It's not rocket science, people...
Posted on 09/17/2005 7:10:57 AM PDT by Pharmboy
There's nothing like a touch of real-world experience to inject some reason into the inflammatory national debate over gay marriages. Take Massachusetts, where the state's highest court held in late 2003 that under the State Constitution, same-sex couples have a right to marry. The State Legislature moved to undo that decision last year by approving a proposed constitutional amendment to ban gay marriages and create civil unions as an alternative. But this year, when precisely the same measure came up for a required second vote, it was defeated by a thumping margin of 157 to 39.
The main reason for the flip-flop is that some 6,600 same-sex couples have married over the past year with nary a sign of adverse effects. The sanctity of heterosexual marriages has not been destroyed. Public morals have not gone into a tailspin. Legislators who supported gay marriage in last year's vote have been re-elected. Gay couples, many of whom had been living together monogamously for years, have rejoiced at official recognition of their commitment.
As a Republican leader explained in justifying his vote switch: "Gay marriage has begun, and life has not changed for the citizens of the commonwealth, with the exception of those who can now marry who could not before." A Democrat attributed his change of heart to the beneficial effects he saw "when I looked in the eyes of the children living with these couples." Gay marriage, it turned out, is good for family values.
Some legislators who strongly oppose gay marriages also switched their votes this year for tactical reasons. They realized that the original measure was headed for defeat, and they had never really liked the part that created civil unions anyway. They are now pinning their hopes on an even harsher proposal...
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Coincidentally, today was the first day that the Weekend Edition of the Wall Street Journal, highlighting a WE newsprint gap for people other than those living on the Upper West Side of Manhattan. As the Times bleeds subscribers, perhaps they will have to cut staff (but I bet it would be the straight ones that would be the first to go).
-NOT-
However, if his buddy's name is Audrey, then he might just be into doing it in the naughty place.... : )
It's not rocket science, people...
From a worlds omni power to bread and circuses to placate the masses before the hordes invaded by seeing her weakness.
< / sarcasm >
"slippery slope" must not be in their lexicon
What really got me angry was the headline.
Spineless scumbags!
Vote them out!!!
For the Times, the slippery slope is lubricated with KY Jelly. (Sorry--couldn't resist).
I like that analogy. Exit v. Entrance
That sentence struck me also--but because it's a LIE! Every national poll has shown the majority is against gay marriage.
Yeah, it is, but "slope" has nothing to do with it.
Uhhhhhhmmm....when you redefine morals down then immoral behavior becomes "moral". Kinda like giving every kid in the class an "A" and declaring them all geniuses.
Isn't that an oxy moron?
Is this the same NY Times that claimed God was dead?
“Gay marriage, it turned out, is good for family values.”
Sodomy is not a family value.
The world turned upside down...
What this article of course ignores is that you wouldn't expect gay marriage to have an adverse affect as soon as it begins. People are still careful with it and proud of new found recognition. But that's not really the main issue.
It's not so much what happens now as what happens with the next generation when kids grow up thinking that maybe choosing a sex to marry is part of all of this. That marriage is just about being "happy" and "in love" and that having a family really isn't THAT important.
My prediction: expect birthrates to decline if this becomes the norm. Indeed, it's not just what happens in the gay community over this, but what happens in the much larger heterosexual community.
Of course, we were all told that accepting children being born out-of-wedlock as standard practice, that allowing unilateral divorce would have no effect on the percentage of children born outside of marriage or the divorce rate. Yeah, that turned out to be true *rolls eyes*
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.