First California gay couples wed

POSTED BY: Geezer
UPDATED: Saturday, January 11, 2025 17:44
VIEWED: 9233
PAGE 1 of 1

GEEZER

Tuesday, June 17, 2008 11:15 AM (P)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7457968.stm

"One of the first couples to exchange vows was veteran gay-rights campaigner Del Martin, 87, and Phyllis Lyon, 83."

Awww. They're so cute.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

AURAPTOR

Tuesday, June 17, 2008 11:24 AM (P)

That's so gay.

( sorry, couldn't resist )

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. "

ARCLIGHT

Tuesday, June 17, 2008 12:47 PM (P)

Divorce lawyers squeal with joy.

WULFENSTAR

Tuesday, June 17, 2008 1:43 PM (P)

Marriage is a religious institution.....how is it the governments business to define what can be a marriage or not?

KWICKO

Tuesday, June 17, 2008 1:43 PM (P)

More power to 'em - Gays have every right to be just as miserable as the rest of the married population... :P

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence[sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

I can't help the sinking feeling that my country is now being run by people who read "1984" not as a cautionary tale, but rather as an instruction manual. - Michael Mock

The Myrmidons were an ancient nation of very brave and skilled warriors as described in Homer's Iliad, and were commanded by Achilles. - Wikipedia

KWICKO

Tuesday, June 17, 2008 1:45 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Marriage is a religious institution.....how is it the governments business to define what can be a marriage or not?

Because what *religion* you are (or aren't, as the case may be) doesn't enter into whether you can get insurance coverage, survivorship benefits, etc. - that's where you need the LEGAL standing.

Besides, my wife and I are atheist. Does that mean we're not married?

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence[sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

I can't help the sinking feeling that my country is now being run by people who read "1984" not as a cautionary tale, but rather as an instruction manual. - Michael Mock

The Myrmidons were an ancient nation of very brave and skilled warriors as described in Homer's Iliad, and were commanded by Achilles. - Wikipedia

WULFENSTAR

Tuesday, June 17, 2008 2:55 PM (P)

Marriage is still a RELIGIOUS institution. Whatever your religion may be. I have a problem with gays using the term marriage. If they are married by a religious instituion (church, synagouge, ect) then it is a marriage. Otherwise, its a civil union.

FLETCH2

Tuesday, June 17, 2008 3:35 PM (P)

I didn't get married in church do I have a civil union?

WASHNWEAR

Tuesday, June 17, 2008 3:49 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
I didn't get married in church do I have a civil union?

If you and your spouse say things like "please" and "thank you" to each other, then I'm pretty sure that's civil...

It was NOBODY'S GORRAM BUSINESS when we got here!

EVILDINOSAUR

Tuesday, June 17, 2008 3:49 PM (P)

yay, I have a friend out there who's getting married in 2 days, im glad he's finally able to

"Haha, mine is an evil laugh."

WASHNWEAR

Tuesday, June 17, 2008 3:58 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Marriage is a religious institution.....how is it the governments business to define what can be a marriage or not?

Besides, my wife and I are atheist. Does that mean we're not married?

Mike

Not at all, my good Sir Kwick-O - according to my excitingly judgemental friends on the Religious Right, you and your good lady wife will merely burn in hell for all eternity, or happily ever after, whichever comes first.

This is my tongue, and this is my cheek...please note their proximity.

It was like ALL THE MISTER & MISS GRUNDYs OF THE WORLD THOUGHT THEY HAD A DIRECT PIPELINE TO THE WILL AND WHIMS OF ALMIGHTY BOG when we got here!

WULFENSTAR

Tuesday, June 17, 2008 4:46 PM (P)

*sigh This is not a religious fundie issue....Its a seperation of church and state issue... and also a states rights issue...

The federal government does not have the right to determine what constitutes marriage. Or doesnt. Marriage is a Religious institution. When you get "married" you are swearing before God, in the company of other fellow believers, that you will love, honor, ect ect.

At best, what gays have is a civil union. Unless the church they belong to allows for gay marriages.

But, most western religions do not allow for gay "marriage".

So, at best, its a civil union. Leave it at that. Be happy with that. Be grateful for that.

STORYMARK

Tuesday, June 17, 2008 4:55 PM (P)

So, if you get maried in a courthouse, it's not really a marriage?

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

WULFENSTAR

Tuesday, June 17, 2008 5:06 PM (P)

No, its a civil union. The "marriage" part comes from whatever church you are under. Despite what might be said.

STORYMARK

Tuesday, June 17, 2008 5:26 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
No, its a civil union. The "marriage" part comes from whatever church you are under. Despite what might be said.

Now, is that your definition, or do you have backing? Looking into it a bit, I find nothing that says a court marraige is anything less than a marriage. And marriage itself is a legal agreement, not strictly a religious institution, so I really don't see where you're coming from here.

I just find it funny that an institution that was untill relatively recently an arranged pairing usually based on economic concerns (despite religious trappings attached) is now being defended solely as a religious institution.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

WHODIED

Tuesday, June 17, 2008 5:28 PM (P)

I can't believe they're letting gay people marry.

We are seriously running out of subsets that we can discriminate against.

Holy Christ! What's next, a black president?

--WhoDied

_______________________

No candles? Well, I brought one. It's extra flamey.

WULFENSTAR

Tuesday, June 17, 2008 5:43 PM (P)

*sigh What EXACTLY is wrong with civil unions for gays? Why must they term it under marriage? Civil unions bestow the same rights as marriage.

Its just not called marriage, nor is is sanctioned by any church.

Its a good compromise.

The fact that they won't take that, and instead insist on forcing the issue, makes me skittish and a bit angry.

CITIZEN

Tuesday, June 17, 2008 5:53 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
*sigh What EXACTLY is wrong with civil unions for gays? Why must they term it under marriage? Civil unions bestow the same rights as marriage.

Why must Christians call their civil union marriage? What makes them so special? It's Jews that are Gods chosen people, only they should be allowed to marry, everyone else should be content with a civil union.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

WULFENSTAR

Tuesday, June 17, 2008 5:58 PM (P)

Its not a minority issue either...

STORYMARK

Tuesday, June 17, 2008 6:02 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
*sigh What EXACTLY is wrong with civil unions for gays? Why must they term it under marriage? Civil unions bestow the same rights as marriage.

