[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 03-05-04 AT 03:50PM (CST)[/font][br][br]Ditto PICB. That being said, I will say I do believe (it is my perception) I have read much more blatant, directed slams than that one around here.
[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 03-05-04 AT 04:18PM (CST)[/font][br][br]I'll explain my own damned message, thank you very much James. It was not a cheap, unprovoked shot at gays. It was not directed at homosexuals at all, but at the states that are screwing around with the laws. If you will read the post instead of jumping to your own conclusions that seem to fit you, you will see that it is directed at heavily Democratic STATES. Nothing was directed at people or persons or lifestyles at all. If you want to censor me for slamming Democrats then do that; but, not under the false guise of telling people I slammed gays.
I will also point out to this fine body that in your last private mail to me after I asked that the thread be removed (I originated it) you said, and I quote, "I'd rather not delete the entire thread, although it makes me uncomfortable". Now there we have it. What gets deleted is what makes James uncomfortable. And the measure of what stays up on the board should not have any connection at all to James' personal comfort level. I don't expect to see this one up long either because it contains too much truth!
(Edit P.S) I don't give a hoot what M. Lee Smith's political persuasion is. That's not the point and is totally irrelevant.
Well, it's probably time for me to weigh in again.
The test we use isn't what offends James, or any of the other folks here who keep an eye on the Forum. What is the test? Well, let me digress and talk about why we host the Forum in the first place.
We created HRhero.com as a tool to help our HR product line subscribers do their jobs. Most of those subscribers are HR directors or other HR professionals. They come to the site to pick up their newsletters, to research what we've written on various subjects, to find other source materials. Sometimes they have questions that require some real-world, in-the-trenches advice from fellow HR professionals. So we created the Forum to let them share. We also opened the Forum to non-subscribers, to entice them to the site and to get the conversation going. But it's always been primarily about our subscribers.
The Forum has obviously grown into more than that. It has become a community -- and that's a very good thing.
We exert editorial control over what we put in our newsletters. We exert editorial control over what we put on the website pages we author. We don't exert much editorial control over the Forum. But we do have some rules, and we have some hard decisions.
Our test for what we'll delete isn't as tight as our tests for what's out of place or in bad taste or otherwise offensive in one of our newsletters. But we do have to be concerned with what our subscribers and other guests will think.
Now, as to this particular controversy:
Parsing Don's actual post, the objection hereabouts was to the cesspool part. I suppose reasonable minds could differ about whether that was intended to slam gays, Democrats, or states. Maybe we misread it; but I'll use the same rule we use all the time in proofreading newsletters -- if we misread it, someone else will, too.
As to why we didn't delete the whole thread: Once someone has responded to a thread, and a conversation has ensued, I'm usually dead-set against deleting the whole thing. It usually raises more questions than it answers.
The discussions in this thread about same-sex marriage have been very good -- from philosophical, theological, political, social standpoints and from an HR standpoint.
Let me know what you think.
Brad Forrister Director of Publishing M. Lee Smith Publishers
I have spent the last 30 minutes reading this thread. I was one of the lucky ones that caught Don's #16 post. I even responded to it.
To cavalierly delete a comment because you misread it and MAYBE someone would misread it too, is alien to us.
You may have created The Forum but we are the ones that gave it identity, personality, emotion, warmth, life. If you wish to destroy the best HR tool on the net, you have made a great start.
I'll tell you what I think. I think you're calling me a liar. You have the comment before you and I have told you what it meant. It appears perfectly clear to me. It refers to Democratic states. If there is a doubt as to what a post means perhaps you should email the poster to ask or perhaps you should recommend they reword it, instead of the quick trigger-finger approach. I also think your collective tails are between your legs now that you see, for the second time around, how many of the participants object to the heavy hand of censorship. There are thousands of posts that we could say might be misunderstood. If that were the true test of censorship on this site, you would censor one out of five posts. I will also tell you that you have no right, nor does any other employee of your organization to, as you say, "parse" my remarks to "DECIDE what was intended". You have every right to infer what you wish and to bounce off the walls in over-reaction to what you imagined I MIGHT have meant. But, you have no right nor ability to DECIDE what I meant. Only I can do that. And I have done that for you. In this case, your staff was absolutely and totally wrong. I expect no apology, nor do I ask for one. However, since you ask "what you think", I will also tell you that rather than run to the immediate aid of the people or person who misunderstood and overreacted to my post, you should be about the business of apologizing to the participants, if not to me. But, I won't hold my breath. th-down
I had read the original post but did not think it overly controversial. When it and all the others were deleted, I thought I must have missed it. I don't speak for anyone but myself, and I will say that I have a broad viewpoint that is accepting of many different perspectives. I don't have to agree, but I do believe in people being able to freely express diverse viewpoints (can you tell I just got back from a diversity training?).
That said, what Brad has done is to remind us that in the final analysis, this is a business website and is here to make a profit, and that they have the power to strike posts, however lightly or fairly they choose to do so. The people moderating this sight will proclaim their fair even-handed approach, though we subscribers and non-subscribers may protest and disagree with their judgement.
I do not hold with personal attacks, or belittling comments regardless of who makes them. I believe everyone has a right to respect until I have determined, in my viewpoint, that they have forfeited it. I must admit, that a sizeable withdrawal has been made from the bank over this one.
I don't own the site, I am a customer. There will be a point where I will vote with my pocketbook. Am I there yet? We will see.
You are, as usual, absolutely correct Marc. For the past 5 years I have purchased and continue to purchase quite a few products offered by M. Lee Smith Publishers. I find them all to be excellent. In fact, I often proclaim their 'What To Do About Personnel Problems' the very Bible of my daily existence. That said, and speaking only for myself, but hearing from some of you privately, I will indeed weigh the totality of my purchasing decisions against all the information I have at hand, including the censorship shenanigans of this particular site. This site is indeed valuable, invaluable in fact, but, as Ritaanz said, we, the customers breath life into it and made it what it is, and we, after all, are the ones who feed it and benefit from it, regardless and in spite of who made the site possible in the first place. It is not infrequently that, in the cesspool of arrogance, businesses forget who the customer is. (I cannot find the checkbook emoticon)
This discussion is incredibly interesting. I hear that marriage is only for the purpose of procreation. So, men with vasectomies and women with hysterectomies cannot marry. Infertile heterosexual people cannot marry. Women past the age of childbirth should not marry. In the 70's a smart person wrote a book about overpopulation and it's still true, although it seems to be ignored, with the current trend of celebrities having children and then splitting up; a 50% divorce rate among straight marriages, domestic violence, "christian" women drowning their children, and on an on. What is it about gay marriage that is so threatening? Many of these people have long-term solid, loving relationships without any of the legal benefits afforded to these so-called stable heterosexual unions. Help me out here.
[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 03-06-04 AT 06:42AM (CST)[/font][br][br]Well, let me ask the you help me out Irene. Are we to be a society of laws or of anarchy? Do we want to continue as a society which somehow goes about the process of passing and enforcing laws or should we, as many suggest, allow ourselves to conform to those laws we agree with and disregard the rest? I disagree with the wave of redefinition of marriage by anybody who seems to want it redefined. As was asked above, where does the line stop moving? Should I be allowed to enter into a loving, consensual, pro-creative relationship with and marry my daughter? Why not? Isn't it only OUR business? Would our decision hurt others or impact society? Well, certainly it would. It would impact the fabric of society if we were to ignore the land's law and do what we wish. It would be abhorent, I would think. Or am I wrong? You tell me. What if, as Paul suggested, I would like to take two wives. Isn't that my business? I don't think the discussion is about loving relationships or benefits at all. What's happening and what's being fostered by public officials who are either breaking laws or forming their own, is stretching, or destroying, the definitions by which our society has chosen to live. I'm not at all concerned, any more, by who lives with whom or what their personal relationship is. I've grown to be OK with that. But, I do have a large problem with some wanting to hijack the definitions and structure and laws that society has adopted, and upon which the majority bases its existence. Some ask "What would Jesus Do?". Some ask "What would Hollywood do?". Some only ask "What do I want to do?". Maybe none of those tests is any more valid than What would my great-grandfather do? Do we really have to wear pants to work next Monday if we would rather not? Isn't it all about my personal comfort and freedom to do as I like? After all, I wouldn't be hurting anyone else and why should I not be allowed to go in naked if I choose to? What if the mayor and police chief in my town agree with me and tell me that's going to be acceptable and they even walk me into the building dropping flower petals along the way, chanting my constitutional right to the pursuit of happiness?
I was just reading last night an article about gay marriage and the direction we are going as a country. Right now, not maybe someday in the future, but in NYC there is one "family" that is made up of 2 gay men, 1 lesbian and 3 children. The children came from the threesome, the lesbian is the mother to all 3 and both gay men shared the duties. As soon as the lesbian finds her partner, they will become a foursome with who knows how many more children to follow. Someone mentioned in a previous post about polygamy. A form of it is already happening. If there were to be some kind of formal marriage with this group, how would it be defined?
Good information Ray. I am amazed by those who remark, "It doesn't matter to me", or "Why should it matter which relationship includes whom", or "What difference does it make". Your post given an indication
[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 03-07-04 AT 10:52AM (CST)[/font][br][br]Dang Ray. I tried to edit my message to make more sense and they've got it fixed now so that you can't edit your own posts. Anyway, I was saying, your post gives an indication of a sideways twist this could all lead to. Your example is probably just an everyday reality that we will see coming to light in thousands of instances in the not so distant future. But, hey, I would like to be one of those people who insist "It doesn't matter to me what other people do". Help me get there. In the meantime, I have developed a serious attraction to this black lab in the back yard who really has come to depend on me for her comfort. It is absolutely NOT a foreign concept that the Constitution will protect me as I pursue this relationship.
Uh Oh. Sorry. "What To Do About Personnel Problems" is one we purchase from a source other than M.L. Smith. Didn't mean to give them credit when none was due.
As the saying goes "Laws were made to be broken", perhaps I don't necessarily agree with that but as times change often the laws that were once appropriate must also be changed. Abortion was illegal until the fight was fought to legalize the procedure. And although one might "morally" find abortion to be wrong women should have the right, otherwise they will be back to back alley abortions and the dangers associated with that. And now we have people fighting to once again make this illegal. Alchol was once illegal and many thought legalizing it would destroy the country, the very fabric of society...we would all become alcoholics and that would lead to ???? The statements of, which I find to be totally absurd and in very poor taste, that legalizing gay marriage could lead to incest/polgamy/beastiality remind me of absurdity of the past like that news broadcast where people thought the earth was being invaded by aliens or that smoking one marijuana cigarette would lead to hard drugs or many many other absurd notions from history. Times change, we must all grow and change as well. The definition of "family" has been changing for a very long time. There was a time years ago that a "divorced mother" like myself, was considered "2nd class", an outcsast; or that having a child out of wedlock was horrendous and meant to be hidden...thank the lord those times have changed. As far as "censoring" this site, I believe it is the duty of M.Lee Smith. Everyone does have a right to their own opinion but I think when that opionion is directly derogatory to another it does not have a place on a public forum.
There is an old saying that nothing changes but change. Judyt929 (may I call you Judy?) the fabric of society is the adherence to law. If society changes (alcohol) then the law needs to be changed. There is no law that one must marry, only that there are societal benefits to marriage, one of which is each state will recognize a lawful union. I think it is pathetic that we need to legislate marriage, or for that matter morailty (Senior executives shall not, upon penalty of prosecution, take from their company, money which does not belong to them or formulate such rules as to permit same. The only objection I have to what two non-heterosexual people want to do is codify their union as "marriage". I am an old fashioned, nonpracticing Jew but I think and feel, marriage should be reserved for two individuals of the opposite sex. The idea of a union for reproductive purposes ONLY is absurd. Should someone require (or desire) a hysterectomy is irrelevant to the issue at hand. I thought the idea of discussing this issue was to present the multitude of problems between and among the states, should one joined couple move to another state that does not recognize that type union? Besides, who really knows what the founding fathers had in mind when they drafted the constitution and the amendments? Certainly they could not have conceived of space travel but we do know there were (men at least) people who had proclivities toward the same sex. If so, why did they not include that in the document? Is it possible they knew they could not be all inclusive - which seems to be the way our courts and lawmakers want us to go. This could go on forever but it is time to return to tic-tac-toe.
Opening up the abortion topic will not do a great deal to advance the discussion of gay marriages. I am all for a persons right to choose, but I think there is a point in the abortion choice that is tantamount to murder. Medical science has advanced in amazing leaps to allow earlier and earlier survival of the fetus, but one thing medical science is still unable to do and may never be able to do, is to determine the point in time that a soul enters the body. Another way to answer is when does a fetus become a child? We see to many stories of teeny, tiny preemies surviving to become viable and horror stories about late term abortions. It is not a comfortable picture.
Everyone has a right to their opinion, and if the Forum were truly public, then free speech rights would direct the actions of the M. Lee Smith editors and they would not have been correct to delete the post in question. This is a commercial site, and that is what gives M. Lee Smith the ability to edit the posts. There are lots of derogatory postings that escape the editors scalpel. Just review the recent furor around Steelboys' (aka Aluminumboy)entry into the fray and you will find insults winging right and left that, in my view, were derogatory, but nonetheless were allowed.
This thread, I am afraid, is probably representative of what will be going on in a larger national scale as this issue heats up. Its an emotional issue on both sides.
If I was a betting man, I would guess that people will soon tire of the issue and say "aw, let them get married". Our nation doesn't have the resolve it once had when it comes to moral issues because we have been told so many times that we have no right to judge others.
I think we have strayed so far that we don't even know we are lost. We compare gray with black and call it white.
I believe we are currently being sidetracked. The issue isn't legalized abortions. For many of us, the issue shouldn't be gay marriages. And while I feel that there are many more issues that are more important to me than gay marriage. As a liberal democrat, I agree with probably almost everyone else in believing that the law must be followed. However, that means that if gay people can elect to office legislators who will change the law, that is their right. It, also, means that I believe that this is an issue for the states and not for federal government. And what makes this really weird is normally the conservatives push states rights, not the liberals.
You make a good point Whatever. The trouble is that regardless of how my state my vote for or against these types of issues, there is a doctrine or law that requires all states to recognize marriages in other states. I don't remember the legal term for it and it covers more than marriage, but the germaine essence is married in one state is married in all. Thus, even if a state has passed a state constitutional amendment recognizing only marriages between a man and a woman, a gay marriage in another state will start the battle. I don't want my company to be the one carrying the fight. Morality aside, we cannot afford it and do not want to be forced into any kind of central role around these issues.
What we are on is a slippery slope. From a business point of view, the expense is one we don't want (or we could get everyone angry and lower the benefits and/or up the ee contribution). Gay marriages is a button issue in New York (and the one that seems to getting all the publicity). Our legislature could pass a law stating that gay marriages in other states will not be recognized (another slippery slope). On a personal basis, I think this is a terrible idea. What probably cannot be resolved are the questions of what is a family and what are family values. These are really the issues and gay marriage is just one part of the complicated picture.
I think the term you're looking for is reciprocity between states, Marc. Unfortunately, I think this is too hot a button for all states to automatically recognize same-sex marriages from other states. This is one issue that will, in my opinion, not be settled until it winds up before the US Supreme Court in much the same way that another controversial decision, Roe v. Wade, was settled. And really not even THAT 30 year-old decision has quieted the debate.
Actually, the doctrine is "full faith & credit" - which the U.S. Constitution mandates between states as to judicial decisions and some other legal matters. Reciprocity is slightly different - usually situations where one state has a law that applies to another state's residents as long as the other state gives the first state's residents the same deal.
Brad Forrister Director of Publishing M. Lee Smith Publishers
I've watched this debate transpire since it began last week and I've almost written something three times. I say almost because I kept self-editing my responses as being too inflamatory and deleted my responses before I hit the submit button. Quite simply, I did find the cesspool comment offensive and I was happy to see it leave. That's it. Still like the poster and enjoy the wealth of experience the poster brings, but I didn't like the comment.
As to gay marriage, I am neither gay nor am I a social liberal (whatever the heck that means as I strongly believe in Three-Strikes you're out legislation, the death penalty, Welfare Reform, etc.). I simply believe that this issue is a civil rights issue and to a degree a privacy issue. I reject, very much so, the argument that by allowing gay marriages it will create more work for us in HR. It won't create any more work than any other heterosexual coming in and announcing they too are getting married or need to take FMLA to care for their spouse or ask questions about medical benefits, etc. It's one more person or persons whom I get to serve in HR.
There was a time when women didn't get to vote, a time when Jim Crow laws existed, a time when it was okay to state that Irish folks were the missing link in Darwinism (Racial Discrimination class in college), a time when inter-racial marriages were illegal, a time when Native Americans were rounded up and put on reservations, a time when a Country instituted laws for the mass genocide of Jewish people. Yes, for me this is a civil rights issue, one in which we still practice exclusionary tactics whereby the people who are directly involved are told that you are separate and not equal simply due to sexual preference.
My opinion on this topic is just that, my opinion. I would never hope to change anyone's mind and by stating my opinion, I would hope that it won't generate the wrath of those of you who feel quite strongly the opposite. My opinion really only matters when I'm doing my job, with what I teach my son and how, as someone has already said, I vote.
mwild, that was truly eloquent. I too have avoided posting. My feelings on this issue are strong. I have friends who are homosexuals and this issue affects them in many ways. I absolutely do not think that same sex marriage will lead to legalizing incest or beastiality. I also agree that many past activities were considered abominable and are now legal (interracial marriage). I respect that people have opinions. I also regard this forum as a great wealth of information. It is also a place for people with strong opinions to discuss and debate current issues in a respectful manner. I may have disagreed with others but I don't think anything should have been censored. If I can't hear other's opinions how am I to form my own responses? I think we are all careful not to use foul language on this site but an opinion is not at that level.
[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 03-08-04 AT 01:53PM (CST)[/font][br][br]Mwild,
You'll get no wrath from me. You've allowed me my time on the soapbox and you assuredly deserve your shot.
Strong feelings clearly and respectfully communicated. Its what the forum is all about.
p.s. I've edited my responses several times and have decided NOT to post anything on one occassion. I'm just not sure that anyone really wants to hear (or would understand) all of my views on this subject.
Mwild....you've summarized the argument that I've been making for the last week or so...and hesitated to post.
This is a civil rights issue...and a legal issue. As a nation we prohibit discrimination...and 30 years from now we'll look back and see that this situation is just like those that came before, and did not bring our society down, but rather have made it stronger.
As one generalized example...homosexual couples wanting to have children are typically more willing to take "less adoptable" children and provide great homes that these kids would otherwise not have. This action strenghtens our communities and improves the lives and opportunities of our youngest citizens.
To those that believe it's a sin...I'll say simply that due to the separation of church and state, the church is under no obligation to perform such marriage rites. As in Europe, the marriage is civil in nature, the wedding, a religious ceremony if the couple so chooses.
As for the state laws...many are written ambiguously...citing sexes and ages...but not clearly stating that it has to be one of each to be a legal marriage. I'm certain that it was the intent...but sometimes, semantics is everything...
[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 03-08-04 AT 02:16PM (CST)[/font][br][br]Mwild, I've been wondering why you haven't posted on this. You're usually so "vocal" about things.x:D I'm glad you and others did post. I love seeing differing opinions, especially when they are expressed reasonably.
That being said I still stand behind my previous argument. If I want to marry 2 more women how can the government deny me that "right"? Who are we hurting? If I want to marry my cousin, how can the government deny me that "right"? Again, who are we hurting? It's a private matter, and I can't help falling in love with 3 people or a relative. I'm not arguing animals because animals aren't covered under the constitution, only people are.
The only response to this argument is- "that's absurd." Is it really though? Carry the same logic that we are hearing for gay marriage and apply it to those situations. It may not happen tomorrow or next week, but it will happen. I have plenty of gay friends, and I understand and appreciate their POV, but as I've said before, if we change it for them, we need to change it for all.
This has been a great discussion and I've enjoyed it. I'm done with this topic, so as Forrest Gump says, "That's all I have to say about that." x;-)
Nicely put Mwild. I have refrained from posting an opinion regarding the right or wrong of the gay marriage issue, but have been very vocal about the censorship that occured.
As to gay marriage, I admit to be torn about it. From an employer perspective, I am concerned about all the issues that may impact us. That may be more of an issue for our insurance carriers. We have several gay employees in our shop. One in particular has done what deniseE suggested by fostering and then adopting three abandoned babies - beautiful children, one a crack baby and the other two from very difficult situations. The ladies involved have given these children a chance at a good life that it is doubtful they would have had with their natural parents.
I also have a gay sister who has been in two or three long term relationships over the past couple of decades. Her coming out was very hard on our family, but we all love her and want her to have happiness in her life. She has never expressed a desire to be married, but we are visiting my parents next week and I will ask her if this is something she may want in her life. With respect to matters of Right and Wrong, I will admit to not knowing. I don't think my sister chose to be gay, I think she is gay. That makes a difference to me.
Comments
I will also point out to this fine body that in your last private mail to me after I asked that the thread be removed (I originated it) you said, and I quote, "I'd rather not delete the entire thread, although it makes me uncomfortable". Now there we have it. What gets deleted is what makes James uncomfortable. And the measure of what stays up on the board should not have any connection at all to James' personal comfort level. I don't expect to see this one up long either because it contains too much truth!
(Edit P.S) I don't give a hoot what M. Lee Smith's political persuasion is. That's not the point and is totally irrelevant.
The test we use isn't what offends James, or any of the other folks here who keep an eye on the Forum. What is the test? Well, let me digress and talk about why we host the Forum in the first place.
We created HRhero.com as a tool to help our HR product line subscribers do their jobs. Most of those subscribers are HR directors or other HR professionals. They come to the site to pick up their newsletters, to research what we've written on various subjects, to find other source materials. Sometimes they have questions that require some real-world, in-the-trenches advice from fellow HR professionals. So we created the Forum to let them share. We also opened the Forum to non-subscribers, to entice them to the site and to get the conversation going. But it's always been primarily about our subscribers.
The Forum has obviously grown into more than that. It has become a community -- and that's a very good thing.
We exert editorial control over what we put in our newsletters. We exert editorial control over what we put on the website pages we author. We don't exert much editorial control over the Forum. But we do have some rules, and we have some hard decisions.
Our test for what we'll delete isn't as tight as our tests for what's out of place or in bad taste or otherwise offensive in one of our newsletters. But we do have to be concerned with what our subscribers and other guests will think.
Now, as to this particular controversy:
Parsing Don's actual post, the objection hereabouts was to the cesspool part. I suppose reasonable minds could differ about whether that was intended to slam gays, Democrats, or states. Maybe we misread it; but I'll use the same rule we use all the time in proofreading newsletters -- if we misread it, someone else will, too.
As to why we didn't delete the whole thread: Once someone has responded to a thread, and a conversation has ensued, I'm usually dead-set against deleting the whole thing. It usually raises more questions than it answers.
The discussions in this thread about same-sex marriage have been very good -- from philosophical, theological, political, social standpoints and from an HR standpoint.
Let me know what you think.
Brad Forrister
Director of Publishing
M. Lee Smith Publishers
I have spent the last 30 minutes reading this thread. I was one of the lucky ones that caught Don's #16 post. I even responded to it.
To cavalierly delete a comment because you misread it and MAYBE someone would misread it too, is alien to us.
You may have created The Forum but we are the ones that gave it identity, personality, emotion, warmth, life. If you wish to destroy the best HR tool on the net, you have made a great start.
That said, what Brad has done is to remind us that in the final analysis, this is a business website and is here to make a profit, and that they have the power to strike posts, however lightly or fairly they choose to do so. The people moderating this sight will proclaim their fair even-handed approach, though we subscribers and non-subscribers may protest and disagree with their judgement.
I do not hold with personal attacks, or belittling comments regardless of who makes them. I believe everyone has a right to respect until I have determined, in my viewpoint, that they have forfeited it. I must admit, that a sizeable withdrawal has been made from the bank over this one.
I don't own the site, I am a customer. There will be a point where I will vote with my pocketbook. Am I there yet? We will see.
As far as "censoring" this site, I believe it is the duty of M.Lee Smith. Everyone does have a right to their own opinion but I think when that opionion is directly derogatory to another it does not have a place on a public forum.
Besides, who really knows what the founding fathers had in mind when they drafted the constitution and the amendments? Certainly they could not have conceived of space travel but we do know there were (men at least) people who had proclivities toward the same sex. If so, why did they not include that in the document? Is it possible they knew they could not be all inclusive - which seems to be the way our courts and lawmakers want us to go. This could go on forever but it is time to return to tic-tac-toe.
Everyone has a right to their opinion, and if the Forum were truly public, then free speech rights would direct the actions of the M. Lee Smith editors and they would not have been correct to delete the post in question. This is a commercial site, and that is what gives M. Lee Smith the ability to edit the posts. There are lots of derogatory postings that escape the editors scalpel. Just review the recent furor around Steelboys' (aka Aluminumboy)entry into the fray and you will find insults winging right and left that, in my view, were derogatory, but nonetheless were allowed.
If I was a betting man, I would guess that people will soon tire of the issue and say "aw, let them get married". Our nation doesn't have the resolve it once had when it comes to moral issues because we have been told so many times that we have no right to judge others.
I think we have strayed so far that we don't even know we are lost. We compare gray with black and call it white.
What probably cannot be resolved are the questions of what is a family and what are family values. These are really the issues and gay marriage is just one part of the complicated picture.
