Its official... Same sex marriage April 27th

[reallyscrued]

Ok...score one for the polygamists.

Where are we on the gays again?

 

[blackangst1]

Well, I kind of expected this. Minority status given special rights. I have no problem with equal rights, but when that rises to special rights, its plain WRONG. I guess in a similar vein to the affirmative action thread.

Judge waives waiting period for gay Iowa couple

DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) ? A same-sex Iowa couple will be allowed to wed as soon as Monday after a judge allowed them to bypass the state's three-day waiting period.

Anytime a group of people (in this case gays) get to bypass the law BECAUSE of their minority status is reverse discrimination. I hope this gets thrown out in appeals.

 

[Toasthead]

Originally posted by: ericlp

Originally posted by: EXman

Originally posted by: frostedflakes

Originally posted by: EXman
ANother dictation by a court.

Hasn't every single gay marriage refferendnum failed miserably? something like 0-38.

Courts suck when they go against the peoples wishes. I know the courts are supposed to uphold laws but to often they end up legislating from the bench giving them more than their share of the 1/3 of power they should weild.

Regardless of political party I think legislating from the bench isn't American.

I can't help but think people were saying the exact same thing half a century ago during the civil rights movement...

Tired arguement... apples and oranges... gay agenda does not equal civil rights movement. Not by a longshot.

Gays can do anything anyone else does now.

Tired arguments? Why? Most people don't want to pay their taxes or wear their seat belts... If so, then courts do suck when they go against the peoples wishes. I can think of MANY .... MANY examples were the courts go against the people.

As for gay marriage it was a GWB slam and it was wrong to target a minority group. You'd have to be blind to think the MAJORITY 1 man 1 woman / and the church were NOT mostly for opposing gay people. Especially with all the propaganda in millions if not billions being spent on commercials telling people how wrong it was.

Now that Bush is out of office he can't play his stupid game from his ranch things are changing rather quickly...

I have no problem with it. I say get with the program. Normally I'd agree with you on other issues but I won't agree with you on this one. Since I'm not a church goer and I believe religion is scared of gay people since it's written in the bible to look down upon them and religion is just wrong to begin with. That is what you get when you have too much religious control. Again, get over it and get with the program because major changes are going to happen.

apples and oranges? here is your watermelon!

courts should not make me wear my seatbelt.

 

[Toasthead]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: Acanthus
For me it has nothing to do with my personal feelings on the matter.

Someones subjective morality should never be law.

As an aside to this discussion, didnt Vermont just legalize gay marriage via legislation? (1st time ever)

Gay marriage has been legal in Vermont for almost a decade now. All The legislation did was rename it from civil union to marriage.

All this legislation did was make gay MARRIAGES legal!!
Sorry a civil union is NOT the same as a MARRIAGE!!
Until you are gay you will not understand why that is!!
A man and a woman in Vermont could get married previously....
a man and a man had to get a civil union....not the same!!

how exactly are they different?? Are there different rights given to "married" people versus those in a "civil union"?

The answer is no.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Well, I kind of expected this. Minority status given special rights. I have no problem with equal rights, but when that rises to special rights, its plain WRONG. I guess in a similar vein to the affirmative action thread.

Judge waives waiting period for gay Iowa couple

DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) ? A same-sex Iowa couple will be allowed to wed as soon as Monday after a judge allowed them to bypass the state's three-day waiting period.

Anytime a group of people (in this case gays) get to bypass the law BECAUSE of their minority status is reverse discrimination. I hope this gets thrown out in appeals.

Come on man, really? It's not a permanent thing, it's a kindness on a special day that these people have been waiting for for a very long time. Anyone getting mad about that has no heart.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Toasthead

how exactly are they different?? Are there different rights given to "married" people versus those in a "civil union"?

The answer is no.

That is incorrect, there are a significant number of different rights given to married people versus those in a civil union. Civil unions are not acknowledged by all states, so your union is not portable, civil unions are not eligible for the same federal benefits, they can't transfer wealth without incurring tax penalties, health insurance benefits are frequently not transferrable, etc... etc.

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Toasthead

how exactly are they different?? Are there different rights given to "married" people versus those in a "civil union"?

The answer is no.

That is incorrect, there are a significant number of different rights given to married people versus those in a civil union. Civil unions are not acknowledged by all states, so your union is not portable, civil unions are not eligible for the same federal benefits, they can't transfer wealth without incurring tax penalties, health insurance benefits are frequently not transferrable, etc... etc.

Im fairly certain this is the same with gay marriage.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: OCguy

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Toasthead

how exactly are they different?? Are there different rights given to "married" people versus those in a "civil union"?

