KO on Prop 8 by Khyron

America loves a winner!

The people have spoken, and that's not good enough? Looks like Gays are asking to be treated special.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 11, 2008 6:53 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

And so...now when people vote against something, if the special interest disagree...it can be overturned.

JUST. FUCKING. GREAT.

Welcome to the domestic tyranny that uses propoganda to brainwash the sheeple.

Time for the true patriots to water the tree of liberty.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 11, 2008 6:53 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"The people have spoken, and that's not good enough? Looks like Gays are asking to be treated special (sic)."

So, if the majority of people voted to reinstitute slavery would you be OK with that ?

Obviously (and I can't believe I have to point out this obvious fact to you, but apparently I DO have to point out the obvious) there are Constitutional considerations when passing laws.

BTW, gays aren't looking to be 'treated special', they're looking to have exactly the same rights, privileges, limits and responsibilities as everyone else. That 'equal protection under the law' concept you seem to hold in such disdain.

***************************************************************

And yet once again, to no one's surprise, you're wrong.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 11, 2008 7:03 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"The people have spoken, and that's not good enough? Looks like Gays are asking to be treated special (sic)."

So, if the majority of people voted to reinstitute slavery would you be OK with that ?

Obviously (and I can't believe I have to point this obvious fact to you, but apparently I DO have to point out the obvious) there are Constitutional considerations when passing laws.

BTW, gays aren't looking to be 'treated special', they're looking to have exactly the same rights, privileges, limits and responsibilities as everyone else. That 'equal protection under the law' concept you seem to hold in such disdain.

***************************************************************

And yet once again, to no one's surprise, you're wrong.

This ain't close to slavery, and as the #'s show, don't even try to sell that to the blacks either. They don't buy that claim that gays are the 21st century version of blacks and their struggle for REAL civil rights, at a rate of 70-80%.

Gays DO have exactly the same rights as anyone else. That point is moot. As of 2007, California affords domestic partnerships all of the same rights and responsibilities as marriages under state law (Cal. Fam. Code §297.5). Among these:
Making health care decisions for each other in certain circumstances
Hospital and jail visitation rights that were previously reserved for family members related by blood, adoption or marriage to the sick, injured or incarcerated person.
Access to family health insurance plans (Cal. Ins. Code §10121.7)
Spousal insurance policies (auto, life, homeowners etc..), this applies to all forms of insurance through the California Insurance Equality Act (Cal. Ins. Code §381.5)
Sick care and similar family leave
Stepparent adoption procedures
Presumption that both members of the partnership are the parents of a child born into the partnership
Suing for wrongful death of a domestic partner
Rights involving wills, intestate succession, conservatorships and trusts
The same property tax provisions otherwise available only to married couples (Cal. R&T Code §62p)
Access to some survivor pension benefits
Supervision of the Superior Court of California over dissolution and nullity proceedings
The obligation to file state tax returns as a married couple (260k) commencing with the 2007 tax year (Cal R&T Code §18521d)
The right for either partner to take the other partner's surname after registration
Community property rights and responsibilities previously only available to married spouses
The right to request partner support (alimony) upon dissolution of the partnership (divorce)
The same parental rights and responsibilities granted to and imposed upon spouses in a marriage

Not wrong, nor was I wrong before.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 11, 2008 7:06 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"Gays DO have exactly the same rights as anyone else."

Except marriage, open adoption, fostering and a few additional of those small unimportant rights..

What you're saying is it's not exactly the same, but it's almost like ... You're advocating separate but equal, aren't you ?

***************************************************************

And once again, you're wrong.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 11, 2008 7:11 AM

AGENTROUKA

But why the need for separate but equal? If it's all the same, anyway. What riles people do go against it so determinedly?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 11, 2008 7:12 AM

America loves a winner!

Ignore all the rights and privledges they do have, then yes. Even though they have adoptive stepparent rights and the same parental rights and responsibilities granted to and imposed upon spouses in a marriage

Still right, much to your chagrin.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 11, 2008 7:19 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

So they have everything EXCEPT a few rights --- let's ignore those, shall we ? After all, almost as good is just as good in Rap world. Hey, just b/c you have to go to the back of the bus doesn't mean you can't ride it --- right ? You've got all the rights that count.

