Mass. court upholds same-sex marriage

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Sat Feb 21, 2004 5:36 pm

Actually Ferno, there's nothing that says gays can't get married -- just that they can only marry people of the opposite sex, same as the rest of us.

We've been over this too many times for you to not know that by now. Gays are perfectly free to marry -- they're just not free to marry the people they want to, because they don't meet the necessary critera of "one male and one female". That's pretty different from saying blacks can't get married.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Sat Feb 21, 2004 5:47 pm

The San Fran judge and the Alabama judge both should have recused themselves if they wanted to engage in civil disobedience.

bash · Post by **bash** » Sat Feb 21, 2004 5:52 pm

Ya know, if I were a Black man, I think I'd be getting a little hot under the collar with all these parallels folks keep making. I don't see it and I think it trivializes the legitimate civil rights movement that fought primarily against racism and fought for the right to vote and an education. How folks can say two guys playing *hide the salami* is EXACTLY LIKE such a noble struggle is galling even for a White guy like me.

There is no precedent for same-sex marriage. There are no parallels. Gays are not a race and neither are they denied the right to vote nor an education. This is brave new ground we're treading that should have been negotiated much more carefully than it was. Newsom grandstanded and although a hero today, when the smoke clears I predict he will be vilified in the gay community for the damage he's done.

America wasn't quite ready for same-sex marriage (but it was warming up to the idea) and for SF to have pressed it prematurely and with such arrogance toward the rest of the state/national population was both political and legal suicide for the issue. Just. Plain. Dumb.

Prediction: If Bush is re-elected, a federal Amendment to the US Constitution defining marraige as between a man and a woman will be introduced shortly after his 2nd term begins. And, thanks to antics by the likes of irresponsible pols like Newsom, it will pass.

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Sat Feb 21, 2004 7:14 pm

i was trying to make a point where if you were different from the norm you couldn't take part in the status quo at the relavant time.

whoosh.

"a federal Amendment to the US Constitution defining marraige as between a man and a woman will be introduced shortly after his 2nd term begins."

wow. legislated morality. fun times lay ahead.

bash · Post by **bash** » Sat Feb 21, 2004 8:04 pm

There are differing degrees of different. Race and sexual preference have nothing in common, as far as I can determine. Invoking the Civil Rights Movement just confuses the issue and tries to get a free ride on the backs of American Blacks. Gays will need to win this on their own. Making it emotional blackmail by equating someone who doesn't agree with same-sex marriage with someone who didn't believe Blacks were entitled to vote or to a decent basic education will backfire (and likely lose the gay community a valuable potential ally). It's a transparent attempt to shift the discussion away from what is truly being asked of folks to consider to an area already decided. Also, FWIW, there's plenty of legislated morality in the lawbooks of both our countries. There's nothing new under the sun.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Sat Feb 21, 2004 8:10 pm

Most law is legislated morality.
Remove the laws that are based on morals and there are not many left.

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Sun Feb 22, 2004 12:56 am

you're right will. remove the law about murder and stealing (both based on morality and the ten commandments)and let's see what happens.

Blacks couldn't vote before 1970. gays can't get married outside of Massachusetts and san francisco today.

Of course i don't expect you to see the connection but i'm throwing it out there.

Tetrad · Post by **Tetrad** » Sun Feb 22, 2004 1:04 am

Well you could argue that laws are/should be based off a codified ethical theory rather than semi-arbitrary morals, but that's just me.

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Sun Feb 22, 2004 1:16 am

actually i believe those core laws are pretty much common-sense laws. you kill someone and someone else will be really pissed off and come find you.

driftin off topic here...

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Sun Feb 22, 2004 1:54 am

Lothar,

If you don't want gays to be married; because the word marriage is defined in your eyes as strictly involving a man and a woman, then wouldn't it still be defined as involving only a man and a woman even if a gay couple were to become married? Would your own personal definition change if the law were changed?

So if gays are allowed to be married, wont it still not be marriage in your eyes because it goes against the definition of the word? So if they become married, on your end of the controversy doesn't pretty much nothing change? On your end of the controversy arenâ??t they still not married? I mean, why should I care if they pass a law saying that my bike is a dog? I know it is not. I know they are separate. I know my bike isnâ??t a dog. So what is the importance of this issue if they cannot be married?

So if your own personal definition of the word does not change if the law were changed, then what does change if they are allowed to be married? According to you, they still are not married.

I always hear two main arguments against it. One is that it is not marriage, and two homosexuality in general goes against many peopleâ??s moral beliefs. I have a hard time justifying all if this controversy for the first one.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Sun Feb 22, 2004 3:15 am

Goob, since when does my personal definition of marriage even matter? I haven't told you what my personal definition of marriage is, and it's not likely that you know it. We've been over this before -- I'll never consider any gay union "marriage" no matter what you call it (and there are a number of other things I don't consider marriage, and some I do, that you have no reason to know.) But the question at hand isn't about what I'll consider it, it's about what society and the government will consider it based on the legal definitions.

So, what I'm dealing with is the definition of marriage that's prevelant in our society. If a man says to you "I'm married" you'd quite likely ask him what his wife's name is -- that's the way people, in general, understand the word. Whether I think the marriage is legitimate or not is completely irrelevant. And whether I think a same-sex couple is "married" or not is also completely irrelevant, except perhaps as it pertains to their self-esteem.

We've pretty well established that this isn't a struggle over rights -- because gays already *have* equal rights (they can marry anyone of the proper age and gender who's not too closely related to them, same as the rest of us) and because they won't accept civil unions that grant same-sex couples the same benefits as married couples. It's a struggle over social acceptance -- it's a struggle to hijack the word "marriage" in order to thrust upon society the idea that homosexuality is normal and acceptable. There are two ways to go about this -- either earning social acceptance through behaving as upstanding members of society (which is what I keep advocating), or forcing social pseudo-acceptance through activist courts and lawbreaking mayors (which is what they're doing.) That is, they can either accept that right now, society considers marriage to be between a man and a woman, and they can slowly influence individuals to change their minds and the laws with them -- or they can push the issue to the forefront through activist judges and lawbreaking mayors, and have society push back by codifying the belief that marriage is between a man and a woman because society just isn't ready.

I think bash is right on -- 10 years down the road, gay rights activists are still going to be steaming mad over what's happened this year by their own hands, because they're going to face some significant setbacks (already, it's starting -- since the Mass. court decision, I think 2 more states have passed laws defining marriage as between a man and a woman, and I think there's a bill on the table in one state that explicitly forbids it from recognizing gays as married even if other states do.) By trying to push things through riding on the coattails of the legitimate civil rights movement of the 60's, by trying to equate "being gay" with "being black" and drawing analogies to slavery and jim crow, by treating social unacceptance (without any legitimate lack of rights) as if it was as bad as slavery, and by ignoring the laws already in the books in 37 states and the opinions of the general public, all the gay rights movement has really accomplished is that it's pissed a lot of people off. Simply put, this is not the way to gain social acceptance.

The whole issue is kind of silly, anyway -- because if you need social acceptance in order to feel whole, you have deeper issues. If you're gay but can't be happy until you convince me to talk about you and your partner as "married", you seriously need to reconsider your priorities. If you just want the same benefits as married couples, I've already conceded those, as has the state of Massachussets, in the form of civil unions -- the only thing that hasn't been conceded is social acceptance, and you can't get that through the courts or by drawing analogies to blacks and civil rights. Social acceptance has to be earned by convincing society you're acceptable -- not by forcing society into a court-mandated language restructuring.

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Sun Feb 22, 2004 12:01 pm

I wonâ??t argue with you that they are going about this all wrong. I have had that stance since the beginning of the thread.

Goob, notice I didn't argue gays shouldn't be able to have unions -- only that they shouldn't use the word "marriage". You seem to view the "it violates the meaning of the word" argument as absurd, but at the same time, you balk at the idea of calling it something different. Why is that? Because you realize how important the word "marriage" is -- why, then, do you think it's absurd that others think the word "marriage" is important too? Think about it. â??Lothar previous thread on this issue

So, what makes this important for you? I donâ??t want to argue about societyâ??s definition, I canâ??t challenge and question society â?? only the individuals that make it up. So as a member of society, what changes in your life if gays are allowed to be married? Especially since, by your own words, they are still not married. What makes not allowing them to use that word so important for your side?

