Court restores Nebraska samesex marraige ban

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Stunt
I think state sponsored straight marriage should be illegal 😛

Me too. "Marriage" is a religious concept that should be handled by each church according to its own beliefs. The state should provide only for civil unions, equally available to all, for the purpose of providing a legal definition of "family". Everyone in such a family contract would therefore be treated equally, for better and for worse, for taxes, benefits, child support, alimony, etc.

Well if it was soley a Religious institution then gays should be able to get married because there are certain religions that allow it, even a few Christian sects.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Stunt
I think state sponsored straight marriage should be illegal 😛

Me too. "Marriage" is a religious concept that should be handled by each church according to its own beliefs. The state should provide only for civil unions, equally available to all, for the purpose of providing a legal definition of "family". Everyone in such a family contract would therefore be treated equally, for better and for worse, for taxes, benefits, child support, alimony, etc.

Not even...
There's enough of an incentive to live together in a relationship (from a financial perspective), and I have no problem giving financial assistance to parents (or acting parents) with children.

Other than the financial incentives, there is no reason for marriage or civil unions...why does the state need to know who we are in a long term relationship with?

I think the state must recognize a union otherwise who else are the insurance companies, health companies, employers, schools, etc etc going to turn to for proof of siad union?

just my .02

Why should any of those items be based off your relationship status?
Insurance should be based on risk factors and past history, not if you have a wife or not...
You think a married gay couple are now more or less expensive for the insurance company?

We are so caught up with incentives for married couples, we now feel dependent on state recognizing our relationships. How sad.

It isnt about incentive. It is about coverage, entitlement, benefactors, and everything else that a husband and wife share as a result of their marraige.

or maybe im just not understanding this particular point of this tired and exhaustive debate.

its late, im rambling. carry on.

Form a contract.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
I'm sick of this debate! 😛

Me too, but don't worry, it's going to end before too long...and we all know how it will end. Even zendari and daniel49 know it, even though they won't admit it. Civil rights issues have a funny way of working out how the radicals at the beginning would like them to. Sometimes it takes longer, but I would be truly amazed if gay marriage isn't perfectly legal in 20 years. The other side just doesn't have a very good track record on these kinds of issues.

So my advice, don't worry about it...if you're for gay marriage, you'll win in the end...and if you're against it, do your blood presure a favor and don't rail against it for the next several years, you're going to lose and you know it.

You know, that attitude hasn't stopped the liberals from campaigning the last 6 years, even though they knew with their far leftwinged platform they would be crushed in the elections.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: zendari
The entire nation except for a radical few continues to stand against gay marraige.

It's good to see only a small few believe the propaganda and the nonsense that is spouted by these far left groups.

Bolded your Anti-American Hate and Discrimination.

Tyranny was something the Founders of the Country and those who died for it worked so hard to not be part of what the United Steates would be all about.

I say it's time to pass a law banning American Haters and deport them.

So why did the founding fathers not establish gay marraige?

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Stunt
I think state sponsored straight marriage should be illegal 😛

Me too. "Marriage" is a religious concept that should be handled by each church according to its own beliefs. The state should provide only for civil unions, equally available to all, for the purpose of providing a legal definition of "family". Everyone in such a family contract would therefore be treated equally, for better and for worse, for taxes, benefits, child support, alimony, etc.

Not even...
There's enough of an incentive to live together in a relationship (from a financial perspective), and I have no problem giving financial assistance to parents (or acting parents) with children.

Other than the financial incentives, there is no reason for marriage or civil unions...why does the state need to know who we are in a long term relationship with?

I think the state must recognize a union otherwise who else are the insurance companies, health companies, employers, schools, etc etc going to turn to for proof of siad union?

just my .02

Why should any of those items be based off your relationship status?
Insurance should be based on risk factors and past history, not if you have a wife or not...
You think a married gay couple are now more or less expensive for the insurance company?

We are so caught up with incentives for married couples, we now feel dependent on state recognizing our relationships. How sad.

It isnt about incentive. It is about coverage, entitlement, benefactors, and everything else that a husband and wife share as a result of their marraige.

or maybe im just not understanding this particular point of this tired and exhaustive debate.

its late, im rambling. carry on.

Form a contract.

and who ratifies it? a notary? ie a public official?

 

[theeedude]

Straight couples can now sleep well, knowing their marriages are safe.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: zendari
The entire nation except for a radical few continues to stand against gay marraige.

It's good to see only a small few believe the propaganda and the nonsense that is spouted by these far left groups.

Bolded your Anti-American Hate and Discrimination.

Tyranny was something the Founders of the Country and those who died for it worked so hard to not be part of what the United Steates would be all about.

I say it's time to pass a law banning American Haters and deport them.

So why did the founding fathers not establish gay marraige?

"gay" people did not exist at that time.

the "gay" social identity was only invented in the 60s/ 70s.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Stunt
I think state sponsored straight marriage should be illegal 😛

Me too. "Marriage" is a religious concept that should be handled by each church according to its own beliefs. The state should provide only for civil unions, equally available to all, for the purpose of providing a legal definition of "family". Everyone in such a family contract would therefore be treated equally, for better and for worse, for taxes, benefits, child support, alimony, etc.

Well if it was soley a Religious institution then gays should be able to get married because there are certain religions that allow it, even a few Christian sects.

Exactly, gays can get married in churches that allow gay marriage, straights in churches that allow straight marriage, even dogs in churches that allow canine marriages -- none of which has any legal standing whatsoever. As far as the state is concerned, the only thing that matters is whether you have a civil union (and no, for the usual idiots, I'm not suggesting the state allow civil unions between dogs). Straight, gay, atheist, whatever -- the state treats every person equally, whether you have a church that calls you married or not.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: zendari
The entire nation except for a radical few continues to stand against gay marraige.

It's good to see only a small few believe the propaganda and the nonsense that is spouted by these far left groups.

Bolded your Anti-American Hate and Discrimination.

Tyranny was something the Founders of the Country and those who died for it worked so hard to not be part of what the United Steates would be all about.

I say it's time to pass a law banning American Haters and deport them.

So why did the founding fathers not establish gay marraige?

"gay" people did not exist at that time.

the "gay" social identity was only invented in the 60s/ 70s.

People back then must have been smarter for not recognizing such ridiculous behavoir.

Now the liberal media makes it taboo to choose to be gay and so many people are buying it.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Just remember, back 100 years ago, zendari would have posted something like: "Plessy v. Ferguson, court rules in favor of separate but equal policy. It's good to know that only a few believe the propaganda spouted by the blacks that they don't get equal treatment" Conservatives never learn...

Not to turn this into a history lesson, but conservatism and liberalism just prior to and immediately after the Civil War did not resemble how they are commonly understood today...our society as a whole did not have a very progressive attitude towards blacks...even after earning their freedom, it still took nearly 100 years for blacks to gain the equality that should have been extended to them with the ratification of the Constitution. Southern Democrats during segregation were hardly enlightened champions of equality.

Social change is a slow moving process, and the gay marriage issue is just that...I don't see many Democrats coming forward and waving the banner of gay marriage...why...because our society has to progress towards acceptance of homosexuality.

The gay rights movement has indirectly but largely contributed to slowing the process...during the late 60s and 70s, this movement chose the path of being highly visible and "out" in society...the problem is, that for many regions of the country, and even more "enlightened" urban areas, most people associate the gay rights movement to the more flamboyant and stereotypical of that community.

Our society does not perceive homosexuals has having long term committed relationships, no different to heterosexuals. Similarly, a strict interpretation of the Constitution places marriage at the state and not the federal level, and there is no overt Constitutional right to marry...therefore, acceptance of gay marriage in our society will not follow a legal path, but instead a social acceptance one.

You cannot compare the gay marriage issue to the civil rights issues, because the dynamics and underlying legal protections are quite different.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: zendari
The entire nation except for a radical few continues to stand against gay marraige.

It's good to see only a small few believe the propaganda and the nonsense that is spouted by these far left groups.

Bolded your Anti-American Hate and Discrimination.

Tyranny was something the Founders of the Country and those who died for it worked so hard to not be part of what the United Steates would be all about.

I say it's time to pass a law banning American Haters and deport them.

So why did the founding fathers not establish gay marraige?

"gay" people did not exist at that time.

the "gay" social identity was only invented in the 60s/ 70s.

People back then must have been smarter for not recognizing such ridiculous behavoir.

Now the liberal media makes it taboo to choose to be gay and so many people are buying it.

I guess all of those Romans were watching too many Hollywood movies . . . :roll:

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: zendari
The entire nation except for a radical few continues to stand against gay marraige.

It's good to see only a small few believe the propaganda and the nonsense that is spouted by these far left groups.

Bolded your Anti-American Hate and Discrimination.

Tyranny was something the Founders of the Country and those who died for it worked so hard to not be part of what the United Steates would be all about.

I say it's time to pass a law banning American Haters and deport them.

So why did the founding fathers not establish gay marraige?

"gay" people did not exist at that time.

the "gay" social identity was only invented in the 60s/ 70s.

People back then must have been smarter for not recognizing such ridiculous behavoir.

Now the liberal media makes it taboo to choose to be gay and so many people are buying it.

I'm sure homosexual behaviors were recognized back then, but they would have thought about it in a different way than we do today. They didn't have the concept of "Gay", nor did they have the concept of "homosexual" (which was only coined in the 1800s). Presumably they had some other schema for making sense of sex between males.

 

[Aisengard]

I meant the social conservative ideaology and those who follow it, not the people who like to call themselves that. And we ALL know that the Democrats of yesteryear most resemble the Republicans of today.

But anyway, I think there are a ton of similarities. The issue isn't as big a thing as the civil rights movement, but I'd call it a homeless man's civil rights movement. Just like the public was used to blacks being second-class citizens, the majority of the public today has gotten used to homosexuals being shunned throughout history, much helped by the Catholic fundamentalists promising hellfire to those who would even sympathise with those 'heathens', and also the fact that the majority of the public is not gay, so it does not affect them, and so they don't care as much.

The gay rights movement in the 60's and 70's actually opened people's eyes to their existence, and while I don't agree with the more flamboyant of them and their penis parades, they put themselves in the spotlight for better or for worse. These cases wouldn't even be happening if it weren't for the gay rights movement.

I agree wholeheartedly that social change is a slow progress, but my point is that people like Zendari celebrating any kind of victory against homosexuals are already out of touch, and they'll soon be rendered moot, like a modern-day Strom Thurmond.

Social Liberalism is the attitude of social change, Social Conservatism is the attitude of social status quo. The liberal (or, you know, progressive) attitude will win out in the end. It always has.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: zendari
2 top courts rule against gay marriage.

And a small minded biggoted troll trumpets it on the forums it like it's some grand idea, instead of the triumph of persecution by a stupid majority that it is. 🙁

zendari -- You truly suck as a human being! :|

Persecuted? Put down the pipe. They may not be getting what they want in NY, but there havent' been a ton of bullwhippings lately.

 

[nutxo]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
I think we all know Zendari has a gay lover and he's overcompensating here on the forums due to self-loathing. Best to just ignore him.

LOL. Like that hasn't been thrown out at 50 different posters that don't share the liberal view of homosexuality.

I'll state the same thing I teach my children. When you use somoeones sexual orientation, race or religious beliefs as in insult you are acting like a bigot.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Persecuted? Put down the pipe. They may not be getting what they want in NY, but there havent' been a ton of bullwhippings lately.

... that you know of or care to report. :shocked:

I'm not gay, but I work around the entertainment business. I've known and worked with plenty of gay people, and some of them have been good friends. If you don't know any gay people, you have no idea what kind of collective persecution they endure on a daily basis.

There are numerous established personal and property rights under CIVIL law that are an integral part of the legal status of marriage. It's a freaking word and a piece of paper, and nobody's asking you to marry another guy or even socialize with gays. You don't even have to like it, but what rational excuse can you have for preventing them from being able to have the same legal CIVIL protections for their personal relationships as heterosexual couples?

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

I wish, for one fleeting second zenny could live in a world where anything created, invented, developed or assisted by a gay man or woman didn't exist. It would be a very quiet, drab monochromatic world.
I am sorry for feeding the troll, but his total disregard for anyone who doesn't goosestep along side of his stupid, myopic, moronic, sociopathic, racist views makes me sick to know we share the same constitution.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Persecuted? Put down the pipe. They may not be getting what they want in NY, but there havent' been a ton of bullwhippings lately.

... that you know of or care to report. :shocked:

I'm not gay, but I work around the entertainment business. If you don't know any gay people, you have no idea what kind of collective persecution they endure on a daily basis.

There are numerous established personal and property rights under CIVIL law that are an integral part of the legal status of marriage. It's a freaking word and a piece of paper, and nobody's asking you to marry another guy or even socialize with gays. You don't even have to like it, but what rational excuse can you have for preventing them from being able to have the same legal CIVIL protections for their personal relationships as heterosexual couples?

As far as I am concerned they may have the same access to health care etc. I also have worked with gays, one of which was my partner where I worked. Steve was a great guy, and no I didn't approve of his lifestyle, however I don't need to. I tolerated it, and I liked him. We had ssome good laughs on the golf course too. People ought to understand that tolerance is not acceptance. There are people who do have a moral issue with gays, and that is indeed their right just as long as they are courteous. The value of a free society is that people can hold opinions unpopular with others and still be safe. That should apply to gays and people who do not agree as long as they are civil. Tolerance is a two way street.

 

[bobdelt]

So they know who to give the money to when you croak? So they know who the parents of kids are?

Its not recognizing relationships. It recognizing families.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: bobdelt
So they know who to give the money to when you croak? So they know who the parents of kids are?

Its not recognizing relationships. It recognizing families.

Bullsh8! There simply is no other rational response to your stupidity. You're going to have to provide far better reasons than that to justify being a complete asshole to an entire group of people. :|

 

[shrumpage]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

Just remember, back 100 years ago, zendari would have posted something like: "Plessy v. Ferguson, court rules in favor of separate but equal policy. It's good to know that only a few believe the propaganda spouted by the blacks that they don't get equal treatment" Conservatives never learn...

Not to turn this into a history lesson, but conservatism and liberalism just prior to and immediately after the Civil War did not resemble how they are commonly understood today...our society as a whole did not have a very progressive attitude towards blacks...even after earning their freedom, it still took nearly 100 years for blacks to gain the equality that should have been extended to them with the ratification of the Constitution. Southern Democrats during segregation were hardly enlightened champions of equality.

Social change is a slow moving process, and the gay marriage issue is just that...I don't see many Democrats coming forward and waving the banner of gay marriage...why...because our society has to progress towards acceptance of homosexuality.

The gay rights movement has indirectly but largely contributed to slowing the process...during the late 60s and 70s, this movement chose the path of being highly visible and "out" in society...the problem is, that for many regions of the country, and even more "enlightened" urban areas, most people associate the gay rights movement to the more flamboyant and stereotypical of that community.

Our society does not perceive homosexuals has having long term committed relationships, no different to heterosexuals. Similarly, a strict interpretation of the Constitution places marriage at the state and not the federal level, and there is no overt Constitutional right to marry...therefore, acceptance of gay marriage in our society will not follow a legal path, but instead a social acceptance one.

You cannot compare the gay marriage issue to the civil rights issues, because the dynamics and underlying legal protections are quite different.

Well said.

I was very surprised by this ruling i was expecting it to go the other way. One of the opinions of the judges was (paraphrased) "this matter needs to be decided by the legislature." Society needs to get on board with same-sex marriage before it will be allowed.

As it stands now, i think most american's really don't care if some one is gay or not, but do want to keep marriage between one man and one woman (sorry utah).

You mention that states decide marriage, which is very true, the issue - and what elevates it to federal issue - is having other states reconize the marriage of the others. I believe there has been conflict with this in the past when it has come to age. Some states have a lower age requirement then others - what happens when they move to a different state that has a higher requirement?

 

[thraashman]

No matter what anyone says, so long as there exists benefits granted to married couples that are denied to unmarried couples, it is in direct violation of the 14th amendment to prevent gay couples from getting married. And this "protecting the institution of marriage" bs is such a lame excuse for bigotry that it makes me sick people are even claiming it.

 

[Zysoclaplem]

I'm so scared I am shaking in my capris.

 

[shrumpage]

Originally posted by: thraashman
No matter what anyone says, so long as there exists benefits granted to married couples that are denied to unmarried couples, it is in direct violation of the 14th amendment to prevent gay couples from getting married. And this "protecting the institution of marriage" bs is such a lame excuse for bigotry that it makes me sick people are even claiming it.

The consituation applies to individuals - not couples.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: shrumpage
The consituation applies to individuals - not couples.

Last time I checked, couples consist of pairs of individuals, and marriage confers CIVIL rights and responsibilties on the those individuals entering the CIVIL convention known as marriage.

Thanks for saying nothing. :roll: