Same Sex marriage - my view point

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: xj0hnx
[
I'm not the one pining for social acceptance

If you were denied it by bigots, that would very likely change. Why would you be looking for it when you have it, by being lucky enough to be born in the majority group?

 

[xj0hnx]

Originally posted by: Craig234
xjohnx, the point you are missing is that bigots look for angles to get to be bigoted, often unaware that they are bigoted.

More of your self-righteous bullshit. I don't give a shit what gay's do, if they want to live together, visit each other in the hospital, get tax breaks, whatever. What I want to know is if they are really interested in their "rights" or just in pissing off the breeders.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: xj0hnx

Originally posted by: Craig234
xjohnx, the point you are missing is that bigots look for angles to get to be bigoted, often unaware that they are bigoted.

More of your self-righteous bullshit. I don't give a shit what gay's do, if they want to live together, visit each other in the hospital, get tax breaks, whatever. What I want to know is if they are really interested in their "rights" or just in pissing off the breeders.

I think they want equality.... total equality... they want the word Marriage to be universal for the same event under law.

 

[xj0hnx]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: xj0hnx
[
I'm not the one pining for social acceptance

If you were denied it by bigots, that would very likely change. Why would you be looking for it when you have it, by being lucky enough to be born in the majority group?

And yet MORE of yourself righteous bullshit. What color am I? Where do I live? Am I married? songle? Do I have kids? Do I shot dope? You don't know shit about me, yet here you stand judging, doing the very thing you pretend to decry, pathetic.

 

[bfdd]

Originally posted by: Mean MrMustard
Nope, keep it at the state level. Why should the federal gov't have anything to do marriage? It's bad enough that state gov'ts do. Why does everything ultimately involve the feds?

<-- supporter

I'm with you. I voted against making it illegal here in California, but the government should have nothing to do with marriage anyways.

 

[xj0hnx]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: xj0hnx

Originally posted by: Craig234
xjohnx, the point you are missing is that bigots look for angles to get to be bigoted, often unaware that they are bigoted.

More of your self-righteous bullshit. I don't give a shit what gay's do, if they want to live together, visit each other in the hospital, get tax breaks, whatever. What I want to know is if they are really interested in their "rights" or just in pissing off the breeders.

I think they want equality.... total equality... they want the word Marriage to be universal for the same event under law.

Why? If it's about a word than why isn't "Civil Union" with the same rights good enough? Is it about the rights? Or is it about a statement? A word?

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: xj0hnx

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: xj0hnx

Originally posted by: Craig234
xjohnx, the point you are missing is that bigots look for angles to get to be bigoted, often unaware that they are bigoted.

More of your self-righteous bullshit. I don't give a shit what gay's do, if they want to live together, visit each other in the hospital, get tax breaks, whatever. What I want to know is if they are really interested in their "rights" or just in pissing off the breeders.

I think they want equality.... total equality... they want the word Marriage to be universal for the same event under law.

Why? If it's about a word than why isn't "Civil Union" with the same rights good enough? Is it about the rights? Or is it about a statement? A word?

In my daughter's case it is the 'Word'... she wants her situation to be just like mine.. Married... it means that much to her.. I try to understand the 'Word' over substance and I'm left with ... if it is only a word.. what the hell difference does that make. Edit: to either side?

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: bfdd

Originally posted by: Mean MrMustard
Nope, keep it at the state level. Why should the federal gov't have anything to do marriage? It's bad enough that state gov'ts do. Why does everything ultimately involve the feds?

<-- supporter

I'm with you. I voted against making it illegal here in California, but the government should have nothing to do with marriage anyways.

It has to... it is the government what gives the license... extends the rights that under the US Constitution must be recognized by all the States with a few exceptions like Gay Marriage...
Marriage and the other terms are legal contracts... must be enforceable in a court of law.

 

[bfdd]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: bfdd

Originally posted by: Mean MrMustard
Nope, keep it at the state level. Why should the federal gov't have anything to do marriage? It's bad enough that state gov'ts do. Why does everything ultimately involve the feds?

<-- supporter

I'm with you. I voted against making it illegal here in California, but the government should have nothing to do with marriage anyways.

It has to... it is the government what gives the license... extends the rights that under the US Constitution must be recognized by all the States with a few exceptions like Gay Marriage...
Marriage and the other terms are legal contracts... must be enforceable in a court of law.

Or they could just NOT grant a "marriage license" and instead just grant an ANY TWO PEOPLE WHO FOR WHATEVER REASON WANT TO FILE THEIR TAXES TOGETHER license.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: bfdd

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: bfdd

Originally posted by: Mean MrMustard
Nope, keep it at the state level. Why should the federal gov't have anything to do marriage? It's bad enough that state gov'ts do. Why does everything ultimately involve the feds?

<-- supporter

I'm with you. I voted against making it illegal here in California, but the government should have nothing to do with marriage anyways.

It has to... it is the government what gives the license... extends the rights that under the US Constitution must be recognized by all the States with a few exceptions like Gay Marriage...
Marriage and the other terms are legal contracts... must be enforceable in a court of law.

Or they could just NOT grant a "marriage license" and instead just grant an ANY TWO PEOPLE WHO FOR WHATEVER REASON WANT TO FILE THEIR TAXES TOGETHER license.

Simplicity, I guess... you'd have all sorts of ANY TWO... I think also there is a sense of; you don't get to file taxes willy nilly... it is a law to recognize some action to an event... as it were.

 

[gingermeggs]

It's Adam and Eve,
Not Adam and Steve!
Until death do us part'

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: xj0hnx

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: xj0hnx

Originally posted by: Craig234
xjohnx, the point you are missing is that bigots look for angles to get to be bigoted, often unaware that they are bigoted.

More of your self-righteous bullshit. I don't give a shit what gay's do, if they want to live together, visit each other in the hospital, get tax breaks, whatever. What I want to know is if they are really interested in their "rights" or just in pissing off the breeders.

I think they want equality.... total equality... they want the word Marriage to be universal for the same event under law.

Why? If it's about a word than why isn't "Civil Union" with the same rights good enough? Is it about the rights? Or is it about a statement? A word?

1. You proved Moonbeam right about you. I did waste time explaining to you, other than the fact that it established he was right.

2. The question isn't why the wor marriage matters to gays. It's why it matters to anyone who wants to DENY it to gays to treat them equally.

And the answer to that - whatever the excuse concocted - is bigotry.

So denying the word gays is important to the bigots, so they can maintain the claim that gays are second-class. "See, they're inferior, they can't have 'marriage', we can'.

And that's why it's important to gays - to not have society, in its laws, symbolically - the word - treating them as second-class.

The same way blacks fought 'separate but equal', when earlier bigots tried to maintain bigotry - separate - while having to pay lip service to equality - 'but equal'.

That lasted 60 years in our laws, and was good to change. Discrimination against gay marital equality has lasted longer, and is good to change.

You are what Moonbeam said, and that leaves you irrational in your not responding to the explanation I posted, and not understanding the issue with 'the word' is the bigots.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: gingermeggs
It's Adam and Eve,
Not Adam and Steve!
Until death do us part'

I think both Cane and Able were illegitimate unless some one married them (Adam and Eve that is)... perhaps the Sons of God from Gen 6...

 

[bfdd]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: bfdd

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: bfdd

Originally posted by: Mean MrMustard
Nope, keep it at the state level. Why should the federal gov't have anything to do marriage? It's bad enough that state gov'ts do. Why does everything ultimately involve the feds?

<-- supporter

I'm with you. I voted against making it illegal here in California, but the government should have nothing to do with marriage anyways.

It has to... it is the government what gives the license... extends the rights that under the US Constitution must be recognized by all the States with a few exceptions like Gay Marriage...
Marriage and the other terms are legal contracts... must be enforceable in a court of law.

Or they could just NOT grant a "marriage license" and instead just grant an ANY TWO PEOPLE WHO FOR WHATEVER REASON WANT TO FILE THEIR TAXES TOGETHER license.

Simplicity, I guess... you'd have all sorts of ANY TWO... I think also there is a sense of; you don't get to file taxes willy nilly... it is a law to recognize some action to an event... as it were.

Any two people regardless of status with each other should be able to file for a license to get all the benefits of a "married" couple. If my roommate and I wanted to file together and get all those benefits, why can't we? We live together we "support" each other. We aren't gay, we just live together, and who knows if we could get the benefits of a married couple maybe things would be easier for us.

 

[glenn1]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: bfdd

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: bfdd

Originally posted by: Mean MrMustard
Nope, keep it at the state level. Why should the federal gov't have anything to do marriage? It's bad enough that state gov'ts do. Why does everything ultimately involve the feds?

<-- supporter

I'm with you. I voted against making it illegal here in California, but the government should have nothing to do with marriage anyways.

It has to... it is the government what gives the license... extends the rights that under the US Constitution must be recognized by all the States with a few exceptions like Gay Marriage...
Marriage and the other terms are legal contracts... must be enforceable in a court of law.

Or they could just NOT grant a "marriage license" and instead just grant an ANY TWO PEOPLE WHO FOR WHATEVER REASON WANT TO FILE THEIR TAXES TOGETHER license.

Simplicity, I guess... you'd have all sorts of ANY TWO... I think also there is a sense of; you don't get to file taxes willy nilly... it is a law to recognize some action to an event... as it were.

Government shouldn't be in the business of issuing marriage licenses in the first place; it defiles what should be a family, social, and religious act. Needing a marriage license is akin to needing a license to be baptised.

