Massachusetts same-sex marriage pioneers split up

[KarlMarx]

Whatever.... the fact is that gay marriage advocates did make the claim.
The one institution that gay marriage seems to be ruining for a certainty, like Roe vs. Wade did, is the rights of voters to decide this issue.

Several years ago, Massachusetts Supreme Court struck down a ban on gay marriage. In a 4-3 ruling, the court gave the Massachusetts state Legislature six months to rewrite the state's marriage laws for the benefit of gay couples.

California voters decided to ban gay marriage in a ballot initiative, but Mayor Gavin Newsom decided that he had the power to just ignore that. Too bad Governor Schwarzenegger didn't make an issue of it and put that clown in jail for breaking California law.

In both cases, in my opinion, officials of the government over stepped their constitutional authority and got away with it.

I think that, an amendment to the Constitution will be needed. I can see the possibility of states not recognizing gay marriages performed in other states. This may open up a lot of issues. An amendment to ban gay marriage will then be decided by all the states, since the 2/3 of the states would have to ratify such an amendment within a certain period of time of its passage in Congress in order for it to be part of the Constitution. I think that is what gay activists and their supporters fear most. They know that if voters were given a choice, they would vote against gay marriage. That pesky concept of popular mandate, if they only did away with it, then the Left could reinvent society to their liking!!!

 

[MissileMan]

Whatever.... the fact is that gay marriage advocates did make the claim.

A couple out of how many? It's not a claim that anyone with a lick of sense would make, nor is its opposite.

It's like claiming that the Republican platform includes the assassination of certain South American government officials because Pat Robertson advocated it.

 

[KarlMarx]

A couple out of how many? It's not a claim that anyone with a lick of sense would make, nor is its opposite.

It's like claiming that the Republican platform includes the assassination of certain South American government officials because Pat Robertson advocated it.

First of all MM, I'm not going to start arguing over the number of people made the claim, and whether they count or don't count. Whether you're convinced or not is no concern of mine. You simply want to make a mountain out of a molehill.

Secondly, gay activists and their supporters made the claims (and I even supplied links to a few). Whether you support gay marriage or not isn't the issue, it's what government officials seem to be willing to do to advance the gay agenda that is the more immediate concern to me.

 

[MissileMan]

First of all MM, I'm not going to start arguing over the number of people made the claim, and whether they count or don't count. Whether you're convinced or not is no concern of mine. You simply want to make a mountain out of a molehill.

Actually, I'm calling your mountain a molehill. You make a claim that one of the major points of gay marriage proponents was that gay marriage would save the institution of marriage. You then provide 3 links. One says "has already in Denmark", one says "might" and the last is list of hypothetical pros and cons, not directly attributed to anyone. You've made a very weak case so far.

 

[Mr.Conley]

Karl, one thing. 2/3 isn't the number of states required to ratify and amendment; it's 3/4. 2/3 is for the Senate.

 

[GotZoom]

A couple out of how many? It's not a claim that anyone with a lick of sense would make, nor is its opposite.

It's like claiming that the Republican platform includes the assassination of certain South American government officials because Pat Robertson advocated it.

You asked him to show you what ignorant asshole said it.

He showed you.

You didn't ask for 72...you asked for one.

He showed you 3. Just because you don't agree doesn't mean his "proof" is wrong.

 

[MissileMan]

You asked him to show you what ignorant asshole said it.

He showed you.

You didn't ask for 72...you asked for one.

He showed you 3. Just because you don't agree doesn't mean his "proof" is wrong.

As I explained in post #24, he hasn't shown any yet. He said that gay marriage advocates claim that gay marriage would (will) save the institution of marriage. Frankly, all I've ever heard is those opposed to gay marriage claiming that gay marriage will ruin the institution of marriage. For the sake of argument though, let's say the "might" guy is the ignorant asshole I asked for. That doesn't make it a generally accepted reason among gay marriage advocates as implied.

 

[Mr.Conley]

Attention: Married Couple gets Divorced. Stop the presses.

 

[KarlMarx]

Karl, one thing. 2/3 isn't the number of states required to ratify and amendment; it's 3/4. 2/3 is for the Senate.

