Newsgroup: it.comp.console.playstation
Titolo: DOMA

I am really pissed off that the church is getting involved in DOMA.  Having said
that, I am beginning to wonder why everyone on both sides is getting so crazy.
Regardless of the outcome of the election, people will not be able to marry
members of their own sex in California.
Let's say in the future some progressive state surprises everyone and allows
same sex marriage.  I realize that the bill in question would theoretically keep
California from recognizing the marriages performed in other states, but the
reality is that the DOMA law would probably be deemed unconstitutional.
The reason I bring this up, is that it sometimes I think that issues such as
school prayer, compulsory pledge of allegiance and flag burning are kind of like
smoke screens for something else that is really going on.  I mean really, what
the church have to gain with this exercise?  My guess is that this is just
another example of the church trying to prove how "Christian" they really are by
joining in a campaign against homosexuals.  Homosexuals and their supporters are
hardly the core constituency of the church anyway.  Perhaps this is really the
litmus test for the mainline conservative Christian churches in the 90s.
BTW, in this month's issue of OUT, Pat Calfia has an interesting take on same
sex marriage.  I was surprised to find out that she was raised Mormon.  Anyone
who recognizes Ms Calfia's name will also probably be surprised.
David
--
Posted from 
majo...@vector.casti.com
 [199.181.80.100]
via Mailgate.ORG Server - 
http://www.mailgate.org

Ms. Calfia wrote of caring for her dying mother in an issue last year.  He
mother was an administrator at BYU.  She had a similar experience in caring
for her mother to Larry Mann's in caring for his son in that the Good
Christian Saints were little or no help.  I'll look-up the issue after this
weekend and post it unless someone beats me to it.


--
Posted from 
vector.casti.com
 [199.181.80.100]


What is DOMA??
John Nauss in waterloo ontario canada
--
Posted from 
majo...@vector.casti.com
 [199.181.80.100]


 RJC



She is out about being raised Mormon...  its mentiopned in the intro to one 
of her sex advice books...


 >
Being newly returned here and finally turning my attention to broader concerns
than just my immediate family situation, I have a couple of questions
surrounding this topic. Please forgive me if I'm asking for a repeat of
something that has already been hashed out here in detail.
It seems to me that the name "defense of marriage" implies that same-sex
marriages will somehow ruin or destroy (heterosexual) marriage(s). Has anyone
ever asked people who make this implication to explain in causal terms how this
will happen? I mean, how, exactly, will same-sex marriages bring about the
destruction of (heterosexual) marriage? -- And if this question has been asked
of the "defenders", how have they responded?
Perhaps part of what is behind the fear is that homosexuals only increase
through recruitment and that making same-sex marriage legal will give us reason
to increase our "proselyting" efforts, thus diminishing the numbers of people
in heterosexual marriages to the point that mankind ceases to exist because we
are no longer reproducing. -- And behind the recruitment fear seems to be the
misunderstanding of the origin of sexual orientation, whether heterosexual,
bisexual, homosexual, or whatever-else-sexual there may be that we have not yet
identified, categorized or labeled.
Then my mind starts spinning off in more than one direction at once. Where did
people get the idea that there is no sexual orientation except heterosexual?
Religion? Customs and traditions? We are working on these all at various levels
-- philosophically, legally, spiritually, socially, mentally. Who has a big
picture? Is anyone examining all this or are we moving through a vaster
tapestry whose pattern is indiscernable by any one individual?
So, my last question is:  does anyone know of efforts that are working at the
root of the misunderstanding? Or are we only dealing with the issues closer to
the surface (because that is where we are in our development as a sociological
group -- necessarily limiting myself to western society for now)?
I don't expect definitive answers, I guess ... but it sure felt good just
writing down the questions!
Thanks for your indulgence,
Walt
--
Posted from 
vector.casti.com
 [199.181.80.100]


 probably be deemed unconstitutional.
I am sure it would be deemed unconstitutional.  States can't just pass a
law that says "the great state of California (or Utah, or Alabama, or
whatever) will not obey the full faith and credit clause of the
constitution in this particular matter."  The idea of a state nullifying
a federal law, or part of the federal constitution, was settled before
the Civil War.  They Can't Do It.
They can pass a law saying "The great state of Florida (or Kansas, or
whatever) will not issue licenses to be married, and will not authorize
the marriage of anyone except one man and one woman."  That is fine. 
Unfair, but legal.  But they just can't refuse to accept the actions of
another state.  This means that it may never be legal to actually be
married in Utah or Alaska or California (ir this bill passes) but it
will be legal to travel to Vermont or wherever, be married there, and
still be married when you move back to your home state.
Back when I was a young lad, Idaho granted drivers licenses at 14, and
Utah didn't until 16.  But we Idahoans who were under 16 could still
drive in Utah.  They had to honor the Idaho license even though it was
granted under conditions that were not legal in Utah.  "Full faith and
credit" means "FULL," not "to the extent that each state feels
appropriate."
Jon
--
Posted from 
majo...@vector.casti.com
 [199.181.80.100]


 Walt
Jon


> tapestry whose pattern is indiscernible by any one individual?


Hi Folks,
Figured I had to get this off of my chest...especially since the numbers
on this issue just don't balance out...unless I am missing something
MAJOR!
The only way I can see the need for a Defense Of Marriage Act is if the
50%+ divorce rate amongst the Heterosexual population is due to one of
the partners coming out of the closet.  If that were the case, there
should be somewhere around a 30 to 40% increase in the number of out
people walking the face of the U.S.A. (Per Year!<G>)  Now if that were
the case (which it obviously isn't!)  We should have complete Gay &
Lesbian rights secured in all 50 States within another 6 months!
Now, my mathematical model could be a little flawed, as I am using some
assumptions to get the total numbers. <VBG>  But it still seems the
Religious wRong is still working hard to swallow that darn GNAT!
Just some musings from the middle of my day!
Hugs to all!
Dave
Enjoying the Summer heat in Chicago!
