Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Cynthia (clueless again) Tucker: Gay marriage: Why the fuss?
Atlanta Journal-Constitution ^ | 2.22.04 | Cynthia Tucker

Posted on 02/21/2004 7:26:50 PM PST by mhking

Like many other states, Georgia is in a dire budget crunch -- cutting money for health care for the poor, parks, college professors and state troopers. Though the state longs to get its school children out of the academic cellar, it is cutting funds that would shrink the size of classes and improve the climate for learning.

So what is so critical that it dominates debate at the Legislature this session instead? The issue that has consumed contentious hours of talk and testimony is gay marriage -- or, rather, "protecting" traditional marriage from same-sex unions. After public hearings that drew crowds of religious conservatives as well as gay activists, the Georgia Senate passed a bill calling for a state constitutional amendment prohibiting gay marriage. (Georgia law already prohibits recognition of same-sex unions.) It awaits consideration in the Georgia House.

I admit that I'm puzzled by the intense focus on the prospect of gay marriage -- not just in Georgia but also in the White House, with President Bush threatening to throw his support behind a ban on same-sex marriage in the U.S. Constitution. The president, like the Georgia Legislature, would seem to have more pressing concerns: The federal budget is awash in red ink; Iraq is mired in turmoil; the vaunted economic "recovery" has left millions of Americans jobless. Bush believes a priority should be throwing obstacles in the way of gay unions?

What is it about the prospect of allowing same-sex couples the right to pledge fidelity, loyalty and love to each other -- as heterosexuals do -- that threatens the foundations of the republic?

For many religious conservatives, the issue is simple enough: Leviticus condemns homosexuality as an "abomination." But the guiding legal document of a pluralistic nation has no business recognizing one religious view over any other. Some denominations -- including my own, the United Church of Christ -- have no prohibition against same-sex marriages.

(A literal reading of the Bible, by the way, poses many a conundrum. Leviticus also orders capital punishment for homosexuals and adulterers.)

Many Americans view marriage only as an institution ordained by religion, but it is also recognized by civil authorities. While no church could ever be ordered to recognize or perform same-sex marriages, the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees full equality to all, should not block a courthouse marriage between two consenting adults.

But religion is just one consideration. Tradition is another. Even among many Americans who would not identify themselves as religious conservatives, there is a vague and unsettling fear of undermining the modern conception of marriage as a commitment between a man and a woman, especially when the institution is already in decline throughout the industrialized West.

The loosening of marriage bonds has taken place against a backdrop of rapid cultural and technological shifts; it has also struck every racial, demographic and religious segment of the population. Even among those who characterize themselves as born-again Christians, the rate of divorce is high, according to a 2001 survey by the Barna Research Group Ltd.

I understand the fears over the decline of marriage. Most psychologists agree that stable marriages are the best arrangement for children, and children reared in single-parent homes are more likely to suffer poor educational achievement and to be lured into drugs, early parenthood and crime.

But isn't that all the more reason to welcome gay marriage? At a time when marriage is rapidly losing its allure for so many heterosexuals, one of the most promising developments is the deep desire of so many gays to commit themselves to marriage, with all its rewards and sacrifices.

Gays and lesbians deserve the right to succeed -- or fail -- at marriage just like the rest of us. When it comes right down to it, a constitutional amendment won't save marriage. That can only be done by couples, regardless of gender, one marriage at a time.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: civilunion; gaymirage; marriage; subversives

1 posted on 02/21/2004 7:26:51 PM PST by mhking
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: mhking
She should research what happened in Scandinavia.
2 posted on 02/21/2004 7:31:46 PM PST by nickcarraway (www.terrisfight.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mhking
I like gay people, but I've yet to find one, I'd want to marry! ;-)
3 posted on 02/21/2004 7:32:52 PM PST by Happygal (Le gách dea ghuí)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mhking
I agree that the GA State Legislature could be taking care of a hell of a lot more important things than this. Their priorities are all out of order.
4 posted on 02/21/2004 7:32:56 PM PST by T.Smith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mhking
"At a time when marriage is rapidly losing its allure for so many heterosexuals....."

And the fact that gay and lesbian attempts to change the law
further erode the basis for that allure have nothing to do with it?

Cynthia, what a liberal mouthpiece you are.
5 posted on 02/21/2004 7:33:58 PM PST by tet68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Happygal
Do you know what's happened to Mad Ivan?
6 posted on 02/21/2004 7:35:51 PM PST by Vigilantcitizen (W'04 Herman Cain for Senate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway
She should research what happened in Scandinavia.

I can probably guess, but just to be safe, what DID happen there?

7 posted on 02/21/2004 7:36:03 PM PST by MegaSilver (Coulter/Harris 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: mhking
Gays and lesbians deserve the right to succeed -- or fail -- at marriage just like the rest of us.

Oh, come now. Gays have been failing at marriage for years. Mostly because they're gay. And their partners weren't.

TS
...

8 posted on 02/21/2004 7:37:11 PM PST by Tanniker Smith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vigilantcitizen
Yes, he's fine. He's just not posting here at the moment.
9 posted on 02/21/2004 7:44:22 PM PST by Happygal (Le gách dea ghuí)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

yet people that call themselves homosexuals want a law passed in their favor.

I'll say it a different way.
Passing a law, one must DEFINE what one is
trying to pass.

There is NO scientific evidence of a species
called "homosexuals".

If you are for "same sex unions" tell me what scientific evidence you have that says there is a species
called "homosexual" and present me the evidence.

To the mentally deficient here that say
"oh those wacky gays aren't bothering anyone
so let em get married"... I say to them
please state to me exactly what is a
homosexual with your scientific information.

If you can't DEFINE something scientifically
or even Lawfully as to when a person is
DEEMED HOMOSEXUAL then how can you pass a law
regarding this.

I'll say this in a different way, at what
age is the factor that one determines one
is a homosexual? 11? 12? 13? 14? Puberty?
Who decides your a "homosexual"? You? The STATE?
A Medical Doctor?

So you want the state a society to pass an law
based on "you feel gay"?

We all know what a male and a female is
and that male and females continutes the
human race.

So don't floss over and try and use the phrase
"same sex union" in law and then say
"gay marriage".

If you claim to be gay and or lesbian
put out there in legal terms/words
"gay marriage" in law, don't play your
politically correct words to us.

"same sex union" yeah right.
10 posted on 02/21/2004 7:45:37 PM PST by CommonSense007
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: MegaSilver; nickcarraway; mhking
"She should research what happened in Scandinavia."

I can probably guess, but just to be safe, what DID happen there?

Here's a link. I bet your guess is correct.

Look before We Leap: Scandinavia and the End of Marriage

11 posted on 02/21/2004 7:46:35 PM PST by Paleo Conservative (Do not remove this tag under penalty of law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Happygal
Personally, I think that they started calling themselves "gay" hoping that somehow it would become a self fulfilling prophesy.
12 posted on 02/21/2004 7:48:15 PM PST by Blood of Tyrants (Even if the government took all your earnings, you wouldn’t be, in its eyes, a slave.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: MegaSilver; nickcarraway; mhking
Here's another link.

The End of Marriage in Scandinavia

13 posted on 02/21/2004 7:49:54 PM PST by Paleo Conservative (Do not remove this tag under penalty of law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

yet people that call themselves homosexuals want a law passed in their favor.

I'll say it a different way.
Passing a law, one must DEFINE what one is
trying to pass.

There is NO scientific evidence of a species
called "homosexuals".

If you are for "same sex unions" tell me what scientific evidence you have that says there is a species
called "homosexual" and present me the evidence.

To the mentally deficient here that say
"oh those wacky gays aren't bothering anyone
so let em get married"... I say to them
please state to me exactly what is a
homosexual with your scientific information.

If you can't DEFINE something scientifically
or even Lawfully as to when a person is
DEEMED HOMOSEXUAL then how can you pass a law
regarding this.

I'll say this in a different way, at what
age is the factor that one determines one
is a homosexual? 11? 12? 13? 14? Puberty?
Who decides your a "homosexual"? You? The STATE?
A Medical Doctor?

So you want the state a society to pass an law
based on "you feel gay"?

We all know what a male and a female is
and that male and females continues the
human race.

So don't floss over and try and use the phrase
"same sex union" in law and then say
"gay marriage".

If you claim to be gay and or lesbian
put out there in legal terms/words
"gay marriage" in law, don't play your
politically correct words to us.

"same sex union" yeah right.
14 posted on 02/21/2004 7:50:15 PM PST by CommonSense007
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative
I bet your guess is correct.

As a matter of fact, I had no idea how right it would be.

15 posted on 02/21/2004 7:51:30 PM PST by MegaSilver (Coulter/Harris 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: CommonSense007
Read this outstanding piece:

Judaism’s Sexual Revolution: Why Judaism (and then Christianity) Rejected Homosexuality

16 posted on 02/21/2004 7:55:44 PM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach (The terrorists and their supporters declared war on the United States - and war is what they got!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: mhking
Anybody know this lady's life expectancy?
17 posted on 02/21/2004 7:56:56 PM PST by upchuck (Ta-ray-za now gets to execute her "maiming of choice." I'm hoping for eye gouging, how 'bout you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CommonSense007; Vigilantcitizen; mhking; nickcarraway; Happygal; T.Smith; tet68
Read this outstanding piece:

Judaism’s Sexual Revolution: Why Judaism (and then Christianity) Rejected Homosexuality

18 posted on 02/21/2004 7:58:56 PM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach (The terrorists and their supporters declared war on the United States - and war is what they got!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: mhking
When posting anything by Cynthia Tucker (or Molly Ivins, or Helen Thomas, etc.), please preface the article title with the warning 'SWINE ALERT'.

Thank you for your consideration. :-)

19 posted on 02/21/2004 8:00:19 PM PST by Viking2002 (I think; therefore, I Freep............)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
Sorry about the double post!
20 posted on 02/21/2004 8:00:21 PM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach (The terrorists and their supporters declared war on the United States - and war is what they got!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative
See link at post #18.
21 posted on 02/21/2004 8:01:31 PM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach (The terrorists and their supporters declared war on the United States - and war is what they got!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Happygal
Yes, he's fine. He's just not posting here at the moment.

Thank you, ma'am. Please send him my regards.

22 posted on 02/21/2004 8:01:55 PM PST by Vigilantcitizen (W'04 Herman Cain for Senate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: T.Smith
marriage isnt a priority?
23 posted on 02/21/2004 8:03:06 PM PST by raloxk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
I've read that article before. It's very good and thought provoking.
24 posted on 02/21/2004 8:03:07 PM PST by Paleo Conservative (Do not remove this tag under penalty of law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: dansangel

A Cynthia ping. Can't wait to see what you'll write!
25 posted on 02/21/2004 8:05:47 PM PST by onyx (Your secrets are safe with me and all my friends.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Viking2002
When posting anything by Cynthia Tucker (or Molly Ivins, or Helen Thomas, etc.), please preface the article title with the warning 'SWINE ALERT'.

He did. Take a look, right before the title: "Cynthia Tucker."

26 posted on 02/21/2004 8:06:05 PM PST by Slings and Arrows (Am Yisrael Chai!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: T.Smith
Marriage is the founding block of society, it is the major instrument against poverty, it is the bedrock of children's upbringing.

So when it comes to priorities.....it has to be defended above all else and if you cannot see that...then god help you!
27 posted on 02/21/2004 8:40:30 PM PST by ijcr (Age and treachery will always overcome youth and ability.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway
She'd LIKE what's happening in Scandanvia.
28 posted on 02/21/2004 9:47:11 PM PST by little jeremiah (everyone is entitled to their opinion, but everyone isn't entitled to be right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: mhking
While no church could ever be ordered to recognize or perform same-sex marriages, the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees full equality to all, should not block a courthouse marriage between two consenting adults.

The U.S. Constitution does guarantee full equality to all couples who desire to get married, that is, to all couples that are made up of one consenting man and one consenting woman.

29 posted on 02/21/2004 9:59:45 PM PST by judgeandjury
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: onyx; .45MAN
A Cynthia ping. Can't wait to see what you'll write!

Well, here it comes.....

At a time when marriage is rapidly losing its allure for so many heterosexuals, one of the most promising developments is the deep desire of so many gays to commit themselves to marriage, with all its rewards and sacrifices.

Bull-hockey. Gay marriage only makes a mockery of a centuries-old tradition. Instead of strengthening the institution, it will only serve to undermine it and destroy it completely. Gays are notorious adulterers, unable to stay within a monogamous relationship. The piece of paper will not bind them to one partner.

Most psychologists agree that stable marriages are the best arrangement for children, and children reared in single-parent homes are more likely to suffer poor educational achievement and to be lured into drugs, early parenthood and crime.

And children reared in same-sex parented households? They are going to be the epitome of "normal?" I know of one woman in particular who was raised in a two-woman lesbian household. She had such a desire for "normalcy" that she ran away with an older man when she was 16 and is unable to have a lasting, normal relationship with a man. Where were her role-models? Two women who partied non-stop and verbally denigrated men and minorities? Yeah right.

The "End Times" that we are taught about in the Bible are upon us. It is evident in the blatant lack of morals, the "in your face" activism of gays in the churches as well as the secular world and the God-less masses that support such crap. It is evident in the one million human beings who each year are not allowed to be born - supported by the bull-dyke lesbian "wymin."

Cynthia Tucker is a clue-less journalist who spews her filth in a clue-less rag sheet. The unfortunate thing is that Atlanta is chock-full of so-called Christians who blindlessly vote a dimRat ticket because that's what their parents and friends have always voted and they are not about to take a stand. Spineless cowards, they all are.

Did that meet your expectations ((((((onyx)))))))?

30 posted on 02/22/2004 7:24:56 AM PST by dansangel (*PROUD to be a knuckle-dragging, toothless, inbred, right-wing, Southern, gun-toting Neanderthal *)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: dansangel

OH YEAH, BIG TIME!

31 posted on 02/22/2004 10:24:17 AM PST by onyx (Your secrets are safe with me and all my friends.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: onyx
:-) BTW, thanks for the ping.
32 posted on 02/22/2004 11:44:09 AM PST by dansangel (*PROUD to be a knuckle-dragging, toothless, inbred, right-wing, Southern, gun-toting Neanderthal *)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: dansangel

Of course. A Cynthia thread without you? Oh the horror should that ever happen.
33 posted on 02/22/2004 12:51:47 PM PST by onyx (Your secrets are safe with me and all my friends.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: raloxk
"marriage isnt a priority?"

Amending the constitution to deny some citizens rights is not a priority. You people who complain about homosexuals forming civil unions are the same crowd who complain about homosexual promiscuity and the spread of disease. So, which is it going to be, folks? Gay civil unions and monogamous commitment, or promiscuity and disease?

I'd guess that people like you would choose neither and would prefer that they all "just stop being gay!". I'm afraid that isn't going to happen, so you'd better learn to make the best of the situation.

34 posted on 02/23/2004 6:23:01 AM PST by T.Smith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: ijcr
"Marriage is the founding block of society, it is the major instrument against poverty, it is the bedrock of children's upbringing. So when it comes to priorities.....it has to be defended above all else and if you cannot see that...then god help you!"

Gay people forming civil unions is not going to destroy marriage. If anything it is going to reinforce the idea of monogamous commitment.

If gay people want to stand up at a ceremony and swear to spend the rest of their lives together that should be their prerogative. Amending the state (or Federal) constitution to deny them that right is just plain bigoted and wrong. If you can't see that, then God help you.

35 posted on 02/23/2004 6:25:55 AM PST by T.Smith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: dansangel
"Gays are notorious adulterers, unable to stay within a monogamous relationship. The piece of paper will not bind them to one partner.

I'm a day late with this, but that is the stupidest thing I have read today. I'm sure this bit of information comes from your years and years of personally associating with gay people and not from second-hand rumor, right?

What's that, you don't know any gay people? Well, then, I'm confused. How is it that you know so much about their lifestyle and inability to be monogamous? Oh, you've just heard about it? Ok, that makes sense.

36 posted on 02/23/2004 6:32:42 AM PST by T.Smith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: T.Smith
"Amending the constitution to deny some citizens rights is not a priority"

rights imply equality and homosexual reltaions dont share equality with hetrosexual ones. Gay relationships cannot further the continuation of the species, therefore if we are to have any reverence for human we cannot treat gay relationships on the same level as hetrosexual relationships.
37 posted on 02/23/2004 11:39:45 AM PST by raloxk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: T.Smith
Will Rogers said it best, "...I maintain that it should cost as much to get married as to get divorced. Make it look like marriage is worth as much as divorce, even if it ain't."

May not be such a great idea to them after better than half have to start paying out for their "divorces."

38 posted on 02/23/2004 11:53:55 AM PST by AmusedBystander
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: T.Smith
I'm sure this bit of information comes from your years and years of personally associating with gay people and not from second-hand rumor, right?

Wrong. *If* you knew me you would know I only speak from first-hand experience and not rumor, innuendo, etc.

My line of work for the past 20+ years has put me into close contact with scores of gays and lesbians. I stand by my *observations.* Most of these people admitted to a lack of monogamy in their relationships. I knew of exactly 2 couples out of the many people I had close association with that were monogamous.

Your sarcastic and uninformed attack was rude, to say the least.

39 posted on 02/23/2004 12:11:19 PM PST by dansangel (*PROUD to be a knuckle-dragging, toothless, inbred, right-wing, Southern, gun-toting Neanderthal *)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: dansangel
"Your sarcastic and uninformed attack was rude, to say the least.

I call a spade a spade, sorry if that offends you. Please enlighten me on this line of work that puts you in contact with "scores" of gays and lesbians.

40 posted on 02/23/2004 4:53:40 PM PST by T.Smith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: raloxk
Yeah, that's the ticket. They can't have children so they are not entitled to rights and protections. I mean, if we could just limit their contact with other people their kind would eventually die off wouldn't it? It would happen all the more quickly if we could just prevent them from being involved in the some kind of recognized monogamous relationship.

Damn them for being themselves and just trying to find love anyway.
41 posted on 02/23/2004 4:57:47 PM PST by T.Smith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: AmusedBystander
"May not be such a great idea to them after better than half have to start paying out for their "divorces.""

Sure, why not. A state recognized marriage for a gay couple should come with all of the perks, and downfalls, of a heterosexual one.

I have not seen a single cogent argument as to why gay people should not be allowed a recognized civil "marriage" (inasmuch as the government should be involved in the question of marriage in the first place).

42 posted on 02/23/2004 5:00:53 PM PST by T.Smith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: T.Smith
They are not entitle to marry no. To do so would mean that homosexuality and hetrosexuality are equal from societies standpoint. If we value life, those two relationships cannot be equal.

I dont care who they love, but society has not since the begining of time recognized the equality in social value of homosexual and hetrosexual relationships. To do so would devalue the sanctity of life.
43 posted on 02/23/2004 5:03:26 PM PST by raloxk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: T.Smith
"Gay people forming civil unions is not going to destroy marriage. If anything it is going to reinforce the idea of monogamous commitment."

First of all are you arguing for civil unions or marriage, you dont seem to be able to make up your mind.

As for gay marriage destroying hetro-sexual marriage, you need to do some research on Sweden's experinmintation with gay marriage and the effect on hetro-sexual marriage and child bearing.

Gay relationships cannot further the continuation of the species, thus they cannot be equal in the eyes of society.

44 posted on 02/23/2004 5:07:59 PM PST by raloxk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: T.Smith
Please enlighten me on this line of work that puts you in contact with "scores" of gays and lesbians.

Retail visual merchandising.

And your wealth of knowledge that allows you to verbally attack me comes from where?

45 posted on 02/24/2004 3:25:33 AM PST by dansangel (*PROUD to be a knuckle-dragging, toothless, inbred, right-wing, Southern, gun-toting Neanderthal *)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: dansangel
"Retail visual merchandising"

WTH is that?

46 posted on 02/24/2004 6:03:47 AM PST by T.Smith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: T.Smith
Fashion merchandising on the retail level - dressing mannequins, building visually attractive merchandise displays, etc.

I've been very patient with this "discussion." You have provided me with no opposing view based on personal experience or facts, just sarcasm and beratement. I have never been rude to anyone on FR, yet you continue to treat me rudely.

End of "discussion." Bye.
47 posted on 02/24/2004 8:58:20 AM PST by dansangel (*PROUD to be a knuckle-dragging, toothless, inbred, right-wing, Southern, gun-toting Neanderthal *)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson