MD close to passing same-sex marriage

[rightwinger]

Once more and more states allow gay marriage it will pressure those states that do not to accept people who were married in other states.

There are too many legal ramifications of nullifying a marriage because you crossed state lines

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Can I marry "My Pet Goat"?

That's all I want to know. I promise it ill not cheapen your marriage.

 

[RDD_1210]

Can I marry "My Pet Goat"?

That's all I want to know. I promise it ill not cheapen your marriage.

Is your goat Human?

 

[R.D.]

Can I marry "My Pet Goat"?

That's all I want to know. I promise it ill not cheapen your marriage.

Yes, but what will you tell the children

 

[RDD_1210]

Can I marry "My Pet Goat"?

That's all I want to know. I promise it ill not cheapen your marriage.

Yes, but what will you tell the children

Apparently, according to you his children will want to become a goat.

 

[R.D.]

Can I marry "My Pet Goat"?

That's all I want to know. I promise it ill not cheapen your marriage.

Yes, but what will you tell the children

Apparently, according to you his children will want to become a goat.

a shuddup

 

[RDD_1210]

Yes, but what will you tell the children

Apparently, according to you his children will want to become a goat.

a shuddup

Ridiculous, right?

 

[bodecea]

Can I marry "My Pet Goat"?

That's all I want to know. I promise it ill not cheapen your marriage.

You want to marry a children's reading book? I look forward to seeing it sign the marriage documents. I'm sure you two will be very happy together.

 

[bodecea]

Can I marry "My Pet Goat"?

That's all I want to know. I promise it ill not cheapen your marriage.

Yes, but what will you tell the children

Apparently, according to you his children will want to become a goat.

Not a goat...a book about a goat...a children's book about a goat.

 

[RDD_1210]

Yes, but what will you tell the children

Apparently, according to you his children will want to become a goat.

Not a goat...a book about a goat...a children's book about a goat.

My mistake. That's even better.

 

[R.D.]

Apparently, according to you his children will want to become a goat.

a shuddup

Ridiculous, right?

Good grief you are irritating and yes, ridiculous.

Go back and read what I posted -your preconceived notions aside, then ask about what is not clear to you if you really want to discuss what was a polite response to your question.

There is no reason for me to defend your idiotic mis-interpretation of my post.

 

[WorldWatcher]

We are discussing US law here, and prior to the same sex marriage debate legal marriage was between a man and a woman, one of each, only 1 pair at the same time. Polygamy was only recognized for a brief time in Utah.

No we weren't discussing just US law. You said "Also, before all the gay marriage stuff started there WAS only one kind of marriage, one man, one woman. thats it. It was regular marriage legal, anything else illegal."

You said before the discussion of same-sex civil marriage there was only one kind of marriage. You placed no restrictions on just US law. So you were in fact incorrect.

The restrictions of race on marriage are very very different than the current sex based restrictions, as race based restrictions in public law have been established as unconstitutional originally in the 1870's (which were erroneously overturned) and rightly re-recognized as unconstitutional during the 1950's and 1960's. With the exception to voting rights, restrictions in public law based on gender are still being upheld.

The race based restrictions creating white marriage and minority marriage were found to be limitations on freedoms one individuals rights. Slowly we are seeing that limitations on marriage based on gender are also limitations on freedoms and individual rights. Opinions are changing. Slowly true, but they are changing. In the early 20 years ago opinions on Same-sex Civil Marriage were strongly opposed (resulting in the Federal DOMA). In that time we have gone from "0" states recognizing Same-sex Civil Marriage in some fashion to 9 states and the District of Columbia.

In addition, in 2000 and 2004 voter initiatives amended statutory law and state constitutions and won by (IIRC) a range of 23-76%. The last two referendums (California and Maine) have narrowed the margin so that a change of 2-3% by voters would have had Same-sex Civil Marriage.

Just as segregating marriage by race eventually toppled, history and current trends show that segregating Civil Marriage by gender will also eventually topple.



As I said before, if the legislature and governor pass Same-sex Civil Marriage and those who wish to continue discrimination take it to the voting both in a referendum it will be an interesting situation to watch. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not calling the vote either way, but mark my words it will be damned close.



>>>>

 

[martybegan]

We are discussing US law here, and prior to the same sex marriage debate legal marriage was between a man and a woman, one of each, only 1 pair at the same time. Polygamy was only recognized for a brief time in Utah.

No we weren't discussing just US law. You said "Also, before all the gay marriage stuff started there WAS only one kind of marriage, one man, one woman. thats it. It was regular marriage legal, anything else illegal."

You said before the discussion of same-sex civil marriage there was only one kind of marriage. You placed no restrictions on just US law. So you were in fact incorrect.

The restrictions of race on marriage are very very different than the current sex based restrictions, as race based restrictions in public law have been established as unconstitutional originally in the 1870's (which were erroneously overturned) and rightly re-recognized as unconstitutional during the 1950's and 1960's. With the exception to voting rights, restrictions in public law based on gender are still being upheld.

The race based restrictions creating white marriage and minority marriage were found to be limitations on freedoms one individuals rights. Slowly we are seeing that limitations on marriage based on gender are also limitations on freedoms and individual rights. Opinions are changing. Slowly true, but they are changing. In the early 20 years ago opinions on Same-sex Civil Marriage were strongly opposed (resulting in the Federal DOMA). In that time we have gone from "0" states recognizing Same-sex Civil Marriage in some fashion to 9 states and the District of Columbia.

In addition, in 2000 and 2004 voter initiatives amended statutory law and state constitutions and won by (IIRC) a range of 23-76%. The last two referendums (California and Maine) have narrowed the margin so that a change of 2-3% by voters would have had Same-sex Civil Marriage.

Just as segregating marriage by race eventually toppled, history and current trends show that segregating Civil Marriage by gender will also eventually topple.



As I said before, if the legislature and governor pass Same-sex Civil Marriage and those who wish to continue discrimination take it to the voting both in a referendum it will be an interesting situation to watch. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not calling the vote either way, but mark my words it will be damned close.



>>>>

Be careful thinking history is a constant march toward more liberal social policy, conservative retreats can and have occurerd, some having lasted centuries. The Roman empire was pretty swinging, and then all of a sudden this prudish chirstianity stuff took hold.

I also find people using the word discrimination too cavilerly. In this case even if we grant same sex couples the right to marry, arent we then discriminating against polygamists?

 

[WorldWatcher]

Be careful thinking history is a constant march toward more liberal social policy, conservative retreats can and have occurerd, some having lasted centuries. The Roman empire was pretty swinging, and then all of a sudden this prudish chirstianity stuff took hold.

Actually the position supporting Same-sex Civil Marriage is quite conservative has it supports more individual freedoms, liberty, and less intrusive government. The social authoritarians wanting big government to dictate how other people live their lives is actually a pretty liberal perspective.

I also find people using the word discrimination too cavilerly. In this case even if we grant same sex couples the right to marry, arent we then discriminating against polygamists?

From Merriam-Webster: Discrimination - "the act, practice, or an instance of discriminating categorically rather than individually "

When a select group is targeted for unequal treatment because they are a member of that group, then that is discrimination.


I can't speak for others, I don't use discrimination "cavilerly", I use it correctly. Discrimination is not a bad word. You don't have to run away from it. The question is, does discrimination occur - yes, of course it dose. The correct questions from a social and legal perspective is "is there a compelling reason to support the government discriminating against it's citizens in the case of XXXXX?". For example it is perfectly reasonable to discriminate against blind people and deny them a drivers license as someone who can't see should not be operating a multi-ton vehicle at 60 MPH on the public highways endangering themselves and other members of the public. (Now if the person wants to drive a truck on their private property I have no issue with that.) However to date no one has provided a valid (IMHO) compelling government reason for denying like situated couples equal treatment under the law. Those like situated couples of course being law abiding, United States Citizen, tax paying, consenting, infertile, adult different sex couples and law abiding, United States Citizen, tax paying, consenting, infertile, adult same sex couples.


>>>>

 

[konradv]

We are discussing US law here, and prior to the same sex marriage debate legal marriage was between a man and a woman, one of each, only 1 pair at the same time. Polygamy was only recognized for a brief time in Utah.

No we weren't discussing just US law. You said "Also, before all the gay marriage stuff started there WAS only one kind of marriage, one man, one woman. thats it. It was regular marriage legal, anything else illegal."

You said before the discussion of same-sex civil marriage there was only one kind of marriage. You placed no restrictions on just US law. So you were in fact incorrect.

The restrictions of race on marriage are very very different than the current sex based restrictions, as race based restrictions in public law have been established as unconstitutional originally in the 1870's (which were erroneously overturned) and rightly re-recognized as unconstitutional during the 1950's and 1960's. With the exception to voting rights, restrictions in public law based on gender are still being upheld.

The race based restrictions creating white marriage and minority marriage were found to be limitations on freedoms one individuals rights. Slowly we are seeing that limitations on marriage based on gender are also limitations on freedoms and individual rights. Opinions are changing. Slowly true, but they are changing. In the early 20 years ago opinions on Same-sex Civil Marriage were strongly opposed (resulting in the Federal DOMA). In that time we have gone from "0" states recognizing Same-sex Civil Marriage in some fashion to 9 states and the District of Columbia.

In addition, in 2000 and 2004 voter initiatives amended statutory law and state constitutions and won by (IIRC) a range of 23-76%. The last two referendums (California and Maine) have narrowed the margin so that a change of 2-3% by voters would have had Same-sex Civil Marriage.

Just as segregating marriage by race eventually toppled, history and current trends show that segregating Civil Marriage by gender will also eventually topple.



As I said before, if the legislature and governor pass Same-sex Civil Marriage and those who wish to continue discrimination take it to the voting both in a referendum it will be an interesting situation to watch. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not calling the vote either way, but mark my words it will be damned close.



>>>>

Be careful thinking history is a constant march toward more liberal social policy, conservative retreats can and have occurerd, some having lasted centuries. The Roman empire was pretty swinging, and then all of a sudden this prudish chirstianity stuff took hold.

I also find people using the word discrimination too cavilerly. In this case even if we grant same sex couples the right to marry, arent we then discriminating against polygamists?

How would that be? Since we don't allow polygamy in traditional marriages, this doesn't change a pre-existing condition.