Gay marriage comes to Oregon : How public officials can defy the will of the voters

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Jun 18, 2000
11,007
547
126
Originally posted by: Jumpem
Originally posted by: Eli
Wow, people are seriously freaking out over this...

Just walked by the TV, my dad is watching CNN I think... They have some official on that just said, "If we do not ammend the constitution to ban gay marriages immediately, they will spread across the nation like wildfire!"

Fscking disgusting! :|

Yes gay marriage is.
Thank goodness it's none of your business.:)
 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
I'm all for this! This debate is ridiculous, and gays will be allowed to marry by the end of the year.

I'll be looking forward to the Metro section of The Oregonian tomorrow. I know half the state has already written into them for the letters section.
 

Eli

Super Moderator | Elite Member
Super Moderator
Oct 9, 1999
50,422
8
81
Originally posted by: Jumpem
Originally posted by: Eli
Wow, people are seriously freaking out over this...

Just walked by the TV, my dad is watching CNN I think... They have some official on that just said, "If we do not ammend the constitution to ban gay marriages immediately, they will spread across the nation like wildfire!"

Fscking disgusting! :|

Yes gay marriage is.
In your opinion.

Regardless, it is not your, or my, or the governments place to judge.
 

BatmanNate

Lifer
Jul 12, 2000
12,444
2
0
Why does the government insist upon recognising marriage status in the first place? It seems like it would be better for all parties involved if the marriage tax penalty was repealed and the government took it's hands off the issue entirely. Employers could dole out benefits as they saw fit, child custody could be settled like it is now (or biologically if it came down to it), and joint ownership issues in case of divorce could be resolved by prior encompassing contract.

Keep marriage for those who choose it as a traditional, ceremonial, or non legal personal/religious commitment. No need for the government to allow/disallow homosexual unions in the first place, or hetero ones for that matter. Everybody's happy.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
49,622
12,235
136
Originally posted by: BatmanNate
Why does the government insist upon recognising marriage status in the first place? It seems like it would be better for all parties involved if the marriage tax penalty was repealed and the government took it's hands off the issue entirely. Employers could dole out benefits as they saw fit, child custody could be settled like it is now (or biologically if it came down to it), and joint ownership issues in case of divorce could be resolved by prior encompassing contract.

Keep marriage for those who choose it as a traditional, ceremonial, or non legal personal/religious commitment. No need for the government to allow/disallow homosexual unions in the first place, or hetero ones for that matter. Everybody's happy.
<- agrees completely
 

przero

Platinum Member
Dec 30, 2000
2,060
0
0
Are we a Democratic Republic based on laws, which by the way MOST elected officials are sworn to uphold, or do we let one of you guys decide right and wrong? Who do we make King today? Eli, ......Red Dawn...... ME? I think not. Change the law? Fine! Find a loophole, fine too. Disregard it totally to pander to a minority, that would be wrong. Suppose all the officials did that over each law they didn't think was fair? Write your Congessman and Senator and tell them how unfair it is. Protest at the state capitol. But don't ignore the will of the people!
 

flxnimprtmscl

Diamond Member
Jan 30, 2003
7,962
2
0
Originally posted by: BatmanNate
Why does the government insist upon recognising marriage status in the first place? It seems like it would be better for all parties involved if the marriage tax penalty was repealed and the government took it's hands off the issue entirely. Employers could dole out benefits as they saw fit, child custody could be settled like it is now (or biologically if it came down to it), and joint ownership issues in case of divorce could be resolved by prior encompassing contract.

Keep marriage for those who choose it as a traditional, ceremonial, or non legal personal/religious commitment. No need for the government to allow/disallow homosexual unions in the first place, or hetero ones for that matter. Everybody's happy.
$. Can you even imagine the amount of money states would loose if they stepped away from marriage? You might as well ask them to stop giving out traffic tickets.
 

gopunk

Lifer
Jul 7, 2001
29,239
2
0
Originally posted by: flxnimprtmscl
Originally posted by: BatmanNate
Why does the government insist upon recognising marriage status in the first place? It seems like it would be better for all parties involved if the marriage tax penalty was repealed and the government took it's hands off the issue entirely. Employers could dole out benefits as they saw fit, child custody could be settled like it is now (or biologically if it came down to it), and joint ownership issues in case of divorce could be resolved by prior encompassing contract.

Keep marriage for those who choose it as a traditional, ceremonial, or non legal personal/religious commitment. No need for the government to allow/disallow homosexual unions in the first place, or hetero ones for that matter. Everybody's happy.
$. Can you even imagine the amount of money states would loose if they stepped away from marriage? You might as well ask them to stop giving out traffic tickets.
also, family stability is perceived as being beneficial to the overall stability of society. so they want to be able to encourage people to stay together more. that and spouses can act on the other's behalf, like in a medical emergency. oh, and then there's matters of probate...
 

gopunk

Lifer
Jul 7, 2001
29,239
2
0
Originally posted by: przero
Are we a Democratic Republic based on laws, which by the way MOST elected officials are sworn to uphold, or do we let one of you guys decide right and wrong? Who do we make King today? Eli, ......Red Dawn...... ME? I think not. Change the law? Fine! Find a loophole, fine too. Disregard it totally to pander to a minority, that would be wrong. Suppose all the officials did that over each law they didn't think was fair? Write your Congessman and Senator and tell them how unfair it is. Protest at the state capitol. But don't ignore the will of the people!
loophole.... that's pretty much what they did... glad we got that resolved :)
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY