Dems offing selves: Suicide on DU

[Hagbard Celine]

The federal constitution trumps any gay marriage ban in California because it provides for the freedom of expression in the first amendment.

Section one of amendment 14 provides for what I'm saying here.

 

[Gunny]

The federal constitution trumps any gay marriage ban in California because it provides for the freedom of expression in the first amendment.

Section one of amendment 14 provides for what I'm saying here.

You would be incorrect, as usual. I'm quite sure you would be one of those who wah wah wah about erasing all evidence of Christianity from anything even remotely connected to the government, and use a false interpretation of the Constitution to do so.

Fags have every right that I do under the US Constitution. Altering our laws to make special exceptions for aberrant behavior is just dumb.

And since my church can't play in your government, keep your freakin' government out of my church.

 

[manu1959]

The federal constitution trumps any gay marriage ban in California because it provides for the freedom of expression in the first amendment.

Section one of amendment 14 provides for what I'm saying here.

so gay marriage is protected under freedom of expression under the first amendment?

good luck in your logic class in law school

 

[Hagbard Celine]

You would be incorrect, as usual. I'm quite sure you would be one of those who wah wah wah about erasing all evidence of Christianity from anything even remotely connected to the government, and use a false interpretation of the Constitution to do so.

Fags have every right that I do under the US Constitution. Altering our laws to make special exceptions for aberrant behavior is just dumb.

And since my church can't play in your government, keep your freakin' government out of my church

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free excercise thereof. What's so difficult about this that you can't understand it?

Nobody can be forced to pay homage to or pray to or honor any god they don't believe in in a public institution.

And the laws don't have to be altered to allow Gay marriage. If gays come to a judge and get a marriage license, it's done. They're married under the law. No change needed.

And the logic of all this is easy. Marriage or Union is a form of "expressing" love. It is a symbolic act that is meant to provide a public admission of love. Kind of like baptism is a public admission of faith. If two gays want to express their love for each other by getting married, the constitution says that expression is protected under the first amendment. Where's the flaw in my logic?

 

[Gunny]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free excercise thereof. What's so difficult about this that you can't understand it?

Nobody can be forced to pay homage to or pray to or honor any god they don't believe in in a public institution.

And the laws don't have to be altered to allow Gay marriage. If gays come to a judge and get a marriage license, it's done. They're married under the law. No change needed.

And the logic of all this is easy. Marriage or Union is a form of "expressing" love. It is a symbolic act that is meant to provide a public admission of love. Kind of like baptism is a public admission of faith. If two gays want to express their love for each other by getting married, the constitution says that expression is protected under the first amendment. Where's the flaw in my logic?

The flaw is that "marriage" is a RELIGIOUS ceremony, not a legal one. You're fabricating your own definition. Most accepted, mainstream religions will not marry gays and give religious legitimzation to their abnomality.

Gays were offered a civil union and rejected it. They want complete legitimization in all corners. Well, they do not deserve legitimization, nor are they going to get it. Giving them their little legal union is the best they can EVER hope for when it comes to my vote.

I do not see anywhere int eh Second Amendment that it says gays deserve special rights to cover their abnormal behavior.

 

[Said1]

so gay marriage is protected under freedom of expression under the first amendment?

good luck in your logic class in law school

Being far from familiar with your constitution, I was obviously having a hard time with that one.

 

[Hagbard Celine]

The flaw is that "marriage" is a RELIGIOUS ceremony, not a legal one. You're fabricating your own definition. Most accepted, mainstream religions will not marry gays and give religious legitimzation to their abnomality.

Gays were offered a civil union and rejected it. They want complete legitimization in all corners. Well, they do not deserve legitimization, nor are they going to get it. Giving them their little legal union is the best they can EVER hope for when it comes to my vote.

I do not see anywhere int eh Second Amendment that it says gays deserve special rights to cover their abnormal behavior.

That's why I typed the word "union" next to marriage and gave the example of going to a judge to get a civil marriage. The government can't get involved with churches that want to legitimize gay marriage. From my understanding, some do.

When I talk about gay marriage, I am talking about civil unions. The involvement of the church is a non-issue when talking about the constitutionality of it.

The first amendment provides for an unabridged freedom of speech. Gay marriage, as a form of expression, is covered under the blanket of free speech.

 

[Gunny]

That's why I typed the word "union" next to marriage and gave the example of going to a judge to get a civil marriage. The government can't get involved with churches that want to legitimize gay marriage. From my understanding, some do.

When I talk about gay marriage, I am talking about civil unions. The involvement of the church is a non-issue when talking about the constitutionality of it.

The first amendment provides for an unabridged freedom of speech. Gay marriage, as a form of expression, is covered under the blanket of free speech.

BS. I have to admit, that's the first time I've heard THAT particular twist, but that's still all it is.

 

[speederdoc]

And the laws don't have to be altered to allow Gay marriage. If gays come to a judge and get a marriage license, it's done. They're married under the law. No change needed.