For my side, it is simply because they want it. Perhaps it is ridiculous for them to want it (I don't want to argue that either

, the bottom line is they do). But since they do, and I don't see any societal harm in allowing it, then why not allow it. What is the harm done?

bash · Post by **bash** » Sun Feb 22, 2004 4:48 pm

Goob, a victim isn't required. If that were the final litmus test on what we should or should not allow, prostitution, bigamy and herion use (to name just a few) would also be legal. No harm, no foul? Heh. Sorry, Goob, but one has to stand for something and it's up to each individual to decide where they draw the line. The cumulative averaging of where those lines exist in the minds of our citizenry is what ultimately decides where that line is drawn in our lawbooks. The current *crisis* is based mainly on the fact that it makes certain assumptions (*this will eventually happen so let's do it now*) that cannot be made by such a small minority of our population, let alone by individuals with a fairly obvious conflict of interest and a personal agenda. What if Newsom was a bigamist rather than a homosexual, and was forcing bigamy on the nation rather than homosexual marriage? Would we even be having this discussion?

PS All you need to concern yourself with is where you draw your line, not where I draw mine (or where Lothar draws his). When it comes time to vote on the issue, we'll find out where we all stand. But, that assumes the people get their say. That is what is being withheld; not gays' right to wed but our right to decide.

Tetrad · Post by **Tetrad** » Sun Feb 22, 2004 5:46 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by bash:
Goob, a victim isn't required. If that were the final litmus test on what we should or should not allow, prostitution, bigamy and herion use (to name just a few) would also be legal. No harm, no foul? Heh. Sorry, Goob, but one has to stand for something and it's up to each individual to decide where they draw the line. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What's wrong with standing for social libertarian principles?

bash · Post by **bash** » Sun Feb 22, 2004 6:02 pm

Isn't that an oxymoron?

Seriously, though, I have no idea what Social Libertarianism is. Please explain. That said, you can stand for whatever you want and I'll stand where I want, and we can vote to see if there's common ground between us. Isn't America wonderful?

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Sun Feb 22, 2004 6:49 pm

I could easily think of 5 reasons why each of your examples would be harmful to society bash (debatable reasons, but legitimate ones, perhaps with the exception of bigamy). Can you do the same for homosexual marriages? Also on the flip side, it would be easy to argue that not allowing gay marriage does have a negative affect on society. I doubt you could argue the same for your examples.

Bash, Lothar,

What makes this issue important for you?

Bash,

If you concede that there is no harm to society, and since it can be argued that several gays feel oppressed from being denied this act, thus causing some societal harm. Then arenâ??t you ethically forced to have my opinion on this issue since it would be for the greater good?

Gavotte · Post by **Gavotte** » Sun Feb 22, 2004 7:06 pm

It makes me wonder sometimes...

Bash complains about the comparison of Blacks and gays while he expects people not to blink when he compairs homosexual pratices with such things as pedophilia, beastiality and bigamy.

Please, give me a break...

bash · Post by **bash** » Sun Feb 22, 2004 7:59 pm

Once Again For The Reading Impaired:

All you need to concern yourself with is where you draw your line, not where I draw mine (or where Lothar draws his). When it comes time to vote on the issue, we'll find out where we all stand. But, that assumes the people get their say. That is what is being withheld; not gays' right to wed but our right to decide.

Gavotte · Post by **Gavotte** » Sun Feb 22, 2004 8:04 pm

Look kids! Watch bash dodge all the vital subjects to his arguments.. Typical.

bash · Post by **bash** » Sun Feb 22, 2004 9:54 pm

What haven't I covered?

Here's a question for you, KK: Why is the gay community afraid of a popular vote?

