Would you sign a petition to eliminate civil marriage licenses?

[The Rabbi]

No one is preventing gays from getting married.
Where do people get these weird ideas??

Of course they are...in most states. Not in NY anymore, in that you are correct. Thank goodness.

That comes from twisting the facts around and looking at them the way you want.

We all do have the right to get married [actually we don't, it's not a right, but that's another topic] as long as it's to the opposite sex.

I know, I know

Not even that.
She can get married to anyone or anything she wants. She can marry wax fruit if she wants. All she needs is a piece of paper from the appropriate clergyman or other official and she's married. No one is preventing that whatsoever.

However she cannot get the state benefits which are reserved for one man marrying one woman, whatever their sexual orientation.

 

[bodecea]

Of course they are...in most states. Not in NY anymore, in that you are correct. Thank goodness.

That comes from twisting the facts around and looking at them the way you want.

We all do have the right to get married [actually we don't, it's not a right, but that's another topic] as long as it's to the opposite sex.

I know, I know

Not even that.
She can get married to anyone or anything she wants. She can marry wax fruit if she wants. All she needs is a piece of paper from the appropriate clergyman or other official and she's married. No one is preventing that whatsoever.

However she cannot get the state benefits which are reserved for one man marrying one woman, whatever their sexual orientation.

Thank you for admitting that we do NOT have equal rights.

 

[gautama]

I've heard a lot of people say that government should get out of marriage altogether....so, for that to happen, the government would have to drop marriage licenses and all that entails....would you sign such a petition?

B.O. .......DUH......C'ya,

Hi, I'm glad the "husband" of the LEZBO "marriage" is here to bedevil us with his/its LEZBO tinged Agenda.

Now, I'm NOT willing to abolish "civil" marriage......but I am definitely for abolishing the PC concocted blatant distortion of the English word for "MARRIAGE".

The word "MARRIAGE" used for millenia is, and was, the union between a MAN and a WOMAN. PERIOD.

Whereas PC, to suit the agenda of the FREAKS, distorts to mean the Perverted Union between TWO or more FREAKS of the same gender.....and calling that "Marriage".

The agenda of this Lezbo is obvious: somehow The PC concocted definition of "marriage" is primarily thought of as a "civil" marriage by the "progressives". Thus, if you are for "civil" marriage.....supposedly that stat can be used as an indication of approving the PC concocted version of "marriage" between FREAKS.

Come to prove this right, have you?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...basis-other-than-intolerance-and-bigotry.html

B.O.....DUH....C'ya,

I don't have to PROVE my position as the correct one.

HISTORY, PROCREATION, and the usage of the English Language for "MARRIAGE" .....make my position the correct one.

PC concocted garbage to suit the agenda of the FREAKS, distorting the English word for "MARRIAGE" is fucking ludicrous.

 

[The Rabbi]

The Rabbi simply shows that he wants gay Americans, tax-paying, law-abiding gay Americans to be second class citizens. That he wants the government to sanction his believe that we are somehow 'less' than he is when it comes to rights in this country. He's made that very clear.

If you have the same rights as everyone else you are not a second class citizen, no matter how aggrieved and oppressed you feel

In most states, because of gender, I am not allowed to marry the tax-paying, law-abiding consenting adult I love. AND in many 3rd world country states, we have no legal protections if one of us gets sick or injured.

You are certainly allowed to marry the tax paying law abiding consenting adult you love. Even if that person is not law abiding or tax paying you are allowed. As long as the person you love is:
A) A man (assuming you are female)
B) Of consenting age
C) Not married to anyone else
D) Not related to you within a certain level of relationship.
Just like everyone else.

You have legal protections if you get sick or injured. Just like everyone else.

 

[The Rabbi]

That comes from twisting the facts around and looking at them the way you want.

We all do have the right to get married [actually we don't, it's not a right, but that's another topic] as long as it's to the opposite sex.

I know, I know

Not even that.
She can get married to anyone or anything she wants. She can marry wax fruit if she wants. All she needs is a piece of paper from the appropriate clergyman or other official and she's married. No one is preventing that whatsoever.

However she cannot get the state benefits which are reserved for one man marrying one woman, whatever their sexual orientation.

Thank you for admitting that we do NOT have equal rights.

