70 percent of voting black Californians should be ashamed of themselves.

[Karlifornia]

This election was destined to represent the best in us. It was supposed to show America that a black person was qualified enough, eloquent enough, and charismatic enough to be elected. It was supposed to be an election that showcased the progressiveness of Americans. This election would reclaim our status as a world leader, rather than as a stubborn world bully.

Throughout most of the country, that all happened. In California, it didn't, in my opinion.

I believe that black people weren't voting for Obama just because he was black, but because he was a democrat. Black people were always liberal. Why would most black people be conservative? 90% of black people have nothing to lose. It's very hard to be conservative with assets that you don't have, and never grew up having.

Then, proposition 8 passed. The results came out that 70% of black voters were in favor of prop 8. This made me so sick inside. These MOTHERFUCKERS that came out to vote, some (or many) for the first time in their lives...they didn't have the ability to look into the past and see their own ancestors in the battle being fought now?

Fucking assholes. I am embarrassed. Any black person that voted yes on 8 is a fucking joke of a person. It almost makes me want to join the KKK. I would join the muthafuckin KU KLUX KLAN if it meant I could slap a black bigot in the face.


There is no EXCUSE for us black people to want to hold down the rights of other people. At least white people have an excuse...they've never been FUCKIN' OPPRESSED!!

Black people? No fuckin' excuse. If you are black, and you are anti-gay......your family must not have told you enough about the struggle.

NOWWWW......as far as the marriage debate goes by itself...I have a question. Is marriage an establishment of religion? If so, then what about the separation of church and state? If marriage is only really marriage when following the laws of religion, then why are there any actual laws in regards to marriage? If marriage is purely a religious construct, then there should be NO benefits given at all to married couples, as they have entered a union supported by religion. The state should not unequivocally support anything.

If marriage is not entwined in religion, then there is no issue with gays getting married (not that there should be in any way, shape, or form to begin with).

[Tekneek]

I wouldn't go as far as you have... However, there are some important points in here. Why would a once oppressed minority group rush out to oppress another? It makes no sense.

Indeed. If marriage is strictly religious, let's remove it from our tax tables and forms, any other legal document, and immediately do away with any legal standing/benefit/right gained from marriage alone. The religious can have marriage the way they want it, but they cannot derive any benefit from the government at all for it. The government will no longer recognize marriage. No more marriage licenses regulated by the government. No more marriage certificates issued by the government.

I'm ok with that. If marriage cannot be allowed for any and all consenting adults, then nobody gets it (as far as our government and laws are concerned). It becomes no different under the law than baptism, confession, etc, as religious operations that are governed by their churches alone and have no bearing on the government or the laws of this nation.

[Raiders Army]

Quick response: If a half Black person voted against it, shouldn't he only be 35% ashamed of himself?

Longer response: Has it been proven that being gay is genetic? If it has, then perhaps you are correct. If it hasn't, then there's a big difference with being born a certain race and being withheld rights and making a lifestyle choice and being withheld rights.

[QuikSand]

If this issue were a rational one, it would cease to be much of an issue.

[Tekneek]

Longer response: Has it been proven that being gay is genetic? If it has, then perhaps you are correct. If it hasn't, then there's a big difference with being born a certain race and being withheld rights and making a lifestyle choice and being withheld rights.

I wonder why this logic was not applied to inter-racial marriages. Ever heard of Loving v. Virginia? Surely they could just argue that there is no reason you have to marry someone outside of your race, right? I seem to remember there being a school of thought that you couldn't help who you fell in love with... There was a time when inter-racial marriage was just as outlandish a concept to some as gay marriage is today.

If we turn this on its ear, to something else, would you all find it just as acceptable? What if smoking was made illegal by a vote? Would you all be happy about it? There is no genetic reason to start smoking, is there? I would be opposed to those ideas as well, because I really don't think those should be up for a vote. I do not smoke, and never have, but I don't think this is something that should be voted on. I'd rather the tyranny of the majority not be invoked in my vision of freedom and liberty.

[Bonegavel]

Hey, I would love to marry 17 women and have a harem, but guess what? I can't because it's against the law.

BTW, I imagine that even with the extra sex, 17 wives means

(nagging * 17) / (sex * 17 - n) = super early death

which may make it best to be limited to 1.

(n = the number of wives that don't want to have anything to do with you which is probably a very high number and if n = 0 the entire equation explodes and does 2d20 damage)

[Tekneek]

Hey, I would love to marry 17 women and have a harem, but guess what? I can't because it's against the law.

BTW, I imagine that even with the extra sex, 17 wives means

(nagging * 17) / (sex * 17 - n) = super early death

which may make it best to be limited to 1.

(n = the number of wives that don't want to have anything to do with you which is probably a very high number and if n = 0 the entire equation explodes and does 2d20 damage)

This issue is not about polygamy. It never was and never has been. Please tell me why you think it was about being able to have multiple wives?

[Honolulu_Blue]

I wouldn't go as far as you have... However, there are some important points in here. Why would a once oppressed minority group rush out to oppress another? It makes no sense.

No, it doesn't, but that's human nature.

If this issue were a rational one, it would cease to be much of an issue.

Yeah, that pretty much sums it up.

[Tekneek]

Can anyone make a solid case for gays to not be married that is not based on religious dogma or some personal distaste for the concept? If it is truly such a horrible idea, there should be convincing arguments available that are based on science/hard data, right?

[JimboJ]

I can't believe you are suprised by this. What evidence do you have that black people are or have ever been sympathetic to gays? In fact, based on what I have seen, in general, black people tend to be less tolerant of gay people. Have you ever heard some of the lyrics in rap music?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Poor black voters, can't win for losing.

Catch hell when they get vote wrong, catch hell when they actually manage to get a vote right.

[JonInMiddleGA]

there should be convincing arguments available that are based on science/hard data, right?

Thank you Mr. Spock.

[Tekneek]

Thank you Mr. Spock.

Appreciate the admission that none of those arguments are available.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Appreciate the admission that none of those arguments are available.

There's a lot of things that aren't entirely based in science/data. I'm not even sure you couldn't make a statistically valid argument that murder might be a net gain for society in some cases, want to legalize it on that basis?

More directly related to this situation, there's probably very little data to suggest that there's any scientific reason not to legislate the renaming of the color "blue" to now be known as the new color "sofa" ... but that wouldn't make such a move any more worthwhile or rational.

[Bonegavel]

This issue is not about polygamy. It never was and never has been. Please tell me why you think it was about being able to have multiple wives?

why can't i have the right to marry anybody I want even if that means more than 1? I was trying to point out that I can't because it is against the law as is gay marriage.

Look, I have no problem with gays marrying (I don't see the point, but I don't have a problem with it and welcome to the marriage penalty!) and I know I'm in the conservative minority on that. I also think that people should be able to have assisted suicide or smoke pot or any other number of things but they are against the law.

But why would 2 gays marrying be any more valid than a polygamist's desire for multiple wives/husbands? Are you trying to say that you want to discriminate against polygamists but not gays? Isn't that also bigotry? Where does it end? Personally, I think they should both be allowed what they want.

[Tekneek]

There's a lot of things that aren't entirely based in science/data. I'm not even sure you couldn't make a statistically valid argument that murder might be a net gain for society in some cases, want to legalize it on that basis?

Probably not, because it is likely to be favorable for civilization much of the time to not have random murders going on. We already generally legalize murder via the death penalty, self-defense, war, etc. So, the decision has already been made to legalize it under certain circumstances, hasn't it?

More directly related to this situation, there's probably very little data to suggest that there's any scientific reason not to legislate the renaming of the color "blue" to now be known as the new color "sofa" ... but that wouldn't make such a move any more worthwhile or rational.

Is anyone being denied access to benefits/rights through the government based on this? That might be the first test I would apply, since the issue here is denying committed couples access to the same rights granted to others.

[Tekneek]

why can't i have the right to marry anybody I want even if that means more than 1? I was trying to point out that I can't because it is against the law as is gay marriage.

Prior to the vote on 11/5, gay marriage WAS legal in California.

Look, I have no problem with gays marrying (I don't see the point, but I don't have a problem with it and welcome to the marriage penalty!) and I know I'm in the conservative minority on that. I also think that people should be able to have assisted suicide or smoke pot or any other number of things but they are against the law.

Not in all places. You're wrong on both of your main points so far. Where are you going with this?

But why would 2 gays marrying be any more valid than a polygamist's desire for multiple wives/husbands? Are you trying to say that you want to discriminate against polygamists but not gays? Isn't that also bigotry? Where does it end? Personally, I think they should both be allowed what they want.

Not at all. Personally, I don't have a problem with consenting adults agreeing to any type of marriage contract they choose. However, that doesn't mean that Proposition 8 had anything at all to do with polygamy.

[JonInMiddleGA]

That might be the first test I would apply, since the issue here is denying committed couples access to the same rights granted to others.

No marriageable couple is being denied anything here. I'm honestly not sure why that's such a difficult concept for you to grasp. There is no "right" for two persons of the same gender to marry, that's pure fiction. And there is no compelling reason for such an absurd notion to be created out of thin air.

[Tekneek]

No marriageable couple is being denied anything here. I'm honestly not sure why that's such a difficult concept for you to grasp. There is no "right" for two persons of the same gender to marry, that's pure fiction. And there is no compelling reason for such an absurd notion to be created out of thin air.

Jon, gay marriage was legal in California before Proposition 8 passed. Saying it wasn't means you are a liar.

[Neon_Chaos]

Jon, gay marriage was legal in California before Proposition 8 passed. Saying it wasn't means you are a liar.

This is what pisses me off, basically.

For me, it's a different thing to change the law in order to accommodate the rights of a minority than to change the law in order to discriminate against a minority.

Proposition 8 was not asking for the people to legalize gay marriage in California, it was already legal. Proposition 8 was asking for the people to eliminate a right that gay people already had.

It was a vote to discriminate, not a vote to "protect thesanctity of marriage", and anyone who voted Yes to Proposition 8 would fall under the category of a bigot.

[EagleFan]

This election was destined to represent the best in us. It was supposed to show America that a black person was qualified enough, eloquent enough, and charismatic enough to be elected. It was supposed to be an election that showcased the progressiveness of Americans. This election would reclaim our status as a world leader, rather than as a stubborn world bully.

Throughout most of the country, that all happened. In California, it didn't, in my opinion.

I believe that black people weren't voting for Obama just because he was black, but because he was a democrat. Black people were always liberal. Why would most black people be conservative? 90% of black people have nothing to lose. It's very hard to be conservative with assets that you don't have, and never grew up having.

Then, proposition 8 passed. The results came out that 70% of black voters were in favor of prop 8. This made me so sick inside. These MOTHERFUCKERS that came out to vote, some (or many) for the first time in their lives...they didn't have the ability to look into the past and see their own ancestors in the battle being fought now?

Fucking assholes. I am embarrassed. Any black person that voted yes on 8 is a fucking joke of a person. It almost makes me want to join the KKK. I would join the muthafuckin KU KLUX KLAN if it meant I could slap a black bigot in the face.


There is no EXCUSE for us black people to want to hold down the rights of other people. At least white people have an excuse...they've never been FUCKIN' OPPRESSED!!

Black people? No fuckin' excuse. If you are black, and you are anti-gay......your family must not have told you enough about the struggle.

NOWWWW......as far as the marriage debate goes by itself...I have a question. Is marriage an establishment of religion? If so, then what about the separation of church and state? If marriage is only really marriage when following the laws of religion, then why are there any actual laws in regards to marriage? If marriage is purely a religious construct, then there should be NO benefits given at all to married couples, as they have entered a union supported by religion. The state should not unequivocally support anything.

If marriage is not entwined in religion, then there is no issue with gays getting married (not that there should be in any way, shape, or form to begin with).

I find it funny when "open minded liberals" complain about others for not thinking the way they do. Very open minded there...

[JonInMiddleGA]

Jon, gay marriage was legal in California before Proposition 8 passed. Saying it wasn't means you are a liar.

Saying that it was the legal will of the people is also an utter & complete lie, nothing more than shenanigans. It was also the equivalent of the color "sofa", and was seen as such by the people & the mistake of the loophole was closed quite solidly.

But you keep on railin', I've gotten over the sadness of the moral & intellectual bankruptcy it illustrates. I'll just sit over here and enjoy one of the few victories the nation managed to salvage from an otherwise destructive week.

[DaddyTorgo]

I'll just sit over here and enjoy one of the few victories the nation managed to salvage from an otherwise destructive week.

*sigh* guess this shouldn't really surprise me

[Oilers9911]

Saying that it was the legal will of the people is also an utter & complete lie, nothing more than shenanigans. It was also the equivalent of the color "sofa", and was seen as such by the people & the mistake of the loophole was closed quite solidly.

But you keep on railin', I've gotten over the sadness of the moral & intellectual bankruptcy it illustrates. I'll just sit over here and enjoy one of the few victories the nation managed to salvage from an otherwise destructive week.

You want destructive? Look at the last 8 years. I would be shocked if Obama manages to fuck things up to half of the degree that Dubya and friends have over their two terms. Also, if you are talking about morality, there are plenty of straight married people that are far more morally corrupt than any gay couple. Not sure why the idea of two women or two men getting married is so frightening to you.

[Raiders Army]

I wonder why this logic was not applied to inter-racial marriages. Ever heard of Loving v. Virginia? Surely they could just argue that there is no reason you have to marry someone outside of your race, right? I seem to remember there being a school of thought that you couldn't help who you fell in love with... There was a time when inter-racial marriage was just as outlandish a concept to some as gay marriage is today.

If we turn this on its ear, to something else, would you all find it just as acceptable? What if smoking was made illegal by a vote? Would you all be happy about it? There is no genetic reason to start smoking, is there? I would be opposed to those ideas as well, because I really don't think those should be up for a vote. I do not smoke, and never have, but I don't think this is something that should be voted on. I'd rather the tyranny of the majority not be invoked in my vision of freedom and liberty.

So you would rather have the tyranny of the minority invoked on the majority's vision of freedom and liberty?

[Honolulu_Blue]

So you would rather have the tyranny of the minority invoked on the majority's vision of freedom and liberty?

Wow. You really have no idea what the words "freedom" or "liberty" mean, do you?

[flere-imsaho]

JiMGA, remind me, because I've forgotten, but are you for or against civil unions for same sex couples?

[Ajaxab]

I find it perfectly reasonable why there would be so many African-Americans supporting Prop 8. If a group wants to gain additional power and influence in society, procreation is one of the primary ways to do it. For the African-American to support homosexuality is to potentially short-circuit that increasing influence in culture. Combine that with the historical connection between African-American culture and the church and this vote makes perfect sense.

In both of these respects, they were directly respecting those who came before by honoring a push for more African-American influence on American culture and by honoring the tradition religious beliefs of those who came before. Their vote here may be contradictory given the history of civil rights, but these reasons would suggest that it might not be as contradictory as it seems.

Whether those reasons are good reasons is another discussion, but they are reasonable nonetheless.

[flere-imsaho]

If this issue were a rational one, it would cease to be much of an issue.

It's like the abortion issue, which I wrote about here (http://osatwork.com/fofc/showthread.php?p=1860337&highlight=abortion#post1860337), in that there's a wide swathe of middle ground to furrow that isn't (and won't be) largely because the partisans on either end control the debate:

Tangent: Politically, this is the problem. I'd guess the majority of the pro-choice crowd would be OK with a ban (or not seek to overturn such a ban) on 2nd/3rd trimester abortions were it not for the fact that the pro-life crowd would (and does) simply use such a ban as a foundation upon which to build support for a full ban (and abstinence-only sex education, and raising the age of consent, and a ban on some contraception methods, etc...). Conversely, I'd guess a large chunk of the pro-life crowd would be OK with a certain flexibility during the 1st trimester, especially in cases of rape, incest or severe medical danger to the mother, fetus or both, but will never agree to this since it's tacitly conceding defeat to a portion of the pro-choice crowd's argument.

And thus it is with gay marriage. The majority of gays I know (and I'd posit the majority of gays in general) are basically looking for an inviolate legal status which will allow them access to practical tools, such as inheritance, power of attorney, visitation rights, shared health care, etc.... But the most aggressive parts of the movement want the whole enchilada, real "marriage", because this also captures the symbolic value of "true" equality in American society.

Conversely, those who drive the "anti" debate do so with the absolute conviction that a gay relationship can never be equal in any way to a straight relationship, and so it should never be accorded equal rights, even with civil unions, and certainly not with "marriage". And while there may be members of the "anti" side who would be willing to concede on secular civil unions, privately, they'll never do so publically because they know the activists on the other side will use this as a stepping stone to get equal "marriages".

The bottom line, of course, is that I'd bet that a majority of Americans, especially when faced with the realities of what gays are looking for, say they know a gay couple who are struggling with sharing medical coverage, or one needs hospital visitation rights and isn't getting them, or whatever, would respond: "you know, that's fucked up, they should have those rights." But this majority is, generally, ambivalent about fighting for the provision of those rights, so there's no driver here. Instead the debate is driven by the extremes.

[Young Drachma]

Blacks and Hispanics that voted against it, did so for the same cultural/religious reasons that white evangelicals did.

They don't see it as a civil rights issue, nor do they see it as akin to any sort of struggle they went through.

You can be mad about it, but I don't believe there ought to be a double standard of equality attached to it.

[Fidatelo]

I think marriage should be defined in two ways:

1) The legal, civil act that has tax implications etc.
2) The religious act that is sanctioned by a church.

The first one should let any 2 consenting people get married and reap the benefits or penalties that come with the association. If polygamists want to fight for the right to have multiple parties in the association I'd be fine with it so long as it didn't open up any legal/tax advantages over a 1-to-1 marriage.

The second one should be up to the church to decide. If you don't like the rules of your church, find a new church or start your own.

[Honolulu_Blue]

They don't see it as a civil rights issue, nor do they see it as akin to any sort of struggle they went through.

Isn't that the problem though? How is this struggle any different than the struggle to allow interracial marriages. No one would say that sturggle wasn't a "civil rights issue", so why isn't this struggle one?


You can be mad about it, but I don't believe there ought to be a double standard of equality attached to it.

Why not? It pretty much is a double standard, no? You can dress up the argument against gay marriage any way you'd like (religion, economy, whatever the heck Ajaxab is talking about a few posts, etc.), at the end of the day, however, the result is simply denying a minority group a right. That's inequality.

[Tekneek]

Saying that it was the legal will of the people is also an utter & complete lie, nothing more than shenanigans. It was also the equivalent of the color "sofa", and was seen as such by the people & the mistake of the loophole was closed quite solidly.

Yep. Just like desegregation was never the "will of the people" in the South either, nor was the legalization of inter-racial marriage. Why don't you fix those now, too? Or have you found that they aren't really as scary as once thought, and somehow civilization has not crumbled?

[Honolulu_Blue]

I think marriage should be defined in two ways:

1) The legal, civil act that has tax implications etc.
2) The religious act that is sanctioned by a church.

The first one should let any 2 consenting people get married and reap the benefits or penalties that come with the association. If polygamists want to fight for the right to have multiple parties in the association I'd be fine with it so long as it didn't open up any legal/tax advantages over a 1-to-1 marriage.

The second one should be up to the church to decide. If you don't like the rules of your church, find a new church or start your own.

I agree. I don't think anyone is saying that churches should be forced to or even asked to accept gay marriage. There two distinct aspects of marriage: civil and religious. For some people the religious aspect is super important and for others it makes no difference.

My wife and I were married in Belgium. In most European countries there is a civil ceremony and then separate, completely optional, religious ceremony. Because neither of us is religious, we had the civil ceremony and toally skipped the religious ceremony.

That's really the way things ought to be and that's all gays and lesbians are asking for: Equality under the law, not under the eyes of "God".

[Tekneek]

So you would rather have the tyranny of the minority invoked on the majority's vision of freedom and liberty?

Proposition 8 is a demonstration of mob rule, which is the enemy of anyone who truly loves the concepts of freedom and liberty. In general, the fore fathers of this nation tried to prevent mob rule from taking control and, as we can tell from history, for very good reasons.

Proposition 8 had everything to do with revoking a right, which is precisely what it did. This is what makes it different than what happened in other states that pre-emptively passed similar amendments/laws. This is acknowledged by the fact that the State of California has already revealed that all same gender marriages that took place prior to the ban passing ARE LEGAL and will CONTINUE to be recognized by the government as LEGAL MARRIAGES.

[stevew]

If kinky Kelly wants to marry the sexy stud, who am I to stand in the way

[Bonegavel]

Prior to the vote on 11/5, gay marriage WAS legal in California.


Since the spring and the CaSC overturning a law that had banned it.


Not in all places. You're wrong on both of your main points so far. Where are you going with this?


Then they can move to a place where it is legal.


Not at all. Personally, I don't have a problem with consenting adults agreeing to any type of marriage contract they choose. However, that doesn't mean that Proposition 8 had anything at all to do with polygamy.

I'm not saying that polygamy had anything to do with Prop8. Just showing that two groups of people are being denied something and they have to live with it because of the law.

Your first comment was about marriage being based on religion and whatnot and I was simply commenting on marriage as a larger canvas.

Why don't gay marriage activists fight to make marriage open to any sort of union whatsoever so that everyone can have what they want? I'd be good with that. Why narrowly define it? Anyone can marry whatever(s). Why stop at same sex? Let's take it to its logical conclusion. Don't tell me what I can and cannot marry and I'm not being a smart-ass here since I really don't care what somebody does as far as marriage is concerned.

[Glengoyne]

...

Proposition 8 had everything to do with revoking a right, which is precisely what it did. ...

I don't think this is entirely accurate. I've already posted about my mixed feelings on this. The state/Government has no business drawing such distinctions between residents.

The fact is that the voters, ten years ago, banned this act explicitly. A single mayor flaunted the law, albeit one I disagreed with, and by doing so qualified a class of individuals to challenge the law. The courts then came a long and overturned the actions of the population and the legislature (who avoided the issue in the first place), and established a new law. So I can almost be persuaded that voting for prop 8 on the basis that it would a referrendum on judicial activism on such issues. Almost. that is.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

I'm sure that everyone is thinking this while no one is asking it. Is anyone in this thread actually gay and has a vested interest in the results?

[Tekneek]

Why don't gay marriage activists fight to make marriage open to any sort of union whatsoever so that everyone can have what they want? I'd be good with that. Why narrowly define it? Anyone can marry whatever(s). Why stop at same sex? Let's take it to its logical conclusion. Don't tell me what I can and cannot marry and I'm not being a smart-ass here since I really don't care what somebody does as far as marriage is concerned.

I don't understand this line of reasoning. Please demonstrate to me the logic behind same-gender couples getting married leading directly to marriages with non-consenting adults, inanimate objects, animals, etc. I'm not following this supposed "logic" at all.

[Honolulu_Blue]

I'm sure that everyone is thinking this while no one is asking it.

I never thought about this. Never crossed my mind. Totally irrelevant.

Is anyone in this thread actually gay and has a vested interest in the results?

I am not gay, but I do have quite a few friends who are, so, I have vested interest in the results to extent that it affects them.

[Tekneek]

I'm not gay but I'm not sure why that means I don't have a vested interest in the results.

Indeed. As if everyone who wanted slavery to end had to be a slave themselves.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Would you have considered Brown v. Board of Ed. judicial activism? Do you feel there's ever a place in this country for judicial activism?

People throw the term "judicial activism" around whenever a court makes a decision they don't agree with it. It's a totally empty phrase that is devoid of any meaning.

Our government is set up as a system of checks and balances. The judiciary plays a vital role in this system. Always have, always should.

[Bonegavel]

I don't understand this line of reasoning. Please demonstrate to me the logic behind same-gender couples getting married leading directly to marriages with non-consenting adults, inanimate objects, animals, etc. I'm not following this supposed "logic" at all.

What about all the other folks out there that want to have non-traditional marriages? You think same sex is the only other type out there?

[Ajaxab]

Isn't that the problem though? How is this struggle any different than the struggle to allow interracial marriages. No one would say that sturggle wasn't a "civil rights issue", so why isn't this struggle one?



Why not? It pretty much is a double standard, no? You can dress up the argument against gay marriage any way you'd like (religion, economy, whatever the heck Ajaxab is talking about a few posts, etc.), at the end of the day, however, the result is simply denying a minority group a right. That's inequality.

I'm not making an argument about whether or not Prop 8 should or should not pass. It was merely trying to provide some reasonable explanation about why so many African-Americans would support it and have a historical reason for doing so. Call those reasons unfair and unjust, but I don't see them as entirely unreasonable given the culture and history of the African-American experience in this country.

[Tekneek]

What about all the other folks out there that want to have non-traditional marriages? You think same sex is the only other type out there?

Between consenting adults? I've already said I don't have a problem with any marriages involving consenting adults. What else is there? If you can show me an adult telephone pole that can give legal consent, I might be persuaded that they can engage in a marriage contract as well.

[Fidatelo]

I'm not sure where Bonegavel is going, but I think consent should have to be a part of marriage. A sheep can't consent, so you shouldn't be able to marry it.

Of course, if that's not where he's going then I'm totally lost to his point.

[Raiders Army]

Somewhat tangentially related, but can someone enlighten me on what the California Domestic Partner Rights and Responsibilities Act of 2003 doesn't do that allowing marriage will? From what I can tell, the only gays that would want marriage allowed in California are the ones who don't live in California.

[Bad-example]

I don't see much difference between this issue and the struggles for civil rights and women's suffrage. Thirty to forty years from now people will look back and wonder how some people were so backward and bigoted.

Gays have always been and always will be a part of this country. It is just a natural fact. Trying to legislate away their Constitution-given rights is pathetic. They are Americans and deserve the same right to be happy or miserable as the rest of us.

I don't see any problem with treating gays the same as anyone else. After all, they are Americans.

[Warhammer]

This issue is all about religion. If they really want this stuff passed, call it a civil union and pass legislation that makes civil unions = marriage in the eyes of the government.

I would have voted prop 8 down on those grounds. If they want to call it a civil union I'm all for it.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

I'm not gay but I'm not sure why that means I don't have a vested interest in the results.

My point was asking if anyone in this thread was going to enter a gay marriage, but will be kept from doing so in California by this vote. Of course, you don't have to be gay to have an interest. I'm making the assumption that everyone in this discussion is smart enough to figure that out, but maybe I'm making a mistake in that assumption.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Indeed. As if everyone who wanted slavery to end had to be a slave themselves.

That wasn't my point, but feel free to make up a prejudice that simply wasn't there.

[Raiders Army]

This issue is all about religion. If they really want this stuff passed, call it a civil union and pass legislation that makes civil unions = marriage in the eyes of the government.

I would have voted prop 8 down on those grounds. If they want to call it a civil union I'm all for it.

Doesn't the California Domestic Partner Rights and Responsibilities Act of 2003 do this already?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

I'll make the assumption that the way you worded this question, then, was unintentionally ambiguous. Seeing as how most people's reaction was that you were insinuating you had to be gay to have a vested interest, I certainly don't feel "stupid" for assuming that was your point.

Well, ignorance is what brought this issue to the forefront, so why not keep it going in the thread.

I was the one that first posted the hypocracy of the black vote on this board in the presidential election thread. Any assumption that you have to be gay to be involved in a human rights discussion is ignorance at its finest.

[Warhammer]

Doesn't the California Domestic Partner Rights and Responsibilities Act of 2003 do this already?

I really don't know. If it does, then I would argue that they are trying to undermine religion to a certain extent. If a civil union gives them all the rights that a married couple has, why do they need to have a marriage?

[Tekneek]

I would have voted prop 8 down on those grounds. If they want to call it a civil union I'm all for it.

Separate but equal? Or are you saying that all references to marriage in our law would change to civil union as well? If you're saying the latter, I am on board.

[Tekneek]

I really don't know. If it does, then I would argue that they are trying to undermine religion to a certain extent. If a civil union gives them all the rights that a married couple has, why do they need to have a marriage?

Maybe because a marriage certificate can protect those rights when an accident may happen in another state, where the protections granted by this "civil union" type arrangement has no equivalent. That is speculation on my part.

[DaddyTorgo]

This issue is all about religion. If they really want this stuff passed, call it a civil union and pass legislation that makes civil unions = marriage in the eyes of the government.



in point of fact this is my position too, but i also don't believe that just because that legislation has yet to be passed that we have the right to discriminate against them until that point.

if that legislation isn't going to be proposed then i'm going to vote in favor of whatever other legislation i can to protect their civil rights. giving them the right to be "married' maybe isn't the BEST solution, but it is the solution that is presenting itself AT THIS MOMENT, and just because it is not perfect does not mean that they should be discriminated against until somebody gets the best solution enacted into law.

[I. J. Reilly]

I really don't know. If it does, then I would argue that they are trying to undermine religion to a certain extent. If a civil union gives them all the rights that a married couple has, why do they need to have a marriage?

Separate but equal is inherently unequal. The only reason to find a different name for gay marriage, such as civil union, is to communicate it’s inferiority to straight marriage.

Edit: Tekneek made the point before I could submit

[DaddyTorgo]

Doesn't the California Domestic Partner Rights and Responsibilities Act of 2003 do this already?

only for the state of california though. as i pointed out in the Prop 8 thread, what if you're on vacation in nevada and your domestic partner gets hit by a bus and put into a coma and can't be moved from nevada - you don't have the right to "pull the plug" even if that would be his wish.

(that's just one example)

[Tekneek]

Separate but equal is inherently unequal. The only reason to find a different name for gay marriage, such as civil union, is to communicate it’s inferiority to straight marriage.

A lesson which should have already been learned in this nation.

[gstelmack]

only for the state of california though. as i pointed out in the Prop 8 thread, what if you're on vacation in nevada and your domestic partner gets hit by a bus and put into a coma and can't be moved from nevada - you don't have the right to "pull the plug" even if that would be his wish.

(that's just one example)

Power of Attorney and Medical Power of Attorney (I think the latter is the correct term) aren't state-specific, are they? If you don't have those papers, you may or may not have that right if you're married or not, barring the law in that state allowing for "closest living relative" which marriage may make you.

If I wanted to, I could assign those rights to anyone on this board with the correct paperwork without involving a discussion of marriage. Marriage just sets up some defaults.

[CU Tiger]

I didnt read every reply, because some of it went down tangets I dont really care to discuss.

But what restrictions are placed on marriage?

Because if there are none (as some suggest) what keeps "room mates" from filing taxes as married, or other such loopholes.

[Tekneek]

Marriage just sets up some defaults.

Precisely. Defaults, under the law, that they do not have access to.

[DaddyTorgo]

Separate but equal is inherently unequal. The only reason to find a different name for gay marriage, such as civil union, is to communicate it’s inferiority to straight marriage.

Edit: Tekneek made the point before I could submit

+1

I got very heated in my discussion with my parents over this last night too (my parents who are pretty damn liberal). I've declared a zero-tolerance policy for this issue in my life, extending so far as our family-friend the Jesuit priest (although I hope for his sake he doesn't engage me in discussion about it - i don't want to yell at an 80 year old guy).

[digamma]

Because if there are none (as some suggest) what keeps "room mates" from filing taxes as married, or other such loopholes.

The fact that they would likely pay more in taxes?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Call me ignorant all you want, MBBF, it doesn't change the fact that what you wrote, "Is anyone in this thread actually gay and has a vested interest in the results?", is at best ambiguous. Perhaps you are arguing that you should be given the benefit of the doubt, but based on your past posts on this board I think you may be hoping for a long time on that one.

I think gays have the right to be married and anyone who thinks otherwise needs to be removed from their ignorance pulpit. I was just trying to find out if anyone in the thread was actually gay to get a further take on the issue and was making no statement that you had to be gay to understand the issue.

I thought the statement where Jon had to clarify in another thread that the use of the word 'good' and 'Fred Phelps' was sarcastic in nature was funny at first. I now know why he did that. There's a lot of people on this board that will take an assumption and run like the wind with that assumption rather than asking about the context of the statement.

[Fidatelo]

I didnt read every reply, because some of it went down tangets I dont really care to discuss.

But what restrictions are placed on marriage?

Because if there are none (as some suggest) what keeps "room mates" from filing taxes as married, or other such loopholes.

I think the biggest deterrent from 'marrying' your roommate for tax purposes would be the legal costs involved in both filing for the marriage and then the divorce?

I don't know, but it seems like that sort of fraud could be dealt with pretty easily if legislators wanted/need to.

[DaddyTorgo]

Power of Attorney and Medical Power of Attorney (I think the latter is the correct term) aren't state-specific, are they? If you don't have those papers, you may or may not have that right if you're married or not, barring the law in that state allowing for "closest living relative" which marriage may make you.

If I wanted to, I could assign those rights to anyone on this board with the correct paperwork without involving a discussion of marriage. Marriage just sets up some defaults.

There are likely plenty of other examples - I'm sure one could google for them and find a ton, but I have yet to do that (although maybe I should).

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Because if there are none (as some suggest) what keeps "room mates" from filing taxes as married, or other such loopholes.

What keeps a male/female roommate from doing that right now? They could run down to the courthouse and save a buck doing the same thing.

[DaddyTorgo]

I think gays have the right to be married and anyone who thinks otherwise needs to be removed from their ignorance pulpit.

yay for you! :D

common ground!

[Tekneek]

What keeps a male/female roommate from doing that right now? They could run down to the courthouse and save a buck doing the same thing.

The marriage may be cheap, but the divorce will be more expensive. Just the filing fees alone cost more than the marriage license in most places, right?

[Fidatelo]

There's a lot of people on this board that will take an assumption and run like the wind with that assumption rather than asking about the context of the statement.

There are also a lot of people who have gone past the point of giving you the benefit of the doubt when it comes to borderline crazy comments. I'm guessing Quiksand or someone else less controversial might get a little more leeway than you (or perhaps even myself, assuming I have a reputation beyond 'the guy with the name like oral sex').

[DaddyTorgo]

gstelmack - just for starters a quick google found this



Why This Is A Serious Civil Rights Issue

When gay people say that this is a civil rights issue, we are referring to matters of civil justice, which often can be quite serious - and can have life-damaging, even life-threatening consequences.

One of these is the fact that in most states, we cannot make medical decisions for our partners in an emergency. Instead, the hospitals are usually forced by state laws to go to the families who may have been estranged from us for decades, who are often hostile to us, and can and frequently do, totally ignore our wishes regarding the treatment of our partners. If a hostile family wishes to exclude us from the hospital room, they may legally do so in most states. It is even not uncommon for hostile families to make decisions based on their hostility -- with results consciously intended to be as inimical to the interests of the patient as possible! Is this fair?
Upon death, in many cases, even very carefully drawn wills and durable powers of attorney have proven to not be enough if a family wishes to challenge a will, overturn a custody decision, or exclude us from a funeral or deny us the right to visit a partner's hospital bed or grave. As survivors, estranged families can, in nearly all states, even sieze a real estate property that a gay couple may have been buying together for many years, quickly sell it at the largest possible loss, and stick the surviving partner with all the remaining mortgage obligations on a property that partner no longer owns, leaving him out on the street, penniless. There are hundreds of examples of this, even in many cases where the gay couple had been extremely careful to do everything right under current law, in a determined effort to protect their rights. Is this fair? If our partners are arrested, we can be compelled to testify against them or provide evidence against them, which legally married couples are not forced to do. In court cases, a partner's testimony can be simply ruled irrelevant as heresay by a hostile judge, having no more weight in law than the testimony of a complete stranger. If a partner is jailed or imprisoned, visitation rights by the partner can, in most cases, can be denied on the whim of a hostile family and the cooperation of a homophobic judge, unrestrained by any law or precedent. Conjugal visits, a well-established right of heterosexual married couples in some settings, are simply not available to gay couples. Is this fair?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

The marriage may be cheap, but the divorce will be more expensive. Just the filing fees alone cost more than the marriage license in most places, right?

Why the need for the divorce? Male/female roommates could 'get married' and live together for 5+ years and get all the benefits. When they go their separate ways, you can file for divorce for as little as a couple hundred dollars if there are no strings attached. The financial benefit would far outweigh the small cost of 'divorce'.

Point being, the argument about 'roommates' doesn't hold much water when male/female already can expose that loophole right now without issue.

[Sun Tzu]

I heard about this on the radio on the way to work today.

The Star Report: Melissa Etheridge reacts to Prop. 8 '” no more taxes


From Mercury News wire reports

Article Launched: 11/06/2008 04:50:52 PM PST


Melissa Etheridge probably should get some good tax advice, but you have to admire the brazenness of her logic on this one. She wrote a post on the blog the Daily Beast in reaction to the passing of Proposition 8 outlawing gay marriage that essentially says, I'm gay, so I'm not paying taxes.

Etheridge declares that if she's not "allowed the same right [to marry] under the state constitution as any other citizen. "... I am taking that to mean I do not have to pay my state taxes, because I am not a full citizen."

"OK," she continues. "There is a lot I can do with the extra half a million dollars that I will be keeping instead of handing it over to the state of California.

"Oh, and I am sure Ellen (DeGeneres) will be a little excited to keep her bazillion bucks that she pays in taxes too. Wow, come to think of it, there are quite a few of us fortunate gay folks that will be having some extra cash this year. What recession? We're gay! I am sure there will be a little box on the tax forms now single, married, divorced, gay, check here if you are gay, yeah, that's not so bad."

The controversial constitutional amendment, which overturns a California Supreme Court decision that allowed for same-sex marriages, may retroactively invalidate the unions of thousands of couples, including the celeb ones, like DeGeneres and Portia de Rossi, who tied the knot in August, and George Takei and Brad Altman, who married in September.

Etheridge ends her blog with a message for Prop. 8 supporters: "Gay people are born every day. You will never legislate that away."

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

There are also a lot of people who have gone past the point of giving you the benefit of the doubt when it comes to borderline crazy comments. I'm guessing Quiksand or someone else less controversial might get a little more leeway than you (or perhaps even myself, assuming I have a reputation beyond 'the guy with the name like oral sex').

I'm a fan of oral sex, so you will receive full leeway from me.

[gstelmack]

gstelmack - just for starters a quick google found this

Some good points.

[flere-imsaho]

The ability of estranged parents to prevent a domestic partner from visiting the bedside of an incapacitated partner is particularly egregious, I've always felt.

[Fidatelo]

Some good points.

Agreed, and actually a good reason why marrying your roommate for tax purposes might not be such a great idea. Saving a few hundred bucks in taxes each year might not be so great if your roomie dies and you're stuck with all his debt.

[Fidatelo]

The ability of estranged parents to prevent a domestic partner from visiting the bedside of an incapacitated partner is particularly egregious, I've always felt.

More egregious than the ability is the desire to do so. I can't imagine treating the partner of my child that way, regardless of my feelings about their relationship.

[lordscarlet]

I'm making the assumption that everyone in this discussion is smart enough to figure that out, but maybe I'm making a mistake in that assumption.

You have it all wrong. The incorrect assumption you have is that we think you're smart enough to figure that out.

[DaddyTorgo]

lil piece from a CNN article that was talking about the Latinos in CA heavily voting YES on Prop 8.
The examples he gives of taking away rights are things that have happened to Latinos.



Once you start the process of taking away other peoples' fundamental rights -- like food and water in a jail cell, or the right to drive and listen to whatever music you like -- you must ask yourself where to draw the line, and who will draw it? What -- and whose -- rights will be next on the chopping block?

As Martin Luther King Jr. said, "Injustice anywhere is injustice everywhere."

[SFL Cat]

Gay unions can never be equal to heterosexual unions for one reason, procreation - and please don't try shoveling the bullshit about hetero couples who aren't able to conceive.

I wouldn't oppose civil legal protections for same-sex partners, but to try and make the argument that it is in every way equal to the traditional union between a man and woman is ludicrous.

[Tekneek]

I wouldn't oppose civil legal protections for same-sex partners, but to try and make the argument that it is in every way equal to the traditional union between a man and woman is ludicrous.

We are talking about under the laws of this nation, not the laws of nature.

[stevew]

The ability of estranged parents to prevent a domestic partner from visiting the bedside of an incapacitated partner is particularly egregious, I've always felt.

Yeah, that's disgusting behavior.

[stevew]

So, why should infertile people be allowed to marry again? :lol:

Old peoples too. They ain't makin no babies.

[Subby]

Gay unions can never be equal to heterosexual unions for one reason, procreation - and please don't try shoveling the bullshit about hetero couples who aren't able to conceive.
Since when has procreation been part and parcel of marriage? That's a red herring, my friend.

Besides, married gay couples can just as easily use artificial insemination or surrogates when the time comes to have children. Just like countless thousands of married hetero couples do.

[Tekneek]

Just like countless thousands of married hetero couples do.

Another reason to outlaw those practices, I suppose.

[SFL Cat]

Since when has procreation been part and parcel of marriage? That's a red herring, my friend.

Besides, married gay couples can just as easily use artificial insemination or surrogates when the time comes to have children. Just like countless thousands of married hetero couples do.

Even using AI, a third party sperm or egg must be used, and in the case of males, a surrogate must be found to carry the child to term.

[heybrad]

Please explain what procreation has to do with marriage.

[Sun Tzu]

I can't believe someone here actually believes the entire purpose of marriage is to procreate. By that logic, then nobody who has intentions of having children should by law be allowed to marry. That's absolutely rediculous...in that case I feel sorry for your children, because they probably have to listen to that grovel and may actually believe it.

[Raiders Army]

gstelmack - just for starters a quick google found this

That's some very interesting information. It's too bad that other states don't at least reciprocate the "home" state's laws in situations like this.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Gay unions can never be equal to heterosexual unions for one reason, procreation - and please don't try shoveling the bullshit about hetero couples who aren't able to conceive.

And why is that argument bullshit? Because it totally disproves your statement? My wife and I are married, but probably aren't going to have kids. Does that mean our marriage is some how less equal than a "fruitful" marriage?


I wouldn't oppose civil legal protections for same-sex partners, but to try and make the argument that it is in every way equal to the traditional union between a man and woman is ludicrous.

Here's an interesting piece on this notion of "the 'traditional' union".

Marriage's lineage a bit convoluted (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/02/25/MNGNG57QMP1.DTL)

To opponents of same-sex marriage, it seems so simple. Let's just preserve marriage the way it has always been.


"OK,'' says feminist biblical scholar Mary Ann Tolbert. "What is that?''
The fact is from issues of divorce, race, religion and the role and rights of the partners, the concept of marriage has always been in play. And it continues to be today, including in this country.

Many would be surprised to know that as recently as 1967 in many states it was illegal for a mixed race couple to be granted a marriage license. An even bigger surprise, given current debate over same sex marriages, is that when the U. S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of interracial marriage, Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote that the "freedom to marry or not marry a person of another race resides in that individual.'' Note that Warren wrote "person,'' and refers to "persons'' -- not man or woman -- throughout the opinion.

So, when President Bush said yesterday that the country needed a constitutional amendment to beat back attempts to redefine marriage in this country, at least some legal experts suggested he was far too late. The institution of marriage has changed and morphed constantly through the years, and almost always to a hue and cry from those who worry about the structure of traditional marriage.

As the Massachusetts Supreme Court said in last year's ruling to allow same-sex marriage in that state, "alarms about the erosion of the 'natural order of marriage' were sounded over the demise of anti-miscegenation (mixed race marriage) laws, the expansion of rights of married women and the introduction of no-fault divorce.''

Or perhaps you would be safer going with the strict biblical definition. That gets a little tricky too.

"It is really much more complex in religious perspective than you might think,'' says Tolbert, the George Atkinson Professor for Biblical Studies at the Pacific School of Religion. "What the Hebrew Bible (or Old Testament) suggests as a general model for marriage is polygamy. You look at someone like Solomon who had 200 wives and 600-and-some concubines. Or Abraham, who had his first child by his wife's slave. It sounds as if it was quite normal.''

Tolbert, who is also the executive director for the Center for Lesbian and Gay Studies in Religion and Ministry, points out that marriage didn't even become a sacrament of the church "until the 12th century. For the first 1,200 years (A.D.) in Europe there were civil unions by town or village government.''

Nor does the New Testament offer much help. In fact, by some selective readings it sounds as if the Bible has mixed views of marriage. As Tolbert says, Jesus says very little about marriage, and both he and Paul were single men. And Paul, at least, recommended chastity.

"Marriage is not a sin,'' says Paul in First Corinthians, "but it is better to be unmarried.''

"The Bible is an incredibly important sacred icon in our culture,'' says Tolbert. "But I just think a lot of people don't read it.''

Although same-sex marriage will be the subject of sermons and a source of debate in churches, the real battle as the president has framed it will be in the courts. His point, he says, is that "local authorities are presuming to change the most fundamental institution of civilization.''

If so, it won't be the first time.

The roles of the people in a civil union have changed dramatically over history, including the recent history of the United States. It begins in the 1700s and 1800s, when married woman actually lost many of their legal rights when they agreed to get married. After marriage, they were not allowed to own property, pay taxes or sign a contract. Any money women earned outside the home was to be turned over to their husbands.

"You go back to the early years of this country,'' says Joan Hollinger, a professor at Boalt Hall School of Law at UC Berkeley specializing in child welfare and family law, "and you find that the wife became a kind of possession of the husband." It was not until the latter half of the 19th century, she said, that married women reacquired the rights they had when they were single.

As recently as 1920, the states of Arizona, Florida, Louisiana and New Mexico hadn't changed their laws.

A far greater change in marriage law came in 1948, when California was the first state to make it legal for a couple of mixed race to be married. It took another 19 years for the U.S. Supreme Court to make the same ruling. So until 1967, in many states, a couple of mixed race could not get a marriage license, and if they went to another state and were married, when they returned home they could be arrested.

"When I tell my students that was in 1967,'' said Hollinger, "they sort of gasp.''

And if you think the commotion over at City Hall is something, Hollinger says you should have been in the South when attempts were being made to overturn the anti-miscegenation laws.
"I hear Gov. Schwarzenegger talking about riots,'' she says. "I was in Mississippi in 1964. Compared to that, this is a lovefest.''

[Alan T]

Since when has procreation been part and parcel of marriage? That's a red herring, my friend.


To be fair, I actually decided to try to research what the origin of "marriage" was once all of these conversations came up. (since as I mentioned several times my suggestion for how I thought the government should get out of the "marriage' business all together and have civil unions for everyone. Then leaving marriages for people to do however they wanted - within a church, in front of an elvis presley impersonator, in a wiccan celebration or whatnot)...

Anyhows, there did seem to be some references to marriage early on in the Old Testament of the Bible, but the earliest references to "marriage" that I could find in my limited chance to do research had to do with a man purchasing a woman (or women) for the purpose of procreating and creating offspring. It evidently was more a legal contract than anything to do with love.

Of course those same laws or "codes" also supported multiple wives, slavery and to some extent treated a wife like a slave in some sense as marriage was the ownership of the wife.. So not sure that any of these are good examples to base modern civilization or culture upon :)

Anyways.. figured I would just throw all of this out there just to feel smart, or sound smart, or whatever.. not that it really has much of any impact on this conversation!

[Warhammer]

Separate but equal is inherently unequal. The only reason to find a different name for gay marriage, such as civil union, is to communicate it’s inferiority to straight marriage.

Edit: Tekneek made the point before I could submit

No, this is not separate but equal at all. Marriage is a religious ceremony that the government recognizes as two people uniting into a single household. A civil union does the same thing, or should do the same thing.

[Tekneek]

Here's an interesting piece on this notion of "the 'traditional' union".

I wonder how many that voted yes on prop 8 were just ignorant of the history of marriage and civil rights issues in this nation, rather than outright bigots. Reminds me of how Palin thought the "Founding Fathers" wrote the Pledge of Allegiance (nevermind adding "God" to it!).

[lordscarlet]

My wife read this book and it has a lot information about how "marriage" has changed throughout the centuries.

Amazon.com: Marriage, a History: From Obedience to Intimacy, or How Love Conquered Marriage: Stephanie Coontz: Books (http://www.amazon.com/Marriage-History-Obedience-Intimacy-Conquered/dp/067003407X)

[Tekneek]

No, this is not separate but equal at all. Marriage is a religious ceremony that the government recognizes as two people uniting into a single household. A civil union does the same thing, or should do the same thing.

That is the very definition of separate but equal. If a marriage is purely religious, how does the government have anything to do with it?

[flere-imsaho]

Gay unions can never be equal to heterosexual unions for one reason, procreation - and please don't try shoveling the bullshit about hetero couples who aren't able to conceive.

Joey Harrington is a Hall of Fame quarterback - and please don't try shoveling the bullshit about all his interceptions and inaccuracy.

[JediKooter]

This is simple in two ways...

1. This is clearly religiously motivated
2. Replace the word gay with black, hispanic, white, mixed race, french, italian, etc...and I promise you people would be screaming discrimination.

The problem is, when you can replace one word with another word and it turns it into a bad thing, the whole thing is bad regardless of what qualifier you use.

I said it in the Prop 8 thread and I'll say it here: Since the people who are holding so dearly and trying to protect 'traditional marriage', 'only man & woman marriage' and can't play fairly, then the United States needs to make ALL marriages null and void and only recognize civil unions.

If it's god that you are worried about, I'm sure you will have no problems finding a church that will 'marry' you. After all, it's just a word...

My last statement before this thread gets locked (I just don't see this thread lasting very much longer unfortunately), I just can't help but keep hearing this nagging statement in the United States Constitution..."The Persuit of Happiness". Certain voters of California have denied that "Persuit", regardless if you agree with someone's lifestyle or not, it is not up to us to legislate people's happiness and EVERYONE, regardless of who they are, what they look like or who they fall in love with, have THE RIGHT to persue their happiness and to not be discriminated against because they follow a different path or way of life.

[Tekneek]

Joey Harrington is a Hall of Fame quarterback - and please don't try shoveling the bullshit about all his interceptions and inaccuracy.

As long as you believe that to be true, then it is! That's the same magic some of these other people apply to far more important issues, so certainly it would work for football too.

[Sun Tzu]

This is simple in two ways...

1. This is clearly religiously motivated
2. Replace the word gay with black, hispanic, white, mixed race, french, italian, etc...and I promise you people would be screaming discrimination.

The problem is, when you can replace one word with another word and it turns it into a bad thing, the whole thing is bad regardless of what qualifier you use.


:+1:

[RendeR]

I'm sure that everyone is thinking this while no one is asking it. Is anyone in this thread actually gay and has a vested interest in the results?

This is a pretty ignorant question. A question of civil rights affects everyone, because if the nation allows this type of blatant bigotry to happen once it can and probably will move on to other tihngs.

[RendeR]

This is simple in two ways...

1. This is clearly religiously motivated
2. Replace the word gay with black, hispanic, white, mixed race, french, italian, etc...and I promise you people would be screaming discrimination.

The problem is, when you can replace one word with another word and it turns it into a bad thing, the whole thing is bad regardless of what qualifier you use.

I said it in the Prop 8 thread and I'll say it here: Since the people who are holding so dearly and trying to protect 'traditional marriage', 'only man & woman marriage' and can't play fairly, then the United States needs to make ALL marriages null and void and only recognize civil unions.

If it's god that you are worried about, I'm sure you will have no problems finding a church that will 'marry' you. After all, it's just a word...

My last statement before this thread gets locked (I just don't see this thread lasting very much longer unfortunately), I just can't help but keep hearing this nagging statement in the United States Constitution..."The Persuit of Happiness". Certain voters of California have denied that "Persuit", regardless if you agree with someone's lifestyle or not, it is not up to us to legislate people's happiness and EVERYONE, regardless of who they are, what they look like or who they fall in love with, have THE RIGHT to persue their happiness and to not be discriminated against because they follow a different path or way of life.

:+1::+1::+1::+1::+1:

[lordscarlet]

This is a pretty ignorant question. A question of civil rights affects everyone, because if the nation allows this type of blatant bigotry to happen once it can and probably will move on to other tihngs.

Isn't this the "other thing" that the nation has currently moved on to?

[Raiders Army]

My last statement before this thread gets locked (I just don't see this thread lasting very much longer unfortunately), I just can't help but keep hearing this nagging statement in the United States Constitution..."The Persuit of Happiness". Certain voters of California have denied that "Persuit", regardless if you agree with someone's lifestyle or not, it is not up to us to legislate people's happiness and EVERYONE, regardless of who they are, what they look like or who they fall in love with, have THE RIGHT to persue their happiness and to not be discriminated against because they follow a different path or way of life.

I take it you would support a 36 year old man marrying a 12 year old girl who love each other then. If you do, then I applaud your open-mindedness.

[RendeR]

This is what disgusts me most about religion, the effect it has on the human brain. it turns rational thinking thoughtful people into ignorant sheep who feel the need to force their belief on everyone else. (Yes there are those who don't, thats not the isssue)

Religious beliefs are for every individual to choose for themselves. No one else has the RIGHT to force everyone to folloow the same beliefs they do based on their religion.

This Prop 8 business is pure and simple religious dogma being force fed to an entire state's population. Why? because it makes them feel special, important and powerful. it keeps citizens of their state who believe differently than they do from having the same rights as everyone else.

Its Racism, its anti-semitism, its profiling, it is all the things we as a general populace label as wrong and inherintly evil.

And no matter the prop 8 vote, it won't last. Conservative ignorance and bigotry be damned, in time such stupidity will be shed by human beings as a whole.

[RendeR]

Isn't this the "other thing" that the nation has currently moved on to?


Yes, they lost on interacial marriage, they lost on segregation, they lost on abortion, they had to grasp at something to rail against the storm for, but they will move on when they inevitably fail on this as well.

[Subby]

This is what disgusts me most about religion, the effect it has on the human brain. it turns rational thinking thoughtful people into ignorant sheep who feel the need to force their belief on everyone else. (Yes there are those who don't, thats not the isssue)

Religious beliefs are for every individual to choose for themselves. No one else has the RIGHT to force everyone to folloow the same beliefs they do based on their religion.

This Prop 8 business is pure and simple religious dogma being force fed to an entire state's population. Why? because it makes them feel special, important and powerful. it keeps citizens of their state who believe differently than they do from having the same rights as everyone else.

Its Racism, its anti-semitism, its profiling, it is all the things we as a general populace label as wrong and inherintly evil.

And no matter the prop 8 vote, it won't last. Conservative ignorance and bigotry be damned, in time such stupidity will be shed by human beings as a whole.
OH SHIT MORALITY POPE IN THE HOUSE!

[RendeR]

I take it you would support a 36 year old man marrying a 12 year old girl who love each other then. If you do, then I applaud your open-mindedness.


And here comes the extreme well if A then Z analogies that are oh so realistic.

A 12 yr old isn't an adult and does not legally have the rights of an adult. You're comparing apples to goat shit and thinking the smell makes you right? Totally incompatible analogy.

[RendeR]

OH SHIT MORALITY POPE IN THE HOUSE!

Go fuck yourself subby.

Actually, if you think the Constitution is the Morality pope then you may be right. We are guarenteed the freedom of religion. That guarentee promises us that we shall not be oppressed due to our religious choices. Prop 8 is PRECISELY that oppression. The will of the Christian right forcing its religious dogma upon the populace as a whole.

Go fuck yourself anyway just, cause...

[Tekneek]

I take it you would support a 36 year old man marrying a 12 year old girl who love each other then. If you do, then I applaud your open-mindedness.

Absurd. I won't speak for JediKooter, but most people are referring to consenting adults in these discussions.

[digamma]

Go fuck yourself subby.


That was actually outlawed by Proposition 8.

[Subby]

Go fuck yourself subby.

Actually, if you think the Constitution is the Morality pope then you may be right. We are guarenteed the freedom of religion. That guarentee promises us that we shall not be oppressed due to our religious choices. Prop 8 is PRECISELY that oppression. The will of the Christian right forcing its religious dogma upon the populace as a whole.

Go fuck yourself anyway just, cause...
Lighten up morality pope!

More pirates, less hostility!

[Raiders Army]

And here comes the extreme well if A then Z analogies that are oh so realistic.

A 12 yr old isn't an adult and does not legally have the rights of an adult. You're comparing apples to goat shit and thinking the smell makes you right? Totally incompatible analogy.
It's not an analogy. I'm not comparing anything. Supposedly you support the "persuit" of happiness and you're showing a very closed mind when you support that "EVERYONE, regardless of who they are, what they look like or who they fall in love with, have THE RIGHT to persue their happiness and to not be discriminated against because they follow a different path or way of life." What harm is it to you if underage marriages are allowed?

[Autumn]

People refer to the "institution of marriage" as if it was some clear, concrete set thing, not a cultural and historical creation. If people want to discuss marriage as set in the Christian Bible, yes, that has a particular character. But otherwise we are talking about an amorphous thing created by society, not something that can be referred to like a law of physics. So telling us "marriage clearly is a relation between a man and a woman" is not authoritative in the least. You clearly have to back up your point with references to what is backing up your claim other than the weight of tradition.

"Voters" used to be men of a certain age who owned property. I think that's a close analogy to "marriage" in the sense that it is a role/function created and defined by society, and which we get to redefine as we wish. Telling us that there's no argument, marriage is already defined, is a faulty approach.

[RendeR]

That was actually outlawed by Proposition 8.

Well played sir =)

Lighten up morality pope!

More pirates, less hostility!


but thats just the point subby, as much as I'd love to let this wash off and padle away like the rest of the ducks I just can't. This is bigotry being legislated INTO a states legal system. We might as well strike down laws against slavery, segregation and inter-racial relationships on any level. This is exactly the same ignorance. Its taken 100+ years for the minority races in this country to gain the appearance at least of equality under the law. Now with one fell swopp California is trying to revert to 50 years ago and paint it like its a good thing.

its infuriating.

[RendeR]

It's not an analogy. I'm not comparing anything. Supposedly you support the "persuit" of happiness and you're showing a very closed mind when you support that "EVERYONE, regardless of who they are, what they look like or who they fall in love with, have THE RIGHT to persue their happiness and to not be discriminated against because they follow a different path or way of life." What harm is it to you if underage marriages are allowed?


Because based on this society consenting ADULTS can live and choose as they see fit (until prop 8 anyway) a CHILD cannot do so and therefore cannot consent or choose to marry. its a completely different discussion. You're making a completely fallicitous argument for the sake of arguing instead of actually trying to discuss the topic at hand.

We're not discusing children and adults, we're not discussing multiple adults beyond the grand total of TWO for the legal rights and privilages afforded a married couple.

When and IF a 12 yr old is considered a consenting adult then you can bring up your argument. Till then make one that relates to the topic at hand.

[RendeR]

People refer to the "institution of marriage" as if it was some clear, concrete set thing, not a cultural and historical creation. If people want to discuss marriage as set in the Christian Bible, yes, that has a particular character. But otherwise we are talking about an amorphous thing created by society, not something that can be referred to like a law of physics. So telling us "marriage clearly is a relation between a man and a woman" is not authoritative in the least. You clearly have to back up your point with references to what is backing up your claim other than the weight of tradition.

"Voters" used to be men of a certain age who owned property. I think that's a close analogy to "marriage" in the sense that it is a role/function created and defined by society, and which we get to redefine as we wish. Telling us that there's no argument, marriage is already defined, is a faulty approach.


very well stated, good points.

[Honolulu_Blue]

It's not an analogy. I'm not comparing anything. Supposedly you support the "persuit" of happiness and you're showing a very closed mind when you support that "EVERYONE, regardless of who they are, what they look like or who they fall in love with, have THE RIGHT to persue their happiness and to not be discriminated against because they follow a different path or way of life." What harm is it to you if underage marriages are allowed?

Wow. If you don't understand the difference between the actions between to consenting adults and the actions between an adult and a 12 year old child, then... I don't know.

Good luck with yourself.

[lordscarlet]

It wasn't too long ago that the idea that a wife would choose her husband or a couple would marry for love was not "traditional."

[heybrad]

What harm is it to you if underage marriages are allowed?
Because the underage party isn't in a position to decide what is and isn't harmful. I'm shocked anybody wouldn't be able to make the distinction.

[Raiders Army]

Because based on this society consenting ADULTS can live and choose as they see fit (until prop 8 anyway) a CHILD cannot do so and therefore cannot consent or choose to marry. its a completely different discussion. You're making a completely fallicitous argument for the sake of arguing instead of actually trying to discuss the topic at hand.

We're not discusing children and adults, we're not discussing multiple adults beyond the grand total of TWO for the legal rights and privilages afforded a married couple.

When and IF a 12 yr old is considered a consenting adult then you can bring up your argument. Till then make one that relates to the topic at hand.

Being a consenting adult is a legal definition. If you agree (which you did five times over) with the statement that

regardless if you agree with someone's lifestyle or not, it is not up to us to legislate people's happiness and EVERYONE, regardless of who they are, what they look like or who they fall in love with, have THE RIGHT to persue their happiness and to not be discriminated against because they follow a different path or way of life

then don't hide behind a legislation that defines what an adult is.

[timmynausea]

At first I thought RA was just playing devil's advocate. Now I'm pretty sure he actually wants to marry a 12 year old girl.

[Tekneek]

then don't hide behind a legislation that defines what an adult is.

Yawn. He has already said he was referring to consenting adults...:deadhorse:

[Subby]

Even using AI, a third party sperm or egg must be used, and in the case of males, a surrogate must be found to carry the child to term.
Absolutely - I said as much in my post. So married gay couples CAN procreate, just like thousands of hetero couples do every year.

Again though, procreation is not part of the marriage contract, so it doesn't really matter either way.

[Raiders Army]

At first I thought RA was just playing devil's advocate. Now I'm pretty sure he actually wants to marry a 12 year old girl.

Not really devil's advocate, but RendeR was probably close in arguing for the sake of arguing. We all have a set of morals (officially I don't really have a problem with gay marriages....or really underage marriages either...but I'll try to stay on topic :) ).

[Raiders Army]

That and really I've gotten two emails today. Very strange, but not surprising for a Friday.

[RendeR]

Absolutely - I said as much in my post. So married gay couples CAN procreate, just like thousands of hetero couples do every year.

Again though, procreation is not part of the marriage contract, so it doesn't really matter either way.


Very nicely done subby.

[Castlerock]

This is a pretty ignorant question. A question of civil rights affects everyone, because if the nation allows this type of blatant bigotry to happen once it can and probably will move on to other tihngs.
First they came first for the Communists, And I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a Communist;

And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a trade unionist;

And then they came for the Jews, And I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a Jew;

And then they came for the Catholics, And I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a Catholic;

And then, they came for me...

[lurker]

I guess Joseph and Mary had a sham marriage because they didn't have children together.

[KWhit]

No, this is not separate but equal at all. Marriage is a religious ceremony that the government recognizes as two people uniting into a single household.

Bullshit.

I'm married and there was nothing religious about our ceremony at all.

I guess you are also proposing that atheists shouldn't be able to be married either?

[stevew]

I guess Joseph and Mary had a sham marriage because they didn't have children together.

actually, fwiw, that's not believed to be true.

[Neon_Chaos]

actually, fwiw, that's not believed to be true.

"The nature of God and the Virgin Birth - those are leaps of faith. But believing a wife never humped her husband - that's just gullibility" - Rufus, the 13th Apostle.

[Antmeister]

I guess I am in the camp that doesn't understand how "Prop 8" was passed. It wasn't that long ago when interracial marriages were illegal is some states. Just because it was against the law doesn't mean it is right and the country didn't dissolve when these marriages occured. So I have a hard time understanding why this is any different.

If the argument is because of "traditional marriage", how do you define that in the context of our country where we have a wide assortment of religions? Plus what was considered traditional 50 years ago differs drastically today.

And how can you defend the thousands of people who marry in Vegas on a drunken night on the town with the first person they meet and say that this is somehow a "traditional marriage"? Or the many people who marry only to gain citizenship in the United States?

This stuff happens regardless of orientation or race, but yet we decide that this small minority is somehow in the wrong because it goes against one's religion. If that's the case and we are legislating a religions' sins, there should be a lot more ridiculous laws on the books.

[DanGarion]

All you people that think yes on 8 is great all realize that regardless of you discriminating upon gays they still are going to be having sex with one another? I mean if it's not right for them to get married we might as well vote that it's wrong for them to fuck one another... right? Hell let's throw them all in jail since it should be a punishable offense to a women to have sexual relations with another women or a man with a man.

While we are at it, since there is no reason why straight people should have sexual intercourse except for procreation lets ban that too. Oh and if you aren't going to have children you have no reason to get married. In fact I think it should be required that every person is married by the time they are 25 and they must procreate. I mean the only right thing to do is to continue the human race, there is no reason why people should not marry and procreate... right?

[DanGarion]

I think marriage should be defined in two ways:

1) The legal, civil act that has tax implications etc.
2) The religious act that is sanctioned by a church.

The first one should let any 2 consenting people get married and reap the benefits or penalties that come with the association. If polygamists want to fight for the right to have multiple parties in the association I'd be fine with it so long as it didn't open up any legal/tax advantages over a 1-to-1 marriage.

The second one should be up to the church to decide. If you don't like the rules of your church, find a new church or start your own.

I'd already stated something to this affect in the other Prop 8 thread. I'm right with you on this, you are a voice of reason.

[DanGarion]

I think the biggest deterrent from 'marrying' your roommate for tax purposes would be the legal costs involved in both filing for the marriage and then the divorce?

I don't know, but it seems like that sort of fraud could be dealt with pretty easily if legislators wanted/need to.

Who are they defrauding? Where is it's the legislators decision to determine why someone got married? If roommates get married for the tax benefits and no other reason I don't see the issue with it. I don't see where in the law that anyone should be able to place stipulations on why anyone is getting married. Of course this leads to me and my belief that there should be no tax benefits for marriages or children, but that makes too much sense.

[JediKooter]

I take it you would support a 36 year old man marrying a 12 year old girl who love each other then. If you do, then I applaud your open-mindedness.

Ah, the Jerry Lee Lewis scenario aka 'Straw man argument'. Also, I've never claimed I am completely open minded.

However, I'll play the game. It's illegal and for well thought out reasons, more than likely backed up by actual data and research as to the WHY it is not a good thing to allow that.

Whereas there has not been one argument against gay marriage that is not emotionally or religiously motivated as opposed to actual scientific reasons WHY it would be bad for gays to marry. None, zero, nada.

This not only goes to you RaidersArmy, but, to everyone, I am willing to fight tooth and nail for anyone regardless of race, religion, age, sexual preference, against a group of people trying to prevent you from having the same civil rights as everyone else here in this country. Why? Because it's discrimination. It's that simple.

[DanGarion]

Please explain what procreation has to do with marriage.
(begin transmission)
Some people believe that marriage is only for procreation. That's why they get married, so they can have sex and babies, and that you should only have sex for procreation.
(end transmission)

[cuervo72]

Ah, the Jerry Lee Lewis scenario aka 'Straw man argument'. Also, I've never claimed I am completely open minded.

However, I'll play the game. It's illegal and for well thought out reasons, more than likely backed up by actual data and research as to the WHY it is not a good thing to allow that.

Actually, that could be a religious/cultural bias too. I think there have been quite a few cultures with practices that pair adults/adolescents (many where the pairings are same-sex, too).

[Pumpy Tudors]

Can a man marry a sandwich?
Can a man marry a midget?
Can a man be married to a midget and have sex with a sandwich?
Can a man procreate with a 12-year-old sandwich?

[CamEdwards]

This is simple in two ways...

1. This is clearly religiously motivated
2. Replace the word gay with black, hispanic, white, mixed race, french, italian, etc...and I promise you people would be screaming discrimination.

The problem is, when you can replace one word with another word and it turns it into a bad thing, the whole thing is bad regardless of what qualifier you use.

I said it in the Prop 8 thread and I'll say it here: Since the people who are holding so dearly and trying to protect 'traditional marriage', 'only man & woman marriage' and can't play fairly, then the United States needs to make ALL marriages null and void and only recognize civil unions.

If it's god that you are worried about, I'm sure you will have no problems finding a church that will 'marry' you. After all, it's just a word...

My last statement before this thread gets locked (I just don't see this thread lasting very much longer unfortunately), I just can't help but keep hearing this nagging statement in the United States Constitution..."The Persuit of Happiness". Certain voters of California have denied that "Persuit", regardless if you agree with someone's lifestyle or not, it is not up to us to legislate people's happiness and EVERYONE, regardless of who they are, what they look like or who they fall in love with, have THE RIGHT to persue their happiness and to not be discriminated against because they follow a different path or way of life.

Just a few things.

First, the phrase "pursuit of happiness" doesn't appear in the Constitution. It appears in the Declaration of Independence. Secondly, from a historical context, the phrase has a general meaning that doesn't involve "doing your own thing". The Warren court in 1967 used the phrase in the decision for Loving v. Virginia, but earlier courts attached more of an economic meaning to the phrase Butchers' Union Co. v. Crescent City Co, which is more in line with Locke's originial "life, liberty, and estate".

I know the "slippery slope" argument is always met with eye-rolling and people like RendeR saying it's not germaine to the point at hand, but I find that to be ridiculous. Of course there's a slippery slope. Heck, it may not even be a bad thing. For instance, the process of electing a black man as President depended on many different events throughout history, going back to northern states ending slavery in the early 1800's. Liberty and equality doesn't happen all at once. It tends to come in fits and starts, and often overlaps between groups.

If the argument for gay marriage is that it's discriminatory against two people in love, then it seems only natural that three people in love are also going to feel discriminated against if their marriage isn't recognized by the court. RA brought up the issue of children and was rebutted, but let's not forget that the lines dividing rights of adults and rights of children are somewhat arbitrary and also defined by society at large through the legislative process.

It's for these reasons that I'm in favor of trying to get the government out of the marriage business. I think it forces the government to get involved in an issue that it best left to society at large.

[Autumn]

To play moderator here, I don't think it's quite fair to completely dismiss the "underage marriage" issue here. As cuervo72 points out, that is an example of one of the cultural rules we've established around marriage and sexual pairing. It's a very different issue, just as polygamy, but they are all stand as examples of rules our society has created.

I think advocates of allowing gay marriage need to be able to include those facts in their arguments, as i feel the argument is still strong. The main argument being, I think, that there are no non-religious basis to discriminate against gay couples. While one could see both underage marriage and gay marriage as cultural laws, I think that society has succeeded in arguing in a secular way against underage marriage, but has no secular argument about gay marriage.

[Honolulu_Blue]

To play moderator here, I don't think it's quite fair to completely dismiss the "underage marriage" issue here. As cuervo72 points out, that is an example of one of the cultural rules we've established around marriage and sexual pairing. It's a very different issue, just as polygamy, but they are all stand as examples of rules our society has created.

I think advocates of allowing gay marriage need to be able to include those facts in their arguments, as i feel the argument is still strong. The main argument being, I think, that there are no non-religious basis to discriminate against gay couples. While one could see both underage marriage and gay marriage as cultural laws, I think that society has succeeded in arguing in a secular way against underage marriage, but has no secular argument about gay marriage.

There are also compelling secular arguments against allowing polygamist marraiges as well as incestual marriages, the other "slippery slope" argument folks like to make.

[CamEdwards]

This not only goes to you RaidersArmy, but, to everyone, I am willing to fight tooth and nail for anyone regardless of race, religion, age, sexual preference, against a group of people trying to prevent you from having the same civil rights as everyone else here in this country. Why? Because it's discrimination. It's that simple.

I would also note that we have restrictions on freedom of religion in this country, including restrictions on the right to marry. Up to the 1870's, the Mormon Church sought protection under the Constitution to practice polygamy. Reynolds v. United States was the case that said laws cannot interfere with religious beliefs and opinions, but may interfere with practices.

That same decision, btw, brought up the slippery slope argument by stating that if polygamy was allowed for religious reasons, it would only be a matter of time before someone brought up human sacrifice as a religious obligation.

The court said, "to permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself."

Finally, every adult male and adult female play by the same rules of marriage in this country. Government recognition of same sex marriage is prohibited in most places regardless of the reasons why you may choose to want government recognition of that marriage. Love has nothing to do with it, and frankly, I don't want to have to get government approval of my love for someone else. It's another reason I think it would just be better for the government to not get involved, and why I think both sides have untenable positions on this issue.

[Fidatelo]

I wonder if R. Kelly is reading this thread right now and thinking "Shit! I should have thought this through a little more before I voted YES on Tuesday!"

[Honolulu_Blue]

Finally, every adult male and adult female play by the same rules of marriage in this country.

So long as you're a man and want to marry a woman, or a woman who wnats to mary a man, correct. There's the rub, no?

Love has nothing to do with it, and frankly, I don't want to have to get government approval of my love for someone else.

Too late. It already does.

It's another reason I think it would just be better for the government to not get involved, and why I think both sides have untenable positions on this issue.

So, are you saying, for the sake of reasonableness, two consenting adults, regardless of sexual orientation or gender, should be allowed to get married and have that marriage recognized by law? Because, as it stands now, the government is involved and is prohibiting same sex marriages, but allowing heterosexual marriages.

[Autumn]

I imagine there's probably other Internet forums R. Kelly probably focuses his computer time on.

[Honolulu_Blue]

The court said, "to permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself."

True. This is another reason why the right of marriage should not be determined by the "doctrines of religious belief".

[DaddyTorgo]

Actually, that could be a religious/cultural bias too. I think there have been quite a few cultures with practices that pair adults/adolescents (many where the pairings are same-sex, too).

Ancient Greece for one. In fact all over the ancient world

[MikeVic]

Can a man marry a sandwich?
Can a man marry a midget?
Can a man be married to a midget and have sex with a sandwich?
Can a man procreate with a 12-year-old sandwich?

No
Yes
Yes
You pervert

[CamEdwards]

HB,

No, actually I meant what I said. I, as an adult straight male, have the same rules that an adult gay male has. I get to marry a woman, he gets to marry a woman. That is equality of opportunity, if not equality of outcome.

The government most certainly does NOT get involved in approving my love for another consenting adult. There was nothing on my marriage license about "do you love the person you're getting married to?"

Finally, I'm saying that no matter how difficult it is to get there, we should be working towards no legal benefit or recognition of marriage at all. I'm in favor of civil unions, but leave "marriage" to the churches and society at large.

I think it's ridiculous for gay marriage opponents to base their opposition largely on religious grounds, and I've yet to be swayed by the secular arguments. However, I also think it's ridiculous for gay marriage proponents to expect that a majority of society (53% in California at least) is going to be okay with a government of, for, and by the people ignoring the will of the people in determining the terms of a civil contract.

As a conservative, I also don't believe that the government need be involved in every aspect of my life, and this is a case where I don't see the government able to satisfy the will of the People, given how divided the issue is. If the two sides are completely intractable in their positions, then perhaps we need a third option. The only other options I see would be to allow this to be determined at a state level through referendum, or putting forth competing constitutional amendments barring or allowing gay marriage.

[DanGarion]

The declaration that the government shouldn't get involved seems like a cop out, IMO... I mean if they don't then who does? The government is the one that gives the breaks to those that are married, and the ones that set the laws as to who can do what for their significant other, so they are involved already.

[DaddyTorgo]

HB,

No, actually I meant what I said. I, as an adult straight male, have the same rules that an adult gay male has. I get to marry a woman, he gets to marry a woman. That is equality of opportunity, if not equality of outcome.

The government most certainly does NOT get involved in approving my love for another consenting adult. There was nothing on my marriage license about "do you love the person you're getting married to?"

Finally, I'm saying that no matter how difficult it is to get there, we should be working towards no legal benefit or recognition of marriage at all. I'm in favor of civil unions, but leave "marriage" to the churches and society at large.

I think it's ridiculous for gay marriage opponents to base their opposition largely on religious grounds, and I've yet to be swayed by the secular arguments. However, I also think it's ridiculous for gay marriage proponents to expect that a majority of society (53% in California at least) is going to be okay with a government of, for, and by the people ignoring the will of the people in determining the terms of a civil contract.

As a conservative, I also don't believe that the government need be involved in every aspect of my life, and this is a case where I don't see the government able to satisfy the will of the People, given how divided the issue is. If the two sides are completely intractable in their positions, then perhaps we need a third option. The only other options I see would be to allow this to be determined at a state level through referendum, or putting forth competing constitutional amendments barring or allowing gay marriage.

Here's a question though: in the absence of government getting out of the business of "marriage" and into the business of "civil unions for all" is it then okay to discriminate against people because we have not reached that point yet? That's not logical at all.

Look, gay people aren't saying they want to be married by a priest in your church (using the non-specific your, not referring to you Cam). Gay people are saying they want to be able to go down to City Hall and get a marriage license and have a civil ceremony, or a ceremony in a church where that faith allows it. It's entirely non-religious, and yet people get worked up like it's religious simply because the word is the same?? So now all of a sudden that's a basis for discrimination?

[DaddyTorgo]

I think I'm going to start worshipping "God" in public only my "God" is going to be Satan, or Hitler. I guess I should expect to be in for a rough time with that though hmm? Since the word I'm using is the same. Even though it doesn't affect how someone worships the other "God."




See...now wouldn't that just be stupid. Wouldn't you roll your eyes at an amendment saying I couldn't do that?

It's no different with "marriage."

And yes, I also believe the government should be in the business of "civil unions for everyone and no marriages" but until we get there I'm not willing to allow discrimination against a group just because we haven't got there.

[CamEdwards]

It's no less logical than declaring a black person to be 3/5ths of a person for the purposes of representation, even though that black person was denied the right to vote for a representative.

What's logical is that it's necessary to find some sort of common ground on an issue that is as divisive as this. Neither side is going to be happy if the other wins out, so unless you think it's a good thing to keep spending time and energy yelling at each other, I'd prefer to reach some sort of compromise.

[CamEdwards]

I think I'm going to start worshipping "God" in public only my "God" is going to be Satan, or Hitler. I guess I should expect to be in for a rough time with that though hmm? Since the word I'm using is the same. Even though it doesn't affect how someone worships the other "God."




See...now wouldn't that just be stupid. Wouldn't you roll your eyes at an amendment saying I couldn't do that?

It's no different with "marriage."

And yes, I also believe the government should be in the business of "civil unions for everyone and no marriages" but until we get there I'm not willing to allow discrimination against a group just because we haven't got there.

You'd be in for a rough time of it, but I can't see where the government would step in and get involved. After all, we already have practicing Satanists in this country, and lord knows there are people out there with their Hitler fetishes.

[DaddyTorgo]

It's no less logical than declaring a black person to be 3/5ths of a person for the purposes of representation, even though that black person was denied the right to vote for a representative.

well that clearly was discriminatory too.



What's logical is that it's necessary to find some sort of common ground on an issue that is as divisive as this. Neither side is going to be happy if the other wins out, so unless you think it's a good thing to keep spending time and energy yelling at each other, I'd prefer to reach some sort of compromise.

oh i agree, and i am a staunch supporter of "civil unions for all" - I just don't think that in the meantime, while we wait for that compromise to be reached that we have the right to discriminate against a group.

[DaddyTorgo]

my point was less about the specifics of it though, and more about the fact that it's a word...it's a label. the word itself in this context has no religious meaning. that's the problem - that the word has been coopted by the legal establishment to refer to a legal conjoining, instead of remaining purely religious in nature.

but that does not give us the right to discriminate against a group until such a time as that is rectified by replacing it with a secular term. discrimination and bigotry is never okay, regardless of the circumstances. people who are "anti gay marriage" ought to instead of passing amendments saying "marriage is only between a man and a woman" ought to be proposing amendments saying "make civil unions the law of the land and leave the word marriage to be a private non-secular term."

if they were doing that then they wouldn't be bigots. but the fact that they are NOT doing that is what is so abhorrent. instead of working to SOLVE a problem by creating a more equitable structure, they are actively working to discriminate.

[lordscarlet]

It's no less logical than declaring a black person to be 3/5ths of a person for the purposes of representation, even though that black person was denied the right to vote for a representative.

What's logical is that it's necessary to find some sort of common ground on an issue that is as divisive as this. Neither side is going to be happy if the other wins out, so unless you think it's a good thing to keep spending time and energy yelling at each other, I'd prefer to reach some sort of compromise.

I'm probably twisting your words, but if you were around for the 3/5ths rule, would you look at that as a necessary evil to stop people from yelling at each other? I don't really see where compromise is an acceptable answer to a civil rights issue.

[DaddyTorgo]

I'm probably twisting your words, but if you were around for the 3/5ths rule, would you look at that as a necessary evil to stop people from yelling at each other? I don't really see where compromise is an acceptable answer to a civil rights issue.

I think you are probably twisting his words. I hope.

[DanGarion]

I thought we already established that marriage is not a religious word...

[DaddyTorgo]

probably. that wasn't really the crux of my point though. or maybe it was. it's been a long day.

i think the stuff i bolded in my last long post was a bigger point.

[DanGarion]

I'm married to my wife regardless of what the fuck any religion says and whatever law is passed. If they want to call their thing a civil union good for them, or they can call it a gloopygloop for all I care. But there is no reason that all of us that are already married have to change because of some religious organization.

[DaddyTorgo]

I'm married to my wife regardless of what the fuck any religion says and whatever law is passed. If they want to call their thing a civil union good for them, or they can call it a gloopygloop for all I care. But there is no reason that all of us that are already married have to change because of some religious organization.

you don't have to. the law could be structured in such a way that you don't have to.

then going forward everyone gets a "civil union" permit from the state, and if you want to be "married' you have your personal ceremony. Or shit, you can get your civil union permit and keep referring to yourself as "married" - nobody has the authority to tell you otherwise.

[Noop]

While I do not agree with their lifestyle, they pay taxes and deserve the same rights as anyone. For those who stay in California didn't they give chickens some kind of special rights?

[Noop]

Found an article about it.

hxxp://www.sanluisobispo.com/183/story/464800.html

[JediKooter]

I would also note that we have restrictions on freedom of religion in this country, including restrictions on the right to marry. Up to the 1870's, the Mormon Church sought protection under the Constitution to practice polygamy. Reynolds v. United States was the case that said laws cannot interfere with religious beliefs and opinions, but may interfere with practices.

That same decision, btw, brought up the slippery slope argument by stating that if polygamy was allowed for religious reasons, it would only be a matter of time before someone brought up human sacrifice as a religious obligation.

The court said, "to permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself."

Finally, every adult male and adult female play by the same rules of marriage in this country. Government recognition of same sex marriage is prohibited in most places regardless of the reasons why you may choose to want government recognition of that marriage. Love has nothing to do with it, and frankly, I don't want to have to get government approval of my love for someone else. It's another reason I think it would just be better for the government to not get involved, and why I think both sides have untenable positions on this issue.

In all honesty, if a man thinks he is stud enough to have more than one wife or the patience to have more than one wife, have at it.

I can't see any government that considers itself progressive or 'out of the Dark Ages' ever condoning human sacrifice to protect religious expression. Thakfully, even though it doesn't always happen, the long arm of the law does try to employ some form of rationlism from time to time.

As far as the government is concerned, the only thing it should be worried about is on April 15th if I'm filing married or single, regardless of what sex I may be married to. My tax form doesn't ask if my marriage was performed in a chuch, court house, beach, park, underwater, naked, by a preist, a judge or anything, it just wants to know if I'm married or not.

[CamEdwards]

No, I was not arguing in favor of the 3/5ths rule. I was merely pointing out that when two sides reach intractable and absolute positions, you either figure out a compromise or keep fighting a long drawn out culture war that leaves both sides focused on their divides, rather than their commonalities. But that compromise, by nature, isn't going to be everything either side wants.

If you can figure out a way to compromise your position without compromising your principles, then I think that's the best solution. Civil unions provide the equality of government recognition that same-sex couples are looking for, while leaving the "sanctity of marriage" argument for the private arena, where it should be.

What I can't figure out, DT, is why you keep saying "in the meantime, we shouldn't be discriminating." That's like saying we'll compromise, but first give you your way. You're the side advocating change. The change you need to be advocating is the civil union compromise, not the position that has no chance of acceptance by a plurality in this country.

[Raiders Army]

This is a pretty ignorant question. A question of civil rights affects everyone, because if the nation allows this type of blatant bigotry to happen once it can and probably will move on to other tihngs.

First they came first for the Communists, And I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a Communist;

And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a trade unionist;

And then they came for the Jews, And I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a Jew;

And then they came for the Catholics, And I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a Catholic;

And then, they came for me...

Where's all the outrage for slippery slope here? Oh, because it's different. ;)

[Tekneek]

Equal standing under the law requires no compromise. We've been there, done that, fought the battles, lost the court cases, etc. As a nation, we should have learned by now that playing political/word games with rights of minorities is not the correct answer. They made certain compromises early on and it took us nearly 200 years to find our way out of it, and even then some people had to be forced at gunpoint to accept it.

[CamEdwards]

Equal standing under the law requires no compromise. We've been there, done that, fought the battles, lost the court cases, etc. As a nation, we should have learned by now that playing political/word games with rights of minorities is not the correct answer. They made certain compromises early on and it took us nearly 200 years to find our way out of it, and even then some people had to be forced at gunpoint to accept it.

Except that the compromise DOES provide equal standing under the law. If that's what you're fighting for, then what's the problem?

If, however, you're fighting for the government to mandate that people FEEL a certain way, I can't side with you there. We've got a right to hold offensive and even bigoted views in this country. Civil unions would provide equal access and standing under the laws of this country, while leaving the broader social issue of homosexuality being "right" or "wrong" in the private sector.

[Tekneek]

If, however, you're fighting for the government to mandate that people FEEL a certain way, I can't side with you there. We've got a right to hold offensive and even bigoted views in this country. Civil unions would provide equal access and standing under the laws of this country, while leaving the broader social issue of homosexuality being "right" or "wrong" in the private sector.

I have no problem with "civil union" as long it is not another run at "separate but equal." The tax tables, forms, and other legal issues related to marriage should have the term changed to "civil union." If that comes along with it, then that works for me. If "civil union" does not replace "marriage" in all aspects of the laws of this nation, then it is a sham.

[Daimyo]

HB,

No, actually I meant what I said. I, as an adult straight male, have the same rules that an adult gay male has. I get to marry a woman, he gets to marry a woman. That is equality of opportunity, if not equality of outcome.
The problem with that argument is that while it addresses the issue sexual orientation based discrimination, it opens up an issue of gender based discrimination. If men have the right to marry women, why is it okay to withhold that right from women?

FWIW, I agree with your desired long term outcome - the government should pull itself out of the marriage business do civil unions for all. Leave marriage to religion and churches. However, until that happens I'd much prefer marriage for all over marriage only for straights. The current situation is disgusting.

[CamEdwards]

The problem with that argument is that while it addresses the issue sexual orientation based discrimination, it opens up an issue of gender based discrimination. If men have the right to marry women, why is it okay to withhold that right from women?

FWIW, I agree with your desired long term outcome - the government should pull itself out of the marriage business do civil unions for all. Leave marriage to religion and churches. However, until that happens I'd much prefer marriage for all over marriage only for straights. The current situation is disgusting.

It doesn't open up the gender-based discrimination issue because it's gender neutral. No gender has an advantage over the other.

As for the second point, I'd refer you to what I said to DT. Saying you're willing to compromise, but not until you get your way isn't practical. You can say the current situation is disgusting, but a majority of your countrymen disagree. If anything it should make you want to work for the realistic outcome, rather than simply complain how unenlightened the other side is. Is this important enough for you to want to really change things, or just important enough to bitch about?

[Daimyo]

What would the compromise have been in 1861? What about 1965?

Some issues aren't up for compromise.

[CamEdwards]

What would the compromise have been in 1861? What about 1965?

Some issues aren't up for compromise.

So you're willing to wage a civil war over this? You're willing to riot? You're willing to practice civil disobedience to get your way? If this issue isn't open for compromise, why haven't you gotten up off your ass about it yet?

[Buccaneer]

So you're willing to wage a civil war over this? You're willing to riot? You're willing to practice civil disobedience to get your way? If this issue isn't open for compromise, why haven't you gotten up off your ass about it yet?

Because it is far easier to rant and rave on teh internets and seemingly, a good place for Karlifornia to express his anger and hatred again. :(

That reminds me of when I attended an Earth Day concert in 1990 and the jam band (could have been Phish) yelled "EARTH FIRST! NO COMPROMISE!". Then proceeded to turn up the amps and lights, thus, consuming lots of coal-burning electricity.

[Daimyo]

So you're willing to wage a civil war over this? You're willing to riot? You're willing to practice civil disobedience to get your way?
Yeah, that's EXACTLY what I said... the point was that history has shown that often the majority is wrong and often so for a long time. In those cases compromise is not warranted. I'm certainly glad there was no compromise struck on interracial marriage in the 60s! Personally though, I wouldn't mind seeing some sort of meaningful civil disobedience organized over the issue.

If this issue isn't open for compromise, why haven't you gotten up off your ass about it yet?
*shurg* I'm a pragmatist and, as I'm sure you're aware, there are many ways to contribute to a cause. IMO, there isn't much uncertainty over the endgame on this issue.

I guess I'm not surprised that you're on the side you are on, but a little disappointed. I figured there was a small chance you'd have a different view given that your own marriage would have been illegal as recently as 40 years ago (and mine as well!) based on the same bigoted arguments used on this today.

[Havok]

Personally... i think black Californians should be more upset with the fact that all blacks vote the same every election regardless of who is running.

It's usually 90% democrat... this election it was 96%. Name one other race/voting block that is even in the same universe as those numbers.

I just spent the last 45 mins tonight discussing that with a guy a work with. (black guy). He had no real answer either.

[TheOhioStateUniversity]

Maybe because the Republican party is seemingly oblivious to the concerns and existence of the majority of blacks. The Democrats on the other hand often take our vote for granted, but their general platform will help more blacks than anything the Republicans present.

[CamEdwards]

Yeah, that's EXACTLY what I said... the point was that history has shown that often the majority is wrong and often so for a long time. In those cases compromise is not warranted. I'm certainly glad there was no compromise struck on interracial marriage in the 60s! Personally though, I wouldn't mind seeing some sort of meaningful civil disobedience organized over the issue.


*shurg* I'm a pragmatist and, as I'm sure you're aware, there are many ways to contribute to a cause. IMO, there isn't much uncertainty over the endgame on this issue.

I guess I'm not surprised that you're on the side you are on, but a little disappointed. I figured there was a small chance you'd have a different view given that your own marriage would have been illegal as recently as 40 years ago (and mine as well!) based on the same bigoted arguments used on this today.

Actually, it would've been my wife's first marriage that would have been prohibited 40 years ago, not mine. But if the court in Loving had said, "no government marriage licenses, instead there'll be civil unions for all couples", I don't think there would have been a huge outcry. You're acting like I'm all in favor of making sure gays are denied equal rights. I'm not. I'm just trying to find the common ground that provides equal ground for all.

I'm actually being pragmatic. You, I think, are coming across as waffly. Either there's a legitimate comparison to the civil rights/abolition movement, or there's not. If there is, do you really think that your current actions in support of gay marriage are enough? How exactly are you contributing to the cause? You say there are many ways, but you don't explain what you're doing. Is it arguing on the internet?

The endgame may be inevitable (though I don't think we're in a position to judge), but your attitude means fighting (and losing, at least in the present) for an ideal rather than accept a solution that provides equal access to all. What I can't understand is why you would be disappointed in me taking a position that tells opponents of gay marriage that they're going to have the same civil union as gay people will have, and that marriage will be left up to the churches.

[Warhammer]

Bullshit.

I'm married and there was nothing religious about our ceremony at all.

I guess you are also proposing that atheists shouldn't be able to be married either?

Yeah, but again, I don't think government should be in the marriage business. Marriage is a religious ceremony. The government should recognize civil unions. Every marriage should be a civil union, but not all civil unions should be marriages.

EDIT: Before everyone comes after me with tar and feathers, I think that the government should not recognize a marriage either. In the eyes of the government, every union should be a civil union. Can a couple get married and have it count? Yes. The difference is in the eyes of your Church.

[Havok]

Maybe because the Republican party is seemingly oblivious to the concerns and existence of the majority of blacks. The Democrats on the other hand often take our vote for granted, but their general platform will help more blacks than anything the Republicans present.

Hmmm.... ok.... if you say so.

Sounds more like a perception thing then a reality thing.
Blacks perceive the republican party to be a certain way (Racist, don't care about blacks, etc...) when it reality, both parties at the core, are just about ideals.

Less government, more government, less taxes, more taxes, blah blah blah, etc... etc..etc...

anyway, i always find it an interesting topic. Which I've had numerous times with people. I just don't think its very healthy for a group of people, or a country as a whole, if everyone voted exactly the same way every time.

Both parties balance each other out nicely most of the time.

[DaddyTorgo]

I have no problem with "civil union" as long it is not another run at "separate but equal." The tax tables, forms, and other legal issues related to marriage should have the term changed to "civil union." If that comes along with it, then that works for me. If "civil union" does not replace "marriage" in all aspects of the laws of this nation, then it is a sham.

exactly

The problem with that argument is that while it addresses the issue sexual orientation based discrimination, it opens up an issue of gender based discrimination. If men have the right to marry women, why is it okay to withhold that right from women?

FWIW, I agree with your desired long term outcome - the government should pull itself out of the marriage business do civil unions for all. Leave marriage to religion and churches. However, until that happens I'd much prefer marriage for all over marriage only for straights. The current situation is disgusting.

yes. the argument of "oh you should work for this outcome but until then it's okay to discriminate against someone" is bullshit. If you apply that argument to black civil rights it would have been "oh you poor blacks should work to get civil rights, but until then it's perfectly acceptable that we keep discriminating against you." That's not RIGHT. Just because you CAN keep discriminating doesn't make it RIGHT, doesn't mean you SHOULD.

Yeah, but again, I don't think government should be in the marriage business. Marriage is a religious ceremony. The government should recognize civil unions. Every marriage should be a civil union, but not all civil unions should be marriages.

EDIT: Before everyone comes after me with tar and feathers, I think that the government should not recognize a marriage either. In the eyes of the government, every union should be a civil union. Can a couple get married and have it count? Yes. The difference is in the eyes of your Church.

Exactly.


And my larger point in my bolded statement Cam, was that people who feel that marriage should be only for straight people are simply bigots disguising their bigotry with religion UNLESS they are also working for equal rights and a seperation of the term "marriage" from the legal system. The civil-unions-for-all solution is equally beneficial to them and solves the problems, so the ONLY reason they have to be working AGAINST GAY MARRIAGE instead of FOR CIVIL UNIONS FOR ALL is because they're bigots. Plain and simple. The logic is right there in front of you. It's absolutely incontrovertible.

[Tekneek]

If the goal is for all marriages to be called civil unions under the laws of this nation, what harm is there in letting gay couples be married right now? If you know the desired end game is for everything to be called a civil union anyway, what is lost by letting them have equal standing right now?

[Edward64]

Between consenting adults? I've already said I don't have a problem with any marriages involving consenting adults. What else is there? If you can show me an adult telephone pole that can give legal consent, I might be persuaded that they can engage in a marriage contract as well.

I think the argument is if same sex marriage is allowed between consenting adults, why not other consensual marriages like (1) poligamy (2) polyandry etc.

[Edward64]

There are also compelling secular arguments against allowing polygamist marraiges as well as incestual marriages, the other "slippery slope" argument folks like to make.
You mean in the western culture? Polygamist marriages, < 18 marriages are not out of the norm in other cultures/societies.

[Edward64]

I do have 2 pov and can be persuaded otherwise:
1. Why should gay unions have the same tax benefits as hetro unions? Hetro unions produce offsprings that continues the tax base.
2. Why should gay unions be legalized and not poligamous/polyandry marriages?

[CamEdwards]

Saying something nonsensical for the second time doesn't make any more logical. If civil unions is the goal, then that's what you work for. You keep talking about the length of time it would take to get this, but civil unions would be much easier to accept than government approval of same-sex "marriage". It would take LESS time to get that than continuing the process of "judges rule in favor of gay marriage, people vote against it, rinse and repeat".

As for the bigots, you can't expect people who don't want to change the laws to actively work to change the laws. That's just not how life works, and that logic is incontrovertible as well. The difference between you and me is that you seem to want to demand that people think like you as well, whereas I'm content with equal access under the law, and leave the argument in the private arena, rather than within the government.

I'm actually the tolerant one here. Surprising, huh? :)

[DanGarion]

I do have 2 pov and can be persuaded otherwise:
1. Why should gay unions have the same tax benefits as hetro unions? Hetro unions produce offsprings that continues the tax base.
2. Why should gay unions be legalized and not poligamous/polyandry marriages?

Why should any unions have tax benefits?

[Edward64]

So, why should infertile people be allowed to marry again? :lol:
In vitro?

[st.cronin]

Why should any unions have tax benefits?

Because families benefit society in multiple ways.

[Edward64]

Why should any unions have tax benefits?
Why wouldn't hetro unions have tax benefits?

[Edward64]

I take it you would support a 36 year old man marrying a 12 year old girl who love each other then. If you do, then I applaud your open-mindedness.
Why stop there? Let's bring in NAMBLA also. RA, I agree with you, that post was way too liberal.

[Edward64]

Old peoples too. They ain't makin no babies.
Under the assumption they have had kids, they've paid their dues to society.

[stevew]

Why should any unions have tax benefits?

Keeps people who work for H&R Block(and their loan sharking operations) in buisiness.

[Fidatelo]

I do have 2 pov and can be persuaded otherwise:
1. Why should gay unions have the same tax benefits as hetro unions? Hetro unions produce offsprings that continues the tax base.
2. Why should gay unions be legalized and not poligamous/polyandry marriages?

1. Not all hetero unions produce offspring. If you want to encourage offspring, then give tax incentives for having kids (which I believe is something that happens here in Canada).

2. I don't know, I'm confused why polygamy is illegal. I can't imagine why anyone would be interested in it, but if they are, more power to 'em. Same with homosexuality.

[Fidatelo]

Dola

Does anyone think that the lesbians kind of get dragged down by the gays in all this? I mean, if it was just an issue of letting chicks get it on and get married, all the sex-starved clergymen would be like "ahh, that doesn't seem so wrong. I'm pretty sure God is cool with that shit".

Unfortunately the gay portion of homosexuality seems to be the more prominent one, so instead of hot chick-on-chick action the face of the movement is severe anal pounding. Not a good sell.

[DaddyTorgo]

As for the bigots, you can't expect people who don't want to change the laws to actively work to change the laws. That's just not how life works, and that logic is incontrovertible as well. The difference between you and me is that you seem to want to demand that people think like you as well, whereas I'm content with equal access under the law, and leave the argument in the private arena, rather than within the government.

I'm actually the tolerant one here. Surprising, huh? :)

wrong. you're incorrect. they do want to change the laws, only they want to change them into something discriminatory. nice try though.

[stevew]

Dola

Does anyone think that the lesbians kind of get dragged down by the gays in all this? I mean, if it was just an issue of letting chicks get it on and get married, all the sex-starved clergymen would be like "ahh, that doesn't seem so wrong. I'm pretty sure God is cool with that shit".

Unfortunately the gay portion of homosexuality seems to be the more prominent one, so instead of hot chick-on-chick action the face of the movement is severe anal pounding. Not a good sell.

Have you ever seen hot lesbians? Not the ones in pr0n. In real life. And no, Lohan doesn't count either.

[Karlifornia]

Because it is far easier to rant and rave on teh internets and seemingly, a good place for Karlifornia to express his anger and hatred again. :(

That reminds me of when I attended an Earth Day concert in 1990 and the jam band (could have been Phish) yelled "EARTH FIRST! NO COMPROMISE!". Then proceeded to turn up the amps and lights, thus, consuming lots of coal-burning electricity.

It's not hatred, Buc. It's severe disappointment. There is most certainly anger involved, but none of it stems from hatred.

[Karlifornia]

Dola

Does anyone think that the lesbians kind of get dragged down by the gays in all this? I mean, if it was just an issue of letting chicks get it on and get married, all the sex-starved clergymen would be like "ahh, that doesn't seem so wrong. I'm pretty sure God is cool with that shit".

Unfortunately the gay portion of homosexuality seems to be the more prominent one, so instead of hot chick-on-chick action the face of the movement is severe anal pounding. Not a good sell.

Most lesbians I know are not girls you'd want to see having sex.

[CamEdwards]

wrong. you're incorrect. they do want to change the laws, only they want to change them into something discriminatory. nice try though.

You're telling me no gay couples have ever sued for the right to be married? You're trying to tell me that we've HAD gay marriage all along and it's the religious nuts trying to ban it? C'mon now, that's just silly.

Frankly, I'm suprised to see you arguing against a clear seperation of church and state. I would think in order to safeguard against religion having any say in the matter, you'd be all FOR my position of making marriage a religious institution that has no bearing on who is eligible for a civil union. Instead, you're arguing that we keep this odd mix of cultural meaning, legal meaning, religious meaning together, even though it means for one side to be happy, the other side will be miserable. It shows to me, frankly, that you're just as bigoted towards religious people as they may be towards gays.

[gstelmack]

Why should any unions have tax benefits?

The assumption has to do with a "household", where there are multiple people taking care of each other, meaning less people relying on the government for care. There is also "head of household" status for those situations that don't involve a married couple, showing the government recognizes the value of this.

Yes, it probably all ought to be streamlined into a more uniform code that decides what behavior we want to reward, separated from hetero/gay/polygamy and centered on groups of people taking care of each other.

[Edward64]

1. Not all hetero unions produce offspring. If you want to encourage offspring, then give tax incentives for having kids (which I believe is something that happens here in Canada).

We do not go into a marriage with a fertility test first to check. Therefore the assumption is all hetero have a chance to produce offspring unless shown otherwise. I think it is very reasonable to allocate tax benefits based on this assumption.
If we accept the most commonly used definition, i.e. the lack of pregnancy after 1 yr of unprotected regular intercourse, infertile couples represent about 10–15% of all couples. According to the definition of the European Society for Human Reproduction and Embryology, i.e. the lack of pregnancy within 2 yr by regular coital exposure, the prevalence of infertile couples in Europe and North America is approximately 5–6% (1).
This would seem to indicate couples that truly cannot produce offspring (vs having difficulty) is < 5%.

[stevew]

This thread was a clusterfuck from the first post, really.

[Edward64]

So then hetero couples who are infertile? Or did they somehow pay their dues? What if a gay couple adopts? Isn't that providing society a service?
See above to your first part above.

The adoption question is interesting. Can you tell me the % of gay couples that do adopt? If the % is miniscule then your argument is moot.

[Apathetic Lurker]

White people never been oppressed? Give me a fucking break!

[Edward64]

Just so every knows my stance. I am okay with civil unions. I am not okay with a 'religious marriage' if the church org opposes. I do not fully understand what gays 'do not have in terms of taxes, benefits etc.' but am generally okay with equal treatment in laws/taxes with certain exceptions.

[Edward64]

This thread was a clusterfuck from the first post, really.
I think its got potential. Poligamy, perception of 'hotness'. Pictures maybe?

[stevew]

I think its got potential. Poligamy, perception of 'hotness'. Pictures maybe?

Possibly.

[Celeval]

See above to your first part above.

The adoption question is interesting. Can you tell me the % of gay couples that do adopt? If the % is miniscule then your argument is moot.

...leaving aside the severe bias against gay couples adopting. For instance, it's now illegal in Arkansas (as is any unmarried couple).

[Edward64]

...leaving aside the severe bias against gay couples adopting. For instance, it's now illegal in Arkansas (as is any unmarried couple).
Fair counterpoint. If you have any stats though ... I would like to know if there are any studies/surveys on '% of gays that would adopt if legal'.

[DanGarion]

In vitro?

And gays can't do this? Not all hetro couples can sustain a childbirth...

[Edward64]

And gays can't do this? Not all hetro couples can sustain a childbirth...
To your first question - probably not est 50% of them. To the other 50% who can, 0% with both partners egg/sperm. To your second question, true but see above on my position and assumed stats.

[AZSpeechCoach]

My wife and I have made a conscious decision not to have children. Should we be forced to divorce? Do we not benefit society? We are also interracial. Two strikes!

[Celeval]

Fair counterpoint. If you have any stats though ... I would like to know if there are any studies/surveys on '% of gays that would adopt if legal'.

Honestly, I have no idea. Just wanted to make sure that was noted. :)

[Edward64]

My wife and I have made a conscious decision not to have children. Should we be forced to divorce? Do we not benefit society? We are also interracial. Two strikes!
You are drawing an argument that I am not proposing. The argument is should non-hetero couples have the same benefits as hetero. My stance is probably most but not necessarily all.

[Izulde]

Actually, that could be a religious/cultural bias too. I think there have been quite a few cultures with practices that pair adults/adolescents (many where the pairings are same-sex, too).

Ahh, the good old days. :D

FWIW, in one of my classes this week (one I'm taking, not teaching), we were discussing Thomas Burke's Limehouse Nights and the question came up as to why young teenagers could marry comparatively recently in our history, but there was a shift to 18 in a lot of states.

I took the lead in responding and pointed out that technological advances and the introduction of the post-industrial age necessitated more education and so a longer "childhood" period of sorts. Hence, you have the upward shift of ages of consent.

A good example of this is in Lolita, where Humbert complains that he's in a US that permits a man of 40 to court a girl of 16, but not 14. This was back in the post-World War II era. Now it's changed to 18, but not 16 (depending on individual state law of course).

Now, even given this scenario of more technology needing greater education, I still think 16 should be the age of consent standard, as it is in several states and many countries around the world, including the equally advanced European nations.

I suppose one could rather flippantly say, "Old enough to drive, old enough to ride." :D

[Axxon]

Have you ever seen hot lesbians? Not the ones in pr0n. In real life. And no, Lohan doesn't count either.

Yep, when I was in high school I went to a lesbian wedding and there were lots of hot women there including the bride and bride.

In SC I worked with a police officer who was a lesbian and her girlfriend was model material.

Now, I work with a cute as a button lesbian and her girlfriend who does not work there is a smoking leggy redhead.

Visit Amsterdam if you want to see smoking hot lesbians/bisexuals in the wild. I'm just saying. Been there, done that.

Now, I've certainly seen a lot of not so hot lesbians but from my perspective same thing goes for straight women but it seems this stereotype dies really hard.

[adubroff]

To your first question - probably not est 50% of them. To the other 50% who can, 0% with both partners egg/sperm. To your second question, true but see above on my position and assumed stats.


So is your assumption that it only helps "continue the tax base" when both parents participate in the conception?

[Edward64]

So is your assumption that it only helps "continue the tax base" when both parents participate in the conception?
Show me some studies that indicates same-sex have the propensity to adopt and nurture children and I can be persuaded otherwise. I can't help but feel (admitedly without any stats) that same-sex for the large part would not care to be parents.

[adubroff]

To your first question - probably not est 50% of them. To the other 50% who can, 0% with both partners egg/sperm. To your second question, true but see above on my position and assumed stats.

Adoption and Foster Care by Lesbian and Gay Parents in the United States (http://www.urban.org/publications/411437.html)


Key Findings


More than one in three lesbians have given birth and one in six gay men have fathered or adopted a child.
More than half of gay men and 41 percent of lesbians want to have a child.
An estimated two million GLB people are interested in adopting.
An estimated 65,500 adopted children are living with a lesbian or gay parent.
More than 16,000 adopted children are living with lesbian and gay parents in California, the highest number among the states.
Gay and lesbian parents are raising four percent of all adopted children in the United States.
Same-sex couples raising adopted children are older, more educated, and have more economic resources than other adoptive parents.
Adopted children with same-sex parents are younger and more likely to be foreign born.
An estimated 14,100 foster children are living with lesbian or gay parents.
Gay and lesbian parents are raising three percent of foster children in the United States.
A national ban on GLB foster care could cost from $87 to $130 million.
Costs to individual states could range from $100,000 to $27 million. Despite legal hurdles for adoption and foster care, a lot of gay couples/gay individual are raising children.

[JW]

So if I want to marry my biological sister, is that okay? Or my biological brother? Are the gay marriage advocates cool with that? Just trying to figure out where they would draw the line, since what we are really talking about is where to redraw the line.

[Fidatelo]

We do not go into a marriage with a fertility test first to check. Therefore the assumption is all hetero have a chance to produce offspring unless shown otherwise. I think it is very reasonable to allocate tax benefits based on this assumption.

This would seem to indicate couples that truly cannot produce offspring (vs having difficulty) is < 5%.

Who cares about chance to produce offspring? You either do or you don't. Lots of couples get married and don't ever intend to have children (I know many). Why should they get tax breaks a gay couple don't? Especially a gay couple that intends to adopt or otherwise acquire children? Or what about people that have children outside of wedlock? Aren't they helping grow society or whatever your point is? Shouldn't they get tax breaks for that?

Or hey, let's go a step further. I'm sure that certain races statistically have far more children per family than others. I have no idea which ones, but lets pretend that Indian and African people pump out more children than Asian or Caucasians. Maybe we should give more tax breaks to the Indian and African people for marrying each other since they are more likely to help grow the population? And lets penalize people who marry whites or Asians since those groups tend to have fewer babies.

Hell, we could use statistics to group people into all kinds of segments and then give incentives to the ones we want to promote. But the problem with all of that is it isn't fair.

[Edward64]

Adoption and Foster Care by Lesbian and Gay Parents in the United States (http://www.urban.org/publications/411437.html)

[/LIST]Despite legal hurdles for adoption and foster care, a lot of gay couples/gay individual are raising children.

Interesting study, thanks for the data. I concede that GLB do have the propensity to nurture and parent children.

[Fidatelo]

So if I want to marry my biological sister, is that okay? Or my biological brother? Are the gay marriage advocates cool with that? Just trying to figure out where they would draw the line, since what we are really talking about is where to redraw the line.

The incest argument is interesting. On the one hand, I really don't care if you want to marry your sister and get the legal/tax benefits of doing so. On the other hand, you may end up producing a cyclops, which is where it really takes on a different edge than the other unions we've discussed thus far. I think that's where it then becomes not an issue of morality but of public health, and that's when I don't feel it would be wrong for the government to legislate against it for the good of the population.

[RendeR]

It's no less logical than declaring a black person to be 3/5ths of a person for the purposes of representation, even though that black person was denied the right to vote for a representative.

What's logical is that it's necessary to find some sort of common ground on an issue that is as divisive as this. Neither side is going to be happy if the other wins out, so unless you think it's a good thing to keep spending time and energy yelling at each other, I'd prefer to reach some sort of compromise.

There can't be common ground when one side is forcing their personal beliefs on another. bigotry is wrong, it doesn't matter if you dress it up as Christian, Islamic, buddhist whatever, bigotry is wrong, this country has said so repeatedly over its long existance.

people who are "anti gay marriage" ought to instead of passing amendments saying "marriage is only between a man and a woman" ought to be proposing amendments saying "make civil unions the law of the land and leave the word marriage to be a private non-secular term."

if they were doing that then they wouldn't be bigots. but the fact that they are NOT doing that is what is so abhorrent. instead of working to SOLVE a problem by creating a more equitable structure, they are actively working to discriminate.

Bingo!

Where's all the outrage for slippery slope here? Oh, because it's different. ;)

Its still the same topic, just varying versions. When you bring in a new argument with a new segment of society )children, which are legally defined seperate from adults) then you change your entire argument and as noted earier, you fail ;)

What would the compromise have been in 1861? What about 1965?

Some issues aren't up for compromise.

Ding.

Saying something nonsensical for the second time doesn't make any more logical. If civil unions is the goal, then that's what you work for. You keep talking about the length of time it would take to get this, but civil unions would be much easier to accept than government approval of same-sex "marriage". It would take LESS time to get that than continuing the process of "judges rule in favor of gay marriage, people vote against it, rinse and repeat".

As for the bigots, you can't expect people who don't want to change the laws to actively work to change the laws. That's just not how life works, and that logic is incontrovertible as well. The difference between you and me is that you seem to want to demand that people think like you as well, whereas I'm content with equal access under the law, and leave the argument in the private arena, rather than within the government.

I'm actually the tolerant one here. Surprising, huh? :)

Thats part of the probloem Cam, you're being tolerant of something this nations history says cannot and cannot be tolerated. How does that help your position at all?

Gays want to be treated equally under the law, nothing more. They're not asking to be recognized by churches or religion in any form, but the religious want to force them to not be recognized at ALL.

Marriage is not about procreation, Marriage in this nation is about the legal rights afforded two people who choose to become a single legal unit. Prop 8 is purely discrimminatory against a faction of this ountry because...why? because the religious feel they are being threatened personally by someone NOT believing as they do and having the temerity to demand to be treated equally under the law.

There is no compromise there. Prop 8 is legalized discrimination. It will take time I'm sure, but it WILL change.

As for your outcry of "What have you done for me lately" We're doing what everyone does first, we're debating, we're arguming the point and trying to find out if either side has a fallical position. I know one does, but you seem to think its better to kiss both sides ass instead of do whats right legally. I don't understand that. its a very cop out position on a human rights topic.

[Edward64]

Who cares about chance to produce offspring? You either do or you don't. Lots of couples get married and don't ever intend to have children (I know many). Why should they get tax breaks a gay couple don't? Especially a gay couple that intends to adopt or otherwise acquire children? Or what about people that have children outside of wedlock? Aren't they helping grow society or whatever your point is? Shouldn't they get tax breaks for that?

Of course society should help those that produce offspring. I don't see why you don't understand that. For people that have children outside of wedlock, they have been supported by society. Maybe not to the extent that it needs to be, but it is done.

I am going to substitute your "produce offspring" for "parent and nurture children". Under that scenario, I concede based on the study above that tax breaks should probably be given.

[DanGarion]

Who cares about chance to produce offspring? You either do or you don't. Lots of couples get married and don't ever intend to have children (I know many). Why should they get tax breaks a gay couple don't? Especially a gay couple that intends to adopt or otherwise acquire children? Or what about people that have children outside of wedlock? Aren't they helping grow society or whatever your point is? Shouldn't they get tax breaks for that?


I'm still confused why there are tax benefits for being married and/or having children.

[Fidatelo]

I'm still confused why there are tax benefits for being married and/or having children.

I can't answer that, it's strange to me as well. But if they are gonna be there, then everyone should get them no matter how many penises are involved.

[Edward64]

I'm still confused why there are tax benefits for being married and/or having children.
I don't know why you are confused. I think it has been stated, in different ways in the posts, that society (should) helps those that nurture and parent children.

Maybe you can explain why you don't believe that?

[DanGarion]

I don't know why you are confused. I think it has been stated, in different ways in the posts, that society (should) helps those that nurture and parent children.

Maybe you can explain why you don't believe that?

Having a child is a responsibility that you need to be able to afford. It's your decision to get married and/or have a child. Why is it fair to penalize someone that chooses to remain single or a couple that chooses to not have a child?

If someone has a child that means they will be using more resources, which means said person should be putting more money into the system. Society should support all citizens and there should be no preferential treatment regardless of martial status or if one chooses to have a child.

[sabotai]

Now, I've certainly seen a lot of not so hot lesbians but from my perspective same thing goes for straight women but it seems this stereotype dies really hard.

Same experience with me. Some of the hottest chicks I've known have been lesbians (and yes, I thought that before I knew they were lesbians), and I've met some really ugly ones. The ratio of good looking lesbians to ones that are not is the same as straight women.

At least with the ones I've known. Maybe they just grow really hot lesbians in Jersey.

[DanGarion]

See the problem with the No on 8 side was that they marketed incorrectly. If they had commercials with hot lesbians kissing they would have won.

[adubroff]

See the problem with the No on 8 side was that they marketed incorrectly. If they had commercials with hot lesbians kissing they would have won.


The slogan could have been: "Anybody who doesn't vote for 8 is gay?" :)

[Edward64]

Having a child is a responsibility that you need to be able to afford. It's your decision to get married and/or have a child. Why is it fair to penalize someone that chooses to remain single or a couple that chooses to not have a child?

If someone has a child that means they will be using more resources, which means said person should be putting more money into the system. Society should support all citizens and there should be no preferential treatment regardless of martial status or if one chooses to have a child.
If you argument is "using more resources" than the child returns, I disagree.

In general, the short term investment (18-22 yrs?) will be outweighed by the longer return on investment and the perpetuity it brings (grand children etc). Yes, there are exceptions (80-20 rule maybe?) and probably not valid in some societies/countries (ex. Somalia?).

I may be misreading you, but it seems strange that you do not understand society has a self intest to help itself in this manner, especially because this is a case of parenting/nuturing a child.

Lets agree to disagree.

[QuikSand]

Wow, this whole "tax benefits for marriage" red herring has gotten totally out of control. Like the fish that got away that gets bigger every time you tell the story - now it's a great white shark.

Okay, let's try to bring just a shade of common sense to this "tax" issue. Not that doing so will accomplish much, but just in the unlikely event that there's anyone who is genuinely ignorant about this topic and also has an open mind.


The tax system is naturally and essentially built around individuals. How much do you make, in what ways, what can you write off, and then based upon all that what do you owe. That's the basic concept of income taxes, nothing shocking there.

One way to set this up is to require each and every person to file independently. That would be fine, at one level.

However, there's a secondary issue. It's an extraordinarily common practice for adults to marry and essentially enter into a mutual contract of community property. Together you own the house, pay the bills, buy the groceries, mow the lawn, and so on. You most likely even make income-earning decisions based on the *total* income from the two of you, rather than thinking of his income is this, ans her income is that. You essentially become one entity for most practical purposes.

Now... back to the tax system. In large part because we have a tax system that has a variety of puts and takes in it (I know, everyone wants to rail against how terrible this is, that's for another day) this makes treating two married people who are in such a relationship -- where they essentially think of their income, property, and debts as shared -- sort of uncomfortable. Which person is paying the mortgage? Which person is paying the costs of the child's health care? Which person made that charitable donation? Who claims the kids as dependents? If you force every married couple to make decisions like this and award tax differences for each of them, you invariably create all sorts of stupid inconsistencies. Easy example: would it be fair that one couple with $50K + $25K incomes pays less in taxes than another couple with $75K + $0 incomes? Most people would agree that's not fair -- but it's exactly what happens if you force everyone to pretend he's an individual, regardless of his reality. And it goes on and on, where you could alter tax treatment just by moving "shared" things from one person to the other. That's just dumb, in many ways.

So, in short, the government has made a prudent decision -- to recognize the fact that such people are really more effectively dealt with as one economic unit. Thus, the "married filing jointly" tax system is created. And every set of tax brackets or limitations is created with two limits involved -- that for individuals, and that for married couples. There was at one time a perceived "marriage penalty" but the specific elements of that were repealed -- now, in practice, most married couples pay a shade less in taxes filing jointly than they would filing as individuals (though this can vary a bit by circumstance).

THAT is the reason for the tax treatment of married people. It just makes sense to recognize that the two-person shared-responsibility arrangement is extremely common, and to reasonably build the tax system around that fact. It's really got nothing to do with promoting babies, or endorsing religious institutions, or anything else either glorious or nefarious, depending on your position on the hot-blooded issues in this thread.


As a practical matter, there is no particular reason why this filing status of "married filing jointly" needs to have any relationship at all to a religious term or ceremony. Obviously countless people get married in non-religious settings, and simply appropriate the same term that has been used by many religions for generations to express their two-person binding relationship. This has no bearing on how the government views their "contract" -- if they say they are married and fill out the license, it's done, and that's that.

Not to suggest that the facts will end this particular stone from being thrown in the debate. I think this is like a lot of issues, where people take their position first, dig in their heels deeply, and only later on might they "think" about why their position is so important and defensible. In my view, the argument of "tax benefits for child-makers" is a product of some late stage in that process. We have lots and lots of ways to either promote births or support children, through the tax code and otherwise, that make tons more sense than just confirming unmatched genitalia at the time of a paper license that clearly has no necessary relationship to procreation.

[adubroff]

...make tons more sense than just confirming unmatched genitalia at the time of a paper license that clearly has no necessary relationship to procreation.


What would you have guessed the odds of you typing "confirming unmatched genitalia" in sequence at when you woke up this morning?

[Fidatelo]

Wow, this whole "tax benefits for marriage" red herring has gotten totally out of control. Like the fish that got away that gets bigger every time you tell the story - now it's a great white shark.

Okay, let's try to bring just a shade of common sense to this "tax" issue. Not that doing so will accomplish much, but just in the unlikely event that there's anyone who is genuinely ignorant about this topic and also has an open mind.


The tax system is naturally and essentially built around individuals. How much do you make, in what ways, what can you write off, and then based no all that what do you owe. That's the basic concept of income taxes, nothing shocking there.

One way to set this up is to require each and every person to file independently. That would be fine, at one level.

However, there's a secondary issue. It's an extraordinarily common practice for adults to marry and essentially enter into a mutual contract of community property. Together you own the house, pay the bills, buy the groceries, mow the lawn, and so on. You most likely even make income-earning decisions based on the *total* income from the two of you, rather than thinking of his income is this, ans her income is that. You essentially become one entity for most practical purposes.

Now... back to the tax system. In large part because we have a tax system that has a variety of puts and takes in it (I know, everyone wants to rail against how terrible this is, that's for another day) this makes treating two married people who are in such a relationship -- where they essentially think of their income, property, and debts as shared -- sort of uncomfortable. Which person is paying the mortgage? Which person is paying the costs of the child's health care? Which person made that charitable donation? Who claims the kids as dependents? If you force every married couple to make decisions like this and award tax differences for each of them, you invariably create all sorts of stupid inconsistencies. Easy example: would it be fair that one couple with $50K + $25K incomes pays less in taxes than another couple with $75K + $0 incomes? Most people would agree that's not fair -- but it's exactly what happens if you force everyone to pretend he's an individual, regardless of the reality. And it goes on and on, where you could alter tax treatment just by moving "shared" things from one person to the other. That's just dumb, in many ways.

So, in short, the government has made a prudent decision -- to recognize the fact that such people are really more effectively dealt with as one economic unit. Thus, the "married filing jointly" tax system is created. And every set of tax brackets or limitations is created with two limits involved -- tat for individuals, and that for married couples. There was at one time a perceived "marriage penalty" but the specific elements of that were repealed -- now, in practice, most married couples pay a shade less in taxes filing jointly than they would filing as individuals (though this can vary a bit by circumstance).

THAT is the reason for the tax treatment or married people. It just makes sense to recognize that the two-person shared-responsibility arrangement is extremely common, and to reasonably build the tax system around that fact. It's really got nothing to do with promoting babies, or endorsing religious institutions, or anything else either glorious or nefarious, depending on your position on the hot-blooded issues in this thread.


As a practical matter, there is no particular reason why this filing status of "married filing jointly" needs to have any relationship at all to a religious term or ceremony. Obviously countless people get married in non-religious settings, and simply appropriate the same term that has been used by many religions for generations to express their two-person binding relationship. This has no bearing on how the government views their "contract" -- if they say they are married and fill out the license, it's done, and that's that.

Not to suggest that the facts will end this particular stone from being thrown in the debate. I think this is like a lot of issues, where people take their position first, dig in their heels deeply, and only later on might they "think" about why their position is so important and defensible. In my view, the argument of "tax benefits for child-makers" is a product of some late stage in that process. We have lots and lots of ways to either promote births or support children, through the tax code and otherwise, that make tons more sense than just confirming unmatched genitalia at the time of a paper license that clearly has no necessary relationship to procreation.

This is the best post of the thread. Thanks QS, very informative.

[Raiders Army]

Its still the same topic, just varying versions. When you bring in a new argument with a new segment of society )children, which are legally defined seperate from adults) then you change your entire argument and as noted earier, you fail ;)

Here I thought you failed since you weren't being consistent in your beliefs! :D

[Edward64]

Wow, this whole "tax benefits for marriage" red herring has gotten totally out of control. Like the fish that got away that gets bigger every time you tell the story - now it's a great white shark.

:
:

THAT is the reason for the tax treatment of married people. It just makes sense to recognize that the two-person shared-responsibility arrangement is extremely common, and to reasonably build the tax system around that fact. It's really got nothing to do with promoting babies, or endorsing religious institutions, or anything else either glorious or nefarious, depending on your position on the hot-blooded issues in this thread.

Lots to read and am distilling your argument to:

The position that tax benefits for marriage is a red herring because the intent of the tax laws are for a more practical purpose, not specifically to promote marriage.

Tax policy has changed throughout the years, shifting between marriage penalty and bonus, dependant on the other partner's compensation etc. Lots of factors.

Tax policy has in recent years geared towards eliminating the marriage penalty. Other tax policy supports/benefits children through deductions, tax credits, eductional deductions, medical deductions etc.

Although your premise that there was no master, comprehensive master plan to specifically help a family with tax policy, there is no doubt there are tax advantages to marriage and having children, which helps to offset the cost/burden elsewhere. What was the intent of Congress in evolving/structuring the tax policy as it is today? Don't ask me to read through the old news clippings but suspect a large part of that is because they wanted to support the family unit.

[DaddyTorgo]

You're telling me no gay couples have ever sued for the right to be married? You're trying to tell me that we've HAD gay marriage all along and it's the religious nuts trying to ban it? C'mon now, that's just silly.

Frankly, I'm suprised to see you arguing against a clear seperation of church and state. I would think in order to safeguard against religion having any say in the matter, you'd be all FOR my position of making marriage a religious institution that has no bearing on who is eligible for a civil union. Instead, you're arguing that we keep this odd mix of cultural meaning, legal meaning, religious meaning together, even though it means for one side to be happy, the other side will be miserable. It shows to me, frankly, that you're just as bigoted towards religious people as they may be towards gays.

you misunderstand my position Cam, which i have stated multiple times. I am all FOR a separation of church and state "civil unions for all". HOWEVER, UNTIL WE GET TO THE POINT WHERE THAT HAS HAPPENED that doesn't give us the right to discriminate in the interim.

I've made this abundantly clear.

[Young Drachma]

Links on Prop 8 at Racialicious - the intersection of race and pop culture (http://www.racialicious.com/2008/11/08/links-on-prop-8/)

A really long omnibus post of links chronicling the initial motivation and title of this thread. Very insightful for those who are engaging this particular issue, especially the blamers.

[QuikSand]

Although your premise that there was no master, comprehensive master plan to specifically help a family with tax policy, there is no doubt there are tax advantages to marriage and having children, which helps to offset the cost/burden elsewhere. What was the intent of Congress in evolving/structuring the tax policy as it is today? Don't ask me to read through the old news clippings but suspect a large part of that is because they wanted to support the family unit.

I'm not asking you to do shit.

All I'm suggesting is that the tax system's "recognition" of married people is borne of practical reasons, not religious or partisan ones. The "no doubt" assertion that marriage is a tax-favored status is simply not as obvious as you make it out to be. By and large, the income tax system is designed to make a pretty fair translation from the simple single earner to the two-adult family unit without a material bias toward one or the other.

Yes, there are a number of ways that the current tax structure provides support for children. In that sense,it encourages people to do so. And rather than refute my point -- that helps to make my point. My point is that if you want to make raising kids more affordable -- give tax credit for child care, or greater deductions/exemptions for dependent children. There's no reason to build all the pro-child incentives into the mundane act of retrieving a marriage license (or by doing so only with the government-approved type of person) in hopes that some of those people will follow through and have babies. Just reward the actual having of the babies. Seriously -- the logic in this whole argument is just inescapably weak.

[Young Drachma]

Daily Kos: Facts Belie the Scapegoating of Black People for Proposition 8 (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/11/7/34645/1235/704/656272)

[ISiddiqui]

Yes.... most of the hard feelings is that in breaking through on one form of bigotry, a lot of those benefiting voted for another form of bigotry.