Judge: "What harm in permitting same sex marriage?"

[K1052]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: Ausm

Originally posted by: Patranus

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Ausm
I think the main objection is from the religious right and the "keepers" of morality on the right.

The government can come out with a shot for homophobia but I am about 99% sure the GOP would oppose this too

are you sure? because President Obama is opposed to same sex marriages too.

and gay people in the military

You're wrong:

From Obama's 10/12/2009 speech to Human Rights Campaign:

"I will ask end Don't Ask Don't Tell."

http://abcnews.go.com/video/playerIndex?id=8809845

As to Obama's position against same-sex marriage: This country is still too conservative for ANY sitting President or any viable candidate for President to say that he/she supports same-sex marriage.

Politicians often say things they don't believe.

Why do you think he hasn't done anything on that yet?
He is just going to throw the gays under the bus to get re-elected.

I doubt that would help with his re-election considering most of the people that have a problem with gay people reside on the right.

Patranus apparently thinks that if a President believes something, he should go full speed ahead on that thing from his first day in office, even if in the long run that approach will reduce the President's overall effectiveness at getting his full agenda passed.

Patranus also apparently believes that if a President doesn't do something right now for a particular constituency, it means that the President is throwing that constituency under a bus.

What we can learn from Patranus is that mental midgets see black and white, and all of the black and white in between.

We're coming up on a year with nothing tangible in sight except an endless stream of empty platitudes.

When would be an appropriate time to nicely ask my government to extend me the rights that I should already enjoy?

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: piasabird
Just start looking at all the laws and regulations that base a person's legal status on the fact that they use the term Married and you will come to the conclusion that a lot of things are based on the fact that a man and a woman have a legal status of Married. This applies to both benefits and responsibilities. Tax law is entrenched with certain things that are based on the term married. Laws clearly are structured with the concept that married means a union between a Man and a Woman and the resulting offspring of that union.

For the law's sake it is easier to call the same sex union something else and just add laws using that term. It would surely make things easier on lawyers and judges and the courts.

Your argument is quite non-sensical.

Bolded above: tax law is entrenched with myriad applications to married couples. From this, you infer that it would be easier to create from whole cloth a new institution of civil unions and then to draft and implent thousands of new laws, including tax law, inheritance and property law, insurance law, etc., than to simply admit same sex couples into the currently existing institution of marriage?

Your "resulting offspring" issue is dismissed as irrelvant by every court to hear the argument, as married couples may choose not to have children, may be infertile, or may adopt children.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: piasabird
Just start looking at all the laws and regulations that base a person's legal status on the fact that they use the term Married and you will come to the conclusion that a lot of things are based on the fact that a man and a woman have a legal status of Married. This applies to both benefits and responsibilities. Tax law is entrenched with certain things that are based on the term married. Laws clearly are structured with the concept that married means a union between a Man and a Woman and the resulting offspring of that union.

For the law's sake it is easier to call the same sex union something else and just add laws using that term. It would surely make things easier on lawyers and judges and the courts.

You want Congress to enact "separate but equal" laws regarding heterosexual unions and homosexual unions?

Pisabird thinks that dealing with same-sex couples in existing laws would be really difficult. For example, I'm right now looking at federal form 1040. Let's consider the complications:

At the top it says "Your first name and initial" and "Last name."

Below that it says "If a joint return, spouse's first name and initial" and "Last name"

In the "Filing Status" area, there's "Married filing jointly" and "Married filing separately"

In the "Exemptions" area, there's a checkbox for "Yourself" and one for "Spouse." And there's an area for "First name" and "Last name" for each dependent.

There's a check-box for "You" and "Spouse" if you were born before 1/2/1945 in the "Tax and Credits" section.

Finally, there's a signature area for "Your signature" and "Spouse's signature."

Wow. I'm convinced. Can you just imagine how confusing it would be to fill out that form if you were a same-sex couple rather than a heterosexual couple?

 

[bamacre]

to establish a constitutional right to same-sex marriage.

Sorry, but the federal government has no jurisdiction here, no authority to manage marriages. This is something that aught to be left up to the states. Personally, I would be in favor of my state government protecting the right of gay people to marry. In my mind, they already have the right, it's government which has failed to acknowledge it and protect it.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: K1052
We're coming up on a year with nothing tangible in sight except an endless stream of empty platitudes.

When would be an appropriate time to nicely ask my government to extend me the rights that I should already enjoy?

A year of nearly unprecedented activity. An economy on the brink, wars, health care, etc. He isn't sitting around doing nothing. It'd be nice for you to be able to get married, but wouldn't you maybe rather have a job first? I'm sure you'd like him to move more quickly, but harshly criticizing the guy who is in all likelihood going to make some massive changes for you during his tenure seems premature. As he said:

"Now, I've said this before, I'll repeat it again -- it's not for me to tell you to be patient, any more than it was for others to counsel patience to African Americans petitioning for equal rights half a century ago. But I will say this: We have made progress and we will make more. And I think it's important to remember that there is not a single issue that my administration deals with on a daily basis that does not touch on the lives of the LGBT community. We all have a stake in reviving this economy. We all have a stake in putting people back to work. We all have a stake in improving our schools and achieving quality, affordable health care. We all have a stake in meeting the difficult challenges we face in Iraq and Afghanistan."

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: shira

Patranus apparently thinks that if a President believes something, he should go full speed ahead on that thing from his first day in office, even if in the long run that approach will reduce the President's overall effectiveness at getting his full agenda passed.

Patranus also apparently believes that if a President doesn't do something right now for a particular constituency, it means that the President is throwing that constituency under a bus.

What we can learn from Patranus is that mental midgets see black and white, and all of the black and white in between.

"This 'wait' has almost always meant 'never.' We must come to see, with one of our distinguished jurists, that 'justice too long delayed is justice denied.'"

maybe Obama has a master plan, but in 28 years, all I've ever heard from the DNC is "wait," so you'll have to excuse my cynicism.

I'm pretty cynical of politicians, too. And I don't think Obama is any different from the rest. But it really "feels" like the time has come for repealing DADT, and when it happens, it's not going to seem like a big deal. Assuming Obama decides to send a lot more troops to Afghanistan (and I think he will), ending DADT can be partially justified (to disbelievers) on the basis that we need every good soldier we can find. I really do think it's going to happen in the next year.

Same sex marriage is still in a different place. I'm all for it, but the country as a whole isn't. It's going to take a few more years.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: bamacre

to establish a constitutional right to same-sex marriage.

Sorry, but the federal government has no jurisdiction here, no authority to manage marriages. This is something that aught to be left up to the states. Personally, I would be in favor of my state government protecting the right of gay people to marry. In my mind, they already have the right, it's government which has failed to acknowledge it and protect it.

what happens when a married couple moves from a state that allows them to be married to one that doesn't? do they have to get divorced? what state is the divorce processed in, and if they move back, do they have to get remarried?

what if a husband falls ill in a state that bans gay marriage and gets admitted into the hospital and the state won't let his partner visit his room or make medical decisions on his behalf because they're not allowed to be married in that state?

what if I work in a state where gay marriage is banned but live in one where it is not? can I force my company to extend health insurance onto my husband?

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: bamacre

to establish a constitutional right to same-sex marriage.

Sorry, but the federal government has no jurisdiction here, no authority to manage marriages. This is something that aught to be left up to the states. Personally, I would be in favor of my state government protecting the right of gay people to marry. In my mind, they already have the right, it's government which has failed to acknowledge it and protect it.

Can a state not allow same-sex couples to marry but still recognize same-sex marriages?

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: K1052
We're coming up on a year with nothing tangible in sight except an endless stream of empty platitudes.

When would be an appropriate time to nicely ask my government to extend me the rights that I should already enjoy?

A year of nearly unprecedented activity. An economy on the brink, wars, health care, etc. He isn't sitting around doing nothing. It'd be nice for you to be able to get married, but wouldn't you maybe rather have a job first? I'm sure you'd like him to move more quickly, but harshly criticizing the guy who is in all likelihood going to make some massive changes for you during his tenure seems premature. As he said:

"Now, I've said this before, I'll repeat it again -- it's not for me to tell you to be patient, any more than it was for others to counsel patience to African Americans petitioning for equal rights half a century ago. But I will say this: We have made progress and we will make more. And I think it's important to remember that there is not a single issue that my administration deals with on a daily basis that does not touch on the lives of the LGBT community. We all have a stake in reviving this economy. We all have a stake in putting people back to work. We all have a stake in improving our schools and achieving quality, affordable health care. We all have a stake in meeting the difficult challenges we face in Iraq and Afghanistan."

Ok, that at least gives me a decent checklist for when I can expect it to happen.

1) The US military not engaged in a signifigant conflict

2) All Americans enjoy affordable healthcare

3) A booming economy

4) Public education repaired


Sounds reasonable to me.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: bamacre

to establish a constitutional right to same-sex marriage.

Sorry, but the federal government has no jurisdiction here, no authority to manage marriages. This is something that aught to be left up to the states. Personally, I would be in favor of my state government protecting the right of gay people to marry. In my mind, they already have the right, it's government which has failed to acknowledge it and protect it.

what happens when a married couple moves from a state that allows them to be married to one that doesn't? do they have to get divorced? what state is the divorce processed in, and if they move back, do they have to get remarried?

what if a husband falls ill in a state that bans gay marriage and gets admitted into the hospital and the state won't let his partner visit his room or make medical decisions on his behalf because they're not allowed to be married in that state?

what if I work in a state where gay marriage is banned but live in one where it is not? can I force my company to extend health insurance onto my husband?

What happens when gay marriage is banned by the Federal government and your state wants to legalize it?

I understand your concerns, I really do, but the source of the problem is not the law but the ignorance. And only time can cure that.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: bamacre

to establish a constitutional right to same-sex marriage.

Sorry, but the federal government has no jurisdiction here, no authority to manage marriages. This is something that aught to be left up to the states. Personally, I would be in favor of my state government protecting the right of gay people to marry. In my mind, they already have the right, it's government which has failed to acknowledge it and protect it.

Can a state not allow same-sex couples to marry but still recognize same-sex marriages?

Yes. In fact, I think DC is currently like that.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: bamacre

to establish a constitutional right to same-sex marriage.

Sorry, but the federal government has no jurisdiction here, no authority to manage marriages. This is something that aught to be left up to the states. Personally, I would be in favor of my state government protecting the right of gay people to marry. In my mind, they already have the right, it's government which has failed to acknowledge it and protect it.

Can a state not allow same-sex couples to marry but still recognize same-sex marriages?

I don't see why not.

 

[BarrySotero]

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
BarrySotero

Homosexuals already have equal rights. They can do normal marriage like anyone else. Instead they (or the political groups at least) want to bend the laws to give them legitimacy where nature and science do not. Homosexual groups don't care about getting married that much - they just hate the contrast with certain realities and would like to block them out. These people would turn the world upside down if they can. I agree with you about feelings. Homosexuals and others "feeling" denial of homosexual marriage is like being black doesn't make it so.

Do you even have a clue how ignorant that post makes you appear?

Claiming science and nature deny legitimacy to homosexuality is pure bullshit.

Claiming that they already have equal rights means you don't even understand the problem.

They don't care that much? Did you pull that out of your ass, or find it by the roadside?

Being black and being homosexual are both natural and without choice, so the comparison along the lines of equal rights is quite appropriate.

You are a fool.

I'm 100 correct. Homosexuality is such an abuse of anatomy and so unhygienic that it is a primary disease vector ( AIDS, syphilis, hepatitis, MRSA - homosexuals have epidemics among them like nobody else - a reason FDA had to ban them from donating blood).

Being black is natural and without choice. Homosexuality is a compulsion with many links to sexual abuse, family issues with parents etc. This is why you never hear about many studies about homosexuals

Nicholas Cummings (former APA president) has said that when APA conducts research they only do so "when they know what the outcome is going to be...only research with predictably favorable outcomes is permissible."

There are people who feel "naturally" compelled to be urinated and defecated on for sexual arousal and they aren't "just like blacks" either because they don't have special rights

 

[Atreus21]

What's the harm in permitting beastiality?

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: Atreus21
What's the harm in permitting beastiality?

animals can't consent

 

[bfdd]

Let's just get the government out of our personal lives and we can solve quite a few more problems than them not allowing homosexuals to marry.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: BarrySotero

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
BarrySotero

Homosexuals already have equal rights. They can do normal marriage like anyone else. Instead they (or the political groups at least) want to bend the laws to give them legitimacy where nature and science do not. Homosexual groups don't care about getting married that much - they just hate the contrast with certain realities and would like to block them out. These people would turn the world upside down if they can. I agree with you about feelings. Homosexuals and others "feeling" denial of homosexual marriage is like being black doesn't make it so.

