Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,816 Year: 3,073/9,624 Month: 918/1,588 Week: 101/223 Day: 12/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Cali Supreme Court ruling on legality of same-sex marriage ban
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 226 of 448 (467724)
05-23-2008 3:17 PM
Reply to: Message 225 by FliesOnly
05-23-2008 3:04 PM


Re: Define marriage to allow bigotry?
Seriously CS, when you put forth such a loaded, total piece of crap, stupid, insulting argument like: "I cannot marry a man either", then what's the point? How do I counter such an asshole statement...by being a bigger asshole?
Seriously, though.
What right do I have that they don't?
And what was it that changed? Be careful here, because you do claim that it (DOMA) was not meant to deny homosexuals the right to marry someone of the same sex. So what changed such that a Republican Congress felt that DOMA was needed?
What changed was people wanting to get gay marriages.
DOMA can't deny them the right to it if they don't have the right in the first place. And DOMA doesn't explicitly deny them the ability to get gay marriages either.
Look, I know you're not stupid so I'm relatively certain that you can see the difference between accepting or disagreeing with someones opinion, and doing some overt act to prevent that person from having access to the same rights you have.
I haven't done anything to prevent anything.
I have nothing left..you win...fuck off.
You really didn't have anything to begin with....
But I would like a reply to Message 222 where I substantiated my claim that marriage was defined before DOMA.
quote:
For, certainly, no legislation can be supposed more wholesome and necessary in the founding of a free, self-governing commonwealth, fit to take rank as one of the co-ordinate states of the Union, than that which seeks to establish it on the basis of the idea of the family, as consisting in and springing from the union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony
That's a quote from the Supreme Court in Murphy v. Ramsey in 1885.
I guess it wasn't as implicit as I thought.
Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by FliesOnly, posted 05-23-2008 3:04 PM FliesOnly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 249 by ramoss, posted 05-26-2008 5:14 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 261 by FliesOnly, posted 05-28-2008 1:39 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 227 of 448 (467736)
05-23-2008 7:27 PM


Someone just emailed me this vid from youtube.

I'm trying to see things your way, but I can't put my head that far up my ass.

Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5500 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 228 of 448 (467738)
05-23-2008 7:48 PM
Reply to: Message 218 by FliesOnly
05-23-2008 1:40 PM


Re: Just take "marriage" out of the law
FO writes:
Can you even put forth a valid argument as to why homosexuals should not be allowed, in this Country, to marry one another.
If you had been paying attention, FO, you would know that I don't oppose "gay marriage." I opposed the law being involved with the business of marriage, gay or otherwise. The law should draw a line after civil unions and stay out the business of marriage. Then everybody and their pets can get married if they choose to, and I don't have to be a part of it.
Does the law regulate things like religious confirmations, Jewish circumcisions, and whether or not you get an artificial Christmas tree? Does the law regulate what sex you have to be to be Queen of the Rose Bowl Parade? Does the law regulate inter-stall shoe tapping in airport restrooms? (Well, maybe it should.) So why does the law need to regulate marriage?
And most of all, why would gay people want the government to marry them, anyway? It's the same government that kills innocent families in their beds just because they happened to be at home in Baghdad? Civil unions”isn't that the issue where the law ought to be concerned? Legal protection”isn't that it? Or do they just want to fuck with the minds Mr. and Mrs. Jones who would never think for a moment of tapping someone else's shoe in the stall next door for anything but toilet paper?
”HM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by FliesOnly, posted 05-23-2008 1:40 PM FliesOnly has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by Taz, posted 05-23-2008 7:53 PM Fosdick has not replied
 Message 232 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-24-2008 12:39 AM Fosdick has replied

Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 229 of 448 (467739)
05-23-2008 7:53 PM
Reply to: Message 228 by Fosdick
05-23-2008 7:48 PM


Re: Just take "marriage" out of the law
senile hoot writes:
If you had been paying attention, FO, you would know that I don't oppose "gay marriage." I opposed the law being involved with the business of marriage, gay or otherwise.
This is bullshit. The only times I see you raise your voice in opposition of legal marriage is when the issue of gay marriage comes up. You and I both know that this is just a copout. So, stop pretending.

I'm trying to see things your way, but I can't put my head that far up my ass.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by Fosdick, posted 05-23-2008 7:48 PM Fosdick has not replied

Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 230 of 448 (467745)
05-23-2008 9:27 PM


Here comes the artillery
Save California <----click link
quote:
ACTION: If your county approved Prop. 22, please call your county clerk immediately. Urge him or her not to issue marriage licenses to anyone but a man and a woman. Urge your county clerk to:
Do what's right, maintain public order, uphold the marriage statutes, and respect the democratic process by NOT issuing any 'same-sex marriage' licenses until the people decide this issue in November. Please enforce the marriage statutes and Proposition 22, which both say marriage is only for a man and a woman. Decline to go along with the court's nonsense. The separation of powers provision of the California Constitution prohibits the court from legislating from the bench. That's why even Chief Justice Ron George told the L.A. Times he didn't know whether his ruling would be accepted." Remember, even if county clerks say they MUST follow the Supreme Court decision, that's not true and you should tell them so. The California Supreme Court has no constitutional authority to impose new laws -- especially laws that go against marriage and family, the foundation of society (see California Constitution, Article 3, Section 3 and Article 4, Section 1). Only the Legislature and the voters can make new laws with statewide application.
Ask your county clerk if they were a Nazi officer during WWII and had been ordered to gas the Jews, would they? At the Nuremberg trials, they would have been convicted of murder for following this immoral order. And should have states obeyed the 1857 Dred Scott decision designating black slaves as "property," not "persons"? Abraham Lincoln reacted with disgust to the ruling and was spurred into political action, publicly speaking out against it. Several state legislatures essentially nullified the decision and declared that they would never permit slavery within their borders, no matter who ordered them to do so. Likewise, the ruling to destroy the man-woman definition of marriage should not be obeyed.
So, apparently, handing out marriage licenses to gay couples is the same as gassing Jews.

I'm trying to see things your way, but I can't put my head that far up my ass.

lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4716 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 231 of 448 (467746)
05-23-2008 9:35 PM
Reply to: Message 224 by Fosdick
05-23-2008 2:41 PM


Re: Define marriage to allow bigotry?
HM writes:
l2 writes:
For a man to have the same rights as a women, he must be allowed to marry a man. [As if this sentence stood alone.]
Well, he can always have a sex change, you know. Then he could marry the man he loves. He's free to do that; so am I. The only thing that separates us from doing that is CHOICE. And his choices are EXACTLY the same as mine.
I’m having several problems with your standard of “exactly the same as mine.”
One ” and this I find truly amazing ” is that in my perusal of the Constitution your name never came up even once. They seemed to be referencing one citizen in regard to other citizens in general, not you.
Two, did you have to have a sex change before you got married? I’m getting confused because I’m unsure of what the rules are for selecting which word to play semantics with. If you could clarify this point it would be truly helpful.
There are others, but I have to get past these before I can frame the others suitably.

Kindly
A mind changed against its will is of the same opinion still.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by Fosdick, posted 05-23-2008 2:41 PM Fosdick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 238 by Fosdick, posted 05-24-2008 11:08 AM lyx2no has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 232 of 448 (467756)
05-24-2008 12:39 AM
Reply to: Message 228 by Fosdick
05-23-2008 7:48 PM


Re: Just take "marriage" out of the law
So why does the law need to regulate marriage?
The law needs to regulate marriage because it is a legal social contract and also there are over 1000 laws that mention the word marriage. We need laws to regulate contracts.
And most of all, why would gay people want the government to marry them, anyway? It's the same government that kills innocent families in their beds just because they happened to be at home in Baghdad? Civil unions”isn't that the issue where the law ought to be concerned? Legal protection”isn't that it? Or do they just want to fuck with the minds Mr. and Mrs. Jones who would never think for a moment of tapping someone else's shoe in the stall next door for anything but toilet paper?
They want health insurance through their 'spouse'.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by Fosdick, posted 05-23-2008 7:48 PM Fosdick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 236 by Fosdick, posted 05-24-2008 10:40 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Jaderis
Member (Idle past 3425 days)
Posts: 622
From: NY,NY
Joined: 06-16-2006


