KO on Prop 8

POSTED BY: Khyron
UPDATED: Friday, November 14, 2008 13:30
VIEWED: 7790
PAGE 1 of 1

KHYRON

Tuesday, November 11, 2008 7:42 AM

One of his better ones:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/10/keith-olbermanns-prop-8-s_n_1
42862.html

------------------------------

What sane person could live in this world and not be crazy?

AURAPTOR

Tuesday, November 11, 2008 4:24 PM

The people have spoken, and that's not good enough? Looks like Gays are asking to be treated special.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

WULFENSTAR

Tuesday, November 11, 2008 4:53 PM

And so...now when people vote against something, if the special interest disagree...it can be overturned.

JUST. FUCKING. GREAT.

Welcome to the domestic tyranny that uses propoganda to brainwash the sheeple.

Time for the true patriots to water the tree of liberty.

RUE

Tuesday, November 11, 2008 4:53 PM

"The people have spoken, and that's not good enough? Looks like Gays are asking to be treated special (sic)."

So, if the majority of people voted to reinstitute slavery would you be OK with that ?

Obviously (and I can't believe I have to point out this obvious fact to you, but apparently I DO have to point out the obvious) there are Constitutional considerations when passing laws.

BTW, gays aren't looking to be 'treated special', they're looking to have exactly the same rights, privileges, limits and responsibilities as everyone else. That 'equal protection under the law' concept you seem to hold in such disdain.

***************************************************************

And yet once again, to no one's surprise, you're wrong.

AURAPTOR

Tuesday, November 11, 2008 5:03 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"The people have spoken, and that's not good enough? Looks like Gays are asking to be treated special (sic)."

So, if the majority of people voted to reinstitute slavery would you be OK with that ?

Obviously (and I can't believe I have to point this obvious fact to you, but apparently I DO have to point out the obvious) there are Constitutional considerations when passing laws.

BTW, gays aren't looking to be 'treated special', they're looking to have exactly the same rights, privileges, limits and responsibilities as everyone else. That 'equal protection under the law' concept you seem to hold in such disdain.

***************************************************************

And yet once again, to no one's surprise, you're wrong.

This ain't close to slavery, and as the #'s show, don't even try to sell that to the blacks either. They don't buy that claim that gays are the 21st century version of blacks and their struggle for REAL civil rights, at a rate of 70-80%.

Gays DO have exactly the same rights as anyone else. That point is moot. As of 2007, California affords domestic partnerships all of the same rights and responsibilities as marriages under state law (Cal. Fam. Code §297.5). Among these:
Making health care decisions for each other in certain circumstances
Hospital and jail visitation rights that were previously reserved for family members related by blood, adoption or marriage to the sick, injured or incarcerated person.
Access to family health insurance plans (Cal. Ins. Code §10121.7)
Spousal insurance policies (auto, life, homeowners etc..), this applies to all forms of insurance through the California Insurance Equality Act (Cal. Ins. Code §381.5)
Sick care and similar family leave
Stepparent adoption procedures
Presumption that both members of the partnership are the parents of a child born into the partnership
Suing for wrongful death of a domestic partner
Rights involving wills, intestate succession, conservatorships and trusts
The same property tax provisions otherwise available only to married couples (Cal. R&T Code §62p)
Access to some survivor pension benefits
Supervision of the Superior Court of California over dissolution and nullity proceedings
The obligation to file state tax returns as a married couple (260k) commencing with the 2007 tax year (Cal R&T Code §18521d)
The right for either partner to take the other partner's surname after registration
Community property rights and responsibilities previously only available to married spouses
The right to request partner support (alimony) upon dissolution of the partnership (divorce)
The same parental rights and responsibilities granted to and imposed upon spouses in a marriage

Not wrong, nor was I wrong before.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

RUE

Tuesday, November 11, 2008 5:06 PM

"Gays DO have exactly the same rights as anyone else."

Except marriage, open adoption, fostering and a few additional of those small unimportant rights..

What you're saying is it's not exactly the same, but it's almost like ... You're advocating separate but equal, aren't you ?

***************************************************************

And once again, you're wrong.

AGENTROUKA

Tuesday, November 11, 2008 5:11 PM

But why the need for separate but equal? If it's all the same, anyway. What riles people do go against it so determinedly?

AURAPTOR

Tuesday, November 11, 2008 5:12 PM

Ignore all the rights and privledges they do have, then yes. Even though they have adoptive stepparent rights and the same parental rights and responsibilities granted to and imposed upon spouses in a marriage

Still right, much to your chagrin.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

RUE

Tuesday, November 11, 2008 5:19 PM

So they have everything EXCEPT a few rights --- let's ignore those, shall we ? After all, almost as good is just as good in Rap world. Hey, just b/c you have to go to the back of the bus doesn't mean you can't ride it --- right ? You've got all the rights that count.

And Rap --- when did you stop being an a-religious independent and become a right-wing religious toadie ?

***************************************************************

Along with that roaring, on fire economy, those stockpiles of WMDs, the 95% of 'them' who don't pay taxes, the torture that wasn't that never happened except when it was by a few bad apples, the eavesdropping that never happened but was legal anyway, and the election of McCain --- you're wrong, to no one's surprise - yet again.

WULFENSTAR

Tuesday, November 11, 2008 5:27 PM

Rue,

Its not a right to get married.

They can have civil unions. Maybe.

You, nor the liberal ilk, can force churches to marry people. Separation of church and state remember?

AURAPTOR

Tuesday, November 11, 2008 5:33 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
So they have everything EXCEPT a few rights --- let's ignore those, shall we ? After all, almost as good is just as good in Rap world. Hey, just b/c you have to go to the back of the bus doesn't mean you can't ride it --- right ? You've got all the rights that count.

And Rap --- when did you stop being an a-religious independent and become a right-wing religious toadie ?

***************************************************************

Along with that roaring, on fire economy, those stockpiles of WMDs, the 95% of 'them' who don't pay taxes, the torture that wasn't that never happened except when it was by a few bad apples, the eavesdropping that never happened but was legal anyway, and the election of McCain --- you're wrong, to no one's surprise - yet again.

This has nothing to do w/ religion, Rue. And as for your little fantasy list, the economy was doing great for most of Bush's 2 terms, 'Slam Dunk' , so said Clinton CIA Director George Tenet, I'm more right than Obama, who'll raise taxes anyone who got a tax cut under Bush ( 40% of Americans have no income tax liability to the Fed Gov't ) blah...blah...blah... I'm far more accurate than you.

I'm right. Period.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

RUE

Tuesday, November 11, 2008 5:34 PM

"You, nor the liberal ilk, can force churches to marry people. Separation of church and state remember?"

Speaking of 'ilk' - wow, anti-black AND anti-gay.

Churches would not be forced to marry gays. That's just a stupid claim (which you obviously believed, so what does that make you ?) to get people riled up.

Here's the REAL issue - what if a church WANTS to marry gays ? Where does the state get off saying they can't get married ?

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

AURAPTOR

Tuesday, November 11, 2008 5:39 PM

Does the state recognize baptisms ? Why should the state be forced to recognized same sex marriages? Have at it, for all I care. But it's not a marriage by any legal standing.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

RUE

Tuesday, November 11, 2008 5:41 PM

Churches, like ships' captains, are recognized by the state as authorities that perform legally binding marriages.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

WULFENSTAR

Tuesday, November 11, 2008 5:43 PM

"Speaking of 'ilk' - wow, anti-black AND anti-gay.."

Wow. I am neither of those things, and as much as you'd like to fit me into a little box like that, you cannot.

Too bad, Rue.

RUE

Tuesday, November 11, 2008 5:49 PM

Well, let's see --- you think racism can be ended by ending affirmative action and you think that gays shouldn't be able to get married.

