Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Yahoo)   Law makers in NH want to reach around the gay marriage law   (news.yahoo.com ) divider line
    More: Followup, lawmakers, House Judiciary Committee, constitutional amendments, Concord, state constitutions, town meetings, Adam and Eve, repeal  
•       •       •

6362 clicks; posted to Main » on 21 Jan 2010 at 10:58 AM (6 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



113 Comments   (+0 »)

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2010-01-21 10:34:03 AM  
Three weeks after the state legalized gay marriage, opponents on Wednesday asked a House committee to repeal the law.

"I'm here today about Adam and Eve," state Rep. Alfred Baldasaro testified at a House Judiciary Committee hearing.


It's times like this I wish I had the ability to suddenly show up anywhere at any time, punch someone in the goddamn mouth, and then disappear.
 
2010-01-21 10:40:44 AM  
Dear Alfred Baldasaro,

While I applaud your defense of marriage by using the long standing tradition of invoking Adam & Eve, I think it's time that you and the like-minded asshats that Adam and Eve were never married. Oh sure, I've heard the argument that it was simply "understood" they were married. If we take that angle, we'll have to note that since Eve was a product of Adam, they would qualify them for the ever popular incestuous marriage which, if we ignore Utah for a moment, is frowned upon.

Signed,

Year 2010
 
2010-01-21 10:49:59 AM  
"I'm here today about Adam and Eve,"

The sex toy company?

NOT SAFE FOR WORK (new window)
 
2010-01-21 10:53:17 AM  

I_Am_Weasel: Oh sure, I've heard the argument that it was simply "understood" they were married.


I agree, let's return to the common law definition of marriage. Agency and property rights for those who cohabitate longer than a certain period of time! Stop trying to change marriage, stupid Council of Trent!
 
2010-01-21 10:54:20 AM  
Leave the gays, lesbians alone. What did they ever do to gay marriage opponents, other than exist?
 
2010-01-21 10:57:16 AM  

AirForceVet: Leave the gays, lesbians alone. What did they ever do to gay marriage opponents, other than exist?


Some people just need an `us vs. them', and ever since the blacks got all uppity they had to find a new `them'.
 
2010-01-21 11:02:45 AM  
I'll be watching you!
img684.imageshack.us
 
2010-01-21 11:06:05 AM  

nekom: AirForceVet: Leave the gays, lesbians alone. What did they ever do to gay marriage opponents, other than exist?

Some people just need an `us vs. them', and ever since the blacks got all uppity they had to find a new `them'.


I think this is it on the nose. People really like having an opponent on whom they can focus all of their negative attention and frustrations. For years, it was those of other ethnicities (mostly blacks). Then it was the women. Now it's the gays. I would bet the farm that when America finally makes it illegal to persecute people for their sexual preference that another minority group will become the target of lynchings and cries of "Won't somebody please think of the children?!"

/I'd guess Republicans
 
2010-01-21 11:09:22 AM  
"I'm here today about Adam and Eve,"

This should end the debate right there. Personal religious believes should not hamper another persons right to enjoy life.
 
2010-01-21 11:10:08 AM  
Live Free or Die, my ass.
 
2010-01-21 11:10:38 AM  
So, Marriage was created by Nature?
 
2010-01-21 11:11:15 AM  
Leave it. The fark. Alone.

/Gah. Anger rising.
 
2010-01-21 11:11:34 AM  
Alfred Baldasaro takes it in the pooper. At least that is what I have read....

/penis
 
2010-01-21 11:12:08 AM  
theaeteatus: I agree, let's return to the common law definition of marriage. Agency and property rights for those who cohabitate longer than a certain period of time! Stop trying to change marriage, stupid Council of Trent!
===============================================

Um, if you live together for 7 years you're married by common law. It still exists.
 
2010-01-21 11:12:59 AM  

JDerek: Live Free or Die, my ass.


Voodoo Dildo my ass??
 
2010-01-21 11:14:51 AM  
I like how they keep saying 'let the people decide!' because mob rule is totally the way to decide civil rights.
 
2010-01-21 11:17:25 AM  
I've never had much faith in ever seeing gay marriage be legal across the United States. Especially being born, raised, and residing in the south, I know there are places in this country that would fight such a proposition tooth and nail.