Everyone has the same rights. Privileges are different.
Not everyone has the same privileges. I cannot file a Chapter 12 bankruptcy. Only farmers can do that. I cannot get care at the VA. Only veterans can get that. I cannot carry my concealed weapon everywhere in the continental US. Only law enforcement officers can do that.
Etc etc
Was there a point you were trying to make here?

 

[bodecea]

If you have the same rights as everyone else you are not a second class citizen, no matter how aggrieved and oppressed you feel

In most states, because of gender, I am not allowed to marry the tax-paying, law-abiding consenting adult I love. AND in many 3rd world country states, we have no legal protections if one of us gets sick or injured.

You are certainly allowed to marry the tax paying law abiding consenting adult you love. Even if that person is not law abiding or tax paying you are allowed. As long as the person you love is:
A) A man (assuming you are female)
B) Of consenting age
C) Not married to anyone else
D) Not related to you within a certain level of relationship.
Just like everyone else.

You have legal protections if you get sick or injured. Just like everyone else.

See? Gender discrimination.

 

[The Rabbi]

In most states, because of gender, I am not allowed to marry the tax-paying, law-abiding consenting adult I love. AND in many 3rd world country states, we have no legal protections if one of us gets sick or injured.

You are certainly allowed to marry the tax paying law abiding consenting adult you love. Even if that person is not law abiding or tax paying you are allowed. As long as the person you love is:
A) A man (assuming you are female)
B) Of consenting age
C) Not married to anyone else
D) Not related to you within a certain level of relationship.
Just like everyone else.

You have legal protections if you get sick or injured. Just like everyone else.

See? Gender discrimination.

No gender discrimination at all.
If you are a man, you can marry any woman. A woman, any man. That goes for anyone.

 

[bodecea]

Not even that.
She can get married to anyone or anything she wants. She can marry wax fruit if she wants. All she needs is a piece of paper from the appropriate clergyman or other official and she's married. No one is preventing that whatsoever.

However she cannot get the state benefits which are reserved for one man marrying one woman, whatever their sexual orientation.

Thank you for admitting that we do NOT have equal rights.

Everyone has the same rights. Privileges are different.
Not everyone has the same privileges. I cannot file a Chapter 12 bankruptcy. Only farmers can do that. I cannot get care at the VA. Only veterans can get that. I cannot carry my concealed weapon everywhere in the continental US. Only law enforcement officers can do that.
Etc etc
Was there a point you were trying to make here?

Marriage is a right...and unless the government can come up with a compelling legal reason to restrict it, they must comply with the 14th amendment and treat all law-abiding, tax-paying consenting adult citizens the same.

I know that really sticks in your craw....but that's it.

 

[bodecea]

You are certainly allowed to marry the tax paying law abiding consenting adult you love. Even if that person is not law abiding or tax paying you are allowed. As long as the person you love is:
A) A man (assuming you are female)
B) Of consenting age
C) Not married to anyone else
D) Not related to you within a certain level of relationship.
Just like everyone else.

You have legal protections if you get sick or injured. Just like everyone else.

See? Gender discrimination.

No gender discrimination at all.
If you are a man, you can marry any woman. A woman, any man. That goes for anyone.

It most certainly is discrimination based on gender....you just proved it again....Marriage is based on the GENDER of the person you wish to marry....not on their sexual preference.
It's gender discrimination.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Who's changing thier outlook now that they were put to a vote?

Yes=
arKangel, Cuyo, Dont Taz Me Bro, JohnA, JWBooth, kaz, Lonestar_logic, PLYMCO_PILGRIM , Quantum Windbag, Two Thumbs, Warrior102

No=
Anachronism, bodecea, del , Kuros, Momanohedhunter, Mr. President , rightwinger, Rinata , Susan45, The Rabbi, tonystewart1, Too Tall, uscitizen

Seems to me the majority of conservatives want to end gov involvment, which means you get to marry your lover. While your fellow dems say no.


[people in black; I have no idea thier politics]

Wait a second. I had to double check the Bods.

Why did you vote against your own self intrest?

Bodecea why did you vote no? The govt is keeping you from having legal marriage as is.

Im sure you have a legit reason, i'll wait for you to tell me what it is.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

i vote yes simply because marriage is not in the enumerated powers. its government overreach. states can do w/e they want tho within the confines of the constitution (10th amendment, uniform laws, etc.)

WOOT WOOT....a real liberty lover, liberty, votes yes with the rest of us who know its not the federal govts power to decide ANYTHING about marriage in any respect.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Quite evident....if I were to try to get a marriage license for myself and another woman...why would it be denied?