Its just not called marriage, nor is is sanctioned by any church.

Its a good compromise.

The fact that they won't take that, and instead insist on forcing the issue, makes me skittish and a bit angry.

And what EXACTLY is wrong with gays being married?

Why should they just "take that", instead of being allowed the same rights given to everyone else?

And why does it make you so angry?

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

WULFENSTAR

Tuesday, June 17, 2008 6:06 PM (P)

Read my above posts...and "so" angry is an overstatement.

CITIZEN

Tuesday, June 17, 2008 6:07 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Its not a minority issue either...

No, because Christians aren't in the minority.

So why do Christians get to call it marriage, Jews were there first and they're Gods chosen people. Christians should be happy with a civil union, they have the same rights. There's nothing intrinsically religious about Marriage, it was around before organised religion, and if organised religion ever vanishes there'll still be marriage. Homosexuals have the same right to call it marriage as anyone else.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

ELVISCHRIST

Tuesday, June 17, 2008 6:09 PM (P)

Okay, there ARE legal ramifications for using the term "marriage", "spouse", and "married"; those are NOT just religious terms or concepts.

And with your logic, you're essentially asking why black people can't just be happy with "separate but equal" treatment. Why? Because there's no such thing in reality; separate in point of fact becomes unequal. So it IS a minority issue.

For all your piety and pontification, I bet you change your tune when it comes time for divorce. Hey, the Bible says 'til death do you part, and let no man rend asunder, and all that good stuff. So let's outlaw divorce, too, since it's not religious to divorce your spouse.

Takin' Care of Business, Baby!

STORYMARK

Tuesday, June 17, 2008 6:12 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Read my above posts...

I did. I remain unconvinced.

Your stance that marriage is soly a religious institution seems a bit faulty. I asked for your support for this view, and you ignored it. So, forgive me if I fail to find your argument compelling.

I see no reason whatsoever that gays people should not be allowed the same rights - period.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

RUE

Tuesday, June 17, 2008 6:14 PM (P)

What I can't figure out is how the state can overrule any particular religion. There are lots of religions, sects, branches that have no problem with gay marriage. If THEY are willing to conduct a religious ceremony what interest does the state have in in saying those marriages aren't legal ? (So long as the marriages are between consenting adults, that is.)

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

GEEZER

Tuesday, June 17, 2008 6:35 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
What I can't figure out is how the state can overrule any particular religion. There are lots of religions, sects, branches that have no problem with gay marriage. If THEY are willing to conduct a religious ceremony what interest does the state have in in saying those marriages aren't legal ? (So long as the marriages are between consenting adults, that is.)

Good question. Unfortunately, many states and the Feds have "Defense of Marriage" laws that define marriage as between one man and one woman, and refuse legal recognition of same-sex marriages performed in places where they are legal. So the gay couples getting married in California may file their State tax return as "Married filing Joint" but as far as the Feds are concerned, they're just two single people. Should be interesting for accountants and tax lawyers next filing season.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

WHODIED

Tuesday, June 17, 2008 7:07 PM (P)

The only interest the state should have is if and how marriage affects tax collection. However, the Judeo-Christian voting block remains determined to force the government to interfere.

Just another example of conservative, big-government intrusion!

--WhoDied

_______________________

Oh, just your standard penance malediction is all.

SIGMANUNKI

Tuesday, June 17, 2008 9:26 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Marriage is a religious institution.....how is it the governments business to define what can be a marriage or not?

Marriage is NOT a religious institution and hasn't been for a long long time. And even when it was, it wasn't for the purposes that you think it was. It was to ensure the rich were able to pass on there lands/etc to there children. Also, at that time, the commoners didn't get married. All that is very very recent.

Also, which religion? Because, there are many many religions that don't have an issue with this. Hell, there are many versions of Christianity that don't have a problem with it.

Please stop trying to shove your ideals down others throats.

----
I am on The Original List (twice). We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

PONYXPRESSINC

Tuesday, June 17, 2008 9:34 PM (P)

It is very cute and I am very happy for them.

My reaction to the debate above:

The most relevant definition I could find in the dictionary I had to hand (Encarta attached to word) is “a legally recognized relationship, established by a civil or religious ceremony, between two people who intend to live together as sexual and domestic partners”.

So as far as the dictionary is concerned a civil ceremony is a fine and dandy marriage and religious bodies do not have dibs on its use.

That aside I guess it’s a matter of perspective. I can imagine that from a religious standpoint a civil ceremony does not a marriage make.

However, as an atheist and a person wed in a civil service I personally find the suggestion that I can’t or shouldn't use the word “marriage” faintly insulting, the implication being that what I have is obviously not as good, less valid because it didn’t take place in front of a religious dignitary.

Only faintly insulted though, because when it comes to the crunch it doesn’t actually matter to me what it gets called. What matters in my godless life is the legal recognition of my union and the fact that in my opinion, who you say the words in front of isn’t really relevant, it’s that you mean them.

RUE

Tuesday, June 17, 2008 10:06 PM (P)

Amen !

From what I understand there is one invariant part to marriage which is the civil contract part. The religious portion is separate. Ministers, priests, and sea captains get the legal authority to make their ceremonies have the same legal standing as those of a judge. (By the power vested in me (by the state ...))

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

SIGMANUNKI

Tuesday, June 17, 2008 11:07 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Amen !

From what I understand there is one invariant part to marriage which is the civil contract part. The religious portion is separate. Ministers, priests, and sea captains get the legal authority to make their ceremonies have the same legal standing as those of a judge. (By the power vested in me (by the state ...))

Not where I'm from. Ministers, etc need to go through some class(es), etc provided by the state and pass before they have the legal authority to marry people. It makes sense because there are legal requirements that are needed in every ceremony. It's been a while so I can't remember all of them but there are three. One being that the person marrying the couple needs to ask, "If there is any reason why these two shouldn't be wed...". That has to be there since a person can't be married to multiple people, etc. And it needs to be explicitly stated that everyone present knows of no reason why it can't be done. It's the ~equivalent of the "The above is true..." statement on signed contracts.

One of the Marriage Commissioners we went to told us that he actually had performed several ceremonies with Priests as they didn't have permission from the state to marry people. The Priest would do his religious thing, and then the Marriage Commissioner would do his to make it legal.

----
I am on The Original List (twice). We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

KWICKO

Tuesday, June 17, 2008 11:10 PM (P)

Yup, and the REASON it needs to be called a marriage instead of something else is this:

One day, there's going to be a rich gay couple, and one of them is going to die, and in their will leave everything to his or her "spouse" - and them someone in the family is going to come forward and challenge the will, saying that the law only allows the estate to pass to the person's lawfully married spouse, and to prove that they'd need a MARRIAGE license, not a "civil union" license.

So you can say that they have the same rights, but sooner or later, it's going to come out that they DON'T have the same rights unless their unions are called by the same name.

If it's not a will, it will be a living will, a DNR, health benefits, or what have you. Anywhere a lawyer thinks they can make good case law, or another lawyer thinks they can save their client a buck or two, you'll have legal challenges to anything that isn't specifically called (and protected exactly the same as) a marriage.

It neither blackens my eye nor breaks my leg to have any two consenting adults enter into a marriage to each other. If two people can find one another and commit to a life of loving and respecting each other, who am I to say their love and commitment aren't as legitimate as mine?

To say that such marriages are destroying the institution of marriage is utter poppycock; conventional marriages have made quite a hash of the institution already! In the United States (that "Christian nation" we always hear about), fully FIFTY-ONE PERCENT of marriages end in divorce. In other words, the MAJORITY of such holy and consecrated unions are utter failures. Seems like religion has a really shitty track record of saying who should or shouldn't marry...

And why is it that many of those on the far right are on their second, third, or fourth wives? Don't they believe in the sanctity of marriage?

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence[sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

I can't help the sinking feeling that my country is now being run by people who read "1984" not as a cautionary tale, but rather as an instruction manual. - Michael Mock

The Myrmidons were an ancient nation of very brave and skilled warriors as described in Homer's Iliad, and were commanded by Achilles. - Wikipedia

KWICKO

Tuesday, June 17, 2008 11:16 PM (P)

Quote:
Not at all, my good Sir Kwick-O - according to my excitingly judgemental friends on the Religious Right, you and your good lady wife will merely burn in hell for all eternity, or happily ever after, whichever comes first.

This is my tongue, and this is my cheek...please note their proximity.

Wash: Tongue noted, cheek ditto. :)

Threatening atheists with hellfire, brimstone, and damnation is an awful lot like telling us that when we die, we're going to Easter Bunny Land, or Santa Claus-ville. It just doesn't compute.

Thanks for having a sense of humor about it all; it cheered ME up, at least. :)

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence[sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

I can't help the sinking feeling that my country is now being run by people who read "1984" not as a cautionary tale, but rather as an instruction manual. - Michael Mock

The Myrmidons were an ancient nation of very brave and skilled warriors as described in Homer's Iliad, and were commanded by Achilles. - Wikipedia

SIGNYM

Wednesday, June 18, 2008 12:06 AM (P)

Finally!

At last they can care for ezch other and entrust their belongings, health, etc with each other.

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

WULFENSTAR

Wednesday, June 18, 2008 1:18 AM (P)

Oh for fraks sake.....

I don't care that they lick carpet, or slip one in the back...

Marriage is a gorram religious institution. Period. Its not some social movement, its not some right for minorities...its a a religious belief.

Im not trying to shove it down anyones throat. YOU are trying to shove the idea that its NOT a religious institution down MY throat (and yes... I get the irony of what Im saying..)

No, if you are joined by a judge, it is NOT marriage...its a civil union.

Yes, I believe being gay is a lifestyle choice. I DON'T believe you are born gay. I think its a choice.

No, being gay is not like being born black, mexican, or whatever. Its a choice.

No, you should not get special treatment in this country because you are "different". God, I am so sick of every little pissant coming out of the woodwork claiming some "special" status.

"I deserve special treatment because X.Y.Z.." Frak off and man up. This country was not forged by little whiney bitches like you. Nor was it fought for so that little puss's could piss and moan about every little thing.

For fraks sake, stop making this country weaker by capitulating to every little minority that wants to whine about being under-represented.

SIGMANUNKI

Wednesday, June 18, 2008 1:48 AM (P)

Requiring EQUALITY is NOT demanding "special status".

And the only thing that I'm requiring of you is to acknowledge THE SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE. Don't like that, then move to a country that doesn't have it!

Christ do you have a cock-eyed perception of reality.

----
I am on The Original List (twice). We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

WASHNWEAR

Wednesday, June 18, 2008 1:52 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Yup, and the REASON it needs to be called a marriage instead of something else is this:

One day, there's going to be a rich gay couple, and one of them is going to die, and in their will leave everything to his or her "spouse" - and them someone in the family is going to come forward and challenge the will, saying that the law only allows the estate to pass to the person's lawfully married spouse, and to prove that they'd need a MARRIAGE license, not a "civil union" license.

So you can say that they have the same rights, but sooner or later, it's going to come out that they DON'T have the same rights unless their unions are called by the same name.

If it's not a will, it will be a living will, a DNR, health benefits, or what have you. Anywhere a lawyer thinks they can make good case law, or another lawyer thinks they can save their client a buck or two, you'll have legal challenges to anything that isn't specifically called (and protected exactly the same as) a marriage.

It neither blackens my eye nor breaks my leg to have any two consenting adults enter into a marriage to each other. If two people can find one another and commit to a life of loving and respecting each other, who am I to say their love and commitment aren't as legitimate as mine?

To say that such marriages are destroying the institution of marriage is utter poppycock; conventional marriages have made quite a hash of the institution already! In the United States (that "Christian nation" we always hear about), fully FIFTY-ONE PERCENT of marriages end in divorce. In other words, the MAJORITY of such holy and consecrated unions are utter failures. Seems like religion has a really shitty track record of saying who should or shouldn't marry...

And why is it that many of those on the far right are on their second, third, or fourth wives? Don't they believe in the sanctity of marriage?

Damn right! Especially that part about the blackened eye and the broken leg - well put. This seems to me a silly and spiteful way of basically giving sh*t to a segment of society and its constituents, like we don't have enough ways of doing that already. And "Bob" knows (if he knows anything), what this country needs is another source of tension and ill will. I can't see any rational reason for it.

It was SO not in the best interests of the common good when we got here!

RUE

Wednesday, June 18, 2008 2:01 AM (P)

"No, if you are joined by a judge, it is NOT marriage...its a civil union."

So, when a couple goes to a JP they don't get a 'marriage license' they get a 'civil union' license ? Puuhhhleeese.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

KWICKO

Wednesday, June 18, 2008 2:10 AM (P)

Quote:
For fraks sake, stop making this country weaker by capitulating to every little minority that wants to whine about being under-represented.

You mean like the Republicans capitulating to the evangelicals? Man, talk about a whiney bunch of little bitches!

Quote:

Damn right! Especially that part about the blackened eye and the broken leg - well put.

Thank you for that, but I'm just the messenger, not the writer. If it was well put, then all credit goes to that great writer Thomas Jefferson, whom I cribbed from and paraphrased.

Quote:
Thomas Jefferson wrote:

But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.
- Notes on Virginia, 1782

If you're gonna steal, steal from the best!

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence[sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

I can't help the sinking feeling that my country is now being run by people who read "1984" not as a cautionary tale, but rather as an instruction manual. - Michael Mock

The Myrmidons were an ancient nation of very brave and skilled warriors as described in Homer's Iliad, and were commanded by Achilles. - Wikipedia

KWICKO

Wednesday, June 18, 2008 2:36 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Oh for fraks sake.....

Marriage is a gorram religious institution. Period. Its not some social movement, its not some right for minorities...its a a religious belief.

So you're saying that in countries that don't recognize religion, there's no such thing as marriage?

Quote:

No, if you are joined by a judge, it is NOT marriage...its a civil union.

I assume you've got case law to prove that point? Something maybe a little bit stronger than "because I said so"?

Quote:

Yes, I believe being gay is a lifestyle choice. I DON'T believe you are born gay. I think its a choice.

Ah, of course - you make a CHOICE to be attracted to who you're attracted to. Tell me, is being straight a lifestyle choice? I mean, if you were straight, and someone told you you needed to CHOOSE to be gay, would that make it instantly desirable to you?

Me neither. You are what you are. There's no scenario where I'm going to say, "Gee, I really love my wife, but that guy's butt is just SOOOOO hot I have to dump her for him."

Quote:

No, you should not get special treatment in this country because you are "different". God, I am so sick of every little pissant coming out of the woodwork claiming some "special" status.

Good. No more "special treatment" for ANYBODY in this country. No more handicapped accommodations (Man up and walk it off. The exercise might do your dead legs some good!), no more free donuts for cops, no more "special treatment" for veterans (things like lifetime healthcare, GI Bill, special consideration for civil service jobs, special consideration for college admittance, etc.), no more special treatment for faith-based initiatives, no more special treatment for Big Business, no more special treatment for Big Oil, no special treatment for Big Pharma and Big Medicine, no special treatment in the form of student loans (get a job and pay for your own education, slacker!), no special treatment for farmers (Adios, crop subsidies! Buenos dias, dustbowl!), no more special treatment for investment banks who go belly up and expect a government bail-out, no more special treatment for CEOs (if your workers can live on $5.85 an hour, so can you, Mr. Executive), no more special treatment for Administration criminals (sorry, Mr. Libby; you're going to have to serve the entire sentence...), no more special treatment for churches (hey, if you're going to run it like a business, we're going to tax you like one)... and the list goes on...

Sign me up! I'm sick of all those little puss's whining about being different, too!

[By the way, before I get flamed for that rant, bear in mind that it is SATIRE. I'm simply illuminating some of the "special" people who get special treatment under our current system.]

Quote:
Frak off and man up. This country was not forged by little whiney bitches like you.

Yes, it was formed by little whiney bitches who simply didn't want to pay their taxes to a government that didn't represent their interests in any way, shape, or form. It sounds so much more manly when you put it that way...

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence[sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

I can't help the sinking feeling that my country is now being run by people who read "1984" not as a cautionary tale, but rather as an instruction manual. - Michael Mock

The Myrmidons were an ancient nation of very brave and skilled warriors as described in Homer's Iliad, and were commanded by Achilles. - Wikipedia

KWICKO

Wednesday, June 18, 2008 2:49 AM (P)

Also, no special treatment for "interrogators" (Put down that water bucket and untie that man, Agent Smith), no more special treatment for small businesses, large businesses, or ANY business, no more special treatment for airline passengers (Would you step over here, Mr. Patel? We just have a few questions for you...), no more special treatment for intelligence analysts (Of COURSE you don't need a warrant for that, Sir! By all means, please listen to whatever phone calls you want to...), no more special treatment for corporate criminals (Well, you DID steal five billion dollars from your shareholders, but since it's a VICTIMLESS crime, I'm just going to give you probation... It's not like you robbed a bank or sold crack...)

Are we on the same page?

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence[sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

I can't help the sinking feeling that my country is now being run by people who read "1984" not as a cautionary tale, but rather as an instruction manual. - Michael Mock

The Myrmidons were an ancient nation of very brave and skilled warriors as described in Homer's Iliad, and were commanded by Achilles. - Wikipedia

PIRATECAT

Wednesday, June 18, 2008 2:55 AM (P)

Gays had it made now they've screwed themselves right into a legal relationship. Nothing last forever not even cornholen for free.

"Battle of Serenity, Mal. Besides Zoe here, how many-" "I'm talkin at you! How many men in your platoon came out of their alive".

RUE

Wednesday, June 18, 2008 3:07 AM (P)

As my co-worker said - they deserve the right to be just as unhappy in marriage as everyone else.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

WULFENSTAR

Wednesday, June 18, 2008 3:15 AM (P)

Good. No more "special treatment" for ANYBODY in this country. No more handicapped accommodations (Man up and walk it off. The exercise might do your dead legs some good!), no more free donuts for cops, no more "special treatment" for veterans (things like lifetime healthcare, GI Bill, special consideration for civil service jobs, special consideration for college admittance, etc.), no more special treatment for faith-based initiatives, no more special treatment for Big Business, no more special treatment for Big Oil, no special treatment for Big Pharma and Big Medicine, no special treatment in the form of student loans (get a job and pay for your own education, slacker!), no special treatment for farmers (Adios, crop subsidies! Buenos dias, dustbowl!), no more special treatment for investment banks who go belly up and expect a government bail-out, no more special treatment for CEOs (if your workers can live on $5.85 an hour, so can you, Mr. Executive), no more special treatment for Administration criminals (sorry, Mr. Libby; you're going to have to serve the entire sentence...), no more special treatment for churches (hey, if you're going to run it like a business, we're going to tax you like one)... and the list goes on...

I agree that there shouldn't be any special treatment for anyone. (Except the part of the handicapped. I'm not heartless, and watching someone try and crip their way into a store is neither funny nor fun.)

My point (and I did get off on a rant before) is more with the term/word "marriage". Gays cannot be "married" UNLESS the church they congregate with allows it. Otherwise, its a civil union...with all the rights and benefits of a married couple.

Believe it or not, I'm a libertarian. I have no problem with gay unions, so long as they don't go shoving it down my throat.

If you are gay, whoopty-do. Just don't go pushing your shit on me. Don't tell me I have to accept it (or reject it) because of XYZ.

I don't care. Its not my business to judge. However, when you take away something of mine that I hold dear (and yes I hold MARRIAGE dear) THEN I have a problem.

RUE

Wednesday, June 18, 2008 3:30 AM (P)

How does having two people of the same sex marrying take away your marriage ??

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

KWICKO

Wednesday, June 18, 2008 3:56 AM (P)

Quote:
Nothing last forever not even cornholen for free.

Yeah, even the Catholic Church has to pay for it now... But it usually only costs 'em two Snickers and a lollipop. ;)

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence[sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

I can't help the sinking feeling that my country is now being run by people who read "1984" not as a cautionary tale, but rather as an instruction manual. - Michael Mock

The Myrmidons were an ancient nation of very brave and skilled warriors as described in Homer's Iliad, and were commanded by Achilles. - Wikipedia

KWICKO

Wednesday, June 18, 2008 4:11 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
How does having two people of the same sex marrying take away your marriage ??

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

That's the part I can't figure out - why is it that if gays can marry, suddenly I can't be married anymore? How does it diminish my love for my wife or my commitment to her?

If gay people can legally commit to their love for one another, how does that lessen your love for your spouse (legally or spiritually), or your love for your Church, or your God's love for you? Is there not enough love to go around, and we need to hoard it to keep it away from others?

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence[sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

I can't help the sinking feeling that my country is now being run by people who read "1984" not as a cautionary tale, but rather as an instruction manual. - Michael Mock

The Myrmidons were an ancient nation of very brave and skilled warriors as described in Homer's Iliad, and were commanded by Achilles. - Wikipedia

SIGMANUNKI

Wednesday, June 18, 2008 5:41 AM (P)

@Wulfenstar:

You keep bringing up your OPINION as if it were reality for everyone. Point of fact, this is not so. In fact, marriage, by any modern definition, does NOT preclude same sex marriage. In fact, it has been generalised to "two people." You not liking this fact doesn't make it go away.

My wife and I are married. We may have been married by a Marriage Commissioner, but our MARRIAGE is recognised as a legal MARRIAGE.

Also, how exactly does the possibility of gays being able to get married "go shoving it down [ your ] throat." Do you think that they will force you to be married to someone of the same sex because you technically could (assuming you live where it's recognised)? How exactly does them being able to get married take marriage away from you?

I'll also mention that there is a really big problem here. You see, we keep bringing up points and new points and you just keep bringing up the same tired flawed rhetoric. Care to say something new?

----
I am on The Original List (twice). We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Wednesday, June 18, 2008 9:43 AM (P)

My dollars don't say "In Allah we trust" or "In Buddha we trust" or any such. Since the gubment has subjected to Christianity, thems the laws and Commandments what should be followed.

KWICKO

Wednesday, June 18, 2008 11:26 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by jewelstaitefan:
My dollars don't say "In Allah we trust" or "In Buddha we trust" or any such. Since the gubment has subjected to Christianity, thems the laws and Commandments what should be followed.

Horseshit. Show me where the "gubment" has "subjected to christianity" - and then prove to me that they've subjected to THIS PARTICULAR BRANCH of it. There ARE Christian churches that recognize and accept homosexuals - some even have openly gay priests and bishops!

"In God We Trust" is about a generic religious term as you could hope to find. Also, it didn't appear on American money at all until the 1860s, and then only on coins. And it was nearly a hundred years later (1957) that it appeared for the first time on American paper currency.

According to the US Treasury, it was originally intended as "a recognition of The Deity", without saying which particular one (you are aware that there is more than one "god", right?)

So thanks for playing, but you're full of shit.

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence[sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

I can't help the sinking feeling that my country is now being run by people who read "1984" not as a cautionary tale, but rather as an instruction manual. - Michael Mock

The Myrmidons were an ancient nation of very brave and skilled warriors as described in Homer's Iliad, and were commanded by Achilles. - Wikipedia

PONYXPRESSINC

Wednesday, June 18, 2008 12:17 PM (P)

Thanks for the Amen Rue.,

Back to the debate at hand...

I went straight to bed after making my post with something niggling at the back of my mind. A little research this morning confirmed the niggle.

Being faintly offended by the suggestion that my my marriage wasn’t one because it was a civil ceremony my mind was on that rather than the specific ins and outs of same sex unions.

Much as it irritates me to add grist to Wulfenstars mill, (though it’s UK grist rather than US grist, so maybe it doesn’t count in this argument) a civil partnership (which is all that is available to same sex couples in the UK) is not considered to be a marriage.

From the Citizens Advice Bureau Website (A free form of legal advice available to all in the UK)

Quote:
"Civil Partnership is a completely new legal relationship, exclusively for same-sex couples, distinct from marriage.

There are a small number of differences between civil partnership and marriage, for example,
• a civil partnership is registered when the second civil partner signs the relevant document, a civil marriage is registered when the couple exchange spoken words.
• Opposite-sex couples can opt for a religious or civil marriage ceremony as they choose, whereas formation of a civil partnership will be an exclusively civil procedure."

It seems that despite my union with my husband being completely godless I am married, yet two people of the same sex are not regardless of having the same rights and obligations from the union.

Simply because I got to say my vows.

I think this is completely bonkers. If I'm married then as far as I am concerned they are.

Wulfenstar might argue that I’m not married because of the lack of religion in my ceremony, however the Church of England would not agree. They recognise civil marriage ceremonies. If I was to divorce and wanted to remarry in church (perish the thought) the Church of England reserves the right to refuse my request as have already been married. It seems I am a little bit godly and righteous even though I didn’t want to be. If it wasn’t for my personal commitment to my marriage and the fact that the idea gives me the heebie jeebies I’d make a lifestyle choice and go shag the first girl who’d have me just out of sheer contrariness (to be clear I don’t give a hoot who anyone else wants to bed as long as they are consenting adults, I just… no, not for me).

If the church wants to reserve the word Marraige for religious unions only then fine, once they have convinced everyone to go along with this I want another word to define my legal and personally binding relationship with my husband.

I did a little reading about the situation in California and as I understand it this right to a same sex marriage may be repealed. I’ll be interested to see how it turns out.

Care to guess which side I'm rooting for?

STORYMARK

Wednesday, June 18, 2008 2:46 PM (P)

So, what's the count on the number of times that Wulfenstar has been asked to back up the "marriage is soley a religious institution" point, and refused to provide anyting but a "because I said so"?

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

PONYXPRESSINC

Wednesday, June 18, 2008 3:30 PM (P)

Also, to contradict the suggestion that a marraige ceremony is purely a religious thing...

Quote:
MARRIAGE

To have and to hold from this day forward, for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, till death us do part.

These marriage vows have been recited at church weddings since 1552, whenever two individuals have willingly pledged to enter into a relationship for life. But before the wedding service was written into the Book of Common Prayer, marriages were much more informal: couples could simply promise themselves to one another at any time or place and the spoken word was as good as the written contract.

No religion involved, a civil matter.

Source : http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/inourtime/inourtime_20020321.shtml

Wiki says the same thing but I thought everyone might be more inclined to believe the BBC.

DIGIFICWRITER

Wednesday, June 18, 2008 3:55 PM (P)

Okay, joining the discussion:

To start, let me make it clear. I'm a Christian (I won't say which denomination because I don't want to spark a 'you're not Christian' argument, since there are some people out there who believe that the members of the faith to which I belong AREN'T Christians despite the fact that we believe in Christ), and, although I believe that homosexuality is morally wrong and that God ordained marriage as between a man and a woman, I also believe that it is not my place to judge a person's choices. Every person who has ever lived on this planet has been given the gift of freedom of choice, and that includes the people on the California Supreme Court. Although my religious beliefs may tell me that the choice those judges have made is wrong morally, they nevertheless have the right to make the choice and judgment they have, as do the people who are taking advantage of the benefits given to them by that decision.

At any rate, for me this issue isn't about whether or not the word 'marriage' is attached to what's happening in California and has already happened in the home state of the new NBA champions (I'm not gonna even attempt to spell it, and can't look it up right now); it's about equality. I think it's a positive thing that at least some people are recognizing that we need to have equal treatment for everyone, even if they are engaging in conduct which could be considered immoral (which is all that can be said about the practice of homosexuality). Since the term 'marriage' has become irreversably connected with certain legal and social rights, that is the term that the Supreme Court in California is using to ensure that a certain portion of the population of this planet receive said rights.

Check out the continuing adventures of the Big Damn Heroes of Joss Whedon's Firefly in [url= http://www.stillflying.net]Virtual Firefly: Here's How It Might Have Been[/url]

WHODIED

Wednesday, June 18, 2008 4:42 PM (P)

On the other hand, maybe we should just coddle the zealots for another generation or two.

It's no different, really, than waiting for bigots to die off.

--WhoDied

_______________________

Okay. Blah, blah, blah, misogynistic. Blah, blah, 'I do however entrust you ... um, with my heart. Take care of my heart, won't you please? Take care of it because, it's all that I have. And, if you let me, I'll take care of your heart too.'

WULFENSTAR

Wednesday, June 18, 2008 4:59 PM (P)

Like children, you must have your way and ONLY your way....

Smoking? Carrying a gun? HELL NO! Freedom of self and liberty only apply to those things WE want!

Grow up.

WHODIED

Wednesday, June 18, 2008 5:14 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Like children, you must have your way and ONLY your way....

Smoking? Carrying a gun? HELL NO! Freedom of self and liberty only apply to those things WE want!

Grow up.

Ha Ha! Funniest thing all day! Nice marriage of the unrelated and off topic...

--WhoDied

_______________________

The walls separating realities will crumble. Dimensions will bleed into each other. Order will be overthrown and the universe will tumble into chaos ... all dark ... forever.

CITIZEN

Wednesday, June 18, 2008 5:21 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Like children, you must have your way and ONLY your way....

Smoking? Carrying a gun? HELL NO! Freedom of self and liberty only apply to those things WE want!

Grow up.

Oh sweet irony.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

STORYMARK

Wednesday, June 18, 2008 5:39 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Like children, you must have your way and ONLY your way....

Smoking? Carrying a gun? HELL NO! Freedom of self and liberty only apply to those things WE want!

Grow up.

Uh... you realize you are the one saying what some people should and should not be able to do. We're all saying equal rights for everyone, you are the one being exclusionary based on what YOU want.

So, take your own advice, and grow up.

(Appologies to Citizen - but I think your irony comment might have flown right over, under the circumstances.)

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

PONYXPRESSINC

Wednesday, June 18, 2008 5:51 PM (P)

DigificWriter wrote:

Quote:
I also believe that it is not my place to judge a person's choices.

And I have to respect you for that even if I don't agree with your religious standpoint on homosexuality. I agree that personal ethics should be between the individual and God or in my case my own conscience as long as they do not negatively effect anyone else.

Someone at this point is bound to argue that same sex marriage negatively affects others but I don't see how.

WULFENSTAR

Wednesday, June 18, 2008 5:52 PM (P)

No, and I will explain what I meant...so that even the slowest here can understand.

So called liberals do not mind taking away the rights of people, on issues they disagree with. These include (but are not limited to) guns and smoking. As in gun and smoking bans.

I live in D.C. and get to listen about how "great" those bans are from the mouth-breathers here.

I AGAIN do not have issue with gays being together. I just don't believe it should be called "marriage"...but rather a "civil union".

Jeebus....

You don't mind curbing some rights, and boosting others...but God help anyone who either disagrees with what you are doing, or says let everyone have true liberty.

STORYMARK

Wednesday, June 18, 2008 6:07 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
No, and I will explain what I meant...so that even the slowest here can understand.

So called liberals do not mind taking away the rights of people, on issues they disagree with. These include (but are not limited to) guns and smoking. As in gun and smoking bans.

I live in D.C. and get to listen about how "great" those bans are from the mouth-breathers here.

