Now that gay marriage may become legal on a national level:

[CPA]

Yeah there are, tard. NC just passed one. Iowa has one. Many U.S. states have them. Read up

You have to forgive him, like many people in our country, the focus is on federal government. Many folks are even aware that the state can make laws. It's a shame, really, where this country's focus has gone regarding power.

 

[dmcowen674]

You have to forgive him, like many people in our country, the focus is on federal government. Many folks are even aware that the state can make laws. It's a shame, really, where this country's focus has gone regarding power.

No state should have the power to discriminate against anyone.

That is not what the country is founded on contrary to the belief of the Religious Radical America Hating Right.

 

[cybrsage]

I thought marriage was a State run thing? Each state has their own laws.

 

[cybrsage]

No state should have the power to discriminate against anyone.

That is not what the country is founded on contrary to the belief of the Religious Radical America Hating Right.

You support incestuous and polygamist marriages then? Or are you one of those people who claim there must be discrimination and are one of those "religious radical america hating right" you so decry?

 

[CPA]

No state should have the power to discriminate against anyone.

That is not what the country is founded on contrary to the belief of the Religious Radical America Hating Right.

The problem with the discrimination argument is that it can be applied so broadly as that almost any law could be considered discriminatory.

 

[nehalem256]

No state should have the power to discriminate against anyone.

That is not what the country is founded on contrary to the belief of the Religious Radical America Hating Right.

You do realize that nearly every law the government passes discriminates against someone right?

Believing that marriage has a definition and purpose does not mean you hate america.

 

[JS80]

Gays run on emotion. They have the best of both worlds by having government stay out of their anuses yet get select benefits of being in a union. I don't see the purpose other than to fulfill some emotional chip on their shoulders. What heterosexuals should be doing is pushing for the abolition of government recognition of marriage.

 

[momeNt]

Abolish all marriages and instead move to private contracts that government can't interfere with.

 

[senseamp]

I thought marriage was a State run thing? Each state has their own laws.

It is, as long as the laws don't violate the Constitution.

 

[Rainsford]

I honestly don't understand why gays want to get married. Marraige at it's core is a religious covenant, and that is why people oppose it. Most of the major religions state that homosexuality is wrong, thus the followers think it is wrong.
If gays would stop pushing for gay marraige, and instead opt for Civil Union, there wouldn't be as much of an uproar against it. The media and supporters of gay marraige may act like the majority of Americans support it, but the truth is plain to see. Time and time again voters are saying they do not approve of it.
Though I'm also of the mind that straight people shouldn't get married either. with marraiges hovering around a 50% failure rate, why do it at all? All it does is make things more difficult when statistically you are more likely to split up at somepoint.

Neither of those points makes much sense to me. I'm straight and not religious, and *I* want to get married. It seems unreasonable for me to think gay people feel any differently than I do about marriage. And your civil unions argument would be a lot more credible if most of the time when people vote to "defend marriage" against the pink menace, they don't ALSO prohibit civil unions. You can argue that it's really about the "marriage" part of "gay marriage", but civil unions are very clearly not an acceptable compromise to the anti-gay folks either.

And take a closer look at the voting results. I couldn't possibly care less how many people do or don't support gay marriage. It's not going to change my mind either way, and I firmly believe that bigotry is still bigotry, no matter how many people believe in it. But while a majority may still dislike gay marriage, the support for gay marriage has been pretty steadily dropping for years. California's latest ballot initiative received a far weaker majority than a similar one not that long ago. I see no reason to think this trend would reverse itself, and I suspect that easily within my lifetime, the majority will see things differently.

 

[senseamp]

Gays run on emotion. They have the best of both worlds by having government stay out of their anuses yet get select benefits of being in a union. I don't see the purpose other than to fulfill some emotional chip on their shoulders. What heterosexuals should be doing is pushing for the abolition of government recognition of marriage.

Yeah, straight men should sue under the 14th Amendment, saying that the marriage laws discriminate against them by not giving them an excuse to shack up indefinitely without getting married.

 

[Rainsford]

I thought marriage was a State run thing? Each state has their own laws.

