Poll shows Pennsylvanians backing sam...

Poll shows Pennsylvanians backing same-sex marriage

There are 105 comments on the The Times-Tribune story from Sep 1, 2011, titled Poll shows Pennsylvanians backing same-sex marriage. In it, The Times-Tribune reports that:

Half of Pennsylvanians favor a constitutional amendment to legalize same-sex marriage, and an even larger percentage think the state should at least allow civil unions, according to a Franklin & Marshall College poll unveiled Wednesday.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Times-Tribune.

First Prev
of 6
Next Last

Since: Oct 09

Location hidden

#101 Oct 6, 2011
Actually it is blatantly obvious that you have not bothered to read about the reasons for marriage and the additional rights afforded to married persons. It is funny that a gay publication actually speaks the truth and you act like it is my fault. Thanks for the chuckle
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
And I see you can't be bothered to care about anyone but yourself, or enter the 21st century, per your brainless comment about high-school drop-outs under the thread "Study: Gays Have Harder Time on the Job Market". You're a know-nothing fool who enjoys spreading hatred and lies. You don't have the slightest idea what I've read about marriage, all you know is that I don't agree with you.
Like everyone else on your side of this issue, you have no real interest in what marriage means to anyone. It's just another excuse to deny gay people, because denying gay people is what you people seem to live for. You would deny a thirsty gay person a glass of water, if that's what they asked for.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#102 Oct 6, 2011
Honest AbeL wrote:
Yeah shortly after the next election
<quoted text>
Oh yeah Habel, keep rubbing......

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#103 Oct 6, 2011
Honest AbeL wrote:
Actually it is blatantly obvious that you have not bothered to read about the reasons for marriage and the additional rights afforded to married persons. It is funny that a gay publication actually speaks the truth and you act like it is my fault. Thanks for the chuckle
WHAT haven't I read? What would you know about what I've read? Did you download my summer reading list? Have you had a peek at my bookshelves? I don't think so.

What would you HAVE me read? Where are these "reasons" carved into stone? What right-wing propaganda would you direct me to? Something that says that only married people can be parents, and that all parents must be married? Something that vastly contradicts the idea that marriage is for two people who wish to contractually commit their lives, property, and futures together? Something that affirms that society will fall and gravity will go up if two people of the same gender were to marry? What wise source do you have in mind, that apparently carries the one-and-only viable, official, permanently decreed definition of marriage? Conservapedia? Could it be something that's written in chapter and verse form? Perhaps YOU'VE written something that's not to be missed?

Like anything with a "definition", marriage is defined by the People. And what do you know, I'm a People! My views, and the views of those that agree with me (gay AND straight), must be counted too. If we want to participate in marriage, it's GOING to happen, eventually. Whatever narrow, exclusionary version of marriage you have in mind, the fact is that our nation's capital, six states, and even two Pacific NW Native American tribes disagree with you. I guess THEY never read your mysterious manifesto either, wherever and whatever it is.

And yes, the obstacles that gay people must navigate are your fault, and the fault of all who enable such discrimination. Like I said, it's obvious that none of you truly care about marriage, or the military, or separation of church and state, or the safety of children, or ANY of the red-herring issues that you claim are important to you. The only common thread you all share is: defying and denying homosexuals. That is your unifying, motivating cause. If gay people want to go forward, then it becomes your CAUSE to push us backward. If we want to go up, then there you are to push us down. If we ASK (doesn't matter what for), then your raison d'etre is to tell us "NO".

Here's proof: The first state constitutional amendments to BAN same-sex marriage, or to define it as one-man-one-woman (including DOMA), didn't begin appearing until the mid- to late-90's. Right about when gay people began demanding this right. It was never important to you people to deny it from us, UNTIL we started asking for it. Goodness gracious, GAY people want something?? Better find a way to make it impossible, and quick, whatever it is!!

You don't really care about protecting anything. If you did, you'd outlaw divorce. You'd penalize single parenting, or unmarried parenting. All you care about is holding everything out of OUR reach.

And, if it wasn't ENOUGH that you make our lives hell, that you invalidate our families, that you spread lies and encourage our ostracization, our beatings, our firings... you CHUCKLE. If this were a serious issue for you, then you'd handle it in a serious manner. But the truth is clear. This kind of bullying is nothing but a LAUGH for you. If you truly had RESPECT for this issue, you'd SHOW it.

Since: Oct 09

Location hidden

#104 Oct 6, 2011
Gays often talk about the Loving decision but fail to understand the laws in question. You wouldn't say foolish things like you just did if you had only read a little bit

Miscegenation laws, forbidding marriage between races, were prevalent in the South and the West. Because English masters had had little regard for indentured servants of non-Anglo ethnic groups, they allowed and sometimes encouraged commingling of their servants. Being seen in public or bringing legitimacy to these relations, however, was not lawful. This is evinced by a court decision from 1630, the first court decision in which a Negro woman and a white man figured prominently. Re Davis (1630) concerned sexual relations between them, the decision stating,“Hugh Davis to be soundly whipt ... for abusing himself to the dishonor of God and shame of Christianity by defiling his body in lying with a Negro, which fault he is to actk. next sabbath day.”40

Virginia passed its first miscegenation law in 1691 as part of “An act for suppressing outlying Slaves.”

And for prevention of that abominable mixture and spurious issue which hereafter may encrease in this dominion, as well by negroes, mulattoes, and Indians intermarrying with English, or other white women, as by their unlawfull accompanying with one another, Be it enacted by the authoritie aforesaid, and it is hereby enacted, that for the time to come, whatsoever English or other white man or woman being free shall intermarry with a negroe, mulatto, or Indian man or woman bond or free shall within three months after such marriage be banished and removed from this dominion forever....41

Another section of the law closed the loophole created by the 1662 birthright law, which mandated that children born of a free white mother and Negro father were technically free. This amendment stated that a free white woman who had a bastard child by a Negro or mulatto man had to pay fifteen pounds sterling within one month of the birth. If she could not pay, she would become an indentured servant for five years. Whether or not the fine was paid, however, the child would be bound in service for thirty years.
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
WHAT haven't I read? What would you know about what I've read? Did you download my summer reading list? Have you had a peek at my bookshelves? I don't think so.
manifesto either, wherever and whatever it is.
defying and denying homosexuals. That is your unifying, motivating cause. If gay people want to go forward, then it becomes your CAUSE to push us backward. If we want to go up, then there you are to push us down. If we ASK (doesn't matter what for), then your raison d'etre is to tell us "NO".
Here's proof: The first state constitutional amendments to BAN same-sex marriage, or to define it as one-man-one-woman (including DOMA), didn't begin appearing until the mid- to late-90's. Right about when gay people began demanding this right. It was never important to you people to deny it from us, UNTIL we started asking for it. Goodness gracious, GAY people want something?? Better find a way to make it impossible, and quick, whatever it is!!
You don't really care about protecting anything. If you did, you'd outlaw divorce. You'd penalize single parenting, or unmarried parenting. All you care about is holding everything out of OUR reach.
And, if it wasn't ENOUGH that you make our lives hell, that you invalidate our families, that you spread lies and encourage our ostracization, our beatings, our firings... you CHUCKLE. If this were a serious issue for you, then you'd handle it in a serious manner. But the truth is clear. This kind of bullying is nothing but a LAUGH for you. If you truly had RESPECT for this issue, you'd SHOW it.

Since: Oct 09

Location hidden

#105 Oct 6, 2011
Try actually understanding the laws that surrounded Loving instead of just a portion of the courts findings

Miscegenation laws, forbidding marriage between races, were prevalent in the South and the West. Because English masters had had little regard for indentured servants of non-Anglo ethnic groups, they allowed and sometimes encouraged commingling of their servants. Being seen in public or bringing legitimacy to these relations, however, was not lawful. This is evinced by a court decision from 1630, the first court decision in which a Negro woman and a white man figured prominently. Re Davis (1630) concerned sexual relations between them, the decision stating,“Hugh Davis to be soundly whipt ... for abusing himself to the dishonor of God and shame of Christianity by defiling his body in lying with a Negro, which fault he is to actk. next sabbath day.”40

Virginia passed its first miscegenation law in 1691 as part of “An act for suppressing outlying Slaves.”

And for prevention of that abominable mixture and spurious issue which hereafter may encrease in this dominion, as well by negroes, mulattoes, and Indians intermarrying with English, or other white women, as by their unlawfull accompanying with one another, Be it enacted by the authoritie aforesaid, and it is hereby enacted, that for the time to come, whatsoever English or other white man or woman being free shall intermarry with a negroe, mulatto, or Indian man or woman bond or free shall within three months after such marriage be banished and removed from this dominion forever....41

Another section of the law closed the loophole created by the 1662 birthright law, which mandated that children born of a free white mother and Negro father were technically free. This amendment stated that a free white woman who had a bastard child by a Negro or mulatto man had to pay fifteen pounds sterling within one month of the birth. If she could not pay, she would become an indentured servant for five years. Whether or not the fine was paid, however, the child would be bound in service for thirty years.

The laws that restricted slaves or indentured servants generally addressed the owners and penalized them for breaking the law. Laws governing slaves allowed masters to beat or kill them under certain circumstances. Nor could they go to court to seek redress. A person of color was not permitted to testify against a white Christian, as illustrated by the 1717 Maryland law:

II. Be it Therefore Enacted, by the right honourable the Lord Proprietary, by and with the advice and consent of his Lordship's Governor, and the Upper and Lower Houses of Assembly, and by the authority of the same, That from and after the end of this present session of assembly, no Negro or mulatto slave, free Negro, or mulatto born of a white woman, during his time of servitude by law, or any Indian slave, or free Indian natives, of this or the neighbouring provinces, be admitted and received as good and valid evidence in law, in any matter or thing whatsoever depending before any court of record, or before any magistrate within this province, wherein any christian white person is concerned.42

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

Catterall, Helen Tunnicliff. Judicial Cases concerning American Slavery and the Negro. 5 vols. Reprint, New York: Octagon Books, 1968 (KF4545.S5 C3 1968).

Finkelman, Paul. Slavery in the Courtroom. Washington: Library of Congress, 1985 (KF4545.S5 A123 1985).

Giddings, Paula. When and Where I Enter: The Impact of Black Women on Race and Sex in America. New York: Bantam Books, 1985 (E185.86 .G49 1985).

Ham, Debra Newman, ed. The African American Odyssey. Washington: Library of Congress, 1998 (E185.53.W3 L53 1998).

McLaurin, Melton A. Celia, a Slave. Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1991 (KF223.C43 M34 1991).
[Top]
red line
Home Table of Contents About the Guide Abbreviations Search
The Library of Congress> > American Memory

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 6
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Franklin & Marshall College Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News First Read: The Clinton Bounce Is Real Aug 4 YouDidntBuildThat 1
News Amid recent turmoil, Trump slips in a Wisconsin... Apr '16 bottlecap 20
News Admiration abounds for Weiner's wife despite pu... (Jul '13) May '15 RayOne 31
News Porn scandal poses risk for Corbett campaign (Oct '14) Oct '14 Tom Corbett Sandusky 2
News Tom Wolf visits Allentown, blasts Gov. Tom Corb... (Oct '14) Oct '14 silly rabbit 1
News Credit Suisse's Steven Rattner Resigns as Chair... (Aug '08) Mar '14 Mair 2
News Kittappa files petitions to run in the 16th (Mar '14) Mar '14 lady 1
More from around the web