© the eyeranian

Nope, that was the sound of me adding this to my favorite places. I feel the same as you do.

Nope, that was the sound of me adding this to my favorite places. I feel the same as you do.

You are right on!! We shall overcome.

Nope, that was the sound of me adding this to my favorite places. I feel the same as you do.

Please add our website to your blog. We are working together to free Iran.
Thanks
Pilot
www.freerepublic.com/~doctorzin

pedram,

a great post as always and one that i wholeheartedly agree with.

my comment is somewhat unrelated. i just wanted to take issue with your use of a phrase that i think is slightly sexist in tone. the expression 'having the balls' to do something, implying courage is, of course, well entrenched in the language. but, as i'm sure you can see, it is one that equates courage with masculinity. i was hoping that you could use different expressions (e.g. 'having the guts') to communicate the same meaning.

anyways, i don't want to sidetrack the debate here on gay marriage. i just wanted to bring that to your attention.

k.s.

[Was that the sound of a whole bunch of our new visitors clicking to delete the eyeranian off their list of favorites/bookmarks just now?]

yes, it was...

Yet another click of approval for that very true view on gay marriage. Bravo to everyone who aspires to the victory of humanity and sound logic over sentimentality and hysteric bravado !

You will find that marriage and divorce were governed by religious laws long before recognized government took it upon themselves to make it the legalistic fiasco it is today. You will also find that both Christian and Islamic scripture present marriage as a union between man and woman with no provision for a union between man and man or woman and woman. I say let the gay and lesbian couples go to a church or mosque or synagogue and see if they will allow them to be joined in Holy matrimony and leave the state out of the whole ordeal.

Even here in the supposedly secular state of Australia, it seems that 'freedom of religion' doesn't quite stretch to 'freedom from religion'. Religion appears to continue to exert an influence on government policy. When will people realize that a government driven by logic, equality and analysis will be fairer and more reasonable to all it's citizens than any religious dogma? Such a government will not have destructive effects upon those who wish to peacefully follow their religion, but every religious government will surely find it's minority or adversary to persecute.
Cheers to the SanFranciscans and the Cambodian King for understanding that giving equality to those perceived as different doesn't undermine the so called 'normal' way of life.

I love the post. I believe the U.S.A. at some point will reach equal rights for gay couples as non. I believe it might take a good 10 years but the wheels of change are increasing speed on this issue. I believe this is a great examples of how we can have change in our government without violence. I appericate the attention you brought to this issues and I agree with your opinion.

No, that was the sound of W and Karl Rove having a good laugh. Something got to energize the right comming november. If not Osuma and wholy war and crusade then gay marriage.

Bravo indeed....

Did you hear the news about New Mexico (http://www.salon.com/news/wire/2004/02/20/nm_same_sex/index.html)?
Go Gays!

interesting article you have it here. right on...

regards,

No problem here. I'll be back to visit.

And i may just vomit next time I read a twisted post like yours. You claim that marriage is "state's recognition of a human relationship, the unity of people who choose to share their lives, their belongings, their futures." How many people? and who said it should be only between humans? Why not include dogs and cats? Why not make it between three people? or two people and five animals? Once you allow the definition of marriage to be changed, then you will have destroyed the institution of marriage. A union between 2 or 3 or 4 gays cannot be called marriage. Give it a different name, and a suitable definition, but please don't call it marriage. Let's legalize gay unions, but let's agree on the difinition first. Don't hijack the sacred institution of marriage for your personal gains.
Last but not least, rest assured that the people of this great nation will speak soon, and we will ammend our constitution to protect marriage. It is about time we took our country back from insane judges who won't stop destroying our values and our history. Also, a message to SF: Start looking for a new mayor. Your current mayor may relocate to a federal slammer soon.

as to the "sanctity" of marriage...perhaps the government may consider the disasterous effects on the "sanctity" of marriage that economic hardship imposes on a family...next time they consider drafting legislation to "defend" marriage they may consider the impact that unemployment has on the working class family and marriage. the "sanctity" of the victorian family cannot stand up to a state where women are liberated beyond the point of objects and the fight against gay marriage reflects the broader fight by conservatives to retain antiquated gender roles within the institution. revolutionize the family! perhaps gay marriage will help push the debate where it needs to be, how can the family be modernized? in no other institution would we accept a 70% failure rate as something which needs defending.

The word marriage is known to mankind for thousands of years. Lets keep the usage of this word the way it is and choose another word for union of gay couples. They deserve to be treated equal under the law but it is wrong to use a term that is universally and historically used for another purpose.

I repeat! Bravo to those who aspire to sound logic and humanity and shun the "sanctity" and "religious piety" of a church that so far alone has more than 40,000 cases of abuse lodged against it! At least gay marriage and communion is about being honest and indicative of the love of two people for each other and not the lust of a frocked abuser for innocent boys!

These talks about "sanctity" and "values" reminds me of Islamic Republic of Iran. To me the George Bush's view towards these issues is very similar to religious fundamentalist governments like Iran and Saudi Arabia.
Read the comment posted by "America" (2 poats before). It could be written by a "Basiji" in Iran... the last thing we need in this world is a religious fundamentalist superpower.

Not to long ago homosexuality was considered a perversion. Think about the things we still consider perversions and tell me if you want all of those that practice those perversions classified as minorities that the majority need to accept. There is a difference between freedom and acceptance immoral behavior.

I agree with America there is a floodgate that is just waiting to be opened by this if the state does not put a stop to it now.

Most people who are getting upset are pointing to moral or religious reasons. There have always been two aspects to getting married, the religious aspect, which many skip by going to the courthouse instead of church, and of course the civil union. As long as our government, which seperates church and state, allows special privilages (such as tax incentives) for "married" people, it is going to have to allow any two people who want to, to get married in the eyes of the law. These couples are then entitled to the same privilages as other married couples. If you don't wish to acknowledge their marriage according to your moral views, so be it. However I think if you are standing on religion you might want to go back and re read the passage about casting the first stone. Another thing to consider, how much of a married couple's interfacing with the rest of the world revolves around their sexuality? For the most part, none. What is the darned big deal? If we said Mexican's couldn't get married, or Blacks, or fill in the blank, we'd get hung out to dry for being biggots.

i have heard marriage defined as the state of being a married couple voluntarily joined for life. who are we to say who these two people can be?

dave is correct, as long as the governments give special considerations to married couples, it will have to allow any two people to get married. if they choose not to allow same-sex couples this privilege, what is it other than discrimination?

You are so right Pedram.

I think that people should stop meddling in other people's lives. Who says that the Christian values are the "correct" ones? (Well, Christians of course)

The Catholic church should stop living in the dark ages and governments should stop thrusting the church down our throats and stick to the business of governing, which they have more than enough trouble doing as it is. (Thankfully, Canada's government isn't as attached to religion as Americans are)

How about some quotes from Dubya himself:

"I could not be governor if I did not believe in a divine plan that supercedes all human plans."

"I believe God wants me to be president."

"I feel the comfort and the power of knowing that literally millions of Americans I'm never going to meet...say my name to the Almighty every day and ask him to help me...My friend, Jiang Zemin in China, has about a billion and a half folks, and I don't think he can say that. And my friend, Vladimir Putin, I like him, but he can't say that."

The Catholic Church's system of rules, policies, and actions are so muddled now that none of it make sense anymore to me, why should the government push their ideals onto the people?.

I wrote an article recently on this very subject between the church and homosexuality.

http://www.kevin-canada.blogspot.com/2004_01_01_kevin-canada_archive.html#107560754210512852

Great Post. We always hear the so called religous right and the conservatives say how they want to defend the Second Amenedmant (The right to bear arms)so stronlgy. Yet when it comes to the other Amedments such as seperation of Church and State or the Right to Free Speech , the call those who defend those rights un-american or anti-american. If you disagree with them, you will be crucified. We also hear that they do not want Iraq to have Islamic law part of thier constitution (I believe ir should not be either by the way-seperation of church and state). the want religoin part of the governement, only if it their chosen religion.

Whether you are right or not. That's not the point. Maybe I agree with you, maybe not. Sometimes we have to listen to opinions we do not prefer - people call it democracy.

Pedram,

As you know, I am an admirer of your site, but I think you are off the mark on this one.

Marriage is, and always has been the building block of FAMILIES and its major purpose has been for the stability needed in the raising and rearing of children. Therefore, gays do not require it. Children are created by joining Flap A to Slot B, and no other way. Flap A + Flap A or Slot B + Slot B does not equal children. Never has, never will.

The laws of this country allow for many, many ways for people to interjoin their lives. For example, powers of attorney, definition of beneficiary, and survivor benefits. The people pushing Gay Marriage are trying to force upon the general populace of this nation something that they DO NOT agree with or believe in. You of all people should be able to relate to this, given what occured in your own country yesterday.

