Election 2004

This page contains comments related to the upcoming 2004 elections. To add your own comments, write to webpage@norfolknet.com.

  • 3/31 3:23pm RH: Typical liberal spin. You point out the Republican "content-providers" on MSN, but previously you posted that purely objective piece from the americanprogress web site where they interject their answers into the piece. How come you did not point out the Democrat/Liberal "content-providers" there?
    - PFD

  • 3/31 2:26pm MSN obviously has some Republican "content-providers" for their website:
    ``Extra: Outsourcing actually creates U.S. jobs, study finds Tech trade group says sending positions overseas will pay off; a Fed governor and the Treasury secretary agree. And a new book says some exported jobs are coming home.''
    Check out: http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/invest/extra/P79592.asp I wish Lewis Carroll (Alice in Wonderland) were still with us to do a definitive history of the four "Bush 43" years.
    - RH

  • 3/31 12:23pm An interesting set of "Pentagon Papers", left at a Starbucks, to check out at: [click here]
    - RH

  • 3/29 4:48pm According to the Bush camapaign, now Kerry doesn't have the right to quote scripture while speaking in a church. (See Globe story). Bush drops scriptural references wherever he goes, but Kerry does it and Bush's people call it "exploitation." These guys are grasping at straws now. It's ok for Bush to joke about not finding weapons of mass destruction, but somehow Kerry is out of bounds when pointing out the lack of compassion we've seen from our "compassionate conservative" leadership? Pot. Kettle. Black.
    - DAF

  • 3/29 2:03pm Wm - Clarke is toast, I'm dying to see what he looks like once Rove & Co. get done with him. I hope the DNC paid him enough or is hee-hee publishing a book (a la Hillary) for his payday.
    - PC

  • 3/26 3:17pm What a surprise - all the Angus McQuilkenites slamming Bush. Scintillating reading!
    - PC

    [Hi, PC! Been away from the page of late, or just reacting to Richard Clarke's testimony? :-) - Wm.]

  • 3/24 1:29am Re: 3/22 5:52pm, Do yourself a favor and read Donald F. Kettl's book, "Team Bush: Leadership Lessons from the Bush White House."
    I looked up this book on Amazon and chose two reviews, below, neglecting a couple from obvious partisans.
    My guidance during this process is from: ``President Bush admitted that his prewar intelligence wasn't what it should've been ... but, hey, we knew that when he took office.'' - Jay Leno and of course: "Is our children learning?" - W
    Team Bush: Leadership Lessons from the Bush White House From amazon.com

    From Publishers Weekly

    Kettl, a University of Wisconsin public affairs professor, aims in this fast, accessible read to uncover "the leadership ideas and methods of America's 43rd president." In the process, he finds George W. Bush's most striking accomplishment to be that he "has consistently exceeded expectations." Kettl describes a president of average intellect with one saving grace: the ability to assemble, unify and lead a highly qualified management team that analyzes complex problems and solutions, thus enabling Bush to make effective decisions. Kettl attributes Bush's team-building skills to his easygoing style; his insistence that his staff be punctual, concise and professionally attired; and his education as "the nation's first MBA president." There are stimulating ideas, such as tips on creating and using political capital, aligning the structure of staff to personal strengths, and crafting and delivering effective messages. As with most lesson books, however, the ideas lose their impact and originality when summarized, e.g., "Develop a plan-and stick to it" and "Don't fight battles you can't win." Kettl draws these lessons almost exclusively from media reportage; while he serves on an advisory panel to the White House's Office of Management and Budget, there's no promise of insider information. Bush's ability to lead is certainly a compelling topic, but perhaps because we are only two years into a presidency filled with controversy and challenge, book the lacks any depth of research or perspective.

    Reviewer: sharkman99 from Seattle, Wash USA

    I found this book to be the equivalent of a teen magazine puff piece. The tone can only be described as "fawning" and it misses all the hard questions-what do you DO with the qualities you have, and where do your decisions take you? The only real information to be gleaned from this is that the president lets his associates do most of his thinking, and that tidbit is available in better form elsewhere.

    - RH

  • 3/23 8:54pm KS, yes, it was while Bush was in office -- it was just prior to the war. It's interesting that you mention Kettl's book. Have you read it yourself? According to Kettl, Bush's "leadership" style has some severe downsides. They include oversimplifying, overreaching, and detachment - all things that could "trip him up and even cripple his presidency" according to Kettl. How prophetic.
    - DAF

  • 3/22 5:52pm So the suggestion by RH is assassination? That was certainly an option. I could have gone along with that. However, I think that many countries are leary assassinating foreign leaders for fear the same may be done to them. Also, is this against the geneva convention? But certainly an option. Thanks RH.
    DAF - I do not know the exact details of the Saudi offer, but if it were that simple - I would agree with you 100%. But for whatever reason, as you stated, the US did not act upon that offer. Was this while Bush was in office? However, with that option off the board it sounds as if you beleive that an arms embargo would do the trick? And then we wait until his regime crumbles. OK, but what about the tens of thousand of innocent people who are murdered before this happens? What about them?
    President Bush is a man of integrity. I am proud to say he is our President and look forward to another 4 years of his Presidency in 2004 - 2008.
    Do yourself a favor and read Donald F. Kettl's book, "Team Bush: Leadership Lessons from the Bush White House."
    - KS

  • 3/22 2:13pm Re: 3/22 10:07am If I may please offer an input to the question "So, DAF - How could we have removed Hussein without the use of force?"
    Typically, according to some, such removals are accomplished deep in the "black", with many levels of deniability, and the use of very limited and very selective force, known as persuasion. Any contract for such activity would not be listed in DOD Procurement documents.
    Surely Saddam and family could have been persuaded to leave by experts in such matters. Example: The Mossad, The (Israeli) Institute for Intelligence and Special Tasks. Their Special Operations Division, also known as Metsada, conducts highly sensitive assassination, sabotage, paramilitary, and psychological warfare projects, and they surely have significant persuasive powers. They have Arabic speakers, with expert knowledge of the area and the targets involved. No use of force by the United States would be required.
    The Mossad's Technology Department is responsible for development of advanced technologies for support of Mossad operations. In April 2001, the Mossad published a "help-wanted" ad in the Israeli press seeking electronics engineers and computer scientists for the Mossad technology unit. These scientists can, for instance, modify cell phones so that they will tickle the target's ear with a C4 shaped charge upon receipt of a specific digital signal, a signal perhaps initiated by one who could recognize the voice of the person needing persuasion.
    Having experts take out Hussein and family might have saved the 570 American soldiers killed in Iraq and the 3300 wounded as of 3/19/2004, plus the billions of dollars spent and allocated for this"Operation Iraqi Freedom", as this fiasco is euphemistically named.
    - RH

  • 3/22 2:13pm KS, There were many, many alternatives to war available. None of these were "sit and do nothing." You may recall that Saudi diplomats sought before the war to negotiate an exile for Saddam, but when the United States didn't respond, the Saudis moved on. Bush wanted an invasion to control the aftermath of Saddam's departure.
    Many people, including people at the conservative Cato Institute, felt that economic sanctions (which were hurting only Saddam's internal opposition, not Saddam) should be lifted in exchange for international inspections of Iraq's weapons programs. A more narrowly focused Western embargo on arms shipments would be retained. Surely, they thought, if the United States could outwait a superpower adversary throughout the long decades of the Cold War, it can do the same with a small, weak nation such as Iraq-waiting until that inevitable day when Saddam's tyranny falls because of its heavy-handed repression.
    This latter strategy is currently being applied by our government to many countries with far more repressive regimes and honest-to-goodness, confirmed WMD's. Look, it is not "a simple question." Bush should have tried harder to avoid war. Today we have a reinvigorated Al Qaeda, thousands of dead people, and the hatred of more people on Earth than ever before. Do yourself a favor and read Richard A. Clarke's new book, ''Against All Enemies.''
    - DAF

  • 3/22 10:07am DAF, What? You made the statement that the money we spent on the war could have easily removed Hussein without the use of force. I then asked you how? Simple question.
    Despite what you may think about changing my mind, if you or anyone else had a way of removing Hussein without the use of force before the war began, I would have been 100% for it.
    So, DAF - How could we have removed Hussein without the use of force?
    - KS

  • 3/20 5:49pm KS, I must not have been clear. We've discussed this ad nauseum here. Life is too short to spend time trying to change minds that can't think of any way to deal with dictators other than killing thousands of innocents in order to remove him. Your tone indicates to me that there is no information that I could provide you that would alter your view.
    - DAF

  • 3/19 3:54pm DAF, Be specific. How would the $100 billion to $200 billion "easily obtain the removal of Saddam Hussein" without the use of force? Ask him nicely to leave & abandon the chemical and biological weapons he used on children?
    Partisanship has nothing to do with people wanting to deal with mass murderers. Compassion is a better description.
    - KS

  • 3/19 3:14pm RG, I believe your chronology is a bit off. You left out Rumsfeld's statements on 9/11/2001. At 2:40pm, according to confidential notes taken by his aides, Donald Rumsfeld, said he wanted to "hit" Iraq - even though not a shred of evidence existed that any Iraqi had anything to do with the attacks on New York and Washington. "Go massive," the notes quote Rumsfeld as saying. "Sweep it all up. Things related and not."
    There are many, many other important events that you left out. Suffice it to say that your "partisan filter" is showing. I think the $100-200 billion we're spending in Iraq could have easily obtained the removal of Hussein without the need for tens of thousands of people to lose their lives. History shows that war makes war. I'm not willing to ride this merry-go-round again. I hope this doesn't disappoint you, but as your friend Dirty Harry said "A man's gotta know his limitations."
    - DAF
    [Per Sep 4 2002 CBS news article. DAF originally posted the reference back on 2/20, 2003 to this page. - Wm.]

  • 3/19 12:38pm DAF, nice to have you back. I was hoping someone would catch the irony.
    The war that started a year ago today was not the result of a binary on/off decision. "9-11 happens: we go to war with Iraq." Rather, the war was a step -- not the final one, by any means -- in a boolean string of decisions. 9-11 wakens the administration to Middle Eastern terrorism. Administration calls for capture of Bin Laden. Afganistan refuses to produce Bin Laden, and evidence of Taliban support for fundamentalist terrorists is presented. US and partners invade Afganistan to crush Al Queda and assist Afgan rebels in toppling the Taliban. US calls for resumption of weapons inspections and full disclosure of prohibited research and production by Iraq. Hussein refuses. etc etc etc.
    And the only change in US policy toward Iraq between the Clinton (oh he who is perfect), and the Bush (bushhitler, right?) administrations is that the Bush administration didn't stop pushing for inspections and disclosure AND FULL COMPLIANCE WITH UN AND 1991 CEASE FIRE AGREEMENTS. Clinton basically lobbed a few dozen cruise missles at Hussein every six months, and Bush was determined to end the threat once and for all. Had Hussein taken the Quadaffi route, and agreed to unfettered inspections and turned over whatever research and equipment he had, he would be sitting there still, feeding dissidents into industrial grinders, gassing his own people, and giving his sociopathic sons the keys to the family tank every weekend.
    The fault of the second Iraq war lay cleanly at the feet of Hussein. As my mother always used to say, it takes two to have a fight. Hussein could have complied with the literally dozen UN resolutions, but he choose to fight. Slight miscalculation on his part.
    And, how dare you continue to hide behind the deaths of 10,000 civillians. Between outright murder and murder-by-proxy (through the large-scale misappropriation of oil-for-medicine money), Hussein killed 10,000 Iraqis every six weeks.
    I'll tell you what, if, God forbid, I was an Iraqi parent who lost a child in this conflict, I would at least take some comfort in the thought that my other children, or my spouse, or my brother, or my parents, would not longer be subject to the prospect of a knock at the door in the middle of the night, never to be seen again.
    The either/or choice was made by Saddam Hussein. By Osama Bin Laden. By the folks who killed 200 people going to work in Spain. They've made a choice. It sounds a bit like Dirty Harry to say "they started it, we're going to finish it", but that's what it comes down to. The best thing for the rest of the world; Christian, Muslim, Jew, deist, Unitarian, is to show that a free people doesn't like getting blown up for exercising their free will. Free will to protect a women's right to live her life her way, free will to blow off church and get a coffee and read the sunday paper, or free will to shave our beards and eat bacon while watching an R-rated movie. And let's be clear here. The 9-11 attack wasn't a reaction to something horrible done by nasty American imperialists. It was a reaction to our very existence. Because that existence, the manifestation of liberty, freedom, and self-determination, threatens those who see the mass of people as cattle to be led at the end of a prod.
    - RG

  • 3/18 11:57am RG, you either have a great sense of humor or missed the irony in your "pre-emptive response" to my non-comments. I would just say this: you are dead wrong when you contend that the Bush Administration had only two choices after 9-11. You must know that there is a world of possible actions between doing nothing and launching an invasion of Iraq which, to date, has claimed the lives of over 10,000 civilians (I'm guessing that the killers' intentions wouldn't matter much if it were your child, spouse, or parent that was murdered). This kind of either/or thinking is culpable for much of the evil we have seen throughout human history. Do you really believe that the majority of the people who are against the destruction we have wreaked on an already-oppressed people would prefer to just sit back and do nothing? If so, you have misjudged.
    - DAF

  • 3/14 9:27am RG, the accusation is not that information was manufactured, it's that the available self-contradictory and unsubstantiated information was selectively used and presented in a highly misleading and inflammatory way to sell an unjustified, and in restrospect unnecessary, war.
    9/11 was a shock, yes, but Iraq had about as much to do with 9/11 as did Turkey (ie, none). Regime change in Iraq was Rumsfeld's pet project for which 9/11 was a marketing tool, not a cause. We brought the fight to ``them,'' all right, but Iraq had no Al Qaeda before we opened up the country for them!
    Finally, it's specious to argue the ``moral justifiability'' of an unnecessary illegal act. Ruthless, lying dictators are a dime a dozen; a civilized country must follow its own laws and set a good example. For the lawbreaker to resort to ``moral'' arguments to defend the illegal act is... umm... face-saving in an election year?
    - Wm.

  • 3/14 9:20am TC, Thank you. I would never term your concern for the 552 American deaths as being unsupportive of our troops.
    Although you may think I'm viewing this through a partisan filter, I am willing to give our information services the benefit of the doubt as to whether they thought the information they provided to others was accurate. I do not, and can not, believe that our government would deliberately manufacture false information to justify Operation Iraqi Freedom (that's enough of your snide comments, Mr. WM, wink wink).
    I don't believe this out of any sense of moral superiority of our government. Please, I was born at night but not last night. I believe that because the consequences of knowingly manufacturing false evidence and starting a war under false pretenses would be so horrific; politically and criminally, that no one this side of Richard Nixon would even think of it.
    I believe that the events of 9/11 shook the folks in this government to the core. I believe that their world view changed and they came to the conclusion that this was their Sudentenland. There were two choices here: stay home, wall up, and try and make everyone who didn't like us happy again -- or declare war on terrorism and terror patrons. I think reasonable people may differ, but that the clearly long term better approach is to bring the fight to them, rather than waiting for them to bring the fight to us -- again.
    The folks in the Bush administration pushing this policy against Iraq were all around in 1990 and subsequent, and had a long experience of not being able to adequately trust Iraq. And don't forget; we've caught them lying again and again (see Frontline's chronology: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/unscom/etc/cron.html). Perhaps information recieved from sources within Iraq was either intentionally unreliable (the provider had a score to settle with Hussein), or was just very misdiagnosed. The 9/11 attacks presented a context for action against Iraq far more robust than before -- don't forget we've been having to browbeat Hussein and lob over cruise missles couple of times a year to keep him "with the program".
    I think this war, with an objective of removing the Baathist leadership, is far more morally defensible than say "Operation Desert Fox", which mainly served to kill low-level draftees and janitorial staff in the hopes of "teaching Hussein a lesson."
    When global terrorism becomes the kind of threat that Al Queda has become, it would be foolish to ignore the countries who are its (the it being terrorism, not specifically AQ) patron. Afganistan was one. Iraq another. Libya was formerly in that camp, but has seen the light. And if a few more countries can see the light like them, this world would be a safer place. And, DM, we fight them there, or we fight them here. But anti-americanism, or, more importantly, anti-democratic pluralism, is a clear and present threat to our way of life. I'd love it if we could sit behind our moat and leave everyone else alone annd they'd leave us alone. But that ain't gonna happen. It's a smaller and smaller world all the time, and we are facing a foe whose world view accepts the targeting of civillian society as the preferable activity. They cowardly seek out women and children to kill -- we do so only regrettably and accidentially (I say in pre-emptive response to DAF, who usually chimes in about Iraqi civillian casulties).
    DM, if you have lost a loved one in this conflict I am sorry. But the sheer good of their action in Iraq will stand as a monument to their lives. If we can bring freedom, democracy, and government that honor civil rights to these oppressed people than we have made all of us safer.
    "Any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee." - John Donne
    - RG

  • 3/13 4:14pm All 22 million Iraqi lives are not worth the life of one US soldier. There was no clear and present danger in Iraq, as we were told, therefore, there was no reason for us to have gone there in the first place. The US soldiers who died in Iraq are heroes without question. The only question is what did they die for? To free the Iraqi people? That's not a good enough reason for me to send my son to fight and/or die.
    - DM

  • 3/13 2:39pm RG: I applaud your support and respect for American soldiers risking their lives in Iraq, and agree those on the ground are doing life-saving work for the millions in Iraq who have suffered under the tyranny of Saddam. Yet,it is an error to interpret those who term this war "unnecessary" as unsupportive of our troops, or worse, unconcerned with the horrors that dictatorship caused merely because it hasn't come to Main Street, Norfolk. It was precisely because the Bush administration FALSELY brought it to Main Street America that Americans initially supported unprecedented, preemptive force at a rate of over 70%! And that includes many members of Congress, who voted based on incorrect intelligence. Few doubt Saddam had to go, and even fewer doubt the atrocities he is widely known to have committed, or even that he has links to terrorists, whether or not they were the Saudi's directly responsible for 9/11. What is now in doubt is the timing, lack of allied support, and lack of strategy. The expression is, rightly, Ready Aim Fire! not Fire, Aim, Ready? It is this light that the war in Iraq and the resulting loss of life is deemed "unnecessary." A better way to describe it might be ill-timed, badly planned, and hot-headed.
    - TC

  • 3/13 9:23am Yes, yes. Operation Iraqi freedom was quite unnecessary for those of us sitting here in the relative comfort and comity of bucolic Norfolk. After all, Sadam wasn't threatening to gas main street; or marching the parishoners at the Federated Church out on town hill, lining them up, and blowing their brains out; or taking the kids from the co-op daycare or SACC and putting them in a special children's prison. Nope, he wasn't planning to do any of those things.
    Five hundred american men and women gave their lives in this conflict. Five hundred to liberate a country from a brutal regime and install a government based upon constitutional principals with protections for all citizens and a voice for everyone.
    Some people know the cost of everything, but the value of nothing. I'm not saying that If I were the parent, or son, or brother of one of those five hundred I would think that nothing was worth my son's or sisters, or sibling's life. Particularly not a piece of paper like a constitution or an abstract like particpatory democracy.
    But there's a forest, for all those trees. And I'm proud of this country, finally ending the Gulf War with it's proper conclusion, however belatedly.
    George Bush I's reluctance to rid the Middle East of Hussein at the (temporary) end of the Gulf War was based on political calculation; realpolitik. It was this calculation that cost tens, perhaps hundreds, of thousands of Iraqis their lives. Not to mention the scores of Israeli school children, mothers, fathers, brothers and sisters who were killed by Hussein sponsored homicide bombers in Israel.
    A Democratic Iraq will be much less of a threat to her neighbors, the United States (Iraqi missile installations have fired on US and British planes patrolling the UN mandated no-fly zone dozens of times between 1990 and 2003 - did you want to wait until they connected with one of those missiles?), or her own citizens. Democracies don't usually go around killing the voters. It's bad for the campaign. Tough to make a good ad about gassing a market full of shopping soccer-moms.
    So, yup this war was pretty unnecessary for you and me. But absolutely vital for the 22 million people of Iraq. And I feel pretty good about my country sacrificing for those 22 million people, who didn't want or deserve Hussein, and who are now free to choose their own leaders and live their own lives.
    - RG
    [Ahh yes, Operation ``Imminent Threat from Weapons of Mass Destruction.'' - Wm.]

  • 3/12 8:51am JM, as the poet wrote: "You can't go against nature/ because when you do/ go against nature/ that's part of nature, too." I'm often surprised when people who normally are quite humble in their relationship to their Creator, claim to understand Creation so well, that they can tell us what the Creator's intent was. We weren't meant to travel by air -- if the Creator had intended it, then we'd have wings. Homosexuals weren't meant to marry, if the Creator had intended it, then homosexuals would be able to reproduce. And so on.
    The most telling line in Kurtz's polemic is right here: "Certainly Scandinavia's system of registered partnerships is not the only cause of marital decline. Factors like contraception, abortion, women in the work force, individualism, secularism, and the welfare state are also at work." Actually, not only are the not "the only" cause - there is no proof, and he offers none, that they are in any way a cause of the decline in marriage. His argument is sophistry.
    It is enlightening to see the other freedoms that Kurtz wants to curtail. He would like to remove women's reproductive freedom and their freedom to be employed. He would like to curtail our religious freedom. Who knows what he would do to rectify the invidious results of "individualism" and "the welfare state."
    I do not assume that opponents of same-sex marriage are bigoted or homophobic - although many are just that. I like to give people the benefit of the doubt. I assume that their parish priest or minister has been preaching against it or that they have been reading people like Kurtz. Both the priest and Kurtz claim to know the mind of the Creator. I call that hubris. Perhaps I am going to Hell someday. If I do, I'll make sure to post some observations about it here (I'm assuming that in Heaven they have cable modems and in Hell that they have 28.8k dial-up.)
    - DAF

  • 3/11 8:25am Stanley Kurtz's editorial in yesterday's (March 10th) Globe is a must-read on the gay marriage issue. Supporters of this concept presume that if you are opposed to gay marriage, that you must be bigoted and homophobic. I am neither, but I think there is a price to pay when you try to mess with Mother Nature. From this editorial, sounds like the Norwegians are paying the price right now.
    - JM
    [Update 3/11 10:59am I've tracked down the article, and in case it disappears from the Globe page, here's the Google cached copy - Wm.]

  • 3/10 2:51pm It is interesting, if [...] folks in the United States wanted to include more of the biblical material as amendments to the Constitution [...read on for what the results might look like (off the web)]
    - RH

  • 3/10 8:46am United States soldier Casualty figures, "Operation Iraqi Freedom", as of March 8, 2004:
    Hostile379
    Non hostile173
    Total killed 552
      
    Wounded in action2744
    Non hostile Wounded423
    Total wounded3167
    Per defenselink.mil click on Casualty Reports
    - RH The deaths and injuries of US soldiers in this unnecessary war should make voters pause and think as they vote for their candidates for the next president and vice-president of the United States.
    - RH

  • 3/7 6:28pm Thanks for clarification, Wm. I didn't know about that distinction, which is pretty important one. I wonder what percentage of the bigamists who are operating by deception would bring their desire for multiple partners into the clear if polygamy were legal. An interesting side issue.
    - DAF

  • 3/6 1:34pm Thanks, TC. I've given the issue a lot of thought before coming to my conclusions. In fact, a couple of years ago, I thought civil unions were a solution to this issue. Having explored it further, and reflecting on the SJC's arguments, I have come to understand the fallacy of "maintaining and fostering a stigma of exclusion that the Constitution prohibits."
    KS, it sounds like you feel that the events of the past few months here in Massachusetts are unrelated to ("have nothing to do with") what has transpired to bring this issue to the fore. I beg to differ. I know you want your question answered, but I was hoping we could agree to an understanding of what the situation is first so we know just what it is we are debating. So, is anything in my admittedly lengthier chronology incorrect? Is there an event that is germaine that I've left out?
    - DAF

  • 3/5 5:36pm DAF, OK, you have mistated & distorted what I wrote - again.
    My earlier post said recap of events in Mass. You you then go on this very long posting of events that transpire over a decade ago halfway across the country. That had nothing to do with what I wrote. I was simply referring to events here in Mass.
    Second, ok 110,000 people & not 200,000. Still pretty significant. And the point was that the legislature did not take up a vote on the petition. As you correctly stated, they adjourned. (And the reason is they did not want to reveal their position on the issue - they had nothing to gain politically) Would this have been ok if the gay activists had that many signatures & legislature pulled the same stunt? - be honest now.
    Third, I never said the SJC turned down a law that legislature passed. In response to the court's directive, Legislature was asking the court if civil unions would be ok and the court said no.
    Finally, the relevant questions were simply ignored in your response.
    So, I will pose the question again: "What is so wrong with homosexual couples being called civil unions if they are entitled to all of the benefits that heterosexuals enjoy through marriage?"
    - KS

  • 3/5 4:31pm DAF: I am impressed with your vast and detailed knowledge on this subject. Whatever your profession, you should consider becoming a political reporter. Your postings are thorough, informative and well written. As for my thoughts on the issue, I've already made those clear. Kudos to you for your thougthfulness on this topic.
    - TC

  • 3/5 3:37pm There's a difference -- polygamy is a marriage composed of more than two partners (the most common form is polygyny, one man having multiple wives; polyandry, a woman with multiple husbands, is also practiced). Bigamy is entering into two monogamous two-person relationships at the same time. The former is done with informed consent, the latter is through deception.
    - Wm.

