WTF is wrong with a civil union?

[M14 Shooter]

You really are thick. It appears you can not wrap your head around what Im saying.

Jillian has dificulty wrapping her head around the directions on a package of toilet paper.

 

[Dick Tuck]

Translation? FED belongs in this because Tick Duck doesn't recognize the 9th and Tenth Amendments...much less the rest of the Constitution.

Translation, if you form a legal union partnership in one state, another state doesn't have to recognize it. That seems pretty stupid. But now you want the FED to enforce conflicts between states? Isn't that a problem, given the 11th Amendment?

So DON'T move to the State that doesn't recognize your agreement...

IDIOT.

So you piss on the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, and thing that Loving v Virginia is a bad decision? Might as well be fighting the 13th Amendment, and allowing states to decide if slavery should be brought back.

Man, you are one shallow dude.

 

[bodecea]

Keep government out of 'marriage' except in the places where government belongs.. taxation, power of attorney for emergencies, inheritance, contracts, etc... Deem any union of 2 consenting adults (and subsequent families) as family units and treat everyone the same...

But do not force acceptance of others or by others in terms of choices that are made... people have the right to be with anyone they choose, love anyone they choose (consenting adults, not brother and sister and all that jazz)... but just as you have the freedom to do that, you also have the freedom to discriminate against the choices of others.. you have the right to discriminate (not accept) punks, criminals, and others who do not fit in to your realm of acceptable behavior.. and whether i agree of disagree, that choice in who to accept is personal... you have the freedom to be accepting just as you have the freedom to be bigoted or prejudiced... it may not be proper, it may not be nice, but such is the spectrum within a free society

Liberty^^^ Living your life and not forcing your beliefs on anyone through the power of government.

you do realize the irony of that post, tommy, don't you? you know, given you think it's ok for YOUR beliefs to be imposed through the power of government.

hypocrite.

Yeah....I was chuckling over that Ironic post for quite a while.

 

[The T]

Translation, if you form a legal union partnership in one state, another state doesn't have to recognize it. That seems pretty stupid. But now you want the FED to enforce conflicts between states? Isn't that a problem, given the 11th Amendment?

So DON'T move to the State that doesn't recognize your agreement...

IDIOT.

So you piss on the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, and thing that Loving v Virginia is a bad decision? Might as well be fighting the 13th Amendment, and allowing states to decide if slavery should be brought back.

Man, you are one shallow dude.

what? 14th wasn't about GAYS you myophic oaf.

 

[GoneBezerk]

It's all about power and tearing down what conservatives value.

Since history shows marriage is a man and a woman, the liberals want to tear that down and rewrite history.

They want to stick it some married couples face that Bob and Bill are like Bob and Jill with their kids at the mall.

Liberals are led by evil people and the dumb ones follow.

Marriage has ALWAYS been defined as between a man and a woman. It is centuries of tradition. A civil union can be created to give all the same perks as traditional marriage so what's the big fucking deal? Is this just a ploy to diminish the traditional values of most Americans or just a political weapon to divide the people? Cause it sure seems so since there is an alternative that achieves the same goal, civil union legislation.

I mean this is considered an "alternative" lifestyle so why the push for a traditional label that has long been honored by everyone?

Many of you claim some of us are against equal treatment but you're wrong. You can have equal treatment but you don't need to trash traditional values to achieve it.

 

[Avorysuds]

Translation, if you form a legal union partnership in one state, another state doesn't have to recognize it. That seems pretty stupid. But now you want the FED to enforce conflicts between states? Isn't that a problem, given the 11th Amendment?

So DON'T move to the State that doesn't recognize your agreement...

IDIOT.

So you piss on the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, and thing that Loving v Virginia is a bad decision? Might as well be fighting the 13th Amendment, and allowing states to decide if slavery should be brought back.

Man, you are one shallow dude.

See, I view you as the problem, you want to give Government powers it was never intended to have. By this very act you end up with the problem we have today on this issue, even if it sways and someday gays can get married it is possible that in the future they lose that "right" as the power to do so can be elected.

I think the idea of states doing their own thing is very important because of the evolutionary process involved. If one state won’t allow something that others states do, and it just so happens that either wealth, jobs or maybe educated people is transferred then other states will more than likely change their position.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Translation, if you form a legal union partnership in one state, another state doesn't have to recognize it. That seems pretty stupid. But now you want the FED to enforce conflicts between states? Isn't that a problem, given the 11th Amendment?

So DON'T move to the State that doesn't recognize your agreement...

IDIOT.

So you piss on the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, and thing that Loving v Virginia is a bad decision? Might as well be fighting the 13th Amendment, and allowing states to decide if slavery should be brought back.

Man, you are one shallow dude.

Loving v Virginia:

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival....

There can be no right to marry as marriage, as a legal institution, is a creature of the state; it exists solely because the state paassed laws to that effect. If a state repeals these laws then marriage, as a legal institution, ceases to exist.

States cannot create rights, only privileges, and rights cannot be taken away by the repeal of a law. Thus, marriage, as a legal institution. is not a right, but a priviliege.

The premise behind Loving is unsound; Loving is, thus, a farce.

 

[bodecea]

The government should have absolutely no role in marriage. No perks or set backs, no "license', which is essentially outlawing marriage unless authorization is granted by the "authorities" to do so.

This issue would be a complete no-issue if it weren't the always intrusive, state that wants to usurp the social elements of society for dictation.

What are YOU doing to get government out of marriage?

 

[DiamondDave]

Keep government out of 'marriage' except in the places where government belongs.. taxation, power of attorney for emergencies, inheritance, contracts, etc... Deem any union of 2 consenting adults (and subsequent families) as family units and treat everyone the same...

But do not force acceptance of others or by others in terms of choices that are made... people have the right to be with anyone they choose, love anyone they choose (consenting adults, not brother and sister and all that jazz)... but just as you have the freedom to do that, you also have the freedom to discriminate against the choices of others.. you have the right to discriminate (not accept) punks, criminals, and others who do not fit in to your realm of acceptable behavior.. and whether i agree of disagree, that choice in who to accept is personal... you have the freedom to be accepting just as you have the freedom to be bigoted or prejudiced... it may not be proper, it may not be nice, but such is the spectrum within a free society

Liberty^^^ Living your life and not forcing your beliefs on anyone through the power of government.

you do realize the irony of that post, tommy, don't you? you know, given you think it's ok for YOUR beliefs to be imposed through the power of government.

hypocrite.

My personal beliefs are equal treatment by government under law.. and the preserving of the freedoms of everyone... Marriage under government has turned into a choice that is forced to be accepted... hence why I am for all marriage to be taken out of government and instating the family unit (or whatever term) and keeping government only over the areas where it belongs in such a thing... leave the titles, acceptance, etc all on the individuals and the belief institutions that they are involved in... leave equal treatment of legal matters to the government

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Marriage has ALWAYS been defined as between a man and a woman. It is centuries of tradition. A civil union can be created to give all the same perks as traditional marriage so what's the big fucking deal? Is this just a ploy to diminish the traditional values of most Americans or just a political weapon to divide the people? Cause it sure seems so since there is an alternative that achieves the same goal, civil union legislation.

I mean this is considered an "alternative" lifestyle so why the push for a traditional label that has long been honored by everyone?

Many of you claim some of us are against equal treatment but you're wrong. You can have equal treatment but you don't need to trash traditional values to achieve it.

WTF is wrong with marriage that 50% end in divorce? Is that trashing "traditional values"?

How does gay marriage harm your marriage?

This thread isn't about me and I'm not married. Do try to keep up will you.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Translation? FED belongs in this because Tick Duck doesn't recognize the 9th and Tenth Amendments...much less the rest of the Constitution.

Translation, if you form a legal union partnership in one state, another state doesn't have to recognize it. That seems pretty stupid. But now you want the FED to enforce conflicts between states? Isn't that a problem, given the 11th Amendment?

So DON'T move to the State that doesn't recognize your agreement...

IDIOT.

Okay, picture this scenario.......................

A couple marries in a state that recognizes gay marriage, and they are also entitle to federal tax breaks because they are married.

The breadwinner's job tells them that they are going to have to transfer to another district, because their expertise is needed over in another city.

That city also happens to be in a state that doesn't recognize gay marriage.

So, should the gay couple who was LEGALLY married end up taking a tax liability in the sense that they'd have to each file single (and at a higher tax bracket) than what they had before in filing jointly as married?

Sorry, but if the federal government is going to give tax breaks, they should apply equally.

 

[bodecea]

While true I wish civil unions would be embraced so we could put this issue behind us. It's damaging to both parties and fosters gridlock.

You want gay people to do what you want them to do so you can move on with life?

No I want gays to achieve their goals without trashing the values of others so people like you will stfu about it.

How is my marriage trashing your values? Explain please.

 

[The T]

It's all about power and tearing down what conservatives value.

Since history shows marriage is a man and a woman, the liberals want to tear that down and rewrite history.

They want to stick it some married couples face that Bob and Bill are like Bob and Jill with their kids at the mall.

Liberals are led by evil people and the dumb ones follow.

Marriage has ALWAYS been defined as between a man and a woman. It is centuries of tradition. A civil union can be created to give all the same perks as traditional marriage so what's the big fucking deal? Is this just a ploy to diminish the traditional values of most Americans or just a political weapon to divide the people? Cause it sure seems so since there is an alternative that achieves the same goal, civil union legislation.