Brad Forrister
Director of Publishing
M. Lee Smith Publishers
As to gay marriage, I am neither gay nor am I a social liberal (whatever the heck that means as I strongly believe in Three-Strikes you're out legislation, the death penalty, Welfare Reform, etc.). I simply believe that this issue is a civil rights issue and to a degree a privacy issue. I reject, very much so, the argument that by allowing gay marriages it will create more work for us in HR. It won't create any more work than any other heterosexual coming in and announcing they too are getting married or need to take FMLA to care for their spouse or ask questions about medical benefits, etc. It's one more person or persons whom I get to serve in HR.
There was a time when women didn't get to vote, a time when Jim Crow laws existed, a time when it was okay to state that Irish folks were the missing link in Darwinism (Racial Discrimination class in college), a time when inter-racial marriages were illegal, a time when Native Americans were rounded up and put on reservations, a time when a Country instituted laws for the mass genocide of Jewish people. Yes, for me this is a civil rights issue, one in which we still practice exclusionary tactics whereby the people who are directly involved are told that you are separate and not equal simply due to sexual preference.
My opinion on this topic is just that, my opinion. I would never hope to change anyone's mind and by stating my opinion, I would hope that it won't generate the wrath of those of you who feel quite strongly the opposite. My opinion really only matters when I'm doing my job, with what I teach my son and how, as someone has already said, I vote.
I absolutely do not think that same sex marriage will lead to legalizing incest or beastiality. I also agree that many past activities were considered abominable and are now legal (interracial marriage).
I respect that people have opinions. I also regard this forum as a great wealth of information. It is also a place for people with strong opinions to discuss and debate current issues in a respectful manner. I may have disagreed with others but I don't think anything should have been censored. If I can't hear other's opinions how am I to form my own responses? I think we are all careful not to use foul language on this site but an opinion is not at that level.
You'll get no wrath from me. You've allowed me my time on the soapbox and you assuredly deserve your shot.
Strong feelings clearly and respectfully communicated. Its what the forum is all about.
p.s. I've edited my responses several times and have decided NOT to post anything on one occassion. I'm just not sure that anyone really wants to hear (or would understand) all of my views on this subject.
This is a civil rights issue...and a legal issue. As a nation we prohibit discrimination...and 30 years from now we'll look back and see that this situation is just like those that came before, and did not bring our society down, but rather have made it stronger.
As one generalized example...homosexual couples wanting to have children are typically more willing to take "less adoptable" children and provide great homes that these kids would otherwise not have. This action strenghtens our communities and improves the lives and opportunities of our youngest citizens.
To those that believe it's a sin...I'll say simply that due to the separation of church and state, the church is under no obligation to perform such marriage rites. As in Europe, the marriage is civil in nature, the wedding, a religious ceremony if the couple so chooses.
As for the state laws...many are written ambiguously...citing sexes and ages...but not clearly stating that it has to be one of each to be a legal marriage. I'm certain that it was the intent...but sometimes, semantics is everything...
That being said I still stand behind my previous argument. If I want to marry 2 more women how can the government deny me that "right"? Who are we hurting?
If I want to marry my cousin, how can the government deny me that "right"? Again, who are we hurting?
It's a private matter, and I can't help falling in love with 3 people or a relative.
I'm not arguing animals because animals aren't covered under the constitution, only people are.
The only response to this argument is- "that's absurd." Is it really though? Carry the same logic that we are hearing for gay marriage and apply it to those situations. It may not happen tomorrow or next week, but it will happen.
I have plenty of gay friends, and I understand and appreciate their POV, but as I've said before, if we change it for them, we need to change it for all.
This has been a great discussion and I've enjoyed it. I'm done with this topic, so as Forrest Gump says, "That's all I have to say about that." x;-)
As to gay marriage, I admit to be torn about it. From an employer perspective, I am concerned about all the issues that may impact us. That may be more of an issue for our insurance carriers. We have several gay employees in our shop. One in particular has done what deniseE suggested by fostering and then adopting three abandoned babies - beautiful children, one a crack baby and the other two from very difficult situations. The ladies involved have given these children a chance at a good life that it is doubtful they would have had with their natural parents.
I also have a gay sister who has been in two or three long term relationships over the past couple of decades. Her coming out was very hard on our family, but we all love her and want her to have happiness in her life. She has never expressed a desire to be married, but we are visiting my parents next week and I will ask her if this is something she may want in her life. With respect to matters of Right and Wrong, I will admit to not knowing. I don't think my sister chose to be gay, I think she is gay. That makes a difference to me.