I AGAIN do not have issue with gays being together. I just don't believe it should be called "marriage"...but rather a "civil union".

Jeebus....

You don't mind curbing some rights, and boosting others...but God help anyone who either disagrees with what you are doing, or says let everyone have true liberty.

Yeah... we got what you meant. You just don't seem to get it yourself.

One - You are generalizing far too much. Not all Liberals support limiting rights. I do not, nor do many others in this discussion, so your generalization undermines your point.

Two - Those other topics are not the issue at hand. We are discussing Gay Marriage (not guns or cigarettes, M'kay?). In which case, we're all saying equal rights - you are the one wanting rights limited for a small segment of the population - because of your personal views on their lifestyle.

Limiting them to "civil unions" and restricting them from "marriage" is still infringing on their rights. You are the one arguing against "true liberty".

You can't be the only one in a thread in favor of limiting rights - and then say we're the ones trying to take away their liberties.

Do you seriously not get the irony of standing up, and insulting others here, claiming that they are not supporting liberty - when you are the one going "Just not for these people"? Honestly? Can you really be that thick???

Do you grasp this? Shall I type more slowly?

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

RIGHTEOUS9

Wednesday, June 18, 2008 6:22 PM (P)

Wulfenstar,

I don't get exactly what you're saying...

if marriage is solely a religious institution then states have no business even recognizing it...that's a pesky first amendmant issue.

So everything is a civil union under the courts.

But, on the other side of the coin, if gay people can find a church that is willing to join them in holy matrimony, then that would make their marriage legit right? Because that would be a religious institution using the term marriage to bind those two people together. By the way there are such churches...or are we supposed to only accept marriages performed by some demoniations over others? Maybe catholics are more married than Jahovas Witnesses?

KWICKO

Wednesday, June 18, 2008 6:24 PM (P)

Hmmm... Can't say as I know what the hell you're talking about, Wulf. I'm about as liberal as anyone here, and I'm a smoker AND a gun enthusiast. I'm getting ready to pop for my Concealed Handgun License here in Texas (in Austin, the most liberal city in the state, where they STILL let you not only have guns, but carry them!).

I don't really go to bars any more since the city outlawed smoking in ANY establishment (pretty much, pool halls and bingo parlors are okay, which I find more than a little ironic, since most bingo parlors are located in churches...), but I'm still allowed to smoke in my house, outside, or in my car (but I don't smoke in my car, because I can't stand the smell).

So, to me, your attempt at clarification makes no sense whatsoever.

You're pissed because you can't smoke in public buildings any more? Man up, you whiney little bitch! Isn't that exactly the kind of pussified behavior you were pissing and moaning about earlier?

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence[sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

I can't help the sinking feeling that my country is now being run by people who read "1984" not as a cautionary tale, but rather as an instruction manual. - Michael Mock

The Myrmidons were an ancient nation of very brave and skilled warriors as described in Homer's Iliad, and were commanded by Achilles. - Wikipedia

WASHNWEAR

Wednesday, June 18, 2008 6:27 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Like children, you must have your way and ONLY your way....

Smoking? Carrying a gun? HELL NO! Freedom of self and liberty only apply to those things WE want!

Grow up.

Whoa, whoa, whoa...same-sex couples smoking AND carrying guns?! Now you've drawn a line that even I won't cross...I said "marry 'em," not "arm 'em and impair their respiratory systems".

EDITED out of some ill-defined sense of circumspection.

It was an inch given and a mile taken when we got here!

EVILDINOSAUR

Wednesday, June 18, 2008 9:16 PM (P)

Let me explain the difference between the issues you raised and the issue being discussed in this thread. The bans you speak of are to protect people from things others may use to harm them (guns and second hand smoke)

Gay marriage offers no such danger, 2 gay people being married will certainly not cause any harm whatsoever to passerbys.

"Haha, mine is an evil laugh."

RUE

Wednesday, June 18, 2008 9:57 PM (P)

Don't you know ? Gays getting married somehow makes Wulfie unmarried. I'm still working on how that happens, but it must be true. Wulfie said so.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

SIGNYM

Wednesday, June 18, 2008 10:27 PM (P)

Quote:
So called liberals do not mind taking away the rights of people, on issues they disagree with. These include (but are not limited to) guns and smoking. As in gun and smoking bans.

You know how they say the right to swing your fist ends at my nose? Well then, your right to smoke ends at my nose. Smoke all you want! Just don't expect me to breathe the crap that you foul the air with. AFA guns... carry one all you want.

Quote:
I AGAIN do not have issue with gays being together. I just don't believe it should be called "marriage"...but rather a "civil union".

Ah, so altho it IS considered a marriage by the State of CA, and is in fact legally a marriage -even tho no clergy was present- you do not "believe" it should be called a marriage.

Sounds like somebody went and looked up the law, huh?

Quote:
Jeebus....

Indeed

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

KWICKO

Wednesday, June 18, 2008 10:36 PM (P)

Quote:
ou know how they say the right to swing your fist ends at my nose? Well then, your right to smoke ends at my nose. Smoke all you want! Just don't expect me to breathe the crap that you foul the air with. AFA guns... carry one all you want.

Kinda how I look at it. I smoke, and *I* don't like the smell!

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence[sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

I can't help the sinking feeling that my country is now being run by people who read "1984" not as a cautionary tale, but rather as an instruction manual. - Michael Mock

The Myrmidons were an ancient nation of very brave and skilled warriors as described in Homer's Iliad, and were commanded by Achilles. - Wikipedia

FUTUREMRSFILLION

Thursday, June 19, 2008 3:44 AM (P)

So let me get this right, you are pissed that "they" are INSISTING that they be treated equally under the law, but you have no problem with the fact that BIG GOVERMENT actually enacted laws to prevent gay marriages.

I mean either you are agaisnt Government interference or you aren't

I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

FORSAKEN original

KHYRON

Thursday, June 19, 2008 8:05 PM (P)

I haven't looked at too many posts in this thread, so sorry if this has been discussed already, but:

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
No, its a civil union. The "marriage" part comes from whatever church you are under. Despite what might be said.
Now, is that your definition, or do you have backing? Looking into it a bit, I find nothing that says a court marraige is anything less than a marriage.