Besides that, committment to another, be it man or woman, same sex or not, is a SPIRITUAL matter, not one for the government. A function of spiritual committment can be undertaken without the sanction of government. However, if a government is required to sanction a SPIRITUAL
function, then you do truly have the forced integration of government and religion.

While I have absolutely no problem with people of same sex having relationships, the idea that they will try to force their will upon the majority who disagree is abhorrent. Also, if I may point out, there are great divides even within the same sex community about this issue. What we have here is about 2-5% of the population trying to impose their point of view on the other 95-98%.
The great irony of this whole argument is that these people who are decrying the horrible intolerance of America for not allowing the legal sanction can only make their argument BECAUSE of the great tolerance of America to accept divergant views.If they tried to make this argument in any other place on this planet, they would at the very least be shunned, and in many places be outright killed just because of the BASIS of the case and the behavior involved.
My other major objection to this argument is they way that it is being made. If they are so cock-sure about the rightness of their cause then they should make the case to the general populace and work through elected representatives to change the law. However, that is not the way this is being done. They are working through courts to make law when the function of our courts is to INTERPRET the law not to make it. Again, in light of the recent events in your own country, this is a point that should be especially clear to you.
Finally, let me clarify on the separation of church and state. This point is key because many people in my own country do not understand it.
separation of chuirch and state in regard to our Constitution is there for the sole purpose of keeping the government from establishing state sanctioned religion and forcing people to worship in the way GOVERNMENT decides. It is NOT
there to keep a man or woman from bringing his own personal religious belief to the fore front of his own life or duties, whatever they may be.
This very point is what makes this country great, it is why peoples have come from the four corners of the Earth to be in this country. whether they be Jew or Gentile or Buddhist or Muslim, all are free to come and practice and to live their lives in whatever manner they see fit.
It is unfortunate that these few that are trying to force their will upon the many are doing so in the name of FINANCIAL gain and for no other reason, because they are protected BY LAW from any discrimination.
By the same token, Natural Law and free will also protect those that do not wish to acknowledge or sanction this behavior.
Our Constitution acknowledges God-given natural rights of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness", it does NOT guarantee the attainment of said happiness.
Happiness and self fulfillment cannot be given by our or any other government, it can only come fron the peace and contentment of a life well lived and the peace of ones own soul.

Salaam Aleykum, (hope I spelled that right!)

Bill

I have nothing against anyone marrying anyone else. Good luck to them!
However, I don't understand why it has to be legally recognized by the state. All the talk about benefits and taxes just sounds like more entitlement whining. I mean, the current financial arrangements associated with legal marriage are based on the model of a breadwinner, and non-earning spouse with minor children. The idea is to offer some security to the non-earning members of the family in case of demise of the breadwinner. That particular model of a family may be outdated, but what does it have to do with Gay households?
It seems to me that any benefits derived from legal marriage can be arranged in other ways, via living trusts, specific powers of attorney, etc.
I also think legalizing gay marriage would open the whole institution to fraud and things like people wanting to marry in groups etc. Its hard enough to resolve legal problems in the basic model.
Further, I dislike the idea of putting up even more barriers between children and their natural parents. You only get one father, and one mother. The idea of "2 Mommies" may be the best solution for some people, but legal recognition of that union dissolves and discourages that much more of any access to the biological father. I actually prefer the traditional Islamic model of the zenana to supplanting male-female marriages with the currently proposed alternatives.
Why isn't it enough to just have a ceremony, throw a big party and order new stationary? Why a license?

To all those who somehow bring "family" and procreation into this argument; are you suggesting that hetrosexual couples who are unable to reproduce should be denied the opportunity to marry? Get real people.

Great post!

Why not just put it in front of the citizens for a vote? How much more democratic (or Representitive Republic) can you be?
Now, I do believe that is what they did in California with Prop 22 (I believe that is correct proposition). The people voted for Prop 22 which defined marriage as a union between one man and one woman. The current mayor of S.F. breaking the law that the people of California voted for. Which also breaks his oath of office which to to uphold the law.
Now if he and others do not like the law, then work to change it and put it back infront of the people for a vote. That is called democracy!! The rule of law must be upheld even if you disagree with the law. We cannot have police, elected and appointed government officials, and ordinary citizens decides which laws to uphold and which laws not to uphold. In the US there is always a way to change the law if enough of society disagrees.

Yeah, let the voters vote the same way majority of them opposed an end to slavery and if it was up to voting, you'd still owned me or a person in my family. Great idea!!!

