Big wins for same sex marriage

[Plasmaball]

And slavery is outlawed.

But, we're in the 21st century and fundamentally, marriage is a contract - pure and simple. Which means it should be a judicial issue and nothing more.


But, the politicians in the legislative branch decided to get involved some time ago and still ARE involved.

slavery was a contract and it took 70+ years to correct the issue. Then you have womens right to vote which took even longer.

Rule of thumb you can't vote away a person's rights. That will get knocked down in the courts.

Either we are equal or we are not. Its that simple. Which side do you fall on Si?

Can't be equal if it's special for some. It needs fixed so that it IS equal.

I am all for government out of bedrooms. So, I want government out of bedrooms - out - entirely out. Seems rather simple to me.

who is making it special? Not gay people.

Yeah keep dreaming, because that might happen someday....or you know never.

Pretend you get government out of marriage, and people are free to marry in a church or whatever. You think that will stop gays from getting married? You have no basis anymore for the word having meaning, outside of being personal.

So with no government two gay people get married by finding a friendly church or whatever and you can't do shit about it.

 

[Si modo]

slavery was a contract and it took 70+ years to correct the issue. Then you have womens right to vote which took even longer.

Rule of thumb you can't vote away a person's rights. That will get knocked down in the courts.

Either we are equal or we are not. Its that simple. Which side do you fall on Si?

Can't be equal if it's special for some. It needs fixed so that it IS equal.

I am all for government out of bedrooms. So, I want government out of bedrooms - out - entirely out. Seems rather simple to me.

who is making it special? Not gay people.

Yeah keep dreaming, because that might happen someday....or you know never.

Pretend you get government out of marriage, and people are free to marry in a church or whatever. You think that will stop gays from getting married? You have no basis anymore for the word having meaning, outside of being personal.

So with no government two gay people get married by finding a friendly church or whatever and you can't do shit about it.

Loving your assumptions.

I had a gay brother. His relationship with his partner lasted longer than any of his siblings' marriages.

As I said, I don't give a shit if a man marries a man or a woman. And, if the government gets out of the marriage business, no one can do shit about it if they want to marry.

Keep the government IN the marriage business (rather than treating it as a simple contract, because that is all it is, legally), and folks are going to have a say.

Just like birth control pills, just like healthcare, just like abortions, etc. If we want liberties, then do it right - keep, or get, the fucking government out of it.

 

[Plasmaball]

Can't be equal if it's special for some. It needs fixed so that it IS equal.

I am all for government out of bedrooms. So, I want government out of bedrooms - out - entirely out. Seems rather simple to me.

who is making it special? Not gay people.

Yeah keep dreaming, because that might happen someday....or you know never.

Pretend you get government out of marriage, and people are free to marry in a church or whatever. You think that will stop gays from getting married? You have no basis anymore for the word having meaning, outside of being personal.

So with no government two gay people get married by finding a friendly church or whatever and you can't do shit about it.

Loving your assumptions.

I had a gay brother. His relationship with his partner lasted longer than any of his siblings' marriages.

As I said, I don't give a shit if a man marries a man or a woman. And, if the government gets out of the marriage business, no one can do shit about it if they want to marry.

Keep the government IN the marriage business (rather than treating it as a simple contract, because that is all it is, legally), and folks are going to have a say.

Just like birth control pills, just like healthcare, just like abortions, etc. If we want liberties, then do it right - keep, or get, the fucking government out of it.

So you agree with but dont at the sametime.
I didnt assume anything. I speculated what would happen, and it seems you agree with me.

Government will never get out of the marriage business, so therefore government should treat its people equally. Its that simple.

Again who is making it special Si?
Either we are equal or we are not. Its that simple. Which side do you fall on Si?

Anytime you want to answer.

 

[Si modo]

who is making it special? Not gay people.

Yeah keep dreaming, because that might happen someday....or you know never.

Pretend you get government out of marriage, and people are free to marry in a church or whatever. You think that will stop gays from getting married? You have no basis anymore for the word having meaning, outside of being personal.

So with no government two gay people get married by finding a friendly church or whatever and you can't do shit about it.

Loving your assumptions.

I had a gay brother. His relationship with his partner lasted longer than any of his siblings' marriages.

As I said, I don't give a shit if a man marries a man or a woman. And, if the government gets out of the marriage business, no one can do shit about it if they want to marry.