And the logic of all this is easy. Marriage or Union is a form of "expressing" love. It is a symbolic act that is meant to provide a public admission of love. Kind of like baptism is a public admission of faith. If two gays want to express their love for each other by getting married, the constitution says that expression is protected under the first amendment. Where's the flaw in my logic?

Where does this occur? California and Massachusetts? Their "marriage" isn't recognized by the federal government, anyway. The Constitution protects their right to bufu and cohabit, and to call their partnership whatever they want to call it, but it does not give them the same legal privileges or protections as a marriage between a man and a woman.

 

[Hagbard Celine]

Where does this occur? California and Massachusetts? Their "marriage" isn't recognized by the federal government, anyway. The Constitution protects their right to bufu and cohabit, and to call their partnership whatever they want to call it, but it does not give them the same legal privileges or protections as a marriage between a man and a woman.

Well, name the priviledges given to married couples and we'll go through all of them and determine if you are right.

 

[speederdoc]

Well, name the priviledges given to married couples and we'll go through all of them and determine if you are right.

"Married filing jointly" on federal income tax return would be the first one I would think of. Family rate on health insurance is another. Automatic decision-making ability as "next of kin" without special legal forms filled out is another. They would have a hard time collecting "divorce" benefits in Texas as well.

 

[Hagbard Celine]

"Married filing jointly" on federal income tax return would be the first one I would think of. Family rate on health insurance is another. Automatic decision-making ability as "next of kin" without special legal forms filled out is another. They would have a hard time collecting "divorce" benefits in Texas as well.

Divorce settlements would be worked out in court the same way that hetero couples do it. So that's out.

Why shouldn't they be able to file joint income tax returns if they are legally married? The break is meant to make life easier for married couples to start a family, so why wouldn't it apply for homo couples? Married hetero couples who don't plan on having or adopting kids take advantage of the tax break too, so any argument claiming homo couples would be taking advantage without adopting is out too.

Family rates on health insurance? OMG! Next they'll take advantage of family rates at every business that offers them including the Shoney's salad bar! OMG! Hahaha. If I'm not mistaken, I think insurance companies give breaks for everything, including how many kids you have or if you're just plain married. But if they are married under the law, why couldn't they take advantage of things like this?

"Next of kin" stuff can already be decided in living wills and things of that nature, but why wouldn't a person be able to make decisions in the stead of their spouse? Afterall, they are spouses. What's different here other than the fact that they're both the same sex?

 

[Gunny]

Divorce settlements would be worked out in court the same way that hetero couples do it. So that's out.

Why shouldn't they be able to file joint income tax returns if they are legally married? The break is meant to make life easier for married couples to start a family, so why wouldn't it apply for homo couples? Married hetero couples who don't plan on having or adopting kids take advantage of the tax break too, so any argument claiming homo couples would be taking advantage without adopting is out too.

Family rates on health insurance? OMG! Next they'll take advantage of family rates at every business that offers them including the Shoney's salad bar! OMG! Hahaha. If I'm not mistaken, I think insurance companies give breaks for everything, including how many kids you have or if you're just plain married. But if they are married under the law, why couldn't they take advantage of things like this?

"Next of kin" stuff can already be decided in living wills and things of that nature, but why wouldn't a person be able to make decisions in the stead of their spouse? Afterall, they are spouses. What's different here other than the fact that they're both the same sex?

How come it is you so nonchalantly act as if they are normal people deserving of acceptance of their abnormal lifestyle?

 

[speederdoc]

Divorce settlements would be worked out in court the same way that hetero couples do it. So that's out.

It would have to be worked out whose stuff belonged to whom, but alimony would not be considered for a gay coupling in most states. I don't believe that Texas mandates alimony anyway.

Why shouldn't they be able to file joint income tax returns if they are legally married?

Because they cannot be legally married if they are the same sex. The Defense of Marriage Act signed by President Clinton stipulates that marriage is between a man and a woman. Exclusively. So there is no federal recognition of their self-proclaimed "union," no matter if California or Massachusetts try to force it down our throats. And no federal/tax benefits.

Family rates on health insurance? OMG! Next they'll take advantage of family rates at every business that offers them including the Shoney's salad bar! OMG! Hahaha. If I'm not mistaken, I think insurance companies give breaks for everything, including how many kids you have or if you're just plain married. But if they are married under the law, why couldn't they take advantage of things like this?

If a specific employer or insurer wants to cut them a break, then I don't have a problem with that. They are not obligated to do so, however. Because according to the federal government, they cannot be married under the law.

"Next of kin" stuff can already be decided in living wills and things of that nature, but why wouldn't a person be able to make decisions in the stead of their spouse? Afterall, they are spouses. What's different here other than the fact that they're both the same sex?

If they were truly spouses in the normal sense, it would be automatic. Spouse > children > parents in the next of kin hierarchy. Because they are not recognized as true spouses, they have to fill out specific forms granting power of attorney to get the same benefits. Even if they consider themselves spouses, the parents' wishes would overrule the gay "spouse's" unless a POA was previously filled out granting the partner that authority.