Chef Jim Posted December 3, 2009 Posted December 3, 2009 No thanks. It is a state issue. Then they're wasting their time. The biggest issues are on the federal level. That's why I've always said they (the gay community) are going through all this **** for a word. It won't solve any of their federal tax issues which are many and costly.
Alaska_Darin_Is_Gay Posted December 3, 2009 Posted December 3, 2009 http://www.redstate.com/brianfaughnan/2009...senate-control/
John Adams Posted December 3, 2009 Posted December 3, 2009 Did you say hi to Bill? Bill and I are actually friends, on here and even in the thing called real life. It's kind of unbelievable but I'm thankful for it. He's always coming over for smokes at the gym.
John Adams Posted December 3, 2009 Posted December 3, 2009 By everyone since the dawn of time. It was Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve. Don't feed the troll.
The Big Cat Posted December 3, 2009 Posted December 3, 2009 Either BuffaloDonald is a one of the most committed trolls to grace the pages of PPP, or else this is one of the worst beat downs I have ever seen. And I've been on the wrong end of a beat down from time to time. Could it be that maniacs like Donald (or the ones he's choosing to impersonate) have much more at stake to mobilize around that this issue keeps getting defeated because all the sane people in America stay home from the polls thinking "Jesus, who gives a ****?"
DC Tom Posted December 3, 2009 Posted December 3, 2009 Either BuffaloDonald is a one of the most committed trolls to grace the pages of PPP, or else this is one of the worst beat downs I have ever seen. And I've been on the wrong end of a beat down repeatedly. Fixed.
Adam Posted December 3, 2009 Posted December 3, 2009 I don't see any non-religious reason to ban any marriage at all. As a matter of fact, the "object" that the zealots talk about so much would disagree with their logic on this and a great many other things. And just to point out, I used the word object inappropriately, as nothing else came to mind......
DC Tom Posted December 3, 2009 Posted December 3, 2009 I don't see any non-religious reason to ban any marriage at all. As a matter of fact, the "object" that the zealots talk about so much would disagree with their logic on this and a great many other things. And just to point out, I used the word object inappropriately, as nothing else came to mind...... That's one of the sillier points in the whole debate: the gay community could probably get all the legal rights they're asking for, if they hadn't decided to call it "marriage", with the religious overtones that has to so many people.
Frit0 Bandit0 Posted December 3, 2009 Posted December 3, 2009 Then they're wasting their time. The biggest issues are on the federal level. That's why I've always said they (the gay community) are going through all this **** for a word. It won't solve any of their federal tax issues which are many and costly. Point, Set and Match
Frit0 Bandit0 Posted December 3, 2009 Posted December 3, 2009 That's one of the sillier points in the whole debate: the gay community could probably get all the legal rights they're asking for, if they hadn't decided to call it "marriage", with the religious overtones that has to so many people. My thought exactly ... You have to be 3% smarter than the thing your !@#$ing with. What is wrong with a "Legal Partnership"
DC Tom Posted December 3, 2009 Posted December 3, 2009 My thought exactly ... You have to be 3% smarter than the thing your !@#$ing with. What is wrong with a "Legal Partnership" Well, what's wrong with it NOW is that anything you call it, the rabid opposition will just counter with "They're just trying to trick us by not calling it marriage. Good thing we're smarter than those crafty, evil faggots."
Frit0 Bandit0 Posted December 3, 2009 Posted December 3, 2009 Well, what's wrong with it NOW is that anything you call it, the rabid opposition will just counter with "They're just trying to trick us by not calling it marriage. "Good thing we're smarter than those crafty, evil faggots." ...I see you used a quote from the Catholic Bishops
Frit0 Bandit0 Posted December 3, 2009 Posted December 3, 2009 Same-sex marriage is legal in Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut and, New Hampshire ....and, Iowa? Except for Iowa, I'm getting a sense of, or seeing a regional component here....maybe? I'm new to this debate. This just has never crossed my top 100 I give a **** about list....my knuckles have been known to drag at times.
murra Posted December 3, 2009 Posted December 3, 2009 2, 3, maybe 5 years on this will no longer be an issue. Just a progression, or as some would have it a regression. Doesn't affect me so I don't care either way but some of my gay and lesbian friends are concerned. I tell them what I always do....be patient. Don't rock the boat... Riiiight, some of your "friends". You don't have to lie to us Bishop, we know who you're really talking about.
John Adams Posted December 3, 2009 Posted December 3, 2009 Well, what's wrong with it NOW is that anything you call it, the rabid opposition will just counter with "They're just trying to trick us by not calling it marriage. Good thing we're smarter than those crafty, evil faggots." Except, even if you call it a "legal partnership" and perhaps gain the rights, what in the hell is a legislature doing defining a single word as not being able to be used in public discourse? This is in effect what you propose by "just calling it a legal partnership." All you're in effect doing is adding a new box to a whole bunch of forms and "tsk, tsk"ing when someone says two dudes are "married." Could anything be more stupid for the legislature to do? Also, and I as a crafty lawyer like to think like this, I could easily make an argument that because two people are in a "legal partnership" and two others are "married" in the eyes of the law, the legislature must have intended different rights attach to one or the other. Imagine an adoption case or custody battle. "Your honor, the legislature created a division when it created to two classes of partnership. One is different from the other and frankly, one is preferred...etc." It's marriage. Once enough of the boomers die/leave legislatures, marriage will be Adam and Eve AND Adam and Steve. The fights are rising now because the tide is turning: It just hasn't completely turned yet. These early losses will look silly in 10-15 years when only some outlier state like Alabama has same sex marriage prohibitions.
Frit0 Bandit0 Posted December 3, 2009 Posted December 3, 2009 Well maybe we should just redefine marriage all together. Why should polygamist be discriminated against. as Jonathan Turley writes in the USA Today 10/3/2004 Polygamy laws expose our own hypocrisy ....1878 opinion in Reynolds vs. United States, the court refused to recognize polygamy as a legitimate religious practice, dismissing it in racist and anti-Mormon terms as "almost exclusively a feature of the life of Asiatic and African people." In later decisions, the court declared polygamy to be "a blot on our civilization" and compared it to human sacrifice and "a return to barbarism." Most tellingly, the court found that the practice is "contrary to the spirit of Christianity and of the civilization which Christianity has produced in the Western World." Contrary to the court's statements, the practice of polygamy is actually one of the common threads between Christians, Jews and Muslims. Deuteronomy contains a rule for the division of property in polygamist marriages. Old Testament figures such as Abraham, David, Jacob and Solomon were all favored by God and were all polygamists. Solomon truly put the "poly" to polygamy with 700 wives and 300 concubines. Mohammed had 10 wives, though the Koran limits multiple wives to four. Martin Luther at one time accepted polygamy as a practical necessity. Polygamy is still present among Jews in Israel, Yemen and the Mediterranean.
GG Posted December 3, 2009 Posted December 3, 2009 Except, even if you call it a "legal partnership" and perhaps gain the rights, what in the hell is a legislature doing defining a single word as not being able to be used in public discourse? This is in effect what you propose by "just calling it a legal partnership." All you're in effect doing is adding a new box to a whole bunch of forms and "tsk, tsk"ing when someone says two dudes are "married." Could anything be more stupid for the legislature to do? Also, and I as a crafty lawyer like to think like this, I could easily make an argument that because two people are in a "legal partnership" and two others are "married" in the eyes of the law, the legislature must have intended different rights attach to one or the other. Imagine an adoption case or custody battle. "Your honor, the legislature created a division when it created to two classes of partnership. One is different from the other and frankly, one is preferred...etc." It's marriage. Once enough of the boomers die/leave legislatures, marriage will be Adam and Eve AND Adam and Steve. The fights are rising now because the tide is turning: It just hasn't completely turned yet. These early losses will look silly in 10-15 years when only some outlier state like Alabama has same sex marriage prohibitions. The logical way around that is to eliminate marriage from state laws and call all unions legal partnerships. Marriages should be reserved if sanctioned by whatever clergy you choose, but as a legal matter they should be one and the same. That's why this debate is going longer than it should, by insisting on calling their unions marriage, gay groups are heading straight into the teeth of religious opposition. So, yes, the battle is over a word.
bills_fan Posted December 3, 2009 Posted December 3, 2009 The logical way around that is to eliminate marriage from state laws and call all unions legal partnerships. Marriages should be reserved if sanctioned by whatever clergy you choose, but as a legal matter they should be one and the same. That's why this debate is going longer than it should, by insisting on calling their unions marriage, gay groups are heading straight into the teeth of religious opposition. So, yes, the battle is over a word. Exactly. Permit "marriage" to be granted only by religious institutions. Permit governmental authorities to grant "legal partnership" status. Problem solved. Really disappointing that vote was such a disaster. So many rights and privledges are attached to the word "marriage" and it is a shame that two people in a commitment relationship have such legal barriers, both on the Federal level (as Chef rightly points out) and on the state level.
Recommended Posts