Keep the government IN the marriage business (rather than treating it as a simple contract, because that is all it is, legally), and folks are going to have a say.

Just like birth control pills, just like healthcare, just like abortions, etc. If we want liberties, then do it right - keep, or get, the fucking government out of it.

So you agree with but dont at the sametime.
I didnt assume anything. I speculated what would happen, and it seems you agree with me.

Government will never get out of the marriage business, so therefore government should treat its people equally. Its that simple.

Again who is making it special Si?
Either we are equal or we are not. Its that simple. Which side do you fall on Si?

Anytime you want to answer.

x No one is making it special; it already IS. And, why is that? Because the fucking government is involved.

I still recall my first political discussion with a catechism teacher when in grammar school. That's when I learned that when a priest marries someone, he is acting as an agent of the government. A church official is acting as an agent of the government??? Having just learned about the Bill of Rights, my catechism teacher wasn't too pleased with me for asking that.

Anyway, that's MY solution to making it equal. - make it the contract it is and keep in in the local jurisdictions. The commerce clause takes care of the rest should the couple move.

Seems quite simple. If we want the government out of our bedrooms, then get it out of them.

What's your solution?

 

[bodecea]

Why am i considered stupid because of what i believe? I'm not claiming anything as mine. But you're telling me that I'm wrong for believing as i do! Are we all supposed to be in lock-step with each other and not have our own beliefs and feelings about these things?

I believe as i do because i believe in God and what He said about man and woman. I don't hate anyone for the way they live or what they believe....but it doesn't mean i have to agree with it.

thats nice believe what you want, but we are not a theocratic nation. We have laws and such.
Either we are equal or we are not, and if we are not equal then your opinion can be tossed out the window as stupid.

Because it's only fair.

we should all be equal....that doesn't mean we should all believe the same thing. We are all individuals, we are all DIFFERENT. I don't hate someone because they don't believe in God. Why do people hate me because i believe in God? I also don't believe we should force a law on anyone. It should be made by the people....so if we vote on gay marriage and it doesn't pass, that's because most people don't want it. Whether it's from their religious beliefs or if it just turns them off...the majority voted and said no! But some people can't accept that. Nothing is fair..............

Don't hate for believing in hour god. But don't try to foist your beliefs on our civil rights.

 

[rightwinger]

who is making it special? Not gay people.

Yeah keep dreaming, because that might happen someday....or you know never.

Pretend you get government out of marriage, and people are free to marry in a church or whatever. You think that will stop gays from getting married? You have no basis anymore for the word having meaning, outside of being personal.

So with no government two gay people get married by finding a friendly church or whatever and you can't do shit about it.

Loving your assumptions.

I had a gay brother. His relationship with his partner lasted longer than any of his siblings' marriages.

As I said, I don't give a shit if a man marries a man or a woman. And, if the government gets out of the marriage business, no one can do shit about it if they want to marry.

Keep the government IN the marriage business (rather than treating it as a simple contract, because that is all it is, legally), and folks are going to have a say.

Just like birth control pills, just like healthcare, just like abortions, etc. If we want liberties, then do it right - keep, or get, the fucking government out of it.

So you agree with but dont at the sametime.
I didnt assume anything. I speculated what would happen, and it seems you agree with me.

Government will never get out of the marriage business, so therefore government should treat its people equally. Its that simple.

Again who is making it special Si?
Either we are equal or we are not. Its that simple. Which side do you fall on Si?

Anytime you want to answer.

The government will always be in the marriage business because they are the ones called in to pick up the pieces when a marriage fails. Disposition of property, child disposition, enforcement of childcare payments, garnishment etc

 

[Si modo]

Loving your assumptions.

I had a gay brother. His relationship with his partner lasted longer than any of his siblings' marriages.

As I said, I don't give a shit if a man marries a man or a woman. And, if the government gets out of the marriage business, no one can do shit about it if they want to marry.

Keep the government IN the marriage business (rather than treating it as a simple contract, because that is all it is, legally), and folks are going to have a say.

Just like birth control pills, just like healthcare, just like abortions, etc. If we want liberties, then do it right - keep, or get, the fucking government out of it.

So you agree with but dont at the sametime.
I didnt assume anything. I speculated what would happen, and it seems you agree with me.