And Rap --- when did you stop being an a-religious independent and become a right-wing religious toadie ?

***************************************************************

Along with that roaring, on fire economy, those stockpiles of WMDs, the 95% of 'them' who don't pay taxes, the torture that wasn't that never happened except when it was by a few bad apples, the eavesdropping that never happened but was legal anyway, and the election of McCain --- you're wrong, to no one's surprise - yet again.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 11, 2008 7:27 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Rue,

Its not a right to get married.

They can have civil unions. Maybe.

You, nor the liberal ilk, can force churches to marry people. Separation of church and state remember?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 11, 2008 7:33 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
So they have everything EXCEPT a few rights --- let's ignore those, shall we ? After all, almost as good is just as good in Rap world. Hey, just b/c you have to go to the back of the bus doesn't mean you can't ride it --- right ? You've got all the rights that count.

And Rap --- when did you stop being an a-religious independent and become a right-wing religious toadie ?

***************************************************************

Along with that roaring, on fire economy, those stockpiles of WMDs, the 95% of 'them' who don't pay taxes, the torture that wasn't that never happened except when it was by a few bad apples, the eavesdropping that never happened but was legal anyway, and the election of McCain --- you're wrong, to no one's surprise - yet again.

This has nothing to do w/ religion, Rue. And as for your little fantasy list, the economy was doing great for most of Bush's 2 terms, 'Slam Dunk' , so said Clinton CIA Director George Tenet, I'm more right than Obama, who'll raise taxes anyone who got a tax cut under Bush ( 40% of Americans have no income tax liability to the Fed Gov't ) blah...blah...blah... I'm far more accurate than you.

I'm right. Period.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 11, 2008 7:34 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"You, nor the liberal ilk, can force churches to marry people. Separation of church and state remember?"

Speaking of 'ilk' - wow, anti-black AND anti-gay.

Churches would not be forced to marry gays. That's just a stupid claim (which you obviously believed, so what does that make you ?) to get people riled up.

Here's the REAL issue - what if a church WANTS to marry gays ? Where does the state get off saying they can't get married ?

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 11, 2008 7:39 AM

America loves a winner!

Does the state recognize baptisms ? Why should the state be forced to recognized same sex marriages? Have at it, for all I care. But it's not a marriage by any legal standing.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 11, 2008 7:41 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Churches, like ships' captains, are recognized by the state as authorities that perform legally binding marriages.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 11, 2008 7:43 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

"Speaking of 'ilk' - wow, anti-black AND anti-gay.."

Wow. I am neither of those things, and as much as you'd like to fit me into a little box like that, you cannot.

Too bad, Rue.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 11, 2008 7:49 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Well, let's see --- you think racism can be ended by ending affirmative action and you think that gays shouldn't be able to get married.

I personally don't care what REASONS you may give for your hatreds. Whether you claim to be interested in the consitution or you talk about the natural inferiority of certain people it's all the same. The result is you want to deny real equality in favor of inequality.

***************************************************************

BTW - why is it you never thought to ask yourself why there were so many poor blacks in proportion as compared to whites ?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 11, 2008 7:52 AM

PHOENIXROSE

You think you know--what's to come, what you are. You haven't even begun.

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
What riles people do go against it so determinedly?

Religion. Which, I'd say, should stay out of politics. This is why I've always taken issue with marriage being a religious institution. If people want to get married in a church, that's their choice, but the dictates of the religion shouldn't rule who can get married. That's not separation of church and state.
Everyone should be able to get married, or everyone should have domestic partnerships. Me, I would be fine with it all being domestic partnership, since marriage is a religious institution an' all. But, you know, marriage has also become a state institution, and it's a tradition, and everyone knows what it means already, that two people who are in love are joining their lives together. Also, it's shorter and easier to say, rolls off the tongue so to speak, and people tend to prefer that in their words and terms. So why not call it all marriage, then? Well, if the Church and their sheeple would stop screaming about it, we could right? Except that again brings up keeping religion out of law... I could just go on in that circle.
Bottom line, calling it something different but claiming it's the same thing is patently ridiculous. Calling it the same thing but saying it was a little different would also be ridiculous. Just let everyone have the same options.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 11, 2008 7:57 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Churches, like ships' captains, are recognized by the state as authorities that perform legally binding marriages.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

And in CA, legally binding marriages are between 1 man and 1 woman.

So, we agree ! There's no problem!

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 11, 2008 7:58 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
And as for your little fantasy list, the economy was doing great for most of Bush's 2 terms

Shall I re-post the inflation adjusted GDP, income distribution, and Federal Revenue figures again? Or will you please stop beating this dead horse?

Anyone with one eye and two neurons to rub together could see that as the lower two-quintile incomes sank demand was bolstered by borrowing based on a housing bubble which was based on cheap interest rates. Had nothing to do with Bush, and was doomed to come crashing down like the house of cards that it was. I've been predicting this for about a year. My tagline isn't a joke. Get real.

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 11, 2008 8:06 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"And in CA, legally binding marriages are between 1 man and 1 woman."

And that is discrimination. Glad you see it my way.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 11, 2008 8:20 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

(Ok, I've had enough. Sorry for the rant, folks.)

"you think racism can be ended by ending affirmative action"...

Yes, I do. Make things equal for everybody, instead of trying to balance the scales against another group, we can finally end the bullshit, and just be folks.

"and you think that gays shouldn't be able to get married."

No, I don't think gays should get "married". They can have the same rights as married people under civil unions. But marriage is a religious institution.

"talk about natural inferiority of certain people"

I don't speak of "natural inferiority". People are people. Period. Cultures ARE different, however, and do I deny that some are more advanced than others? No.

I actually crave "real" equality. For all people, INCLUDING WHITE MEN.

That's really where you can't stand it, Rue.

You are so bitter at the way your life turned out, from the poor choices you made I might add, that you need a scapegoat. The "evil white males", are your "other" of choice.

And I'm sure, in your mind, that you make sense.

It the EWM that stopped you from getting that job. Not your own inexperience, ineptitude or attitude.

Can't buy that McMansion? Its the EWM that prevent women from getting a loan. Not, your bad credit.

No guys ask you out? EWM ALWAYS go for the pretty, stupid ones. Right? It has nothing to do with your attitude, your mouth, YOUR looks, or the idea that only Brad Pitt is good looking enough for you. Right? Not to mention that Brad Pitt also has to always agree with you.

So, you maybe go gay. EWMs AGAIN stand in your way. How dare THEY say you can't get MARRIED??!! Civil UNIONS ARNT GOOD ENOUGH, dammit. Sure, you would have all the rights and privileges, such as there are, from being married...but oh hell no!. You want a CHURCH TO HAVE TO MARRY YOU. After all, how would you walk your "bride" down the aisle?

But, its not just the EWM that contributed to Prop 8 is it? No, now it was those Hispanic men. Which, according to you and your belief structure, are just as bad. "They are too conservative and hold women down," you screech.

And, yes, I will even concede that Hispanic men are conservative. Its part of their culture.

But, Rue can't have that. Oh sure, you'll pule about disenfranchisement, and gentrification, and the white-washing of a culture...but that's only if you AGREE with said culture. Otherwise, you wouldn't mind getting rid of it.

Damn, Rue, you are really fucked up.

So, how about next time you think of opening your stupid Pollock mouth.... Don't.

You can spew your self-hatred somewhere else.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 11, 2008 8:21 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
No, I don't think gays should get "married". They can have the same rights as married people under civil unions. But marriage is a religious institution....Sure, you would have all the rights and privileges, such as there are, from being married...but oh hell no!. You want a CHURCH TO HAVE TO MARRY YOU. After all, how would you walk your "bride" down the aisle?

This is 100% wrong. Civil union, marriage, and domestic partnerships are very different from a legal standpoint. Has nothing to do with religion.
First of all, civil unions and domestic partnerships lack MANY of the features of marriage, including portability across state lines, recognition for Federal tax purposes, instant status recognition at hospitals, legal difficulites in obtaining a dissolution etc. It would take a number of (expensive) legal documents to reproduce some of the SAME rights entailed by marriage, including durable power of attorney, HIPPA release, medical power of attorney, wills, etc.

Quote:
The General Accounting Office in 1997 released a list of 1,049 benefits and protections available to heterosexual married couples. These benefits range from federal benefits, such as survivor benefits through Social Security, sick leave to care for ailing partner, tax breaks, veterans benefits and insurance breaks. They also include things like family discounts, obtaining family insurance through your employer, visiting your spouse in the hospital and making medical decisions if your partner is unable to. Civil Unions protect some of these rights, but not all of them.

Secondly, only three states have even "civil unions" Vermont, New Jersey and Connecticut. California and Oregon do NOT recognize "civil unions", they have "domestic partnership laws".

I have absolutely no problem with the concept of gay marriage. I find it ironic that the same peeps who say gays are promiscuous libertines should then restrict homosexuals from expressing their love and commitment in the most durable way possible.

IMHO the only limits that should be placed on marriage are those that would prohibit marriages with inherent imbalances of power between the individuals. We all shrink from the idea of a neurotypical person marrying a "retard", an adult marrying a child, or one person to have many spouses because it allows an inherent imbalance of power. Other than that, I think governments should get OUT of the bedroom.

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 11, 2008 8:42 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"And in CA, legally binding marriages are between 1 man and 1 woman."

And that is discrimination. Glad you see it my way.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

There's no discrimination here what so ever. You have no case.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 11, 2008 8:42 AM

That the people have spoken, is irrelevant when it comes to matters of equality. It saddens me that the people have spoken how they have, but it should not weigh on the duty of the court to declare the measure unconstitutional.

I'm sorry that so many out there, and so many on this board are not staunch defenders of the Spirit of the laws in the Constitution and its Bill of Rights. It is after all, the spirit of equality we are talkig about here. It is the message that is being sent, that "you are not one of us," "you do not get to have this thing that we have." It's so great apparently, that it must not be shared.

By the way, the 9th Amendment is part of the Constitution, and it essentially does give Gays the right to marry. All rights not enumerated in the Constitution should not be construed to deny or disparage others held by the people.

Being that prop 8 flies Directly in the face of the Constitution, which says right at the top that our more perfect union is meant to secure the blessings of liberty,

and being that the law disrespects the 14th amendment which states,

"nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws,"

then it is obvious to me that those of you who would defend this vote, are either ignorant of the Constitution, or uninterested in Protecting the Spirit of our fundamental laws.

I'm not going to call you unamerican, because that's patently ridiculous. You all believe in America, but sadly, you apparently don't know what it is that America is supposed to be, and your thoughts on this issue, do a disservice to us all.

Sure, thoughts are great, and this topic has forced me to do some boning up on my Constitutional understanding, but you have helped to deny rights to your brothers and sisters, you have made us feel less whole as a people, less unified in a common belief in liberty.

This is no different than previous bans on interracial marriage. It helps nobody, and hurts those who would be in love, and would like to demonstrate that love the way the rest of us get to.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 11, 2008 8:44 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Oh, BTW Wulf... I was also kept from jobs because of my gender. I rememeber being in a very distinct minority in university chemistry. When I worked for a source testing company I was prohibited from doing field work for over a year "because we've always had a woman in the lab". I got so pissed I started looking for another job, and started nagging my boss for field-work, which I finally got. I was sexually harassed at work and threatened with termination because I wouldn't knuckle under to an *sshole boss. When I outlasted the jerks and got a promotion, some peeps wouldn't talk to me for months because I was a woman.

It's not a theoretical problem. Both Rue and I are old enough to remember outright, verbally-expressed discrimination. Please get over your hurt feelings as a "picked on" white male. Most of us have suffered some form of discrimintation or another, some of us more so than others. I recognize your suffering, but you're so wrapped up in YOUR story that it seems to blind you to the problems of others.

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 11, 2008 8:46 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Wulf - oddly enough, I'm not bitter, but you do seem to be - as one of those typical 'angry white men' who have it in for anyone who's not a white male.

I have a good job that I enjoy that pays (very) well, I have a loving family who I love very much, and I have good friends. The only thing I worry about is what happens to my disabled family member should I die first, a possibility I've been preparing for nearly two decades.

If you think affirmative action is the CAUSE of discrimination you're seriously, and sadly, mistaken. Discrimination of all types started well before affirmative action (remember slavery ? remember women not having the right to vote or own property ? doesn't that all sound vaguely Taliban-esque ?), and will continue should affirmative action be eliminated.

