophobic.

I'm sure some of these vary from state-to-state, but this is from the PFLAG Website.

Because lesbians and gay men cannot marry, they have no right to:

Accidental death benefit for the surviving spouse of a government employee;
Appointment as guardian of a minor;
Award of child custody in divorce proceedings;
Beneficial owner status of corporate securities;
Bill of Rights benefits for victims and witnesses;
Burial of service member's dependents;
Certificates of occupation;
Consent to post-mortem examination;
Continuation of rights under existing homestead leases;
Control, division, acquisition, and disposition of community property
Criminal injuries compensation;
Death benefit for surviving spouse for government employee
Disclosure of vital statistics records;
Division of property after dissolution of marriage;
Eligibility for housing opportunity allowance program of the Housing, Finance and Development Corporation;
Exemption from claims of Department of Human Services for social services payments, financial assistance, or burial payments;
Exemption from conveyance tax;
Exemption from regulation of condominium sales to owner-occupants;
Funeral leave for government employees;
Homes of totally disable veterans exempt from property taxes;
Income tax deductions, credits, rates exemption, and estimates;
Inheritance of land patents;
Insurance licenses, coverage, eligibility, and benefits organization of mutual benefits society;
Legal status with partner’s children;
Making, revoking, and objecting to anatomical gifts;
Making partner medical decisions;
Nonresident tuition deferential waiver;
Notice of guardian ad litem proceedings;
Notice of probate proceedings;
Payment of wages to a relative of deceased employee;
Payment of worker's compensation benefits after death;
Permission to make arrangements for burial or cremation;
Proof of business partnership;
Public assistance from the Department of Human Services;
Qualification at a facility for the elderly;
Real property exemption from attachment or execution;
Right of survivorship to custodial trust;
Right to be notified of parole or escape of inmate;
Right to change names;
Right to enter into pre-marital agreement;
Right to file action for nonsupport;
Right to inherit property;
Right to purchase leases and cash freehold agreements concerning the management and disposition of public land;
Right to sue for tort and death by wrongful act;
Right to support after divorce;
Right to support from spouse;
Rights and proceedings for involuntary hospitalization and treatment;
Rights by way of dour or courtesy;
Rights to notice, protection, benefits, and inheritance under the uniform probate code;
Sole interest in property;
Spousal privilege and confidential marriage communications;
Spousal immigration benefits;
Status of children;
Support payments in divorce action;
Tax relief for natural disaster losses;
Vacation allowance on termination of public employment by death;
Veterans' preference to spouse in public employment;
In vitro fertilization coverage;
Waiver of fees for certified copies and searches of vital statistics

[ 05-26-2004, 10:00 PM: Message edited by: Jerr Conner ]

That's a big list Jerr, but says little of meaning. They are allowed to:

1.Live together
2.Have sexual relations
3.Grow together in a committed life relationship.

That is the definition of marriage in my book, and the definition Jesus used. All you've posted is a meaningless list of beaurocratic processes. Those do not make a marriage.

Oh, and everyone has the right to change their name via deed poll. Your list is bogus in any case. Same with inheriting property. It's called a WILL. Without a will, even a "legal spouse" may not inherit all that was intended.

So? Not everyone plays by the same book. And not everyone cares about the definitions Jesus used. Sure, it's romantic to say that, but I know for a fact that the list Jerr cited is abridged... Is this equal treatment? No. Or perhaps you're suggesting that all marriages be reduced to those three points?
(Come to think of it, that idea is not without merit, but everyone is entitled to legal protections.)

http://www.lambdalegal.org/binary-da...DF/pdf/182.pdf

well, since it has been called into question, there is the ACTUAL legal brief filed by the CRO with the supreme court. scroll down to page 34 (which is page 16 in the legal brief) and look at footnote 42. there you will read exactly what i posted.

Some notes: this is a legal brief. these professionally trained lawyers know more than almost any activist you can field. they arent allowed to put information they know to be false into the briefs, thus the data must be reliable.

also, this was filed by the CRO AGAINST the texas laws forbidding sodomy... thus it is from a pro gay source, so any claim that my sources are biased can be thrown out the window. in fact, i took one biased anti gay source, one non biased source, and one biased pro gay source and showed that all three appear to agree on this fact. that pretty much rounds out the proof if you ask me.

third, im not the prosecutor, im defending the facts... which makes me the defense. at any rate, i have provided my sources: where are yours to refute? and please dont quote kinsley (sp?) as his information was drastically misinturpreted

Yorick, I note that the benefits inured to wedded couples contain financially-significant and respect-significant (sorry for the loose terminology -- it's late) benefits that are material to people of any sexuality.

Jerr, I haven't the time to provide a complete review of your list, but I do note that I would modify the language and consolidate a lot of the individual bullet-points. However, that would not refute the valid point you make.

What I'd really like to get at here, though, is the legalities. If all of the protections afforded (straight) married couples were provided to homosexual couples, would you be okay with calling it a "civil union" (or some other term) rather than calling it "marriage?"

I'm asking because the practical side of me focuses on the substantive benefits, not the nomenclature.

<font color=skyblue>Something I just learned yesterday..the US census only remains anonymous for 70 years.

Just a fact I wanted to make to ensure nobody on this thread thought the census remains secret indefinately.

The crazy scientists say that the upcoming generation will live to be over 130 years old, and if a teenager were gay and wanted to remain private about that, then that teenager would spend the last 40 years of his life "out in the open". </font>

Earlier it was posted that if all the gays skipped the country that it would have little affect on the nation. I beg to differ. Hollywood and broadway would collapse. Which isn't to say that this exodus would be a bad thing.

HAHAHAHAHAHA.... thats classic. at the same time, i reject the idea that everything of culture and art is based on the work of homosexuals. hollywood and broadway would just have to look at hiring straight people to fill in for the missing half...

Sure. I'm fine with it being a Civil Union. Sure, I'd probably still say I'm married, but I'm ok as long as I have the same rights andd benefits.

Like Illumina pointed out, it's not bogus.

Like I pointed out, I cited the list from another site. There is an even bigger list (With over a 1000 benefits listed) but I couldn't find it.

As Timber pointed out, "Yorick, I note that the benefits inured to wedded couples contain financially-significant and respect-significant (sorry for the loose terminology -- it's late) benefits that are material to people of any sexuality."

And these following benefits don't matter?:

Consent to post-mortem examination
Criminal injuries compensation
Eligibility for housing opportunity allowance program of the Housing, Finance and Development Corporation

And I'm sure a few others on that list can't be easily solved as well.

On Jerr's last note, I want to point out that 2 lesbians recently wed in Mass. left the marriage ceremony and went straight to the courthouse to file a lawsuit based on loss of consortium claims.

Which is just a farce -- you have to be married at the time of the event. But, I guess they're trying to change the law. Unlikely shot in the dark, but we'll see.

As for the snide quote about gays and Hollywood, I'll be equally snide and point out that if all the gays left, we'd at least still have the Jewish folk there to finance, direct and produce the pictures. ;)

Well if all of us gays did leave the country and formed our own, I'd certainly have a much easier time finding a date!