I mean this is considered an "alternative" lifestyle so why the push for a traditional label that has long been honored by everyone?

Many of you claim some of us are against equal treatment but you're wrong. You can have equal treatment but you don't need to trash traditional values to achieve it.

Can you say control?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Translation, if you form a legal union partnership in one state, another state doesn't have to recognize it. That seems pretty stupid. But now you want the FED to enforce conflicts between states? Isn't that a problem, given the 11th Amendment?

So DON'T move to the State that doesn't recognize your agreement...

IDIOT.

Okay, picture this scenario.......................

A couple marries in a state that recognizes gay marriage, and they are also entitle to federal tax breaks because they are married.

They arent. Presently, the Fed Gvmnt does not recognize same-sex couples as married.

 

[Dr.Drock]

You want gay people to do what you want them to do so you can move on with life?

No I want gays to achieve their goals without trashing the values of others so people like you will stfu about it.

How is my marriage trashing your values? Explain please.

Gay marriages make husbands love their wives less, make wives cheat on their husbands more, etc.

Doesn't that make perfect sense?

 

[GoneBezerk]

You and your boyfriend just move to another country.

Oh, I'm waiting to see some gay person try to move into military housing with their gay partner. Obamination opened up a can of worms, but as usual didn't see the side effects.

Translation, if you form a legal union partnership in one state, another state doesn't have to recognize it. That seems pretty stupid. But now you want the FED to enforce conflicts between states? Isn't that a problem, given the 11th Amendment?

So DON'T move to the State that doesn't recognize your agreement...

IDIOT.

Okay, picture this scenario.......................

A couple marries in a state that recognizes gay marriage, and they are also entitle to federal tax breaks because they are married.

The breadwinner's job tells them that they are going to have to transfer to another district, because their expertise is needed over in another city.

That city also happens to be in a state that doesn't recognize gay marriage.

So, should the gay couple who was LEGALLY married end up taking a tax liability in the sense that they'd have to each file single (and at a higher tax bracket) than what they had before in filing jointly as married?

Sorry, but if the federal government is going to give tax breaks, they should apply equally.

 

[bodecea]

I think the issue is probably that giving a different label to what is supposed to be the exact same thing smacks of separate but equal. If the idea is that homosexuals should have the same legal, secular rights and privileges to marriage as heterosexuals, but people are unwilling to use the same label, then clearly they are NOT thought of as being the same.

Civil unions for gays is certainly much closer to equality, but the need to give it a different name than straights use sounds too much like an unwillingness to really allow gays to have the same privileges. Having the legal unions all be labelled civil unions rather than marriage would be a better solution IMO. I don't think heterosexuals would be willing to give up the marriage label, though. Of course, removing government from marriage entirely would also work, but that's not happening any time soon.

Nonsense, their relationship IS different. Thus the need to define it differently. The end result is the same while understanding marriage as a traditional term.

Ah, there you have it. Discrimination against law abiding tax paying fellow citizens.

 

[The T]

So DON'T move to the State that doesn't recognize your agreement...

IDIOT.

Okay, picture this scenario.......................

A couple marries in a state that recognizes gay marriage, and they are also entitle to federal tax breaks because they are married.

They arent. Presently, the Fed Gvmnt does not recognize same-sex couples as married.

Buit MANY would like to. It's NONE of thier business.

 

[ABikerSailor]

So DON'T move to the State that doesn't recognize your agreement...

IDIOT.

Okay, picture this scenario.......................

A couple marries in a state that recognizes gay marriage, and they are also entitle to federal tax breaks because they are married.

They arent. Presently, the Fed Gvmnt does not recognize same-sex couples as married.

Which is what the whole issue is about in the first place. People who live together for a long time, sharing in each others lives SHOULD be able to have visitation rights in the hospital, property rights (because they've lived together and bought things together) as well as the tax breaks enjoyed by hetero people living together.

Did you know that most gay couples stay together LONGER than most hetero couples?

 

[Dick Tuck]

So DON'T move to the State that doesn't recognize your agreement...

IDIOT.

So you piss on the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, and thing that Loving v Virginia is a bad decision? Might as well be fighting the 13th Amendment, and allowing states to decide if slavery should be brought back.

Man, you are one shallow dude.

what? 14th wasn't about GAYS you myophic oaf.

The 14th amendment isn't about equal protection? Are you really this fucking dumb? Cluephone. Gays are people. Marriage is a respected right between two people to form a union. Gay behavior is legally a right of privacy. Being gay is not considered a debilitating disease as it once was. Denying gay couples from forming a legal union, the same as granted non-gay couples, is a violation of equal protection, you bigoted piece of shit.