  • 3/5 3:37pm Wm, I dont see a big distinction between bigamy and polygamy. To be honest, I havent really thought about plural marriage at all. I have my hands full with just the one!
    KS, I think your version of the chronology leaves out some important events and misstates others. Please permit me to make some edits to what you posted. If we agree on the facts of what happened, then maybe we can proceed.
    • June 1986 The U.S. Supreme Court in Bowers v. Hardwick upholds Georgia's law banning sodomy between consenting adults. The narrow 5-4 decision claims that homosexual sexuality is "immoral."
    • May 1993 Hawaii's Supreme Court rules that the state constitution's guarantee of equal protection under the law means that same-sex couples can enjoy the same marital rights and benefits that heterosexual couples have.
    • May 1996 In Romer v. Evans, the U.S. Supreme Court strikes down an amendment to Colorado's Constitution that banned local laws protecting homosexuals from discrimination. The justices say the Colorado amendment "seems inexplicable by anything but animus toward the class it affects." Homosexuals, people who find homosexuals immoral, and people who follow this sort of thing start to discuss the ramifications of this ruling.
    • September 1996: In reaction to the rulings in Hawaii and in the US Supreme Court, the US Congress passes the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage in U.S. law as a "union between one man and one woman." The DMA allows states to ignore same-sex marriages from another state. During the next few years, most states pass their own versions of this new federal law.
    • November 1998 Voters in Hawaii amend their state constitution to prohibit same sex marriage.
    • April 2000 Vermont passes a law allowing civil unions between same-sex couples, giving them some, but not all, of the benefits of marriage. Thousands of same-sex civil unions are performed Vermont, the majority involving couples from out-of-state. Courts and legislators in other states are divided on whether or not they will recognize these civil unions. The US Supreme Court has been equivocal -- siding with a state's right to make homosexuality illegal in Bowers v Hardwick, but also striking down discrimination against homosexuals in Romer v Evans.
    • January - June 2002 In Georgia, the state court of appeals (in Burns v Burns) rules that civil unions are not the equivalent of marriage and that civil unions made in Vermont do not have to be recognized in Georgia. In Massachusetts, Opponents of civil unions gather 110,000 signatures to force the legislature to pass the Protection of Marriage Amendment -- defining marriage as one man and one woman. In April, the legislature's Joint Public Service Committee holds a hearing on the proposed amendment. In May, June, and July the full House and Senate met in a joint Constitutional Convention to consider the Protection of Marriage Amendment. The legislative opponents of the ballot question, led by Senate President Thomas F. Birmingham, lacked the votes necessary to defeat it outright. Instead they voted 137-53 to adjourn the constitutional convention indefinitely, effectively blocking the question from appearing on the election ballot.
    • March and June 2003 The US Supreme Court takes the case Lawrence v. Texas to clear up the confusion. The Court's 6-3 decision explicitly overturns Bowers. The court now holds that intimate consensual sexual conduct is part of the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. Many homosexuals rejoice. Many religious conservatives lament. Both groups see same sex marriage as the logical outcome of the US Supreme Court ruling in Lawrence v. Texas.
    • November 2003 Goodridge v. Department of Public Health -- a case that had been winding its way through our court system, is resolved by the Massachusetts Supreme Court. The court rules that same-sex couples have the legal right to marry under the state Constitution. Confusion immediately arises -- some people interpret the ruling to allow for same-sex civil unions as a separate, but equal form of commitment. The Senate asks the SJC to clarify this issue.
    • February 2004 The SJC answers the Senate's question. The court says that a proposed civil unions bill for gay couples would establish "an unconstitutional, inferior, and discriminatory status for same-sex couples." They require same sex marriage. Opponents of same-sex marriage call the 4 SJC justice who issued the majority opinion "activist judges" and "left wing liberals" (despite the fact that 3 out of four were appointed by Republican governors...sorry, I couldn't resist editorializing). As a result of the furor, the House and Senate meet again in a joint Constitutional Convention to consider amendments to our state constitution that will prohibit same-sex marriage. The Amendments are voted down. The Convention is suspended until March 11 when the amendments will once again be debated.
    So, there were 110,000 signatures -- not 200,000, the legislature had hearings and a Constitutional Convention, it did not ignore the petition. In their ruling, the SJC gave the legislature six months, not three months. The SJC did not object to a law that the legislature passed, the SJC was asked by the Senate to give their judicial opinion on a proposed piece of legislation. Phew. If we are agreed on all of that, we can move forward, otherwise we will continue getting bogged down. Do you agree with everything above?
    - DAF

  • 3/5 11:36am OK, Everyone has a strong viewpoint on the homosexual marriage issue. But the reason this is so heated is because of how it was sprung upon us. Let's briefly recap the events here is Mass:
    1. 200,000 people sign a petition to define marriage as between a man & woman. The legislature ignores it & refuses to vote.
    2. The Mass SJC determines that denying homosexuals the same rights as heterosexuals is illegal. Further, they instruct legislature to not discriminate & order the legislature to create law & offer these benefits - and give them only 3 months to do so. When the legislature offers these benefits in the form of civil unions - The court objects.
    Thoughts to consider:
    What is so wrong with homosexual couples being called civil unions if they are entitled to all of the benefits that heterosexuals enjoy through marriage? How is that discrimination? Can these activists have some respect for people who cherish the traditional institution of marriage? Can they compromise just a little bit?
    There are 2 sides of this issue. One side has conceded a lot - offering benefits to a group of people that were not there in the first place. Where has the other side compromised? - They have not. If they did this issue would be over.
    - KS
    [3/7 8:47am Changed bullets to 1., 2. enumeration as in the original (the bullets were my lapse in the HTML code) - Wm.]

  • 3/5 8:56am Wm., It's a pickle. The default is personal freedom. There has to be a compelling reason to curtail an individual's freedom to do as he or she wishes. As Mill wrote: "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others." And therein lies the quandary. Our knowledge of what is harmful to others changes as we learn more - in both directions.
    For example, until the 1970's, land owners could do whatever they liked with the wetlands on their property. Then we learned that wetlands serve a number of critical roles in the maintenance and protection of the environment, and ultimately, public health. So, we needed to restrict property owners' freedom in order to prevent them from harming their neighbors. Thus, our wetlands protection laws.
    On the other hand, we have lifted restrictions when we have learned that the individual's activity posed little harm to others. So, for example, the laws against flag burning have been struck down since the discomfort that some people feel at seeing the flag torched was considered not harmful enough to others to justify infringing on an individual's freedom of expression.
    Now you'll ask "what is harm?" That is why we struggle with these questions. Who is harmed by same sex marriage? "Nobody," say the courts (and anyone who knows more than a couple of homosexuals and has a heart). Who is harmed by bigamy? I'm not sure. I don't know any bigamists (as far as I know).
    - DAF
    [In your usage, bigamy differes from polygamy, right? - Wm.]

  • 3/4 11:19pm Thanks DAF for the detailed reply.
    So marriage then is a "judicially recognized" right, not explicitly granted but part of human society and seen as fundamental to the pursuit of happiness. Sounds reasonable.
    But what exactly is recognized? Does the Zablocki v. Redhail "right to marry" come with a working definition of what "marriage" is? Since only a subset of the many types of stable and nurturing life partnerships is sanctioned (and some practices are explicitly banned), some marriages are clearly not "judicially recognized." (Not without a specific definition of the term "marriage" to preclude those relationships, which would make "marriage" not something that's recognized but officially defined.)
    If "legislation grounded on good reason" is permissible, how is "good reason" determined? The "I know it when I see it" test? What reasons can be good enough to dictate with whom one wishes to spend their life? (Don't say national defense :-) Same-sex marriage is transitioning from the banned category to the permitted, mostly because what used to be "good reason" in one era seems less good today. Shouldn't the larger question be whether it's proper for the state to tell us whom we may marry, not which restrictions we find objectionable? (Conversely, how isn't a challenge to one item in a list of arbitrary (cultural, historical and religious) limitations not also an attack on the validity of the whole notion of marriages having to be state approved?)
    The Massachusetts supreme court just ruled that reproduction is not a primary purpose of marriage, placing an even larger obstacle in the path of "good reason" arguments. Are any of the other reproduction-based prohibitions then valid? Since neither fidelity nor romantic interest are mandatory for marriage (though are grounds for its dissolution, at the option of the participants), I could see it being quite advantageous in certain circumstances to marry an heir, for example. In particular, I don't see how marriage to a same-sex heir would be objectionable on other than moral (or tax-evasion :-) grounds.
    Some things are legal, some not; some things are right, some are wrong. Not all things that are legal are right, not all things that are illegal are wrong. None of this helps answer the question of what should be legal.
    - Wm.

  • 3/4 5:41pm Please change "Election 2004" to the "Gay Marriage Debate 2004"
    - MA
    [Yes, but it'll pass :-) I doubt it'll get much mention in the Bush vs. Kerry debates, and that's the real reason I set up this page; the state election just tipped my hand a bit early. But we can always change the topic -- so, how about them terrorists in Iraq? :-) - Wm.]

  • 3/4 5:26pm Wm, in 1967 the US Supreme Court said "The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men." This was in the Loving v. Virginia ruling that struck down laws against mixed-race marriages throughout the US. So, according to the law of the land, marriage is a right.
    There is a distinction to be made among explicitly recognized rights (like the right to bear arms, freedom of speech, etc.), judicially-recognized rights (judged implicit in the concept of ordered liberty, such as the right to privacy), and privileges. In my experience, however, it is usually raised in order to extend a privilege or right to one group and deny it to another.
    In Zablocki v. Redhail, the US Supreme Court noted that regulations that "directly and substantially" interfere with the right to marry are subject to strict scrutiny. In that case, the Court ruled unconstitutional a Wisconsin statute providing that any resident with a child not in his custody and which he is under an obligation to support by court order may not marry without a prior judicial determination that the support obligation has been met." Although Zablocki formally was based on the Equal Protection Clause, the holding relied on the "fundamental right to marry."
    It is interesting to note that regulations that do not "significantly interfere with decisions to enter into marriage" -- like the requirement for blood tests for sexually transmitted diseases, incest prohibitions, minimum age requirements, and bigamy laws -- are not necessarily unconstitutional. This is why people who claim that same sex marriages will lead to people marrying their children or engaging in bigamy are just plain wrong. Homosexuality used to be against the law. If homosexuality were still illegal, then a prohibition against same sex marriage would be just as constitutional as the incest prohibition. But homosexuality is no longer illegal. And so now gays and lesbians must be allowed to marry. It is a subtle point, but very important.
    In essence, what the courts have affirmed is that laws must be justified without referring to a particular religious worldview. If no state interest exists in regulating or criminalizing a particular form of marriage, then it must be permitted. But legislation grounded on good reasons remains perfectly permissible. I can imagine coming up with good reasons for outlawing bigamy and incest. It's up to those who would pass laws about these practices and relationships to provide good reasons for doing so: tradition and some vague reference to "morality" are not good enough. The courts have said there is no good reason to prohibit homosexual marriage. In fact, since gays and lesbians have children via IVF techniques and adoption, there is a good reason to welcome same sex marriages -- the children.
    Sorry for the long-winded response.
    - DAF

  • 3/4 4:40pm MD, I understand the Bible is not the Constitution. I do not want religion to govern America, but it seems that as soon as someone forms an opinion based on their religious beliefs, that opinion is not valid. I read TEM's message as an attack on anyone that forms an opinion based on religious beliefs, regardless of what that belief is for. I could be completely wrong with my interpretation. Just looking for clarification.
    - PFD

  • 3/4 2:57pm So, is marriage a right? No, I'm being serious! This to me is an interesting and subtle question, having not so much to do with equal rights than with with the nature of human pair-bonds and society's attitude to them. Is a legally defined category of "marriage" necessary for its practice? May society (through its laws) place limits on what it accepts as a legitimate family? Must every family be recognized? Ought laws be written to define practice? Or should they reflect existing practice? And, out of curiosity -- if an Arab family emigrates to the States, what is the status of the second wife?
    - Wm.
    [Update 3:46pm This AP article has a good overview of how other countries have handled the issue of same-sex unions - Wm.]