I personally don't care what REASONS you may give for your hatreds. Whether you claim to be interested in the consitution or you talk about the natural inferiority of certain people it's all the same. The result is you want to deny real equality in favor of inequality.

***************************************************************

BTW - why is it you never thought to ask yourself why there were so many poor blacks in proportion as compared to whites ?

PHOENIXROSE

Tuesday, November 11, 2008 5:52 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
What riles people do go against it so determinedly?

Religion. Which, I'd say, should stay out of politics. This is why I've always taken issue with marriage being a religious institution. If people want to get married in a church, that's their choice, but the dictates of the religion shouldn't rule who can get married. That's not separation of church and state.
Everyone should be able to get married, or everyone should have domestic partnerships. Me, I would be fine with it all being domestic partnership, since marriage is a religious institution an' all. But, you know, marriage has also become a state institution, and it's a tradition, and everyone knows what it means already, that two people who are in love are joining their lives together. Also, it's shorter and easier to say, rolls off the tongue so to speak, and people tend to prefer that in their words and terms. So why not call it all marriage, then? Well, if the Church and their sheeple would stop screaming about it, we could right? Except that again brings up keeping religion out of law... I could just go on in that circle.
Bottom line, calling it something different but claiming it's the same thing is patently ridiculous. Calling it the same thing but saying it was a little different would also be ridiculous. Just let everyone have the same options.

AURAPTOR

Tuesday, November 11, 2008 5:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Churches, like ships' captains, are recognized by the state as authorities that perform legally binding marriages.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

And in CA, legally binding marriages are between 1 man and 1 woman.

So, we agree ! There's no problem!

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

SIGNYM

Tuesday, November 11, 2008 5:58 PM

Quote:
And as for your little fantasy list, the economy was doing great for most of Bush's 2 terms

Shall I re-post the inflation adjusted GDP, income distribution, and Federal Revenue figures again? Or will you please stop beating this dead horse?

Anyone with one eye and two neurons to rub together could see that as the lower two-quintile incomes sank demand was bolstered by borrowing based on a housing bubble which was based on cheap interest rates. Had nothing to do with Bush, and was doomed to come crashing down like the house of cards that it was. I've been predicting this for about a year. My tagline isn't a joke. Get real.

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

RUE

Tuesday, November 11, 2008 6:06 PM

"And in CA, legally binding marriages are between 1 man and 1 woman."

And that is discrimination. Glad you see it my way.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

WULFENSTAR

Tuesday, November 11, 2008 6:20 PM

(Ok, I've had enough. Sorry for the rant, folks.)

"you think racism can be ended by ending affirmative action"...

Yes, I do. Make things equal for everybody, instead of trying to balance the scales against another group, we can finally end the bullshit, and just be folks.

"and you think that gays shouldn't be able to get married."

No, I don't think gays should get "married". They can have the same rights as married people under civil unions. But marriage is a religious institution.

"talk about natural inferiority of certain people"

I don't speak of "natural inferiority". People are people. Period. Cultures ARE different, however, and do I deny that some are more advanced than others? No.

I actually crave "real" equality. For all people, INCLUDING WHITE MEN.

That's really where you can't stand it, Rue.

You are so bitter at the way your life turned out, from the poor choices you made I might add, that you need a scapegoat. The "evil white males", are your "other" of choice.

And I'm sure, in your mind, that you make sense.

It the EWM that stopped you from getting that job. Not your own inexperience, ineptitude or attitude.

Can't buy that McMansion? Its the EWM that prevent women from getting a loan. Not, your bad credit.

No guys ask you out? EWM ALWAYS go for the pretty, stupid ones. Right? It has nothing to do with your attitude, your mouth, YOUR looks, or the idea that only Brad Pitt is good looking enough for you. Right? Not to mention that Brad Pitt also has to always agree with you.

So, you maybe go gay. EWMs AGAIN stand in your way. How dare THEY say you can't get MARRIED??!! Civil UNIONS ARNT GOOD ENOUGH, dammit. Sure, you would have all the rights and privileges, such as there are, from being married...but oh hell no!. You want a CHURCH TO HAVE TO MARRY YOU. After all, how would you walk your "bride" down the aisle?

But, its not just the EWM that contributed to Prop 8 is it? No, now it was those Hispanic men. Which, according to you and your belief structure, are just as bad. "They are too conservative and hold women down," you screech.

And, yes, I will even concede that Hispanic men are conservative. Its part of their culture.

But, Rue can't have that. Oh sure, you'll pule about disenfranchisement, and gentrification, and the white-washing of a culture...but that's only if you AGREE with said culture. Otherwise, you wouldn't mind getting rid of it.

Damn, Rue, you are really fucked up.

So, how about next time you think of opening your stupid Pollock mouth.... Don't.

You can spew your self-hatred somewhere else.

SIGNYM

Tuesday, November 11, 2008 6:21 PM

Quote:
No, I don't think gays should get "married". They can have the same rights as married people under civil unions. But marriage is a religious institution....Sure, you would have all the rights and privileges, such as there are, from being married...but oh hell no!. You want a CHURCH TO HAVE TO MARRY YOU. After all, how would you walk your "bride" down the aisle?

This is 100% wrong. Civil union, marriage, and domestic partnerships are very different from a legal standpoint. Has nothing to do with religion.
First of all, civil unions and domestic partnerships lack MANY of the features of marriage, including portability across state lines, recognition for Federal tax purposes, instant status recognition at hospitals, legal difficulites in obtaining a dissolution etc. It would take a number of (expensive) legal documents to reproduce some of the SAME rights entailed by marriage, including durable power of attorney, HIPPA release, medical power of attorney, wills, etc.

Quote:
The General Accounting Office in 1997 released a list of 1,049 benefits and protections available to heterosexual married couples. These benefits range from federal benefits, such as survivor benefits through Social Security, sick leave to care for ailing partner, tax breaks, veterans benefits and insurance breaks. They also include things like family discounts, obtaining family insurance through your employer, visiting your spouse in the hospital and making medical decisions if your partner is unable to. Civil Unions protect some of these rights, but not all of them.

Secondly, only three states have even "civil unions" Vermont, New Jersey and Connecticut. California and Oregon do NOT recognize "civil unions", they have "domestic partnership laws".

I have absolutely no problem with the concept of gay marriage. I find it ironic that the same peeps who say gays are promiscuous libertines should then restrict homosexuals from expressing their love and commitment in the most durable way possible.

IMHO the only limits that should be placed on marriage are those that would prohibit marriages with inherent imbalances of power between the individuals. We all shrink from the idea of a neurotypical person marrying a "retard", an adult marrying a child, or one person to have many spouses because it allows an inherent imbalance of power. Other than that, I think governments should get OUT of the bedroom.

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

AURAPTOR

Tuesday, November 11, 2008 6:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"And in CA, legally binding marriages are between 1 man and 1 woman."

And that is discrimination. Glad you see it my way.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

There's no discrimination here what so ever. You have no case.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

RIGHTEOUS9

Tuesday, November 11, 2008 6:42 PM

That the people have spoken, is irrelevant when it comes to matters of equality. It saddens me that the people have spoken how they have, but it should not weigh on the duty of the court to declare the measure unconstitutional.

I'm sorry that so many out there, and so many on this board are not staunch defenders of the Spirit of the laws in the Constitution and its Bill of Rights. It is after all, the spirit of equality we are talkig about here. It is the message that is being sent, that "you are not one of us," "you do not get to have this thing that we have." It's so great apparently, that it must not be shared.

By the way, the 9th Amendment is part of the Constitution, and it essentially does give Gays the right to marry. All rights not enumerated in the Constitution should not be construed to deny or disparage others held by the people.

Being that prop 8 flies Directly in the face of the Constitution, which says right at the top that our more perfect union is meant to secure the blessings of liberty,

and being that the law disrespects the 14th amendment which states,

"nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws,"

then it is obvious to me that those of you who would defend this vote, are either ignorant of the Constitution, or uninterested in Protecting the Spirit of our fundamental laws.

I'm not going to call you unamerican, because that's patently ridiculous. You all believe in America, but sadly, you apparently don't know what it is that America is supposed to be, and your thoughts on this issue, do a disservice to us all.

Sure, thoughts are great, and this topic has forced me to do some boning up on my Constitutional understanding, but you have helped to deny rights to your brothers and sisters, you have made us feel less whole as a people, less unified in a common belief in liberty.

This is no different than previous bans on interracial marriage. It helps nobody, and hurts those who would be in love, and would like to demonstrate that love the way the rest of us get to.

SIGNYM

Tuesday, November 11, 2008 6:44 PM

Oh, BTW Wulf... I was also kept from jobs because of my gender. I rememeber being in a very distinct minority in university chemistry. When I worked for a source testing company I was prohibited from doing field work for over a year "because we've always had a woman in the lab". I got so pissed I started looking for another job, and started nagging my boss for field-work, which I finally got. I was sexually harassed at work and threatened with termination because I wouldn't knuckle under to an *sshole boss. When I outlasted the jerks and got a promotion, some peeps wouldn't talk to me for months because I was a woman.

It's not a theoretical problem. Both Rue and I are old enough to remember outright, verbally-expressed discrimination. Please get over your hurt feelings as a "picked on" white male. Most of us have suffered some form of discrimintation or another, some of us more so than others. I recognize your suffering, but you're so wrapped up in YOUR story that it seems to blind you to the problems of others.

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

RUE

Tuesday, November 11, 2008 6:46 PM

Wulf - oddly enough, I'm not bitter, but you do seem to be - as one of those typical 'angry white men' who have it in for anyone who's not a white male.

I have a good job that I enjoy that pays (very) well, I have a loving family who I love very much, and I have good friends. The only thing I worry about is what happens to my disabled family member should I die first, a possibility I've been preparing for nearly two decades.

If you think affirmative action is the CAUSE of discrimination you're seriously, and sadly, mistaken. Discrimination of all types started well before affirmative action (remember slavery ? remember women not having the right to vote or own property ? doesn't that all sound vaguely Taliban-esque ?), and will continue should affirmative action be eliminated.

"You are so bitter at the way your life turned out, from the poor choices you made I might add, that you need a scapegoat. The "evil white males", are your "other" of choice."

BTW
I'm not wrong about the fact that 1) I was the only female in those lines of hundreds of men and 2) I was denied the chance to SUBMIT AN APPLICATION simply because I was female. I was TOLD that but the people at the desk. I never expected a guaranteed apprenticeship - and looking at the line I knew my chances were very poor - probably as close to zero as you can get. But I did expect to be able to at least submit an application.

No matter - I already was accepted to college. I just didn't want to go to college at that time and would have preferred an apprenticeship.

And I'm not wrong about the fact that I was TOLD to not bother submitting the medical school applications, BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T ADMIT FEMALES. Now, they didn't say it was b/c females were inferior, what they said was that they didn't have facilities for females. (That dodge lasted well into the 90's when the Supreme Court ruled it was illegal discrimination.) That was more consequential than the first overt instance of discrimination, but considering that I'm happy with what I do, it didn't make that much of a difference.

As for the rest of your diatribe, it's so stupid it's not worth replying to. But you really need to work on your hatreds.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

SIGNYM

Tuesday, November 11, 2008 6:48 PM

Quote:
There's no discrimination here what so ever. You have no case.

I just posted a whole laundry list of LEGAL differences between marriage and civil union/ domestic partnerhsip and you breeze right past it? If it's a fact you don't like, you ignore it?

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

WULFENSTAR

Tuesday, November 11, 2008 6:53 PM

"then it is obvious to me that those of you who would defend this vote, are either ignorant of the Constitution, or uninterested in Protecting the Spirit of our fundamental laws.

I'm not going to call you unamerican, because that's patently ridiculous. You all believe in America, but sadly, you apparently don't know what it is that America is supposed to be, and your thoughts on this issue, do a disservice to us all."

The "Spirit of the Law" is always up to interpretation.

Which is why, even though it clearly states that the right to have a weapon "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED", is still being "debated". Its "SPIRIT" is questioned.

If we truly followed the LAW, not some fake ass "spirit", we wouldn't even be having these conversations.

Gays could join in civil unions, I could carry a gun wherever I wanted, and we would never have entered into a war without the approval of Congress.

"you apparently don't know what it is that America is supposed to be.."

FUCK.

YOU.

I know that America is NOT supposed to be a PC Nazi state. Where I am forced to follow rules/laws that break my back and spirit.

Its NOT supposed to try and control my thoughts/feelings/words/ideas.

Its not a supposed to be a place where the ruling mafia can force its belief structure down my throat.

MY GOD! Germany is more free than us! Doesn't this ring any alarm bells?!

RUE

Tuesday, November 11, 2008 6:53 PM

Oh, and BTW Wulfie

You hate blacks, gays AND 'Pollocks' ? It just gets better and better, doesn't it ?

Just sayin' ...

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

AURAPTOR

Tuesday, November 11, 2008 6:55 PM

Neither the 9th or the 14 amendments give Gays the right to marry. You're seeing rights there which simply do not exist.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

SIGNYM

Tuesday, November 11, 2008 7:01 PM

Quote:
I know that America is NOT supposed to be a PC Nazi state. Where I am forced to follow rules/laws that break my back and spirit.

How does allowing gays to have the same right to marriage break YOUR spirit? What does it take from YOU? How does it affect YOUR marriage? Are you being forced to marry a man?

Quote:
Its NOT supposed to try and control my thoughts/feelings/words/ideas.

You OTOH like to control the thoughts and feelings of others? Like gays who want to get married? Like pushing the notion of "self-responsibility" instead of "compassion"?Seems like your idea of "freedom" only runs in YOUR direction.

Quote:
Its not a supposed to be a place where the ruling mafia can force its belief structure down my throat.

And likewise, you cannot force your beliefs down other peoples' throats. Everything you've said, Wulf, contains inherent self-contradiction. YOU want things YOUR way and ONLY your way, and anything else is some form of tyranny. You don't seem to realize that you're tyrranizing others.

Whatever happened to "live and let live"?

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

SIGNYM

Tuesday, November 11, 2008 7:02 PM

Quote:
No, I don't think gays should get "married". They can have the same rights as married people under civil unions-Wulf

There's no discrimination here what so ever. You have no case.- Rapo

I just posted a whole laundry list of LEGAL differences between marriage and civil union/ domestic partnerhsip and you breeze right past it? If it's a fact you don't like, you ignore it?-Signy

Just sayin'.

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

RIGHTEOUS9

Tuesday, November 11, 2008 7:06 PM

explain your position Rap. Equal protection under the law means what to you? That a gay guy is perfectly within his rights to marry a woman? I said it clearly, it is the spirit of the law that you are shitting on. You could say that this law is not discriminating, but you would be lying. Discrimination is the message. Disaproval is the message. Jesus, I swear you could just as easily be here defending separate but equal bathroom laws for gays and straights, if such a law passed. You must always take into account the spirit of the law, not just the frikken letter of it.

And what the hell does the 9th amendment mean o you? nothing? just kind of a throwaway that they needed to round out the Bill of Rights with?

AURAPTOR

Tuesday, November 11, 2008 7:14 PM

It doesn't mean a man can marry a man. That's for sure.

The people have spoken. Twice now. Get over it, move on.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

RIGHTEOUS9

Tuesday, November 11, 2008 7:17 PM

Wulf, you crazy motherfucker,

give me the practical application of why marriage cannot be performed between same-sex couples? If the only reason we pass the law is because we don't like the idea of it, then the intention of that law is very much discriminatory.

I think it's "HI-larious" by the way, that you pointed out that Germany is more free than us, a Nation which has Life-Partnerships uniformly across the nation. It's not marriage, but we can't boast that degree of freedom throughout the U.S., so I guess I have to give you that one. They must have stopped naming their children Wulfie over there.

...............

You truly have managed to twist shit around ridiculously in your head. You see somebody elses right to do what they want to as an infrinement of your right not to let them? Is that truly what you're saying here? Good God man!

RIGHTEOUS9

Tuesday, November 11, 2008 7:18 PM

ohhh

is Rap out of all ideas but "majority rule"...

the Constitution will speak, and has over and over...you should get over it and move on.

by the way, those crazy librul judges that declared it unconstitutional last time? I think it was 7 out of 8 that were appointed by republicans.

WULFENSTAR

Tuesday, November 11, 2008 7:26 PM

"Marriage" by definition is a RELIGIOUS institution.

I have never said that gays can't have a civil union or a "Life-Partnership". In fact, if they did, it would end this conversation.

Or would it?

Gays, and their supporters, want the churches and the "synagogues", temples, and whatever else to be forced to "marry" them.

I am against the government forcing religious institutions to go against THEIR BELIEFS.

If the church, or an religious institute believes that marrying a gay is a sin, then they should be allowed to practice that belief, and NOT MARRY THEM.

However, I DO NOT believe that gays shouldnt be allowed the same rights as a heterosexual couple under the the law.

One is a spiritual matter, the other is a law matter.

RIGHTEOUS9

Tuesday, November 11, 2008 7:30 PM

if marriage by definition is a religious institution, then states have no business recognizing any marriages.

It is not though, and marriage predates Christianity, so that is not its origin.

We've been over this before Wulf. A church not only is within its rights not to marry a gay couple, it is within its rights, not to allow gays through its doors.

If a church wants to marry gay couples, would you step on the sepparation of church and state and mandate that it is disallowed?

you are quite aware I hope, that no government agency has stepped in and forced Catholic Churches to make women arch bishops?

WULFENSTAR

Tuesday, November 11, 2008 7:33 PM

You know, it might be better if gays came up with their own "church".

SIGNYM

Tuesday, November 11, 2008 7:34 PM

Quote:
"Marriage" by definition is a RELIGIOUS institution.

No, it is not. I got "married" in a courthouse. No clergy was involved, but nonetheless all of the rights and obligations of "marriage" came with it, including the ability to file joint federal taxes and have our union recognized in all 50 states.

Quote:
I have never said that gays can't have a civil union or a "Life-Partnership". In fact, if they did, it would end this conversation.

IF a "life partnership" COULD be created with all of the rights of marraige I'd be all for that. But that would require that ALL states change THEIR laws to agree to recognize "life partnerships" and Federal law would have to be changed as well. But it doesn't have to be that way, because the LEGAL definition of marriage exists and is recognized in all 50 states.

Quote:
Or would it? Gays, and their supporters, want the churches and the "synagogues", temples, and whatever else to be forced to "marry" them.

No, that is absolutely NOT TRUE. In fact, the vast majority of gay marriages performed in CA were performed at city halls etc. The gay marriages performed in church or synagogue were only performed when the cleric (of whatever faith) volunteered to bless the union.

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

RIGHTEOUS9

Tuesday, November 11, 2008 7:36 PM

there are gay catholics and gay christians, and there are denominations of both where they are welcome, and recognized, and can be married.

They have churches where they are wanted. These degrees of tolerance, and interpretations of the bible are no different than the grand distinctions between catholicism and protestantism, Jahova's witness, Mormanism, Ad nauseum. Nobody has a lock on the true intention of your God, or on the meaning of the words in the bible.

RUE

Tuesday, November 11, 2008 7:37 PM

Wulf

After ALL of the posts you're STILL reduced to 'separate but equal' ? "You know, it might be better if gays came up with their own "church"."

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

SIGNYM

Tuesday, November 11, 2008 7:43 PM

Well there is a serious misunderstanding on Wulf's part, that marriage is a religious institution and that "gay marraige" would require churches to perform "gay marriages".

Look, Wulf as I said, I got "married" in a courthouse. No religion involved, and yet- here I am, married IN THE EYES OF THE LAW.

But let's use YOUR logic: Let's say that legal recognition of "gay marriage" would REQUIRE religions to perform gay marriages.

I'm a hetero. Law recognizes hetero unions. Does that mean that although I was born Catholic, that a synagogue MUST marry me because my "marriage" is recognized by law??? I'm now areligious- are Presbyterian Chruches FORCED to marry me because my marriage is recognized by law??

No.

Churches can refuse to marry whomever THEY refuse to marry, even if THE LAW recognizes the marriage as legal. Marriage in a church is a voluntary act, that means that both Church and partners have to agree to it.

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

WULFENSTAR

Tuesday, November 11, 2008 7:49 PM

Sigy,

Then what the fuck are we talking about?

Btw, your marriage is a civil union. It is recognized by the state, but not by the church of whatever religion you profess in.

I have never said that gays couldn't get what you have.

I don't give a fuck if gays want to get a civil union. But they want it to be recognized as a "marriage", which is a religious institution.

Marriage is different from civil unions. Maybe thats where the confusion lies.

Its different because marriage is recognized by the state and the church of your belief.

RUE

Tuesday, November 11, 2008 8:02 PM

"Definition: A civil marriage is one where the marriage ceremony has a government or civil official perform the ceremony.
A civil marriage is a wedding that takes place without any religious affiliation and meets the legal requirements of the locale."

Marriage is NOT a religious ceremony. BTW - pastors etc are given state authority to perform marriages that are recognized as legal marriages. The religious ceremonies derive their validity from civil laws and are granted authority by civil institutions, not the other way around.

***************************************************************

BTW: That's why the FLDS claims their marriages are 'spiritual marriages' and not legal marriages, b/c they sect hasn't been granted authority to perform legally binding marriages.

SIGNYM

Tuesday, November 11, 2008 8:04 PM

Quote:
Sigy, Then what the fuck are we talking about? Btw, your marriage is a civil union. It is recognized by the state, but not by the church of whatever religion you profess in.

No, my marriage is NOT a "civil union", it is a "civil marriage". This is the part that YOU don't understand.

There are LEGAL ramifications to whether something is called a "marriage" or a "civil union". States have laws recognizing each other's marriages. My (civil) marriage is recognized in the state where we were married (NY) and ALSO where we now reside (CA)... and in all the other 48 states as well. Our marriage is recognized by the Federal government which allows us to file joint income tax returns. If we were to end our marriage (in whatever state) there are laws defining the dissolution and separation of assets. As a married couple, we can adopt.

Given all that, clearly we are a "married couple" even though we had a civil marriage, not a religious one.

If we had a "civil union" that would ONLY be recognized by the State where it was performed (NY) but by NO OTHER STATE. A "civil union/ domestic partnership" is a "civil contract" which is recognized ONLY IN THAT STATE. It is NOT recognized by the Federal government, nor by any other state. It entails far fewer rights and benefits regarding insurances, wills, etc. If you go to a hospital as a domestic partner, you'd better bring your medical power of attorney, durable power of attorney and HIPPA release because otherwise you'd be screwed, especially if you were NOT in the state where your civil union/ domestic partnership was filed.

Civil marriage, civil union: not the same thing.

Civil marriage, religious marriage: Both legally recognized, but a religious ceremony is a voluntary act and not required by law.

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

SIGNYM

Tuesday, November 11, 2008 8:52 PM

So given all that... how do you feel about civil marriage for gays?

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

WULFENSTAR

Tuesday, November 11, 2008 9:08 PM

Ehh,

I object to the term "marriage" for a lifestyle choice.

But its not my call anyways.

It has been decided. By the people.

SIGNYM

Tuesday, November 11, 2008 9:21 PM

If it were to be re-decided by the courts how would you feel about THAT?

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

AGENTROUKA

Tuesday, November 11, 2008 9:21 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Ehh,

I object to the term "marriage" for a lifestyle choice.

But its not my call anyways.

It has been decided. By the people.

Isn't marriage itself a lifestyle choice?

And where do people get the idea that marriage is a religious institution? It is ALSO a religious institution, but it has been around much longer than most of the religions widely practiced today, as a legal contract independent of religion.

Why do religious people think they have the monopoly on the term?

SIGNYM

Tuesday, November 11, 2008 9:30 PM

Wulf, w/o getting into whether homosexual orientation is a "lifestyle choice" or not (I happen to think not)... But let's assume it IS a "lifestyle choice".... Aren' you all about choices and freedom and keeping the gummint outta stuff it aughtn't be putting it's nose in? What it sounds like you're saying is... you got the freedom to choose as long as I like your choices.

Really, what skin comes off YOUR nose whether gays get married or not?

ETA: Anyway, no need to answer. I think I've beat this horse dead... and then some!
---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

WULFENSTAR

Tuesday, November 11, 2008 10:46 PM

Sigy, you know better. Thats not what I'm saying at all.

STORYMARK

Tuesday, November 11, 2008 11:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
The people have spoken, and that's not good enough?

I guess we can quote you here whenever you bitch about Obama, right?

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

STORYMARK

Tuesday, November 11, 2008 11:28 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Sigy, you know better. Thats not what I'm saying at all.

Then why not answer that querstion....?

And if marriage is strictly a religious institution, as you claim - why is it okay for the state to dictate the terms at all? Shouldn't it be up to the individual church?

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

ELVISCHRIST

Tuesday, November 11, 2008 11:31 PM

Quote:

So, how about next time you think of opening your stupid Pollock mouth.... Don't.

You're doing a REEEEEEEEEEEALLY good job of convincing us that you aren't a bigot, Wulf. Keep it up!

SIGNYM

Tuesday, November 11, 2008 11:42 PM

Quote:
Sigy, you know better. Thats not what I'm saying at all.

I prefer that you NOT explain to me what you're saying. It's not that I'm not interested, but I don't want to get into an argument. So just color me "clueless" and let it pass.

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

FREMDFIRMA

Wednesday, November 12, 2008 12:11 AM

Quote:
Religion. Which, I'd say, should stay out of politics. This is why I've always taken issue with marriage being a religious institution. If people want to get married in a church, that's their choice, but the dictates of the religion shouldn't rule who can get married. That's not separation of church and state.
Everyone should be able to get married, or everyone should have domestic partnerships. Me, I would be fine with it all being domestic partnership, since marriage is a religious institution an' all. But, you know, marriage has also become a state institution, and it's a tradition, and everyone knows what it means already, that two people who are in love are joining their lives together. Also, it's shorter and easier to say, rolls off the tongue so to speak, and people tend to prefer that in their words and terms. So why not call it all marriage, then? Well, if the Church and their sheeple would stop screaming about it, we could right? Except that again brings up keeping religion out of law... I could just go on in that circle.
Bottom line, calling it something different but claiming it's the same thing is patently ridiculous. Calling it the same thing but saying it was a little different would also be ridiculous. Just let everyone have the same options.

And PR beats me to the punch, completely.

If the STATE is going to define and recognize marriage as a LEGAL institution, which IMHO, it should not - then it should recognize it between any two human beings above age of consent regardless of gender, race, creed, culture or religion.

Or it should simply stay the fuck out of it entire.

This one IS black and white, all or nothing - everyone, or no one.

Anything other than that is pure discrimination of an UnConstitutional form and thus a flagrant violation of the First Amendment.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

FUTUREMRSFILLION

Wednesday, November 12, 2008 1:12 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
The people have spoken, and that's not good enough? Looks like Gays are asking to be treated special.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

That is one of the most asinine things you have said on this forum.

Banning gays from getting married IS treating them special - in a negative way.

I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

FORSAKEN original

Trolls Against McCain

“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.” Mahatma Gandhi

ANTHONYT

Wednesday, November 12, 2008 1:26 AM

Hello,

I hold with those of the minority opinion that government should have nothing to do with marriage period.

Marriage, in my opinion, is a religious institution. You will invariably find a church somewhere willing to bind two of anybody or anything together under the watch of one or more divinities.

Civil Unions should be available to all adults of either sex who wish to bind together under a legal economic construct.

And thus, I would dissolve marriage as a legal construct, and apply Civil Unions to everybody. No Christians need object, as God and Government deserve a divorce in this country, and it has already been strongly declared that 'Civil Unions are the same as Marriage.'

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

SIGNYM

Wednesday, November 12, 2008 1:38 AM

Quote:
and it has already been strongly declared that 'Civil Unions are the same as Marriage.

You can "declare" them to be the same all you want, but legally, they are NOT. And just saying so doesn't make it so.

Now, if what you're proposing is a wholesale change in law at the Federal and State level to make "civil unions" the equivalent of marriage, that's a different story. But that's what if would take.

Frem, a "marriage" is a contract. The advantage of marriage is that the contract is recognized wherever you go.

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

ANTHONYT

Wednesday, November 12, 2008 1:46 AM

Hello Signy,

I think you sidestepped the point of my commentary.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

SIGNYM

Wednesday, November 12, 2008 2:09 AM

I don't think so.

Marriage has legal, tax, benefit, and other implications. It IS a contract. But it's a contract with the benefit of being recognized in all 50 states, by the Federal government, and by hospitals, insurance companies, probate judges etc etc.

All of those laws and contracts: the ones adopted by the Federal government, by the states, and so forth... refer specifically to marriage. In order to get the same recognition for civil unions you'd have to rewrite all of the laws which refer to marriage to include "civil unions".

Now, since marriage is a contract, isn't it convenient to have this contract have legal standing in all 50 states? Or do you feel that there should be no such contract between people, or that the state has no business recognizing it?

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

ANTHONYT

Wednesday, November 12, 2008 2:20 AM

Hello,

I'll review my position.

Marriage is a religious institution that has been adopted by the government as a legal contract between a man and a woman.

Civil Unions are a legal contract between consenting adults, adopted by some governments to avoid using the term marriage.

I would like to see all U.S. governments completely disassociate themselves from marriage, and make Civil Unions the new legal contract between consenting adults of all stripes. Obviously there will be a strong movement to expand the definition of Civil Unions to incorporate all benefits of the former Marriage, but avoiding that messy religious expectation of 'husband and wife.'

Those who want to be united before a divinity can still do so at will, and the government need have nothing to do with it.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

SIGNYM

Wednesday, November 12, 2008 2:30 AM

But that's what we have now. Those who wish to marry in a civil ceremony can, and those who want to marry in a religious ceremony can. The two have little to do with each other except they are BOTH recognized by the state, and it seems a pointless exercise to go thought and rewrite all of the laws because some religiously sensitive peeps have a notion that "marriage" is exclusively religious. Why not call a religious marriage a "consecrated union" instead?

FWIW I never thought, for example, that our civil marriage was in any way less than a religious marriage. We both feel that marriage is not an expression of "love" as much as "commitment" and we've been married more than thirty years through thick and thin.

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

ANTHONYT

Wednesday, November 12, 2008 2:44 AM

Hello,

The reason we have all this controversy over marriage is because marriage has been around for a long, long time. And it is a religious word.

The Christians (of which I am one) and other Monotheists believe that by re-defining 'marriage' you are soiling a religious precept that they were raised to believe was morally correct. They don't want government messing with their marriage.

To which I say, "I Agree!"

Shame on government for Ever having Anything to do with marriage. Now we can set things right. Take government's grubby little hands off of the religious purity of marriage...

By discontinuing any reference to marriage in the laws of government.

Civil Unions were always designed to be non-religious. They are purely legal constructs to serve an economic purpose, and have no religious overtones.

So, government should divorce itself from marriage, a concept polluted by religious ideas, and embrace a Civil Union absent of religious verbiage or moralizing. Civil Unions need not even involve sex at all! They would become the purely legal and economic union that government needs, and the rest can be left to people's faith and personal morality.

The fact that everyone can have a Civil Union but not everyone can have a marriage makes it blindingly clear which of the two is the more correct institution for an unbiased government.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

YINYANG

Wednesday, November 12, 2008 3:47 AM

How is marriage a religious word? And, even if it is, can it not also be a non-religious word as well? Just like there are two different versions of Christmas - the secular celebration with Santa Claus, etc., and the religious one involving the birth of Jesus - can't there be a secular marriage and a religious one? Because I for one don't think that the religious own the word marriage, nor should they.

MALBADINLATIN

Wednesday, November 12, 2008 4:09 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by yinyang:
How is marriage a religious word? And, even if it is, can it not also be a non-religious word as well? Just like there are two different versions of Christmas - the secular celebration with Santa Claus, etc., and the religious one involving the birth of Jesus - can't there be a secular marriage and a religious one? Because I for one don't think that the religious own the word marriage, nor should they.

The ideal outcome would be for any human couple to get married in the church they choose.
Anti gay marriage people have suggested that gays create a gay church and marry there.

The problem with that is...being told you can't get married is not much better than being told where and how you must get married. It is a human rights issue.

The whole thing is compounded by an issue involving the Mormon Church's alleged involvement in the Yes on 8 campaign that could jeopardize thier status as a tax exempt organization.

The Mormon Church is under seige, and with all the adversity they've faced over the years, especially involving Polygamy, they wouldn't be the way they are becomming.

Shit...Mitt Romney was for gay marriage when Governor of Massachusettes. So Mormons supporting basic human rights is possible

Trolls against McCain

ANTHONYT

Wednesday, November 12, 2008 4:13 AM

Hello,

They do think they own the word marriage. Obviously they believe this, because they are busy being the arbiter of who can and cannot get married. Because such divisiveness and double standardization are not the function of the government, I propose we let the religious personages of the world keep their word 'marriage' and allow government to discard it in favor of the superior Civil Union, a title with no religious connotations whatsoever.

Otherwise, the religious people of the nation are liable to get confused, forget to separate church and state, and accidentally discriminate against a class of people.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

SIGMANUNKI

Wednesday, November 12, 2008 4:18 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Rue,

Its not a right to get married.

They can have civil unions. Maybe.

You, nor the liberal ilk, can force churches to marry people. Separation of church and state remember?

There is a difference between:

The gays have the right to get married.

And:

Churches are forced to marry anyone that can legally get married.

You seem to have confused the two. The latter is the boogy-man that the religious nutters use to get people to back them.

Point of fact, churches of any religious don't have to marry anyone that they don't want to. Catholicism is a good example of this. Many (most?) of those churches will refuse to marry a couple unless BOTH are Catholic. This is legal. Similarly, with many other religions.

Basically, the point of all this is _not_ to force anyone to marry gays against there will. It's rather that the gays are allowed to get married by the people who wish to marry them.

----
I am on The Original List (twice). We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

YINYANG

Wednesday, November 12, 2008 6:18 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

They do think they own the word marriage. Obviously they believe this, because they are busy being the arbiter of who can and cannot get married. Because such divisiveness and double standardization are not the function of the government, I propose we let the religious personages of the world keep their word 'marriage' and allow government to discard it in favor of the superior Civil Union, a title with no religious connotations whatsoever.

Otherwise, the religious people of the nation are liable to get confused, forget to separate church and state, amd accidentally discriminate against a class of people.

It is a nice, neat, simple solution, I'll admit. But (and here I may be playing devil's advocate a little bit), why should the government change to accommodate people who have a problem separating church and state? Because same-sex marriage isn't an issue that should ever have been up for a vote in the first place. If that had been remembered by The Powers That Be, then religious people would not have had the ability to act on their confusion and legalize unfair discrimination. Instead, The Powers That Be, as non-confused people (I hope), recognizing that whether the government should "marry" people or "civil union"-ize them is something to be considered separately from the matter of giving same-sex couples their equal rights, should be left to make the decision.

SIGNYM

Wednesday, November 12, 2008 6:25 AM

Quote:
The reason we have all this controversy over marriage is because marriage has been around for a long, long time. And it is a religious word.

The Christians (of which I am one) and other Monotheists believe that by re-defining 'marriage' you are soiling a religious precept that they were raised to believe was morally correct. They don't want government messing with their marriage.

Well, I don't want religious peeps to mess with government. And what you propose would entail rewriting so many laws it would be stupid.

And BTW you have a VERY provincial view of marriage. In ancient Greece, and in many ancient cultures, the woman became the "property" of the man.... which still exists in many parts of the world today. In India, they are arranged, often at a very early age, and occur in stages which include a dowry. In Saudi Arabia (a "monotheistic" country) it's often between cousins, and men can have more than one wife. In old Polynesia, anyone could marry anyone - except the first born of the first born were tapu (taboo) because their marrying down would dilute their sacred powers. In the Old Testament, concubinage was accepted.

Marriage is not what you think it is. It doesn't fit into a white- picket- fence- suburban- Christian- paradigm.

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

RIGHTEOUS9

Wednesday, November 12, 2008 7:47 AM

according to wikipedia, Marriage not only predates the Bible, but there were occasionaly male-male marriages before the year 342, at which point, said marriages were declared illegal by Christian Emperor Constantius.

Everything i'm reading on the subject says that marriage had no religious origin, and was meant as a way of securing property rights.

So while I was willing to entertain the notion of banning the word from government use, I've changed my mind, and refuse to allow a legal word, a good word with an interesting history, to be coopted by the religious right.

Granted, marriage is not the original latin word.

KHYRON

Wednesday, November 12, 2008 8:19 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Because such divisiveness and double standardization are not the function of the government, I propose we let the religious personages of the world keep their word 'marriage' and allow government to discard it in favor of the superior Civil Union, a title with no religious connotations whatsoever.

This is what I've been saying for ages already. It's the simplest and cleanest solution: if you take it out of the political realm, the problem is solved for everybody.

Quote:
Originally posted by yinyang:
But (and here I may be playing devil's advocate a little bit), why should the government change to accommodate people who have a problem separating church and state?

Well, the government can either change the laws regarding this issue and solve the problem, or we can wait for a couple more decades for enough bigots to die off from old age so that the people who are "liberal" on this are in the majority (after all, society progresses one funeral at a time). I propose the former, it's quicker and cleanly separates the murky interface between church and state that exists with regard to this issue.

------------------------------

What sane person could live in this world and not be crazy?

AGENTROUKA

Wednesday, November 12, 2008 8:37 AM

So because some religious people CLAIM that it is a religious word only.. it should be so?

So, when religious people claim that morality can only be born from religion, it should be considered true, also? And no unreligious person can consider themselves moral?

What other words should be struck from non-religious usage to prevent offense?

It is clearly not a term confined to religion. They simply don't have a leg to stand on and I fail to see why they can't let it go. Should the government really pander to them?

KHYRON

Wednesday, November 12, 2008 8:54 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Should the government really pander to them?

It's not about pandering to religious bigots, it's about finding the most effective and elegant solution to the problem. Besides, it's not just religious people who are against gay marriage.

------------------------------

What sane person could live in this world and not be crazy?

AGENTROUKA

Wednesday, November 12, 2008 8:58 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Khyron:
Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Should the government really pander to them?
It's not about pandering to religious bigots, it's about finding the most effective and elegant solution to the problem. Besides, it's not just religious people who are against gay marriage.

------------------------------

What sane person could live in this world and not be crazy?

I don't see it being necessarily elegant, considering that non-religious, heterosexual married couples are not necessarily going to be thrilled to have the word marriage taken away from them to be given to the religious only.

KHYRON

Wednesday, November 12, 2008 9:04 AM

Maybe, but as somebody who's non-religious, I'd be thrilled to be able to get hitched and say I'm in a civil union, not in a marriage, because the word "marriage" has always sounded very religious to me. But I appreciate that other non-religious people may not feel the same way about that word as I do.

------------------------------

What sane person could live in this world and not be crazy?

SIGNYM

Wednesday, November 12, 2008 2:17 PM

Quote:
I don't see it being necessarily elegant, considering that non-religious, heterosexual married couples are not necessarily going to be thrilled to have the word marriage taken away from them to be given to the religious only.

And I'm one of them. We were married by a judge, and we've been married for 30+ years thru thick and thin. (And considering our DD's brain damage at birth and hubby's health issues, there's been a lot of "thin".) We meant what we said about "for better or worse, in sickness and health...". I stack that against ANYONE who's been married by a cleric. Just 'cause religious peeps want to exclusivate the term marriage on the false premise that it's a "religious" institution doesn't mean they should.

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

AGENTROUKA

Wednesday, November 12, 2008 2:41 PM

Taken from the Wikipedia page on "Common-Law Marriage".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common-law_marriage

Some thoughts concerning marriage as a legal contract, not primarily a religious one... Look how recently the connection was even made legally necessary, between the legal and the religious aspect. That's hardly going back to the roots of the institution itself. Shows clearly that marriage is not by definition a religious institution.

Quote:
In medieval Europe, marriage came under the jurisdiction of canon law, which recognised as a valid marriage one where the parties stated that they took one another as wife and husband, even in absence of any witnesses.
The Council of Trent (convened 1545–1563) ruled that in future a marriage was only valid in Roman Catholic countries if it was witnessed by a priest of the Roman Catholic Church or, if obtaining a priest were impractical, by other witnesses. This ruling was not accepted in the newly Protestant nations of Europe, nor by Protestants who lived in Roman Catholic countries or their colonies in the Americas or elsewhere, nor by Eastern Orthodox Christians.
Common law marriages were abolished in England and Wales by the Marriage Act 1753. The Act required marriages to be performed by a priest of the Church of England – unless the participants in the marriage were Jews or Quakers. The Act applied to Ireland after the Act of Union 1800, but the requirement for a valid marriage to be performed by a Church of England priest created special problems in predominantly Roman Catholic Ireland. The law did not provide an exception.

And even then it created problems to make that connection between church and state.

PIZMOBEACH

Wednesday, November 12, 2008 3:38 PM

It feels like we make some of these simple things way too complex. When we do that the next sound you hear is a stampede of siege lawyers and then it's gridlock.

I'm just guessing... gay couples want to show their commitment to each other through the tradition of "marriage" that is available to all citizens, and that they grew up with (like their parents and grandparents, etc) and to feel they have the same rights as any couple. "Civil Union" sounds like a door prize, it has none of the emotion and tradition that marriage has.

If churches don't want to do the ceremonies, fine. Let the ceremony that the state provides be called a "marriage by the State," and not a religious marriage. The people that care about the religious aspect will have their differentiation.

Same benefits, different place, and they can tell their friends, "We got married!"

AGENTROUKA

Wednesday, November 12, 2008 4:48 PM

This is, if I interpret correctly, exactly what pro-gay-marriage people want and opponents reject because the word "marriage" is involved.. or am I wrong?

SIGNYM

Wednesday, November 12, 2008 5:19 PM

I think you're right. Anti-gay marriage peeps don't want gays using the term "marriage" bc they feel it belongs to them.

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

CANTTAKESKY

Wednesday, November 12, 2008 5:22 PM

Quote:
So, how about next time you think of opening your stupid Pollock mouth.... Don't.

You've crossed the line Wulf. Slurs on ethnicity or national origin is just...gross. That is too much insane hatred.

I have no love for Rue, but she does not deserve racial/ethnic name-calling.

--------------------------
Dr. Horrible Karaoke

AGENTROUKA

Wednesday, November 12, 2008 5:33 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I think you're right. Anti-gay marriage peeps don't want gays using the term "marriage" bc they feel it belongs to them.

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

Yeah. I would really love to see a more thorough discussion about this particular aspect of the problem.

Dear People who who think the term "marriage" is a solely religious one,

why do you think this? Are you willing to discuss this logically? Or is it entirely an emotional investment you aren't willing to compromise on, and if so, how do you justify this?

Honestly curious and not looking for a flamewar,
AR

STORYMARK

Wednesday, November 12, 2008 6:50 PM

So, Wulf didn't have the courage after all...

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

ELVISCHRIST

Wednesday, November 12, 2008 7:03 PM

Quote:
we can wait for a couple more decades for enough bigots to die off from old age so that the people who are "liberal" on this are in the majority (after all, society progresses one funeral at a time).

LINE OF THE DAY!! "Society progresses one funeral at a time."

I love that.

PIZMOBEACH

Wednesday, November 12, 2008 7:13 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I think you're right. Anti-gay marriage peeps don't want gays using the term "marriage" bc they feel it belongs to them.

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

Yeah. I would really love to see a more thorough discussion about this particular aspect of the problem.

Dear People who who think the term "marriage" is a solely religious one,

why do you think this? Are you willing to discuss this logically? Or is it entirely an emotional investment you aren't willing to compromise on, and if so, how do you justify this?

fwiw (and I suspect very little), m-webster does not use the word "religion," in it's definition of marry or marriage. Religion does not own that word.

KHYRON

Wednesday, November 12, 2008 8:34 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Dear People who who think the term "marriage" is a solely religious one,

why do you think this? Are you willing to discuss this logically? Or is it entirely an emotional investment you aren't willing to compromise on, and if so, how do you justify this?

I hope this wasn't directed at me (amongst others), but it probably was. "Marriage" may not be defined in terms of religion, but it certainly has a religious connotation, at least where I come from. That's why I don't like the word. But fine, it's just a word and its connotation is subjective, if non-religious married people want to keep it then fair enough. However, if you recall, most people (religious or not) who argue against gay marriage argue against it because of what the word "marriage" means to them, and that gay marriage doesn't fit into their personal definition of marriage, so the entire discussion of the word is pretty subjective in the first place, regardless of what the dictionary says.

To the real discussion at hand, I still think the state should only allow civil unions (call them common-law marriages, then, or whatever) between any two consenting people not too closely related and old enough, just clearly distinguish the line between church and state on this issue, because in a lot of people's mind it's quite muddled, which is something the bigots are taking advantage of. Although keeping the word marriage for both cases won't help in making that distinction ...

Doing it this way wouldn't be pandering to the religious bigots, it would be pulling the rug out from under them and making their arguments obsolete.

------------------------------

What sane person could live in this world and not be crazy?

AURAPTOR

Wednesday, November 12, 2008 9:05 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by FutureMrsFIllion:

Banning gays from getting married IS treating them special - in a negative way.

No more than banning marriage between very close relatives, or polygamy. Say what you want, but merely asking that marriage be defined as 1 man + 1 woman is not, by any stretch of the imagination hateful , mean or discriminatory.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

AGENTROUKA

Wednesday, November 12, 2008 9:05 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Khyron:
I hope this wasn't directed at me (amongst others), but it probably was.

It wasn't aimed specifically at you!

I'd really like to hear from anyone who holds that opinion.

Quote:

However, if you recall, most people (religious or not) who argue against gay marriage argue against it because of what the word "marriage" means to them, and that gay marriage doesn't fit into their personal definition of marriage, so the entire discussion of the word is pretty subjective in the first place, regardless of what the dictionary says.

So you don't think that asking them why they think their idea of marriage is the only one is a worthy pursuit?

I suspect the issue is greater than just gay marriage but encompasses also the concept of how much influence religion should have on civil matters.

Your solution is a practical one but it still constitutes a concession toward people who wrongfully claim a term that should belong to all. It's a question of pragmatism vs. the principle of the thing.

To use a really overdrawn analogy, if someone comes over and occupies your home, do you just move out? Sure, they are out of your hair, but your home is lost. And they'll feel completely justified in having occupied it in the first place. Is that a good solution?

AGENTROUKA

Wednesday, November 12, 2008 9:16 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
No more than banning marriage between very close relatives, or polygamy. Say what you want, but merely asking that marriage be defined as 1 man + 1 woman is not, by any stretch of the imagination hateful , mean or discriminatory.

All those are obviously discriminatory. To discriminate is, by itself, not a dirty word.

Banning incest marriages discriminates against incest. Banning polygamous marriages discriminates against polygamy. Banning gay marriage discriminates against homosexuality.

The real point here is whether the discrimination is appropriate.

The reason why discrimination is often treated as a dirty word is because so often things have been discriminated against for absolutely no good reason.

Is there a good reason to discriminate against homosexuality?

SIGNYM

Wednesday, November 12, 2008 9:25 PM

Quote:
However, if you recall, most people (religious or not) who argue against gay marriage argue against it because of what the word "marriage" means to them, and that gay marriage doesn't fit into their personal definition of marriage, so the entire discussion of the word is pretty subjective in the first place, regardless of what the dictionary says.

But the discussion runs into a brick wall when you bring up the LEGAL aspects of marriage. Maybe "in theory" we could adopt different words to distiguish between religious "marriage" and civil "marriage" but in practice state laws, federal laws, insurance contracts etc. refer to the term marriage. Maybe there is a neat legal trick... a new law that says "In all past and future laws the term marriage refers to both a religious marriage and civil marriage, the civil marriage from here on in known as (fill in the blank)... but that would STILL require passing at least 50 state laws, a Federal Law, changing the tax code, changing Social Security regulation, and modifying numerous laws regarding probate, insurance contracts etc. And for what???

What the religious folks forget is the part that says "By the powers invested in me by the State I now pronounce you...."

Quote:
To the real discussion at hand, I still think the state should only allow civil unions (call them common-law marriages, then, or whatever) between any two consenting people not too closely related and old enough, just clearly distinguish the line between church and state on this issue, because in a lot of people's mind it's quite muddled

I think I've already made MY opinion on this pretty clear. I'm against peeps marrying into a situation where there is an inherent imbalance of capability: adults marrying children, NTs marrying retarded people, one person marrying many (puts the many in competition with each other).

But if two people want to commit to each other and trust each other with their worldly possessions, to have each other's backs and be able to grow old together... that's a beautiful thing. Why would I be against it??

But I'd like to hear what other people think about that.

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

RUE

Wednesday, November 12, 2008 9:29 PM

I'm with you.

I'd be curious as to who is against, and why, because --- I can't imagine why.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

PONYXPRESSINC

Wednesday, November 12, 2008 9:55 PM

This whole debate/argument seems very familiar...

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Taken from the Wikipedia page on "Common-Law Marriage".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common-law_marriage

Some thoughts concerning marriage as a legal contract, not primarily a religious one... Look how recently the connection was even made legally necessary, between the legal and the religious aspect. That's hardly going back to the roots of the institution itself. Shows clearly that marriage is not by definition a religious institution.

Quote:
In medieval Europe, marriage came under the jurisdiction of canon law, which recognised as a valid marriage one where the parties stated that they took one another as wife and husband, even in absence of any witnesses.
The Council of Trent (convened 1545–1563) ruled that in future a marriage was only valid in Roman Catholic countries if it was witnessed by a priest of the Roman Catholic Church or, if obtaining a priest were impractical, by other witnesses. This ruling was not accepted in the newly Protestant nations of Europe, nor by Protestants who lived in Roman Catholic countries or their colonies in the Americas or elsewhere, nor by Eastern Orthodox Christians.
Common law marriages were abolished in England and Wales by the Marriage Act 1753. The Act required marriages to be performed by a priest of the Church of England – unless the participants in the marriage were Jews or Quakers. The Act applied to Ireland after the Act of Union 1800, but the requirement for a valid marriage to be performed by a Church of England priest created special problems in predominantly Roman Catholic Ireland. The law did not provide an exception.

And even then it created problems to make that connection between church and state.

*Applauds loudly*

I found this a good read if you are interested, http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/lhr/17.1/leneman.html, it explains how the 1753 act came about.

WHOZIT

Wednesday, November 12, 2008 10:06 PM

http://www.lansingstatejournal.com/article/20081112/NEWS01/811120369 Gays are funny

I'm going to microwave a bagel and have sex with it - Peter Griffin

ANTHONYT

Wednesday, November 12, 2008 10:09 PM

"No more than banning marriage between very close relatives, or polygamy."

Hello,

For the record, I don't think that unions between adults of any stripe should be outlawed, regardless of relation or number. These Unions exist as an economic and legal construct, and should be blind to any question other than "Adult? Y/N." As such, any number of agreeable adults of any sex, any relation, any race, any ethnicity, and any orientation should be able to join in a Union.

I find it lamentable that the close-minded masses of the world have stamped the word 'marriage' with their moral and religious bias, but I would love nothing more than to rob the very term out from under them. And by all means let 10,000 lawyers argue for 10,000 days about eliminating 'marriage' from government. By the end of that sickening debacle, maybe people will be disgusted enough to remember not to let their personal narrow-minded opinions muddle the government process.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

SIGNYM

Thursday, November 13, 2008 4:37 PM

Why.... that means we pretty much agree!

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

RUE

Thursday, November 13, 2008 4:48 PM

I would add the caveat that it has to be voluntary - which probably goes without saying, but it seems like for completeness' sake it should be mentioned.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

ANTHONYT

Thursday, November 13, 2008 5:07 PM

Hello,

Indeed: "As such, any number of agreeable adults..."

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

FREMDFIRMA

Friday, November 14, 2008 1:30 PM

Saw this today, and just had to share it here.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/4748292.stm

A Sudanese man has been forced to take a goat as his "wife", after he was caught having sex with the animal.

The goat's owner, Mr Alifi, said he surprised the man with his goat and took him to a council of elders.

They ordered the man, Mr Tombe, to pay a dowry of 15,000 Sudanese dinars ($50) to Mr Alifi.

"We have given him the goat, and as far as we know they are still together," Mr Alifi said.

Mr Alifi, of Hai Malakal in Upper Nile State, told the Juba Post newspaper that he heard a loud noise around midnight on 13 February and immediately rushed outside to find Mr Tombe with his goat.

"When I asked him: 'What are you doing there?', he fell off the back of the goat, so I captured and tied him up."

Mr Alifi then called elders to decide how to deal with the case.

"They said I should not take him to the police, but rather let him pay a dowry for my goat because he used it as his wife," Mr Alifi told the newspaper.

Let's hear it for progressive town elders!

Of course, it woulda been a little nicer if they'd asked the Goat his/her opinion, however.

-F