Message 233 of 448 (467765)
05-24-2008 5:49 AM
Reply to: Message 153 by Granny Magda
05-21-2008 1:44 PM


Re: Just take "marriage" out of the law
Just poppin in for a second.
People have to be discriminated against by their own state so that we don't have to change a form? That is the clearest example of someone clutching at straws that I have ever seen.
Well, that's nothing special from CS. He was against gay marriage in another long ago thread because he felt that his future marriage to a woman might be cheapened by the fact that he might want to "marry" his BMX buddy in order to give him benefits. He comes up with all sorts of excuses to be a bigot, which is unfortunate because he is usually a pretty rational guy. The idea of queers having equal rights apparently brings out the stupid in a lot of otherwise intelligent people.

"You are metaphysicians. You can prove anything by metaphysics; and having done so, every metaphysician can prove every other metaphysician wrong--to his own satisfaction. You are anarchists in the realm of thought. And you are mad cosmos-makers. Each of you dwells in a cosmos of his own making, created out of his own fancies and desires. You do not know the real world in which you live, and your thinking has no place in the real world except in so far as it is phenomena of mental aberration." -The Iron Heel by Jack London
"Hazards exist that are not marked" - some bar in Chelsea

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by Granny Magda, posted 05-21-2008 1:44 PM Granny Magda has not replied

Jaderis
Member (Idle past 3425 days)
Posts: 622
From: NY,NY
Joined: 06-16-2006


Message 234 of 448 (467768)
05-24-2008 6:39 AM
Reply to: Message 155 by New Cat's Eye
05-21-2008 2:03 PM


Re: Just take "marriage" out of the law
I really should just stay in lurk and learn mode, but these threads bring me out again and again.
I think that a ban on gay marriage is uncalled for. But the way marriage currently is, two men cannot marry. I don’t think that it is a right for two men to marry each other. They still have the right to marriage, but it must be within the bounds of marriage. I just don’t want to change marriage one day because we don’t know what the ramifications will be.
Ramifications? Please, do inform us of the possible ramifications of two men (or women!) marrying. Even if you "don't know" just give us a hint of what is going through your mind when you think about this.
If states want to do it individually, then that is up to them. They’ll have to do the redefining themselves.
The problem with that is that I can get legally married in Massachusetts (and CA - just in time for my birthday!) but if I want to move, my marriage does not move with me. In cases like this, "states rights" arguments (which BTW used to be and are still code words for bigots to trample on the Constitution) have to cede authority to the US Constitution. Just like the "majority rules" arguments. The Constitution is in place for a reason. How would you like it if you got married in NY and then decided to move to WA and all of a sudden you weren't married anymore? Talk about a mountain of paperwork (since you are so concerned about that).
You can’t identify race like you can gender. Having marriage defined by race has nothing to base the definition on. Its really not the same thing at all.
Sure it is. Let me introduce you to my friend Alex (virtually, of course). You can usually automatically assign gender with one look (or even a glance), but not always. Sure, she used to be a long haired, beautiful "girl," but she now considers herself male and even without the testosterone or the surgery it is hard to tell.
It's also irrelevant. Identification of race was really not that hard. Especially under the "racial integrity" laws that were passed where your race was assigned at birth and had to be proven in order to get married.
The arguments against gay marriage are the same as those against inter-racial marriage. Deal with it.
Health Insurance policies would have to change too if any two people can be married.
For fucks sake! It's not just about "health insurance policies."
That is definitely a benefit, but I want to make sure that the woman that I spend my life with is able to visit me in the hospital if I ever get sick in Mudlick, Kentucky (real town, BTW...had a girlfriend from there). I had to have my stepfather and grandfather speak up for me to get in to see my mother in Alabama when she went into a diabetic coma at 45 because she looked about 30 and they were suspicious when I said I was her daughter. I was furious! I flew in from South Florida and I had to wait to see my own fucking mother because they thought I might not have been her relative! That was heartbreaking enough. I can't imagine the pain that people have to go through when they are refused entrance to see their "life partners" (please excuse me while I gag on that term). Or when their zealous parents/exes/children! can trump their decisions because they don't have any kind of "documentation" to prove their relationship.
Fuck health insurance and fuck you. That is the least of our worries.

"You are metaphysicians. You can prove anything by metaphysics; and having done so, every metaphysician can prove every other metaphysician wrong--to his own satisfaction. You are anarchists in the realm of thought. And you are mad cosmos-makers. Each of you dwells in a cosmos of his own making, created out of his own fancies and desires. You do not know the real world in which you live, and your thinking has no place in the real world except in so far as it is phenomena of mental aberration." -The Iron Heel by Jack London
"Hazards exist that are not marked" - some bar in Chelsea

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-21-2008 2:03 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Jaderis
Member (Idle past 3425 days)
Posts: 622
From: NY,NY
Joined: 06-16-2006


Message 235 of 448 (467770)
05-24-2008 7:50 AM
Reply to: Message 161 by New Cat's Eye
05-21-2008 3:30 PM


Re: Just take "marriage" out of the law
The 1000+ laws that mention the word marriage were written under the presumption that those marriages would be between one man and one woman. I don’t know all the laws and ramifications of undermining those laws with a simple definition change of the word marriage.
Well, apparently a lot of them weren't because states and even the federal gov't has been scrambling to define marriage in the last decade. Why waste time passing a law that defines marriage if it was so accepted before? Could it be bigotry? No. That's way too strong a term, right? You're the one who is so concerned about paperwork and wasted dollars, so how come you didn't speak out against the wasted tax dollars spent when the "one man one woman" marriage laws were passed? The same amount of time and money could have been spent to assure that people actually have civil rights in a country that prides itself on being the "light and beacon of freedom to the world." (paraphrase btw). Or do you have the "as long as I got mine" attitude?
Not exactly. Marriage has always been between one man and one woman, even before DOMA. DOMA was a response to the challenge to that definition
Says who? The question is asked every time this comes up, but no one seems to give a coherent answer. Since when has marriage been considered between one man and one woman only? Where did that idea come from? And why the fierce devotion to it?
DOMA is unconstitutional. It is an unconstitutional response to freaked out, small minded bigots. It needs to be repealed.
But marriage wasn’t defined as being between the same race before the RIA like it is defined as being between one man and one woman even before DOMA. DOMA had to be written because the law didn’t explicitly define marriage and the definition needed to be stated.
Bullshit. It "needed" to be stated because small minded people needed a lift and they voted in order to keep their irrational fear at bay for an election cycle, never once considering that their new law was unconstitutional...you know that document that is the basis for the country that they purport to love with their flag decals and pledges and lapel pins.
Fucking hypocrites.
So now you’ve redefined consummation.
Well, since consummation "traditionally" required proof of a blood stain or a baby 9 months later, then, yes, the definition has been redefined. It's all "he said, she said" or now it's "he said, he said" or "she said, she said."
How is this proven, exactly and how does this affect marriage, in this day and age?
I have a question: After allowing gay marriage, will I be allowed to marry men that I am related to? Can I marry my brother or my cousin? Because it would be helpful to get my cousin on my insurance plan at work as he has none. Is that going to be legal? I honestly don’t know.
Um, no. gay marriage has nothing to do with incestuous marriage, although that would be a great new topic.
I am of the opinion that family structures should grow with the changing times and that includes getting a sibling or cousin or parent that you live with and support (or who supports you) on your health insurance. Of course, my brother can visit me in the hospital any time he wants and without a legal marriage he could probably take my kids away from my partner (although he wouldn't) if I was to take sick or die. But I (and he) still advocate for alternative family support systems in whatever form they take. This includes friends, adult children, parents on their children's insurance, etc. I guess that comes from a family of step-, half-, sorta kinda in the family by default/circumstance. Family is what you make it and who you love/who loves you. Fuck tradition. If I was stuck with tradition then I would have about 100+ people fighting against each other, but instead they love each other and it is great. No holiday meltdowns for me or mine. I love my "non-traditional" family.
But this has nothing to do with marriage benefits. Except in your small mind where we are only fighting for insurance benefits and tax breaks. You and your BMX buddy can blow me. Hmmm...maybe then you or he could get benefits...after all, I am a woman. We could meet in Vegas. Really easy, you know.
I don’t know all of the 1000+ laws that mention marriage. I’m assuming that some of them didn’t take into account that it might be two men instead of one man and one woman and that that failure of accounting could lead to these things your asking me to predict. I don’t know for sure either way, that’s why I think it should be taken into account before we simply change the definition. To not would be irresponsible, IMHO.
The failure to predict an accounting error pales in comparison to the unconstitutionality of the situation. It's already been pointed out to you that forms had to be changed after Loving and that not much else will have to be changed, except people's minds.
We are not even asking that we be married by your churches. Just that we be recognized by the state so that we can provide security for our spouses and children. And maybe just a little bit of dignity.

"You are metaphysicians. You can prove anything by metaphysics; and having done so, every metaphysician can prove every other metaphysician wrong--to his own satisfaction. You are anarchists in the realm of thought. And you are mad cosmos-makers. Each of you dwells in a cosmos of his own making, created out of his own fancies and desires. You do not know the real world in which you live, and your thinking has no place in the real world except in so far as it is phenomena of mental aberration." -The Iron Heel by Jack London
"Hazards exist that are not marked" - some bar in Chelsea

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-21-2008 3:30 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 237 by Fosdick, posted 05-24-2008 10:53 AM Jaderis has not replied
 Message 239 by Libmr2bs, posted 05-24-2008 11:21 PM Jaderis has not replied
 Message 240 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-25-2008 10:54 AM Jaderis has replied

Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5500 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 236 of 448 (467785)
05-24-2008 10:40 AM
Reply to: Message 232 by New Cat's Eye
05-24-2008 12:39 AM


Larry Craig Bobblefoot Day
CS, it's a little late”two days ago”but did you happen to participate in the Larry Craig Bobblefoot Day? I couldn't afford the gas it takes to get out to SeaTac airport for the celebrtations.
”HM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-24-2008 12:39 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 241 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-25-2008 10:55 AM Fosdick has replied

Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5500 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 237 of 448 (467786)
05-24-2008 10:53 AM
Reply to: Message 235 by Jaderis
05-24-2008 7:50 AM


Re: Just take "marriage" out of the law
Jaderis writes:
Fuck tradition.
Yeah! Fuck it right up the Hershey Highway!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by Jaderis, posted 05-24-2008 7:50 AM Jaderis has not replied

Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5500 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 238 of 448 (467788)
05-24-2008 11:08 AM
Reply to: Message 231 by lyx2no
05-23-2008 9:35 PM


Re: Define marriage to allow bigotry?
lyx2no writes:
I’m having several problems with your standard of “exactly the same as mine.”
One ” and this I find truly amazing ” is that in my perusal of the Constitution your name never came up even once. They seemed to be referencing one citizen in regard to other citizens in general, not you.
It didn't? They must have written the Constitution before I came to this forum as "Hoot Mon."
Two, did you have to have a sex change before you got married? I’m getting confused because I’m unsure of what the rules are for selecting which word to play semantics with. If you could clarify this point it would be truly helpful.
Fortunately, the women I married didn't require me to get a sex change. Furthermore, I could never find a man to marry who was sexy enough for me to want to whack off my unit. But the men I met in airport restrooms were all losers. It might have been different if Rock Hudson had shown up.
”HM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by lyx2no, posted 05-23-2008 9:35 PM lyx2no has not replied

Libmr2bs
Member (Idle past 5726 days)
Posts: 45
Joined: 05-15-2008


Message 239 of 448 (467851)
05-24-2008 11:21 PM
Reply to: Message 235 by Jaderis
05-24-2008 7:50 AM