  • 3/4 2:20pm PFD - That is exactly the point. You are of course free to form an opinion based on the Bible, as someone else is free to do the same based on the Torah or anything else. But the problem is the Bible is not the US Constitution. And it's not that the Bible doesn't have a lot of great things to say or solid principles to live by, but it is not, nor should it should be, the governing document for our nation. We do not have the right to push our religious beliefs on other people. Our country was formed partially because people were trying to escape religious persecution. You have the right to disagree with the notion, but not to take other people's rights away to square with your morals.
    There are many things that are legal that I don't agree with and that aren't up to my moral standards. But I don't try to hold others to my beliefs (though as you can see, I enjoy discussing them!) by changing the laws to suit me and my friends.
    - MD

  • 3/4 1:34pm TEM, just so I understand what you are saying I want to give you my interpretation of your last post dated 3/4 10:55am. Please correct me if I am wrong. If I, or others, form an opinion based on religion, that opinion is not valid? That sounds like "discrimination" to me.
    - PFD

  • 3/4 10:55am BA, I would like to make myself perfectly clear as your apparent reading of my Feb. 28th post suggests that what I stated [you fail to undertand.] The analogy with which you responded is both ludicrous and irrelevant (and they are the kindest words I can think of). So allow me to try again: I firmly believe that most, if not all, of those folks who are against the granting of fundamental rights and protections for a healthy, productive, and tax-paying segment of our population and are attempting to insert and sanction bigotry in the Constitution are doing so because of unstated and carefully hidden religious or moral reasons--irrational, faith-based, and pulpit-dictated grounds that would never stand up to public scrutiny and have absolutely nothing to do with definitions in the dictionary. To those who want second-class citizenship or separate but equal status for gay people, I am saying, at the very least, have the backbone to stand behind the actual reasons for such a political stance, and stop parroting bogus and manufactured motivations. And, furthermore, I never suggested that people who edit dictionaries have hidden agendas. With all due respect to your hidden religious beliefs, if you want one of the purest and oldest examples of that kind of scholarship, it's not the dictionary you want, it's the Bible.
    - TEM

  • 3/3 8:43pm TO MD - The only reason the Dems didn't spend money on their guy was because they didn't think it was needed, since the special election coincided with Primary day (perfectly legal but shifty!) Hopefully this is just one victory in a string of many for low taxes and small government. Good luck in November Scott!
    - DM

  • 3/3 8:41pm Dang, I just knew that was going to happen. I tried. Yes, I think some people are bigots. No, I do not think all Brown supporters are bigots (that's what I meant when I wrote "I am not saying that everyone who voted for Brown is a bigot."). Yes, there are plenty of bigots in both of the main parties. What of that is controversial? Your analysis of McQuilken's motivations for asking for a recount when losing by fewer than 400 votes is flawed. Whether or not he concedes defeat 24 hours after Brown claimed victory (while trailing in the official returns I might add), makes no difference at all for same sex marriage. Scott Brown gets one vote -- either as rep or as senator. Scott Brown votes to amend our constitution to discrimate against 10% of our citizens no matter how long this is "drawn out." How does it deny anyone "their say" to have a recount?
    - DAF

  • 3/3 4:49pm DAF - Yes, I was also responding to someone else. This why I started the message as "TC & DAF".
    You claim that you are not saying people are bigots yet you make statements like "This means that at least half of us are not blinded by a mean-spirited, self-centered perspective" So, 49.9% of the people who voted for Angus are exempt from being mean mean-spirited in perspective, but possibly some or all of the 51.1% of the people who voted for Brown may be? Ok, if that is how you want to look at it.
    By the way, thanks for the congrats on Senator Brown's win. Let's hope that Angus will be as equally gracious & concede defeat. There are no hanging chads here. It is clear that by dragging this out he is doing nothing more than depriving Brown & the voters their say in next weeks expected marriage vote.
    - KS

  • 3/3 3:24pm KS, I think you may be responding to someone else. I never said you were a bigot nor am I curious about how many homosexuals you know personally (although, I can't help remembering Archie Bunker's protestations "Some of my best friends are black"). I never made any assumptions about your spiritual life. Despite McQuilken's apparent loss by a mere 300 votes, I am buoyed by the knowledge that close to 50% of this district's voters selected Angus, a candidate who is openly, unabashedly in favor of equal rights for all citizens. This means that at least half of us are not blinded by a mean-spirited, self-centered perspective. Relax, I am not saying that everyone who voted for Brown is a bigot. I know that many neighbors and friends I respect voted for Brown despite his anti-choice, anti-equality perspective because they are fiscally conservative, saw McQuilken as another tax and spend Democrat, and think that with the way the legislature is stacked today, Brown's small-mindedness on social issues will have no effect. Congratulations to the fiscal conservatives amongst us and I hope that you are right.
    - DAF

  • 3/3 1:34pm Ah, but MD, McQuilken has benefited from a number of sources he has not disclosed. Like the so-called "People for Taxpayer Protection," which is nothing more than a bunch of Union [Affiliates]. The election was rigged by the Dems from the get go, and Brown's win should send a chill through the Democrat machine - the people have had it with you.
    DAF -- I just saw your attempt at a response and will respond shortly. However, quickly, you still have not disputed the fact that the Mass constitution does not discriminate against homosexuals.
    TEM - For the sake of argument (and because it is true) I am a man. If I were to suddenly decide that I want the word Woman to mean man, and went into your restrooms, showers at the health club, demanded to play from the ladies tees on the LPGA., etc., and then argued that I can do so because, after all it is only the dictionary that defines woman as being female, would you not say that I cannot change the definition of "female" to meet my own agenda?
    "Once more unto the breach, dear friends..."
    - BA

  • 3/3 10:57am Correction to my earlier e-mail - My campaign fund numbers were off per this morning's Globe article. Brown raised $186,000 + received $100K from the MA Republican Party. McQuilken raised $97,000. That is a 3 to 1 margin, not a 4 to 1 as I previously stated.
    - MD

  • 3/3 10:48am Congrats Scott Brown. The votes have been counted and he has obtained the most. It is more sad than funny to watch the Democrats scramble around shouting recounts and unfair. How much will the legal battle cost the taxpayers? Even by stacking the deck in their favor by placing the election on the Democratic Primary day, they still lost. Maybe Angus could call Al Gore and ask his advice on next steps to take? Or maybe ask that the Convicted Felons he wants us to pay sex changes for to be allowed to vote? Democrats - watch how your candidate handles losing. And then decide if this is who you really want to be identified with.
    - MR

  • 3/3 10:42am Considering Brown out-spent McQuilken by a 4 to 1 margin (approx $200K to $55K), the close vote is amazing. Even though I wasn't thrilled with the results, I was proud to see so many Norfolk locals voting. Maybe seeing first-hand that an election can be that close will get some people off the couch and into the voting booths for future elections...
    - MD

  • 3/3 10:41am Congrats to Senator Scott Brown!! Hope his win is not spoiled by demands for recount after recount & if that does not work - then a court decision?
    Angus - [...] accept your loss.
    - KS
    [This message was originally received at 11:16pm, thus it predates the one below - Wm.]

  • 3/3 7:32am Congratulations to our Rep (Sen. ?) Scott Brown - A nice 2 to 1 margin in Norfolk.
    - PC
    [8:01am Brown won by 300 votes out of about 40,000 cast. He may be sworn in as early as next week, though recounts could possibly delay that. - Wm.]

  • 3/2 10:35pm TC & DAF- Yes, I do know people who are gay. I have an Aunt & friends who are gay. And I am not afraid to say I am opposed to gay marriage to them. Just because I know people who are gay does not mean I have to agree on the marriage issue. It does not make me a bigot either. People can agree to disagree. They even respect me for being passionate about my views. (probably more so than people like flip-flop Kerry, who have no substance)
    And I am not religious either.
    - KS

  • 3/2 4:40pm Yipes! Now the religious right want to enforce other aspects of their fundamentalist views on the rest of us -- anti-shrimp crusade. ;-)
    - DAF

  • 3/1 5:13pm Good luck tomorrow to Scott Brown. I urge all Republicans, Democrats and Un-enrolled (whatever happened to the term independent?) to cast your vote tomorrow for our next Senator, Scott Brown.
    - PFD
    [Wasn't there an Independent party created back a while ago, or is my memory plaing tricks on me?
    And just a reminder, there are two ballots, one state, one federal. Independents will be able to enroll in the Democratic party right at the polls, vote in the Democratic primaries, then, after having finished voting, un-enroll at the desk set up for that purpose (to resume their un-enrolled political affiliation :-) - Wm.]

  • 3/1 10:33am BA, you have said that you are against "the left" "hijacking the language" by "redefining" marriage to include homosexual couples. But now you say you want redefine marriage so that my marriage, which was performed by a dear friend of mine, is no longer a marriage because it was performed by a justice of the peace and not a member of the clergy. So, if I understand you correctly, you want to redefine marriage to not just exclude homosexuals, but also my wife and me. Perhaps you weren't aware that marriage has been a civil license since the English settled colonies in America. Some of the very first civil laws these colonies established were about forming marriage. I'll withhold my righteous indignation and just point out that your redefinition would mean that, among hundreds of other consequences, my wife and I would lose our right to:
    • automatic hospital visitation for my partner and our children
    • act as next of kin for making medical decisions in event of illness, or to choose a final resting place for my deceased partner
    • take sick leave to care for a partner or child, or bereavement leave upon death
    • have joint child custody, visitation, adoption and foster care without lengthy legal proceedings
    • file joint tax returns, inherit from my spouse free from certain estate taxes, and transfer property without tax consequences
    • inherit automatically in the absence of a will
    • determine property distribution, as well as child custody and support and spousal support in the event of divorce
    • obtain joint health, home, and auto insurance policies
    • apply for immigration and residency for partners from other countries
    • receive financial benefits like spousal health coverage through an employer, and disability and social security benefits
    As an honest person, how do you handle these inconsistencies? Incidentally, there was never any question that marriage is a privilege. There is also no question that our state and federal constitutions explicitly prohibit the granting of privileges in a discriminatory manner. people have the right to be treated equally under the law. You can't prohibit homosexuals from marrying any more than you can prohibit interracial or interreligious marriages.
    Don't forget to vote for Angus McQuilken tomorrow! (BA, you can stay home if you like. ;-))
    - DAF

  • 2/28 7:09pm The American Heritage Dictonary of the English Language, fourth edition published by Houghton-Mifflin, defines marriage the following way a) the legal union of a man and a woman as husband and wife; b) the state of being married, wedlock c)a common law marriage and d)a union between two persons having the customary but usually not legal force of marriage, i.e. same sex marriage. TEM is correct, without a dictionary definition to lean on, those opposed will certainly find another reason. To those with no personal experience with the reality of denying those rights, the change is just too frightening. For those of us who have personal experience with it, the prospect of no change is what is truly frightening. To those so passionately opposed I ask this... Do you actually know any gay people? Have you ever had a gay friend or relative? Could you honestly look them in the eye and tell them that they are not entitled to the same rights and privileges you are? Do you really believe the "sanctity of marriage" is to be reserved for those who treat it with the proper respect, like Britney Spears and the fools who denigrate all loving relationships by producing TV shows like Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire? What is at stake for you personally in this? Is your marriage to be compromised because two men or two women share the label? What is the real issue here? It can't, as TEM suggests, really be about Webster's Dictonary, can it?
    - TC

  • 2/28 7:07pm I believe that someone mentioned that the majority of Americans were against gay marriage. In from the 1940s to today, my (white) grandparents' best friends were black. The "majority" of people thought that was wrong back when their friendship started, and in fact called my grandparents n****r-lover just for walking down the street with their friends. In the 1800s, the majority of people thought that women shouldn't have the right to vote. Our consititution was specifically designed to protect both the majority AND the minority. The rights of people shouldn't hinge on "majority rules," but on our constitution and treating people equally.
    If you are opposed to gay marriage, you do not have to support it, or go to the wedding of your friend's gay child, or even like any of it. You do not have to be comfortable with it or "use" the right, even if you are gay. You do not even have to think it is moral or correct. However, it is not your right to deny equal rights to someone else. We have the right to free speech, but of course we aren't going to like what everyone has to say, and we may wish that we could prevent some people from speaking their mind. :-) But that does not mean that we should take that right away. Your religion should not dictate other people's lives.
    As a straight woman in a strong marriage with a straight man, allowing gay people to marry does not violate the "sanctity" my marriage, it does not make our union less valid or special, and it does no threaten our future together. People do not choose to be gay. They are born that way. There have always been gay people, and there always will be gay people. I am proud that we live in an era where they do not have to pretend to be straight, they do not have to marry the opposite sex and drag a spouse and (potentially) kids through a marriage based on creating a "normal" life, when they aren't straight. The people I know who are gay simply want to get the same legal rights as I enjoy, and I truly don't see what is wrong with that.
    - MD

  • 2/28 10:11am Am I to understand that there are those who are solely opposed to same sex marriage simply because the dictionary defines the word "marriage" as a union between a man and a woman? Perhaps I'm a bit too cynical, but I get the feeling that if this particular justification for a denial of rights is removed another bogus justification would suddenly surface (e.g., insistence on a popular vote on the issue by masses of sheltered suburbanites whose only association with gay people is a daily terror that their children will mistakenly watch Will & Grace on TV). Definitions and usage change all the time. I do believe that's why Merriam-Webster calls each edition "Revised." If in the 13th edition of Merriam-Webster's REVISED Dictionary (I think that's the number they're approaching), marriage is redefined as a union between two committed partners without any reference to gender, I take it we can expect some of you folks to be miraculously relieved and liberated and will rejoice that your gay brothers and sisters will become eligible for the full benefits and protections of legal marriage. Actually, now that I think of it, it will probably take considerably less time, money, and pointless debate for the next edition of the Dictionary to be published than the passage of a restrictive and discriminatory amendment to the Constitution. Jeepers, the race is on.
    - TEM

  • 2/28 10:09am TEM - If you are an atheist or an agnostic, you can go the civil union route, of course. As to your comment "Perhaps a second discriminatory amendment should be proposed.": there has not yet been a first discriminatory amendment proposed, and I do not see the need to start now. Kind Regards,
    - BA

  • 2/27 4:59pm Clones? Clarence Thomas looks nothing like Antonin Scalia - just kidding!!
    - KS
    [ :-) - Wm.]

  • 2/27 4:47pm One more on Boy Scouts, Since some seem to be concerned that the Boy scouts is exclusionary - What about the fact that no girl can join? Is the girl scout organization also bigoted because boys are not allowed?
    Do those same people who boycott the boyscouts boycott the girlscouts? If not, then that seems to be hypocritical.
    - KS

  • 2/27 4:41pm "Ideally, we leave marriage to the churches, synagogues, etc." And if one is an agnostic or atheist, where do they go in your ideal world, BA? Or should we also ban this segment of our society from legal marriage? Perhaps a second discriminatory amendment should be proposed.
    - TEM

  • 2/27 4:26pm Wm - That is a poor analogy. A decision such as invading another country should be & is made by the commander in chief. If not, we would never have entered WW II and most of Europe would be speaking German.
    Further, we the people elect the President. Those judges on the SJC were appointed. Big difference.
    And when you consider the fact that, by all acounts, they are activist judges and clearly overstepped their bounds - suddenly their "ruling" seems less like justice & more like politics.
    - KS
    [I agree it's not a great analogy; my point was that some people in the country are in a position to make their opinions count for much more than the rest of ours. Not because of a lack of equality, but because the essence of government is to delegate power to someone else. That power can include the right of sub-delegation, such as appointing activist judges, who then can go on to overturn the Second Amendment or Roe vs. Wade (or, in the case of Clarence Thomas, to become an Antonin Scalia clone). When we vote for President, we're voting in all the judges they nominate. It's our doing; not so very different at all. - Wm.]

  • 2/27 3:52pm DAF, Polls reveal that a clear majority of citizens in the US - 65% are opposed to gay marriage. These people have very good reasons for being opposed to gay marriage.
    Now here comes the most liberal SJC in the whole country & by a slim 4 to 3 vote, all of a sudden 4 people's opinion matters more than the vast majority of Americans'. As a liberal, surely you beleive in equality - Where is the equality in that?
    - KS
    [I don't think that's how equality is measured. For example, the President can order an invasion of any small powerless third-world country, but you or I are not able to order the invasion of our pet enemy states (nor even to prevent the Chief from attacking his) - Wm.]

  • 2/27 3:50pm DAF, YOU'VE SEEN THE LIGHT. You have stated my argument as your own! I am shocked, but welcome you to the fold of rational, thinking, logical people! You write: ``Marriage is a civil privilege today.'' Exactly, my dear (unknown gender honorific)! It is a PRIVILEGE. NOT a RIGHT! As such, the state can regulate the privilege and grant it only to those that meet the minimum requirements of marriage -- a man and a woman.
    Well now, we should be able to proceed from here with a whole new level of common ground.
    BTW - I wasn't aware we were acquainted and spoke on a daily basis! How else could you know my state of mind? I wasn't angry then, nor am I now. I do not get angry about this stuff. Concerned? Yes, and sometimes deeply. But angry? Nope. Sorry. I was merely pointing out the error of your analysis. And my analogy stands. There is no ``opinion'' here. There are facts. Again, by definition a man cannot marry another man, nor can a woman marry another woman, nor can I marry a duck.
    You write ``The SJC was not making a ruling that was the equivalent of saying black people are white, they were making a ruling that was the equivalent of, and was in fact instead of in analogy, you cannot extend a privilege to one group and deny it to another based on their color, creed, or sexual orientation.''
    And I continue to point out the obvious to you, which for some reason, you refuse to either acknowledge or respond to. There IS no discrimination here. Anyone in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts is free to marry anyone of the opposite sex (providing they are not closely related) REGARDLESS OF EITHER PARTY'S COLOR, CREED, OR SEXUAL ORIENTATION. What the SJC did was to say that marriage CAN exist between two members of the same gender, which is by definition FALSE. They further went on to order the legislature to create a law codifying this lie. The Constitution does not grant the judiciary the power to legislate; yet this is exactly what they did. And they ordered us to legislate an impossibility.
    As to my intellectual honesty, it remains fully intact. It is by a vast majority the left who wishes to, has, and continues to try to hijack the language. As an illustration -- I am all for gay marriage and aspire to make my own as gay as possible, but there is no such thing as homosexual marriage. There is no such thing as hate speech either. There is speech, all of which is free. You have no way of attributing motivators of speech. By the same reasoning, there are no hate crimes, either. Nor are there entitlements, because no one is entitled to someone else's money or property. Although I would call it theft, it seems more palatable to call welfare. Each of these are visited on us by the left.
    I do demand WANT civil marriage be removed, because civil MARRIAGE exists and can exist, but only between a man and a woman. Civil UNIONS can exist for all other situations. Would I PREFER the government to be out of the marriage business entirely? Yes, of course (and out of many other areas of our lives, too). Ideally, we leave marriage to the churches, synagogues, etc.
    I think we are throwing the baby out with the bathwater here. We seem to both agree that there are certain rights that should be available to everyone, regardless of their sexual orientation. We appear to disagree only on what to call it. And I believe this is the heart of the matter. The homosexual lobby insists on call it something it cannot be, and that is not palatable to the majority of Americans. Drop the demand for corrupting the term marriage, and we have no debate, and no problem!
    Kind Regards,
    - BA

  • 2/27 11:37am MA, why is it ridiculous? How is it different? And of course I am not saying that every family in town who has kids in the Scouts is bigoted. The national leadership of the BSA is demonstrably bigoted, but individual families make choices for a variety of reasons. Perhaps some families choose to ignore the mean-spirited, exclusionary practices because they feel the benefits of the BSA's youth programs outweigh the negatives of associating with an organization that discriminates. Some parents haven't thought about it. Some percentage are, sadly, bigots. Who knows? But asking a homosexual to attend an event sponsored by an anti-homosexual organization is, indeed, like asking an African American to attend an event hosted by a golf course upon whose links that person is barred from playing. I hope you aren't still insulted now that I've explained it further.
    - DAF

  • 2/27 10:42am DAF get off your high horse and come back down to earth. Your statement "Asking a lesbian to support an organization that discriminates against homosexuals is akin to asking a black person to attend the awards banquet at a "no Negroes allowed" country club" is ridiculous. Are you telling us every family in town that has kids in scouts are bigots? I am insulted.
    - MA

  • 2/27 10:40am In Massachusetts we are so used to a Legislature regularly ignoring the wishes of the electorate we do not even realize when the Judiciary is trampling our rights. This is dangerous territory which can hurt both sides of the political debate. Restraining the judiciary should be a must for liberals and conservative alike. For some of you - today's heroes from the SJC, or other courts for that matter, will be your next nightmare. Be careful what you wish for ... you might just get it - between the eyes.
    - PC

  • 2/27 8:30am ``I see...(government) as an impediment. I rely on myself and only myself, and as long as I hurt no one and break no laws, the government has no business in my life OR my wallet." I admire your passion and candor, BA. Now, if it only was 1804 rather than 2004!
    - TEM

  • 2/27 8:27am MJD addressed the Boy Scouts issue far better than I could have. Asking a lesbian to support an organization that discriminates against homosexuals is akin to asking a black person to attend the awards banquet at a "no negroes allowed" country club. The better lesson for your eight year old, if indeed your child even noticed the state senator was missing, is about inclusion, bigotry, and consequences.
    KS, you are so wrong I wonder if it is even worthwhile to discuss this with you. Check Webster's definition. It includes homosexuals. Your understanding of the purpose of the courts is erroneous. They interpret the law and the constitution. If a law is unconstitutional, they must say so. It's called "check and balances."
    BA, I was merely pointing the fallacy of your analogy, not twisting your words. Getting angry about it doesn't negate the fact that you are making the same arguments that were made in the 1960's (and 1860's) about interracial marriage. The SJC was not making a ruling that was the equivalent of saying black people are white, they were were making a ruling that was the equivalent of, and was in fact instead of in analogy, you cannot extend a privilege to one group and deny it to another based on their color, creed, or sexual orientation.
    Your "intellectual honesty" may be honest, but it has blind spots. It isn't intellectual or honest to ascribe motivations and affiliations (left, hijack language, etc.) -- especially when nobody has ascribed any to you. Marriage is a civil privilege today. You want civil marriage removed after almost 400 years of existence in Massachusetts. But it isn't because you want to discriminate against gays and lesbians. Since you are so honest, perhaps you could tell us when it was you began to hold this view of civil marriage? It sounds like it is a real problem for you. Have you been seething each time someone was married by a justice of the peace? Have you contacted your legislators over the years trying to right this wrong? Perhaps in a perfect world (one run by intellectually honest philosopher kings) civil marriage would no longer be an option by heterosexuals or homosexuals. But, as long as it exists, an honest, non-bigoted people like you and I have to agree that discrimination is unconstitutional.
    -DAF

