Question from a taxpayer

[DavidS]

If taxpayer money isn't used to allow people to get married - then why do taxpayers get a say on whether or not gay marriage should be allowed or dis-allowed?

Simply put if it doesn't take a dime out of my pocket and actually could PREVENT my local city from raising sales tax revenue due to the increased revenue from gay marriage licenses, why should gay marriage be legislated or voted upon? Who am I to say you can or cannot get married? Who are YOU to say it?

This whole argument doesn't make sense.

Sure you can say "I don't morally agree with gay marriage" that's your opinion and you're entitled to it. But to say "Gay marriage should be against the law" well that's just silly. It doesn't make any sense.

 

[WillowTree]

Can somebody explain to me why it has to be "Gay Marriage"? Why can't it be a civil union with all the rights afforded other citizens?

 

[ba1614]

Can somebody explain to me why it has to be "Gay Marriage"? Why can't it be a civil union with all the rights afforded other citizens?

Because that isn't good enough, it doesn't piss anyone(many) off.

 

[Indiana Oracle]

DavidS --
Tell you what. If you want to focus this non-issue on the taxpayer, then let's carry that to its logical conclusion. Have taxpayer referendums on every single measure to be considered by the Congress before it comes to a floor vote. Want things fixed in this country? That will do it. It works in Switzerland where 50k votes can cause a referendum on any measure. It is a representative form of democracy.

 

[DavidS]

Can somebody explain to me why it has to be "Gay Marriage"? Why can't it be a civil union with all the rights afforded other citizens?

Because they want the right to call it marriage. What's it to ya'?

 

[WillowTree]

Can somebody explain to me why it has to be "Gay Marriage"? Why can't it be a civil union with all the rights afforded other citizens?

Because they want the right to call it marriage. What's it to ya'?

why?

 

[DavidS]

DavidS --
Tell you what. If you want to focus this non-issue on the taxpayer, then let's carry that to its logical conclusion. Have taxpayer referendums on every single measure to be considered by the Congress before it comes to a floor vote. Want things fixed in this country? That will do it. It works in Switzerland where 50k votes can cause a referendum on any measure. It is a representative form of democracy.

You did not answer my question.

 

[DavidS]

Can somebody explain to me why it has to be "Gay Marriage"? Why can't it be a civil union with all the rights afforded other citizens?

Because they want the right to call it marriage. What's it to ya'?

why?

Why what?

Why can you get married and have to force them to get a civil union? And please don't tell me anything about the Bible, because marriage was around loooooong before the Bible was.

 

[WillowTree]

Because they want the right to call it marriage. What's it to ya'?

why?

Why what?

Why can you get married and have to force them to get a civil union? And please don't tell me anything about the Bible, because marriage was around loooooong before the Bible was.

because the law of the land,, and we believe the law of the land defines "marriage between a man and a woman." now the argument has been that they want all the civil liberties that other couples have,, and my question is if "civil unions" will accomplish that then why not have civil unions?

 

[DavidS]

why?

Why what?

Why can you get married and have to force them to get a civil union? And please don't tell me anything about the Bible, because marriage was around loooooong before the Bible was.

because the law of the land,, and we believe the law of the land defines "marriage between a man and a woman."

Even if it does and it doesn't, gays want the right to change that law to include them. Again if it doesn't harm anybody and it doesn't cost taxpayers one red cent, then why oppose it other than for religious reasons? Remember, this is not a theocracy - what you believe, morally, doesn't count in this country because of separation between church and state.

now the argument has been that they want all the civil liberties that other couples have,, and my question is if "civil unions" will accomplish that then why not have civil unions?

Because they want the right to call themselves "legally married." That's why. Any other word, any other definition, anything other than to be as legally married as you are to your husband, is not equal rights. And this country believes in equal rights for ALL Americans.

 

[WillowTree]

Why what?

Why can you get married and have to force them to get a civil union? And please don't tell me anything about the Bible, because marriage was around loooooong before the Bible was.

because the law of the land,, and we believe the law of the land defines "marriage between a man and a woman."

Even if it does and it doesn't, gays want the right to change that law to include them. Again if it doesn't harm anybody and it doesn't cost taxpayers one red cent, then why oppose it other than for religious reasons? Remember, this is not a theocracy - what you believe, morally, doesn't count in this country because of separation between church and state.

now the argument has been that they want all the civil liberties that other couples have,, and my question is if "civil unions" will accomplish that then why not have civil unions?

Because they want the right to call themselves "legally married." That's why. Any other word, any other definition, anything other than to be as legally married as you are to your husband, is not equal rights. And this country believes in equal rights for ALL Americans.

If that were true they wouldn't pass hate crime laws! Shot down again David.

that's what happens when you ask for equality and then ask for special laws..

 

[garyd]

Why Annie because leftist asshats like David prefer to beat people over the head than work with them.

And really it isn't about marriage it's about acceptance with a capital A.

There is an old joke that I think quite appropriate that concerns this, and may serve to illustrate my point far better than I ever could.

A 90 year old Englsihmen is about to immigrate to Australia. A reporter asks him why at his advanced age he is living his native land?

He replies:

Well sonny when I was but a lad we hung queers, by the time I was thirty we just threw them in jail,
by the time I was fifty as long as they didn't make themselves obvious no one cared. when I was seventy they were out and about like everyone else, Now they're getting married and adopting kids. I'm leaving before they make it mandatory.

Oh and please tell me why a behavior in which you choose to participate should have legal protection and carry civil rights that 90% of the population will never exercise?

 

[DavidS]

because the law of the land,, and we believe the law of the land defines "marriage between a man and a woman."

Even if it does and it doesn't, gays want the right to change that law to include them. Again if it doesn't harm anybody and it doesn't cost taxpayers one red cent, then why oppose it other than for religious reasons? Remember, this is not a theocracy - what you believe, morally, doesn't count in this country because of separation between church and state.

now the argument has been that they want all the civil liberties that other couples have,, and my question is if "civil unions" will accomplish that then why not have civil unions?

Because they want the right to call themselves "legally married." That's why. Any other word, any other definition, anything other than to be as legally married as you are to your husband, is not equal rights. And this country believes in equal rights for ALL Americans.

If that were true they wouldn't pass hate crime laws! Shot down again David.

that's what happens when you ask for equality and then ask for special laws..

What are you talking about? Hate crime laws ENFORCE equal rights. If someone discriminates against you because you're a white christian, that's a hate crime.

 

[DavidS]

Oh and please tell me why a behavior in which you choose to participate should have legal protection and carry civil rights that 90% of the population will never exercise?

Well, let's see. 4.7% of this nation identifies themselves with a religion other than Christianity. According to your logic, we shouldn't have legal protection and civil rights for Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus and so on.

Why bother giving Asians, Native Americans and other ultra-minority races civil rights if they only represent 5% of the population?

While this is a country of majority rules as far as the number of votes, this country was founded upon the ideals of protecting minorities which is what Quakers were when this country was founded.

 

[WillowTree]

Even if it does and it doesn't, gays want the right to change that law to include them. Again if it doesn't harm anybody and it doesn't cost taxpayers one red cent, then why oppose it other than for religious reasons? Remember, this is not a theocracy - what you believe, morally, doesn't count in this country because of separation between church and state.

Because they want the right to call themselves "legally married." That's why. Any other word, any other definition, anything other than to be as legally married as you are to your husband, is not equal rights. And this country believes in equal rights for ALL Americans.

If that were true they wouldn't pass hate crime laws! Shot down again David.

that's what happens when you ask for equality and then ask for special laws..

What are you talking about? Hate crime laws ENFORCE equal rights. If someone discriminates against you because you're a white christian, that's a hate crime.

no,, it makes minority groups a protected group,, murder is murder, dosen't matter who it happens to.. not under equal protection.

 

[PeterS]

Can somebody explain to me why it has to be "Gay Marriage"? Why can't it be a civil union with all the rights afforded other citizens?

My wife and I were married before a judge in a civil ceremony. Are we married or 'civil unioned'? If changing a word makes something acceptable then I would suggest the objection in the first place is what is unacceptable...

 

[DavidS]

If that were true they wouldn't pass hate crime laws! Shot down again David.

that's what happens when you ask for equality and then ask for special laws..

What are you talking about? Hate crime laws ENFORCE equal rights. If someone discriminates against you because you're a white christian, that's a hate crime.

no,, it makes minority groups a protected group,, murder is murder, dosen't matter who it happens to.. not under equal protection.

Not according to the law. If you kill someone because of their race or religion, it is a hate crime. Doesn't matter if you're a Black Buddhist or a White Christian.

 

[WillowTree]

that would depend on the laws on the books in the state in which you reside!

 

[DavidS]

Can somebody explain to me why it has to be "Gay Marriage"? Why can't it be a civil union with all the rights afforded other citizens?

My wife and I were married before a judge in a civil ceremony. Are we married or 'civil unioned'? If changing a word makes something acceptable then I would suggest the objection in the first place is what is unacceptable...

You are legally married. America does not have heterosexual civil unions.

It is not a word that is unacceptable - it is the implication of the word. To imply that you're legally civil unioned does not mean you are married.

 

[DavidS]

that would depend on the laws on the books in the state in which you reside!

Show me the law in one state where murdering someone because they're either White or because they're Christian is not a hate crime.