And Article IV, Section 1 of the Constitution says that states have to respect the records and legal proceedings of every other state. There is an argument, one that hasn't been tested very well in court to my knowledge, that this means marriage CAN'T be defined on a state-by-state basis. If you're married in Iowa, you're married in Texas, even if you're gay (or so the argument goes).

Time will tell if state level gay marriage bans are constitutional or not, but it makes sense that they would be. While states have their own laws, we're still one country, and fundamental legal proceedings need to have some uniformity.

 

[dmcowen674]

You support incestuous and polygamist marriages then? Or are you one of those people who claim there must be discrimination and are one of those "religious radical america hating right" you so decry?

Apples and Oranges

Incest is a biological and genetics issue.

There is nothing wrong with multiples.

Tell me you wouldn't want 70 wives to chose from.

The Sheik's have it right there.

 

[Rainsford]

Apples and Oranges

Incest is a biological and genetics issue.

There is nothing wrong with multiples.

Tell me you wouldn't want 70 wives to chose from.

The Sheik's have it right there.

I don't know about that. Being able to "choose" between wives seems to require a pretty substantial imbalance of power between the man and the women. I have a hard time believing that polygamy and equality aren't opposing ideas.

That said, whatever floats your boat, I guess. If women (or men) willingly choose to be the sexual equivalent of a garage full of nice cars for their partner to pick based on his or her mood, that's their business.

 

[cybrsage]

Apples and Oranges

Is hetero marriage the apple and homo marriage the orange?

Incest is a biological and genetics issue.

Only if they have babies.

There is nothing wrong with multiples.

Except that it lands you in prison.

Tell me you wouldn't want 70 wives to chose from.

The Sheik's have it right there.

One wife is plenty for me, I have a good one.

 

[etrigan420]

Gays run on emotion. They have the best of both worlds by having government stay out of their anuses yet get select benefits of being in a union. I don't see the purpose other than to fulfill some emotional chip on their shoulders. What heterosexuals should be doing is pushing for the abolition of government recognition of marriage.

So I'm *ass*uming you're straight and the government is "in your anus"?

Is it something you feel ready to talk about? Or are the wounds still too fresh?

 

[cybrsage]

And Article IV, Section 1 of the Constitution says that states have to respect the records and legal proceedings of every other state. There is an argument, one that hasn't been tested very well in court to my knowledge, that this means marriage CAN'T be defined on a state-by-state basis. If you're married in Iowa, you're married in Texas, even if you're gay (or so the argument goes).

Time will tell if state level gay marriage bans are constitutional or not, but it makes sense that they would be. While states have their own laws, we're still one country, and fundamental legal proceedings need to have some uniformity.

From what I have read about divorce proceedings (which are at least closely related to marriage proceedings), your legal status depends on your state of bona fide residence. There was a case the SCOTUS heard where a man from one marriage and a woman from another marriage both left Massachusetts and moved to Nevada for 6 weeks. Nevada had a 6 week long divorce process whereas Mass had a year long one. After 6 weeks, they obtained their divorce decrees, got married, and moved back to Mass where they were charged with polygamy. The SCOTUS ruled that the other states had to accept the divorce decrees of the other states provided the person was a resident of the state in which the decree was given. However, if a state could show the person was not a bona fide resident of the other state, the divorce proceeding becomes null.

You are correct that marriage has yet to be challenged. I suspect the SCOTUS would rule that homo married couples are still married in a banned state if they are in the state temporarily, but that their marriage would become void if they were to become residents in the state. I suspect they would also rule this way if a 14 year old hetero marriage from a state where it is legal moved to an 18 year old hetero requirement state.

There is a LOT about that article and section here, it is very good reading, especially this:

Presaging what ruling the Court would make when it did get around to passing upon the latter question, Justice Jackson, dissenting in Williams I, protested that ''this decision repeals the divorce laws of all the States and substitutes the law of Nevada as to all marriages one of the parties to which can afford a short trip there. . . . While a State can no doubt set up its own standards of domicile as to its internal concerns, I do not think it can require us to accept and in the name of the Constitution impose them on other States. . . . The effect of the Court's decision today--that we must give extra-territorial effect to any judgment that a state honors for its own purposes--is to deprive this Court of control over the operation of the full faith and credit and the due process clauses of the Federal Constitution in cases of contested jurisdiction and to vest it in the first State to pass on the facts necessary to jurisdiction.''55

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article04/01.html#1

 

[JS80]

So I'm *ass*uming you're straight and the government is "in your anus"?

