Here we go again: Voters say Yes on Q1 in Maine

[todd2000]

This is getting ridiculous. With 84% reporting the numbers are Yes (take away gay marriage) 52.4%, and No (keep gay marriage) at 47.46%. Why the heck is this even going up for a vote. The courts and legislature gave us the rights that we deserve, why the hell should the public be allowed to take them away. This whole state by state thing is a bunch of BS! Repealing DOMA (If Obama ever gets around to it) isn't going to make a damn bit of difference if you cant get married in any State. We need some sort of federal law, or were never going to get anywhere.

Lets just hope that Maine has some guts unlike California, and passes the law again.

http://www.bangordailynews.com/electionresults.html

[Beric]

Happy, but not surprised. Marriage has never been defined as anything other than between a single man and woman, and it never should be.

This does not take away any rights, any more than it did California. It's simply defining the word "marriage". Also, when the state constitution can be amended by the people, then the people choose on marriage. Marriage is not a federal issue, but that of the states. If you want to give homosexuals the "right to marry", amend the U.S. Constitution. And good luck with that.

[bobber205]

What. The. ****. :mad:

Government needs to get out of "marriage" PERIOD. Equal rights for all and let those ignorant people keep their so called "sacred marriage" to themselves.

[NT1440]

Happy, but not surprised. Marriage has never been defined as anything other than between a single man and woman, and it never should be.
.

Is it fun living in your fantasy world? :rolleyes:

[bobber205]

Happy, but not surprised. Marriage has never been defined as anything other than between a single man and woman, and it never should be.

This does not take away any rights, any more than it did California. It's simply defining the word "marriage". Also, when the state constitution can be amended by the people, then the people choose on marriage. Marriage is not a federal issue, but that of the states. If you want to give homosexuals the "right to marry", amend the U.S. Constitution. And good luck with that.

Not in the Mormon Church. ;)

We could define the words "water fountain" as being a dispenser of water only allowed by certain races (like say, white people) to use. And that is obviously wrong. Just because the word is being "defined" doesn't mean you can take rights away from someone.

[sysiphus]

Not in the Mormon Church. ;)

We could define the words "water fountain" as being a dispenser of water only allowed by certain races (like say, white people) to use. And that is obviously wrong. Just because the word is being "defined" doesn't mean you can take rights away from someone.

My impression is that his argument is that nothing is being "taken away," since the status quo "way back when" didn't include gay marriage. I see the semantics argument there, but it's not my position...

[todd2000]

This does not take away any rights, any more than it did California. It's simply defining the word "marriage".

Lets see, the legislature gave us the right to marry, the voters took away that right, so how does that not take away a right?

[Beric]

Not in the Mormon Church. ;)

We could define the words "water fountain" as being a dispenser of water only allowed by certain races (like say, white people) to use. And that is obviously wrong. Just because the word is being "defined" doesn't mean you can take rights away from someone.

A right exists in the United States only due to the laws of our country making it so. There is no right, based on any law in our country, that states that homosexuals have the right to marry. As such, since the right does not exist in the first place, Maine voters have not taken away any rights whatsoever.

It would be perfectly fine to argue that such a right should exist. But until it is made into law, exist it does not.

Lets see, the legislature gave us the right to marry, the voters took away that right, so how does that not take away a right?

If a right can be changed simply by law, then Maine voters did nothing wrong other than change the law. What I am saying is that there is no universal right of homosexuals to marry, other than in your own mind.

[EricNau]

Marriage has never been defined as anything other than between a single man and woman, and it never should be.
You are wrong. You've been told this before. It's been explained to you. Why do you keep pontificating these intentional lies?

You should be deeply ashamed, the Christian that you supposedly are.

[bobber205]

A right exists in the United States only due to the laws of our country making it so. There is no right, based on any law in our country, that states that homosexuals have the right to marry. As such, since the right does not exist in the first place, Maine voters have not taken away any rights whatsoever.
.

EQUAL RIGHTS FOR EVERYONE

That is the entire point of our country! WHY IS THAT SO HARD TO UNDERSTAND. I am so sick of this. If we didn't allow people to marry based on race, it would look ridiculous and dismissed out of hand. Funny thing is, this was once an issue, brought up by people just like you. Welcome to the wrong side of history yet again, unless you still don't think mixed races should be allowed to marry...

[bruinsrme]

What. The. ****. :mad:

Government needs to get out of "marriage" PERIOD. Equal rights for all and let those ignorant people keep their so called "sacred marriage" to themselves.

Is this a binding or non-binding vote?

If I understand it correctly the PEOPLE are voting yes or no.

The People of Maine are making it law or illegal

Whatever the results are its the people deciding in a democratic process, how ever Discriminatory it appears to be/is.

Just for the record, I couldn't care less who a marriage is between and voted same sex for in Massachusetts.
But many others didn't. I don't think those that voted against it are ignorant they just have different beliefs in whom marriage should be between. Denying them their say is not right either.

In the end the majority will have spoken, however rightor wrong it maybe.

[CalBoy]

Lets just hope that Maine has some guts unlike California, and passes the law again.

Well the two votes were different.

In California there was a constitutional amendment, which means that the legislature needn't "pass" anything to overturn it; the voters must simply vote to repeal Prop 8 at some point in the future.

In Maine, the people exercised their right to a "People's Veto." Maine's legislature can at any time pass this law again, however, given the political capital it takes to pass a law, the legislature will probably avoid touching this for at least a full calendar year. At that point in time, the "Protect Marriage" (I'm still not sure how you "protect" marriage-do you hire counselors to go around the country, try to ban divorce, encourage intimacy? Or do you just go around pushing votes that don't affect you?) people will have to reassess whether or not Maine is worth the fight. They expended $2.5 million+ to get this law overturned. Are religious organizations going to keep footing the bill for these battles? Given the increasing costs and marginal returns (in fact, negative returns-gay marriage votes have been getting closer and closer as time goes on), they will have to decide at some point that a state isn't worth while, and then the sky will "fall" as it were.


Now, there is some good news. It seems Washington has retained legislation that grants full marriage rights (but not the name) to couples in Washington. Now this could easily change still, but so far it looks more promising than Question 1.

[todd2000]

Well the two votes were different.

In California there was a constitutional amendment, which means that the legislature needn't "pass" anything to overturn it; the voters must simply vote to repeal Prop 8 at some point in the future.

In Maine, the people exercised their right to a "People's Veto." Maine's legislature can at any time pass this law again, however, given the political capital it takes to pass a law, the legislature will probably avoid touching this for at least a full calendar year. At that point in time, the "Protect Marriage" (I'm still not sure how you "protect" marriage-do you hire counselors to go around the country, try to ban divorce, encourage intimacy? Or do you just go around pushing votes that don't affect you?) people will have to reassess whether or not Maine is worth the fight. They expended $2.5 million+ to get this law overturned. Are religious organizations going to keep footing the bill for these battles? Given the increasing costs and marginal returns (in fact, negative returns-gay marriage votes have been getting closer and closer as time goes on), they will have to decide at some point that a state isn't worth while, and then the sky will "fall" as it were.


Now, there is some good news. It seems Washington has retained legislation that grants full marriage rights (but not the name) to couples in Washington. Now this could easily change still, but so far it looks more promising than Question 1.

I know I just didn't explain it in my post. Compared to CA, this is easy to "undo." At least until the next vote. Hopefully that won't be till 2012, which might work more in our favor.

[Beric]

EQUAL RIGHTS FOR EVERYONE

That is the entire point of our country! WHY IS THAT SO HARD TO UNDERSTAND. I am so sick of this. If we didn't allow people to marry based on race, it would look ridiculous and dismissed out of hand. Funny thing is, this was once an issue, brought up by people just like you. Welcome to the wrong side of history yet again, unless you still don't think mixed races should be allowed to marry...

Sorry, but I couldn't care less what the color of someone's skin is. It doesn't matter, period. However, their sex (male or female) is important both for biological functions, social arrangements, and emotional decisions. In other words, we're different, and there's no denying it. Discrimination on the basis of sex is perfectly acceptable and legal in certain situations, such as privacy in restrooms from the other sex, or pregnant women getting certain rights in relation to not losing their job, while men clearly do not receive such rights.

[sysiphus]

Now, there is some good news. It seems Washington has retained legislation that grants full marriage rights (but not the name) to couples in Washington. Now this could easily change still, but so far it looks more promising than Question 1.

Yup. Ref. 71. It got my vote, because I think they got it exactly right--full rights but not the same label. Frankly, it's not the same thing, so I think it's illogical to call it as such--but I fully support equal rights. :)

[EricNau]

Yup. Ref. 71. It got my vote, because I think they got it exactly right--full rights but not the same label. Frankly, it's not the same thing, so I think it's illogical to call it as such--but I fully support equal rights. :)
Separate but equal rights?

[sysiphus]

Separate but equal rights?

Separate name. The union between a man and a woman necessarily allows for different results than a homosexual one. I think it's misleading to call it the same thing...again, the same rights verbatim.

[CalBoy]

We're arguing semantics with regard to the taxation idea--and it is getting off topic, you're right.

Well, no, semantics connotes definitions which aren't relevant to the discussion.

What defines and does not define a minority (especially a political one) is not semantics.


I'd be happy to debate it with you, but it's probably best left to a separate thread...as you said, it's getting off topic.

As per this, I'm posting this in the appropriate thread.


AA absolutely disadvantages people--you take a field of people, and deliberately skew the odds of selection based on race/other demographics out of one's control.

You mean how racial minorities typically have vastly inferior schools and a reduced chance at "success" just by virtue of their birth? We as a society permit and perpetuate this deliberately "skewed" selection process.

And, as I mentioned before, you clearly are ignorant as to how the AA process actually works. "Skewed" vastly overstates the impact AA can have on any government-related job or school application.

Here's some reading to get you started:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UC_Regents_v_Bakke

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gratz_v._Bollinger


There's never a justification for being more OR less considered for xxxxxxx because of the color of my skin--doesn't matter if I'm an underrepresented minority or WASPy McWASP.

That ignores the fact that being a different skin color, or gay, or female, or old often puts you at a disadvantage from the starting gate. We don't all get the same "consideration" from life that straight white males have enjoyed in the United States since its inception.

Yup. Ref. 71. It got my vote, because I think they got it exactly right--full rights but not the same label. Frankly, it's not the same thing, so I think it's illogical to call it as such--but I fully support equal rights. :)

Forgive my ignorance, but what precisely is different about it?

Separate but equal rights?

I swear there's a case all about that! Oh, right:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plessy_v_ferguson

[EricNau]

Separate name. The union between a man and a woman necessarily allows for different results than a homosexual one. I think it's misleading to call it the same thing...again, the same rights verbatim.
Necessarily? I'm sorry, but I don't see the "necessary" difference. Could you please elaborate?

I swear there's a case all about that! Oh, right:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plessy_v_ferguson
And in the interests of ensuring a complete history lesson:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._Board_of_Education

[sysiphus]

Well, no, semantics connotes definitions which aren't relevant to the discussion.

What defines and does not define a minority (especially a political one) is not semantics.



As per this, I'm posting this in the appropriate thread.



You mean how racial minorities typically have vastly inferior schools and a reduced chance at "success" just by virtue of their birth? We as a society permit and perpetuate this deliberately "skewed" selection process.

And, as I mentioned before, you clearly are ignorant as to how the AA process actually works. "Skewed" vastly overstates the impact AA can have on any government-related job or school application.

Here's some reading to get you started:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UC_Regents_v_Bakke

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gratz_v._Bollinger



That ignores the fact that being a different skin color, or gay, or female, or old often puts you at a disadvantage from the starting gate. We don't all get the same "consideration" from life that straight white males have enjoyed in the United States since its inception.



Forgive my ignorance, but what precisely is different about it?



I swear there's a case all about that! Oh, right:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plessy_v_ferguson

Yup, I'm clearly ignorant just because I disagree with you. Good call.
And yes, we don't all start with the same advantages/disadvantages in life. Duh. Life's not fair. Guessing about how to make life "fair" isn't going to work. Trying to level the playing field comes at the expense of devaluing the efforts/attributes of people who are simply better at something. I scored in the top percentile on everything academically all through high school--not because I'm a WASP, not because of my sexual orientation (why do you assume I'm straight?), and not because I've got a serious physical impairment. As such, I've set myself up extremely well in life--and I've earned it, so I feel that I deserve it. Why should my achievement be devalued because life's not fair?

Ultimately, it boils down to this: I'm in favor of a meritocracy. If you're the best at something, you win. If you're not, then too bad.

What's different about gay marriage? Let me know next time you hear about a gay couple procreating.

[ipodtoucher]

Marriage is not a federal issue, but that of the states. If you want to give homosexuals the "right to marry", amend the U.S. Constitution. And good luck with that.

Double negative much? How would mending the US constitution not make it federal and the state's decision...


Sorry, but I couldn't care less what the color of someone's skin is. It doesn't matter, period. However, their sex (male or female) is important both for biological functions, social arrangements, and emotional decisions. In other words, we're different, and there's no denying it. Discrimination on the basis of sex is perfectly acceptable and legal in certain situations, such as privacy in restrooms from the other sex, or pregnant women getting certain rights in relation to not losing their job, while men clearly do not receive such rights.

Men can take paternal leave, especially if the mother of the child also has a job. But to compare these rights to the rights of being joined with the one you love for the rest of your life is well dumb... What we are forgetting here is the separation of church and state... this is a democracy where you can practice any religion you want and not be persecuted, or have the right to bare arms (guns and sleeveless shirts :p), yet when it comes to so many things it has to be religious. This country may have been raised on the ideals of the christian faith but that doesn't mean the law has to include the faith, that just makes us have a national religion without really "having" one.

I guess I am just biased being a gay american living in a "free" country where its "sperate, yet equal, some of the time"

I can see that people are upset over men and women marrying the same sex, because of their religion. But if we are to live to the bible, please don't be hypocrites and only live by part of the Bible. If you have a daughter please go ahead and sell her into slavery, and put down that pulled pork sandwich, and stop masturbating, etc etc.

[/rant]

[ipodtoucher]

What's different about gay marriage? Let me know next time you hear about a gay couple procreating.

What does procreation have to do with marriage? There are plenty of teens getting pregnant that aren't married... Marriage is about the love that two people share, and wanting to spend the rest of their lives together, not about how many fetuses they can pop out before they die... I know plenty of married couples that decided to not have kids, is that then a failed marriage in your eyes? Are they going to hell because of that? This is not a valid argument in any way, shape, or form...

[sysiphus]

What does procreation have to do with marriage? There are plenty of teens getting pregnant that aren't married... Marriage is about the love that two people share, and wanting to spend the rest of their lives together, not about how many fetuses they can pop out before they die... I know plenty of married couples that decided to not have kids, is that then a failed marriage in your eyes? Are they going to hell because of that? This is not a valid argument in any way, shape, or form...

I'm not saying that marriage necessitates procreation, or vice versa. However, as the law currently stands, there's a whole panoply of legal ways in which having a child is affected by one's marital status. Heck, you don't even need to look further than the tax code.

Again, I think you're missing my point--I'm not looking to exclude or discriminate--but the simple reality is that a married couple having a kid presents all sorts of unique legal complications. I'm only looking to keep the verbiage clear about what's going on to make life more straightforward. However, if it makes you feel better to keep trying to pick a fight, go right ahead. After all, it sure was me who threw religion into the argument ;)

[EricNau]

I'm not saying that marriage necessitates procreation, or vice versa. However, as the law currently stands, there's a whole panoply of legal ways in which having a child is affected by one's marital status. Heck, you don't even need to look further than the tax code.
Are same-sex couples that decide to have children not deserving of those equal protections, then?

[CalBoy]

Yup, I'm clearly ignorant just because I disagree with you. Good call.

I assessed your knowledge of AA to be ignorant; I didn't call you ignorant.


And yes, we don't all start with the same advantages/disadvantages in life. Duh. Life's not fair. Guessing about how to make life "fair" isn't going to work. Trying to level the playing field comes at the expense of devaluing the efforts/attributes of people who are simply better at something.

It does not necessarily involve this at all.

Usually when two candidates are at the very top of their fields, either one can be considered strong for just about whatever they decide to do. If only one position is available, it's a toss-up anyway. What's the harm in granting the position to the person who represents a group that has previously been denied access to that level of achievement?

That is how AA works today in the government and any public program. One must still be well qualified for the position. What the private sector chooses to do is beyond the realm of this discussion, but I have a feeling it is that AA which troubles you more.


I scored in the top percentile on everything academically all through high school--not because I'm a WASP,

<snip>

As such, I've set myself up extremely well in life--and I've earned it, so I feel that I deserve it.

Actually, your WASP status did help you, whether or not you want to believe it. You were born into a family that has had its roots firmly established in this nation for generations. Imagine being born into a household where neither parent spoke fluent English or could do math beyond Grade 5.

You didn't magically achieve everything of your own volition. You are the product of the environment in which you were raised.

I was fortunate to be born into a home where my father had the time to read to me as a child and take me to the library whenever I wanted. Not every child has that opportunity, and I can't expect to say that I've necessarily "earned" my place if a lot of it was outside my control.


not because of my sexual orientation (why do you assume I'm straight?)

Your attitude towards this topic, primarily.

That, and the assumptions you make about child-rearing and marriage (I'll get to that in a moment).

Why should my achievement be devalued because life's not fair?

Who's 'devaluing' your achievement? I really want to know. Did a racial minority come up to you and say, "You're worth less than me now, deal with it!"????:confused:

And, how much can you say was achieved by you? Can you owe your high IQ to your own achievements? Most geneticists would say not so much. How much control and hard work did you put into selecting a supportive family?

Now, if you don't have a supportive family and an IQ of 100 and have still achieved what you claim to, then bravo to you. Your unique story will alone be enticing enough to take you very far.


Ultimately, it boils down to this: I'm in favor of a meritocracy. If you're the best at something, you win. If you're not, then too bad.

What an interesting schema of the world. A meritocracy must produce "winners" and "losers." In any event, a meritocracy is fine for the most part, but we need to keep in mind that we should judge the merits of an individual accurately. AA doesn't distort that accuracy at all, and if you still believe it does, you really need to outline why given current Federal law on AA.

What's different about gay marriage? Let me know next time you hear about a gay couple procreating.

Ahh, I see. So no post-menopausal women can get married then? I mean, they can't procreate so they can't have a true marriage right? Civil unions/domestic partnerships should work for them.

A sterile couple shouldn't be able to get married either, right? We can give them a civil union too, right?

So, should all couples begin as "civilly united" and then be "upgraded" to "married" if they bear children naturally? What if they use a surrogate but still have a child that is fully biologically their own?

[sysiphus]

Are same-sex couples that decide to have children not deserving of those equal protections, then?

Remind me how that's biologically possible?

For adoption etc, of course they deserve the same protection as a straight couple's adopted kids would...but until that legal red tape is taken care of, trying to use the same labels for the relationship is only going to make the situation more complex.

One more time: I'm really not out to persecute gay couples. Hardly. But unless/until all pertinant laws across the board are adapted for the unique situations that are possible, I think that trying to use the same labeling is going to cause more trouble than it's worth. And this is speaking from personal experience, FYI.

[ipodtoucher]

I'm not saying that marriage necessitates procreation, or vice versa. However, as the law currently stands, there's a whole panoply of legal ways in which having a child is affected by one's marital status. Heck, you don't even need to look further than the tax code.

Again, I think you're missing my point--I'm not looking to exclude or discriminate--but the simple reality is that a married couple having a kid presents all sorts of unique legal complications. I'm only looking to keep the verbiage clear about what's going on to make life more straightforward. However, if it makes you feel better to keep trying to pick a fight, go right ahead. After all, it sure was me who threw religion into the argument ;)

No, i'm not trying to pick a fight I'm just saying that your argument is invalid to this argument. Gay couples are allowed to adopt (in some states), so does that make them any different? Forget the comment about hell, thats my own ranting.

[sysiphus]

No, i'm not trying to pick a fight I'm just saying that your argument is invalid to this argument. Gay couples are allowed to adopt (in some states), so does that make them any different? Forget the comment about hell, thats my own ranting.

Trust me, I understand that it's an emotionally-charged issue...it's one that touches my family directly.

That said, I do think you'll help your cause if you don't jump to the conclusion that everybody who doesn't agree with you from the outset is an illogical religious loonie :P Trust me, though, I get it. I've got the very liberal and the very conservative elements in my family...so I get both sides of it :P

[CalBoy]

Remind me how that's biologically possible?

Surrogacy.