  • 2/26 8:19pm To KS - I think that the stand that the National BSA has taken on the exclusion of GLBT individuals is akin to teaching hate. Why would anyone support that? I stopped giving them money back in 1990 when this whole discussion began and if I had boys (which I do not) they would not participate in BSA or any organization that teaches them to exclude those different than themselves (and who knows at that, one of your kids or mine could be gay, only time will tell).
    I think that Cheryl and any other politician who boycotted their events was right and it forced their hand. If I remember correctly, the Mass BSA actually changed its stand and went against the National Org a couple of years ago. At the State Banquet they made a big deal out of it and David Brudnoy was the MC and said how proud he was of them for standing against the positon taken by the National. Any BSA people, please correct me if I am wrong.
    Thanks, I have enjoyed this debate more than any I can remember since I started logging in two years ago. Folks have strong arguments and there are some sharp minds out there. Too bad eveyone isn't working on the side of eradicating institutionalized oppression once and for all! Viva Paulo Friere!
    - MJD

  • 2/26 5:33pm PC, Most people agree. The activist judges on the SJC created this mess. The focus should be on them, not Bush or any other American who believes in the correct definition of marriage. According to Websters dictionary, marriage is defined as "the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law". And the law currently says that marriage is between a man & wife.
    The court forced legislature to create new law. This is note their role. The courts are there to enforce existing law, not create law. If anyone disagrees, then why don't we disband our way of government and allow judges to CREATE & ENFORCE laws. Instead of 3 branches of government, we can have just 1.
    Due to the courts prodding, legislature was open to offering gays full rights under a civil union. This was exactly what these people were asking for in the first place. And they were being offered it on a silver platter. But, unbelievably, the judges threw that option out. Why? Even gays were SHOCKED to hear they threw this option out. No doubt about it, they should be impeached.
    - KS

  • 2/26 4:48pm To TC - Perhaps you should read more carefully before you make assumptions about my positions. Or are you, too, guilty of trying to twist the words of an opponent to bolster a weak argument? I never stated my support for a constitutional amendment banning homosexual marriage. How can you ban what can not be? In fact, I wrote that there is no need for an amendment to the Constitution, but that the justices who voted in favor of this should immediately be impeached.
    Had the homosexual lobby not sought anti-constitutional redress to a non-issue, I would not be involved in this conversation. Had the homosexual lobby put forth a ballot question asking the populace to redefine marriage in this state to include homosexual unions, and it passed, I would not be involved in this conversation. It is the process that bothers me here - the process and the hijacking of the English language.
    In each of my posts, I have explained how this is a civil liberties issue and the redress should be of a civil nature, thus civil unions. In fact, as the state has no business in a religious matter, ALL unions should be civil unions.
    You see, the problem for folks on the left when dealing with folks like me is that I have consistent intellectual honesty. I mean what I say and I say what I mean.
    Kind Regards,
    - BA

  • 2/26 4:00pm TO BA: "...as long as I hurt no one and break no laws, the government has no business in my life..." Hmmm...a curious statement from one who supports a constitutional amendment forbiding law-abiding, non-violent people from pursuing a secure and happy family life.
    - TC

  • 2/26 2:55pm DAF, I expected more from you than the classic leftist ploy of misrepresenting what was said to bolster an entirely weak position.
    I never wrote the SJC DID say that all black people are white, or that homosexuals are heterosexuals. I wrote that what the SJC did was the EQUIVALENT of solving the interracial marriage issue by declaring all black people to be white -- a statement demonstrably false by biology. This is the same with marriage. It is demonstrably false in terms of biology that a homosexual union can be called a marriage. Again, I go back to the definition of marriage (because I speak English and words mean something) of requiring a bride and groom, female and male.
    You cite that the homosexual marriage crowd in being discriminated by their gender. You have yet to dispute the fact that homosexuals have every right to marry a member of the opposite sex as do heterosexuals. They also have every right not to. Thus equal protection under the law. There simply IS no discrimination.
    This is truly a matter of civil rights -- and please remember, words mean something to me -- thus it should be a civil solution. If a homosexual couple feels like their civil rights are being denied, then they can seek a civil union. But it will not, cannot, nor ever be a marriage.
    I agree with AR who wrote ``insisting on the word "marriage" is of course a deliberate attempt at blurring the distinction between marriage the law and marriage the social institution, and thereby pushing for cultural change.'' To insist on calling that homosexual civil union a marriage is nothing more than a sensationalist attempt to deconstruct our culture and forward the secularist struggle. You know it won't pass the muster of the people, so go to the courts, judge shop for like-minded useful idiots, and do an end run around the constitution you claim to be enforcing.
    As to the Brown vs. Angus race: All of the organizations that support the liberal candidate are anathema to conservatives, as I am sure are those that support Scott Brown to liberals. Thus is the nature of politics in our time. However, regarding your summation of Angus' so-called support of education, there are glaring flaws in your logic. We spend more as a nation per pupil than any other industrialized nation, yet our students lag behind in all significant areas of scholorship. Liberals want to keep throwing good money after bad to the education system, when all you are doing are making the fat-cat unions (which I agree are terrorist organizations) fatter and fatter. Continuing to raid my wallet for liberal pipe dreams and power grabs will do nothing. Do away with the unions, do away with tenure, bring back neighborhood schools, stop asking teachers to be surrogate parents and let them teach, and THEN and ONLY THEN can we expect improvement.
    It is the quintessential big government vs. small government debate. I highly doubt our discussions, though entirely enjoyable, will change any minds. You clearly see government as your salvation. I see it as an impediment. I rely on myself and only myself, and as long as I hurt no one and break no laws, the government has no business in my life OR my wallet.
    Continued Kind Regards,
    - BA

  • 2/26 2:20pm I think a politician's reluctance to even acknowledge their own constituents speak volumnes about a person's character. If he or she shows no respect, then why should they expect any?
    Saying no to little kids is outrageous. Perhaps she should have put aside her own personal bias & attended the event. I'm sorry, but that is so innappropriate.
    I hope the Angus supporters expect more from their candidate.
    - KS

  • 2/26 2:19pm Scott Brown was personally responsible for securing monies for new schools for KP, Norfolk, Wrentham, and Millis. In addition, he supports Gov. Romney's plan to provide free college educations to any student the finishes in the top 25% of the MCAS exams. DAF, do you truly believe that is healthy for this state to be so dominated by one political party. We need balance on Beacon Hill. We do not another free spending Democrat that will be lick Finnerans boots for a plum committee position. In addition, I also believe that on flip side we have to many Republicans on Capitol Hill right now. Effective government is about check and balances. One party cannot have sole power.
    - MA

  • 2/26 2:01pm DAF, Speaking of Cheryl.... When invited to attend the annual Cub Scout Blue & Gold banquet she declined because the Cub Scouts were not an inclusive organization. Try to explaining to 7 & 8 year old that their State Senator decided not to come to their party because of politics and ideals. That is what I fear about Angus that he will carry his ideals too far not unlike Cheryl.
    - MA

  • 2/26 1:16pm DAF, What are you talking about? You are putting words in my mouth. I never said I called there six times & nobody was there. Please check my prior posting.
    What I said was that SHE never responded. Her staff answered the phone but would not answer my question. I would then ask for them to have Cheryl call, but Cheryl would never call me back and give me a straight answer to a simple question.
    - KS

  • 2/26 1:14pm For an idea of what Scott Brown will continue to do to help out our town while he is in the Senate, you can go to the following link: http://www.scottbrown.com/record.htm For an idea of what the press has been saying, go to this link: http://www.scottbrown.com/press.htm The first two articles on the press page are very important to see what McQuilken and the Democratic party in Massachusetts think about certain legislation and the Legislature.
    - PFD

  • 2/26 12:14pm KS, you called her office and there was nobody there six times? That is strange. I wonder where all of her staff people were.
    BA, I just don't see the difference between same sex and interracial marriage with respect to the equal protection clauses of our state and federal constitutions. The SJC ruling did not say that homosexuals are heterosexuals nor did the US Supreme Court say that "black people are white." The courts said you cannot extend privileges to some people and deny it to others based on the color of their skin or their gender. It sounds like you believe that discrimination based on skin color is wrong because people "cannot disguise their race," but discrimination based on sexual orientation is ok because homosexuals could hide their gender preferences. So how about discrimination based on religion? Jews can certainly hide their faith. How about discrimination based on ethnicity? Irish people could try to pass themselves off as English or Polish.
    TC and MA I wholeheartedly agree. On education, McQuilken supports investing in education, reducing class sizes, full day kindergarten, and keeping UMass and the state colleges affordable. Brown has voted to cut funding to our schools. McQuilken has been endorsed by the Massachusetts Teachers Association and Brown has been endorsed by Barbara Anderson (remember her?) of Citizens for Limited Taxation. Angus supports protecting our environment. Scott Brown was given a failing grade (26%) by the Mass Audubon Society for his votes in 2003. He is almost always on the wrong side of education and environmental issues. Some might say that the MTA and Audubon are "special interests," but the reality is that schools, clean water, well-funded police and firefighters -- these are "people issues."
    -DAF

  • 2/26 8:43am Any comments from the social engineers on "Flip-Flop" Kerry's gay marriage position or are you going to wait a week until he changes it?
    - PC

  • 2/26 8:29am Re: same-sex marriage seems like a semantic issue
    It seems to me this "semantic issue" is pretty central -- marriage as recognized by the state is a legally binding civil contract. But the marriage that is recognized by society is that of a blood tie, a kinship bond. The latter predates civil rights, written law, even religion. Western law was written to codify western practice in this regard, thus the seemingly nonsensical restrictions on incest, polygamy, group marriage, gender and species. Other cultures have their own rules, with some rules being more universal than others.
    Insisting on the word "marriage" is of course a deliberate attempt at blurring the distinction between marriage the law and marriage the social institution, and thereby pushing for cultural change. Full and complete civil equality could just as easily be obtained by discontinuing the issuing of "marriage licenses" and replacing them with "civil union certificates" serving the same legal function. It is only societal equivalence that requires the word "marriage."
    - AR

  • 2/26 8:24am DAF, There is a significant difference between biology and bigotry. If we were to equate the SJC's decision to inter-racial marriage, the courts would have said "All black people are white." Clearly, such a ruling would be silly, as it would try to codify a lie.
    Bigotry is wrong, biology is biology. A man cannot marry a man. A woman cannot marry a woman. To equate the homosexual marriage issue to the black civil rights struggle is disingenuous and flagrantly wrong. One does not have to disclose one's sexual orientation. One can not disguise one's race.
    I have no problems with unions between consenting adults. I have no problems with homosexuals falling in love and deciding to commit to each other. It is not a marriage however. A marriage is between a man and a woman. You may say I am arguing semantics, but the liberal left attempts to hijack the language constantly, and I simply won't concede. There can be no such thing as homosexual marriage. Regards,
    - BA

  • 2/25 11:19pm TO MA: Thanks for bringing up an important point. Gay marriage is a civil rights issue, and an important one, but it is not the only one. Because it is such a divisive issue, we are in danger of letting it become THE issue in upcoming campaigns, locally and nationally. It is important, but so are positions on education, the environment, the economy, taxes, social security, health care, and foreign policy. Let's be pragmatic, and not allow the political strategists and campaign spin masters to focus all our attention in one place just to distract us from other serious issues. There is too much at stake in the country right now to make this a single-issue election.
    - TC

  • 2/25 2:47pm Just wondering? Is Angus McQuilken supportive of spending taxpayer money for convicts to get sex changes? Does any taxpayer out there feel that this is a priority? I'd love to hear explanation on this issue.
    - KS

  • 2/25 2:46pm DAF, You asked for people to share their experiences of being ignored by Jacques? How about this - I called her office at least a half dozen times & sent MANY e-mails to her this past summer. I wanted to know her position on gambling. She never had the decency to respond directly & personally to even one inquiry.
    And I sent 2 e-mails to Scott Brown & had 2 responses within 24 hours.
    What do you say to that?
    - KS

  • 2/25 10:58am Does anyone have any points to make concerning real issues in this election. Where do the candidates stand on Education, Law enforcement and Jobs?
    - MA