Re: Just take "marriage" out of the law
There are some interesting opinions about the meaning of marriage. What I've always found is that it is very difficult to make up a word and then find something to give it meaning. Normally its vice versa and people accept it as a definition else it vanishes into oblivion. Marriage has always been accepted in society as a union of men and women (not necessarily in the singular). I'm unaware of any other interpretation prior to governments adopting a legal status to the definition.
Ever wonder why male jurists always wear robes? Wonder what the public would say if it had been reported that the court showed prejudice when they all appeared at the bench wearing dresses?
Pardon my rhetorical sililoquy on judges.
Edited by Libmr2bs, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by Jaderis, posted 05-24-2008 7:50 AM Jaderis has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 242 by Fosdick, posted 05-25-2008 12:45 PM Libmr2bs has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 240 of 448 (467887)
05-25-2008 10:54 AM
Reply to: Message 235 by Jaderis
05-24-2008 7:50 AM


Re: Just take "marriage" out of the law
Jaderis,
Fisrt off, fuck you for the personally attacks. Things like this:
Well, that's nothing special from CS. He was against gay marriage in another long ago thread because he felt that his future marriage to a woman might be cheapened by the fact that he might want to "marry" his BMX buddy in order to give him benefits. He comes up with all sorts of excuses to be a bigot, which is unfortunate because he is usually a pretty rational guy. The idea of queers having equal rights apparently brings out the stupid in a lot of otherwise intelligent people.
are a violation of Rule 10:
quote:
Keep discussion civil and avoid inflammatory behavior that might distract attention from the topic. Argue the position, not the person.
And I don’t think we’re ever going to see eye-to-eye on anything. You’re just too different and when I see things like:
states rights" arguments (which BTW used to be and are still code words for bigots to trample on the Constitution)
Fuck tradition.
then I think there really isn’t any point to me replying to you. And that you would rather just label me a bigot than listen to what I’m saying and try to understand me, makes you a bigot as well. So welcome to the club you intolerant bigot.
But I will answer your questions .
Ramifications? Please, do inform us of the possible ramifications of two men (or women!) marrying. Even if you "don't know" just give us a hint of what is going through your mind when you think about this.
More claims to the health insurance company that I use driving up the cost of my insurance.
How would you like it if you got married in NY and then decided to move to WA and all of a sudden you weren't married anymore?
I wouldn’t move to WA then. There’s plenty of laws that I don’t like. I just obey them anyways.
Why waste time passing a law that defines marriage if it was so accepted before?
Because the definition needed to be explicit.
Says who? The question is asked every time this comes up, but no one seems to give a coherent answer. Since when has marriage been considered between one man and one woman only? Where did that idea come from? And why the fierce devotion to it?
See Message 222 and Message 226
Well, since consummation "traditionally" required proof of a blood stain or a baby 9 months later, then, yes, the definition has been redefined. It's all "he said, she said" or now it's "he said, he said" or "she said, she said."
How is this proven, exactly and how does this affect marriage, in this day and age?
That was a response to the request:
quote:
Give a specific law that would be significantly changed in its function by allowing gay marriage.
Don’t quote mine.
BMX
BMX is Bicycle Moto-Cross. I haven’t ridden a bicycle since I turned 16.

I’ve already explained how arguments against same sex marriage are not the same as those against same race marriages and how DOMA is not unconstitutional. I’m not gonna rewrite them just for you. You can reply to the messages where I first wrote them.
We are not even asking that we be married by your churches. Just that we be recognized by the state so that we can provide security for our spouses and children. And maybe just a little bit of dignity.
You could try to change the laws that are preventing you from providing that security or you can try to change the definition of marriage or you can introduce a new term for same sex marriage and set it up so it provides that security.
And one way you can get more dignity is by being more tolerant and less bigoted. I think you said it best:
Fucking hypocrites.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by Jaderis, posted 05-24-2008 7:50 AM Jaderis has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 267 by Jaderis, posted 05-29-2008 1:45 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024