Government will never get out of the marriage business, so therefore government should treat its people equally. Its that simple.

Again who is making it special Si?
Either we are equal or we are not. Its that simple. Which side do you fall on Si?

Anytime you want to answer.

The government will always be in the marriage business because they are the ones called in to pick up the pieces when a marriage fails. Disposition of property, child disposition, enforcement of childcare payments, garnishment etc

And why wouldn't contract law do the same? They are both civil - *couch, cough* in the legal sense, certainly rarely in any other sense - matters.

Now, we have debtors prisons again because of the legislative involvement in marriage. I never thought they were just in history, and now we have it again.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

For the first time voters in Maine and Maryland approved same sex marriage

Voters approve same-sex marriage for the first time - CNN.com

In a historic turnaround, the ballot box is showing America's shifting attitudes about same-sex marriage. After gay marriage rights died at the polls dozens of times in the past, on Tuesday they passed in at least two states.

Rarely do popular votes reflect such dramatic social changes.

The result: Maryland and Maine will now allow couples like Cyrino Patane and James Trinidad to tie the knot.

The Maryland couple has been together for seven years, and now, after the historic vote, they plan to marry in the next six months to a year.

"Both families will be at the wedding," Patane said.



"We've lost at the ballot box 32 times," said Paul Guequierre of Human Rights Campaign. "History was made tonight."

And it was done the right way, via a popular vote, not making up some right and going through the courts.

The courts are where you decide if reciprocity applies to these marriages or not.

The courts wouldn’t be necessary if states recognized citizens’ rights from the start, such as same-sex couples’ equal protection right to marriage law.

One’s civil liberties aren’t determined by his state of residence, one’s Constitutional rights aren’t determined by popular vote.

States are in no position to either acknowledge or deny an inalienable right.

 

[Politico]

Whether they're pole smiking or taco munching I say let em' all get married. The states can make money. And they should have to deal with all the same shit the rest of us do. Expensive custody battles, lawyers, divorces and losing half their shit.

 

[SuMar]

Big wins for same sex marriage and for drug addicts. That's because America is a nation of drug addicted degenerates. The only good thing about it, this doesn't last forever.

Believe me, I'm not for "dumbing down America" with legal marijuana, I'm just curious: How exactly are they going to market the stuff and what kind of a tax will be implemented?

You've seen cigarettes in a store, right?

I agree...but every time I've posed the question on taxing marijuana to the supporters of legalizing the drug plant, I usually get the same 'ole FU. Most want it legal but not taxed..I say tax the crap out of it along with raising the taxes on tobacco and alcohol.

 

[rightwinger]

Believe me, I'm not for "dumbing down America" with legal marijuana, I'm just curious: How exactly are they going to market the stuff and what kind of a tax will be implemented?

You've seen cigarettes in a store, right?

I agree...but every time I've posed the question on taxing marijuana to the supporters of legalizing the drug plant, I usually get the same 'ole FU. Most want it legal but not taxed..I say tax the crap out of it along with raising the taxes on tobacco and alcohol.

An interesting sideline is that you can grow your own. How does the IRS tax homegrown marijuana? Does a bag of marijuana have a tax stamp?

It seems alot like moonshine where the hated "Revenuers" chase the hills looking for untaxed pot

 

[Katzndogz]

America, the nation of drug addicted degenerates. To say we don't deserve it is backwards looking. At one time we didn't deserve it, but we certainly do now.

 

[Seawytch]

You've seen cigarettes in a store, right?

I agree...but every time I've posed the question on taxing marijuana to the supporters of legalizing the drug plant, I usually get the same 'ole FU. Most want it legal but not taxed..I say tax the crap out of it along with raising the taxes on tobacco and alcohol.

An interesting sideline is that you can grow your own. How does the IRS tax homegrown marijuana? Does a bag of marijuana have a tax stamp?

It seems alot like moonshine where the hated "Revenuers" chase the hills looking for untaxed pot

I think there would have to be a common sense approach. You can brew your own beer or grow your own tobacco if you want. It's just a lot easier to go into BevMo and pick up a case.

 

[Newby]

SuMar

Well, gay marriage should be a state decision and not federal one.

Uh, no, marriage should be a decision made by the two consenting adults who want to get married.

Get the damn government out of our bedrooms.

Why only two?

 

[Newby]

Did I miss the republican push for a federal bill giving civil unions all the rights married individuals currently enjoy?