Is it something you feel ready to talk about? Or are the wounds still too fresh?

I have to bend over and take it up the ass because the government knows I'm married I get taxed more.

 

[soulcougher73]

Whoooooooooosh. That's the sound of his post going right over your head. He's is correct, there is no law against gay people getting married. They can marry someone of the opposite gender just like anyone else.

Not so bright this one.

 

[soulcougher73]

Marriage isn't a religious thing in the eyes of the law. Me and my wife are not religious and we got married. Not in a church, but at a public park by my uncle who is a judge. So the religion argument is bogus as you can see when it comes to the law. So allowing gays to marry would be no different than my wife and i legally.

You homophobes need to get over yourselves and wake up to the new world.

 

[cybrsage]

Ah, the old "if you do not agree with me you are a xxxphobe" arguement. Using it only serves to expose the weakness in the argument of those who use it.

But to address the item soul brought up, in the US the religious institution existed prior to the legal institution. The legal institution used the same name and copied the religious institution even though this was obviously a violation of the first amendment. What is done is done, and hundreds of years of it cannot be easily changed. All we can do is remove government from religion (since it should never have been in religion to start with) and move on.

Saying we have to change the meaning of a religious institution just because they government got involved in religion is simply continuing the wrongdoing. We need to remove government from marriage altogether and have it only issue civil unions. Churches can then do the marriages according to their religion and civil unions issued for hetero, homo, poly, and incest civil unions to grant rights to all.

 

[Lemon law]

As for me, I wholeheartedly to a only 96% extent support the Romney position that marriage should be only be between a man and a woman. Whoopie works for me, for the first time in my life I am in a majority.

But the problem is and remains, what about the 4% of the population that is in a minority.
As somehow men love men and women love woman. As that fraction defective weirdos have not changed since biblical times, and even if we killem, next generation, we still get that same 4% from our children

As for me, I believe marriage promotes social stability, and also believe gay and lesbian marriage does not threaten my herrosexual marriabe in any way. As my abiding conviction is and remains, there is something totally wicked and socially counter productive to go way out if their way to make the lives of homosexuals totally miserable.

If you want to support Mitt Romney style Sadism, go to hell in my book. I have better things to do than to dedicate my life than making a American minority lives even more miserable than they already are.

But if you disagree, please proudly wear the bigot and Sadism label.

 

[soulcougher73]

Ah, the old "if you do not agree with me you are a xxxphobe" arguement. Using it only serves to expose the weakness in the argument of those who use it.

What else could it be? You guys seriously can't be upset over a "word" to stop gay people from having the same rights you do?

I don't care what you call it. Marriage, civil union, flying monkey turds..whatever. It doesn't matter. All that matters is they are allowed the same legal privileges under the law.

Hell i bet if we changed the term to civil unions for all and got rid of the word marriage you'd be upset over that as well.

 

[cybrsage]

What else could it be? You guys seriously can't be upset over a "word" to stop gay people from having the same rights you do?

We both know the word marriage has a powerful meaning, else there would not be a fight to change its meaning and a fight to retain the meaning as it currently is.

I don't care what you call it. Marriage, civil union, flying monkey turds..whatever. It doesn't matter. All that matters is they are allowed the same legal privileges under the law.

Then you agree it is not xxxphobe to want to keep the meaning of the word marriage as it is and not have it changed to suit a small group of people. This does not match your first paragraph.

Hell i bet if we changed the term to civil unions for all and got rid of the word marriage you'd be upset over that as well.

You think this because you prefer to wallow in ignorance. My stance on this issue is well known as I have posted it at least two dozen times. I am sure some are sick of reading it.

 

[Chaotic42]

What heterosexuals should be doing is pushing for the abolition of government recognition of marriage.

I'm fine with that. Either get rid of it, or apply it equally. Either one is fine. I don't understand the opposition to gay marriage. How does it make a straight marriage any less meaningful? Especially when it's "small government" conservatives arguing that gay marriage shouldn't be allowed. Do they want small government or not?

It's such a weird issue and it's distracting from the crisis we're in. Let them get married and let's get on to trying to having a working economy again.