Big wins for same sex marriage

[Seawytch]

I don't agree with it, but I will say it's good that SSM was legalized the right way via public vote.

If that was done with interracial marriage, it would not have been legal until the 1990s instead of 1965.

 

[Caroljo]

He still has more EO's he can sign! He knows how to go around Congress....he's done it a few times.

 

[Newby]

Sorry if you think pointing out the historical changes in marriage over the years is "bashing" it, nothing of the sort. I'm not "bashing" marriage - I've been married once for 25 years to the same woman. Neither is pointing out that 2+2=5 is "bashing" mathematics.

The history of marriage is what it is.

I could give two Tink's Farts if a same-sex couple wants to get Civilly Married or not, I do expect though for the government to upload the ideals of liberty and freedom espoused in the preamble of the Constitution which says that this nation is based on liberty and justice. Sorry. Invidious and capricious discriminatory laws without a compelling government interest neither establishes liberty or justice.




Your right Civil Marriage doesn't need adjectives to describe it. A same-sex couple is civilly married under the law just the same as a different-sex couple is civilly married under the law, no adjective needed to denote the gender composition and in fact no such designation exists under the laws where such marriages are allowed.

And I disagree re: marriage it hasn't "always been defined the same way". It has been defined as one man and one woman, it has been defined as one man and many women, it has been defined as whites to whites and colored to colored. Those are not "always the same way".



>>>>

So you're ready to admit that it's not all about 'equal treatment under the law' then?

You must be talking about someone else because you aren't getting that from my posts.



1. Nope, it's about the government treating it's citizens equally unless there is a compelling government interest in treating them differently.

2. As previously pointed out the "definition" has changed many times. And not "tradition" is not a compelling government interest.




Correct, call all processes of establishing a family relationship between consenting, non-related, adults "Civil Unions" for same-sex and different-sex couples. That would be fine. Or call them Civil Marriages for same-sex and different-sex couples. That would be fine.

There is no functional difference between law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, infertile, non-related, consenting, adults in a different-sex couple that (in all places) is allowed to Civilly Marry and law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, infertile, non-related, consenting, adults in a different-sex couple (in most places) are not allowed to Civilly Marry.




You can imagine as you wish.




I don't speak for a side, I speak for myself.




Nope, I want the government to not discriminate against it's citizens for no compelling reason other than some find homosexuals "icky" or that their religion says they are an "abomination". Don't like the idea of sex with someone of the same gender, then don't have sex with someone of the same gender. That does not warrant discriminatory laws.



Sorry, I don't label people.




Last I checked homosexuals were 3% on the low end, 10% on the high end.

Think of any television show you wish, if it has 10 people in then in the real world the odds are that at least one would be homosexual.

Yet on the other hand, your motto is supposedly 'live and let live', but you don't practice it.

Sure I do.

If you don't like sex with someone of the same gender, don't have sex with someone of the same gender.

If you don't want to marry someone of the same gender, don't marry someone of the same gender.

Finally, I support the repeal of public accommodation laws as they apply to private businesses. Freedom and Liberty are sometimes messy, but the alternative is Social Authoritarians on the left and Social Authoritarians on the right both espousing big government to solve their issues because they think something is offensive.

I have no trouble with equal treatment under the law, but you can't force people to accept or embrace something they don't agree with on a personal and/or religious level or they're then ostracized. If you do that, you're no better than the people who ostracize someone for being gay, you just become the flip side of the same coin.

I thought you were against allowing Civil Marriage to same-sex couples which would be equal treatment under the law?

I have no desire to force anyone to accept anything. I support decisions based at the private level not the government level like left and right social authoritarians. I'm willing to accept some messy instances of liberty and freedom in the name of really truly smaller less intrusive government. If a bed and breakfast doesn't want to host a same-sex wedding - fine by me. If a Jewish deli owner doesn't want to sell a chicken sandwich to a Muslim - fine by me. If the owner of a used care retailer only wants to hire young hot chicks - fine by me. If a restaurant owner wants to put a sign in their window - "No Coloreds Allowed" - fine by me. (I may choose not to frequent such an establishment, I may choose to tell my friends about it, etc. - but I don't think the government should put a stop to it.)





Is that a little clearer or will you continue to attribute to me things which I haven't said and don't support?



>>>>

'You' wasn't meant as a personal you, it was meant to mean people that support the pro-gay marraige agenda as a whole.

 

[WorldWatcher]

So you're ready to admit that it's not all about 'equal treatment under the law' then?