Over the past few years, seeing some states legalize gay marriage has raised my spirits and caused me to question the pessimism in my youth.

But now, seeing these challenges even in the great enlightened north, I once again doubt that gay people will ever have their marriages recognized throughout the U.S.

I understand the opponents fear of it based off of their religious beliefs and what not. But what logical reasons are there for being against gay marriage? How would me being able to marry another man destroy a republican's way of life?

I just don't get it....
 
2010-01-21 11:20:51 AM  
You know, I'd just like to point out to the folks who keep saying "It's Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" that Eve was God's second choice concerning a mate for Adam. God initially suggested that Adam find a mate with one of the many animals in the garden of Eden. It was only after Adam told God he wasn't going to have sex with animals, that God relented and made Eve.

So according to God's plan, men were supposed to have sex with animals.
 
2010-01-21 11:21:03 AM  
For the absolute love of Christ.

Scenario 1: Marriage is religious. This means it's the concern of [insert religion here], not the State. Butt out and let them handle their ceremonies.

Scenario 2: Marriage is the secular business of the State for the establishment of property ownership, division as necessary, and taxation. This means that the majority concern is the ease of writing it as contract/tax law, not the morality of the participants.

In neither scenario does the state have ANY interest in who is participating outside of potential violations of contract law (e.g., you're already married). WTF does it matter if it's a man and a woman, 2 men, or two women (and I'm limiting it pretty much solely on the ease of writing the contract. Someone smart enough can come up with a 3+-way contract if they want to).

I say this as a heterosexual married Christian male: what you and your S.O. do or don't do, behind closed doors, in a religious ceremony, et. al., doesn't concern me in the least (save when I'm gossip-mongering or interested to hear in exciting new perversions, or course).

TL;DR = Stay the fark out of the private affairs of consenting adults.
 
2010-01-21 11:21:03 AM  

Cythraul: But what logical reasons are there for being against gay marriage?


I think the average conservative would say it's about tradition. None of those slippery slope arguments hold up at all. What's next, a man marrying a horse? Well no, that's just absurd, a horse is not a natural person and therefore can not marry any more than it can finance a car. Polygamy? Honestly I don't care about polygamy among consenting adults although that'd be a legal clusterfark.

Looking at it with only logic, a marriage (at least as far as the law is concerned) is a contract entered into by two natural persons. Restricting that based on gender seems to be discrimination any way you look at it.
 
2010-01-21 11:26:07 AM  

Cythraul: I've never had much faith in ever seeing gay marriage be legal across the United States. Especially being born, raised, and residing in the south, I know there are places in this country that would fight such a proposition tooth and nail.

Over the past few years, seeing some states legalize gay marriage has raised my spirits and caused me to question the pessimism in my youth.

But now, seeing these challenges even in the great enlightened north, I once again doubt that gay people will ever have their marriages recognized throughout the U.S.

I understand the opponents fear of it based off of their religious beliefs and what not. But what logical reasons are there for being against gay marriage? How would me being able to marry another man destroy a republican's way of life?

I just don't get it....


Enlightened north? Are you kidding me?

Don't drink the kool-aid. If you want to see real racism and intolerance, Appalachia herself can't hold a candle to the urban centers of our Yankee brethren.

/We got 'em licked on individual stupidity and god-awful accents, tho
 
2010-01-21 11:28:17 AM  
goldenstate.files.wordpress.com

FTFA: "I'm here today about Adam and Eve," state Rep. Alfred Baldasaro testified at a House Judiciary Committee hearing.

He's here to represent Adam and Eve? Fella, they're either fictional or long dead. They don't need your solidarity.

He sounds like he has a wide stance.
 
2010-01-21 11:30:12 AM  
Farking hell, why should I even *care* who someone else marries?

It's not like we heteros have a brilliant record of keeping marriages sacred and wholesome. I sincerely doubt gay marriage is gonna fark it up any more than we have already.

/interacially married - screwing with the sanctity of marriage since time immemorial, apparently
 
2010-01-21 11:32:15 AM  

Cythraul: But what logical reasons are there for being against gay marriage? How would me being able to marry another man destroy a republican's way of life?

I just don't get it....


Hey, now! We'll have none of your sense making shennanigans around here!

While I'm, personally, not teh ghey (at least that's what I tell myself), I will supoport gay marriage until someone can come up with a better argument than:
A.) Da bible sez so!
and, my personal favorite...
B.) B-b-but, if we let the gays marry then people will wanna marry dogs and babies and llamas and trees!!

Until then, STFU! Allowing consenting adults of the same gender to marry DOES NOT effect the perceived sanctity of YOUR marriage or whatever freak show carnival passes as such.
 
2010-01-21 11:34:32 AM  
FTFA: "A man and a woman together create a family where individuals of the same gender cannot create a family," said state Rep. Jordan Ulery, a Republican from Hudson.

See, this is the one thing that always gets me. I can roll my eyes and say "okay, whatever" when someone brings God/The Bible into the equality debate, because that's just blind faith/misinterpretation on their part. However, when someone pulls the so-called "biological function of marriage" out of their ass as a sorry excuse for a reason to deny equal rights to American citizens, I want to punch them in their trachea.

What about the elderly? The sterile? The individuals who want to get married but would rather lick sandpaper for all eternity than have children? I fall into the latter category, and am happily married to someone who feels the same: marriage has nothing to do with the propagation. We do not live in a world in which it is necessary to produce heirs for either financial or title security; we also certainly don't need to pass on vital genetic material for the success of the human race. So stop telling me my only function in life is to get married and have a litter.
 
2010-01-21 11:34:56 AM  
Awww, look at that. The little Republican is angry that gay marriage "interferes" with his favorite bedtime story. Grow up, Republicans.
 
2010-01-21 11:39:45 AM  

Cythraul: How would me being able to marry another man destroy a republican's way of life?


Speaking of Republicans, kudos to Cindy and Meghan McCain for posing for photos endorsing pro-gay marriage forces in California. Even if hubby/dad is a bit of a numbnut about it, at least it doesn't run in the family.
 
2010-01-21 11:41:21 AM  

CarpeScrotum: [Full Metal Jacket Master Chief] I'll be watching you!


Kubrick: "What's a reach-around?"
 
2010-01-21 11:44:32 AM  

Belltower: kudos to Cindy and Meghan McCain for posing for photos endorsing pro-gay marriage forces in California.


Are there any more where Meghan came from? Damn she's hot.
 
2010-01-21 11:45:46 AM  
That's right, marriage is all about makin' the babies for JESUS. That's why we don't allow atheists, the elderly, or sterile people to get married. Right? Right, guys?
 
2010-01-21 11:46:14 AM  
I heard a hilarious piece on NPR the other day where a correspondent was talking about somebody's objections to gay marriage and how there were a couple main objections of the opposition. You could tell she was trying to be all professional in her reporting but when asked what those objections were, she fumbled around with her words for about a minute and a half trying to turn the arguments into a consistent and coherent thought, for the sake of supposed impartiality. It really was funny.
 
2010-01-21 11:46:16 AM  
Headline made me laugh.

/thinks everyone should have the right to marry.
//wonders why anyone really wants to...
 
2010-01-21 11:46:34 AM  

jake3988: theaeteatus: I agree, let's return to the common law definition of marriage. Agency and property rights for those who cohabitate longer than a certain period of time! Stop trying to change marriage, stupid Council of Trent!
===============================================

Um, if you live together for 7 years you're married by common law. It still exists.



I don't think that applies in all states...lemme look that up.
 
2010-01-21 11:48:44 AM  

Belltower: Cythraul: How would me being able to marry another man destroy a republican's way of life?

Speaking of Republicans, kudos to Cindy and Meghan McCain for posing for photos endorsing pro-gay marriage forces in California. Even if hubby/dad is a bit of a numbnut about it, at least it doesn't run in the family.


Female celebrities and figures of influence seem to have more courage in 'coming out' for gay rights and suffer less in the way of consequences then their male cohorts. I've noticed that over my life, and it's something that I've always found interesting.

Good for them, though.
 
2010-01-21 11:51:39 AM  

Carousel Beast: Cythraul: I've never had much faith in ever seeing gay marriage be legal across the United States. Especially being born, raised, and residing in the south, I know there are places in this country that would fight such a proposition tooth and nail.