If a man were to try to get a marriage license for himself and another man...why would it be denied?

(and I don't see race in this issue at all, you'll need to explain that one)

Well, its a non-issue for you isn't it ? I thought you were good to go in Cali ? Second, homosexuality is not a gender, its a lifestyle .

Homosexual | Define Homosexual at Dictionary.com

ho·mo·sex·u·al
   [hoh-muh-sek-shoo-uhl or, especially Brit., -seks-yoo-] Show IPA
–adjective
1.
of, pertaining to, or exhibiting homosexuality.
2.
of, pertaining to, or noting the same sex.
–noun
3.

a homosexual person.

gen·der
1    [jen-der] Show IPA
–noun
1.
Grammar .
a.
(in many languages) a set of classes that together include all nouns, membership in a particular class being shown by the form of the noun itself or by the form or choice of words that modify, replace, or otherwise refer to the noun, as, in English, the choice of he to replace the man, of she to replace the woman, of it to replace the table, of it or she to replace the ship. The number of genders in different languages varies from 2 to more than 20; often the classification correlates in part with sex or animateness. The most familiar sets of genders are of three classes (as masculine, feminine, and neuter in Latin and German) or of two (as common and neuter in Dutch, or masculine and feminine in french and Spanish).
b.
one class of such a set.
c.
such classes or sets collectively or in general.
d.
membership of a word or grammatical form, or an inflectional form showing membership, in such a class.
2.
sex: the feminine gender.
3.
Archaic . kind, sort, or class.

Very true...homosexuality is a sexual preference....but that would not be why I would be denied a marriage license....gay people marry people of the opposite sex? TOTALLY allowed.

It's not that I'm gay, it that I wish to marry someone of the same GENDER.

It's gender discrimination.

Bod your getting too complex.

The federal govt was not given the power to decide what marriage is or is not by the constitution, therefore the federal govt approving or denying marriages is unconstitutional leaving it to the states and the people (10th ammendment) to decide.

Thats how it should be.

In my opinion there is no legitimate reason to deny a same sex union of 2 people. Also in my opinion married or "unioned" people should not get special status with the govt.

 

[The Rabbi]

Thank you for admitting that we do NOT have equal rights.

Everyone has the same rights. Privileges are different.
Not everyone has the same privileges. I cannot file a Chapter 12 bankruptcy. Only farmers can do that. I cannot get care at the VA. Only veterans can get that. I cannot carry my concealed weapon everywhere in the continental US. Only law enforcement officers can do that.
Etc etc
Was there a point you were trying to make here?

Marriage is a right...and unless the government can come up with a compelling legal reason to restrict it, they must comply with the 14th amendment and treat all law-abiding, tax-paying consenting adult citizens the same.

I know that really sticks in your craw....but that's it.

They do treat everyone the same. I've been saying that for pages and pages here. What is so difficult about that concept that you don't understand it?
Is it because you think women are really men without penises?

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

That comes from twisting the facts around and looking at them the way you want.

We all do have the right to get married [actually we don't, it's not a right, but that's another topic] as long as it's to the opposite sex.

I know, I know

Not even that.
She can get married to anyone or anything she wants. She can marry wax fruit if she wants. All she needs is a piece of paper from the appropriate clergyman or other official and she's married. No one is preventing that whatsoever.

However she cannot get the state benefits which are reserved for one man marrying one woman, whatever their sexual orientation.

Thank you for admitting that we do NOT have equal rights.

Neither do all single americans. I say take that special exeption from the married or give the special exemption to all taxpayers (no longer making it special )

 

[The Rabbi]

Well, its a non-issue for you isn't it ? I thought you were good to go in Cali ? Second, homosexuality is not a gender, its a lifestyle .