"You are so bitter at the way your life turned out, from the poor choices you made I might add, that you need a scapegoat. The "evil white males", are your "other" of choice."

BTW
I'm not wrong about the fact that 1) I was the only female in those lines of hundreds of men and 2) I was denied the chance to SUBMIT AN APPLICATION simply because I was female. I was TOLD that but the people at the desk. I never expected a guaranteed apprenticeship - and looking at the line I knew my chances were very poor - probably as close to zero as you can get. But I did expect to be able to at least submit an application.

No matter - I already was accepted to college. I just didn't want to go to college at that time and would have preferred an apprenticeship.

And I'm not wrong about the fact that I was TOLD to not bother submitting the medical school applications, BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T ADMIT FEMALES. Now, they didn't say it was b/c females were inferior, what they said was that they didn't have facilities for females. (That dodge lasted well into the 90's when the Supreme Court ruled it was illegal discrimination.) That was more consequential than the first overt instance of discrimination, but considering that I'm happy with what I do, it didn't make that much of a difference.

As for the rest of your diatribe, it's so stupid it's not worth replying to. But you really need to work on your hatreds.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 11, 2008 8:48 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
There's no discrimination here what so ever. You have no case.

I just posted a whole laundry list of LEGAL differences between marriage and civil union/ domestic partnerhsip and you breeze right past it? If it's a fact you don't like, you ignore it?

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 11, 2008 8:53 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

"then it is obvious to me that those of you who would defend this vote, are either ignorant of the Constitution, or uninterested in Protecting the Spirit of our fundamental laws.

I'm not going to call you unamerican, because that's patently ridiculous. You all believe in America, but sadly, you apparently don't know what it is that America is supposed to be, and your thoughts on this issue, do a disservice to us all."

The "Spirit of the Law" is always up to interpretation.

Which is why, even though it clearly states that the right to have a weapon "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED", is still being "debated". Its "SPIRIT" is questioned.

If we truly followed the LAW, not some fake ass "spirit", we wouldn't even be having these conversations.

Gays could join in civil unions, I could carry a gun wherever I wanted, and we would never have entered into a war without the approval of Congress.

"you apparently don't know what it is that America is supposed to be.."

FUCK.

YOU.

I know that America is NOT supposed to be a PC Nazi state. Where I am forced to follow rules/laws that break my back and spirit.

Its NOT supposed to try and control my thoughts/feelings/words/ideas.

Its not a supposed to be a place where the ruling mafia can force its belief structure down my throat.

MY GOD! Germany is more free than us! Doesn't this ring any alarm bells?!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 11, 2008 8:53 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Oh, and BTW Wulfie

You hate blacks, gays AND 'Pollocks' ? It just gets better and better, doesn't it ?

Just sayin' ...

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 11, 2008 8:55 AM

America loves a winner!

Neither the 9th or the 14 amendments give Gays the right to marry. You're seeing rights there which simply do not exist.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 11, 2008 9:01 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
I know that America is NOT supposed to be a PC Nazi state. Where I am forced to follow rules/laws that break my back and spirit.

How does allowing gays to have the same right to marriage break YOUR spirit? What does it take from YOU? How does it affect YOUR marriage? Are you being forced to marry a man?

Quote:
Its NOT supposed to try and control my thoughts/feelings/words/ideas.

You OTOH like to control the thoughts and feelings of others? Like gays who want to get married? Like pushing the notion of "self-responsibility" instead of "compassion"?Seems like your idea of "freedom" only runs in YOUR direction.

Quote:
Its not a supposed to be a place where the ruling mafia can force its belief structure down my throat.

And likewise, you cannot force your beliefs down other peoples' throats. Everything you've said, Wulf, contains inherent self-contradiction. YOU want things YOUR way and ONLY your way, and anything else is some form of tyranny. You don't seem to realize that you're tyrranizing others.

Whatever happened to "live and let live"?

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 11, 2008 9:02 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
No, I don't think gays should get "married". They can have the same rights as married people under civil unions-Wulf

There's no discrimination here what so ever. You have no case.- Rapo

I just posted a whole laundry list of LEGAL differences between marriage and civil union/ domestic partnerhsip and you breeze right past it? If it's a fact you don't like, you ignore it?-Signy

Just sayin'.