Do you even have a clue how ignorant that post makes you appear?

Claiming science and nature deny legitimacy to homosexuality is pure bullshit.

Claiming that they already have equal rights means you don't even understand the problem.

They don't care that much? Did you pull that out of your ass, or find it by the roadside?

Being black and being homosexual are both natural and without choice, so the comparison along the lines of equal rights is quite appropriate.

You are a fool.

I'm 100 correct. Homosexuality is such an abuse of anatomy and so unhygienic that is a primary disease vector ( AIDS, syphilis, hepatitis, MRSA - homosexuals have epidemics among them like nobody else - a reason FDA had to ban them from donating blood).

Being black is natural and without choice. Homosexuality is a compulsion with many links to sexual abuse, family issues with parents etc. This is why you never hear about many studies about homosexuals

Nicholas Cummings (former APA president) has said that when APA conducts research they only do so "when they know what the outcome is going to be...only research with predictably favorable outcomes is permissible."

There are people who feel "naturally" compelled to be urinated and defecated on for sexual arousal and they aren't "just like blacks" either because they don't have special rights

Butterbean 2.0

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: Atreus21
What's the harm in permitting beastiality?

Please raise this point in the beastiality thread.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Atreus21
What's the harm in permitting beastiality?

animals can't consent

So?

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: bamacre

to establish a constitutional right to same-sex marriage.

Sorry, but the federal government has no jurisdiction here, no authority to manage marriages. This is something that aught to be left up to the states. Personally, I would be in favor of my state government protecting the right of gay people to marry. In my mind, they already have the right, it's government which has failed to acknowledge it and protect it.

The federal government pays for services that enable modern society. Everyone in this nation benefits from our society, and so everyone in this nation is bought and paid for. They are government property.

Are you saying the government does not control contracts between two pieces of property?

 

[bfdd]

Originally posted by: BarrySotero

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
BarrySotero

Homosexuals already have equal rights. They can do normal marriage like anyone else. Instead they (or the political groups at least) want to bend the laws to give them legitimacy where nature and science do not. Homosexual groups don't care about getting married that much - they just hate the contrast with certain realities and would like to block them out. These people would turn the world upside down if they can. I agree with you about feelings. Homosexuals and others "feeling" denial of homosexual marriage is like being black doesn't make it so.

Do you even have a clue how ignorant that post makes you appear?

Claiming science and nature deny legitimacy to homosexuality is pure bullshit.

Claiming that they already have equal rights means you don't even understand the problem.

They don't care that much? Did you pull that out of your ass, or find it by the roadside?

Being black and being homosexual are both natural and without choice, so the comparison along the lines of equal rights is quite appropriate.

You are a fool.

I'm 100 correct. Homosexuality is such an abuse of anatomy and so unhygienic that it is a primary disease vector ( AIDS, syphilis, hepatitis, MRSA - homosexuals have epidemics among them like nobody else - a reason FDA had to ban them from donating blood).

Being black is natural and without choice. Homosexuality is a compulsion with many links to sexual abuse, family issues with parents etc. This is why you never hear about many studies about homosexuals

Nicholas Cummings (former APA president) has said that when APA conducts research they only do so "when they know what the outcome is going to be...only research with predictably favorable outcomes is permissible."

There are people who feel "naturally" compelled to be urinated and defecated on for sexual arousal and they aren't "just like blacks" either because they don't have special rights

Who cares if it's choice or they're born like that anyways? You make choices on how to live your life ALL THE TIME and I'm sure there's groups out there in huge numbers that disagree with your choices. Maybe you should stop worrying about how others live their lives and worry about yourself.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: K1052
Butterbean 2.0

His argument was a bit more substantial than yours.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Atreus21
What's the harm in permitting beastiality?

animals can't consent

So?

what's the difference between sex and rape?

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Atreus21
What's the harm in permitting beastiality?

animals can't consent

So?

The best answer we can give you is: When there's a real push to legalize beastiality, we'll revisit this question. Same for polygamy. Same for marriage between humans and animals, humans and inanimate objects, humans and dead people, and humans and space aliens.

Until then, please don't sidetrack this thread.

 

[bfdd]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Atreus21
What's the harm in permitting beastiality?

animals can't consent

So?

what's the difference between sex and rape?

One is funny if it's with a clown?