Homosexual | Define Homosexual at Dictionary.com

ho·mo·sex·u·al
   [hoh-muh-sek-shoo-uhl or, especially Brit., -seks-yoo-] Show IPA
–adjective
1.
of, pertaining to, or exhibiting homosexuality.
2.
of, pertaining to, or noting the same sex.
–noun
3.

a homosexual person.

gen·der
1    [jen-der] Show IPA
–noun
1.
Grammar .
a.
(in many languages) a set of classes that together include all nouns, membership in a particular class being shown by the form of the noun itself or by the form or choice of words that modify, replace, or otherwise refer to the noun, as, in English, the choice of he to replace the man, of she to replace the woman, of it to replace the table, of it or she to replace the ship. The number of genders in different languages varies from 2 to more than 20; often the classification correlates in part with sex or animateness. The most familiar sets of genders are of three classes (as masculine, feminine, and neuter in Latin and German) or of two (as common and neuter in Dutch, or masculine and feminine in french and Spanish).
b.
one class of such a set.
c.
such classes or sets collectively or in general.
d.
membership of a word or grammatical form, or an inflectional form showing membership, in such a class.
2.
sex: the feminine gender.
3.
Archaic . kind, sort, or class.

Very true...homosexuality is a sexual preference....but that would not be why I would be denied a marriage license....gay people marry people of the opposite sex? TOTALLY allowed.

It's not that I'm gay, it that I wish to marry someone of the same GENDER.

It's gender discrimination.

Bod your getting too complex.

The federal govt was not given the power to decide what marriage is or is not by the constitution, therefore the federal govt approving or denying marriages is unconstitutional leaving it to the states and the people (10th ammendment) to decide.

Thats how it should be.

In my opinion there is no legitimate reason to deny a same sex union of 2 people. Also in my opinion married or "unioned" people should not get special status with the govt.

So you agree the states have the power to set marriage criteria.
Thanks.
If some state wants to vote in gay marriage, that's their business. I draw the line at unaccountable judges overturning the will fo the people.

 

[The Rabbi]

Not even that.
She can get married to anyone or anything she wants. She can marry wax fruit if she wants. All she needs is a piece of paper from the appropriate clergyman or other official and she's married. No one is preventing that whatsoever.

However she cannot get the state benefits which are reserved for one man marrying one woman, whatever their sexual orientation.

Thank you for admitting that we do NOT have equal rights.

Neither do all single americans. I say take that special exeption from the married or give the special exemption to all taxpayers (no longer making it special )

When you get to the tax code there are hundreds of categories where there is some favored or dysfavored tax status.
That isn't discrimination.

 

[007]

Do you mean change it from civil marriage licenses to civil union licenses??

Exactly Sherry. She's playing with words.

As I've said and as most others have said here to the homos, take your Civil "Union" that gives you the same spousal rights as married people, and quit trying to bastardize true marriage which is between a man and a woman.

Homos can never be truly married in the eyes of God. To God, the filthy, immoral, abhorrent, disgusting and perverted sexual lifestyle they have "chosen" is an ABOMINATION.

Take the Civil Union, go away, and shut the fuck up. You're not special, you're not cute, and people are getting sick of having your disgusting crap shoved in our faces.

 

[Liability]

Interesting OP question.

Getting the government out of the "marriage" business is NOT (imho) the same thing, though, as geting them out of the business of validating certain "business" contracts. Instead of "marriage" which is primarily a religious institution, the government might have some legitimate grounds to be involved in the "contracts" between partners. In my estimation, whether a couple gets "married" in a church or a temple (etc) is none of the government's business.

But since the government does have some interest in the social contract between committed couples, a church wedding absent a secular government "civil union" license need not be recognized by the government. And any couple (straight or homosexual) who obtains the civil union license from the government & who then ALSO chooses to get "married" within the bounds of a religion, should be free to do so without regard to the government's "view" on "gay marriage" or "traditional marriage."

 

[bodecea]

Everyone has the same rights. Privileges are different.
Not everyone has the same privileges. I cannot file a Chapter 12 bankruptcy. Only farmers can do that. I cannot get care at the VA. Only veterans can get that. I cannot carry my concealed weapon everywhere in the continental US. Only law enforcement officers can do that.
Etc etc
Was there a point you were trying to make here?

Marriage is a right...and unless the government can come up with a compelling legal reason to restrict it, they must comply with the 14th amendment and treat all law-abiding, tax-paying consenting adult citizens the same.

I know that really sticks in your craw....but that's it.

They do treat everyone the same. I've been saying that for pages and pages here. What is so difficult about that concept that you don't understand it?
Is it because you think women are really men without penises?

So a gay couple getting married is treated the same?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It was a legitimate point...do churches decide custody in divorce cases today? No they do not. If government gets out of the marriage business, will churches pick up that job?

I know of cases where they have, and the courts supported it.

But is it not true the court STILL have to sanction it....?

Only because the state declared it had an interest in child custody.