  • 2/25 10:49am PFD, I knew you had a sense of humor! In the case of Kerry vs. Bush, both are against same-sex marriage, but only Bush wants to write discrimination into the US Constitution (that would be Mr. Bush). Kerry is playing a political game -- he must know that if it is left to the courts, the equal protection clause requires that homosexuals not be discriminated against. It is kind of like saying "I personally am against abortions, but women should have the choice to have one." But your post did give me a smile this morning.
    BA, your argument that allowing gay people to marry people of the opposite sex is somehow equal protection is just plain wrong. For two hundred years, marriage applicants had to meet a very basic requirement - they had to be the same "race." An African American could not marry a white person. This is simple fact, not opinion, not rhetoric. This discrimination was unconstitutional. And the same is true of laws barring the joining of two people of the same sex. It sounds like you at least support civil unions, which Brown does not. Your distaste for same-sex marriage seems like a semantic issue to me. You are supporting same-sex couples' right to have all of the benefits of marriage, but want to call it something else. Unfortunately, because the federal government does not respect civil unions, a couple with a civil union in MA would be in a kind of limbo with regard to the hundreds of functions performed by the federal government, such as taxation, pension protections, provision of insurance for families, and means-tested programs like Medicaid. Years from now, we'll look back on this debate the way we now look back on racial discrimination.
    - DAF

  • 2/25 8:20am It is official, John Kerry is against gay marriages and wants the states to handle whether or not they pass civil unions. So to my fellow neighbors that are Democrat, do not feel compelled to vote for him (in the primary or general election) because of your party affiliation. As for our local election, if you are for taxpayer-funded sex-change operations for prisoners, please vote for Angus McQuilken.
    Just ruffling feathers...
    - PFD

  • 2/25 8:16am No, DAF, I do not agree. Marriage applicants must meet a very basic requirement -- one man, one woman. A man cannot marry a man. A woman cannot marry a woman. This is simple fact, not opinion, not rhetoric. Marriage is the joining of a bride (woman) and groom (man). As I stated in my previous post, homosexuals have equal protection under the existing laws. Any homosexual can marry any non-related member of the opposite sex that he wishes to. Just as you, I, and anyone else can. Thus, they equal protection under the law. QED.
    The state can deny a person a driver's license if they do not meet the minimum requirements necessary to drive a car. You can deny a marriage license to a couple for the same reason -- not meeting the minimum requirements of comprising of one man and one woman.
    What the SJC did - codifying an anomaly of nature into law via the branch of government that has no right legislating - is un-American. It is anti-constitutional. We should not need a constitutional amendment to protect marriage. The four justices who wrote the majority decision should be impeached and removed from the bench forthwith. The cowards in our legislature -- specifically the leadership -- should be removed from office at the next election, and a civil union law granting any two people all the legal protection a marriage affords should be legislated immediately. Call it what you want, but it simply is not a marriage.
    Kind Regards
    - BA

  • 2/24 7:24pm BA, it sounds like you agree that marriages licensed by the state (non-religious) should be open to all American citizens. Right on! It isn't worth engaging in a debate about the intent of the people who wrote the state and federal constitutions with regard to amendments and rights. Yes, there is no "right to marriage," strictly speaking. There is no "right" to drive a car or go fishing or fly a kite in the constitution. You must know that the constitution states that "no state shall make or enforce any law which shall...deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." You can't bar people from getting a driver's license or a fishing license or a marriage license because of the color of their skin, religion, sexual orientation, hair color, or height.
    - DAF

  • 2/24 3:00pm In response to DAF's comment: "What other rights should the majority be able to vote out of existence? Shall we submit the right to bear arms to a vote? Public opinion polls have consistently shown that 54% to 58% of Americans want to ban domestic manufacture of handguns."
    Unlike the so-called, nonexistent rights to abortion or gay marriage, that the courts have made up and claim to have found in the Constitution, the right to bear arms in explicitly IN the constitution -- the second amendment.
    If you wish to repeal the second amendment, the founding fathers graciously provided you the tools to do so. You can amend the constitution, which is the exact position this state is in because of SJC's legislating from the bench.
    Regarding your main point: Your argument is fundamentally wrong. There is no right to marriage. A marriage license from the state, like a driver's license from the state, is a privilege granted by the state and can therefore be regulated in any way the state desires. As far as "rights" go, homosexuals have every right to marry someone of the opposite sex as I do.
    And just for the record, I think the state has no business in marriage at all. Marriage, I believe, is a religious institution. Any union the state regulates therefore is a civil union and the privileges and responsibilities thereof are available to all.
    Regards,
    - BA

  • 2/23 11:50am Information from Planned Parenthood about our upcoming election:
    The Planned Parenthood Advocacy Fund, the political arm of the Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts, has endorsed Angus McQuilken in the race to succeed Senator Cheryl Jacques in the district that includes the communities of Needham, Wayland, Sherborn, Millis, Norfolk, Wrentham, Plainville, North Attleboro and parts of Wellesley, Natick, Franklin and Attleboro. A special election to fill the Jacques seat will be held on March 2 to coincide with the Massachusetts Presidential Primary.
    McQuilken served as Jacques' chief of staff for 12 years and worked closely with reproductive rights advocates to pass the clinic access and buffer zone laws.
    McQuilken's opponent, Representative Scott Brown of Wrentham, has said he is pro-choice but supports proposed legislation that would impose new and burdensome requirements on women seeking abortions and physicians performing abortions in our state. The so-called "Woman's Right to Know" bill is being supported by Massachusetts House Speaker Thomas Finneran, Massachusetts Citizens for Life and the Massachusetts Catholic Conference.
    - MD

  • 2/23 11:47am RW, Mr. Brown blocked an amendment allowing us to vote on civil unions -- he wants us to only be able to vote on marriage. So if he is saying that he just wants the voters' voices to be heard, well, he is not quite telling the whole story. You ask what is wrong with submitting banning same-sex marriage to a general vote. It is because the majority is sometimes wrong and the courts are there to protect our democracy from the tyranny of the majority. What other rights should the majority be able to vote out of existence? Shall we submit the right to bear arms to a vote? Public opinion polls have consistently shown that 54% to 58% of Americans want to ban domestic manufacture of handguns. As mentioned several times, interracial marriage was looked upon the same way same sex marriage is depicted today by people bent on enforcing their religious views on the rest of us or enshrining their bigotry into our constitution. Looked on today by many I hope this helps you understand the debate.
    As for what you say of Senator Jacques -- that has not been my experience. I felt that the Senator was just as responsive as Mr. Brown has been. Could you share your experiences of being ignored with us?
    - DAF

  • 2/22 6:20pm
    Dear [TEM], Thank you so much for drawing this to our attention and taking the time to inquire as to Angus' position. Angus supports the recent Supreme Judicial Court decision to affirm equal treatment under the law to all Massachusetts families and residents. He opposes any effort to undercut this right.

    I hope this helps to clarify Angus' stand for you and others. Please feel free to contact the campaign with any additional questions you might have.

    Sonia Chang
    Campaign Manager
    Angus McQuilken for State Senate


    - TEM

  • 2/22 12:37am I just don't get this whole debate. I saw that Scott Brown said he wants to give the voters their say, and he'll back the vote whatever we decide. What is wrong with having an election on it. At least Scott will support our vote. I'm sick of seeing Finneran ignore what we vote. Scott has done a lot for us and while I may disagree with his position sometimes, at least he listens. Cheryl never listened to us, what makes anyone think Angus will?
    - RW

  • 2/21 11:07pm PFD, I don't think anyone disregarded your point. I think we hear you loud and clear. The courts are protecting minority rights, we all agree that that's one of their purposes. You don't want them to do that -- you want the majority's will to be imposed on the minority. Personally, I ignored your question about civil unions being "enough" because I thought it was rhetorical. It is akin to asking young black folks in if schools would be enough instead of the same schools as other US citizens. Separate is seldom, if ever, equal.
    Your slippery slope arguments against gay marriage are not convincing. Homosexuality is not against the law. Incest, polygamy, and pedophilia are illegal. If people are allowed their right to join in marriage no matter what color, sex, religion, then there is no reason that the law would be extended to other illegal pairings and no reason that it would be extended to groups larger than two. Saying that the marriage of two people engaged in a legal relationship (homosexuality) opens the door to illegal relationships becoming sanctioned is like saying that since the I have the right to carry a handgun that I will soon be allowed to own my own nuclear weapon. Silly.
    A more intresting question for you to ask yourself is why you feel so comfortable equating homosexual love with incest, polygamy, and pedophilia. There is no slippery slope here. In fact, if you looked at it objectively youd notice that the idea of marriage, the union of two same-sex people pledging to forsake all others, is the exact opposite of what you seem to fear so much.
    - DAF

  • 2/21 3:57pm As is usually the case, the point I was making is totally disregarded. My fundamental rights are being diminished when a small panel of judges can say to me my voice, and the vast majority of voices in this state, does not matter. TC brings up the point of the previous practice of polygamy within the Mormon religion. Why is it no longer allowed? If it is/was normal, why is it now against the law? You disregard my point about marrying family members, but why is that not normal? Because it is offensive? Why is it offensive if people are in love? You are making my point for me when you disregard such simple questions. I will also ask again, if civil unions pass in this state will it be good enough? The same "rights" that gay and lesbian groups have been fighting for will be provided, without the word marriage. I will give you the answer since it is being ignored. The answer is no.
    - PFD

  • 2/21 12:10pm Another brilliant post by TC regarding this issue. I couldn't have said it better myself in responding to PDF. However, I would like to pose one simple question to PDF's not so normal approach to protecting our "fundamental rights." Just what rights are YOU being denied when two members of the same gender are permitted to legally marry?
    - TEM

  • 2/20 8:05pm To PFD and MA: Scott Brown appears in an ad in today's Gazette with Mitt Romney, a prominent member of the Mormon community, in which it was tradition to have multiple wives. Granted, that is no longer the practice (Mitt appears to only have one wife), but let's be honest here; our country's history is littered with practices we would all prefer to forget we ever considered "normal". To compare gay marriage or civil unions to incest is too offensive to be believed. As helpful as it was to have the definition of normal posted, it was not at all illuminating in relation to this discussion, nor was the biology lesson. Is it therefore not "normal" for infertile heterosexual couples to pursue in-vitro fertilization? Are the resulting children less "normal" than those concieved naturally? Last question...what are the fundamental rights of "normal" people you refer to as needing saving by Scott Brown? I didn't know any of my fundamental rights were at stake (I am taking a chance here that I would meet your definition of "normal".) I thought we were merely being asked to extend those rights to others?
    - TC

  • 2/20 5:56pm TEM, what about the people in the state Democratic party that either brought the amendments to the table or supported them? Are you going to put a post up here pointing them out? The lead Democrat for President will not take a stand on it one way or the other. Kerry will wait it out and give his "opinion" after the matter is handled. He thinks the states should handle the issue. What does that mean? DAF, is that leadership? Should I be allowed to marry my sister, mother, grandmother or daughter? These are all people on my wedding license application (I believe there were more) that I could not marry. This is "not normal", but should we allow it? What about multiple husbands or wives? Should we allow it? What is the percentage of people that need to have the above feelings for them to be considered normal?
    If a civil union is passed in this state, will it be good enough? The answer is no. The word marriage needs to be included or the "fundamental rights" of those seeking change will not be satisfied. A few judges make a decision and the fundamental rights of many in this state, republican or democrat, were immediately taken away. Bottom line is this, the legislature in this state is predominantly Democrat and nothing passed. Don't sit here blaming the Republicans when the Democrats were part of it. Do yourself a favor and vote for Scott Brown on March 2nd so our fundamental rights are preserved.
    - PFD

  • 2/20 4:07pm According to the Attleboro Sun Chronicle article State Representative Scott Brown said he supports putting the ban on the ballot, and letting voters decide.
    In the Globe article Scott said it was " not normal for two woman to have a baby".
    "Normal" is defined in Webster's as:
    1. Conforming with, adhering to, or constituting a norm, standard, pattern, level, or type; typical: normal room temperature; one's normal weight; normal diplomatic relations.
    2. Biology. Functioning or occurring in a natural way; lacking observable abnormalities or deficiencies.
    So based on the strict definition of the word "normal", it is not normal for two woman to have a baby.
    - MA

  • 2/20 11:41am Although there seems to be (almost) a consensus on this site that the issue of gay marriage and/or civil unions are not Democratic or Republican issues, it continues to baffle me why our Republican Governor and our Republican President seem hellbent on making it so, the former by his public comments and inappropriate attempts to interfere with the State Legislature, the latter with his public comments aimed at fondling the religious right (once again). Incidentally, I have gone on the McQuilken website and requested clarification of the candidate's views. Hopefully, he or a representative of his campaign will respond directly to this site. Lastly, and just for the record, even if Brown has done a great deal for this community as a number of contributors have claimed, I still cannot support or vote for a candidate that insists on holding on to such antiquated, incomprehensible, and regressive views regarding the fundamental rights of ALL our citizens.
    - TEM

  • 2/20 11:34am PFD, your reasoning eludes me. I've now shown Mr. Brown's votes (against marriages and civil unions), his answer to a 2002 questionnaire explicitly marking his opposition to both marriage and civil unions, and his statements, which every fair-minded person would consider mean-spirited and hostile to our friends, family members, and neighbors who happen to choose partners of the same sex. Even Mr. Brown himself, as you seem to have missed in reading the Globe articles, apologized for his remarks after he received negative public attention.Jane Swift decided against adding him to her campaign (as her Lt. Governor) due, in large part, to his comments which were considered "homophobic" by her advisors. Let's not debate what is "normal" and what is not. The guy said things he later acknowledged were, at best, ignorant.
    To say that he is being "unpolitical" by voting to only allow citizens to decide on same sex marriages and not on civil unions is an interesting point of view. Rather than saying how he feels about these issues (there is ample evidence that he is against both), he says he just wants the people to decide. That's leadership?
    TC makes an excellent point. Before the laws against interracial marriage were ruled unconstitutional in the 1960's, polls showed that over 90% of voters were in favor of banning interracial marriages. The same goes for segregation in the schools before Brown v. Board of Education. The courts (with all of their admitted deficiencies) are meant to protect our democracy and its citizens from the "tyranny of the majority." The courts protect minority rights from the will of the majority -- whether it be the minority group who want to carry concealed handguns (Mr. Brown among them), want to pray in public, want access to quality education without regard to their skin hue, or want to marry someone of the same sex.
    By the way, I'm surprised you do not know Mr. McQuilken's views on this important issue. He has made it abundantly clear. See a recent Boston Herald article on the issue. He is very much against amending our constitution and supports the supreme judicial court's decision.
    As an aside, this desire for an "unpolitical" politician is quixotic. I have never met a politician who is not "political" -- including Mr. Brown and Mr. McQuilken. It goes with the territory -- politics is political. Business is business, cooks cook, bees be, bears bare.
    Now I have to get some work done...Happy voting,
    - DAF

  • 2/19 7:02pm DAF, so looking at your Globe link it looks like Scott Brown is quoted as saying it is not normal for two women to have a baby? Can you explain to me how that is normal? Scott Brown may be personally opposed to civil unions or gay marriage (or he may not be, just because he fills out a form like he did and says there is no middle ground, does not tell me 100% that he is against it), but he would not stand in the way of it going in front of the people on the ballot. If he were politically motivated he would not want this to go before the people either. John Kerry believes it should be decided at the State level, and has not come out with a personal stance on this. Should we warn democrats that they should not vote for Kerry on March 2nd and ultimately in November? McQuilken is on record, as you say, against constitutional amendments, but what is his view on the matter? If you look up his name on Project Vote Smart it does not show, in fact no candidates show as running for Mass state senate. His website does not inform me of his views either.
    - PFD

  • 2/19 6:59pm Surprise - even Republicans have friends, children, and other loved ones who are in same-sex relationships, and want their loved ones to enjoy the protections, security and dignity afforded to opposite-sex couples. True, this issue has quickly, and unfortunately, become a Republican/Democrat issue. What I fail to understand is why on earth would anyone, Republican or Democrat, want to deny another the rights and privileges that the rest of us enjoy? Is it purely because it represents a change? The world is changing, and we must change with it. Remember, African-Americans were not allowed to marry at one time in our history, women were not allowed to vote, those of different races were not allowed to marry. Things change because we get smarter, and more secure in our privileges and rights, and we learn not to be threatened by extending those rights to all citizens. We believe gays and lesbians should pay their taxes, don't we? If everyone is expected to contribute to the society in which they live, they should be afforded the protections the society offers. Seems a shame this will become a make or break issue for candidates who might otherwise have a lot to offer, particularly when there is so little at stake. Scott Brown did indeed make disparaging remarks about same sex unions, and Cheryl Jacques in particular. I read them in horror, and it frankly changed my otherwise positive opinion of him. He has done some great things for Norfolk, no question about it, but he's vying for a bigger role, and he needs to broaden his rather narrow view of family life if he plans to represent us in the Senate.
    - TC

  • 2/19 3:54pm PFD, as I said, I must not have communicated my point. I mentioned Scott Brown specifically because he is running in an election on March 2 to represent us in the Senate. I only mentioned party affiliation because I know that many of my neighbors are Republican and might feel compelled to vote for Brown because of his party affiliation. We are in violent agreement that mean-spiritedness, ignorance, and a lack of regard for civil rights knows no political boundaries. As to your two questions -- Scott Brown has made it clear in the past that he does not support civil unions. In a recent Sun Chronicle article, he is quoted as saying "There is no middle ground." In 2002 he filled out Project Vote Smart's Political Awareness Test clearly marking his opposition to civil unions and to marriage. McQuilken is on record as being against any attempt to rewrite the constitution to discriminate against homosexuals.
    - DAF

  • 2/19 3:29pm PA, it was all over the local news media back in November 2001. Check the Globe archive. In an interview with the Boston Globe, Brown, at the time considering a bid to unseat Jacques, demeaned Jacques' decision to start a family. "They're certainly not married," he said of Jacques and her partner. "There's a difference of philosophy there. Are there two mothers there? Are they husband and wife?" Later in the interview he stated "it's not normal." Brown has opposed same-sex marriage, civil unions, and, I'm assuming from this comment, a woman's right to choose her partner to raise her child. Could you explain who is engaged in "character assassination?" If you are saying that someone is defaming or making false accusations, I beg you to point out any false statements I have made. He did vote as I have said. He did say these things about the person we elected to be our senator.
    - DAF

  • 2/19 2:43pm DAF, can you point out to me in your original post where you mention this is not a Republican/Democrat issue, since I missed it entirely? I did not challenge the facts that you put in your post, I only wanted to point out that it is not only Scott Brown, a republican, that voted against the amendments. You are very quick to point out the unfairness in republicans, but you do not do the same for the democrats. Do we know the full context of the civil union amendment and why it was voted down by Scott Brown? Maybe he is for civil unions, but he did not like that amendment? Until you know those facts I think it is unfair of you to put the type of post you did up on this web site. But that is your opinion and that is why I decided to write back in to make sure a differing opinion of Scott Brown was voiced. Scott Brown has done a lot for this town and he will continue to do so as Senator. On March 2nd Scott Brown will have my vote regardless of whether or not I supported those amendments.
    Do we even know what Angus McQuilken's view is on all of this?
    - PFD

  • 2/19 1:32pm Wm - My point is Scott has worked hard for Norfolk, both in the district and on the Hill, Scott has been to Norfolk events, he didn't send his junior staffer as Jacques regularly did (according to DAF). This type of committment Scott has demonstrated to us will not be diminished on election day by someone like McQuilken who was paid to show up at events for his no-show Senator (Jacques).
    - PC

  • 2/19 1:30pm To DAF: When, where, and in what context did Scott Brown allegedly mock Cheryl Jacques and her lifestyle? I'd hate to stand by idly while a good man's character is assassinated.
    - PA

  • 2/19 1:25pm "Every registered voter, no matter what party, has a reason to send Brown a message." I completely agree. I believe the electorate will send a message and Scott to the Senate.
    It is too bad this campaign has turned into a referendum on a bizarre decision by an out of control legislative judiciary. Scott's position as a reformer is the important message of this campaign - don't let this message get lost.
    - PC

  • 2/19 11:50am It seems that some of PC's posting was cut off to completely change the meaning of the text. Not trying to start a conspiracy theory here, but what gives?
    - EW
    [I cropped a pointless derogatory put-down of McQuilken and Jacques. The missing text [...] was a reference to McQuilken with a leading ``by.'' I apologize if the meaning was obscured; I've now modified the elision to be more reflective of what was replaced.
    ...Actually, on re-reading that post, even in the original it's rather unclear - it literally states that Brown is working against our town. The line in question was probably meant to read, ``Scott Brown worked too hard for this town to be undone by [a junior staffer]'' (with possibly a just after town; my words underlined). However, this is my interpretation only; PC, any comments? - Wm.]

  • 2/19 10:35am PFD, I agree with you that it is not a Republican/Democrat issue -- legislators in both parties were on both sides of the issue. That is exactly the point I was making (perhaps poorly, since you seem to have missed it entirely). My plea was to those who felt that they must support Brown because he is a Republican. You have not challenged my facts -- his votes indicate his desire to not only ban same-sex marriages, but also, his opposition to civil unions. This is in line with his mean-spirited public comments about gays and lesbians in 2001. As for your feelings about the timing of the election -- I agree with you that it was a sneaky maneuver. In fact I posted here about it way back on December 3rd. Nobody seemed to care. Keep in mind that neither McQuilken nor Brown had any say in the matter.
    I hesitate to reply to PC since she (or he) so often appears only to be interested in making demeaning comments and not having an open discussion. Let me just say this: 1) I am not a member of the Democratic party, 2) It really is my concern for equality and justice that requires me to vote against Mr.. Brown in the March 2 election, 3) I like the new apple pie at Dunkin Donuts, 4) Angus McQuilken spent a great deal of time in Norfolk -- he went door to door here just a couple of weeks ago. On the last point, let me also say that I have met Angus several times at dedication ceremonies and other civic events in our town over the years. I remember well that when the new conservation land was dedicated, Angus came to share in the celebration, but Scott Brown did not, nor did any of his assistants. Every registered voter, no matter what party, has a reason to send Brown a message. He can keep his representative seat for now, but he will not be our state senator.
    - DAF

  • 2/19 8:14am I would appreciate some clarification regarding the March 2nd Election and the Democratic Primary Vote. If a voter is registered as an independent (or is undeclared), it is my understanding that he/she is ineligible to participate in the Democratic Primary. Yet on the same day there is a State Senate election (McQuilken vs. Brown). Will there be two separate ballots, one for the primary and one for the state election, so independents can participate in the latter? Or am I mistaken with independent voters eligible to vote in both contests?
    - TEM
    [There will be two ballots, yes, one state, one federal. However, independents will be able to enroll in the Democratic party right at the polls, vote in the Democratic primaries, then, after having finished voting, un-enroll at the desk set up for that purpose. I had to check on this, too - Wm.]

  • 2/18 6:12pm DAF - Thank you for your political ad. I hope nobody believes it was true concern for equality, fairness, and the US Constitution (you forgot apple pie). You are wasting your "enlightened" comments in Scott Brown's Norfolk - he's worked hard for this town to be undone [by a junior staffer.] . McQuilken shouldn't even waste his time here.... wait a second - he hasn't.
    - PC
    [2/19 11:57am Update: I changed the "[...]" to more clearly indicate that the elided section was not additional content but a more ...umm, ``descriptive'' reference to McQuilken. The typo (or criticism), whether Brown really is working hard for the town to be undone, is as in the original. - Wm.]

  • 2/18 4:50pm Even if Scott Brown voted for civil unions it would not be good enough would it? How many Democrats voted against marriage? How many are against civil unions? This is not a Republican/Democrat issue. Scott Brown has done a great job for the people he serves. He will do a great job when he is elected Senator. And since we are ruffling feathers, how convenient was it that Finneran and Travaglini got this "special" election to be on March 2nd? The people that Scott Brown serves are smarter than that and will show up on the 2nd to elect him as our next State Senator.
    Good luck Representative Brown.
    - PFD

  • 2/18 2:37pm Speaking of ruffling feathers...I think it is important for Norfolk citizens to note that last week Scott Brown voted in favor of two proposed constitutional amendments that would have banned gay marriage without establishing civil unions. In addition, he voted against a ban on gay marriage that would have legalized civil unions. Judging by his votes, he is not only against gays and lesbians being married, but he is against them even having civil unions.
    This is not surprising since you may recall back in 2001 Scott Brown publicly mocked Cheryl Jacques, belittling her decision to start a family with her female partner and declaring her relationship "not normal." Even if you are a Republican, if you believe in equality, fairness, and the U.S. Constitution, you should support Angus McQuilken for our State Senator on March 2.
    -DAF


    • Home