As far as I know, what Wulfenstar said isn't the way it is, but in my opinion, it's the way it should be. The only type of "marriage" sanctioned by the state should be a civil union, which can hold between any two people of whatever religion or gender or whatever (as long as they're old enough, obviously). If these two people want their union to be approved by the church as well, they can then get married in a church, but in the eyes of the state, the only thing that counts is the civil union between the two.

This way, the whole stupid and pointless gay marriage non-issue gets transported out of the political sphere and the pressure to allow gay marriage is placed on the church, which is where it should be.

------------------------------

This isn't my signature. I have to type this every time I make a post.

WULFENSTAR

Thursday, June 19, 2008 9:23 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Khyron:
I haven't looked at too many posts in this thread, so sorry if this has been discussed already, but:
Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
No, its a civil union. The "marriage" part comes from whatever church you are under. Despite what might be said.
Now, is that your definition, or do you have backing? Looking into it a bit, I find nothing that says a court marraige is anything less than a marriage.
As far as I know, what Wulfenstar said isn't the way it is, but in my opinion, it's the way it should be. The only type of "marriage" sanctioned by the state should be a civil union, which can hold between any two people of whatever religion or gender or whatever (as long as they're old enough, obviously). If these two people want their union to be approved by the church as well, they can then get married in a church, but in the eyes of the state, the only thing that counts is the civil union between the two.

This way, the whole stupid and pointless gay marriage non-issue gets transported out of the political sphere and the pressure to allow gay marriage is placed on the church, which is where it should be.

------------------------------

This isn't my signature. I have to type this every time I make a post.

Thank you. This is more along the lines of what I meant. The term "marriage" is a religious one. While "civil union" is not.

Again, im not against gays having a "civil union"...but I am against them having it be called a marriage. As, I believe, marriage is a church sanctioned affair.

It not an "equal rights" issue.

RIGHTEOUS9

Thursday, June 19, 2008 9:48 PM (P)

Wulfenstar...answer how you prevent a gay couple from being married if they find a church that will marry them?

You're just saying that you and your church wont recognize it as such?

there's no problem at all there, really, and they don't have to care a hoot what you recognize either, that's mutual freedom of religion,

so long as, as you seem to be saying, it is not a state officiated term.

you have a terminology issue with that because it seems to have a meaning beyond what the law can provide...I don't really care what its called, but as soon as the state uses the word it has to be allowed to be applied to gay and straight couples alike as a matter of equality.

still not sure how this logic is going to prevent gay marriages though, it just seems like a complicated addition where you get married and apply for a civil-union lisense I guess.

Under this logic, gays will do the same. NO problem there.

CITIZEN

Thursday, June 19, 2008 9:50 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
This is more along the lines of what I meant. The term "marriage" is a religious one.

Except it isn't. And even if it was, all they'd have to do is start the "non-denominational church of gay-marriage".

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

SIGMANUNKI

Thursday, June 19, 2008 11:13 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
This is more along the lines of what I meant. The term "marriage" is a religious one.
Except it isn't. And even if it was, all they'd have to do is start the "non-denominational church of gay-marriage".

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

No shit. All this guy is doing is keep coming back with the same tired BS. Hey, Wulfenstar, just because you say it does NOT make it true. And most of the folks here won't believe you no matter how many times you say it. For that to happen you actually have to do thi sthing called bring up evidence, etc. Otherwise you got no chance.

But, then again, your response to this seems to have been a new thread with another nonsensical "argument" ( http://fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=18&t=34009). Seriously, if you've got nothing to add, then don't post.

----
I am on The Original List (twice). We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

PONYXPRESSINC

Friday, June 20, 2008 6:46 AM (P)

Wulfenstar wrote:

Quote:
The term "marriage" is a religious one. While "civil union" is not.

From "The Scottish Case That Led to Hardwicke's Marriage Act" by LEAH LENEMAN http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/lhr/17.1/leneman.html

Quote:
First, a quick review of the marriage law of England and Scotland at the time (1753) sets the case in context. The only thing necessary for a legal marriage was the free consent of both parties, as long as they were of age (twelve for girls, fourteen for boys), were not within the forbidden degrees of kinship, and were free of any other marriage. Neither the consent of parents nor the presence of witnesses were required. A marriage could be established by verbal de praesenti, that is, the statement of consent by both parties, or by verba de futuro, a promise of marriage in the future, followed by sexual intercourse. Because such things happened in private, various types of evidence came to be accepted in disputed marriage cases, such as letters in which the man wrote, or referred, to the woman as his wife, "habit and repute" (that is, the couple cohabited and were considered by their neighbors and relations to be husband and wife), and so forth.

A marriage ceremony could be conducted in front of a priest but was not considered in anyway superior to the private kind. Marraiges moved exclusively into church as a practical matter to ensure that marriages were properly recorded to avoid disputes over inheritance and legitimacy. Regardless of which way you did it you were married and had therefore undergone a marriage.

At least that is what my research tells me. If anyone has anything to contradict this I would be genuinely interested.

Anyway, this seems to support the idea that marriage was a civil matter before it was a religious one. Our understanding of what constitutes a marriage has already changed a lot over history, I can't see why it can't change again.

SIGMANUNKI

Friday, June 20, 2008 6:54 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by PonyXpressInc:

Anyway, this seems to support the idea that marriage was a civil matter before it was a religious one. Our understanding of what constitutes a marriage has already changed a lot over history, I can't see why it can't change again.

To paraphrase Wulfenstar, because.

----
I am on The Original List (twice). We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

PONYXPRESSINC

Friday, June 20, 2008 6:56 AM (P)

SigmaNunki wrote:

Quote:
To paraphrase Wulfenstar, because.

CITIZEN

Saturday, June 21, 2008 4:53 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
To paraphrase Wulfenstar, because.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

SIGMANUNKI

Saturday, June 21, 2008 5:27 PM (P)

That's absolutely beautiful

----
I am on The Original List (twice). We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

MIIKE

Saturday, June 21, 2008 8:28 PM (P)

good for them i hope they have a happy marridge just dont know why other people are so botherd about peoples pesonal lives

im a noob get over it

JAYNEZTOWN

Saturday, January 11, 2025 5:44 PM (P)

Are the firefighters gay lesbian transexual homosexual?

Residents in Encino, CA are evacuating from the area as the Palisades Fires threatens to come down from the mountain. There is a heavy response from firefighters to stop its advance.
https://x.com/i/web/status/1877944139469541596