For adoption etc, of course they deserve the same protection as a straight couple's adopted kids would...but until that legal red tape is taken care of, trying to use the same labels for the relationship is only going to make the situation more complex.

That legal "red tape" is already handled equally in many states (including California). How do we proceed if a California family is comprised of two adults and one adopted child? Can we not called the two adults "married?" Or does gender label really matter that much to you?


One more time: I'm really not out to persecute gay couples. Hardly. But unless/until all pertinant laws across the board are adapted for the unique situations that are possible, I think that trying to use the same labeling is going to cause more trouble than it's worth. And this is speaking from personal experience, FYI.

So in other words, you advocate a separate but equal status until fully equally materializes out of thin air?

That's just not how social movements occur. We must make progress by going one step forward (and in today's case, two steps back) at a time.

[ipodtoucher]

Remind me how that's biologically possible

Artificial insemination for lesbian couples.

They could have two babies, does that make them double married :p:rolleyes:

[sysiphus]

Surrogacy.



That legal "red tape" is already handled equally in many states (including California). How do we proceed if a California family is comprised of two adults and one adopted child? Can we not called the two adults "married?" Or does gender label really matter that much to you?



So in other words, you advocate a separate but equal status until fully equally materializes out of thin air?

That's just not how social movements occur. We must make progress by going one step forward (and in today's case, two steps back) at a time.

I see what you're getting at, and I'm aware of the apparent contradiction in my argument. My point is this: I think that WA has it right for now. It's going to be long and messy to get the legal stuff sorted out, even in the most progressive of states...and I want it to take the time necessary to get it all right. In the mean time, "separate but equal" is a really solid stepping stone.

Perhaps you might think I'm making too big of a deal with regard to getting the legal end patched up--but to me, it all boils down to if you think it's a states' rights issue or not. If so, then your approach works great...but to me, gay marriage should be a federal issue...and like it or not, that will be long, slow, ugly, and messy to get right.

[djellison]

and I want it to take the time necessary to get it all right. .

There is one single simple step to get it all right. Allow gay people the exact same rights and privelages that straight people have.

Problem solved.

Gay marriage a federal issue?

It shouldn't even be an issue at all.

Your stance seems very very obscure, it's like your determined to make an massive complex issue out of a very very simple concept. It's only complex if you want it to be, and clearly you do, and I can't see why.

It's funny to see the US supposedly fighting against religious fundamentalism in the middle east - and yet there's religious fundamentalism right there in the US. Of course, it's that section of the bible that if an atheist quotes, they're told "Oh - that doesn't count anymore" that says homosexuality is wrong. You know - the bit about being stoned to death if you refuse to marry your rapist etc etc. Yet strangely - people take more notice of that when asked to vote on gay marriage, than the actual sensible stuff like love thy neighbour and do unto others etc.

[eMac4ever]

I still don't understand why the word "marriage" appears in the legal code at all. I have always thought of marriage as being a religious term, so by having it included in the legal code, it tries to be both a private and public institution simultaneously. This is, as shown by the many attacks launched in this thread, quite problematic because, when an institution is private, they are allowed to exclude to an extent, while when an institution is public, they are not allowed to do so.

If all the instances of "marriage" appearing in the legal code were to be reinterpreted as "civil union"--straight or otherwise--we would not be having this problem. Churches would still be allowed to marry homosexual couples if they wanted, and would not have to do so if they did not want to. Obviously, people could still refer to people getting "married" in colloquial speech.

Essentially, let's keep marriage a private, religious affair and get government out of it all together; we don't need government interfering in another area of our life.

[bruinsrme]

I still don't understand why the word "marriage" appears in the legal code at all.

taxes

[Queso]

I still don't understand why the word "marriage" appears in the legal code at all. I have always thought of marriage as being a religious term, so by having it included in the legal code, it tries to be both a private and public institution simultaneously. This is, as shown by the many attacks launched in this thread, quite problematic because, when an institution is private, they are allowed to exclude to an extent, while when an institution is public, they are not allowed to do so.

If all the instances of "marriage" appearing in the legal code were to be reinterpreted as "civil union"--straight or otherwise--we would not be having this problem. Churches would still be allowed to marry homosexual couples if they wanted, and would not have to do so if they did not want to. Obviously, people could still refer to people getting "married" in colloquial speech.

Essentially, let's keep marriage a private, religious affair and get government out of it all together; we don't need government interfering in another area of our life.
The problem with that is obvious. You try telling people who had a civil ceremony that they are no longer married and see what the reaction is. The only way to resolve this permanently is to extend the existing "marriage" laws to encompass all unions between two people, straight or otherwise. What churches do is their own business, but they have no ownership of the legal system nor the terms that system uses.

The news from Maine is disappointing but not unexpected.

[elmancho]

Ahh, I see. So no post-menopausal women can get married then? I mean, they can't procreate so they can't have a true marriage right? Civil unions/domestic partnerships should work for them.

A sterile couple shouldn't be able to get married either, right? We can give them a civil union too, right?

So, should all couples begin as "civilly united" and then be "upgraded" to "married" if they bear children naturally? What if they use a surrogate but still have a child that is fully biologically their own?


Good Point +1

[iGary]

In other words, we're different, and there's no denying it. Discrimination on the basis of sex is perfectly acceptable and legal in certain situations, such as privacy in restrooms from the other sex, or pregnant women getting certain rights in relation to not losing their job, while men clearly do not receive such rights.

New flash, men can't get pregnant.

But men can and do fall in love with men and women with women.

[Dont Hurt Me]

New flash, men can't get pregnant.

But men can and do fall in love with men and women with women.True and has nothing to do with marriage. I still say marriage should be a tool for govt to give tax deductions to those creating new taxpayers. Its just that simple. Those young familys need help, has nothing to do with same sexes falling in lust or love.:D

[Queso]

True and has nothing to do with marriage. I still say marriage should be a tool for govt to give tax deductions to those creating new taxpayers. Its just that simple. Those young familys need help, has nothing to do with same sexes falling in lust or love.:D
In the tax sphere (which is only a small part of it) marriage should be a tool for recognising that two people are pooling their lives' resources It cannot just be about raising children, which even in the most fertile and productive of families only constitutes a finite part of the married timeframe.

[Thomas Veil]

The news from Maine is disappointing but not unexpected.Yeah, but this is getting me angry. Usually the people are ahead of their legislatures; i.e., they want a right before the government is ready to give it to them. Here we finally have it the other way around, and the goddam stupid people vote it away. Yay for bigotry.

A right exists in the United States only due to the laws of our country making it so.Gee, I thought that all men ;) were endowed with certain unalienable rights, and that among these were life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Sounds like that last one got trounced last night.

[Shivetya]

This is getting ridiculous. With 84% reporting the numbers are Yes (take away gay marriage) 52.4%, and No (keep gay marriage) at 47.46%. Why the heck is this even going up for a vote. The courts and legislature gave us the rights that we deserve, why the hell should the public be allowed to take them away. This whole state by state thing is a bunch of BS! Repealing DOMA (If Obama ever gets around to it) isn't going to make a damn bit of difference if you cant get married in any State. We need some sort of federal law, or were never going to get anywhere.

Lets just hope that Maine has some guts unlike California, and passes the law again.

http://www.bangordailynews.com/electionresults.html


Why is it up for a vote? Because that is how this country works?

The problem with too many folks is, they want it up for a vote if they can win but want it enforced on people by courts if they cannot.

If you don't like the laws in your state, MOVE

Quit whining, you have no right to enforce your beliefs on a majority through force of violence (government has the guns) simply because you don't like the outcome of a open vote.

I know, whats next, request list who voted and how so you can try intimidation next?

[yg17]

Civil rights should not be up for a vote, period. If we voted on all civil rights, slavery would probably still be legal in some states.

[Blue Velvet]

...you have no right to enforce your beliefs on a majority through force of violence (government has the guns) simply because you don't like the outcome of a open vote.

I know, whats next, request list who voted and how so you can try intimidation next?


I see no calls for violence or intimidation, in this thread or elsewhere, because this vote hasn't gone the way many would like. So why bring it up?

[bruinsrme]

Yeah, but this is getting me angry. Usually the people are ahead of their legislatures; i.e., they want a right before the government is ready to give it to them. Here we finally have it the other way around, and the goddam stupid people vote it away. Yay for bigotry.

Gee, I thought that all men ;) were endowed with certain unalienable rights, and that among these were life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Sounds like that last one got trounced last night.

One can't pursue happiness with out being married? Really...:rolleyes:

[Queso]

One can't pursue happiness with out being married? Really...:rolleyes:
But this isn't about you and whether your life is improved or not by being married, it's about others and how they want to live their lives. Believe it or not, many equate marriage with security and it is that security that brings them happiness.

[iGary]

Why is it up for a vote? Because that is how this country works?

So anything is fair game to a popular vote then?

[bruinsrme]

But this isn't about you and whether your life is improved or not by being married, it's about others and how they want to live their lives. Believe it or not, many equate marriage with security and it is that security that brings them happiness.

Wow, I guess only gay people should have been aloowed to vote on the matter since it didn't affect the marriage between a man and woman?
Read back to see how I voted on the matter in Massachusetts.

They can surely pursue their happiness right down the road in Massachusetts, whichlast year repealled the law preventing out of sate residents from being married in Massachusetts.

Everyones pursuit for happiness is defined differently. But in some cases the pursuit will take them across state lines.

[djellison]

you have no right to enforce your beliefs on a majority through force of violence (government has the guns) simply because you don't like the outcome of a open vote.

You have no right to enforce YOUR beliefs on a minority.

No one is 'enforcing' gay marriage on anyone. It doesn't affect ANYBODY buy gay people. Why a straight person would vote against it I simply can not possibly imagine.

If we lived by your rules, women wouldn't have the right to vote and blacks would still be giving up seats on buses.

Wake up. It's the 21st century. By any measure of morality what has happened in Maine is disgusting.

[iBlue]

You have no right to enforce YOUR beliefs on a minority.

No one is 'enforcing' gay marriage on anyone. It doesn't affect ANYBODY buy gay people. Why a straight person would vote against it I simply can not possibly imagine.

If we lived by your rules, women wouldn't have the right to vote and blacks would still be giving up seats on buses.

Wake up. It's the 21st century. By any measure of morality what has happened in Maine is disgusting.

Thank you. You took the words right out of my mouth (keyboard?).

[Full of Win]

OUTSTANDING! Another defeat for homosexual marriage. Dare I think this country is coming to its senses? I hope so.

[Queso]

Wow, I guess only gay people should have been aloowed to vote on the matter since it didn't affect the marriage between a man and woman?
Read back to see how I voted on the matter in Massachusetts.

They can surely pursue their happiness right down the road in Massachusetts, whichlast year repealled the law preventing out of sate residents from being married in Massachusetts.

Everyones pursuit for happiness is defined differently. But in some cases the pursuit will take them across state lines.
Hold on there Tiger. My comment was in direct response to this....
One can't pursue happiness with out being married? Really...:rolleyes:
This IMO is you projecting your views on what happiness entails onto others, hence the "it's not about you" response. My point is that just because you don't put value onto marriage, straight or gay, you can't project that onto the lives of others.

And that goes way beyond this vote, or even marriage in general. There was no implication that only those directly involved in an issue know best. Quite the opposite.

[bruinsrme]

Hold on there Tiger. My comment was in direct response to this....

This IMO is you projecting your views on what happiness entails onto others, hence the "it's not about you" response. My point is that just because you don't put value onto marriage, straight or gay, you can't project that onto the lives of others.
And that goes way beyond this vote, or even marriage in general. There was no implication that only those directly involved in an issue know best. Quite the opposite.

I said that?

I simply asked "one can't pursue happiness without being married?" Does life just stop there?

Why does one have to be married to have security.

Not to downplay the way the vote went in Maine, but there are some options for same sex marriage that would allow, their pursuit.

[yg17]

OUTSTANDING! Another defeat for homosexual marriage. Dare I think this country is coming to its senses? I hope so.

No, this country is even more back asswards and bigoted than I thought.

[Queso]

Why does one have to be married to have security.
Do you never worry what would happen to your partner should something happen to you? Marriage declares them next of kin, giving them full care and decision making power over you should you be incapacitated, and in the event of your death ensures that everything you have built together goes to them without others attempting to take it. That brings piece of mind, something many consider a big step towards happiness.

Try not to get all uppity. It wasn't meant as an attack, more a reminder that the legal system doesn't cater to each of us as individuals. It ought to take the whole into account, even minorities.

[daflake]

I'm curious.... Why are the church folk so against gay marriage?

This leads to my second question... Doesn't Matthew 7 tell you that you that you should not judge others? When I used to go to church it was about equality and loving each other no matter who they were. Now the church folk are bent on keeping two people that love each other from the right to marry? Hypocrisy much?

OK, so the church keeps the term "marriage" and the government either absolves all marriage based items (taxes etc...) coming up with a new system. Or they adopt something called a UNION and allow anyone to have this thus getting the same benefits as others even if they call it a "marriage". Frankly I think it is just stupid that you would not want a fellow human being to be "HAPPY". I think that a lot of idiots are going to get an ear full from their God!

Yes... I don't believe in a God as if you couldn't tell.

[Sky Blue]

Mob rule at it's worst.

[leekohler]

When is the Supreme Court going to finally rule that voting people's rights away is unconstitutional? Because that's what just happened here. This is so completely wrong and un-American it makes me sick. Whose rights shall we vote away next?

[yg17]

Whose rights shall we vote away next?

I think you guys ought to try to get some revenge and vote on a law preventing mormons from marrying ;)

[leekohler]

I think you guys ought to try to get some revenge and vote on a law preventing mormons from marrying ;)

I think you're right. Fight fire with fire. You want to take my rights because you don't like me? Well, I'm gonna do the same to you.

[callmemike20]

So, I saw this episode of Law and Order SVU. There was this guy who said being a pedophile is a sexual orientation. I have a feeling some actual pedophiles believe that. So, should we allow them to have relationships with children? Of course not. It is sick and all the pedos should have their privates chopped off. But remember back in the day when 9 year old's became kings and women were married as "minors". What is that line at age 18 for anyway? Is someone really much more mature the day they turn 18 than the day before?

You see. The whole point is that we have to draw a line. In this case, it's all about what society is willing to accept. And frankly, if society doesn't want to accept gays, then gays will not be accepted and they will have to live with it.

[daflake]

So, I saw this episode of Law and Order SVU. There was this guy who said being a pedophile is a sexual orientation. I have a feeling some actual pedophiles believe that. So, should we allow them to have relationships with children? Of course not. It is sick and all the pedos should have their privates chopped off. But remember back in the day when 9 year old's became kings and women were married as "minors". What is that line at age 18 for anyway? Is someone really much more mature the day they turn 18 than the day before?

You see. The whole point is that we have to draw a line. In this case, it's all about what society is willing to accept. And frankly, if society doesn't want to accept gays, then gays will not be accepted and they will have to live with it.


Bit of a difference between a child that can't fend for him/herself over a person that is gay. :rolleyes: Pedophiles prey on innocent children that can't defend themselves or don't have the faculty to do so. We draw the line at 18 because that is where we scientifically believe a person is to be considered an adult and where they should be able to make rational choices in life.

By what you post, it is easy to see that your fears are based in ignorance. How are two gay people being together going to adversely affect you?

[Shivetya]

So anything is fair game to a popular vote then?

California shows what happens when that is the case and it isn't all good.

No, what we had here was a vote placed on the ballot because the legislature either could nor or would not take up the issue. As such they lost. There is nothing wrong with putting something up to vote if the legislature does not act appropriately in the eyes of the voters.

That is what democracy is about. However majorities can be cruel.


The real lesson to be taken from the vote is that as each year goes by the resistance to change goes down.

[Teh Don Ditty]

Disgusting.

Absolutely disgusting.

Repression FTW!!

sarcasm, btw. Disgusting is all the people that vote to take away people's rights.

[Full of Win]

When is the Supreme Court going to finally rule that voting people's rights away is unconstitutional? Because that's what just happened here. This is so completely wrong and un-American it makes me sick. Whose rights shall we vote away next?

They are not voting away any rights, just putting reasonable restrictions on them. They are free to marry, so long as the other party is of a different gender, based on the presence or absence of a Y chromosome (plural in rare cases). Just because they cannot marry in their gender, their dog, their mom, their computer, their cat, their new 27 inch iMac or any other object is not taking away a right.

[yg17]

They are not voting away any rights, just putting reasonable restrictions on them. They are free to marry, so long as the other party is of a different gender, based on the presence or absence of a Y chromosome (plural in rare cases). Just because they cannot marry in their gender, their dog, their mom, their computer, their cat, their new 27 inch iMac or any other object is not taking away a right.

I suppose you're against interracial marriage too, since black people still would have the right to marry other black people, just not white people?

[leekohler]

They are not voting away any rights, just putting reasonable restrictions on them. They are free to marry, so long as the other party is of a different gender, based on the presence or absence of a Y chromosome (plural in rare cases). Just because they cannot marry in their gender, their dog, their mom, their computer, their cat, their new 27 inch iMac or any other object is not taking away a right.

In order to deny a right, there must be a valid reason. There is no demonstrable valid reason that gay people cannot be married to each other- none whatsoever. The world will not end, the United States will not cease to exist, aliens will not land and take over, "god" will not strike us down.

And there is nothing reasonable about this. It's based on fear and misunderstanding. But you know what? Your kind is dying out. More and more, younger people understand that we are no threat to them. You may have won this battle, but you will lose the war.

[Full of Win]

I suppose you're against interracial marriage too, since black people still would have the right to marry other black people, just not white people?

Classy, real classy. To answer your question/accusation no.

My only qualifications for marriage is the two (not three+) is they be more distantly related than 3rd cousins, be of opposing genders based on presence of the Y chromosome (not a 'feeling' of gender:rolleyes:), and be of an suitable age to understand marriage.

[djellison]

My only qualifications for marriage is ......opposing genders

Oh what basis.

Why do you want to stop two people in love getting married? Why should YOU have the right to get married if you're straight, but someone who is gay doesn't. Why do you think you deserve it more than they do.

[Full of Win]

In order to deny a right, there must be a valid reason. There is no demonstrable valid reason that gay people cannot be married to each other- none whatsoever. The world will not end, the United States will not cease to exist, aliens will not land and take over, "god" will not strike us down.

And there is nothing reasonable about this. It's based on fear and misunderstanding. But you know what? Your kind is dying out. More and more, younger people understand that we are no threat to them. You may have won this battle, but you will lose the war.

Is there a valid reason to not allow polygamy? No
Do we have laws against polygamy? Yes

Is there a valid reason to not allow marriage to inanimate objects? No
Do we have laws against marriage to inanimate objects? Yes

Is there a valid reason to not allow marriage to lower animals? No
Do we have laws against marriage to lower animals? Yes


Sorry to show the flaw in your logic.

[SLC Flyfishing]

I think you guys ought to try to get some revenge and vote on a law preventing mormons from marrying ;)

Read your history books, Mormons have already been through that. They had to give up their form of marriage because of persecution by the American people. Utah was barred from joining the Union as a state until Mormons gave up polygamy.

They know exactly what's going on here. Just pressing the rules as they were explained to them I'm sure.

SLC

[yg17]

Read your history books, Mormons have already been through that. They had to give up their form of marriage because of persecution by the American people. Utah was barred from joining the Union as a state until Mormons gave up polygamy.

They know exactly what's going on here. Just pressing the rules as they were explained to them I'm sure.

SLC

Then as far as I'm concerned, they're a bunch of ****ing hypocrites. They can dish it out but they can't take it. They, of all people, should know what it's like to have laws passed that prevents you from marrying who you're in love with.

[jav6454]

This is getting ridiculous. With 84% reporting the numbers are Yes (take away gay marriage) 52.4%, and No (keep gay marriage) at 47.46%. Why the heck is this even going up for a vote. The courts and legislature gave us the rights that we deserve, why the hell should the public be allowed to take them away. This whole state by state thing is a bunch of BS! Repealing DOMA (If Obama ever gets around to it) isn't going to make a damn bit of difference if you cant get married in any State. We need some sort of federal law, or were never going to get anywhere.

Lets just hope that Maine has some guts unlike California, and passes the law again.

http://www.bangordailynews.com/electionresults.html

As infair as this is we live in a democracy, government gave you the right, but ultimately the people is in charge. So here the people don't want these Gay rights to happen, so it won't. Asking otherwise is going against the Constitution set up.

You want the rights to stay, go to the urns and fight by voting. It's the hard way but in the end he only way.

[leekohler]

Is there a valid reason to not allow polygamy? No
Do we have laws against polygamy? Yes


Wrong- there are laws against polygamy because of the subjugation of women that usually occurs and the genetic issues that can also arise.