It wouldn't have been opposed, but that's not what this special interest group wanted. They wanted 'marriage' in every sense of the word, and they used it as a club to beat conservatives up with. I wonder what agenda will come up next once this one can no longer be used?

Really? Then maybe you can explain all those laws passed in Red states forbidding even the recognition of civil unions within their borders.

I've seen 'gay marriage' on the ballots, not 'civil unions'.

 

[rightwinger]

SuMar

Well, gay marriage should be a state decision and not federal one.

Uh, no, marriage should be a decision made by the two consenting adults who want to get married.

Get the damn government out of our bedrooms.

Why only two?

I don't know....why?

If three consenting adults have an agreement to all marry...what business is it of the state?

Why is it perfectly legal for a man to marry a woman and have a mistress on the side but if he chooses to make a legal commitment to both women he is breaking the law?

 

[Katzndogz]

SuMar

Uh, no, marriage should be a decision made by the two consenting adults who want to get married.

Get the damn government out of our bedrooms.

Why only two?

I don't know....why?

If three consenting adults have an agreement to all marry...what business is it of the state?

Why is it perfectly legal for a man to marry a woman and have a mistress on the side but if he chooses to make a legal commitment to both women he is breaking the law?

The Manson family was just ahead of the curve. As was Warren Jeffs.

 

[WorldWatcher]

It wouldn't have been opposed, but that's not what this special interest group wanted. They wanted 'marriage' in every sense of the word, and they used it as a club to beat conservatives up with. I wonder what agenda will come up next once this one can no longer be used?

Really? Then maybe you can explain all those laws passed in Red states forbidding even the recognition of civil unions within their borders.

I've seen 'gay marriage' on the ballots, not 'civil unions'.

Section 15-A. Marriage.

That only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this Commonwealth and its political subdivisions. This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage. Nor shall this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions create or recognize another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage.

The amendment ratified November 7, 2006, and effective January 1, 2007—Added a new section (15-A).​

Many, ballot initiatives like the Virginia Amendment barred not only Civil Marriages based on gender, they barred the creation of Civil Unions. Then of course there was the Washington ballot initiative to stop full Civil Unions because "they were to much like marriage".



>>>>

 

[Newby]

SuMar

Uh, no, marriage should be a decision made by the two consenting adults who want to get married.

Get the damn government out of our bedrooms.

Why only two?

I don't know....why?

If three consenting adults have an agreement to all marry...what business is it of the state?

Why is it perfectly legal for a man to marry a woman and have a mistress on the side but if he chooses to make a legal commitment to both women he is breaking the law?

Exactly, if you want 'equal rights', you can't place any restrictions on it. Once that happens, it really has no meaning at all, so why bother? So, we're back to legally treating each person as an individual regardless of their personal relationships via taxation and other areas of government. Marriage was originally done to promote the family unit, which has been proven to be the most successful establishment of promoting human civilization, and raising children into successful adults. But, the left has been working at tearing down the family unit pretty much since it got started decades ago. The removal of God from society is for the same reasons. Why stop now when you're so close to actually doing it? I always have to ask, what then? The answer to that is government. Government becomes the supporter, the family, the sustainer, the provider. Replace God with government as well, you don't need God. You don't need family. Government is everything. That's the end goal.

 

[Newby]

Really? Then maybe you can explain all those laws passed in Red states forbidding even the recognition of civil unions within their borders.

I've seen 'gay marriage' on the ballots, not 'civil unions'.

Section 15-A. Marriage.

That only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this Commonwealth and its political subdivisions. This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage. Nor shall this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions create or recognize another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage.

The amendment ratified November 7, 2006, and effective January 1, 2007—Added a new section (15-A).​

Many, ballot initiatives like the Virginia Amendment barred not only Civil Marriages based on gender, they barred the creation of Civil Unions. Then of course there was the Washington ballot initiative to stop full Civil Unions because "they were to much like marriage".



>>>>

All the ones that I have seen have been stated as 'marriage'. I support civil unions for legal reasons, and that's what this fight is supposed to be about, the legal battle. I don't even care if everything is seen as a 'civil union' in the eyes of the law. The government doesn't determine what my relationship is in my opinion. Marriage is done when you make vows to each other that is done in the eyes of God and blessed as such in a religious ceremony.