Over the past few years, seeing some states legalize gay marriage has raised my spirits and caused me to question the pessimism in my youth.

But now, seeing these challenges even in the great enlightened north, I once again doubt that gay people will ever have their marriages recognized throughout the U.S.

I understand the opponents fear of it based off of their religious beliefs and what not. But what logical reasons are there for being against gay marriage? How would me being able to marry another man destroy a republican's way of life?

I just don't get it....

Enlightened north? Are you kidding me?

Don't drink the kool-aid. If you want to see real racism and intolerance, Appalachia herself can't hold a candle to the urban centers of our Yankee brethren.

/We got 'em licked on individual stupidity and god-awful accents, tho


Well, that's just what all those Yankees moving to NC keep telling me, that people up there are more educated and open minded. Except for my sister-in-law (who's from Rhode Island). She pretty much 'tells it like it is.'

I should have put 'enlightened north' in quotes, I guess. ;)

And in my humble opinion, I think our accents are sexy. There, I said it.. y'all.
 
2010-01-21 11:52:29 AM  
Why do people always need to legislate hate? Go home and hate in private ... you can do it while you are praying, privately, in your home.
 
2010-01-21 11:52:41 AM  
thepatriotaxe.com
 
2010-01-21 11:57:44 AM  
If I remember my grade school religion class correctly, Adam & Eve were incestuous sinners who ended up on gods bad side for being greedy thieving dickwads.

Hmm, I guess it does kinda fit then.
 
2010-01-21 11:57:57 AM  
Another strike by the Jesus people against gay rights. Well, human rights in general. The Bible is fiction and should have NO bearing on US law. None. If it did, we'd still have slaves and women would still be property.

This isn't about "saving" marriage. If it were, they would be trying to ban divorce. But they'll never do that, because they THEMSELVES might want to (and in many cases, already have) get divorced some day. No, it's about some homophobic religious nuts trying to hurt people they imagine their "god" hates. Why we listen to or tolerate these barbaric superstitions is beyond me. They should be laughed out of court and told to go spread their venom and hatred on the street corner with all the other wackos holding those "the end is near!" signs.

It's days like this I am disgusted to be an American.
 
2010-01-21 12:01:45 PM  
Shakespeare's Monkey
goldenstate.files.wordpress.com

I must admit I am far from an expert - I know next to nothing about art before the modern era*. However, looking at that painting, the lighting, style and focus, I am willing to bet that the conveniently-placed groin vegetation was not there originally, but added later by someone else.

Maybe even one of Rep. Alfred Baldasaro's ancestors, even if only in spirit and not in blood.

*Mainly because I don't like it. Art is supposed to be about ideas, not things.
 
2010-01-21 12:05:03 PM  
Just come to Massachusetts - sure we don't have Manch-Vegas, but at least we will let you marry whoever you want. And apparently Springfield is very gay friendly.

I'm sure that there are same sex couples getting married right now too, so I can't wait until the inevitable court case where they fight about what their status is.

/annoyed it took a court case to get there, but almost 6 years later our state hasn't destroyed itself yet
//and a lower divorce rate than your state (probably)
 
2010-01-21 12:05:49 PM  
If you can show me where to find the exact financial costs to me, then maybe you can convince me that gay marriage is bad. The AIDS epidemic started long before gays were allowed to get married, so that's a non-starter. They pay for their ceremonies, just like straights, so that's out. Insurance premiums increased for me? Already insurance companies have to insure non-married, significant others, so that one's off the table.

In fact, that last one gets funny, when a guy tries to cover his new honey, but the insurance carrier keeps the previous girl or wife also on the policy.

Marry whoever you want, all I ask is that consent be freely given, by all adult parties. No arranged marriages, and go away NAMBLA.
 
2010-01-21 12:07:16 PM  
I'm a Christian, I'm straight, and I'm married.

That said, this is ridiculous. Personally, I think that there is NO basis for outlawing this form of marriage that isn't religious. And since we live in what is SUPPOSED to be a secular country, there is no room for that religion (whatever it may be) to infiltrate law. Two guys (or gals) getting married doesn't infringe on my rights, so I can't see a reason to ban it. Yes, I think it's wrong due to my religious beliefs, but I'm not going to tell them they can't do it, and frankly, neither should anyone else. If/when they're judged by the Creator, THAT is when "justice" will be meted out. If I'm wrong, and they're never judged, then at least they got to enjoy the same rights as I do.
 
