Spain moves to legalize gay marriage

Let’s all sit back and watch as the sanctity of marriage (whatever that means) is destroyed.

The Discussion: 14 Comments

And, closer to home, the ACLU is fighting Florida’s ban on gay adoption. Story at

October 2, 2004 @ 1:49 am | Comment

Oh no Chicken Little, Western civilization is doomed!!

October 2, 2004 @ 3:02 am | Comment

Given Spain’s recent political history, I fully expect some coulteroid to make a statement equating gay marriage with terrorist appeasement. In 5… 4… 3…

(Never mind the fact that the arch-fiend Chirac is quite unequivocally AGAINST gay marriage, and has even gone so far as to take legal action against a Green Party mayor who performed one.)

October 2, 2004 @ 3:55 am | Comment

President Bush and Bin Laden agree on this one, it’s the end of human civilization as we know it.

October 2, 2004 @ 10:49 am | Comment

Anyone else find this a little surprising. Gay Marriage being legalized in one of the enclaves of the Catholic Church. I suppose the Spaniards are probably only *nominal* Catholics like most Christians in Europe.

October 2, 2004 @ 12:40 pm | Comment

But Spain isn’t the first overwhelmingly (if nominally) Catholic country in Europe to legalize gay marriage; Belgium did so two years ago.

I was there yesterday, and so far it hasn’t collapsed. At least not that I could see.

October 2, 2004 @ 2:58 pm | Comment

I don’t know, Vaara; I’m hearing reports from Hugh Hewitt that marriage’s sanctity in Belgium has been uttery demolished, and straight married couples find their lives and their relations shattered and meaningless. Pity.

Jing, Spain is Catholic, for sure, but that doesn’t mean they’re fundamentalist, like so many in America. I think they know that Jesus Christ is a very loving God, and that he would never want to discriminate against good people whose sole crime is loving one another.

October 2, 2004 @ 4:01 pm | Comment

The plan, which will also give gay couples the right to adopt, “recognises all rights for homosexuals, when it comes to qualifying for a pension, administering an estate, asking for a loan, authorising surgery for a partner but also to adopt a child…..

says it all.

Why deny gay couples these basic rights? Try not to think of SEX per se – incidentally that’s private between two consenting adults, and none of our bloody business.

October 2, 2004 @ 7:47 pm | Comment

The problem is that Spain is fundementally different from America, you simply can’t equate what would happen in Spain when gay marriage is legalized with what would happen in the US.

Spain is a much older and more emotionally stable country than America and it is more secure in its sense of identity, national and sexual.

A simple example of this is that in America there were hundreds of religious and moralist (pro family etc) groups protesting against gay marriage, and there were hundreds of homosexual couples protesting for it. The people being denied marriage were turning it into a human rights issue and the people against it were afraid of ‘the next step’ or that you might have gay marraige this week and compulsors gay sex education in schools next week.

People were worried that there would be hundreds of gay date rap cases or that children might be lured into gay lifestyles like they are lured into other alternative lifestyles like being vegetarian or a Republican. In Europe there is very little of this because people are more practical and less emotional about things.

In Europe there has been a little discussion about the practicalities and the discrimination, a few people have been worried about sexual preditors, but there have been no riots or murders. Only a few low key parades of solidarity.

Almost nobody has protested against it.

European pro gay groups are also not activly recruiting members, which helps a lot.

It won’t bring down Euopean society because European society has stronger foundations and less irate passion about the issue, but it might bring down American society, or at least result in riots and deaths.

Richard is right, there are a lot less fundamentalists in Europe. People are more secure with themselves and their identities so they don’t feel the need to protest against what other people are doing.


I’m not a radical or a hate monger, but a child raised by two homosexuals is going to get beaten and taunted every day their school lives. They might be loved at home, but they are going to be so miserable at school. Society is wired to pick out people who are different, a child with two same sex parents is going to be a bully magnet.

Is it fair to allow people to be adopted by same sex parents before society is read to accept this arangement?

No offense to people wanting to adopt, but given the problems that mixed race children and adoptions cause in terms of schoolyard bullying, the US just isn’t ready to handle it.


*nominal* This is extremly offensive, racist and derogatory, I will presume that you have never been to Europe, met and that you don’t know the meaning of this word and I will tell you that people in Europe often view Americans in this field the same way that Americans view fundamentalist Muslims.

Your talking out the back of your head, and talking very offensivly at that, an apology is in order, RIGHT NOW.

October 3, 2004 @ 1:01 am | Comment


How exactly is it “offensive” to point out that although most people in Belgium and Spain self-identify as Catholic, few of them attend church regularly or go to confession, and most of them gleefully ignore the Pope’s entreaties on contraception and homosexuality? That’s the definition of a “nominal” Catholic as far as I’m concerned.

October 3, 2004 @ 3:06 am | Comment

ACB, I really think you’re wrong about gay adoption. From all I’ve heard, it’s been successful so far, and I don’t know of any research showing the children are subject to taunts or abuse because of it.

October 3, 2004 @ 9:58 am | Comment

I second vaara, huh?

Heres a dictionary entry in case you were curious as to what *Nominal means*



a. Of, resembling, relating to, or consisting of a name or names.

b. Assigned to or bearing a person’s name: nominal shares.

2 (This is the most common usage of the word) Existing in name only.

Take a chill pill.

October 3, 2004 @ 5:37 pm | Comment

Richard, chile!!

Well, my ma used to luvrrve reading dat lady writin’ for International Herald Tribute about pretty clothes n all, Happy…Hebe,thank you, dear…Dorsey.

Hebe wrote once that `in the fashion business,the women are crazy about clothes and the men crazy about EACH OTHER.’

Lord, me. My poor ma couldn’t button up right, fo’ WEEKS!!! But that’s life, honey: we all gotta wear clothes. We just wear them diff’rent, right??

Anyway, those two boys….SHHHH..upstairs helped me pick dis nice Oscar de la Renta cheongsam dress! China is BIGGG..G in fashion, this year, chile.

Dem boys got good taste in clothes…& PRESIDENTS! They’s gonna vote Kerry, and that’s K-E-R-R-Y! Mmm…wahhh!!!

October 4, 2004 @ 1:32 am | Comment

I completely disagreee with the moron criticising adoption by gay couples. Lesbians and gays do have children of their own from previous marriages or in other ways, their children are as normal as any other children, and they are not beaten in school any more than kids with heterosexual parents. Thirty years ago, being son to a single mother was a social disgrace, reason to be discriminated agisnt in school and in many otheer ways. The situation has changed dramatically since then, nobody is surprised by single mothers, it is seen as something normal, and gay parenting is becoming more normal as well.

Btw, I feel so proud of the Spanish Government! Tomorrow it´s gay pride parade in Madrid. Last year 1 million people attended, and I guess this year the 1.5 million mark might be reached!

July 1, 2005 @ 8:57 pm | Comment

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.