Is there a valid reason to not allow marriage to inanimate objects? No
Do we have laws against marriage to inanimate objects? Yes

Wrong. We don't allow marriage to inanimate objects because they can't sign marriage licenses or give consent.

Is there a valid reason to not allow marriage to lower animals? No
Do we have laws against marriage to lower animals? Yes

Wrong. We don't allow marriage to animals because they cannot sign marriage licenses or give consent.


Sorry to show the flaw in your logic.

Sorry to show the flaws in yours.

We are not animals, polygamists or inanimate objects. Deal with us as we are, gay people. Stop making completely irrelevant comparisons.

[ipodtoucher]

You have no right to enforce YOUR beliefs on a minority.

No one is 'enforcing' gay marriage on anyone. It doesn't affect ANYBODY buy gay people. Why a straight person would vote against it I simply can not possibly imagine.

If we lived by your rules, women wouldn't have the right to vote and blacks would still be giving up seats on buses.

Wake up. It's the 21st century. By any measure of morality what has happened in Maine is disgusting.

A-to-the-men! The fact that this is such an issue is so disappointing. This has happened many times in our history, have we not learned? They say the third time's the charm but not so in this case...


OUTSTANDING! Another defeat for homosexual marriage. Dare I think this country is coming to its senses? I hope so.

Wow, do you really get off on comments like that? :confused:

[djellison]

Sorry to show the flaw in your logic.

Please explain the logical reasons behind banning gay marriage, and the motives behind you being so very very happy with this recent ban.

Why are you so against gay people being happy? Why?

Just, why?

[leekohler]

Please explain the logical reasons behind banning gay marriage, and the motives behind you being so very very happy with this recent ban.

Why are you so against gay people being happy? Why?

Just, why?

Because then he gets to say he's better than us. He gets to say we're wrong, evil and disgusting, and since we can't get married, he gets to use that as proof of said assertions.

[SLC Flyfishing]

Then as far as I'm concerned, they're a bunch of ****ing hypocrites. They can dish it out but they can't take it. They, of all people, should know what it's like to have laws passed that prevents you from marrying who you're in love with.

What the hell do you mean they can dish it out, but can't take it. Mormons did take it. Utah is a state now and polygamy is automatic grounds for excommunication from the Mormon faith (no questions asked, you practice polygamy, you're out). They've gone with the will of the American public 100%. You don't see the Mormons fighting to get polygamy legalized do you?

I'd say they took it already, now they expect the rules to be enforced universally.

SLC

[yg17]

What the hell do you mean they can dish it out, but can't take it. Mormons did take it. Utah is a state now and polygamy is automatic grounds for excommunication from the Mormon faith (no questions asked, you practice polygamy, you're out). They've gone with the will of the American public 100%. You don't see the Mormons fighting to get polygamy legalized do you?

I'd say they took it already, now they expect the rules to be enforced universally.

SLC
They fought for their right to marry many wives, and lost that battle. Knowing what it's like to have their right to marry taken away, why would they try to do the same?

[leekohler]

What the hell do you mean they can dish it out, but can't take it. Mormons did take it. Utah is a state now and polygamy is automatic grounds for excommunication from the Mormon faith (no questions asked, you practice polygamy, you're out). They've gone with the will of the American public 100%. You don't see the Mormons fighting to get polygamy legalized do you?

I'd say they took it already, now they expect the rules to be enforced universally.

SLC

I didn't know gay people were pushing for polygamy.

BTW- if you guys want polygamy, why don't you fight for it?

They fought for their right to marry many wives, and lost that battle. Knowing what it's like to have their right to marry taken away, why would they try to do the same?

Because if they can't have it, nobody can. And because their book tells them gay people are wrong.

[SLC Flyfishing]

Wrong- there are laws against polygamy because of the subjugation of women that usually occurs and the genetic issues that can also arise.

What about polygamy in and of itself demands the subjugation of women? What genetic issues arise by default due to polygamy? That's right, none. Only when people do other things that cause those issues, traditional heterosexual monogamous relationships can and often do also involve the subjugation of women, and genetics can make procreation between even completely unrelated people risky at times. So what gives, why are you bigoted against free will to marry those you love regardless of gender or number?

Seems to me that those things are a result of pushing those who want to practice a polygamist lifestyle underground. Making their lifestyle illegal, and thereby shrinking the gene pool. If polygamy were legal and accepted like gays want gay marriage to be, those problems would largely dissapear.

I mean hell Lee, there are potential genetic issues that arise from traditional marriage (or no marriage at all). If a man and three completely unrelated women want to be married and start a family together, who has the ability to take that right away? Life liberty and the pursuit of happiness and all that, right?

If a man has some bizarre fetish and decides to become romantically involved with his 1970 chevelle SS 454. Why does the car need to give consent for him to marry it. It is afterall an inatimate object which has no consciousness at all. He's not exploiting the car, the car is unable to care either way. Isn't the onlybthing happening here the prevention of the pursuit of happiness on the part of the man?

Think about it Lee, society has to draw lines on issues. You may be on the opposite side of the line from the majority in this case, but that doesn't affect it's validity.

SLC

[Zombie Acorn]

I can't believe this is still such a big deal since it doesn't effect 90% of the populace of the US. Are people afraid they are going to turn gay if gays are allowed to get married or something?

[leekohler]

What about polygamy in and of itself demands the subjugation of women? What genetic issues can arise?

It's not my reasons. Those are the reasons normally given. I personally have no problem with polygamy. Go fight for it if you want it. But don't s*** on me because you're not willing to.

Seems to me that those things are a result of pushing those who want to practice a polygamist lifestyle underground. Making their lifestyle illegal, and thereby shrinking the gene pool. If polygamy were legal and accepted like gays want gay marriage to be, those problems would largely dissapear.

Then go start educating people, like we've been doing. Don't blame me for your lack of will to do so. If you want it, fight for it. PROVE to people that it's OK.

I mean hell Lee, there are potential genetic issues that arise from traditional marriage (or no marriage at all). If a man and three completely unrelated women want to be married and start a family together, who has the ability to take that right away? Life liberty and the pursuit of happiness and all that, right?

Like I said, I have no problem with that. By all means, go for it. But don't use that situation to deny another group that right- especially when that group has nothing to do with yours.

If a man has some bizarre fetish and decides to become romantically involved with his 1970 chevelle SS 454. Why does the car need to give consent for him to marry it. It is afterall an inatimate object which has no consciousness at all. He's not exploiting the car, the car is unable to care either way. Isn't the onlybthing happening here the prevention of the pursuit of happiness on the part of the man?

So now we are honestly comparing cars to human beings? Really? I really thought I had illustrated the ridiculousness of that.

Think about it Lee, society has to draw lines on issues. You may be on the opposite side of the line from the majority in this case, but that doesn't affect it's validity.

SLC

Disallowing gays to marry isn't one of those lines that needs to be drawn. It makes no sense, and deep down I think you know that.

I can't believe this is still such a big deal since it doesn't effect 90% of the populace of the US. Are people afraid they are going to turn gay if gays are allowed to get married or something?

I think you hit the nail on the head. But what they are really afraid of is gay people being seen as OK.

[SLC Flyfishing]

I didn't know gay people were pushing for polygamy.

BTW- if you guys want polygamy, why don't you fight for it?

We were forced into traditional mariage over 100 years ago. Polygamybis no longer taught or desired, and we don't want another extermination order placed against us.

SLC

[djellison]

And because their book tells them gay people are wrong.

This is what I don't get. When I copy and paste a bit from that same section of the bible, usually one that says anyone raped must marry the rapist, or people on their period or who require glasses or who have a beard are not allowed in church, or various idiotic other things that usually require a good stoning - I'm told that that's an old part of the bible and it's irrelevant today.

Yet when it suits their own bigoted homophobic motives - suddenly it's back on the reading list and pertinent to modern society. Self contradictory and hypocritical.



but that doesn't affect it's validity.

Please give one valid reason to not allow gay people the same rights as straight people. And why are you trying to draw comparisons between gay people, bestiality and polygamy. They seem to be entirely unrelated issues, and the fact that they've been dragged into this discussion speaks volumes about those who have done so and their beliefs toward gays.

It's sickening.

Thank god (pun intended) I live in a country that doesn't function on the basis of sick warped vile Christian fundamentalism.

[leekohler]

We were forced into traditional mariage over 100 years ago. Polygamybis no longer taught or desired, and we don't want another extermination order placed against us.

SLC

Please spare me the martyr complex. What the hell do you think people have done to us over the past few decades in this country? You want it, fight for it. Because I'll tell you what- we will. We won't stop until we've won, and we've suffered plenty of casualties.

You presented nothing but an excuse.

[Sdashiki]

Please spare me the martyr complex. What the hell do you think people have done to us over the past few decades in this country? You want it, fight for it. Because I'll tell you what- we will. We won't stop until we've won, and we've suffered plenty of casualties.

You presented nothing but an excuse.

I gotta say that presenting it as an "us" vs "them" only hurts...if its about equality make it equal.

This isnt about gay people's rights, ITS ABOUT EVERYONE'S RIGHT! :rolleyes:

[djellison]

This isnt about gay people's rights, ITS ABOUT EVERYONE'S RIGHT! :rolleyes:

However, it's not EVERYONE'S RIGHT to marry that's just been banned.

It's just gay people.

[leekohler]

I gotta say that presenting it as an "us" vs "them" only hurts...if its about equality make it equal.

This isnt about gay people's rights, ITS ABOUT EVERYONE'S RIGHT! :rolleyes:

That's true, but doesn't change what I said. We won't stop until we've won our rights. And hate to say it, but there will always be people who don't like us, just like any other minority.

[bobber205]

If they want to protect "marriage" so badly, why aren't they outlawing divorce?

Oh that's right. Because it's an option they want to have.

[EricNau]

I still don't understand why the word "marriage" appears in the legal code at all. I have always thought of marriage as being a religious term, so by having it included in the legal code, it tries to be both a private and public institution simultaneously. [. . .]
Because marriage was a legal institution far before it was adopted by the Church.

Those in this thread who believe they are restoring marriage by imposing their religious beliefs are doing exactly the opposite. It's sad, very sad, but there it is.

[Shotglass]

There are two things I don't understand: Why gay people are any different from straight people in their right to marry whoever they want, and also Why anyone should care what gay people do, much less make laws on what they can and can't do. I just don't get it.

[Queso]

If a man has some bizarre fetish and decides to become romantically involved with his 1970 chevelle SS 454. Why does the car need to give consent for him to marry it. It is afterall an inatimate object which has no consciousness at all. He's not exploiting the car, the car is unable to care either way. Isn't the onlybthing happening here the prevention of the pursuit of happiness on the part of the man?
I'd love to see the car sign consent forms if that man finds himself in need of emergency life-saving surgery. Show me how that would work and I'll agree your comparison has validity.

[ipodtoucher]

There are two things I don't understand: Why gay people are any different from straight people in their right to marry whoever they want, and also Why anyone should care what gay people do, much less make laws on what they can and can't do. I just don't get it.

I agree to the fullest, it's not going to hurt anyone else in the community. If anything it will boost the economy. I take this from Prop 8 the musical, a funny video on funnyordie.com that talks about how hypocritical the church is about following only certain parts of the Bible and forcing their ideals. The video features many celebrities but the main part that is funny/true is Neil Patrick Harris' song about how gays will have over-the-top weddings that cost tons of money, and the prices they will pay for divorce lawyers. It's not like we want to get married and then make everyone else in the country gay. We aren't trying to make a nation of gays, but an equal nation where we can live freely.

[daflake]

There are two things I don't understand: Why gay people are any different from straight people in their right to marry whoever they want, and also Why anyone should care what gay people do, much less make laws on what they can and can't do. I just don't get it.

Same here... It totally baffles me.

[FrankieTDouglas]

I'm currently living in Maine and honestly, I thought better of this state. I was sure they would vote No in large amounts. Then when I read the news today, I felt stunned. This state is a great place for freedom. No one intrudes on another. Low crime. People are just relaxed and easy going. I don't even find religious groups very intruding up here (I'm originally from the deep South).

Yet they still voted Yes.

I don't understand it.

Like someone else said, if people really want to protect marriage, outlaw divorce.

One of my good friends up here is gay. He's not in the best of moods today. It's not even that he wants to get married next week. He just wants to have the option, if he so chooses at some point in his life. It doesn't make sense that he can't. Especially in light of the comparison. He and his partner are both college educated, very intelligent, don't drink or do drugs, good people. But they can't be married for any reason. Meanwhile, for example, two random heterosexual high school dropouts with meth addictions and two abortions can run off to Arkansas and get married on less than a day's notice.

in comparison, it doesn't make sense that one example can while another can't. I'm not saying the dropouts shouldn't be able to. Just give the gay couple that option, as well. At least I feel their choice will be a little more considered.

[MacNut]

What about a straight couple that doesn't believe in marriage but still loves each other and wants to be with each other for life. Should they be allowed the same rights as a married couple. If one gets seriously i'll does the other one get the right to decide even tho they are not a "legal couple". I think there are many people that would rather not get married but only do it for the healthcare and security.

Why should we have fake marriages just for convenience. Love is love an should not have to be decided by marriage.

[CalBoy]

Perhaps you might think I'm making too big of a deal with regard to getting the legal end patched up--but to me, it all boils down to if you think it's a states' rights issue or not. If so, then your approach works great...but to me, gay marriage should be a federal issue...and like it or not, that will be long, slow, ugly, and messy to get right.

The state-by-state approached is used because that's how the Supreme Court and Congress like to judge social "norms."

No social cause ever jumps straight to the federal level without some relevant input from the states. It's one on of the reasons why federalism is so appealing; we get to have 50 mini "laboratories" to test out various policies before implementation. This is but one stage in the process; we will eventually get it to the federal level and prevail.

[nbs2]

Please spare me the martyr complex. What the hell do you think people have done to us over the past few decades in this country? You want it, fight for it. Because I'll tell you what- we will. We won't stop until we've won, and we've suffered plenty of casualties.

Lee, you don't want to go down that road. Really, you don't. The gay community has taken a beating no doubt, but the first 70 years or so of the church really don't play into your argument. The Edmunds-Tucker Act has some information on what why they lost the fight. I hate to cite to wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmunds%E2%80%93Tucker_Act), but I can't locate the text.

To bring my post back on topic, I think there comes a point where a group has to, well, regroup. That may mean back off for a period of time and figure out the best way to proceed. While every state is different, and I think they have an inherent advantage because of local politics (of course, the same could have been said about ME), the OR folks will likely succeed in their goal to get their laws changed by 2012. Why? Because they took the time to show people who they are through example rather than "fighting for it." Eight years (04-12) may seem like a long time, but in the grand scheme, it really isn't.

[CorvusCamenarum]

The state-by-state approached is used because that's how the Supreme Court and Congress like to judge social "norms."

No social cause ever jumps straight to the federal level without some relevant input from the states. It's one on of the reasons why federalism is so appealing; we get to have 50 mini "laboratories" to test out various policies before implementation. This is but one stage in the process; we will eventually get it to the federal level and prevail.

Gay marriage is currently batting 0 for 31. So much for lab tests.

[leekohler]

Lee, you don't want to go down that road. Really, you don't. The gay community has taken a beating no doubt, but the first 70 years or so of the church really don't play into your argument. The Edmunds-Tucker Act has some information on what why they lost the fight. I hate to cite to wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmunds%E2%80%93Tucker_Act), but I can't locate the text.

To bring my post back on topic, I think there comes a point where a group has to, well, regroup. That may mean back off for a period of time and figure out the best way to proceed. While every state is different, and I think they have an inherent advantage because of local politics (of course, the same could have been said about ME), the OR folks will likely succeed in their goal to get their laws changed by 2012. Why? Because they took the time to show people who they are through example rather than "fighting for it." Eight years (04-12) may seem like a long time, but in the grand scheme, it really isn't.

And you don't know your gay history either. I know about what happened to the Mormons- and honestly, I think if people want to be polygamous, they should be able to.

As far as me going "down that road"- seriously, you really must have no idea what's happened to us as well. But "my persecution is worse than your persecution" isn't going to fly with me.

[abijnk]

What about a straight couple that doesn't believe in marriage but still loves each other and wants to be with each other for life. Should they be allowed the same rights as a married couple. If one gets seriously i'll does the other one get the right to decide even tho they are not a "legal couple". I think there are many people that would rather not get married but only do it for the healthcare and security.

Why should we have fake marriages just for convenience. Love is love an should not have to be decided by marriage.

I've heard this argument before and I really don't get it. How can you not believe in marriage? That's like not believing in trees. It exists, its not a matter of belief in that existence. Therefore, I can only assume the use of the word belief is somehow religious in nature. By that, I mean that who ever does or doesn't "believe" in marriage sees it as something more than a legal contract. Of course, at the end of the day marriage is something much more than a piece of paper and some laws, but where the government is concerned it is just that.

It all comes down to semantics. Marriage evokes religious and social ideas above and beyond the legal implications, which is where things start to get muddy. Only when I separated out the different aspects of it did I really start to form the solid views that I have about marriage now, including how I feel about government involvement. The government uses the term marriage to designate a legal contract between two people. It doesn't care about the feelings or views of these people, only that they have agreed to the contract and that they are now granted the rights and obligations that go along with it. People say that they don't like government having any sort of hand in the whole affair, but then they aren't happy to do without the benefits of it (like secutiry and healthcare). When you consider that it is really the only way for there to be a legal understanding of things like taxes, next of kin, and other legal matters that come up in everyday life outside of any religion it makes pretty good sense. Sure, the result is that marriage has become a loaded term, but it doesn't change the fact that without it there wouldn't be a way to legally designate what is what between people. It might not be the best way of handling it, but it is what we've got...

If you can recognize this, that the government's use of the term marriage is in no way religious and that the use of the word is just unfortunate happenstance, then it is easy to see the ridiculousness of the gay marriage issue. What right does the government have to say that the two parties entering into this contract have to be male and female? The answer should be none. There is absolutely no reason that the government endorsed contract known as marriage, and all the benefits and obligations of that contract, should not simply be between two consenting adults, regardless of race or gender.

[Prof.]

I move that the US Government revokes Women's Rights and re-enslaves African Americans. I mean... It's only fair.:rolleyes:

Do you see how asinine a gay marriage ban is? Ignorance is bliss.

[AP_piano295]

If people dont stop comparing gay marriage to marrying animals I'm going to lose my mind...

[Tesselator]

Why the heck is this even going up for a vote?

http://www.bangordailynews.com/electionresults.html

Distraction. Keep the masses conflicted. etc.


Happy, but not surprised. Marriage has never been defined as anything other than between a single man and woman, and it never should be.

This does not take away any rights,...

The legally married status has an affect on those partner's rights, tax classification, credit status, etc. It does make a difference.


What. The. ****. :mad:

Government needs to get out of "marriage" PERIOD. Equal rights...

Yep! I can see it at a community level but neither state nor federal governments should pass any laws! It's a church issue. What ever happened to the guaranteed separation of church and state written out in our constitution?

Weird Al should do a spoof song on the constitutional amendments biting the dust! In these days it would fit.

And another goes down,
And another goes down,
And another right bites the dust.

:D OK, I'm no Weird Al. :p

[CalBoy]

Gay marriage is currently batting 0 for 31. So much for lab tests.

Not quite.

No state may have retained same-sex marriage by popular vote, but that isn't the metric that is necessary when the Supreme Court considers 'evolving standards of decency.'

There are currently five states with same-sex marriage (Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Vermont, and Iowa), and several more which have a strong possibility of having it in the coming 2-4 years (New York, New Jersey, Rhode Island, California, Maine, and possibly Hawaii or New Mexico).

In addition, national polls continue to see an increase in the 'favorability' rating of same-sex marriage (movement continues at about 1-2% per year and stands between 43% and 46% for 2008 depending on the poll). All of this points to a clear trend for the US Supreme Court. In a hypothetical case 10 years from now, anywhere from 53%-63% of the population will support same-sex marriage, and over a dozen (possibly approaching two dozen) states will have same-sex marriage. This is a reliable indicator to the Court of where things are headed, and means that the justices will have a much easier time in ruling in favor of same-sex marriage.

For example, before the Supreme Court outlawed the execution of minors, only 12 states had banned such a practice (and none by proposition). Despite this, the Court cited an evolving standard among the states and declared that no person who was a minor at the time of the crime can be executed.

[Thomas Veil]

Wrong- there are laws against polygamy because of the subjugation of women that usually occurs and the genetic issues that can also arise.



Wrong. We don't allow marriage to inanimate objects because they can't sign marriage licenses or give consent.



Wrong. We don't allow marriage to animals because they cannot sign marriage licenses or give consent.




Sorry to show the flaws in yours.

We are not animals, polygamists or inanimate objects. Deal with us as we are, gay people. Stop making completely irrelevant comparisons.Lee, you are getting much too subtle for the anti-gay crowd here. They need everything in black and white.

Or maybe just white, who knows?

OUTSTANDING! Another defeat for homosexual marriage. Dare I think this country is coming to its senses? I hope so.Well, that's as clear an expression of bigotry as I've ever heard.

Okay, let me ask you this, FOW, bruinsrme and all the other anti-gay people: are you okay with heterosexual marriage being outlawed?

[CorvusCamenarum]

Not quite.

No state may have retained same-sex marriage by popular vote, but that isn't the metric that is necessary when the Supreme Court considers 'evolving standards of decency.'

There are currently five states with same-sex marriage (Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Vermont, and Iowa), and several more which have a strong possibility of having it in the coming 2-4 years (New York, New Jersey, Rhode Island, California, Maine, and possibly Hawaii or New Mexico).

In addition, national polls continue to see an increase in the 'favorability' rating of same-sex marriage (movement continues at about 1-2% per year and stands between 43% and 46% for 2008 depending on the poll). All of this points to a clear trend for the US Supreme Court. In a hypothetical case 10 years from now, anywhere from 53%-63% of the population will support same-sex marriage, and over a dozen (possibly approaching two dozen) states will have same-sex marriage. This is a reliable indicator to the Court of where things are headed, and means that the justices will have a much easier time in ruling in favor of same-sex marriage.

For example, before the Supreme Court outlawed the execution of minors, only 12 states had banned such a practice (and none by proposition). Despite this, the Court cited an evolving standard among the states and declared that no person who was a minor at the time of the crime can be executed.

Those five states you mentioned only allow gay marriage because of judicial mandate. Hardly a ringing endorsement. Even the mighty California voted it down. But I suppose you're content going with the Lisbon Treaty route - continue to put up referendums until voters see the light and give the "correct" answer.

The question into which we should all be delving (and I haven't seen it come up here yet) is if marriage is a right or a privilege. Those that favor gay marriage view it as a right. For better or worse, it can be argued that said viewpoint is incorrect. Just as one must be licensed to drive, one must also be licensed to marry. A state-issued license implies a privilege to be granted rather than a right, inalienable or otherwise. If this question has been answered by a vote or a court in this country, I have yet to hear of it.

[leekohler]

Those five states you mentioned only allow gay marriage because of judicial mandate. Hardly a ringing endorsement. Even the mighty California voted it down. But I suppose you're content going with the Lisbon Treaty route - continue to put up referendums until voters see the light and give the "correct" answer.

The question into which we should all be delving (and I haven't seen it come up here yet) is if marriage is a right or a privilege. Those that favor gay marriage view it as a right. For better or worse, it can be argued that said viewpoint is incorrect. Just as one must be licensed to drive, one must also be licensed to marry. A state-issued license implies a privilege to be granted rather than a right, inalienable or otherwise. If this question has been answered by a vote or a court in this country, I have yet to hear of it.

And you have yet to give a coherent answer as to why same sex marriage should be illegal.

BTW- doesn't one have to be registered in order to vote? Does that make voting a right or a privilege? Women and blacks could not vote at one time either. Guess who struck that down? It certainly wasn't the will of the people. The courts exist to protect the rights of all, not just the majority. The courts in those states have done the right thing.

[abijnk]

Those five states you mentioned only allow gay marriage because of judicial mandate. Hardly a ringing endorsement. Even the mighty California voted it down. But I suppose you're content going with the Lisbon Treaty route - continue to put up referendums until voters see the light and give the "correct" answer.

The question into which we should all be delving (and I haven't seen it come up here yet) is if marriage is a right or a privilege. Those that favor gay marriage view it as a right. For better or worse, it can be argued that said viewpoint is incorrect. Just as one must be licensed to drive, one must also be licensed to marry. A state-issued license implies a privilege to be granted rather than a right, inalienable or otherwise. If this question has been answered by a vote or a court in this country, I have yet to hear of it.

But gays can drive, can't they? Marriage is the only right or privilage, however you want to look at it, that is denied to someone based on gender. Continuing with the driving example, the only way to be denied that privilage is to do something to lose it. The question then becomes does being gay mean you should lose a government issued privilage?

[Tesselator]

Well, that's as clear an expression of bigotry as I've ever heard.

Okay, let me ask you this, FOW, bruinsrme and all the other anti-gay people: are you okay with heterosexual marriage being outlawed?

Anti-gay? Is there such a thing after high school? Yeah, never mind, there is. I was forgetting about Texas. :p :(

But that's the right question! What difference does it make if anyone is for or against GM? Has mob-rule totally taken over in the USA? Oops, another question I already knew the answer to - Yes it has. Anyway, it simply does not (err, should not) matter at all if people morally approve of GM or not. It's not for the government to decide. The US is supposed to be a free country which generally and broadly means that we can do what we like when we like as long as no harm comes to others. It's only when the rights, safety, or well-being of others are infringed upon that the government needs to get in it. So the question shout NOT be "are you for or against GM" as the politicians frame it (in order to keep everyone off the real issue), but rather "why the hell is government getting in to it at all?"

If there needs to be an extra question here it should be: Do you think that the rights, safety or well-being of others is infringed upon by gay marriage?

If the mob wants to act against Gay Marriage it should not be through legislation at all! Maybe start a community awareness group or bring it up in churches or whatever. Next we'll be legislating that heavy metal'ers should not marry punk rockers or that surfers and bikers should refrain. LOL

[Thomas Veil]

But gays can drive, can't they?Omigod, that's right!! :eek: We've got to prevent them from driving right away! We don't want our kids learning to grab each others' gear sticks, do we??

[leekohler]

Omigod, that's right!! :eek: We've got to prevent them from driving right away! We don't want our kids learning to grab each others' gear sticks, do we??

All joking aside, I bet the right tries to come for our kids next.

[PcBgone]

Some of you need to read the Preamble of the Constitution. It states, "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union..." This means the people are in control of the government. This means the people decide what laws we will have to obey. Thus the people shall vote. In this case the people voted and knocked down homosexual marriage.

This is a states issue, not a federal issue. If the state of california wants to allow homosexual marriage, and the people of that state vote for it and allow it, so be it. But it shouldnt force the people of Texas or any other state for that matter to follow suit nor recognize that union unless the people vote for it and approve it.

Sorry if you disagree with this, you disagree with the COTUS, and maybe you should find another place to call home. This isnt a rights issue, as your not being denied the ability to marry. You can go marry any person of the opposite sex you want. You just choose not to. That is your own choice, thus not a "civil rights" issue as some of you would like to Proclaim.

Hooray for Maine for standing up against disturbing and grotesque actions.

[abijnk]

What ever happened to the guaranteed separation of church and state written out in our constitution?


Haven't read the constitution lately have you? That phrase, "separation of church and state," isn't written in the constitution, nor is it expressly stated in any other words. It is implied, however, in the first amendment. The phrase is actually from Jefferson. But I digress...

The notion that marriage is strictly a church issue is simply wrong. Religious marriage is strictly a church issue, but legal marriage is strictly a government issue. It's actually ironic that you would use the phrase "separation of church and state" and yet in the same post fail so completely in recognizing the distinct definitions of marriage in the church's eyes and marriage in the government's eyes. No one is trying to say anything about religious marriage. No one is or ever has, on these forums, stated that the government should have a say in who the church does or does not marry. The idea of separation of church and state gives us this distinction. However, anyone can plainly see that in this day and age marriage does not necessarily involve the church, nor should it have to. Two people can be married without any religious involvement.

It amazes me that many in the anti-gay marriage side can so easily use the separation of church and state to defend their side, but cannot see the blatant hypocrisy in it. The concept isn't there to only protect the church from government involvement. It is, and should, be used to protect the government from church influence. And yet, here we are...

[leekohler]

Some of you need to read the Preamble of the Constitution. It states, "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union..." This means the people are in control of the government. This means the people decide what laws we will have to obey. Thus the people shall vote. In this case the people voted and knocked down homosexual marriage.

This is a states issue, not a federal issue. If the state of california wants to allow homosexual marriage, and the people of that state vote for it and allow it, so be it. But it shouldnt force the people of Texas or any other state for that matter to follow suit nor recognize that union unless the people vote for it and approve it.

Sorry if you disagree with this, you disagree with the COTUS, and maybe you should find another place to call home. This isnt a rights issue, as your not being denise the ability to marry. You can go marry any person of the opposite sex you want. You just choose not to. That is your own choice, thus not a "civil rights" issue as some of you would like to Proclaim.

Hooray for Maine for standing up against disturbing and grotesque actions.

It's absolutely discrimination based on gender. I cannot marry someone of the opposite sex. It's wrong because it's a lie.

And it seems it's you who doesn't agree with the Constitution. We are all supposed to be protected with regards to our rights. Rights are not to be voted on. Might I remind you that the Supreme Court of California declared same sex marriage a right? They failed at their duty by allowing Prop 8 to stand.

Haven't read the constitution lately have you? That phrase, "separation of church and state," isn't written in the constitution, nor is it expressly stated in any other words. It is implied, however, in the first amendment. The phrase is actually from Jefferson. But I digress...

The notion that marriage is strictly a church issue is simply wrong. Religious marriage is strictly a church issue, but legal marriage is strictly a government issue. It's actually ironic that you would use the phrase "separation of church and state" and yet in the same post fail so completely in recognizing the distinct definitions of marriage in the church's eyes and marriage in the government's eyes. No one is trying to say anything about religious marriage. No one is or ever has, on these forums, stated that the government should have a say in who the church does or does not marry. The idea of separation of church and state gives us this distinction. However, anyone can plainly see that in this day and age marriage does not necessarily involve the church, nor should it have to. Two people can be married without any religious involvement.

It amazes me that many in the anti-gay marriage side can so easily use the separation of church and state to defend their side, but cannot see the blatant hypocrisy in it. The concept isn't there to only protect the church from government involvement. It is, and should, be used to protect the government from church influence. And yet, here we are...

Separation of church and state has been uphelad and affirmed by the Supreme Court on several occasions. It exists.

And Tesselator is not anti-gay from what I read.

[NT1440]

Hooray for Maine for standing up against disturbing and grotesque actions.

What is disturbing and grotesque about two people loving each other?

[rdowns]

Hooray for Maine for standing up against disturbing and grotesque actions.

The only disturbing and grotesque things I see in this thread are hate and bigotry from you and several others.

[yg17]

Hooray for Maine for standing up against disturbing and grotesque actions.

The only disturbing and grotesque act I see is you talking.

[Thomas Veil]

...This isnt a rights issue, as your not being denise the ability to marry....Who is Denise? And what does she have against gay people marrying?

[CorvusCamenarum]

And you have yet to give a coherent answer as to why same sex marriage should be illegal.
Where did I say it should be illegal? I don't care one way the other, or must I either be with you or against you? Is it so hard for you to accept that some of us out there don't give a crap either way?

BTW- doesn't one have to be registered in order to vote? Does that make voting a right or a privilege? Women and blacks could not vote at one time either. Guess who struck that down? It certainly wasn't the will of the people. The courts exist to protect the rights of all, not just the majority. The courts in those states have done the right thing.
Registering to vote is not the same as applying for a driver's license. You cannot be turned away unless you're under 18 or a felon. There is no such thing as a voting license. And you have yet to give a coherent answer as to whether marriage is a right or a privilege. Come on Lee, I expect more of you.

But gays can drive, can't they? Marriage is the only right or privilage, however you want to look at it, that is denied to someone based on gender. Continuing with the driving example, the only way to be denied that privilage is to do something to lose it. The question then becomes does being gay mean you should lose a government issued privilage?
Well, they can if they can pass the tests. A right is not the same as a privilege, which is what you're glossing over here. In order for the debate to proceed in any meaningful way, that question needs to be answered at some legal level.

[EricNau]

Some of you need to read the Preamble of the Constitution. It states, "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union..." This means the people are in control of the government. This means the people decide what laws we will have to obey. Thus the people shall vote. In this case the people voted and knocked down homosexual marriage.
And you need to read the Federalist Papers. Start with Federalist 10 (http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa10.htm) and Federalist 51 (http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa51.htm), both of which specifically address the reasons why the United States is a Republic: why our government is constructed in such a manner to protect minorities from majorities and why numerous safeguards were placed between the government and the people.

[Zombie Acorn]

If you got a sex change op and then got married and then got another sex change op would you still be married?

[Blue Velvet]

If you got a sex change op and then got married and then got another sex change op would you still be married?

What a peculiar question. Laws vary by state, but as far as I can tell, this topic has little relevance to gay marriage, although I'm sure some here will disagree.

[CalBoy]

Those five states you mentioned only allow gay marriage because of judicial mandate.

Well, not really. Vermont and New Hampshire accomplished equality via the normal legislative process.

New York and New Jersey are most likely going to go through the legislative process as well.

That does seem like a ringing endorsement considering how hard it is to get a bill passed through any legislature, let alone one that is so extraordinary.

But I suppose you're content going with the Lisbon Treaty route - continue to put up referendums until voters see the light and give the "correct" answer.

What is wrong with this exactly? Our ability to admit that we were wrong is one of the saving graces of humanity. The people should be free to reevaluate their judgements at any time, especially when propositions are so easily passed.


The question into which we should all be delving (and I haven't seen it come up here yet) is if marriage is a right or a privilege.

Quite frankly, this doesn't matter.

Even if it is not a right, but a privilege, the privilege must still be applied on equal terms to all citizens. We can't make a privilege be applied unevenly.

If marriage is a contract entered into by two parties for the purpose of mutual cohabitation for the purpose of legal protections, then on what basis should the contract be limited by gender? No other license would dare place a gender restriction upon a licensee, so why marriage?

Those that favor gay marriage view it as a right.

Mostly because marriage has been viewed as a fundamental right for eons. Every society has granted marriage rights (albeit with differing requirements), and the UN has declared marriage to be a fundamental right.

Marriage has also been established as a fundamental right by virtue of Loving v Virginia (1967) in the United States.


Just as one must be licensed to drive, one must also be licensed to marry. A state-issued license implies a privilege to be granted rather than a right, inalienable or otherwise. If this question has been answered by a vote or a court in this country, I have yet to hear of it.

Licenses must also be awarded on an equal protection basis. Currently, marriage licenses are not awarded on an equal protection basis. They are biased based on gender, which with any other license would be struck down.

[leekohler]

Where did I say it should be illegal? I don't care one way the other, or must I either be with you or against you? Is it so hard for you to accept that some of us out there don't give a crap either way?

If you don't care, why are you posting?


Registering to vote is not the same as applying for a driver's license. You cannot be turned away unless you're under 18 or a felon. There is no such thing as a voting license. And you have yet to give a coherent answer as to whether marriage is a right or a privilege. Come on Lee, I expect more of you.

I answered that in an earlier post above in response to another member.



Well, they can if they can pass the tests. A right is not the same as a privilege, which is what you're glossing over here. In order for the debate to proceed in any meaningful way, that question needs to be answered at some legal level.

It already was, by the Supreme Court of California, that failed to protect the rights of same sex couples by allowing Prop 8 to stand after declaring same sex marriage a right.

[Zombie Acorn]

What a peculiar question. Laws vary by state, but as far as I can tell, this topic has little relevance to gay marriage, although I'm sure some here will disagree.

I don't know, if you were gay and had a partner, you could get a sex change one day, get married the next, and then get another sex change.

Kind of a weird way to think about it, but meh.

[Blue Velvet]

I don't know, if you were gay and had a partner, you could get a sex change one day, get married the next, and then get another sex change.


OK, I'll try to explain why people are unlikely to do this sort of thing. Some reasons:

1. Gay men and lesbians are not the same as transexuals. Sexual orientation is not the same thing as gender identity. I can guarantee you that every gay man who has posted in this thread would like to keep his genitals very much intact.

2. Having surgery usually follows many months, sometimes years of therapy. It's not something you can just go ahead and do without that clinical history.

3. Gender reassignment surgery is (mostly) irreversible. There is no having another operation to put things back the way they were.

4. In the US, recognition of a transexual's surgically-altered status is only accepted in a few states, and that's even before you get onto the topic of birth certificates and name changes etc.

I could go on, but I think you get the picture. Far easier to get the law changed. ;)

[abijnk]

Separation of church and state has been uphelad and affirmed by the Supreme Court on several occasions. It exists.

I didn't say it doesn't exist. I said that phrase doesn't appear in the constitution.

And Tesselator is not anti-gay from what I read.

I didn't mean to imply Tess is anti-gay; I'm fairly certain his post was sarcastic (hence the Weird Al reference). I was just expanding upon it in a serious manner because it is a serious argument used.


Well, they can if they can pass the tests. A right is not the same as a privilege, which is what you're glossing over here. In order for the debate to proceed in any meaningful way, that question needs to be answered at some legal level.

It is an interesting way to look at it: right vs. privilege. However, I think history shows it has always been considered a right.

To entertain the idea of marriage as a privilege, however, I'm going to keep going with it... If you want to consider it a privilege granted by the government then we could only assume it should be treated like any other privilege. Like driving, we should all have access to the privilege and then have some criteria under which it could be taken away (assuming we are going to treat it like any other government privilege). Then, like driving, only some sort of law violation could take that privilege away from you. Following this line, then simply being a homosexual would have to be wrong in the eyes of the law to result in losing the privilege. That just doesn't fly. You also mentioned passing a test (whether you meant it sarcastically or not, I'm going to run with it). Driving requires the passing of a test because there are public safety concerns at hand. Marriage doesn't pose these threats, so I think we can assume that a test would not be necessary. The only discriminating factor then would become homosexuality itself. Then the question becomes, do you fail the "test" simply for being homosexual? That would maybe make sense if homosexuality were a choice, but it isn't. Then your testing criteria is no better than testing on race or eye color or height. Assuming then that that could not be the case you are left with only one choice: all people have the privilege until they lose it. And we are back at the same conclusion as if it were a right: homosexuals should be allowed to marry.

Now, I realize that this is just my logic, nothing legal or scientific, but honestly I was just happy to have a new point to talk about besides TEH GAY IS BAD!!!

I'll stop now. :)

[CorvusCamenarum]

It is an interesting way to look at it: right vs. privilege. However, I think history shows it has always been considered a right.

To entertain the idea of marriage as a privilege, however, I'm going to keep going with it... If you want to consider it a privilege granted by the government then we could only assume it should be treated like any other privilege. Like driving, we should all have access to the privilege and then have some criteria under which it could be taken away (assuming we are going to treat it like any other government privilege). Then, like driving, only some sort of law violation could take that privilege away from you. Following this line, then simply being a homosexual would have to be wrong in the eyes of the law to result in losing the privilege. That just doesn't fly. You also mentioned passing a test (whether you meant it sarcastically or not, I'm going to run with it). Driving requires the passing of a test because there are public safety concerns at hand. Marriage doesn't pose these threats, so I think we can assume that a test would not be necessary. The only discriminating factor then would become homosexuality itself. Then the question becomes, do you fail the "test" simply for being homosexual? That would maybe make sense if homosexuality were a choice, but it isn't. Then your testing criteria is no better than testing on race or eye color or height. Assuming then that that could not be the case you are left with only one choice: all people have the privilege until they lose it. And we are back at the same conclusion as if it were a right: homosexuals should be allowed to marry.

Now, I realize that this is just my logic, nothing legal or scientific, but honestly I was just happy to have a new point to talk about besides TEH GAY IS BAD!!!

I'll stop now. :)

No need to stop; it's refreshing to actually discuss the point with someone rather than hear from people with chips on their shoulders about how I need to **** because the outcome is largely irrelevant to me. Doesn't mean I can't voice an opinion on the current state of the thing.

Now that that's out of the way, I would posit that while the default state of a right is on, the default state of a privilege is off. You don't have to apply for permission to speak your mind, associate with whom you choose, or vote. All you have to do is show up.

You're absolutely right in that everyone should have access to a privilege, but only provided that the criteria for being afforded said privilege is met. For driving (we keep coming back to that don't we), that means being able to pass written and road tests and (at least in my state) an eye exam. For getting married, that means being of sufficient age, mentally competent, not being currently married, not wanting to tie the knot with your sister or cousin, and in most states, being different genders. Maybe some other things too, but I'm not up to snuff on marriage laws in all 50 states, and you get the idea. Two men or two women don't currently meet said criteria, which is why it's a privilege and not a right, for good or ill.

Now, if I were in charge of the gay marriage battle, I'd scrap the current war plans and either push for 1) 14th Amendment challenges to find out if marriage really is a right rather than a privilege and/or 2) doing away with marriage licenses in their current state and treat marriage contracts like any other civil contract instead of affording it a special class. Given that so far, referendums in 31 states have slapped gay marriage down (regardless of what state legislatures think), option 2 seems more feasible.

[Tesselator]

All joking aside, I bet the right tries to come for our kids next.

You're way too late dude. Can you say C.P.S.?

[hulugu]

....

Now that that's out of the way, I would posit that while the default state of a right is on, the default state of a privilege is off. You don't have to apply for permission to speak your mind, associate with whom you choose, or vote. All you have to do is show up.

You're absolutely right in that everyone should have access to a privilege, but only provided that the criteria for being afforded said privilege is met. For driving (we keep coming back to that don't we), that means being able to pass written and road tests and (at least in my state) an eye exam. For getting married, that means being of sufficient age, mentally competent, not being currently married, not wanting to tie the knot with your sister or cousin, and in most states, being different genders. Maybe some other things too, but I'm not up to snuff on marriage laws in all 50 states, and you get the idea. Two men or two women don't currently meet said criteria, which is why it's a privilege and not a right, for good or ill.

Now, if I were in charge of the gay marriage battle, I'd scrap the current war plans and either push for 1) 14th Amendment challenges to find out if marriage really is a right rather than a privilege and/or 2) doing away with marriage licenses in their current state and treat marriage contracts like any other civil contract instead of affording it a special class. Given that so far, referendums in 31 states have slapped gay marriage down (regardless of what state legislatures think), option 2 seems more feasible.

Very interesting post. I happen to agree with you about the 14th Amendment challenge. It seems to me that what gay marriage really comes down to is gender discrimination on the ability to make a legal contract—all the other arguments, including those about gender reassignment surgery, bestiality, or autophilia are sideshows (re: clown cars and the freak show).

If marriage is a legal contract between two consenting adults, then all other concerns are largely meaningless. Granted, as someone else pointed out, this is a triangulation of several distinct socially-created frameworks, but this seems like a largely useful system that gives the widest rights without damaging any others. It's the best application of the law.

[Tesselator]

Haven't read the constitution lately have you? That phrase, "separation of church and state," isn't written in the constitution, nor is it expressly stated in any other words. It is implied, however, in the first amendment. The phrase is actually from Jefferson. But I digress...

The notion that marriage is strictly a church issue is simply wrong. Religious marriage is strictly a church issue, but legal marriage is strictly a government issue.

Yes actually I have read it recently. And it does indeed come from the constitution. Heh! Shows what you know... :D

Separation of church and state is a political and legal doctrine that government and religious institutions are to be kept separate and independent from each other. The term most often refers to the combination of two principles: secularity of government (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secularism) and freedom of religious exercise (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_religion).

Reflecting a concept often credited in its original form to the English political philosopher John Locke (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Locke), the phrase "separation of church and state" is generally traced to a letter written by Thomas Jefferson in 1802 to the Danbury Baptists, in which he referred to the First Amendment to the United States Constitution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution) as creating a "wall of separation" between church and state. The phrase was quoted by the United States Supreme Court first in 1878, and then in a series of cases starting in 1947. This led to increased popular and political discussion of the concept.

Nya-nya, some one doesn't know their American History. :p

Marriage is a strictly a church issue! The government hijacked it and had no business doing so. Read up on the history of marriage - lots to learn from doing that. BTW, I'm using kind of an odd definition for the word "church" to include ideas such as small communities, or even pods (like dolphin pods). I know of one segment or "community" in the USA who believe all you must do to become officially married is hold hands and jump over a broom together. It's no more than a contract between two people or two people and their god. The State has no business issuing licensees about such things and in fact didn't used to.



Separation of church and state has been uphelad and affirmed by the Supreme Court on several occasions. It exists.

And Tesselator is not anti-gay from what I read.

No, I'm not. My kids back when they were in high-school were (or acted) anti-gay tho and I see that kind of brain-programming on the American TV and in American movies a lot - targeted specifically at high-schoolers. Especially middle-class white ones - not sure why. In the case of my kids they grew out of it rather quickly. I think throwing out all of our TV sets helped with that quite a bit. ;)



It is an interesting way to look at it: right vs. privilege. However, I think history shows it has always been considered a right.

It's neither a right nor a privilege. It's a social convention passed down by religious groups and in that sense it is actually a right. Driving BTW, is also a right and only recently has the US stripped us of that and called it a privilege. Constitutionally speaking in the strictest sense and almost all constitutional scholars will agree, requiring a license to drive is unconstitutional!


.

[djellison]

Marriage is a strictly a church issue! T

Marriage existed long before the genesis of any of the main religions in the USA. Indeed same-sex marriage existed long before the genesis of any of the main religions in the US. Marriage was jumped upon and manipulated to suit the diabolical needs of organised religion - and the state has since barged in and tried to do the same.

Marriage is a PERSONAL issue between two people. The opportunity for two gay people to get married shouldn't be denied at the whim of a bunch bigoted homophobes - it's nothing to do with them.

[Tesselator]

Marriage existed long before the genesis of any of the main religions in the USA. Indeed same-sex marriage existed long before the genesis of any of the main religions in the US. Marriage was jumped upon and manipulated to suit the diabolical needs of organised religion - and the state has since barged in and tried to do the same.

Marriage is a PERSONAL issue between two people. The opportunity for two gay people to get married shouldn't be denied at the whim of a bunch bigoted homophobes - it's nothing to do with them.

I agree. I hope you read the rest of the paragraph that you quoted. If you did you'll see I do in fact agree with you - although I would not try and guess why people join the mob and vote for or against something that shouldn't even be in the hands of government or appear anywhere in any kind of legislative decision making. I certainly wouldn't venture to guess that all opposed are "bigoted homophobes" tho I guess some are. Also, I personally don't know when the first "same-sex marriage" was consummated.

[djellison]

Also, I personally don't know when the first "same-sex marriage" was consummated.

'Personally' neither do I - but there are many references in the literature cited in this Wiki article
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same_sex_marriage#History

[Tesselator]

'Personally' neither do I - but there are many references in the literature cited in this Wiki article
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same_sex_marriage#History

Wow, that's kewl. When you read about it historically like that it doesn't seem so gay. :D

j/k :D

[leekohler]

No need to stop; it's refreshing to actually discuss the point with someone rather than hear from people with chips on their shoulders about how I need to **** because the outcome is largely irrelevant to me. Doesn't mean I can't voice an opinion on the current state of the thing.

Now that that's out of the way, I would posit that while the default state of a right is on, the default state of a privilege is off. You don't have to apply for permission to speak your mind, associate with whom you choose, or vote. All you have to do is show up.

You're absolutely right in that everyone should have access to a privilege, but only provided that the criteria for being afforded said privilege is met. For driving (we keep coming back to that don't we), that means being able to pass written and road tests and (at least in my state) an eye exam. For getting married, that means being of sufficient age, mentally competent, not being currently married, not wanting to tie the knot with your sister or cousin, and in most states, being different genders. Maybe some other things too, but I'm not up to snuff on marriage laws in all 50 states, and you get the idea. Two men or two women don't currently meet said criteria, which is why it's a privilege and not a right, for good or ill.

Now, if I were in charge of the gay marriage battle, I'd scrap the current war plans and either push for 1) 14th Amendment challenges to find out if marriage really is a right rather than a privilege and/or 2) doing away with marriage licenses in their current state and treat marriage contracts like any other civil contract instead of affording it a special class. Given that so far, referendums in 31 states have slapped gay marriage down (regardless of what state legislatures think), option 2 seems more feasible.

So- can I vote your driving privileges away because I don't like your political beliefs?

And again, if you don't care- why even bother talking about it? I wasn't telling you to ****, I was telling to to admit that you do care. It's quite obvious that you care.

And yeah- you're damn right I have a chip on my shoulder. You would too. If that's what you call being pissed off about having rights, or if you insist, "privileges" taken away for no reason other than bigotry and misunderstanding, then I've got a HUGE chip on my shoulder.

[abijnk]

No need to stop; it's refreshing to actually discuss the point with someone rather than hear from people with chips on their shoulders about how I need to **** because the outcome is largely irrelevant to me. Doesn't mean I can't voice an opinion on the current state of the thing.

Now that that's out of the way, I would posit that while the default state of a right is on, the default state of a privilege is off. You don't have to apply for permission to speak your mind, associate with whom you choose, or vote. All you have to do is show up.

You're absolutely right in that everyone should have access to a privilege, but only provided that the criteria for being afforded said privilege is met. For driving (we keep coming back to that don't we), that means being able to pass written and road tests and (at least in my state) an eye exam. For getting married, that means being of sufficient age, mentally competent, not being currently married, not wanting to tie the knot with your sister or cousin, and in most states, being different genders. Maybe some other things too, but I'm not up to snuff on marriage laws in all 50 states, and you get the idea. Two men or two women don't currently meet said criteria, which is why it's a privilege and not a right, for good or ill.

Now, if I were in charge of the gay marriage battle, I'd scrap the current war plans and either push for 1) 14th Amendment challenges to find out if marriage really is a right rather than a privilege and/or 2) doing away with marriage licenses in their current state and treat marriage contracts like any other civil contract instead of affording it a special class. Given that so far, referendums in 31 states have slapped gay marriage down (regardless of what state legislatures think), option 2 seems more feasible.

Yeah, you basically said what I said. At the end of the day, whether you consider it a right or a privilege, it still stands that it should be allowed. :)

Yes actually I have read it recently. And it does indeed come from the constitution. Heh! Shows what you know... :D

Separation of church and state is a political and legal doctrine that government and religious institutions are to be kept separate and independent from each other. The term most often refers to the combination of two principles: secularity of government (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secularism) and freedom of religious exercise (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_religion).

Reflecting a concept often credited in its original form to the English political philosopher John Locke (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Locke), the phrase "separation of church and state" is generally traced to a letter written by Thomas Jefferson in 1802 to the Danbury Baptists, in which he referred to the First Amendment to the United States Constitution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution) as creating a "wall of separation" between church and state. The phrase was quoted by the United States Supreme Court first in 1878, and then in a series of cases starting in 1947. This led to increased popular and political discussion of the concept.

Nya-nya, some one doesn't know their American History. :p

Marriage is a strictly a church issue! The government hijacked it and had no business doing so. Read up on the history of marriage - lots to learn from doing that. BTW, I'm using kind of an odd definition for the word "church" to include ideas such as small communities, or even pods (like dolphin pods). I know of one segment or "community" in the USA who believe all you must do to become officially married is hold hands and jump over a broom together. It's no more than a contract between two people or two people and their god. The State has no business issuing licensees about such things and in fact didn't used to.


Once again, I never said it does not come from the constitution. I don't know why you and Lee jumped up and down over it, I was simply pointing out that the phrase doesn't appear in the constitution and that it in fact originated in a letter the Jefferson wrote. Sure it has been quotes by the SCOTUS and others, but that doesn't change the fact that it doesn't appear in the constitution, like many many people think, but rather was a phrase coined by Jefferson. I was just pointing out a neat factoid, not contradicting the stance.

The history of marriage is really irrelevant today. History is history, and like it or not, we are where we are today. And where we are is at a point where being married carries with it special rights and obligations in the eyes of the law. Personally, I think the fact that the government calls their licensing of relationships "marriage" is really unfortunate, because now what we have are a bunch of people who have their panties in a wad because they can't separate out the religious an legal connotations.

Nevertheless, it is a great thing that people like you and I, who elsewhere have rather opposing viewpoints, can agree on the issue. It gives me hope about the whole thing. :)

So- can I vote your driving privileges away because I don't like your political beliefs?

And again, if you don't care- why even bother talking about it? I wasn't telling you to ****, I was telling to to admit that you do care. It's quite obvious that you care.

And yeah- you're damn right I have a chip on my shoulder. You would too. If that what you call being pissed off about having rights, or if you insist, "privileges" taken away for no reason other than bigotry and misunderstanding, then I've got a HUGE chip on my shoulder.

Lee, I think everyone on here understands to some extent how hurtful the issue is. However, chest bumping with anyone doesn't do any good. We're fighting for and with you. Someone deserves to put a ring on your sexiness. ;)

[leekohler]

Lee, I think everyone on here understands to some extent how hurtful the issue is. However, chest bumping with anyone doesn't do any good. We're fighting for and with you. Someone deserves to put a ring on your sexiness. ;)

Well, being nice has stopped working. Women and blacks didn't win their rights by sitting in the corner like good little minorities. They got loud- and the time has come for us to get loud too. No more asking, now we demand. No more Mr Nice Gay. The time for that has passed. We've got all the allies we're going to get at this point. Now it's time to fight and push as hard as we can.

And when I meet a guy who turns my crank enough for me to propose, I'll let you know. ;)

[ipodtoucher]

Well, being nice has stopped working. Women and blacks didn't win their rights by sitting in the corner like good little minorities. They got loud- and the time has come for us to get loud too. No more asking, now we demand. No more Mr Nice Gay. The time for that has passed. We've got all the allies we're going to get at this point. Now it's time to fight and push as hard as we can.

And when I meet a guy who turns my crank enough for me to propose, I'll let you know. ;)

Preach it sister! :D

I'll be up in Chicago in a little bit ;) hahaha

[Tesselator]

Well, being nice has stopped working. Women and blacks didn't win their rights by sitting in the corner like good little minorities. They got loud- and the time has come for us to get loud too. No more asking, now we demand. No more Mr Nice Gay. The time for that has passed. We've got all the allies we're going to get at this point. Now it's time to fight and push as hard as we can.

Well, I think you have to take the "noise" to them. Posting on forums I'm pretty sure has like zero affect for something like this.

And when I meet a guy who turns my crank enough for me to propose, I'll let you know. ;)

Ah hah! You're secretly straight! :D

[leekohler]

Well, I think you have to take the "noise" to them. Posting on forums I'm pretty sure has like zero affect for something like this.

I've been taking it to them most of my life- in college lecture halls, protests, etc. And I take it everywhere I can, including here. You obviously don't know much about me. I recently attended the Prop 8 protests as well.



Ah hah! You're secretly straight! :D

Huh? Wow- you really don't know me at all. In other words, I haven't met a guy I'd want to live with the rest of my life yet, but I've met plenty I've enjoyed spending several hours with (and a few, several years). ;)

[nick9191]

Happy, but not surprised. Marriage has never been defined as anything other than between a single man and woman, and it never should be.

This does not take away any rights, any more than it did California. It's simply defining the word "marriage". Also, when the state constitution can be amended by the people, then the people choose on marriage. Marriage is not a federal issue, but that of the states. If you want to give homosexuals the "right to marry", amend the U.S. Constitution. And good luck with that.

If you're against gay marriage, then don't be gay and don't get married.

If you're church is against gay marriage then your church has the right to refuse to marry gays. But guess what, your church is not our government.

[DakotaGuy]

Rights are not to be voted on. Might I remind you that the Supreme Court of California declared same sex marriage a right? They failed at their duty by allowing Prop 8 to stand.

I can appreciate what you are saying here, but it doesn't always work out for the worst. In 2006 our state legislature passed a law to outlaw all abortions even in cases of rape and incest. The law was referred to the people for the general election and was killed. In this case the people did return rights back. Now it could have stood like you suggest without allowing people to vote on it and instead have been run through the court system, but what if the court would have agreed with the legislature? Then what?

[stevento]

This is getting ridiculous. With 84% reporting the numbers are Yes (take away gay marriage) 52.4%, and No (keep gay marriage) at 47.46%. Why the heck is this even going up for a vote. The courts and legislature gave us the rights that we deserve, why the hell should the public be allowed to take them away. This whole state by state thing is a bunch of BS! Repealing DOMA (If Obama ever gets around to it) isn't going to make a damn bit of difference if you cant get married in any State. We need some sort of federal law, or were never going to get anywhere.

Lets just hope that Maine has some guts unlike California, and passes the law again.

http://www.bangordailynews.com/electionresults.html


I haven't made a mac rumors appearance in several months. And unless you're a new macrumors member who's joined since this past summer, I think you know my opinion. But I'll say it again anyways:

How many times do we have to go through this?
1 Gay marriage goes up for popular vote,
2 people say they don't want it.
3 gay rights movement complains because majority is against them.
4 the cycle starts all over again in a different state.

I'm willing to bet there will be a lot of gay rights activists yelling and screaming and blocking traffic in the downtown areas of major cities in Maine just like they did here in Los Angeles.

[Tesselator]

I've been taking it to them most of my life- in college lecture halls, protests, etc. And I take it everywhere I can, including here. You obviously don't know much about me. I recently attended the Prop 8 protests as well.

Good on you man.

Huh? Wow- you really don't know me at all. In other words, I haven't met a guy I'd want to live with the rest of my life yet, but I've met plenty I've enjoyed spending several hours with (and a few, several years). ;)

Whoa! WAY too much information! :p

[djellison]

How many times do we have to go through this?

Until gay people stop being discriminated against and are allowed to get married like the rest of us.
Trying to draw an analogy between the right for gay people to get married and the right for women to have abortions is at best, tenuous, and at worst, disgustingly inappropriate.

[Queso]

I'm willing to bet there will be a lot of gay rights activists yelling and screaming and blocking traffic in the downtown areas of major cities in Maine just like they did here in Los Angeles.
Oh dear. Will some poor downtrodden drivers get slightly inconvenienced? The horror is too much :rolleyes:

Try paying for a society that doesn't think you're worthy of equal treatment and see how you like it. I think you'd find you get a bit angry, certainly enough to protest.

[leekohler]

I haven't made a mac rumors appearance in several months. And unless you're a new macrumors member who's joined since this past summer, I think you know my opinion. But I'll say it again anyways:

How many times do we have to go through this?
1 Gay marriage goes up for popular vote,
2 people say they don't want it.
3 gay rights movement complains because majority is against them.
4 the cycle starts all over again in a different state.

I'm willing to bet there will be a lot of gay rights activists yelling and screaming and blocking traffic in the downtown areas of major cities in Maine just like they did here in Los Angeles.

The "people" didn't want you to be able to vote or sit at the front of the bus either. Was that OK?

How many times to we have to go through this?

[DakotaGuy]

Trying to draw an analogy between the right for gay people to get married and the right for women to have abortions is at best, tenuous, and at worst, disgustingly inappropriate.

If that statement is referring to me because I told about how my state voted down an abortion ban I guess I don't see where comparing the two is somehow disgustingly inappropriate. I just made the statement because it shows that people don't always vote against other people's rights. With that said, I hate the idea of abortion and I wish there were none, however I have always voted in favor of choice. It is the woman's choice to make. As far as gay marriage is concerned, I say live and let live. If people want to get married then let them get married. It doesn't really effect anyone else's life.

[Zombie Acorn]

I haven't made a mac rumors appearance in several months. And unless you're a new macrumors member who's joined since this past summer, I think you know my opinion. But I'll say it again anyways:

How many times do we have to go through this?
1 Gay marriage goes up for popular vote,
2 people say they don't want it.
3 gay rights movement complains because majority is against them.
4 the cycle starts all over again in a different state.

I'm willing to bet there will be a lot of gay rights activists yelling and screaming and blocking traffic in the downtown areas of major cities in Maine just like they did here in Los Angeles.

Either give marriage benefits to all or to none. This shouldn't even be an issue, you shouldn't be able to segregate what most of Americans see as core rights via a vote.

[PcBgone]

Either give marriage benefits to all or to none. This shouldn't even be an issue, you shouldn't be able to segregate what most of Americans see as core rights via a vote.

Can we vote on this? I would vote for marriage benefits for no one.

[leekohler]

Can we vote on this? I would vote for marriage benefits for no one.

Amazing. Rather than include people who deserve to be included, you'd rather just take it from everyone.

After hearing your story, I honestly do hope you find a way to deal with the hate and anger you have for your father and the rest of the gay community. If you don't, it's going to eat you from the inside out.

Forgiveness is a gift you give yourself. Your father no longer needs it.

[stevento]

The "people" didn't want you to be able to vote or sit at the front of the bus either. Was that OK?

How many times to we have to go through this?

No that wasn't ok, but it also wasn't the same thing.

Remember back when Vermont approved gay marriage. I believe it was the 5th state to do so, after Rhode Island and Connecticut.

Anyways, gay rights supporters on this board said things like "the tide is turing in favor of gay rights movement." and "we're gaining momentum."
Now 31 states have stricken down gay marriage. You call that momentum?

[stevento]

All joking aside, I bet the right tries to come for our kids next.

.......based upon what?

[yg17]

No that wasn't ok, but it also wasn't the same thing.

How is it not the same thing? Your civil rights were taken, and if it was left up to the voters, you never would've gotten them back. It's the exact same thing, except this time it's gay people instead of black people.

[CalBoy]

No that wasn't ok, but it also wasn't the same thing.

It is precisely the same thing. We are allowing narrow majorities to alter and tailor the equal protection clause to their liking. That defeats the entire purpose of an equal protection clause.


You call that momentum?

I do. 5 years ago we had but one state and very skimpy support for same-sex marriage. We're up to 5 now (with two more possibly on the way) and we're losing the votes by slim margins.

Not to mention the fact that younger voters in every state support the cause. In 10 years, this will look more like a farce than actual history.

[Queso]

No that wasn't ok, but it also wasn't the same thing.

Remember back when Vermont approved gay marriage. I believe it was the 5th state to do so, after Rhode Island and Connecticut.

Anyways, gay rights supporters on this board said things like "the tide is turing in favor of gay rights movement." and "we're gaining momentum."
Now 31 states have stricken down gay marriage. You call that momentum?
20 years ago this vote would have resulted in 90-10 split against.
10 years ago this vote would have resulted in a 70-30 split against.
Now it's 53-47.

Taking that I'd say give it another 10 years and the majority of US states will have gay marriage, as will around 30-40 countries across the world. I'd call that momentum. It may well be two steps forward, one back, but we're still slowly winning.

[hulugu]

Can we vote on this? I would vote for marriage benefits for no one.

Wurt?

So, you're so afraid of gay marriage benefits that you would vote to take away rights from everyone?

This isn't a rational argument on your part, it's a vendetta.

[PcBgone]

Wurt?

So, you're so afraid of gay marriage benefits that you would vote to take away rights from everyone?

This isn't a rational argument on your part, it's a vendetta.

Actually its not a vendetta. Its simply just giving up Privileges, not rights.

[leekohler]

Actually its not a vendetta. Its simply just giving up Privileges, not rights.

It's a vendetta alright. And we now know your reasons for feeling the way you do. It really is time for you to put your past behind you.

.......based upon what?

Based on this: http://www.365gay.com/living/conservatives-turn-to-gay-adoption/

[hulugu]

Actually its not a vendetta. Its simply just giving up Privileges, not rights.

Can you please just give up yours without breaking mine in the process?

I call it a vendetta because you're effectively arguing that unless it's kept from the gays no one can have it, a reactionary reversal of the old "if I can't have it, no one can."

Now, as for the argument about whether marriage being a right or a privilege, I'd argue that the for the state marriage is a legal arrangement, a contract and thus is protected under the 14th Amendment. I've made this argument before, but I simply don't see the marriage exclusion in the US Constitution and furthermore, I'd argue that Loving v. Virginia has already effectively decided that marriage is a right.

From the court's decision:

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

Notice the first part, not privilege, but basic civil right.

[Sky Blue]

http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/age1-1.jpg

http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2009/11/same-sex-marriage-by-age-and-state.php

[Zombie Acorn]

http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/age1-1.jpg

http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2009/11/same-sex-marriage-by-age-and-state.php

Pretty telling graph, I can say I am glad my age group is mostly past 50%, especially for an issue that shouldn't be an issue at all, maybe they are concentrating on fixing problems instead of creating new ones.

[djellison]

You could draw an exceptionally strong correlation between Republican states, and the prejudice against gay people.

Strange, isn't it - Republicans claim to be about freedom and getting the government out of their lives....and yet here is an opportunity to give freedom to people, and they're against it.

[leekohler]

You could draw an exceptionally strong correlation between Republican states, and the prejudice against gay people.

Strange, isn't it - Republicans claim to be about freedom and getting the government out of their lives....and yet here is an opportunity to give freedom to people, and they're against it.

Because they don't really believe what they say. They only use that line when convenient.

[djellison]

Because they don't really believe what they say. They only use that line when convenient.

Exactly the same as many Christians. Indeed, I wrote a post almost identical to that one just a day or so ago.

[NT1440]

http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/age1-1.jpg

http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2009/11/same-sex-marriage-by-age-and-state.php

I feel bad that it looks like my age group is going to have to be in power before we as a nation actually do the right thing. :(

[leekohler]

I feel bad that it looks like my age group is going to have to be in power before we as a nation actually do the right thing. :(

Don't worry- it'll happen before then. We just have to keep fighting.

[NT1440]

Don't worry- it'll happen before then. We just have to keep fighting.

Thing is, look at the makeup of our government, the average age in there is probably around 60. I'm just worried that the remnants of the past will be the ones blocking the hopes of the future.

[leekohler]

Thing is, look at the makeup of our government, the average age in there is probably around 60. I'm just worried that the remnants of the past will be the ones blocking the hopes of the future.

Nah- it doesn't usually happen that way.

[NT1440]

Nah- it doesn't usually happen that way.
It just seems to me that on this one issue the deciding factor is mostly the age of the person. Us youngins see absolutely no reason to block gay marriage or just don't care enough to take someones rights away.

[leekohler]

It just seems to me that on this one issue the deciding factor is mostly the age of the person. Us youngins see absolutely no reason to block gay marriage or just don't care enough to take someones rights away.

It's the same with any other minority. The young are usually smarter on issues such as this, simply because they are more familiar with it. A lot of the older generation never dealt with it because people had to hide for fear of losing everything. Fortunately, some of us stood up and did risk everything, and lost a lot in the process. But what we eventually gained was much better than what we temporarily lost. Unfortunately, some lives have been lost as a result as well.

[MacNut]

Just curious what will happen first, marijuana is legalized nationwide or gay marriage. What is the bigger issue to Americans.

[leekohler]

Just curious what will happen first, marijuana is legalized nationwide or gay marriage. What is the bigger issue to Americans.

I bet same sex marriage gets there first.

[Sky Blue]

http://208.116.9.205/10/content/20262/1.jpg

[yg17]

snip

That is the most epic win I have ever seen.

[ucfgrad93]

That is the most epic win I have ever seen.

Gotta admit, that was pretty freaking funny.:D

[leekohler]

That is the most epic win I have ever seen.

Awesome! Thanks for the laugh! :)

[newappleboy]

*snip*

Thank you for that. I'll be spreading that gem around all over the place. :D

[IgnatiusTheKing]

It makes me laugh to see so many proponents of democracy complaining about its validity when the vote doesn't go their way. The simple fact here is that the state legislature created an unpopular law and the people of Maine wanted it repealed. That is—unfortunately or not—the way democracy is supposed to work.

I don't think it can be looked at as rights being "taken away" from anyone because, according to the will of the people, that "right" should never have been given in the first place.

Every Mainer has the right to get married, but the majority of the people have decreed that the citizens of their state can't just get married to anyone they choose. If a law was passed that adults were allowed to marry children over the age of 8, then an election came along and the voters "took away" that right by repealing the law, would we be complaining that pedophiles where being discriminated against? I think not.

It may not be "fair" but it is democratic.

[yg17]

It makes me laugh to see so many proponents of democracy complaining about its validity when the vote doesn't go their way. The simple fact here is that the state legislature created an unpopular law and the people of Maine wanted it repealed. That is—unfortunately or not—the way democracy is supposed to work.

I don't think it can be looked at as rights being "taken away" from anyone because, according to the will of the people, that "right" should never have been given in the first place.

Every Mainer has the right to get married, but the majority of the people have decreed that the citizens of their state can't just get married to anyone they choose. If a law was passed that adults were allowed to marry children over the age of 8, then an election came along and the voters "took away" that right by repealing the law, would we be complaining that pedophiles where being discriminated against? I think not.

It may not be "fair" but it is democratic.

So if in the 1800s, we put slavery up for a vote, and the people voted to continue slavery, it would be OK?

The 8 year old argument is the same ************ argument we see over and over again. An 8 year old is not a consenting adult. An 8 year old cannot enter into a legally binding contract. Thus, one cannot marry an 8 year old and voting to strip anyone's right to marry an 8 year old would not be wrong.

Someone's rights should not be voted on. Period.

[newappleboy]

So if in the 1800s, we put slavery up for a vote, and the people voted to continue slavery, it would be OK?

The 8 year old argument is the same ************ argument we see over and over again. An 8 year old is not a consenting adult. An 8 year old cannot enter into a legally binding contract. Thus, one cannot marry an 8 year old and voting to strip anyone's right to marry an 8 year old would not be wrong.

Someone's rights should not be voted on. Period.

Thank you for that. I can't tell you how tired I am of the whole "well it's the same as if someone wants to marry a goat" or "what if somebody wanted to marry their child" argument. It isn't the same. All that does is make homosexuals in loving relationships as consenting adults look like some kind of perversion of what love is, and that simply isn't the case.

My parents divorced when I was young, and both remarried eventually, one of which has already divorced again and the other is potentially on the way their now. Before trying to keep marriage "sacred" by keeping the gays away, the religious groups and the "concerned citizens" that vote against it need to invest a lot of time and money and effort into fixing the broken institution that they're so protective of.

[IgnatiusTheKing]

So if in the 1800s, we put slavery up for a vote, and the people voted to continue slavery, it would be OK?

The 8 year old argument is the same ************ argument we see over and over again. An 8 year old is not a consenting adult. An 8 year old cannot enter into a legally binding contract. Thus, one cannot marry an 8 year old and voting to strip anyone's right to marry an 8 year old would not be wrong.

Someone's rights should not be voted on. Period.

An 8 year old is not a consenting adult only because the law in the state of Maine says so.

You can't pick and choose which laws apply to you. Every person in Maine (gay or straight) has the "right" to get married. The law defines the parameters of that "right."

[IgnatiusTheKing]

Thank you for that. I can't tell you how tired I am of the whole "well it's the same as if someone wants to marry a goat" or "what if somebody wanted to marry their child" argument. It isn't the same. All that does is make homosexuals in loving relationships as consenting adults look like some kind of perversion of what love is, and that simply isn't the case.

You are the one bringing morality into it, not me. I'm simply pointing out that the majority of people in Maine have spoken on the parameters of what the marriage law should be. One is age, another is gender.

Like I said before, it may not be "fair" but it is democratic. Just because you don't like the results doesn't mean you can invalidate them (at least, not under the current system). If the vote had gone the other way, I would be on this thread defending the right of gay people to get married in Maine because that would have been the will of the people.

[newappleboy]

You are the one bringing morality into it, not me. I'm simply pointing out that the majority of people in Maine have spoken on the parameters of what the marriage law should be. One is age, another is gender.

Like I said before, it may not be "fair" but it is democratic. Just because you don't like the results doesn't mean you can invalidate them (at least, not under the current system). If the vote had gone the other way, I would be on this thread defending the right of gay people to get married in Maine because that would have been the will of the people.

The whole "will of the people" argument is frustratingly valid, but again, sometimes that will has to not carry as much weight as it does. Slavery was already mentioned. There were far more people in the South screaming that slavery was fantastic than those who opposed it, but still it was made illegal. The will of the people said slavery should remain, yet we had no problem overruling that consensus, right?

The whole idea of a motion only passing because 50% or more of the American population agrees with it is beyond ridiculous. Whether it's a "right" or not, homosexuals aren't being treated equally, instead we're being treated like we don't deserve the same privileges that the heterosexuals do. Outright stats can be skewed no matter which way you want the results to go, you just have to phrase it right or campaign hard enough.

Real democracy hasn't been present in this country for a long time. It's all about who has the loudest voice and the money to back it up nowadays. And as long as that remains true, the "will of the people" won't truly reflect what is right and just, but what sounds good at the moment.

[leekohler]

Like I said before, it may not be "fair" but it is democratic. Just because you don't like the results doesn't mean you can invalidate them (at least, not under the current system). If the vote had gone the other way, I would be on this thread defending the right of gay people to get married in Maine because that would have been the will of the people.

The Constitution is supposed to protect the rights of all. It's especially supposed to protect the rights of minorities from being taken by the majority. That's what the US is all about. THAT IS our current system. That people's rights have been put up for a vote is insane. It's still unbelievable to me that this is actually happening in this country. Whose rights shall we vote away next?

[IgnatiusTheKing]

The whole "will of the people" argument is frustratingly valid, but again, sometimes that will has to not carry as much weight as it does. Slavery was already mentioned. There were far more people in the South screaming that slavery was fantastic than those who opposed it, but still it was made illegal. The will of the people said slavery should remain, yet we had no problem overruling that consensus, right?

The whole idea of a motion only passing because 50% or more of the American population agrees with it is beyond ridiculous. Whether it's a "right" or not, homosexuals aren't being treated equally, instead we're being treated like we don't deserve the same privileges that the heterosexuals do. Outright stats can be skewed no matter which way you want the results to go, you just have to phrase it right or campaign hard enough.

Real democracy hasn't been present in this country for a long time. It's all about who has the loudest voice and the money to back it up nowadays. And as long as that remains true, the "will of the people" won't truly reflect what is right and just, but what sounds good at the moment.

I wouldn't say getting rid of slavery was "no problem," as the country was fractured for the better part of two decades over the issue and it the practice was only ended after a long, bloody conflict and an ever longer forced occupation.

I don't think we'll be seeing any sort of long-lasting violence over this issue (and hopefully no violence at all), which is the main reason I don't buy the slavery parallel. As much as homosexuals want to be able to marry each other legally, they don't want it as much as the abolitionists wanted to get rid of slavery. Why don't they? I don't know for sure (because I'm not gay), but I would venture to guess that it's because the lack of gay marriage does not affect them as deeply and on as consistent as basis as slavery affected the slaves.

As for the presence of democracy in this country today, we were never intended to be a true democracy (at least, not after the Federalists tore up the Articles of Confederacy) but a representative democracy. Unfortunately, both forms of "democracy" end up catering to the lowest common denominator, which is often the loudest voice. That's why democracy doesn't work, and why it works even less the further away (in time) you get from its genesis.

[IgnatiusTheKing]

The Constitution is supposed to protect the rights of all. It's especially supposed to protect the rights of minorities from being taken by the majority. That's what the US is all about. THAT IS our current system. That people's rights have been put up for a vote is insane. It's still unbelievable to me that this is actually happening in this country. Whose rights shall we vote away next?

Again, no one has had their rights taken away and no one is really being discriminated against, because no one has been told they can't get married.

A law got passed—against the will of the people—that added a new, special "right" (the ability marry someone of the same sex). This vote in Maine "corrected" what the majority of the population saw as an unjust law.

But just because that law got repealed does not mean that suddenly there is a segment of the population that has no right to marry, it just reverts the law back to the previously accepted standard.

Until homosexuals (and the proponents of gay marriage) make up the majority of the population, they will continue to lose these sorts of battles. And the Constitution has no say in this because it is a state issue, not a federal one. And until the day comes that a gay person (or anyone else, for that matter) is told they cannot marry anyone at all, there is no actual discrimination taking place.

[leekohler]

Again, no one has had their rights taken away and no one is really being discriminated against, because no one has been told they can't get married.

A law got passed—against the will of the people—that added a new, special "right" (the ability marry someone of the same sex). This vote in Maine "corrected" what the majority of the population saw as an unjust law.

But just because that law got repealed does not mean that suddenly there is a segment of the population that has no right to marry, it just reverts the law back to the previously accepted standard.

Again- the legislature decided it was a right.It was taken by popular vote You can dress that up all you want, but that's what happened.

Until homosexuals (and the proponents of gay marriage) make up the majority of the population, they will continue to lose these sorts of battles. And the Constitution has no say in this because it is a state issue, not a federal one. And until the day comes that a gay person (or anyone else, for that matter) is told they cannot marry anyone at all, there is no actual discrimination taking place.

Yes there is discrimination taking place- gender discrimination. These cases are the very definition of discrimination. Would you tell a black person and a white person they couldn't get married to each other? That wasn't popular either and people wouldn't vote for it. Would you tell them it wasn't discrimination because they can still get married, just not to someone of another race? REALLY?

BTW- The Constitution trumps any law a state may try to make- hence why we have a federal constitution. What are they teaching in schools these days?

[yg17]

Again, no one has had their rights taken away and no one is really being discriminated against, because no one has been told they can't get married.

A law got passed—against the will of the people—that added a new, special "right" (the ability marry someone of the same sex). This vote in Maine "corrected" what the majority of the population saw as an unjust law.

But just because that law got repealed does not mean that suddenly there is a segment of the population that has no right to marry, it just reverts the law back to the previously accepted standard.

Until homosexuals (and the proponents of gay marriage) make up the majority of the population, they will continue to lose these sorts of battles. And the Constitution has no say in this because it is a state issue, not a federal one. And until the day comes that a gay person (or anyone else, for that matter) is told they cannot marry anyone at all, there is no actual discrimination taking place.

So now we're to the "But gays can still marry the opposite sex!" argument.

If a gay person cannot have any romantic feelings for someone of the opposite sex, but marries them anyways, it sounds to me that threatens the sanctity of marriage more than a gay person marrying someone of the same sex who they love.

And if a gay person's equipment just doesn't work with someone of the opposite sex, and they marry them anyways, that also takes care of the other argument the nutjobs use: "Marriage is only for people that can procreate and have children!"

[newappleboy]

So now we're to the "But gays can still marry the opposite sex!" argument.

If a gay person cannot have any romantic feelings for someone of the opposite sex, but marries them anyways, it sounds to me that threatens the sanctity of marriage more than a gay person marrying someone of the same sex who they love.

And if a gay person's equipment just doesn't work with someone of the opposite sex, and they marry them anyways, that also takes care of the other argument the nutjobs use: "Marriage is only for people that can procreate and have children!"

Bravo. Well said.

[IgnatiusTheKing]

Again- the legislature decided it was a right.It was taken by popular vote You can dress that up all you want, but that's what happened.

The legislature is made up of representatives that are supposed to reflect the will of the people. If this law reflected that will, it would not have been repealed by popular vote.

Yes there is discrimination taking place- gender discrimination. These cases are the very definition of discrimination. Would you tell a black person and a white person they couldn't get married to each other? That wasn't popular either and people wouldn't vote for it. Would you tell them it wasn't discrimination because they can still get married, just only to someone of their own race? REALLY?

Not the same at all, but I had a feeling it would be brought up after the slavery thing. Maine defines marriage thusly:

The union of one man and one woman joined in traditional monogamous marriage is of inestimable value to society; the State has a compelling interest to nurture and promote the unique institution of traditional monogamous marriage in the support of harmonious families and the physical and mental health of children; and that the State has the compelling interest in promoting the moral values inherent in traditional monogamous marriage.

As such, any man can be married to any woman. There is no discrimination because everyone has the same right according to how they phrase their marriage law. A segment of the population wanted to have an additional, special right granted to the people of Maine, but the populace rejected it in the most legal way possible: public referendum.

BTW- The Constitution trumps any law a state may try to make- hence why we have a federal constitution. What are they teaching in schools these days?

I am 35 years old. I don't know what they're teaching in schools "these days" but when I was in school, we learned that the Constitution was put in place to define the powers of the federal government, and those powers not expressly given to it were the domain of the states. The framers called that part of the Constitution "Amendment X" and included it in a little thing called the "Bill of Rights (http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html)" so it wouldn't be overlooked. Since marriage is not included in the Constitution, it is not a federal area of jurisdiction but a state/local one.

[IgnatiusTheKing]

So now we're to the "But gays can still marry the opposite sex!" argument.

If a gay person cannot have any romantic feelings for someone of the opposite sex, but marries them anyways, it sounds to me that threatens the sanctity of marriage more than a gay person marrying someone of the same sex who they love.

And if a gay person's equipment just doesn't work with someone of the opposite sex, and they marry them anyways, that also takes care of the other argument the nutjobs use: "Marriage is only for people that can procreate and have children!"

I do not disagree with you and I'm not here to argue morality. As I just posted above, Maine defines marriage as the "union of one man and one woman" so that's the basis for the law. The attempt to change that failed in a popular vote.

[leekohler]

The legislature is made up of representatives that are supposed to reflect the will of the people. If this law reflected that will, it would not have been repealed by popular vote.

Then whose rights shall we vote away next? Are you OK with that as well, as long as the majority think it's OK? There are a lot of laws that don't reflect the will of the people. That doesn't mean they aren't needed.



Not the same at all, but I had a feeling it would be brought up after the slavery thing. Maine defines marriage thusly:



As such, any man can be married to any woman. There is no discrimination because everyone has the same right according to how they phrase their marriage law. A segment of the population wanted to have an additional, special right granted to the people of Maine, but the populace rejected it in the most legal way possible: public referendum.

It's EXACTLY the same thing and the same argument used against blacks and whites marrying back when that was illegal. Marriage was defined as a right at that time.



I am 35 years old. I don't know what they're teaching in schools "these days" but when I was in school, we learned that the Constitution was put in place to define the powers of the federal government, and those powers not expressly given to it were the domain of the states. The framers called that part of the Constitution "Amendment X" and included it in a little thing called the "Bill of Rights (http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html)" so it wouldn't be overlooked. Since marriage is not included in the Constitution, it is not a federal area of jurisdiction but a state/local one.

Whoop de do! I'm 42. So what? Obviously, you don't know that states cannot pass laws that conflict with the Constitution. And if marriage isn't a federal issue, then why does DOMA exist? The Fed shouldn't be able to enact such a law if that's the case.

[IgnatiusTheKing]

Whoop de do! I'm 42. So what?

You brought it up by attempting to discredit me and "schools these days." That's what.

Obviously, you don't know that states cannot pass laws that conflict with the Constitution. And if marriage isn't a federal issue, then why does DOMA exist? The Fed shouldn't be able to enact such a law if that's the case.

The Constitution never mentions marriage, so Maine's law does not conflict with it.

And you're completely right about DOMA; the federal government should not be allowed to enact such a law. I believe that it is unconstitutional and should be repealed precisely because I believe in the 10th Amendment. Unfortunately, the people have to rely on the courts to decide if a federal law is unjust and, up until now, the Supreme Court has declined to rule on DOMA.

[newappleboy]

The union of one man and one woman joined in traditional monogamous marriage is of inestimable value to society; the State has a compelling interest to nurture and promote the unique institution of traditional monogamous marriage in the support of harmonious families and the physical and mental health of children; and that the State has the compelling interest in promoting the moral values inherent in traditional monogamous marriage.

I wanna know why this description of marriage is only believed to apply to a man and woman pairing. The state should nurture heterosexuals, but shun homosexuals? They should promote traditional monogamous marriage in support of harmonious families? In the South it was long traditional not only to have slaves, but to marry a woman who had no say in the matter and then beat her as often as you wanted because you're the man and that makes you right. It's tradition, so it should be upheld, correct?

So many studies have been done that prove over and over again that children in same sex households are no better or worse off then children in "traditional" homes let alone those of single parents or blended homes or any other combination they've looked into.

And I like that this is all in the interest of "the state" to do all this. What about the people? And if it's truly for the state itself, take a look at the other states that have passed AND UPHELD the law granting same sex rights to marriage - have they come crashing down with violence and looting and heterosexual marriages crumbling due to the breakdown in traditional marriage values?

Laws change. The federal constitution has been changed time and time again. So have state constitutions. It's not always "the will of the people" but it doesn't always need to be when it's right. When you're protecting a minority's rights, you will almost never have a majority vote. So we are expected to just sit back and wait indefinitely? That's not only ridiculous, it's cruel.

[leekohler]

You brought it up by attempting to discredit me and "schools these days." That's what.

Fair enough.

But you still cannot deny that gender discrimination is indeed taking place here. It's the textbook definition of discrimination.

[IgnatiusTheKing]

I wanna know why this description of marriage is only believed to apply to a man and woman pairing. The state should nurture heterosexuals, but shun homosexuals? They should promote traditional monogamous marriage in support of harmonious families? In the South it was long traditional not only to have slaves, but to marry a woman who had no say in the matter and then beat her as often as you wanted because you're the man and that makes you right. It's tradition, so it should be upheld, correct?

So many studies have been done that prove over and over again that children in same sex households are no better or worse off then children in "traditional" homes let alone those of single parents or blended homes or any other combination they've looked into.

And I like that this is all in the interest of "the state" to do all this. What about the people? And if it's truly for the state itself, take a look at the other states that have passed AND UPHELD the law granting same sex rights to marriage - have they come crashing down with violence and looting and heterosexual marriages crumbling due to the breakdown in traditional marriage values?

Laws change. The federal constitution has been changed time and time again. So have state constitutions. It's not always "the will of the people" but it doesn't always need to be when it's right. When you're protecting a minority's rights, you won't have a majority vote - ever. So we are expected to just sit back and wait indefinitely? That's not only ridiculous, it's cruel.

I don't disagree with you. My initial point in this thread was just finding it ironic that so many people who (on other threads) talk about democracy are now lambasting that very process since it failed to go the way they wanted it to.

Fair enough.

But you still cannot deny that gender discrimination is indeed taking place here. It's the textbook definition of discrimination.

I'm not sure I would go that far, but in all honestly I don't really care about this issue one way or another (philosophically). Gay people can get married as far as I'm concerned. I wouldn't vote "yes" for it or "no" against it.

Like I said above, my initial comments were more about the irony of some of the posts than the actual issue being voted on.

[NT1440]

I don't disagree with you. My initial point in this thread was just finding it ironic that so many people who (on other threads) talk about democracy are now lambasting that very process since it failed to go the way they wanted it to.

Democracy was not designed with the vote of the majority being used to discriminate a minority.

[CaptMurdock]

This isnt a rights issue, as your not being denied the ability to marry. You can go marry any person of your own race you want. You just choose not to. That is your own choice, thus not a "civil rights" issue as some of you would like to Proclaim.


See how that works?:mad:

[newappleboy]

Saw this article this morning on CNN's website. Doesn't make all this stuff any easier to swallow, but it does help put things into perspective a little bit. Deep breaths and baby steps. I just have to have faith we'll get there in time.

Gay rights advocates need patience (http://www.cnn.com/2009/OPINION/11/13/granderson.gay.maine/index.html)

[CalBoy]

It may not be "fair" but it is democratic.

However, we do live in a republic, and the Constitution mandates that each state guarantees to its people a "republican form of government."

A republican government is meant to secure certain rights above the standard democratic process (and require them to be changed by a much more rigorous process). Now, I'll admit that this was a standard law that was revoked, and not a constitutional protection, but I hardly see the value in saying that it is "democratic" since that is a value this nation should not be trumpeting.


You can't pick and choose which laws apply to you. Every person in Maine (gay or straight) has the "right" to get married. The law defines the parameters of that "right."

Yes, but not every pair of consenting adults can marry each other.

On a basic level of fundamental freedom, the government should not be able to prevent two parties from forming a contract if there are no mitigating circumstances between them. The very fact that 45 state governments and the United States chooses who qualifies to enter into this contract violates equal protection under the law because the state has no compelling (heck, not even rational) interest to restrict marriage in this fashion.

Thus, as a matter of law, Maine is choosing what laws apply to whom on a very selective basis.

The Constitution never mentions marriage, so Maine's law does not conflict with it.

However, in Loving v Virginia (1967) the Supreme Court held that marriage was such a fundamental right, that the states had to provide it as a right (and it was incorporated via the 14th Amendment).

Unfortunately, the people have to rely on the courts to decide if a federal law is unjust and, up until now, the Supreme Court has declined to rule on DOMA.

Or, perhaps more accurately, there hasn't been a case regarding DOMA brought before the Court (and that is not a coincidence ;)).


Since marriage is not included in the Constitution, it is not a federal area of jurisdiction but a state/local one.

I already mentioned Loving, but beyond that, the IRS relies on the states to determine who is married and who isn't for the purposes of taxation. The sheer number of relevant laws exceeds 1,000, and that makes the issue very much a federal one too.

[Sun Baked]

C'mon re-read the Texas amendment, they didn't just ban gay marriage ... they banned all marriages.

Have to read the second part. :p

"This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage."

[IntheNet]

Somewhat related development today from a unity of religious leaders; interesting development that has impact on same-sex marriage and other offenses to traditional belief =>

Christian Leaders Unite on Political Issues
By LAURIE GOODSTEIN
November 20, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/20/us/politics/20alliance.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss
Citing the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s call to civil disobedience, 145 evangelical, Roman Catholic and Orthodox Christian leaders have signed a declaration saying they will not cooperate with laws that they say could be used to compel their institutions to participate in abortions, or to bless or in any way recognize same-sex couples. “We pledge to each other, and to our fellow believers, that no power on earth, be it cultural or political, will intimidate us into silence or acquiescence,” it says.

The manifesto, to be released on Friday at the National Press Club in Washington, is an effort to rejuvenate the political alliance of conservative Catholics and evangelicals that dominated the religious debate during the administration of President George W. Bush. The signers include nine Roman Catholic archbishops and the primate of the Orthodox Church in America.

They want to signal to the Obama administration and to Congress that they are still a formidable force that will not compromise on abortion, stem-cell research or gay marriage. They hope to influence current debates over health care reform, the same-sex marriage bill in Washington, D.C., and the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which would prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation.

[rdowns]

Just what we need, more religious fanatics playing politics. I say pull their god damn tax exemptions. We could sure use the revenue.

[leekohler]

Somewhat related development today from a unity of religious leaders; interesting development that has impact on same-sex marriage and other offenses to traditional belief =>

Christian Leaders Unite on Political Issues
By LAURIE GOODSTEIN
November 20, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/20/us/politics/20alliance.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss
Citing the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s call to civil disobedience, 145 evangelical, Roman Catholic and Orthodox Christian leaders have signed a declaration saying they will not cooperate with laws that they say could be used to compel their institutions to participate in abortions, or to bless or in any way recognize same-sex couples. “We pledge to each other, and to our fellow believers, that no power on earth, be it cultural or political, will intimidate us into silence or acquiescence,” it says.

The manifesto, to be released on Friday at the National Press Club in Washington, is an effort to rejuvenate the political alliance of conservative Catholics and evangelicals that dominated the religious debate during the administration of President George W. Bush. The signers include nine Roman Catholic archbishops and the primate of the Orthodox Church in America.

They want to signal to the Obama administration and to Congress that they are still a formidable force that will not compromise on abortion, stem-cell research or gay marriage. They hope to influence current debates over health care reform, the same-sex marriage bill in Washington, D.C., and the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which would prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation.

No one ever said they had to marry gays. Who cares about them? They're a dying breed anyway. There are plenty of other religious leaders who think the opposite, and young people are overwhelmingly for same sex marriage. We may lose a few battles, but we WILL win the war.

And it'll be a cold day in hell before I let this country become a theocracy. Move to Iran if that's what you want.

[Gelfin]

Citing the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s call to civil disobedience…

Does the article list an address to send the bill for a new irony meter?

[yg17]

They want to signal to the Obama administration and to Congress that they are still a formidable force that will not compromise on abortion, stem-cell research or gay marriage. They hope to influence current debates over health care reform, the same-sex marriage bill in Washington, D.C., and the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which would prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation.
And what do I have to do to signal to them that they should go **** themselves?


It figures this bunch of morons would be against new legislation that would prohibit employer discrimination. I bet they'd pay women half of what they pay men to do the same job and not hire black people if they could.

[Sdashiki]

Last time I checked, and I do often, marriage is NOT conducted in a church. Its when you sign that certificate at city hall.

Should YOU choose to have it finalized by a religious leader and not a clerk of the courts, then YOU have made a choice you can't force on others.

Moan, moan, moan. Its all these religious institutions (and I mean that as a pun with mental defect overtones) seem to want to do. Disregarding the fact that NO ONE, NO WHERE says that churches have to marry gay couples. Nor does it say anywhere you have to be married in a church, by a priest/father/bishop/sea captain/rabbi.

Complain all you want. Hell, make it part of your signage out front to show your staunch position:

"We don't marry the gays here.
Pot luck on Friday.
Bingo on Tuesday."

[SLC Flyfishing]

....... I've made this argument before, but I simply don't see the marriage exclusion in the US Constitution and furthermore, I'd argue that Loving v. Virginia has already effectively decided that marriage is a right.

From the court's decision:

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

Notice the first part, not privilege, but basic civil right.

Read a little further and you'll notice that they list it as a basic civil right because it's fundamental to our very existance and survival. Now some (including me) already realize that we can have children, and perpetuate the existance and survival of our species without the institution of marriage, but the courts have clearly ruled that this is the basis for their ruling in the loving vs virginia case. Here we had a white MAN and a black WOMAN who wanted to get married and presumably have a family together. Hence perpetuating the species.

Now what about a gay union can perpetuate the survival and continuance of our species again?

Just sayin....

SLC

[yg17]

Read a little further and you'll notice that they list it as a basic civil right because it's fundamental to our very existance and survival. Now some (including me) already realize that we can have children, and perpetuate the existance and survival of our species without the institution of marriage, but the courts have clearly ruled that this is the basis for their ruling in the loving vs virginia case. Here we had a white MAN and a black WOMAN who wanted to get married and presumably have a family together. Hence perpetuating the species.

Now what about a gay union can perpetuate the survival and continuance of our species again?

Just sayin....

SLC

What about straight couples where one of them is sterile? Or a couple that just doesn't want to have kids? I guess they shouldn't be allowed to marry either?

[hulugu]

Read a little further and you'll notice that they list it as a basic civil right because it's fundamental to our very existance and survival. Now some (including me) already realize that we can have children, and perpetuate the existance and survival of our species without the institution of marriage, but the courts have clearly ruled that this is the basis for their ruling in the loving vs virginia case. Here we had a white MAN and a black WOMAN who wanted to get married and presumably have a family together. Hence perpetuating the species.

Now what about a gay union can perpetuate the survival and continuance of our species again?

Just sayin....

SLC

Yes, but the ruling didn't require children in order to make marriage a fundamental right, rather the court argued that it was a fundamental right because children are important to a society.

The distinction is very subtle, but since a marriage between a man and a women is still considered a marriage, regardless of the willingness or ability to produce children. The court makes no distinction between child-rearing relationships and childless relationships, so why should this make any difference?

[IntheNet]

Last time I checked, and I do often, marriage is NOT conducted in a church.

Our church has about six marriages scheduled for this weekend; should I take pictures to show your error?

. Nor does it say anywhere you have to be married in a church...

Our church has a rule stating just that...

Or a couple that just doesn't want to have kids? I guess they shouldn't be allowed to marry either?

hulugu clarifies your confusion above; as he says, "...the ruling didn't require children in order to make marriage a fundamental right, rather the court argued that it was a fundamental right because children are important to a society."

[SLC Flyfishing]

What about straight couples where one of them is sterile? Or a couple that just doesn't want to have kids? I guess they shouldn't be allowed to marry either?

My reading of the statement is that because children and the creation of such are important to society and the perpetuation of our species, marriage is held as a basic fundamental right which cannot be removed from any heterosexual couple who wishes to enter in it together. This is because we (or the SCOTUS) have decided that we need to protect the right for people to form contractual aggreements which involve the creation and rearing of families. Sure a couple may state that they don't want children, but we both know that people change their minds so not enforceable really. Also, who's to stop a hetero couple from saying they do want children even if they don't. You know as well as I do that you're just using that statement in an effort to be facetious.

As for a sterile person, I think you know as well as I do that if it's known before hand, that can be a deal breaker in a potential marriage (whether right or wrong). Some people do in fact want to have their own children, and that's a major part of their decision to get married. However, you can't deny someone a "basic civil right" just because of a physical disability or defect either. Else we could ban quadrapalegics from riding on the streets merely because they can't necessarily drive themselves.

And to answer the claim that marriages don't take place in churches, I got married there. I didn't get married at the county courthouse first, I went (by myself) and got a marriage license, as did my then fiancee, then we both got married at our place of worship with the religious officiator signing the marriage certificate that makes us legally and lawfully wedded.


SLC

[Gelfin]

Our church has about six marriages scheduled for this weekend; should I take pictures to show your error?

You're talking about a wedding ceremony, not a marriage. A marriage does not require a wedding ceremony, nor does a wedding ceremony require a church. A marriage is something you get a license for from your state. A person can be married without also entering into in the ritual sacrament your religion calls "holy matrimony."

Our church has a rule stating just that...

I've mentioned this before, but Penn Jillette tells a story about a guy who wears his father's masonic ring. Wherever he goes, people ask him if he's a freemason, and when he says no, they tell him the masonic rules say only a freemason can wear a masonic ring, to which the guy replies, "yeah, but only freemasons have to follow masonic rules."

Gays are not coming to take over your church. Never have been. You can have whatever rituals you want and restrict them however you please, but that state component cannot be withheld from a group of people on the basis of a religious rule they didn't opt into.

[SLC Flyfishing]

Gays are not coming to take over your church. Never have been. You can have whatever rituals you want and restrict them however you please, but that state component cannot be withheld from a group of people on the basis of a religious rule they didn't opt into.

True, gays can't be witheld from marriage on purely religious grounds, but they can be forbidden from marrying same gender partners based on what it is about marriage that the government sees fit to promote and protect. If it's the creation of children and the promotion of a traditional family unit and it's cohesiveness and success, then that just happens to be the same thing religious groups are out to protect. Unfortunate cooincidence for the Gay population in that case; but absolutely not discrimination on religious grounds.

I guess the real question is, what about marriage causes the government to want to get involved at all?

SLC

[mactastic]

As for a sterile person, I think you know as well as I do that if it's known before hand, that can be a deal breaker in a potential marriage (whether right or wrong). Some people do in fact want to have their own children, and that's a major part of their decision to get married.
You're being disingenuous here, as you are switching from the state denying a person the right to marry to a private citizen deciding that someone isn't "the one" for them.

The two are most definitely not the same. A private citizen may certainly deny a request for marriage from a sterile person for any reason they wish, or no reason whatsoever. The state cannot deny a request for marriage from a sterile person.

[SLC Flyfishing]

You're being disingenuous here, as you are switching from the state denying a person the right to marry to a private citizen deciding that someone isn't "the one" for them.

The two are most definitely not the same. A private citizen may certainly deny a request for marriage from a sterile person for any reason they wish, or no reason whatsoever. The state cannot deny a request for marriage from a sterile person.

I agree and I addressed that already, did you not read all the way through my post?

Maybe you read it before I went back and clarified my stance on the issue.

SLC

[mactastic]

I agree and I addressed that already, did you not read all the way through my post?

Maybe you read it before I went back and clarified my stance on the issue.

SLC
Not sure what you think I'm missing... Your first paragraph is all about the relationship between the state and the marrying couple, and the lack of ability to deny them a marriage license based on their willingness to produce children.

Your next paragraph then begins "As for a sterile person...", with the implication being that you will then present a similar analysis for their situation. Instead you write something about how a sterile person already knows they're going to have a tough time of it, and that they're likely to be turned down by prospective partners due to their sterility.

It just seemed like a very disjointed comparison, and one that was likely to leave the impression that you considered the two situations to be analogous.

[SLC Flyfishing]

As for a sterile person, I think you know as well as I do that if it's known before hand, that can be a deal breaker in a potential marriage (whether right or wrong). Some people do in fact want to have their own children, and that's a major part of their decision to get married. However, you can't deny someone a "basic civil right" just because of a physical disability or defect either. Else we could ban quadrapalegics from riding on the streets merely because they can't necessarily drive themselves.



SLC

Go ahead, read all the way till the period after the word themselves :rolleyes:

SLC

[mactastic]

Go ahead, read all the way till the period after the word themselves :rolleyes:

SLC
Ok, my bad. I had to read it a few times before I got what you were going for. I think I was most thrown off by your reference to marriage as a "basic civil right". I didn't realize you subscribed to that viewpoint.

[Gelfin]

True, gays can't be witheld from marriage on purely religious grounds, but they can be forbidden from marrying same gender partners based on what it is about marriage that the government sees fit to promote and protect. If it's the creation of children and promotion of a traditional family unit then that just happens to be the same thing religious groups are out to protect. Unfortunate cooincidence for the Gay population.

I guess the real question is, what about marriage causes the government to want to get involved at all?

SLC

Interestingly, having just read through the ruling again myself, nowhere does Loving v. Virginia (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=388&invol=1) mention children or reproduction. In fact, the ruling never comes closer to doing so than the reference to "existence and survival" hulugu already mentioned in the post to which you replied "[r]ead a little further."

Well, there is no further. It says no such thing.

To interpret the "existence and survival" phrase as implying the necessity of children is to apply an excessively convenient interpretation that would, in fact, raise exactly the troubling questions about sterile and voluntarily childless couples that have been raised here. It is dishonest to claim that children are the only purpose of marriage. Humans are a social species. Familial relations are at the heart of what we are as a species, including the formation of new familial units by choice among consenting adults. The mutual comfort, companionship, support and protection offered by such relationships among adults are every bit as essential to our "existence and survival" as the simple biological act of producing offspring.

Frankly to suggest that nothing more than a shared intent to produce offspring founds a couple's desire to marry is to degrade the institution far more than any gay marriage ever could.

Furthermore, such focused parsing ignores the immediately prior, and overt, statement: "The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men." Pursuit of happiness, not children.

[SLC Flyfishing]

Ok, my bad. I had to read it a few times before I got what you were going for. I think I was most thrown off by your reference to marriage as a "basic civil right". I didn't realize you subscribed to that viewpoint.

I do in a sense. But only because I think it's in the government's best interest to protect and support any relationship which may produce future citizens of that government.

I don't think same sex unions do anything to further strengthen our nation, I know that sounds harsh but how else can I put it. The only thing (from the government's POV) that allowing for same sex marriage does is reduce the amount of taxable income out there.

I don't need a tax write off to love my wife, I don't need a marriage licence either. Furthermore, I don't need the approval of anyone else in the world to love her. All the marriage license does is make it just a touch easier for us to support our growing family. Put food on the table etc. That being said, if I weren't religious I'm not sure why I'd be concerned about marriage at all. I could still commit to my wife for the rest of my life without marriage.

So what is it that Homosexuals want? Do they think that marriage will make them feel differently about their partners, love them any more than they already do? Or are they just in this fight for the chance at a tax break? Because there are a million ways around every single "privilege" that comes to a married couple if people are serious enough about them to take the necessary steps.

SLC

[mactastic]

I do in a sense. But only because I think it's in the government's best interest to protect and support any relationship which may produce future citizens of that government.
How about relationships that may nurture future citizens of that government?

I don't think same sex unions do anything to further strengthen our nation, I know that sounds harsh but how else can I put it. The only thing (from the government's POV) that allowing for same sex marriage does is reduce the amount of taxable income out there.
You're looking at this all wrong. What you need to be asking is "do same sex unions *weaken* our nation?" If they do not, then the state has no compelling reason to deny them.

Does smoking a cigarette do anything to further strengthen our nation? If not, would you suggest that the government ban cigarettes on that basis?

I don't need a tax write off to love my wife, I don't need a marriage licence either. Furthermore, I don't need the approval of anyone else in the world to love her. All the marriage license does is make it just a touch easier for us to support our growing family. Put food on the table etc. That being said, if I weren't religious I'm not sure why I'd be concerned about marriage at all. I could still commit to my wife for the rest of my life without marriage.
But you would not necessarily be allowed to be at your wife's side while she is in the hospital. Your kids might not get their inheritance if something happened to you unexpectedly. You know all the legal trappings of marriage, it's been discussed here ad nauseum.

Maybe you wouldn't be concerned about marriage if you weren't religious, but as a non-religious person I can tell you that the marriage ceremony my wife and I had was one of the more important moments in my life. There's something powerful about standing in front of all your friends and relative and publicly declaring your love for your spouse. Sure, we'd still be in a committed relationship if we weren't married, but the marriage ceremony made it all that much more special. Why you would deny the happiness and joy that you must have felt on your own wedding day to others just seems cruel for no reason.

So what is it that Homosexuals want? Do they think that marriage will make them feel differently about their partners, love them any more than they already do? Or are they just in this fight for the chance at a tax break? Because there are a million ways around every single "privilege" that comes to a married couple if people are serious enough about them to take the necessary steps.

SLC
Homosexuals just want to do what you do. They want their love recognized the same way we recognize the love of straight people. Why should they have to be "serious enough" to "take the necessary steps" that you didn't have to take to prove that you were serious?

[Gelfin]

I do in a sense. But only because I think it's in the government's best interest to protect and support any relationship which may produce future citizens of that government.

I don't think same sex unions do anything to further strengthen our nation, I know that sounds harsh but how else can I put it. The only thing (from the government's POV) that allowing for same sex marriage does is reduce the amount of taxable income out there.

I don't need a tax write off to love my wife, I don't need a marriage licence either. Furthermore, I don't need the approval of anyone else in the world to love her. All the marriage license does is make it just a touch easier for us to support our growing family. Put food on the table etc. That being said, if I weren't religious I'm not sure why I'd be concerned about marriage at all. I could still commit to my wife for the rest of my life without marriage.

So what is it that Homosexuals want? Do they think that marriage will make them feel differently about their partners, love them any more than they already do? Or are they just in this fight for the chance at a tax break? Because there are a million ways around every single "privilege" that comes to a married couple if people are serious enough about them to take the necessary steps.

SLC

What about the ability to share, inherit and transfer property without tax penalties?

What about the ability to marry a foreign national and for that person not to be deported?

What about specific legal acknowledgement of the relationship for medical purposes should your partner happen to suffer a fatal aneurysm in an "anti-gay city and state?"

What about taking advantage of the large body of established law regarding divorce and associated property settlement, if necessary?

What about social security and pension benefits?

What about a specific legal acknowledgement of your consensual status that stands up in court when challenged by angry homophobic members of one or the other's immediate family?

What about a consistent standard for indicating a stable family situation for purposes of adoption?

In fact, the General Accounting Office has identified well over a thousand (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04353r.pdf) federal government provisions that are contingent upon marital status, which do not include state provisions, or even the simple ability to live one's life without being defined as second-class under color of law.

[leekohler]

I do in a sense. But only because I think it's in the government's best interest to protect and support any relationship which may produce future citizens of that government.


Gay people have kids. We've been having them for years, either through medical means or adoption. Who do you think raises kids a lot straight couples won't adopt? You think that's not good for society?

Two friends of mine have a foster son who came to them as a black teenage gang banger off the streets. You want to adopt that kid? No? They do- and they've turned that kid's life around. They're almost done with the adoption process. Does that kid not deserve the same protections a marriage between his two dads would afford him? Why do they have to work harder to make a secure home for this kid and you don't? Why do they have to worry that if something happens to one of them, this kid could end up back in the system if they don't have just the right paperwork together? Dammit- I want to know why they have to jump through hoops that you guys don't.



I don't need a tax write off to love my wife, I don't need a marriage licence either. Furthermore, I don't need the approval of anyone else in the world to love her. All the marriage license does is make it just a touch easier for us to support our growing family. Put food on the table etc. That being said, if I weren't religious I'm not sure why I'd be concerned about marriage at all. I could still commit to my wife for the rest of my life without marriage.


Then put your money where your mouth is and get a divorce. Tell me how easy things are for your family then- in the legal sense.

[PcBgone]

Then put your money where your mouth is and get a divorce. Tell me how easy things are for your family then- in the legal sense.

If the Federal Government decides to push through Homosexual Marriage, I will start to push for a separate type of Marriage. I dont want to have any association with what you call marriage. Divorce as you see fit is not an option as I will never divorce my spouse.

If this ever happens, I think it will be time to have another civil war as the values of this country would have changed so much that I and millions like me wont want to live in said country. A country is a group of people who share the same ideals and beliefs. At that point we wont share the same ideals and beliefs.

Its sad to see Homos wanting to destroy such a Great Country.

[MacNut]

If the Federal Government decides to push through Homosexual Marriage, I will start to push for a separate type of Marriage. I dont want to have any association with what you call marriage. Divorce as you see fit is not an option as I will never divorce my spouse.

If this ever happens, I think it will be time to have another civil war as the values of this country would have changed so much that I and millions like me wont want to live in said country. A country is a group of people who share the same ideals and beliefs. At that point we wont share the same ideals and beliefs.

Its sad to see Homos wanting to destroy such a Great Country.I might not agree with everything in this country but you have a lot of hate that goes way beyond normal. If I didn't know better I would think you wear a white hood. You are no better then Hitler.

[PcBgone]

I might not agree with everything in this country but you have a lot of hate that goes way beyond normal. If I didn't know better I would think you wear a white hood. You are no better then Hitler.

Except that I havent killed anyone. And Im not trying to exterminate any races. hmm not like Hitler at all.

You can call me what you want, but I wont take your liberal bs lightly. There are things that are wrong in this world whether you agree with it or not. We dont have the ability to do whatever we want when we want contrary to what the liberals say.

[MacNut]

Except that I havent killed anyone. And Im not trying to exterminate any races. hmm not like Hitler at all.

You can call me what you want, but I wont take your liberal bs lightly. There are things that are wrong in this world whether you agree with it or not. We dont have the ability to do whatever we want when we want contrary to what the liberals say.If you pay attention you would know I am far from liberal. The only think that is wrong is your want to have a perfect world with your own rules.

[PcBgone]

If you pay attention you would know I am far from liberal. The only think that is wrong is your want to have a perfect world with your own rules.

Your confused. I never said I want to have a perfect world with my own rules. There is no place on this earth for that. I just disagree with the liberal viewpoint that "do whatever makes you happy" or "as long as it doesnt bother anyone else your ok". This demoralizes a people and gets them to think that anything and everything goes and it is ok. There are things in this world that are harmful to society and ourselves that we should not allow.

[MacNut]

Wanting to go to civil war seems like you want your own set of rules.

There are a lot of things I don't agree with, it doesn't mean the country will go to hell if they happen. We have bigger things to worry about then letting gays marry. It won't affect you or me personally.

[PcBgone]

Wanting to go to civil war seems like you want your own set of rules.

There are a lot of things I don't agree with, it doesn't mean the country will go to hell if they happen. We have bigger things to worry about then letting gays marry. It won't affect you or me personally.

I disagree. Rebellion against the crown is what formed this Union. Civil War is just another form of Rebellion against Tyranny. We are taxed out the wazoo, and will be taxed even more if this healthcare bill goes into place, social issues are ripping this nation apart. Civil War is a means to an end. Let the liberal states go on with its liberal lives, and let the conservatives go on about its conservative life. Why should either side bend over backwards and give up core beliefs?

[yg17]

If the Federal Government decides to push through Homosexual Marriage, I will start to push for a separate type of Marriage. I dont want to have any association with what you call marriage. Divorce as you see fit is not an option as I will never divorce my spouse.

If this ever happens, I think it will be time to have another civil war as the values of this country would have changed so much that I and millions like me wont want to live in said country. A country is a group of people who share the same ideals and beliefs. At that point we wont share the same ideals and beliefs.

Its sad to see Homos wanting to destroy such a Great Country.

Or, you can just GTFO and move to a country that shares your same ideals of a strict theocracy. Iran might be more to your liking.

[PcBgone]

Or, you can just GTFO and move to a country that shares your same ideals of a strict theocracy. Iran might be more to your liking.

Right, because Im Muslim:rolleyes:

[yg17]

Right, because Im Muslim:rolleyes:

Okay then, how about Somalia? You righties love small government, you can't get much smaller than no government.

[PcBgone]

Okay then, how about Somalia? You righties love small government, you can't get much smaller than no government.

You have a strange fascination with muslims. Somalia is certainly muslim. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somalia#Religion

Maybe your just not intelligent enough to know the differences between Christianity and Islam. You certainly don't know your social and cultural geography. Maybe it is that liberal education you had received. Id ask for my money back for your education, you didn't get your money's worth.

[yg17]

You have a strange fascination with muslims. Somalia is certainly muslim. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somalia#Religion

Maybe your just not intelligent enough to know the differences between Christianity and Islam. You certainly don't know your social and cultural geography. Maybe it is that liberal education you had received. Id ask for my money back for your education, you didn't get your money's worth.

I know Somalia is Muslim, rather, what little government they have is. It's still mostly an anarchy, something you people should love. But I still suggest you try living in a Muslim country, whether it's Iran or Somalia, maybe you'll know what it's like to be a minority religion living in a country where the majority religion is trying to turn their beliefs into laws, and once you realize how terrible it is, stop trying to do that crap here.

And my education was just fine thank you. I have the degree from a 4 year university and a well paying career to prove it. But let's stop comparing salaries, it's about as pointless as comparing penis sizes, and I'm sure just the very thought of another man's junk makes you sick to your stomach.

[PcBgone]

I know Somalia is Muslim, rather, what little government they have is. It's still mostly an anarchy, something you people should love. But I still suggest you try living in a Muslim country, whether it's Iran or Somalia, maybe you'll know what it's like to be a minority religion living in a country where the majority religion is trying to turn their beliefs into laws, and once you realize how terrible it is, stop trying to do that crap here.

And my education was just fine thank you. I have the degree from a 4 year university and a well paying career to prove it. But let's stop comparing salaries, it's about as pointless as comparing penis sizes, and I'm sure just the very thought of another man's junk makes you sick to your stomach.

Id suggest you go back to college then. Perhaps try a college that isnt so liberal this time that spoon feeds you.

Conservatives dont want Anarchy. They feel there should be as little government as possible. Meaning less is more efficient. This is different then having laws that citizens abide by. Maybe your "college" went over this but you were perhaps asleep?

I have lived in quite a few Muslim countries thank you. I left as soon as I could as I don't believe the same as they do. I didn't try to change their beliefs as your trying to change ours. Maybe thats something you homosexuals should do. Leave. Your free to do so instead of being "oppressed". I hear Amsterdam is lovely, and they would accept you with loving arms and other parts if thats your thing.

[jecapaga]

If the Federal Government decides to push through Homosexual Marriage, I will start to push for a separate type of Marriage. I dont want to have any association with what you call marriage. Divorce as you see fit is not an option as I will never divorce my spouse.

If this ever happens, I think it will be time to have another civil war as the values of this country would have changed so much that I and millions like me wont want to live in said country. A country is a group of people who share the same ideals and beliefs. At that point we wont share the same ideals and beliefs.

Its sad to see Homos wanting to destroy such a Great Country.

So what are Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians and Independents? All groups of people who don't share in the same ideals or beliefs across the board and yet, shockingly, they make up the majority of this country in one way or another. You draw a comparison between marriage for all people and a new Civil war? I can't imagine going through life hating on something so much. I can't imagine it benefits you or builds character.

Have a nice weekend.

[yg17]

Id suggest you go back to college then. Perhaps try a college that isnt so liberal this time that spoon feeds you.

Conservatives dont want Anarchy. They feel there should be as little government as possible. Meaning less is more efficient. This is different then having laws that citizens abide by. Maybe your "college" went over this but you were perhaps asleep?

I have lived in quite a few Muslim countries thank you. I left as soon as I could as I don't believe the same as they do. I didn't try to change their beliefs as your trying to change ours. Maybe thats something you homosexuals should do. Leave. Your free to do so instead of being "oppressed". I hear Amsterdam is lovely, and they would accept you with loving arms and other parts if thats your thing.

For your information, I went to a school that, if it had any political bias at all, it would be conservative, what with being located in the middle of nowhere of Missouri. However, there's not much room for political bias in my field. The bigger arguments were over which distribution of Linux is the best. Sure, I had my political science classes, but my professors did a fine job at making sure to remain neutral and let us form our own opinions on things. But if PRSI has taught me anything, it's that baseless accusations are par for the course for the righties.

I'm not trying to change your beliefs any more than you're trying to change mine. You're trying to change me into someone who hates gays and is OK with stripping them of their rights. You're trying to change my beliefs, perhaps rather than doing that, you should take your own advice and leave and move somewhere that's more accepting so you won't feel so oppressed.

Oh, and one more thing. I'm not gay. I'm just a straight guy who supports equal rights for everyone. Thanks for playing though.

So what are Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians and Independents? All groups of people who don't share in the same ideals or beliefs across the board and yet, shockingly, they make up the majority of this country in one way or another. You draw a comparison between marriage for all people and a new Civil war? I can't imagine going through life hating on something so much. I can't imagine it benefits you or builds character.

Have a nice weekend.

It certainly can't be healthy to get so angered over an Obama bumper sticker or two guys holding hands. It can't be good for the ol' blood pressure. It's nice being able to go through life and not be bothered one bit by the sight of a minority, a republican bumper sticker or anything gay, whether it's a couple, pride parade or rainbow flag. I'm glad I was raised to be accepting of others, I've got enough **** of my own to deal with to worry about other people.

[mactastic]

If the Federal Government decides to push through Homosexual Marriage, I will start to push for a separate type of Marriage. I dont want to have any association with what you call marriage. Divorce as you see fit is not an option as I will never divorce my spouse.

If this ever happens, I think it will be time to have another civil war as the values of this country would have changed so much that I and millions like me wont want to live in said country. A country is a group of people who share the same ideals and beliefs. At that point we wont share the same ideals and beliefs.

Its sad to see Homos wanting to destroy such a Great Country.
Dude... seriously? You would fight a civil war over gay marriage? LOLz...

We dont have the ability to do whatever we want when we want contrary to what the liberals say.
You're confused. Liberals never said you have the ability to do whatever you want. Perhaps you need to go back to school?

Your confused. I never said I want to have a perfect world with my own rules. There is no place on this earth for that. I just disagree with the liberal viewpoint that "do whatever makes you happy" or "as long as it doesnt bother anyone else your ok". This demoralizes a people and gets them to think that anything and everything goes and it is ok. There are things in this world that are harmful to society and ourselves that we should not allow.
Ohh.. I see. It's ok to put words into other peoples mouths, but no ok to put words into your mouth.

I disagree. Rebellion against the crown is what formed this Union. Civil War is just another form of Rebellion against Tyranny. We are taxed out the wazoo, and will be taxed even more if this healthcare bill goes into place, social issues are ripping this nation apart. Civil War is a means to an end. Let the liberal states go on with its liberal lives, and let the conservatives go on about its conservative life. Why should either side bend over backwards and give up core beliefs?
This would actually be lovely. The liberal states would stop seeing the drain of federal dollars by the "fiscally conservative" states; who take far more federal welfare than blue states. We'd actually by much better off without you. Don't let the Mason-Dixon line hit you in the ass on the way out...

Maybe your just not intelligent enough to know the differences between Christianity and Islam.
Same hogwash, different prophet...

I have lived in quite a few Muslim countries thank you. I left as soon as I could as I don't believe the same as they do. I didn't try to change their beliefs as your trying to change ours. Maybe thats something you homosexuals should do. Leave. Your free to do so instead of being "oppressed". I hear Amsterdam is lovely, and they would accept you with loving arms and other parts if thats your thing.
Every Christmas, I hear that the US is hostile to the poor oppressed Christians. Perhaps rather than trying to change our minds, you should take your own advice? You are, of course, free to do so...

[iGary]

Except that I havent killed anyone. And Im not trying to exterminate any races. hmm not like Hitler at all.

You can call me what you want, but I wont take your liberal bs lightly. There are things that are wrong in this world whether you agree with it or not. We dont have the ability to do whatever we want when we want contrary to what the liberals say.

What exactly are gay people doing that have a direct effect on you?

[leekohler]

What exactly are gay people doing that have a direct effect on you?

His dad left his mom for another guy. He blames all of us for that. Maybe you missed that in another thread.

[iGary]

His dad left his mom for another guy. He blames all of us for that. Maybe you missed that in another thread.

Oh. Sounds like some therapy is in order.

[Gelfin]

Conservatives dont want Anarchy. They feel there should be as little government as possible. Meaning less is more efficient. This is different then having laws that citizens abide by. Maybe your "college" went over this but you were perhaps asleep?

Conservatives of your stripe want anarchy for themselves and brutal oppression for everyone else. You wave your flags over America with one hand while sticking a knife in her back with the other, because you don't want America. You want Stalinist Russia so long as you're Stalin.

I'm not sure if you realize you just insisted that the only legitimate purpose a government serves is to control its citizens lives, an assertion I know from past experience you do not believe should include yourself. Conservatism to you is the government doing only what you personally deem immediately useful to you, and everybody else can go to hell. It's petulant, self-centered nonsense of the worst and most destructive kind.

I have lived in quite a few Muslim countries thank you. I left as soon as I could as I don't believe the same as they do. I didn't try to change their beliefs as your trying to change ours. Maybe thats something you homosexuals should do. Leave. Your free to do so instead of being "oppressed". I hear Amsterdam is lovely, and they would accept you with loving arms and other parts if thats your thing.

Yeah, that idea of a country where people could live freely without a government dictating which race, religion and so forth were the "best" ones was probably a stupid idea anyway. We should all be following the fine example of Saudi Arabia, just with different prejudices.

What exactly are gay people doing that have a direct effect on you?

You may have missed it and he may not repeat it: Daddy was gay. Daddy left Mommy. Little PcBgone became a very sad, very angry person with some serious ass Daddy issues who appears to be way too old to still be letting something like that ******* up his whole life the way it clearly is.

[AP_piano295]

I am in favor of giving conservative america the boot they can keep the middle bit and the south we can have the west coast and the northeast 1/2 of virginia and up.

Lets see how long it takes them to come running back...

[IgnatiusTheKing]

I am in favor of giving conservative america the boot they can keep the middle bit and the south we can have the west coast and the northeast 1/2 of virginia and up.

Lets see how long it takes them to come running back...

So you just want the broke parts of the country? Not very smart...