Doing the right thing is not doing the popular thing. Unfortunately a general vote is only about popularity and often in our history, the popular thing has been the wrong thing. This will be another example.

Then convince people it is wrong and vote. Attacking me personally will not resolve the problem. You don't even know which side I would vote for. All I am saying is the rule of law must be upheld or the law must be changed in the appropiate manner.

To F14 Pilot ; Unfortunately it seems that your good sense of trying to help Iranian people has somehow got mixed in with aspirations of people like Karl Rove and Michael Ledeeen through their "Blog Iran" project. I don't think you'd find many Iranians who would either agree with that stand or wish to help you in promoting their vision. If you care and want to know what Iranian bloggers want and support, just ask any of us.

I have to admit that I'm torn on this issue. The libertarian in me (the majority part by wide margin) says that homosexuals ought to be allowed to marry, however billkenkel sums up my reservations nicely, particularly this part:

"Marriage is, and always has been the building block of FAMILIES and its major purpose has been for the stability needed in the raising and rearing of children. Therefore, gays do not require it. Children are created by joining Flap A to Slot B, and no other way. Flap A + Flap A or Slot B + Slot B does not equal children. Never has, never will.

The laws of this country allow for many, many ways for people to interjoin their lives. For example, powers of attorney, definition of beneficiary, and survivor benefits."

New Reader brings up the obvious kink in that argument by suggesting that infertile couples would not need marraige under those terms either.

I really don't know where to stand on this issue, and the extreme rancor on both sides doesn't help any.

To "America": Need to review the basics of contract law. A person cannot marry, as you wrote, "two dogs and a cat" as dogs and cats are unable to give consent. The same is true of any person who has not reached the age of majority. Which cuts out adults marrying children. (That seems to be the next point brought up on AM talk radio following the marriage to animals idea.)

If civil marriage, marriage at the court house, is still subject to religious ideas, then we shouldn't allow atheists to marry in this country.

With more gay/lesbian couples adopting or having children and accumulating property together there needs to be a change in the law (ie - recognizing gay marriages) to allow these couples to have their disputes heard in the family courts in the event of a breakup.

Also, in a recent post Pedram discussed the prudish nature of Americans as it related to Janet Jackson's breast. A few wrote about their home countries being terribly liberal when it came to such matters. Isn't it interesting then that the fight to legalize gay marriage isn't happening in a more liberal, and generally less religious, place like France, Germany or Brazil?

your a fucking moron.

go kill yourself and do the world a favor.

Dear die,

The word "your" in your comment above is a contraction and should be "you're."

While I agree that the mayor of San Francisco hit a home run when he decided to force the issue, the law of the state of California still prohibits the very unions being created. Hopefully the situation in San Francisco will make people finally address this issue across the country.
On another issue, I think you are missing the point of "separation of church and state." The First Amendment's language is not designed to make the government Atheist, it's supposed to make it non-denominational. The framers weren't even considering that anyone would be offended by any mention of holiness or sanctity. They were concerned only with eliminating the possibility that an official religion of state would be declared. Many of the original emigrees from Europe came to America to escape religious persecution, so this was a major point in the constitution.

John,
I understand your point on the separation of church and state. My point is that opponents of gay marriage are using the idea that it is, "against God's will," as their reason for objecting to it. I see civil unions as basically a business contract between two people and "God's will," be it Christian, Muslim or Hindu, doesn't really come into it. States legalizing gay marriage will have no effect on religious ceremonies. Religious belief is not the only reason people marry and the law on civil unions shouldn't be based on a religious idea that homosexuality is somehow wrong.

Let them, as long as I don't ahve to watch sexual deviates kissing on TV anymore. Every damn channel I turn on, CNN, Gay men kissing, ABC , Gay men kissing, CBS, Gay men kissing, Fox, gay men,,,,,,,,, oh wait , those are lesbians that look like men.

What people do in thier bedroom is private, so please take it there, to your bedroom. And don't say that your equally offended by straight people kissing, WHO CARES, straight people kissing is,,,,, ready for this,,,, NORMAL! Gay sex is deviate sex, by definition, its deviate sex. I don't want my kids exposed to it. Its difficult enough to stay ahead of the raunchy influence of pop culture.

When I was very young I had a solid clinical understanding of reproduction, sex, and human biology. I was in my teens before I ever heard or thought about two men having sex.

Go get married, fine, but stop pushing your radical perverted agenda in my face.