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 11, 2008 9:06 AM

explain your position Rap. Equal protection under the law means what to you? That a gay guy is perfectly within his rights to marry a woman? I said it clearly, it is the spirit of the law that you are shitting on. You could say that this law is not discriminating, but you would be lying. Discrimination is the message. Disaproval is the message. Jesus, I swear you could just as easily be here defending separate but equal bathroom laws for gays and straights, if such a law passed. You must always take into account the spirit of the law, not just the frikken letter of it.

And what the hell does the 9th amendment mean o you? nothing? just kind of a throwaway that they needed to round out the Bill of Rights with?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 11, 2008 9:14 AM

America loves a winner!

It doesn't mean a man can marry a man. That's for sure.

The people have spoken. Twice now. Get over it, move on.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 11, 2008 9:17 AM

Wulf, you crazy motherfucker,

give me the practical application of why marriage cannot be performed between same-sex couples? If the only reason we pass the law is because we don't like the idea of it, then the intention of that law is very much discriminatory.

I think it's "HI-larious" by the way, that you pointed out that Germany is more free than us, a Nation which has Life-Partnerships uniformly across the nation. It's not marriage, but we can't boast that degree of freedom throughout the U.S., so I guess I have to give you that one. They must have stopped naming their children Wulfie over there.

...............

You truly have managed to twist shit around ridiculously in your head. You see somebody elses right to do what they want to as an infrinement of your right not to let them? Is that truly what you're saying here? Good God man!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 11, 2008 9:18 AM

ohhh

is Rap out of all ideas but "majority rule"...

the Constitution will speak, and has over and over...you should get over it and move on.

by the way, those crazy librul judges that declared it unconstitutional last time? I think it was 7 out of 8 that were appointed by republicans.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 11, 2008 9:26 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

"Marriage" by definition is a RELIGIOUS institution.

I have never said that gays can't have a civil union or a "Life-Partnership". In fact, if they did, it would end this conversation.

Or would it?

Gays, and their supporters, want the churches and the "synagogues", temples, and whatever else to be forced to "marry" them.

I am against the government forcing religious institutions to go against THEIR BELIEFS.

If the church, or an religious institute believes that marrying a gay is a sin, then they should be allowed to practice that belief, and NOT MARRY THEM.

However, I DO NOT believe that gays shouldnt be allowed the same rights as a heterosexual couple under the the law.

One is a spiritual matter, the other is a law matter.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 11, 2008 9:30 AM

if marriage by definition is a religious institution, then states have no business recognizing any marriages.

It is not though, and marriage predates Christianity, so that is not its origin.

We've been over this before Wulf. A church not only is within its rights not to marry a gay couple, it is within its rights, not to allow gays through its doors.

If a church wants to marry gay couples, would you step on the sepparation of church and state and mandate that it is disallowed?

you are quite aware I hope, that no government agency has stepped in and forced Catholic Churches to make women arch bishops?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 11, 2008 9:33 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

You know, it might be better if gays came up with their own "church".

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 11, 2008 9:34 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
"Marriage" by definition is a RELIGIOUS institution.

No, it is not. I got "married" in a courthouse. No clergy was involved, but nonetheless all of the rights and obligations of "marriage" came with it, including the ability to file joint federal taxes and have our union recognized in all 50 states.

Quote:
I have never said that gays can't have a civil union or a "Life-Partnership". In fact, if they did, it would end this conversation.

IF a "life partnership" COULD be created with all of the rights of marraige I'd be all for that. But that would require that ALL states change THEIR laws to agree to recognize "life partnerships" and Federal law would have to be changed as well. But it doesn't have to be that way, because the LEGAL definition of marriage exists and is recognized in all 50 states.

Quote:
Or would it? Gays, and their supporters, want the churches and the "synagogues", temples, and whatever else to be forced to "marry" them.

No, that is absolutely NOT TRUE. In fact, the vast majority of gay marriages performed in CA were performed at city halls etc. The gay marriages performed in church or synagogue were only performed when the cleric (of whatever faith) volunteered to bless the union.

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 11, 2008 9:36 AM

there are gay catholics and gay christians, and there are denominations of both where they are welcome, and recognized, and can be married.