Sorry, you're right. I stand corrected.

 

[KarlMarx]

Ladies and gentlemen, we interrupt this debate to give you an update on the KarlMarx/Missile Man pissing match!!!!!

The big deal is that one of the arguments given for gay marriage was that it would save the institution of marriage.

What ignorant asshole ever made that claim? Really...provide a link that supports that will ya?

it's not one person's opinion, it's a claim that's been made repeatedly (supplies links)

Whatever.... the fact is that gay marriage advocates did make the claim.

A couple out of how many? It's not a claim that anyone with a lick of sense would make, nor is its opposite.

First of all MM, I'm not going to start arguing over the number of people made the claim, and whether they count or don't count. Whether you're convinced or not is no concern of mine. You simply want to make a mountain out of a molehill.

Actually, I'm calling your mountain a molehill. You make a claim that one of the major points of gay marriage proponents was that gay marriage would save the institution of marriage. You then provide 3 links. One says "has already in Denmark", one says "might" and the last is list of hypothetical pros and cons, not directly attributed to anyone. You've made a very weak case so far.

Seems like MM doesn't have a counter argument and he is resorting to his time proven tactic of obfuscating the issue by focusing on insignificant minutiae! This is genius, ladies and gentleman "is" vs. "might", almost as good as Clinton's "is" argument!!!! Notice how MM twists the words, creating issues out of thin air.... this man should be a Supreme Court justice ladies and gentlemen! Finding issues where none exist, fabricating claims that were never made!

We now return to our regularly scheduled program.....

 

[KarlMarx]

Attention: Married Couple gets Divorced. Stop the presses.

Seems like George Michael will be joining the legions of divorced if he doesn't get his act together. Latest is George Michael was caught groping a man in a London Park. This guy got married just a few months ago and he's cruising the parks for other guys.... go figure!

As I said before, I don't believe that gays will have a better track record than straights when it comes to marriage.

 

[Mr.Conley]

I think that he's trying to claim that you've made an invalid generalization, and based on the evidence you've shown, I agree with him. Three links, none of which directly support what you're claiming, are, in my opinion, insufficient proof for your claim that a major pro-gay marriage argument is/was that same-sex marriage would strengthen the institution of marriage.

 

[Mr.Conley]

Seems like George Michael will be joining the legions of divorced if he doesn't get his act together. Latest is George Michael was caught groping a man in a London Park. This guy got married just a few months ago and he's cruising the parks for other guys.... go figure!

As I said before, I don't believe that gays will have a better track record than straights when it comes to marriage.

You're probably right, but even if gay marriages prove less durable than traditional marriages, I don't think is affects the debate on whether gays have the right to marry.

 

[KarlMarx]

You're probably right, but even if gay marriages prove less durable than traditional marriages, I don't think is affects the debate on whether gays have the right to marry.

I saw a comic strip that quipped "Only 35% of Americans favor gay marriage, but 100% of divorce attorneys do". There may be some truth to that. If I were a divorce attorney, I'd be in favor of gay marriage too. After all, if 100,000 gay couples marry and then 50% of them divorce, I'd have 50,000 potential clients.

 

[KarlMarx]

I think that he's trying to claim that you've made an invalid generalization, and based on the evidence you've shown, I agree with him. Three links, none of which directly support what you're claiming, are, in my opinion, insufficient proof for your claim that a major pro-gay marriage argument is/was that same-sex marriage would strengthen the institution of marriage.

No generalization was made. I claimed that it was an argument for gay marriage and provided some links. The authors of each of the links I supplied made the same argument in one form or another (among others), i.e., gay marriage would help marriage in general.

 

[MissileMan]

Ladies and gentlemen, we interrupt this debate to give you an update on the KarlMarx/Missile Man pissing match!!!!!















Seems like MM doesn't have a counter argument and he is resorting to his time proven tactic of obfuscating the issue by focusing on insignificant minutiae! This is genius, ladies and gentleman "is" vs. "might", almost as good as Clinton's "is" argument!!!! Notice how MM twists the words, creating issues out of thin air.... this man should be a Supreme Court justice ladies and gentlemen! Finding issues where none exist, fabricating claims that were never made!

We now return to our regularly scheduled program.....

Amazing clever! When you've lost an argument, accuse the winner of twisting words and fabricating claims. You know what you said was baseless...at best a huge exaggeration.

As for defining words, perhaps you need to look up the words "might" and "will" and take particular notice that they aren't synonymous. And, to help you out as you seem a bit unfamiliar with the English language, synonymous means "means the same thing".

At the risk of repeating myself, only an ignorant asshole would claim that gay marriage would (will) save the institution of marriage and only an idiot would believe him.

 

[Nuc]

This is why the government should get out of marriage. Let people marry whomever within whatever religious construct they belong to. Allow civil marriage ceremonies, but without government restrictions on what actually constitutes marriage.

 

[KarlMarx]

Amazing clever! When you've lost an argument, accuse the winner of twisting words and fabricating claims. You know what you said was baseless...at best a huge exaggeration.

Really? Who said you won? You? All I claimed was that it was an argument for gay marriage! You're the one who's raising a fuss! Frankly, I'm tired of trying to get that through your head!

As for defining words, perhaps you need to look up the words "might" and "will" and take particular notice that they aren't synonymous. And, to help you out as you seem a bit unfamiliar with the English language, synonymous means "means the same thing".

When the argument starts getting into semantics, it no longer is a debate.

At the risk of repeating myself, only an ignorant asshole would claim that gay marriage would (will) save the institution of marriage and only an idiot would believe him.

I agree! That's exactly what I think of gay rights activists and the supporters of gay marriage, too!

 

[KarlMarx]

This is why the government should get out of marriage. Let people marry whomever within whatever religious construct they belong to. Allow civil marriage ceremonies, but without government restrictions on what actually constitutes marriage.

The government should get out of a lot of things. I believe that the federal government has had little to do with regulating marriage, it's been a state matter for the most part (income tax ramifications, notwithstanding). That is why divorce varies from state to state.

I believe the only reason that it's a federal issue is that marriages performed in one state have been historically recognized in all others. But, if one state recognizes gay marriage and another doesn't, then it could have tax consequences, and others. For instance, a couple married in Massachusetts moves to New York. Then, they can claim they're married on their New York State Income Tax, although New York doesn't recognize gay marriage. Do you see where this can go? Furthermore, suppose the couple divorces in New York... oops, according to New York State they aren't legally married! So how can they get divorced? Now you get into division of property issues, alimony, etc. At least that's how it seems to me. There may be nuances of the law that anticipate situations such as this one, however, that I'm not aware of.

But then, on the other side of the coin, rights not enumerated in the Constitution are up to the States to decide. If you force gay marriage through the court system, it violates the voters' right to decide on the issue, per the 10th amendment. So what to do? The simplest way to decide is to have an amendment to the Constitution (for or against), that way it's country wide. I doubt that the average voter will vote in favor of gay marriage, however. I say that because it seems that lately, a lot of states are voting to ban gay marriage altogether.

 

[Nuc]

The government should get out of a lot of things. I believe that the federal government has had little to do with regulating marriage, it's been a state matter for the most part (income tax ramifications, notwithstanding). That is why divorce varies from state to state.

I believe the only reason that it's a federal issue is that marriages performed in one state have been historically recognized in all others. But, if one state recognizes gay marriage and another doesn't, then it could have tax consequences, and others. For instance, a couple married in Massachusetts moves to New York. Then, they can claim they're married on their New York State Income Tax, although New York doesn't recognize gay marriage. Do you see where this can go? Furthermore, suppose the couple divorces in New York... oops, according to New York State they aren't legally married! So how can they get divorced?

I guess my point is that neither state nor federal government should be involved in this. Marriage should be a personal thing.

Unfortunately it says a lot about our society that issues of divorce are actually more relevant than issues of marriage.

Regarding divorce I think couples should negotiate their divorce before getting married. If they had to go through this process it would stop a lot of unsuitable couples from getting married in the first place.