This is exactly the same fight we went through regarding interracial marriage, which was illegal in most (all?) states until the case of Loving v. Virginia.
At the time, 90% of the population of the great state of California voted to have interracial marriage banned. It was the Cali surpreme court at the time that overturned the "will of the people" and announced the interracial marriage ban as unconstitutional.
I just find it funny that some people at the time also used the "think of the children" argument like iano against interracial marriage. At the time, children of mix races were treated worse than even black children. Orphaned children of mix races were labeled unadoptable. And because of this, people argued that we shouldn't allow interracial couples to marry and have children so to save their children from a lifetime of pain. Of course this was just a bullshit excuse to mask their bigotry.
Iano's "think of the children" argument is also a bullshit excuse for his bigotry.
I'm trying to see things your way, but I can't put my head that far up my ass.
For example, the Nevada Marriage License requires information for the bride and the groom. That form would be obsolete and need to be changed/replaced if gay marriage was allowed in Nevada.
What the hell kind of bullshit argument is this?
I'm trying to see things your way, but I can't put my head that far up my ass.
The problem is that you have not demonstrated that marriage exists for the purpose of raising children. I am happy to agree that procreation is part of its purpose, but unless you insist that this one aspect is the supreme element of marriage and you prove that the rewards the state provides for married couples are solely aimed at the procreation aspect, your argument falls apart.
Here are a couple interesting youtube clips of Obama and Keyes on this issue. Watch it and you will see how it connects to your statement I quoted.
Edited by Taz, : No reason given.
I'm trying to see things your way, but I can't put my head that far up my ass.
The solution, really, is simple: Remove all marriage - entirely.
As has been pointed out many times, this is an impractical and impossible goal. Most people will not support such a change. By setting up an impractical and impossible goal like this, in the end nothing gets done and we're back to square one.
I'm trying to see things your way, but I can't put my head that far up my ass.
If you had been paying attention, FO, you would know that I don't oppose "gay marriage." I opposed the law being involved with the business of marriage, gay or otherwise.
This is bullshit. The only times I see you raise your voice in opposition of legal marriage is when the issue of gay marriage comes up. You and I both know that this is just a copout. So, stop pretending.
I'm trying to see things your way, but I can't put my head that far up my ass.
quote:ACTION: If your county approved Prop. 22, please call your county clerk immediately. Urge him or her not to issue marriage licenses to anyone but a man and a woman. Urge your county clerk to:
Do what's right, maintain public order, uphold the marriage statutes, and respect the democratic process by NOT issuing any 'same-sex marriage' licenses until the people decide this issue in November. Please enforce the marriage statutes and Proposition 22, which both say marriage is only for a man and a woman. Decline to go along with the court's nonsense. The separation of powers provision of the California Constitution prohibits the court from legislating from the bench. That's why even Chief Justice Ron George told the L.A. Times he didn't know whether his ruling would be accepted." Remember, even if county clerks say they MUST follow the Supreme Court decision, that's not true and you should tell them so. The California Supreme Court has no constitutional authority to impose new laws -- especially laws that go against marriage and family, the foundation of society (see California Constitution, Article 3, Section 3 and Article 4, Section 1). Only the Legislature and the voters can make new laws with statewide application.
Ask your county clerk if they were a Nazi officer during WWII and had been ordered to gas the Jews, would they? At the Nuremberg trials, they would have been convicted of murder for following this immoral order. And should have states obeyed the 1857 Dred Scott decision designating black slaves as "property," not "persons"? Abraham Lincoln reacted with disgust to the ruling and was spurred into political action, publicly speaking out against it. Several state legislatures essentially nullified the decision and declared that they would never permit slavery within their borders, no matter who ordered them to do so. Likewise, the ruling to destroy the man-woman definition of marriage should not be obeyed.
So, apparently, handing out marriage licenses to gay couples is the same as gassing Jews.
I'm trying to see things your way, but I can't put my head that far up my ass.
But where is the DISCRIMINATION if the law were to allow gays, as well as straights, to get civilly united, while making no reference to marriage, per se?
As has been pointed out to you many times now, this is an impossible and impractical goal. By aiming for such an impossible goal, in the end nothing gets done and we are back to square one. I suspect this is your true intention.
I'm trying to see things your way, but I can't put my head that far up my ass.
Let the churches do what they want, but just stay out of the laws with your "gay marriage."
But clearly, even you can see that this is also an impossible goal. Since when have religious people get their religious noses out of secular laws?
To have the laws, the ones I must obey, say that "marriage" is not necessarily a civil union between a man and a woman is to piss off many good people.
Well, tough! Believe it or not, a black person ought to be treated as a fully human being rather than 3/5 of a person. I'm sure you also have a problem with this. So, why aren't you opposed to the 14th amendment and selective incorporation?
Let's have a national referendum on the matter, Taz. How do you supposed that would turn out?
Yes, and I'm sure the majority always knows right from wrong
If we simply allow the majority to have their way everytime, we'd still have three fifths of a person walking around our backyard doing hard free labor.
But yes, I admit that pissing you off is the real gay agenda. As a matter of fact, it's right on the first page of the latest edition of the Gay Agenda I just received in the mail. You really ought to read this book before we talk any further. After the first 40 pages or so, it goes into minute details on how we can piss off people like you.
I'm trying to see things your way, but I can't put my head that far up my ass.
But hoot, back then many people, actually the majority of people, thought giving them blacks full rights was just a way to get in their face. I'm telling you right now. Deep down, pissing you off is the only reason why I support gay marriage. Nothing gives me more joy than rubbing it into your face.
I'm trying to see things your way, but I can't put my head that far up my ass.
If they were to go this route, then any minister who claims to represent God could marry whomever they want and nobody could speak a word against it.
Taking the law out of marriage is an impossible goal to achieve. This route would also make a lot of people mad, which seems to be the reason why more and more bigots seems to claim to support this goal.
Here is the latest news on this matter. I've been pointing out this "scorch earth" policy for years regarding the stance some people have about removing marriage completely from the law. The only reason I can see people possibly supporting this scorch earth policy is because they don't want gay people to get married so they'd rather burn the whole institution down than let gay people get married.
quote:As same-sex couples prepare to wed later this month in California, at least one county clerk in the conservative Central Valley is preparing to sidestep the state high court's legalization of gay marriage by shutting down all marriage ceremonies.
Kern County's Ann Barnett and Merced County's Stephen Jones issued statements this week stating they will issue the new gender-neutral marriage licenses as required by law on June 17, but refused to preside over any of the ceremonies, citing space and staff constraints.
In Barnett's case, she plans to stop performing marriage ceremonies for all couples as of June 14.
Barnett's announcement came after the clerk received advice from county lawyers that she could not refuse to marry only couples of her choosing. Barnett's office was also advised by the Alliance Defense Fund, a conservative Christian law firm backing a November ballot initiative to ban gay marriage in California by amending the state's constitution.
Merced County's Jones said Friday he would end all ceremonies too, but later retracted his statement after coming under pressure from county officials.
This reminds me of southern states closing down all public schools in protest of desegregation.
I'm trying to see things your way, but I can't put my head that far up my ass.
Let the people decide what they want. That is, after all, how democracies work. We seem to be forgetting that ever-so-slowly.
You seem to be forgetting that we went down this route regarding interracial marriage. Heck, we went down this route with segregation. Are you going to try to convince me now that interracial marriage ban and segregation in the various states that chose them were right and moral?
I'm trying to see things your way, but I can't put my head that far up my ass.
Re: Please wrap and ask for a new thread to continue
Hoot writes:
By legalizing "gay marriage" I would feel disenfranchised from my constitutional rights because I believe "marriage" should be between a man and woman.
And I believe that christians should screw themselves in the rear end. Does this mean that I should go out and advocate a law banning christians from having vaginal sex? You decide.
I'm trying to see things your way, but I can't put my head that far up my ass.
™ Version 4.2