They have churches where they are wanted. These degrees of tolerance, and interpretations of the bible are no different than the grand distinctions between catholicism and protestantism, Jahova's witness, Mormanism, Ad nauseum. Nobody has a lock on the true intention of your God, or on the meaning of the words in the bible.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 11, 2008 9:37 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Wulf

After ALL of the posts you're STILL reduced to 'separate but equal' ? "You know, it might be better if gays came up with their own "church"."

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 11, 2008 9:43 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Well there is a serious misunderstanding on Wulf's part, that marriage is a religious institution and that "gay marraige" would require churches to perform "gay marriages".

Look, Wulf as I said, I got "married" in a courthouse. No religion involved, and yet- here I am, married IN THE EYES OF THE LAW.

But let's use YOUR logic: Let's say that legal recognition of "gay marriage" would REQUIRE religions to perform gay marriages.

I'm a hetero. Law recognizes hetero unions. Does that mean that although I was born Catholic, that a synagogue MUST marry me because my "marriage" is recognized by law??? I'm now areligious- are Presbyterian Chruches FORCED to marry me because my marriage is recognized by law??

No.

Churches can refuse to marry whomever THEY refuse to marry, even if THE LAW recognizes the marriage as legal. Marriage in a church is a voluntary act, that means that both Church and partners have to agree to it.

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 11, 2008 9:49 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Sigy,

Then what the fuck are we talking about?

Btw, your marriage is a civil union. It is recognized by the state, but not by the church of whatever religion you profess in.

I have never said that gays couldn't get what you have.

I don't give a fuck if gays want to get a civil union. But they want it to be recognized as a "marriage", which is a religious institution.

Marriage is different from civil unions. Maybe thats where the confusion lies.

Its different because marriage is recognized by the state and the church of your belief.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 11, 2008 10:02 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"Definition: A civil marriage is one where the marriage ceremony has a government or civil official perform the ceremony.
A civil marriage is a wedding that takes place without any religious affiliation and meets the legal requirements of the locale."

Marriage is NOT a religious ceremony. BTW - pastors etc are given state authority to perform marriages that are recognized as legal marriages. The religious ceremonies derive their validity from civil laws and are granted authority by civil institutions, not the other way around.

***************************************************************

BTW: That's why the FLDS claims their marriages are 'spiritual marriages' and not legal marriages, b/c they sect hasn't been granted authority to perform legally binding marriages.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 11, 2008 10:04 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Sigy, Then what the fuck are we talking about? Btw, your marriage is a civil union. It is recognized by the state, but not by the church of whatever religion you profess in.

No, my marriage is NOT a "civil union", it is a "civil marriage". This is the part that YOU don't understand.

There are LEGAL ramifications to whether something is called a "marriage" or a "civil union". States have laws recognizing each other's marriages. My (civil) marriage is recognized in the state where we were married (NY) and ALSO where we now reside (CA)... and in all the other 48 states as well. Our marriage is recognized by the Federal government which allows us to file joint income tax returns. If we were to end our marriage (in whatever state) there are laws defining the dissolution and separation of assets. As a married couple, we can adopt.

Given all that, clearly we are a "married couple" even though we had a civil marriage, not a religious one.

If we had a "civil union" that would ONLY be recognized by the State where it was performed (NY) but by NO OTHER STATE. A "civil union/ domestic partnership" is a "civil contract" which is recognized ONLY IN THAT STATE. It is NOT recognized by the Federal government, nor by any other state. It entails far fewer rights and benefits regarding insurances, wills, etc. If you go to a hospital as a domestic partner, you'd better bring your medical power of attorney, durable power of attorney and HIPPA release because otherwise you'd be screwed, especially if you were NOT in the state where your civil union/ domestic partnership was filed.

Civil marriage, civil union: not the same thing.

Civil marriage, religious marriage: Both legally recognized, but a religious ceremony is a voluntary act and not required by law.

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 11, 2008 10:52 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

So given all that... how do you feel about civil marriage for gays?

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 11, 2008 11:08 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Ehh,

I object to the term "marriage" for a lifestyle choice.

But its not my call anyways.

It has been decided. By the people.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 11, 2008 11:21 AM