You must be talking about someone else because you aren't getting that from my posts.



1. Nope, it's about the government treating it's citizens equally unless there is a compelling government interest in treating them differently.

2. As previously pointed out the "definition" has changed many times. And not "tradition" is not a compelling government interest.




Correct, call all processes of establishing a family relationship between consenting, non-related, adults "Civil Unions" for same-sex and different-sex couples. That would be fine. Or call them Civil Marriages for same-sex and different-sex couples. That would be fine.

There is no functional difference between law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, infertile, non-related, consenting, adults in a different-sex couple that (in all places) is allowed to Civilly Marry and law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, infertile, non-related, consenting, adults in a different-sex couple (in most places) are not allowed to Civilly Marry.




You can imagine as you wish.




I don't speak for a side, I speak for myself.




Nope, I want the government to not discriminate against it's citizens for no compelling reason other than some find homosexuals "icky" or that their religion says they are an "abomination". Don't like the idea of sex with someone of the same gender, then don't have sex with someone of the same gender. That does not warrant discriminatory laws.



Sorry, I don't label people.




Last I checked homosexuals were 3% on the low end, 10% on the high end.

Think of any television show you wish, if it has 10 people in then in the real world the odds are that at least one would be homosexual.




Sure I do.

If you don't like sex with someone of the same gender, don't have sex with someone of the same gender.

If you don't want to marry someone of the same gender, don't marry someone of the same gender.

Finally, I support the repeal of public accommodation laws as they apply to private businesses. Freedom and Liberty are sometimes messy, but the alternative is Social Authoritarians on the left and Social Authoritarians on the right both espousing big government to solve their issues because they think something is offensive.

I have no trouble with equal treatment under the law, but you can't force people to accept or embrace something they don't agree with on a personal and/or religious level or they're then ostracized. If you do that, you're no better than the people who ostracize someone for being gay, you just become the flip side of the same coin.

I thought you were against allowing Civil Marriage to same-sex couples which would be equal treatment under the law?

I have no desire to force anyone to accept anything. I support decisions based at the private level not the government level like left and right social authoritarians. I'm willing to accept some messy instances of liberty and freedom in the name of really truly smaller less intrusive government. If a bed and breakfast doesn't want to host a same-sex wedding - fine by me. If a Jewish deli owner doesn't want to sell a chicken sandwich to a Muslim - fine by me. If the owner of a used care retailer only wants to hire young hot chicks - fine by me. If a restaurant owner wants to put a sign in their window - "No Coloreds Allowed" - fine by me. (I may choose not to frequent such an establishment, I may choose to tell my friends about it, etc. - but I don't think the government should put a stop to it.)





Is that a little clearer or will you continue to attribute to me things which I haven't said and don't support?



>>>>

'You' wasn't meant as a personal you, it was meant to mean people that support the pro-gay marraige agenda as a whole.

Then to improve communications in the future might I respectfully suggest shying away from personalization using the Second Person reference of "you/your" and write to the generalized group you think exists.


However, on the other hand, that would be quite fruitless endeavor from a discussion standpoint because the straw-man of one monolithic group with the same goals, desires, and unsubstantiated motivations doesn't exist. I'm sure there are left wing radicals that match your theory. Then there are more true conservative, small government Republican's like myself who don't think it's the governments job to be in the discrimination business.


>>>>

 

[Dreamy]

Same sex marriage has been legal in Massachusetts since 2004 and it truly is a non-issue. It has not hurt me or my state. Oh and I am not a liberal or a Democrat for the record.

 

[rightwinger]

He still has more EO's he can sign! He knows how to go around Congress....he's done it a few times.

The way I look at it..

If the Senate GOP can set records on filibusters, Our President can set records on Executive Orders

Go Obama!

 

[rightwinger]

Same sex marriage has been legal in Massachusetts since 2004 and it truly is a non-issue. It has not hurt me or my state. Oh and I am not a liberal or a Democrat for the record.

You mean it did not make you gay?

 

[Dreamy]

Same sex marriage has been legal in Massachusetts since 2004 and it truly is a non-issue. It has not hurt me or my state. Oh and I am not a liberal or a Democrat for the record.

You mean it did not make you gay?

Nope still love the men. I can honestly state that I used to oppose SSM and debated Bod and others about it. I was wrong. I learned over time to not let extremists on either end of the political spectrum guide my political views on any topic. They can be very toxic people.