2010-01-21 12:09:37 PM  

jake3988: theaeteatus: I agree, let's return to the common law definition of marriage. Agency and property rights for those who cohabitate longer than a certain period of time! Stop trying to change marriage, stupid Council of Trent!
===============================================

Um, if you live together for 7 years you're married by common law. It still exists.


Yes, in only about a dozen or fewer states (and in NH only after one person dies), and only if you "hold out each other as husband and wife to the public." It's not as magical and automatic as everyone assumes, and in almost all cases there's no minimum time limit. If you're co-habitating for six months and you represent yourself as man and wife and take steps to register yourself as thus, you're married. If you live together for 50 years and do neither of those things, you're not.
 
2010-01-21 12:10:11 PM  
We must do everything in our power to uphold the sanctity of marriage! We cannot let these people pervert it's purpose in creating a stable family in which healthy, well adjusted children can be raised in. I say we create a constitutional amendment to ban... divorce lawyers.

The day I see these "protect our families" people go after divorce the way they're going after homosexuals, then I might give them some credence as actually wanting to protect the family. Until then though, they're just hate spewing bigots.
 
2010-01-21 12:10:13 PM  

Cythraul: But now, seeing these challenges even in the great enlightened north, I once again doubt that gay people will ever have their marriages recognized throughout the U.S.


I think gay marriage will inevitably be recognized, because young people care less and less about banning it.

Alas, some changes really do seem to require the older generation to just die off.

nekom: I think the average conservative would say it's about tradition.


It's against God's Law. The more that the country flouts God's Law, the more pissed off he gets, and eventually the special divine protection that the US currently enjoys (as a state founded on Christian principles, by good Christian colonists, who came up with the idea of representative government by Godly men) will be repealed and all manner of horrors will happen.

Loads of people who talk about tradition, it's this rose-colored-glasses view of history that they have in mind, and if you really press them on it, it comes out - yes, it's about religion. Christianity in particular. The whole "the building block of society should be families, not individuals" is from the same place a lot of the time - it should be families, and the women should not be working (so it HAS to be families, at that point).

Meanwhile, you can (and plenty of people do!) have babies without needing to be married, in addition to the various married couples who either can't or don't want to have kids.
 
2010-01-21 12:10:43 PM  

Serious Black: I would bet the farm that when America finally makes it illegal to persecute people for their sexual preference that another minority group will become the target of lynchings and cries of "Won't somebody please think of the children?!"

/I'd guess Republicans



And you'd be wrong. The process has already begun. Gay rights gain more and more acceptance every day, and the smokers and fatasses are becoming the targets of choice now.
 
2010-01-21 12:10:56 PM  

jake3988: theaeteatus: I agree, let's return to the common law definition of marriage. Agency and property rights for those who cohabitate longer than a certain period of time! Stop trying to change marriage, stupid Council of Trent!
===============================================

Um, if you live together for 7 years you're married by common law. It still exists.


Um, only in a few jurisdictions, and it's open to a legal fight.

//Protip: never take legal advice on the internet
 
2010-01-21 12:11:25 PM  

munkeh: Adam & Eve were incestuous sinners


Ya gotta admit, the pickings were definitely slim.

/remembers friends really not liking it when my innocent child self asked that question
 
2010-01-21 12:17:10 PM  

Meatschool: And since we live in what is SUPPOSED to be a secular country, there is no room for that religion (whatever it may be) to infiltrate law.


Agreed. But for many, "secular" really needs to be in quotes, because it amounts to "well, yeah, technically secular, but the general culture should be made from people who are members of my religion, so where we can't claim religion we can claim tradition - the 'secular' state needs to at least not blatantly violate the setup of my religion."

As the country gets more diverse, though, that easy "well, they're almost the same thing" starts working less and less.

Lots of Americans aren't and never were Christian, at this point (as opposed to the "we're secular but our immediate ancestors were Christian" secular people) and so their "common sense" or just "well, it's traditional" sense is very different.
 
Displayed 50 of 113 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report