If you're gay and wish to be married, sanctify it in God's eyes while giving the middle finger to government; be wed in a church of a denomination which recognizes and supports the gay rights (Unitarian/Universalist, United Church of Christ, Episcopalian, etc). Unfortunately the denomination I attend (United Methodist) has a way to go on this account, but as a layperson I'm doing what I can to help this along.

 

[Lemon law]

No, in MHO, our OP sportage is clueless. It may be the sportage opinion that gay marriage is some sort of abomination and must be stopped, and at the same time many gay and non gay people think its long past overdue for the USA to recognize gay marriage as a legitimate right.

In terms of the latter group who support gay marriage, there is one and only one game stopper, and that is a constitutional amendment saying marriage is only for heterosexual couples. Meanwhile, the best strategy for the opposite is to use a eclectic attacks based on legal arguments on the local, State, and national government level.

In short sportage, wake us up when you have support for such a national constitutional amendment, failing that, their best strategy is to attack legal inconsistencies on all levels.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: bfdd

Originally posted by: LunarRay
Simplicity, I guess... you'd have all sorts of ANY TWO... I think also there is a sense of; you don't get to file taxes willy nilly... it is a law to recognize some action to an event... as it were.

Any two people regardless of status with each other should be able to file for a license to get all the benefits of a "married" couple. If my roommate and I wanted to file together and get all those benefits, why can't we? We live together we "support" each other. We aren't gay, we just live together, and who knows if we could get the benefits of a married couple maybe things would be easier for us.

Well, I'd suggest that if you can get married do so... what does the word mean if the fact is not established...
Lots of folks get married or even divorced for reasons they find compelling.
I'd not think any less of you or any couple getting married for what ever their reasons... but wonder how often some would say... We're married... BUT... WE AIN'T GAY...

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: sportage
With another prop8-like challenge coming up in November, I think in Maine this time, Im now convinced same sex marriage supporters are just treading water and not getting much anywhere.
In iOwa its great they have same sex marriage, but as soon as
some republican gets back in, or as soon as they put the issue on the ballot, same sex marriage laws will be their short lived victory, as with California.
Anti-Gay groups will soon start pumping in money, whatever it takes, to spread lies and create fear, in iOwa too.

So I ask? do supporters really have to constantly go thru this over and over, state by state, time and time again?
And in iOwa, while current law allows many couples to marry, nothing on a daily
basis has really changed as far as I can tell. By not yet having federal recognition, state recognition seems a bit... pointless. I now realize it is not the state that matters with this, it is the federal.

Just as with 1960?s civil rights, and LBJ, same sex couples need to focus on the federal level, and forget about the state level. Their money needs to go towards lobbying on the federal level, members of congress, and not wasted on the state level.

When success is experienced on the federal level, then the state level will become moot, as it should be.
Federal recognition would, as I understand it, give same sex marriage rights
in all states, coast to coast. Thus ending the practice of slapping anti-marriage challenges onto state ballots every election cycle. Once the federal government
recognizes same sex couples, then the battle will have been won once and for all.

On the state level, same sex marriage laws prove to be just too vulnerable.
All it takes is for one opposed group, plus their money, and a barrage of TV spots, to turn the tide.
This is just wrong. Im my opinion, it goes against the freedom and liberties granted in the US constitution. It boarders on mob rule, and third world politics.
"Civil rights" should never become some ballot issue, period.

If LBJ had gone that route, and had not pushed for federal civil rights for blacks,
then every southern state one by one could in fact overturn civil rights laws and return states back to the days when women and blacks were not allowed to vote.
Can you imagine?

With the climate of current by some, since Obama was elected, would anyone
be that surprised if some southern states actually put civil rights on the ballot for voter
approval, or rejection? Trying to stop another Obama from happening?
And what then after even one such ballot initiative won?
Federal protection of civil rights, signed into law by LBJ, grants blacks their due protections. Gay men and women need to fight for the same federal protection as to marriage.

Fighting for rights on a state by state level will, in the end, get them nowhere.
They will be forever looking behind their shoulder, every election cycle,
to see from which group the next challenge will come from.

I very much agree with Barney Frank, in that they should be pounding the halls
of congress, and not pounding the streets, in protest.
And too, by not wasting the money fighting on the state level.
They will forever be much too vulnerable, and that vulnerability needs to be removed.

Actually barney frank thinks it would be quicker to go the lawsuit way.

 

[ebaycj]

Originally posted by: xj0hnx
Would the majority of gays be happy with civil unions that carried the same "rights" as a marriage?

I'm sure they would, if Hetero couples also had to get the same civil union to get the same "rights" as a marriage.

 

[gingermeggs]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: gingermeggs
It's Adam and Eve,
Not Adam and Steve!
Until death do us part'

I think both Cane and Able were illegitimate unless some one married them (Adam and Eve that is)... perhaps the Sons of God from Gen 6...

The tale of the jilted gay lover'
lol

 

[ebaycj]

Originally posted by: BriGy86
They should do away with the term "marriage" in a legal sense. The term "marriage" should only apply to the religious ceremony. The state should then only recognize civil unions. Civil unions should be applicable to gay, straight, biracial people etc. Current marriages could be grandfathered in or simply relabeled as civil unions.

I would hope that should end the "gay marriage" debate.

This.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: glenn1

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Simplicity, I guess... you'd have all sorts of ANY TWO... I think also there is a sense of; you don't get to file taxes willy nilly... it is a law to recognize some action to an event... as it were.

Government shouldn't be in the business of issuing marriage licenses in the first place; it defiles what should be a family, social, and religious act. Needing a marriage license is akin to needing a license to be baptised.

If you're gay and wish to be married, sanctify it in God's eyes while giving the middle finger to government; be wed in a church of a denomination which recognizes and supports the gay rights (Unitarian/Universalist, United Church of Christ, Episcopalian, etc). Unfortunately the denomination I attend (United Methodist) has a way to go on this account, but as a layperson I'm doing what I can to help this along.

We don't all live in the same church. Nor see the same God as God if we see God at all. A marriage license is not a Catholic Contract it is a legal one... just like a Catholic drivers license... you can only drive in the Vatican or in the church parking lot.
Who cares what God sanctifies... God's kingdom is not here on Earth... Jesus said that... I believe him...
Anyhow, a marriage is not a religious event... We live in a society under the laws of the States which are subordinated to the Federal laws as applicable.. Religion is to do with souls and stuff... In law, what faith one is has no bearing on anything unless a specific issue arises like in the case where a minister of a faith not recognized by the State to perform a marriage does so... i

 

[ebaycj]

Originally posted by: classy
You know I get so sick and tired of the comparative homosexual to a persons skin color. Homosexuality has to do with a person behavior, sexual behavior to be specific. Whether or not a person is religous or not, its questionable on many levels. A person's skin color is not the same as a person's behavior. So this idea that allowing someone with dark skin marry someone without white skin is no where near the same as having two men or women marry each other.

My opinion is homosexuality will never, ever be accepted as norm. Not today, tomorrow, next week, next million years. You can give them all the rights in the world, most of world still is not going to accept it as a norm. There is a basic instinct of survival built in all of us. Homosexuality challenges that instinct regardless of color, religion, or financial status. But instinct will continue to override that challenge until mankind has vanishes off this planet.

You are a bigot because you view it as "us vs. them".

You need to get to the point where "them" is part of "us".

 

[xj0hnx]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: xj0hnx

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: xj0hnx

Originally posted by: Craig234
xjohnx, the point you are missing is that bigots look for angles to get to be bigoted, often unaware that they are bigoted.

More of your self-righteous bullshit. I don't give a shit what gay's do, if they want to live together, visit each other in the hospital, get tax breaks, whatever. What I want to know is if they are really interested in their "rights" or just in pissing off the breeders.

I think they want equality.... total equality... they want the word Marriage to be universal for the same event under law.

Why? If it's about a word than why isn't "Civil Union" with the same rights good enough? Is it about the rights? Or is it about a statement? A word?

In my daughter's case it is the 'Word'... she wants her situation to be just like mine.. Married... it means that much to her.. I try to understand the 'Word' over substance and I'm left with ... if it is only a word.. what the hell difference does that make. Edit: to either side?

To either side is easy, to traditional, religious people it means a lot, it's an institution, and something that means a lot to them. If the "rights" are what's important, than that should be the goal, if it's to make a statement, than I have no problem with people making their own statement and resisting it. Your daughters situation is not like yours, even if it was called marriage, it still wouldn't be.

 

[bfdd]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: bfdd

Originally posted by: LunarRay
Simplicity, I guess... you'd have all sorts of ANY TWO... I think also there is a sense of; you don't get to file taxes willy nilly... it is a law to recognize some action to an event... as it were.

Any two people regardless of status with each other should be able to file for a license to get all the benefits of a "married" couple. If my roommate and I wanted to file together and get all those benefits, why can't we? We live together we "support" each other. We aren't gay, we just live together, and who knows if we could get the benefits of a married couple maybe things would be easier for us.

Well, I'd suggest that if you can get married do so... what does the word mean if the fact is not established...
Lots of folks get married or even divorced for reasons they find compelling.
I'd not think any less of you or any couple getting married for what ever their reasons... but wonder how often some would say... We're married... BUT... WE AIN'T GAY...

For the brief while, while marriage between the same sex was legal in California a friend and I almost did that.