The answer is no.

That is incorrect, there are a significant number of different rights given to married people versus those in a civil union. Civil unions are not acknowledged by all states, so your union is not portable, civil unions are not eligible for the same federal benefits, they can't transfer wealth without incurring tax penalties, health insurance benefits are frequently not transferrable, etc... etc.

Im fairly certain this is the same with gay marriage.

Really? I know the US recognizes 'legal' marriages from other countries - it's not dependent on states.

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: OCguy

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Toasthead

how exactly are they different?? Are there different rights given to "married" people versus those in a "civil union"?

The answer is no.

That is incorrect, there are a significant number of different rights given to married people versus those in a civil union. Civil unions are not acknowledged by all states, so your union is not portable, civil unions are not eligible for the same federal benefits, they can't transfer wealth without incurring tax penalties, health insurance benefits are frequently not transferrable, etc... etc.

Im fairly certain this is the same with gay marriage.

Really? I know the US recognizes 'legal' marriages from other countries - it's not dependent on states.

I believe some of the states who have added laws to their constitution have included verbage that specifically says "We will not recognize same sex blah blah"

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: OCguy

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Toasthead

how exactly are they different?? Are there different rights given to "married" people versus those in a "civil union"?

The answer is no.

That is incorrect, there are a significant number of different rights given to married people versus those in a civil union. Civil unions are not acknowledged by all states, so your union is not portable, civil unions are not eligible for the same federal benefits, they can't transfer wealth without incurring tax penalties, health insurance benefits are frequently not transferrable, etc... etc.

Im fairly certain this is the same with gay marriage.

Actually yes, you are correct about that.

 

[1prophet]

If gay rights are equivalent to the civil rights movement, can the government then in order to enforce lawsuits go after churches and other religious organizations if they discriminate against gays just like they did with mormon church discrimination against blacks, and would that be a good thing?


Text

Prior to 1978, Mormon leaders forbid Blacks from holding the Mormon Priesthood. In 1978, due to mounting pressure from pending lawsuits concerning racism, Spencer W. Kimball suddenly received a revelation that Blacks could now enter the temple and hold the Mormon Priesthood. If the Mormon Church had not changed its views on Black people, it would have lost its Tax-Exempt 503(c) status - as pending litigation in several states in America was proceeding.

Today the Mormon Church flatly denies that it's revelation was based on loosing its Tax-Exempt 503(c) status - however a great deal of evidence exists showing that it did.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Toasthead

how exactly are they different?? Are there different rights given to "married" people versus those in a "civil union"?

The answer is no.

That is incorrect, there are a significant number of different rights given to married people versus those in a civil union. Civil unions are not acknowledged by all states, so your union is not portable, civil unions are not eligible for the same federal benefits, they can't transfer wealth without incurring tax penalties, health insurance benefits are frequently not transferrable, etc... etc.

Beat me to it

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: 1prophet
If gay rights are equivalent to the civil rights movement, can the government then in order to enforce lawsuits go after churches and other religious organizations if they discriminate against gays just like they did with mormon church discrimination against blacks, and would that be a good thing?


Text

Prior to 1978, Mormon leaders forbid Blacks from holding the Mormon Priesthood. In 1978, due to mounting pressure from pending lawsuits concerning racism, Spencer W. Kimball suddenly received a revelation that Blacks could now enter the temple and hold the Mormon Priesthood. If the Mormon Church had not changed its views on Black people, it would have lost its Tax-Exempt 503(c) status - as pending litigation in several states in America was proceeding.

Today the Mormon Church flatly denies that it's revelation was based on loosing its Tax-Exempt 503(c) status - however a great deal of evidence exists showing that it did.

Gay marriage is a civil rights movement. But the issue at the heart of the movement is not recognition by any religious organization. The only recognition sought is by the government.

To answer your slippery slope hypothetical that many opponents of gay marriage keep claiming, no, the gov't would not prosecute churches who don't perform gay weddings, just as it is not against the law for a group to discriminate in its membership admissions, even against blacks or jews, if admitting such a person would be contrary to the group's purpose. IOW, a black guy can't sue the KKK if they don't let him join.

I think there's enough scripture for most religions to establish that they believe homosexuality is a sin. From a purely practical standpoint, while support for gay marriage may be around 50%, I think you'd find public support for the government forcing a church to conduct gay marrigaes somewhere at around 5%, if that.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Toasthead

how exactly are they different?? Are there different rights given to "married" people versus those in a "civil union"?

The answer is no.

That is incorrect, there are a significant number of different rights given to married people versus those in a civil union. Civil unions are not acknowledged by all states, so your union is not portable, civil unions are not eligible for the same federal benefits, they can't transfer wealth without incurring tax penalties, health insurance benefits are frequently not transferrable, etc... etc.

Beat me to it

Not to mention that even if blacks were provided identical accomodations in train cars as the white folks received, and even if black students received just as good an education at a segregated school, it still wouldn't pass equal protection, because separate implies unequal. If the only difference between civil unions and marriages was the social aspect that relegated same-sex couples to some separate tier of coupledom, that would be enough for it to be unequal and discriminatory, even if all the other rights attendant to marriage came with. In warning the legislature that attempts to create a civil union statute would similarly be struck down, IA court stated in their ruling:

"[The law just struck down] is unconstitutional because the County has been unable to identify a constitutionally adequate justification for excluding plaintiffs from the institution of civil marriage. A new distinction based on sexual orientation would be equally suspect and difficut to square with the fundamental principles of equal protection embodied in our constitution. This record, our independent research, and the appropriate equal protection analysis do not suggest the existence of a justification for such a legislative classification that substantially furthers any governmental objective.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Paratus

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Jschmuck2

Originally posted by: EXman
ANother dictation by a court.

Hasn't every single gay marriage refferendnum failed miserably? something like 0-38.

Courts suck when they go against the peoples wishes. I know the courts are supposed to uphold laws but to often they end up legislating from the bench giving them more than their share of the 1/3 of power they should weild.

Regardless of political party I think legislating from the bench isn't American.

And denying a minority groiup their rights is American?

Your priorities are wrong.

Are you for or against polygamy?

I am for gay rights btw.

When there's a significant movement to legalize polygamy - when there's a groundswell of support for polygamous marriages - we can debate whether polygamy should be legal. Until then, polygamy is a red herring thrown into the gay-marriage argument to sidetrack the central issue. Just like the argument, "What about someone who wants to marry their dog?"

Let's limit this debate to same-sex marriage, shall we? We'll deal with polygamy when it too becomes an important social issue.

Well actually the logic that allows gay marriage doesn't support polygamy.

Most states constitutions and of course the Constitution have an equality clause, (i.e. can't be discriminated against due to race, religion, sex, or creed.

You forgot to bold religion, since most polygamists do so because of their religion.

If a state allows:

Alice and Bob to marry and provide legal benefits then it by law has to allow
Bob and Chuck to marry or they violate the equal protection clause.

The only reason that Chuck is not allowed to marry Bob is due to Chucks sex which as many courts have now agreed a violation of the equal protection clause.

(I'll point out here that many religions already allow gay couples to be married in their churches, it's just the civil rights they are denied. Which is way f'd up in my mind)


Polygamy on the other hand is a strawman.

I don't think you know what a strawman is.

Nowhere in the country is it legal for anyone, hetero or otherwise to receive legal benefits by marrying more than one person, so there is no violation of the equal protection clause.

That's a ridiculous argument. Just because it's not legal anywhere doesn't mean that it's not descrimination.

Polygamy has to be fought through the legislative branches.


On a further note, if certain folks want to prevent gay marriage in the future, you'll have to change those pesky amendments about equal protection to specify who's more equal than others.

Every argument that is made of in favor of gay marriage can also be made in favor of polygamy. Don't be a hypocrite.

We will believe that when a woman elder get assigned another eleven year old boy as her twenty-second husband by the head Matriarch. Pologamy works by keeping the women ignorant and enslaved. Time to quit talking out your ass, JD

 

[WHAMPOM]

Originally posted by: Craig234
We need to be fair to the anti-gay marriage arguments, as we debunk them.

Originally posted by: shira
First, they argued that they wanted to "defend marriage." But exactly how same-sex marriages threaten heterosexual marriages is conveniently left out.

There's more of a point to their argument than the pro-gay-marriage usually recognizes.

Let's take the Medal of Honor. Say the President decided to keep awarding it for what it's awarded for now - but to add, say, big political donors, or soldiers who find ways to save the government a lot of money. Nothing changed for those who get it for the usual reason, but most of us would say it was diluted, and you could describe opponents as 'defending' the traditional Medal of Honor.

So, they have more of a point than just 'there's no difference'; they see the same sort of dilution.

Arguing to them that there's no difference doesn't persuade them, because to them there is, just as arguing there's no difference with the Medal of Honor wouldn't be convincing.

The proble they have is, that the difference rests on bigotry. In the case of the Medal of Honor, there is a qualitative difference between the traditional standard and the new standard, so there is justification for saying it cheapens it. On gay marriage, the diffference they think there is is caused by *their bigotry* to see gays as less deserving, as not having 'real' marriages - so to them it's rea. But they're wrong about gays.

In fact, there areguments generally rest on just that bigotry - including the 'marry your car' type arguments they make.

The anti-same-sex-marriage crowd knows that its arguments are without merit. They see the momentum building in support of same-sex marriage. All they have left is scare tactics.

I don't think they know their arguments are without merit. They're generally just bigots grasping for justification, and thinking they have it with these bogus arguments.

As long as they can feel they're part of a community united 'for principles' to 'oppose the wrongful gay marriage advocates', it's easy for them to kep 'fighting the good fight'.

I think we should all look from time to time at the photos of white mobs who gathered to menacingly threaten the admission of black students in the early 60's. Look at the 'Leave it to Beaver' appearance middle class white people - and the twisted hate on their faces for such a misguided cause, to 'defend' their state honor or whatever the catch phrase was.

Bigots grasping for justification.

Naw Craig, the antigay marriage reasoning is more like this: the Pesident denying a medal of Honor winner the medal that he rightfully deserves if the soldier admits to being Gay.

 

[Taejin]

nvmd addressed ad nauseum

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Well, I kind of expected this. Minority status given special rights. I have no problem with equal rights, but when that rises to special rights, its plain WRONG. I guess in a similar vein to the affirmative action thread.

Judge waives waiting period for gay Iowa couple

DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) ? A same-sex Iowa couple will be allowed to wed as soon as Monday after a judge allowed them to bypass the state's three-day waiting period.

Anytime a group of people (in this case gays) get to bypass the law BECAUSE of their minority status is reverse discrimination. I hope this gets thrown out in appeals.

I'd be willing to bet that there's a law on the Iowa books that says that ANY couple can petition for a waiver of the 3-day waiting period, and that one of the criteria for granting the petition is that the couple has been prevented from applying for a marriage license because of circumstances beyond their control. And I'll bet there are many, many other such criteria, and that waivers are routinely granted.

But Blackangst1 naturally asserts that this must be an example of "special rights" for a minority group.

 

[sportage]

Exactly right!!!
Anyone can ask for a wavier of the 3 day stay.
Many have, many do. Nothing new.

Judges grant them and they are pretty open to granting them.
Its like - who cares.

The news is reporting this incorrectly, making it sound like everyone automatically
was granted a wavier. A lot of same sex were and are perfectly fine with the 3-day waiting since they prefer to marry when the weather get a little more spring-like.

 

[blackangst1]

Sure, anyone can ASK for a waiver, but according to the waiver application itself it must be, and I quote, "A license to marry may be validated prior to the expiration of three days from the date of issuance of the license in cases of emergency or extraordinary circumstances. An order authorizing the validation of a license may be granted by a judge of the district court under conditions of
emergency or extraordinary circumstances upon application of the parties filed with the county registrar."

Since when is being gay an emergency or an extraordinary circumstance?

 

[Lemon law]

Well thats a relief, here it is, the morning of April 28, I got out of bed, and there is no mob of gay people storming my house, and the world did not end as this thread warned me of. I will give it until midnight to see if its official, maybe in the next 18 hours my wife will run off and join the Lesbians.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: frostedflakes

That's part of separation of powers as well, but the main idea behind a republic is exactly what I explained. And obviously our political system is based on majority rule. The point I was making, though, is that majority rule cannot be used to take certain unalienable rights away from a group of people.

100% false. Thats where your point gets derailed.

That's not really false at all, our system is based around majority rule. Sure it has numerous exceptions to this, but the foundation is definitely majority rule.

Actually, it's not.

A strict Democracy is based on majority rule, but a Democratic Republic is not. The United States is a Democratic Republic. Our system is based on rule by a democratically-elected oligarchy. The founding fathers did not intend for congressional representatives to simply rubber-stamp anything that a majority of their districts desired, but rather for these representatives to exercise their own reason to determine the best course of action based on their knowledge of the situation (which, by virtue of their position as a representative, was likely to be superior to the knowledge available to their constituents). This is why we have the electoral college. One of the major points of the electoral college was to insulate the selection of president from the voters by inserting electors who were not bound to choose according to the vote tally in their states.

The vote was intended as a remedy against politicians who abuse their power, not as a means to ensure that representatives voted in accordance with the wishes of the people in their districts. The basic structure of a Democratic Republic is essentially that of an oligarchy, save that the oligarchs are chosen by popular vote and can be replaced, and that there are constitutional restrictions on the power of our elected oligarchs.

ZV