* * *

@Goob (so he doesn't accuse me of avoiding the *vital subjects*). Why is this important to me? I really think you're both missing the big picture. If you are one who agrees with what is currently taking place, you are throwing away your voice and advocating that others do so as well because you like the sentiment involved. However, once lost, rights are rarely wrestled back from the government. The next issue might not be so much to your liking. Or the one after that. We observe the Rule of Law in America and we are a democracy that guarantees one-man, one-vote, established to steer us and our evolving laws into the future, whatever future that may be. By ignoring the Rule of Law and circumventing one-man, one-vote we place ourselves on a dangerous path toward losing our democracy. This issue, in particular, is simply too divisive to leave in the hands of only a few folks with questionable motives and commitment to the will of the people. Only the people can decide this one. That is the real meaning of *taking back your country*.

As for your second question (joke?), it is based on concessions you have made, not me. So you'd be better suited to answer it than I.

Tetrad · Post by **Tetrad** » Sun Feb 22, 2004 11:09 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by bash:
Isn't that an oxymoron? Seriously, though, I have no idea what Social Libertarianism is. Please explain. That said, you can stand for whatever you want and I'll stand where I want, and we can vote to see if there's common ground between us. Isn't America wonderful? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's just that all your "standing for" things are more like "standing against". For me, I'm standing for the rights of people to do what the hell they want as long as they don't infringe on the rights of others. Viz. social libertarianism.

bash · Post by **bash** » Sun Feb 22, 2004 11:14 pm

How very hippy. I guess my first appraisal that it's an oxymoron is correct. There are no principles.

Tetrad · Post by **Tetrad** » Mon Feb 23, 2004 12:13 am

Well then, in your terms I draw the line at you drawing the line.

So ha.

bash · Post by **bash** » Mon Feb 23, 2004 12:23 am

Let's vote on it.

Tetrad · Post by **Tetrad** » Mon Feb 23, 2004 12:45 am

Why? This isn't a democracy.

bash · Post by **bash** » Mon Feb 23, 2004 12:55 am

The United States' form of governance is a democracy, but we digress...

Tetrad · Post by **Tetrad** » Mon Feb 23, 2004 1:10 am

No, it's a representative republic.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by bash:
but we digress... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

bash · Post by **bash** » Mon Feb 23, 2004 2:29 am

Main Entry: deÂ·mocÂ·raÂ·cy
Pronunciation: di-'mÃ¤-kr&-sE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -cies
Etymology: Middle French democratie, from Late Latin democratia, from Greek dEmokratia, from dEmos + -kratia -cracy
1 a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections

Main Entry: reÂ·pubÂ·lic
Pronunciation: ri-'p&-blik
Function: noun
Etymology: French rÃ©publique, from Middle French republique, from Latin respublica, from res thing, wealth + publica, feminine of publicus public -- more at REAL, PUBLIC
1 a (1) : a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president (2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government b (1) : a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law (2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government c : a usually specified republican government of a political unit <the French Fourth Republic>

Splitting hairs. Anyway, I'm still interested in KK's views on why the gay community fears a popular vote on the issue (or even a representative vote in Congress).

Tetrad · Post by **Tetrad** » Mon Feb 23, 2004 2:55 am

Two words: majority tyranny.

bash · Post by **bash** » Mon Feb 23, 2004 7:36 am

Gavotte · Post by **Gavotte** » Mon Feb 23, 2004 8:02 am

I'm still here.... looks like you missed me though.

Anyhow, I can't say why the gay community isn't behind a vote becasuse I'm not really connected to it... You are probably right in saying that they would loose. But it makes me wonder why is it such a big issue for hetrosexuals to care so much about mature human beings getting their rocks on with people of the same sex? I mean, do you really care that much to kick and fight it the whole way? Homosexuals are going to get their way.

I still really don't understand why this issue it important for you to fight.

bash · Post by **bash** » Mon Feb 23, 2004 8:10 am

See: bottom, page 4.

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Mon Feb 23, 2004 8:46 am

Bash, that argument was the equivalent to a dog lying on his back and peeing in the air.

What about gay marriage makes you actively voice against it? Again, why is it important to you? I am not asking you if you have a right to your opinion, of course you do. Nor am I asking for a quick break down of the functions of democracy. I donâ??t care if you disagree with what is currently taking place, so do I, so I am sure our reasons are similar! *shock*

I am asking, why is it your opinion that gays should not be married?

To anwser your question. Gays do not want a vote because almost all statistics show that they would lose. I am asking, why is that so? Why is it that almost 65% of American's care to control the actions of homosexuals? Why do other people who are not gay even care what they do?

But since they do, and I don't see any societal harm in allowing it, then why not allow it. What is the harm done? -Goob

Goob, a victim isn't required. -Bash

If you concede that there is no harm to society, and since it can be argued that several gays feel oppressed from being denied this act, thus causing some societal harm. Then arenâ??t you ethically forced to have my opinion on this issue since it would be for the greater good? -Goob

As for your second question (joke?), it is based on concessions you have made, not me. So you'd be better suited to answer it than I. -Bash

So your argument is that there is still harm done to society, but no victims. That in essence, everyone is harmed, while at the same time no one individual is harmed?

Explain how that can be, and then explain how everyone is harmed?

Tyranny · Post by **Tyranny** » Mon Feb 23, 2004 9:48 am

You guys are funny...

I think Goob, Gav and Tet are missing the point completely. This is what I see.

1. Lothar, Bash: We don't like the government taking away decisions that should be left up to the people.

2. Goob, Gav, Tet: Why are you so adamantly against homosexual marriage?

Theres two issues here, but the main issue is the fact that laws are being passed forcing the people to comply with a standard that the majority does NOT agree with just yet.

The fact that this time it has taken the shape of gay marriages is just a unfortunate part of the puzzle. Lothar and Bash probably don't agree with gay unions being defined as marriage, but this is not the point at all.

The arguement isn't that gays shouldn't be allowed to get married, the arguement is that the government should not be able to set in stone that gay unions are "marriage" until WE the people are ready to accept this and then decide to make it so ourselves. A very small body of individuals should not be able to decide what the majority still feels is socially unacceptable until the majority says otherwise.

Basically this would be true for any other topic that involved a law being passed that went against what most Americans feel is right. This goes on all the time with other things that we aren't as aware of and it just so happens that this time it is something that is more visible, as well as vocal, to the public.

It isn't about the gays, thats where the focus is being drawn to though and it is just a bad state of affairs that their rights being forced on to the public is the reason behind all this arguement. Social acceptance takes time, even now gays are more accepted then they were 20 years ago. It takes people living with and or interacting with these people before opinions can be formed and for the most part the opinions are becoming positive, atleast in the mainstream public.

There are still a lot of people though who aren't ready to accept them as equal and may not accept them as equal ever, but people don't live forever and the homosexuals of today may not live to see exact equal rights, but eventually they will be accepted as long as things like this don't continue to happen where laws are being passed before people are ready.

Even for Black equal rights they weren't accepted and still aren't being accepted today by individuals even though huge strides have been made since the 60s in social acceptence long after laws were passed granting them certain equal liberties.

This is really the only similarities between the two since sexual preference and a race of people are completely different from eachother.

Gavotte · Post by **Gavotte** » Mon Feb 23, 2004 10:55 am

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Tyranny:
 You guys are funny...

I think Goob, Gav and Tet are missing the point completely. This is what I see.

1. Lothar, Bash: We don't like the government taking away decisions that should be left up to the people.

2. Goob, Gav, Tet: Why are you so adamantly against homosexual marriage?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Tyranny, read the entire topic before posting or I might pass you off as a skimmer. Here's the point, bash and lothar have made their points very clear that they don't like Homosexual marrige decided for them. If this was something completly diffrent such as new laws on the death penalty or something to do with the lowering of our taxes in the same fashion, we wouldn't have to see bash blabber on about his rights.

Bash and lothar's only defence to the hangups of gay marrige is the "What about my rights?" song and dance... perhaps the question needs to be asked.. do you think they would vote yes to gay marrige if they were presented with the choice? Heh, fat chance judging by the thoughts of bash's (incorrect) thoughts on homosexuality.

I'm not fooled, Lothar and bash don't want gay rights for their own personal reasons. This isn't a topic that should be up for discussion for the majority of the public, religious and anti-gay hetrosexuals should not be the ones deciding what the homosexuals can and cannot do. It is very foolish to claim that letting gays get married will open the floodgates of sexual pervesion and crimes. If you want proof of this, look in other countries that allow it, hell things are better (crime wise) over there then they are here.

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Mon Feb 23, 2004 11:17 am

I think Tyranny has skimmed everything I have written in this thread.

bash · Post by **bash** » Mon Feb 23, 2004 12:13 pm

Actually, Ty has a much clearer understanding than either of you. I get the impression that you'd prefer we talk about the morality of gay marriage and gay *lifestyle*. Fine, start a thread about that and maybe I'll contribute (but I doubt it). Last I checked the topic title, this thread is about the MA court decision and subsequently the SF mayor's decision to circumvent the rule of law and the will of the people.

I'm not fooled, Lothar and bash don't want gay rights for their own personal reasons.

Captain Obvious to the rescue.

KK, I don't have to *fool* anyone about anything; the law, and predictably soon the Constitution, is on my side. If you have a direct question pertaining to the legality of what is occurring, you will get a straight (no pun intended) answer.

But if you two are just trolling to see if you can get someone to say *it's an abomination in the eyes of God*, well, keep trolling but you won't get what you're hoping for from me simply because it's not the issue at hand.

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Mon Feb 23, 2004 2:08 pm

Bash, it was established quite a while back that this thread has two underlying issues. You seem to be guilty of skimming yourself.

This topic cannot be discussed without including the legitimacy of homosexual marriage. Because it is due to those whom share your viewpoint, that has in a since forced the hand of the gay community.

You cannot discuss the consequences and declare the cause as â??off-topicâ?

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Mon Feb 23, 2004 3:42 pm

Actually, the topic *can* be discussed without ever touching on the legitimacy of gay marriages, as bash and I have both demonstrated. What I personally think of gay marriage (and why) is irrelevant, and I'm not going to go there no matter how much trolling you do on the subject. That's not what this thread is about.

What's relevant is that the tactics being used in Mass and SF right now are stripping away rights of ordinary people (and furthermore, they're significantly more likely to sway the average person's opinion or vote against gays than for them.) Doesn't matter what the person's opinion is, it only matters that the Mass SC and the mayor of SF have effectively tried to strip away people's right to use their opinion to influence the government through their vote. Whether you're for or against the content of their decision, they've stripped away your right to participate in the decision. So, We The People have responded by participating in the decision at a higher level -- by pushing for a vote on constitutional amendments in even more states, defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Pushing for a vote -- pushing for everyone to have the ability to participate in the decision, instead of having some activist court or lawbreaking mayor make the decision for us.

If you're against having a vote because you don't like the way you expect it to turn out, you're a hypocrite. "Sure, it's OK to have a vote when it goes my way, but it's wrong to have a vote if it doesn't." That's a Saddam-style election system right there. There's no real power for the people if you only allow them to vote on issues you know they're going to vote your way on. It's a free marketplace of ideas -- if you want the vote to go your way, influence the voters; don't just disallow the vote if you don't like the outcome. That's what this really comes down to. Whether it's gay marriage, abortion, or any other controversial subject (KK, this is specific to your accusations of hypocrisy, since you ignored my earlier post on Roe v Wade) -- pushing it through the courts without giving the people their say is a bigger violation of the people's rights than anything in the patriot act or anything the RIAA has ever done. Give the people their say, and if you don't agree with the outcome, keep working to convince them otherwise.

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Mon Feb 23, 2004 4:03 pm

Actually, the topic *can* be discussed without ever touching on the legitimacy of gay marriages, as bash and I have both demonstrated.

I believe the phrase is, "skimming the surface."

if you want the vote to go your way, influence the voters; don't just disallow the vote if you don't like the outcome

I try to but they refuse to participate in threads where the issue comes up